The Instigator
QMZP2190
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God is dead

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 324 times Debate No: 81857
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

QMZP2190

Pro

I challenge anyone to give me decent arguments for the existence of God. I'll be countering them
I'm taking the pro side; "is god dead?" Yes, in my opinion
harrytruman

Con

The largest sum of proof theists can provide is the probabilities, our universe is just too complicated to have been an accident. Though the majority of people who acceding themselves to this idea are theists, this is not the case absolutely. George R Price, for example, was an atheist with a biased to believe that there is no God, and yet when he assessed the numbers, he was convinced that there was. This is the largest chunk to poin, but I am not done yet.
Point 2:
Science is better at disproving things than proving them, this is because if you see something, it is an absolute that it exists. But if you do not see something, it does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. What we know, is that there are many things which scientists push of and say is untrue, when in reality they are wrong. For example, in the 1950's people considered the black hole to be science fiction, "Oh it is just a theory made by some guy in the 1700's, we have no proof." But now the black hole is a accepted fact.
Every form of science we have today was at one time a "Fringe Science", just because you are terrible at looking, does not mean it is not there.
Debate Round No. 1
QMZP2190

Pro

Point 1: We only see the universe we see, you can't judge and say it's way too complex; probably there are other universes that are much more complicated than ours, and there are universes that have no sky, but they also have no habitants to notice the lack.
"A designer designed this or that" is a bad hypothethis because it raises a more difficult question which is who designed the designer.
However, If God did design the universe, it would be very different indeed: Meteorites have been falling on earth, galaxy orbits brings you near supernova and kill everybody on the surface, one way the universe will wind down to obivion, the sun gives us skin cancer, why would god need so much space, thats a bad design , there is too much destruction in the universe, like exploding stars, that's"s a bad design , the heat death of the universe is a bad design the sun is going to be red giant and incinerate us, that's a bad design.
So God is either malevolent or impotent.
Or simply, the universe wasn't designed

Point 2: What do you mean science is better at disproving things when proving them?
Do you mean that evolution and the big bang are false?
This argument for me is just bizarre
"The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But It Is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.""Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D. Director of the National Institutes of Health Former Director of the Human Genome Project (BeliefNetcom interview, Aug 2006)
harrytruman

Con

You're arguments are so weak, there is not much really to be said:
Point 1:
There are no creatures on those planets.
Point 2:
You are not even using correct grammar, stop avoiding the fact I shoved in your face and give me a real argument.
Also, your little off topic quote is VOID, I proved it:http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
QMZP2190

Pro

Point 1: rule number 1, you don't say an argument is stupid without addressing it
You replied "there are no creature on other planets". So what
A lot of stars are exploding, meteorites falling on earth, the sun is going to be a red giant an incarnate us. You're main argument was from design but all my points prove a bad design. Also, the hypothesis of a designer is a bad one because it raises a bigger question which is who designed the designer.

Point: Uhmm, is this an argument?
What did you shove in my face? The nonsense that science is better at disproving things? That's nonsense and I don't even know what you mean by that.
I quoted you a christian saying "The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But It Is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.""Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D. Director of the National Institutes of Health Former Director of the Human Genome Project (BeliefNetcom interview, Aug 2006)

I guess this debate is fairly over unless you have new arguments
harrytruman

Con

Ok, I had other things to focus on, but now I am undistracted and will now destroy your debate.
"Point 1: rule number 1, you don't say an argument is stupid without addressing it
You replied "there are no creature on other planets". So what
A lot of stars are exploding, meteorites falling on earth, the sun is going to be a red giant an incarnate us. You're main argument was from design but all my points prove a bad design. Also, the hypothesis of a designer is a bad one because it raises a bigger question which is who designed the designer."
Actually, there are no "meteorites falling on earth"- why, because fore one we have a magnetic field, strange, mars doesn"t have a magnetic field, neither does Venus, mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto- in fact there is no other planet with a magnetic field like ours. Now that I think of it, everything is perfectly calibrated, we have a ozone layer to protect us from radiation and excessive UV rays, a magnetic field that protects us from meteors, and an extra line of defense- the gas giants, the whole solar system is so perfectly calibrated that there is no point where we are not shielded by them.
"Point: Uhmm, is this an argument?
What did you shove in my face? The nonsense that science is better at disproving things? That's nonsense and I don't even know what you mean by that.
I quoted you a christian saying "The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But It Is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.""Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D. Director of the National Institutes of Health Former Director of the Human Genome Project (BeliefNetcom interview, Aug 2006)

