The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

God is impossible and he does not exist.

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 9 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,032 times Debate No: 46308
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (9)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

I am an Atheist and I will take the stance of "God is not real." I will allow my opponent to opportunity to go first. Once he/she has given his/her main argument, I will respond.
Wylted

Con

I don't need an argument just rebuttals Burden of proof on pro. Let's get started.
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

God is impossible. He does not exist. He is not reality. Allow me to explain in detail:

If God created the Universe, who created God? Before the Big Bang, there was no time. Therefore, there was no time for God to have existed. Time's beginning was the instant the Big Bang occurred. Once this happened, space-time took its shape. The elements began to form and particles of atoms were born. Stars formed from the dust and gas and in time would come together to form galaxies. In one of them, we live: The Milky Way.
Science is the study of "how". Many Christians argue that science cannot explain the "why". However, with enough evidence regarding the "how", you can make an inference that, with enough evidence, will likely be true. Therefore, it is reasonable to declare that God does not exist.
One cannot simply create a world in six days - or seven days, depending on which version of the Bible you read. It takes millions or billions of years for a planet to be created and for life to evolve. And if God created all life in a single day, then, logically speaking, dinosaurs and humans would have coexisted.

I only had a limited amount of time. I had to do some other work. Therefore, my opening argument is rather short. However, I will write more in the following rounds.
Wylted

Con

The Big Bang

What is the Big Bang? Is that some sort of explosion that created the universe and set the laws of physics in motion? I'm not sure I understand.
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

The Big Bang is was an immense burst of energy that occurred 13.798 " 0.037 billion years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org... for more information.

How would God - or any being in fact - have the power to create time and space (space-time) in an instant? The Universe is complex and has a sophisticated structure, one that could not have been created by any god or any other being. The Big Bang cannot be explained in a few sentences or paragraphs. My quote of "immense burst of energy" is just the basic idea. You would require an entire book - a rather thick one - in order to explain the Big Bang intelligently and entirely. Therefore, if you do not know what the Big Bang is, please research it.
Heaven and hell are eternal. How can you remain emotionally stable by remaining in a single state forever? Therefore, if God created these worlds, he must be merciless. Why would Christians worship a being whose mission it is to spread his ideas throughout the world - ideas that are controversial - and to spread Christianity everywhere? God would send people of all other faiths to hell due to their lack of belief of himself. Therefore, God would be a serious moral failure.
God is not our Lord, nor is he our Father, nor is he our Creator. He is a figment of everyone's imagination and he is not part of reality.

Con, please write more sophisticated arguments. If you are lazy, just write a line or two. Just make a point.
Wylted

Con

Rebuttals

Con, please write more sophisticated arguments. If you are lazy, just write a line or two. Just make a point."

My arguments are sophisticated. Just because they appear small or non existent doesn't mean they aren't sophisticated. We have 5 rounds. What is the rush?

Big Bang

I have questions about the Big Bang. I'm not good at science so please forgive me. Answer my 2 questions and then I will give my incredible arguments. I just refuse to continue until I understand these 2 facts about the Big Bang. Did the Big Bang create the universe? Did the Big Bang set the laws of physics in place?

I think God created the universe and created the laws of physics, but if you're saying the Big Bang did it maybe I don't have a real argument.
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Pro

"I just refuse to continue until I understand these 2 facts about the Big Bang. Did the Big Bang create the universe? Did the Big Bang set the laws of physics in place?"

I will answer these questions for you.

1. Did the Big Bang create the Universe?
Yes, the Big Bang created the Universe. There is plenty of evidence to support this. Astronomers are observing red shift, which provides evidence that the Universe is still expanding. Astronomers have also discovered "left-overs" from the Big Bang. The energies set in motion by the Big Bang are still surrounding us.

2. Did the Big Bang set the laws of physics in place?
This is debatable, but I must say yes. I do not think the laws of physics were created instantly, but I do believe that they were formed in a short period of time. Now, of course, "I think" doesn't prove anything. But when you do enough research, you will find evidence that supports my claim.
Wylted

Con

I want to thank pro for answering my questions.

Defining God

God:1. The creator and ruler of the universe.

http://m.dictionary.com...

