The Instigator
Ingsoc
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
QandA
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

God is real

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 2 votes the winner is...
QandA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 444 times Debate No: 44367
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Ingsoc

Pro

We know God is real because we exist. Acceptance first please. No trolling, this is a serious subject matter.
QandA

Con

I wholeheartedly accept. I look forward to a fun and interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Ingsoc

Pro

Now I will present arguements for the existence of God
1. The Ontological Arguement
Essentially it goes like this, because God exists, and God is a perfect being, he cannot only exist in the mind. If he only existed in the mind then we would have to conceive of a greater being that exists bith in the mind and in reality. god already is a perfect being, so this is impossible, therefore God exists in both mind and reality as there can be no being more perfect than him (or it, I will call it him).
http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. Aquinas 5 proofs arguement
This goes like this, nothing moves without a mover in the same way that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Because of this God must exist so that the universe itself could come into existence. Since there can not be an infinite countback of movers, one mover must exist that has always existed. Therefore, this "forerunner" mover is God, therefore God exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. Trancendental arguement
Without God, knowledge could not exist, therefore their must be a god
http://en.wikipedia.org...
(Now I will indulge in my own idea for this arguement) i would argue that abstract ideas could not exist, because God essentially embodies these ideas himself. Because he embodies these ideas, and because these ideas exist, God must exist because he essentiall Is these ideas.
4. The majority arguement
Because so many people believe in God across cultures without communication with each other, God must inevitably exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Now I will proceed to say my own arguements. I would say that sheer force of the masses of humanity could create God, a collective belief in him creating a complex structure out of the will of others. Because of this, God must exist as he himself is the creation kf human bekngs and their force of will and faith.
I wish my opponent the best of luck and thanks for this debate.
QandA

Con

Thank you for your response. I will rebuke your points and then give my own arguments on the issue.

1. The Ontological argument.
This is my rebuttal to this argument:
1. If the greatest conceivable being by definition exists, then the greatest conceivable member of any given class by definition exists.
2. From premise 1, we can conclude that the greatest conceivable food exists (just an example).
3. Under the Ontological argument, the greatest conceivable food would be flawless. A food that was not readily available to everyone and did not permanently fulfill the hunger of anyone who ate it could not be considered flawless.
4. Therefore, if that argument's premises are true, there must be a food that is readily available to everyone and permanently fulfills the hunger of anyone who eats it.
5. As is clear from the fact that many people starve, no such food exists.
6. Therefore the premises are false, and your argument is not a sound one.

2. Aquinas 5 proofs argument. (I'm not familiar with this argument so I will just go on what you are saying).
In essence it appears that you are saying that the universe must have had a creator/mover, as everything else must.
This is not actually providing any sort of evidence for the existence of God. I'm sure that a million different theories could be drawn up on how the universe was created but the truth is that nobody actually knows for sure how it was created. This argument totally falls on the "god of the gaps" shoulder. It is not valid to say that everything has a mover so therefore so does the universe as the simple fact that we don't know how the universe was formed shows how little we know about the universe that it cannot be determined by any theory yet. Of course some theories are rationally far more possible than others though but your argument does not prove the existence of God nor do I think it is a likely theory (which I will address later).

3. Transcendental argument. (Moral argument) in other words.
Knowledge/morality comes from experience and not from a god. I will explain:
Morals stem from emotion, which stems from the brain, which has evolved based on experience. For example, you see a kid drowning in a pool. The obviously moral thing to do is try to save the kid but the want to save the kid comes from a powerful emotion of panic, fear, anxiety etc. These have evolved over time. Do you think if a Neanderthal man saw a kid drowning in a river they would feel exactly what we would feel today? No of course not because the brain has evolved. Acting morally or immorally stems from emotions in which a person may feel at a particular time.

Of course though in order for morals to develop, such emotions would already have to be a part of humans and as we all know it is a scientific FACT that emotions stem from the brain and such emotions have developed through evolution. In other words, morality goes hand in hand with evolution. This article reiterates this point and furthermore explains why morality or the products of morality all stem from the brain. (http://www.wiringthebrain.com......)
Also, even if your argument could prove the existence of God, it could not prove that this God is responsible for moral values, ethics, knowledge etc. Therefore the argument is unsound.