I guess this debate is fairly over unless you have new arguments"
As I was saying, history has many incidences where humans deem something to be not real, when in reality it is very real. For example,
In the 1950"s the black hole was considered science fiction, "Oh, that"s science fiction, there is no proof, and some guy in the 1700"s had a theory bla blab bla blab." Well it turns out that they didn"t have any proof not because it didn"t exist, but because they were not advanced enough to detect them.
In the early 1900"s people considered going to the moon to be science fiction, they were proved wrong in 1969. Once again, it wasn"t that it didn"t exist, or that it was impossible, it was that they were not advanced enough to understand it.
The point is, how do we know that we don"t have any proof of god, not because he doesn"t exist, but because we are not advanced enough to get proof. The more science advances, the more we realize that there really is nothing that is truly impossible.
Debate Round No. 3
QMZP2190

Pro

Your argument from design: yes meteorites have been falling on earth, somwtimes meteorites are get passed the magnetic field
"A study done in 1996 (looking at the number of meteorites found in deserts over time) calculated that for objects in the 10 gram to 1 kilogram size range, 2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth"
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

All my points prove a bad design which prove an impotent or malevolent designer.
The hypothethis of a designer is wrong anyway, because it always raises a bigger question which who designed the designer

2. "The point is, how do we know that we don"t have any proof of god, not because he doesn"t exist, but because we are not advanced enough to get proof. The more science advances, the more we realize that there really is nothing that is truly impossible"
Now I know what you mean by this argument.
But no, its totally false. What science has discovered to this day, preclude a creator. Science makes God unessecary, science can explain the universe without the need of a creator
You're right , science doesn't disprove something. We can't prove there is no God but we can prove there is no reason to think there is a god
" God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance and it's getting smaller and smaller as times goes on" Neil deGrasse Tyson
harrytruman

Con

"A study done in 1996 (looking at the number of meteorites found in deserts over time) calculated that for objects in the 10 gram to 1 kilogram size range, 2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth"
10 grams, really? That"s not even the size of a chocolate bar! So what if a piece of ash falls from space.
"All my points prove a bad design which prove an impotent or malevolent designer.
The hypothethis of a designer is wrong anyway, because it always raises a bigger question which who designed the designer"
Again, you are thinking in this box of yours, if you want to sit in a box your whole life and say "oh no, there is no outside, it"s a myth!" then fine by me, just don"t come here to debate.org acting like you want an intelligent argument.
"Now I know what you mean by this argument.
But no, its totally false. What science has discovered to this day, preclude a creator. Science makes God unessecary, science can explain the universe without the need of a creator
You're right , science doesn't disprove something. We can't prove there is no God but we can prove there is no reason to think there is a god
" God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance and it's getting smaller and smaller as times goes on" Neil deGrasse Tyson"
So first you say that god would need a more advanced creator than himself, but now you say that the universe does not need a more advanced creator than itself?
Debate Round No. 4
QMZP2190

Pro

Can you actually reply to my rebuttal?
You copy pasted what I said and I didn't reply to it.
All my points prove a bad design. If the universe was designed by god it would be very different. The hypothesis of a designer is a bad one anyway because it raises a more difficult question which is who designed the designer.

"How do you know that the universe does not need a mlre advanced than itself"
Because the universe created itself. God is not necessary for the creation of the universe.

You haven't replied to my rebuttal for the single argument you made
harrytruman

Con

"Can you actually reply to my rebuttal?
You copy pasted what I said and I didn't reply to it.
All my points prove a bad design. If the universe was designed by god it would be very different. The hypothesis of a designer is a bad one anyway because it raises a more difficult question which is who designed the designer."
You keep saying the same old rebuttal, anyway, your arguments are not even a paragraph long, if you want to learn how to make a real debate here you go;
http://www.debate.org...
"Because the universe created itself. God is not necessary for the creation of the universe.

You haven't replied to my rebuttal for the single argument you made"
Hmm, all these new "expert" guys are real idiots, sure they come up with some whacky theories, but that is not an indication of intelligence. When is the last time Steven Hawking"s invented something like AC current, or the death ray, or wireless transmission like tesla did. When is the last time Steven Hawking"s came up with anything which benefited humanity in any way?
He made a theory about particles coming out of thin air then disappearing as an alternative to the big bang theory, it is perfectly sensible, that is, if he was referring to the Federal Reserve"s money schemes.
Anyway, the point is, your arguments are gibberish so I ignored them. Also, tesla was way smarter than all the lunatic "scientists" that atheists praise today.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BenediktAron 1 year ago
BenediktAron
I am new to this site so currently unable to vote but I just wanted to say this debate is a clear win for the pro side, not only did he articulate himself far better but he also had sources to back up his information. Con did not even counter pro's arguments dismissing them as "gibberish" and "stupid".
No votes have been placed for this debate.