The Big Bang is God

The Big Bang is God. My opponent admits that the Big Bang created the universe. My opponent believes that The Big Bang set the laws of physics in motion. The Big Bang meets both parts of the above definition. It created the universe. It also set the laws of physics in motion. This means The Big Bang rules the universe through the laws of physics. The Big Bang meets the criteria for being God and my opponent admits it meets the criteria.
Debate Round No. 4
WilliamsP

Pro

I understand your definition. I acknowledge that. However, I will point out that "God" in this debate refers to an individual who created God. There is no individual that created the Universe or rules it. Now, given this new definition, do you still believe there is a God that is the ruler of heaven and father of us all?
Wylted

Con

My opponent now attempts to change the definition of God on me. By not making the definition clear early on he must accept all definitions, and he agrees my definition is accurate despite trying to impose a new one on me. My opponent hasn't disproven any form of God though. For all he knows he lives in a computer program created by God meant to simulate his entire history and every single fact he has come across. Nothing can be known for sure.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
If I debated this topic again, I would change my approach dramatically.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I understand saying, I unfairly used semantics and handing arguments to my opponent, but I'm definitely not wrong.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
How am I incorrect if the definition of The Big Bang, falls within the definition of God?
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
He never mentioned a personal God until after round 1.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
180 days to vote? Why it's so silly?
Posted by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
When RebelRebelDixieDixie01 said "[n]othing is impossible, that's a stupid remark, if God has powers above our minds concept, then he wouldn't need a creator," it confused me. It's just a paradox and does not work.
Posted by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
When Con posted the comment which stated that "[he] read[s] the bible every single day. Not one time ha[s] [he] seen the verse referring to the Big Bang," I was appalled. You see, the bible has been edited for the past 2,000 years by men. Not only that, there was no scientific proof of the big bang when it was written, so... Do you still think what you read was true?
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 3 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
Nothing is impossible, that's a stupid remark, if God has powers above our minds concept, then he wouldn't need a creator.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Dudestop, me or him?
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Use simultaneous causation and a multiverse instead mate...
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "However, I will point out that "God" in this debate refers to an individual who created God." I think this single line from Pro sums up how this debate well. So God must be an individual who created God? God must have created Himself? That seems a little suspect. I'm not seeing a substantial reason why the Big Bang is not God, though I can think of a number of good reasons myself. Nor am I seeing throughout Pro's arguments why an omnipotent, omniscient being could not exist. Rather, Pro keeps providing arguments for why such a being would be necessary, and avoiding the question of whether such a being is impossible. Hence my vote.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow, Con put in litteraly no effort and still won (mostly due to burden of proof)
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, Pro is highly correct while Con is highly incorrect. Secondly, Pro used must better spelling and grammar. This is proven in round one, when Con posted his argument. Pro made longer and more sophisticated arguments. This was proven in round two when Con posted his argument. They are both tied for sources.
Vote Placed by oculus_de_logica 2 years ago
oculus_de_logica
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con stalled the debate by refusing to debate for the first few rounds. He also made a logical fallacy when incorrectly using syllogistic reasoning. "dragons have eyes, I have eyes, therefore I am a dragon" (exaggerated example) Neither side really fulfilled the burden of proof but Pro made firmer arguments.
Vote Placed by Pitbull15 2 years ago
Pitbull15
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Becuz Becuz Becuz
Vote Placed by dj21 2 years ago
dj21
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt Pro basically lost this debate in his opening assertions: that anything (much moreso with something as nubulous as the idea of "God") is impossible. Both parties failed to define terms, but the brunt of the fault lies with Pro, who seemed to be making his case against a particular imagined conception (Abrahamic) of God. Con id a good job of equating the attributes of the Big Bang with the attributes ascribed to one definition of "God." Basically a version pansychism or pantheims (though I got the impression that Con actually believes in a more personal, Abrahamic concept of God). Con did a good job of using Pro's definitions against him.
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 2 years ago
progressivedem22
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had an immense burden of proof and did not fulfill it. Thus, arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully refuted Pro's arguments throughout the debate, hence the attempt at semantics at the end. Pro's arguments can be summarised by the attempt at 'moving the goalposts' at the end of the debate, with a silly semantics game. Thankfully, Con pointed this out, hence arguments to him. No sources were good enough to award source points. Conduct to Con for the semantics game by Pro.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
WilliamsPWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con begun to play semantics. I don't accept that kind of stuff. God, here, is very much not referencing a force or explosion. While I agree with Con, that attempt at snatching a victory through underhanded tactics is poor conduct. Con never addressed Pro's argument while focusing on calling the Big Bang god... It was poor wordplay, and did nothing to explain why a God, a person like Allah or Jehovah, as the Resolution clearly implied, might exist.