4. The majority argument.
You say, Because so many people believe in God across cultures without communication with each other, God must inevitably exist?
The Romans/Greeks believed in many Gods so therefore does Zeus and Apollo etc. exist?
Think of the thousands of cultures and different notions of God that have existed of thousands of years. They were too a multicultural majority at the time. So what about all their "God's"? All notions of who is god can't be true but they can all be false. If the majority of people believed in the flying spaghetti monster then under this logic, would he have to be real? It is a ridiculous notion that this argument is evidence let alone even a good reason for the existence of God.

Now here are some of my arguments on why I do not think God is real. (Apart from the fact that there is no evidence).

1) The thousands of God's that have existed over the thousands of years. I have already just gone through this argument however I will further it in detail. The thousands of God's that have been believed in since the dawn of man.
Through the thousands of different cultural and belief systems that have existed over the years thousands of God's have been worshiped and believed in. What makes the modern ideology of God so special against the others? If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Buddha, Zeus , Thor and all of the thousands of other gods that people worship or have worshiped. People reject everyone Else's God and people reject their God, which means that people who believe in a God are atheist to 99.99% of all other God's out there. In a nutshell, thousands of God's have existed with man and there are two possibilities.
1. That one exists.
2. That none exist.
Which one do you think is more likely given the thousands of Gods in question here?

2) Lack of interference
This point is pretty straightforward. Through all the pain and hardship that has existed since the dawn of man (and currently exists) and the mass amount of catastrophic events that has destroyed so many lives, where has God been hiding? If he is said to have ultimate power then why does he let such horrific things happen? And more importantly why does he let it happen when people reach out to him for rescue. Either God is just not nice or he is non-existent as lack of interference is a complete contradiction of religious stories. Take the bible for example. It's amazing how there are so many stories in the bible (which is the alleged word of God might I add) about God's miracles, intervention, guidance etc. and we are talking about the directness of God in these stories here, not just God working through people which is a common argument today. Yet where is all this today? Why did God decide to publicly intervene for a brief time period many years ago and then just seem to vanish? Again it is either that God did in fact only want to intervene for a short period of time and then stop or that these superstitious stories are just superstitious stories. Which is the likelier of the two? That the laws of physics, time and space are altered for a period of time or that these claims are just stories? Not to mention the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for them.

3) The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.
When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Why the Sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being, to name but a few. All these things were once explained by religion but as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on scientific fact.
There is a good quote that "Religion is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance " and this is certainly the case. Over the centuries more and more faith based "explanations" have been discounted and disproven. Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don't have a thorough explanation for, such as the origin of the universe will be best explained by the supernatural? Taking this consistent pattern into account, the chances of this are extremely slim.

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JackBlack 2 years ago
JackBlack
Aquinas 5 ways are 5 "different" proofs.
The first and second are basically an argument from first cause.
The third states that something must exist that must exist rather than simply be possible to exist or nothing would exist, which is somewhat similar to the first and second.
The 4th states that there must be a pure version of something in order for us to use that as a term to describe anything.
The 5th is effectively saying things look like they have a purpose so a god must have made them, kind of like humans designing bricks to break windows.
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
hmm weird bug, I'll look into this. If the debaters would like me to reset the debate and start it over they should contact me via PM.
Posted by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
TheSquirrel
There are three rounds? Two of which are posted? But we are in the voting period? *shrug* voting!
Posted by JackBlack 2 years ago
JackBlack
Does that me we also know SuperGod exists because God exists?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Schopenhauer 2 years ago
Schopenhauer
IngsocQandATied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con crushed pretty well. Also, glitch in the system! Not to mention that Con used more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
TheSquirrel
IngsocQandATied
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: Pro had sources, but they were all to wikipedia and only supported the structure of his argument, not the arguments themselves. Con readily and completely answered Pro assertions, and provided several of his own. Pro fails his burden of proof that God is real.