The Instigator
ImAJesusFreak
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Endy
Con (against)
Winning
4 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 1 vote the winner is...
Endy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 70245
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

ImAJesusFreak

Pro

This is how it will go down: Pro will have to give his introductory argument, back that up with proof there is no god, and more physical evidence or anything else that supports the initial argument. Like so:

God is real. Simple. But not that simple in the eyes of an atheist. Some Atheists are flat out dumbasses that know nothing of what theyre talking about. (Even some other Atheists would agree!) They bring up pitiful sentences and arguments like : "If god is a perfect being, and he created Earth, then why is the Earth soooo imperfect? Therefore god is not real."(Answer: Sin, a curse, came along and made Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. Thanks Satan!) These are the "quick witted" but dont have any wits anyway, and when they run out of arguments, they choose a random thought and settle on it, like: " If pigs dont have wings, and purple is gods favorite color, and there is no such thing as Unicorns, then god is not real." The only evidence I need is the bible. The bible is a perfect book, no errors or anything inconsistent can be proven. It provides our origins, a life plan, our salvation, and the future. How you you go wrong in believing in a perfect being that loves you and cares for you, unlike these cruel gods that will torture you if you dont cook the steak to medium rare. (Also, if youre Atheist, and dont believe in anything, then you believe in not believing. You BELIEVE that there is no God or any supreme being or something that reigns the universe. You BELIEVE in something, then, dont you?)
Endy

Con

I look forward to the interesting debate, Con! Let's start off by agreeing to leave the emotion out of it, though. As I am not an atheist I am happy to bring the news that we can leave the name-calling out of it. However, since I identify with agnosticism I have yet to be persuaded to believe in anything and so will, on principle, be disagreeing with you for the remainder of the debate.

God, as far as my understanding goes, is not 'simply real'. I have yet to see the evidence in a way that I can find... well, evident... of the existence of God. The bible was not literally written by the Holy Spirit- in the infamous words of Russell Brand "he ain't got a pen!". It is not a perfect book, and I will explain below in what ways the space allotted will allow why this is true. But first to recognize the latter half of your opening argument:

You argued, "How you you go wrong in believing in a perfect being that loves you and cares for you, unlike these cruel gods that will torture you if you dont cook the steak to medium rare. (Also, if youre Atheist, and dont believe in anything, then you believe in not believing. You BELIEVE that there is no God or any supreme being or something that reigns the universe. You BELIEVE in something, then, dont you?)"

My response to this would be that you can't go wrong- I think that for many people, a wide array of religions (but usually just one per person) do wonderful things for people. Many religions subscribe to a God that is a perfect being, and many religious people gain things like hope and the prospect of salvation (a valuable thing) from believing in them. I would also agree that Atheists do believe in something (that is, the lack of a God). This said, neither point stands to shed any light on whether God exists or not. I agree with you that the belief in a God can be quite beneficial, but that alone doesn't necessitate His existence, and so it is irrelevant.

Moving on, I take it from your quote of the philosophical perfect being argument that you aren't into that stuff, so I will provide an alternative, more historical approach, as well as a few philosophical ones. The former will be directed towards your statement that "The bible is a perfect book, no errors or anything inconsistent can be proven".

The bible contains many anachronisms, most notably large scale events like the genesis flood. A classic argument is that of radiometric dating- You would think something like a global flood of biblical proportions would leave a mark on the earth, but there are no geological records to prove this. In fact, radiometric dating can take us back ~62000 years, a ten-fold difference from the Bible's alleged 6000 year old earth. If one submits that the earth is 6000 years old, how can this be reconciled with the presence of fossils or banded iron dating the earth's crust back to the first presence of oxygen on the planet (something the Bible fails to mention)? I won't do most of the groundwork for this argument, because biblical inaccuracies are very commonly pointed out and very rarely refuted in a logical fashion- instead, I have found this fantastic site (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...) that lists contradictions, absurdities, injustices, interpretations, scientific contradictions, cruelty and violence, prophecy, intolerance, family values, women, language, sex, and politics. To run through a few examples:

- How many men did the chief of David's captains kill? 2 Samuel 23:8 states "he lifts up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time", while Chronicles 11:11 contradicts "... the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time." Given that 300 is not 800, how can these both be true?
- How did Antiochus die? 2 Machabees 9:5-28 makes the case that God killed him with an incurable bowel disease, while 2 Machabees 1:16-17 states very clearly that he was smashed with stones as he entered the temple in Jerusalem (his head was then cut off and his body chopped into pieces). Finally, 1 Machabees 6:8-16 says he was 'scared to death' by the Jews.
- Where does Jesus cure the blind man? Mark 8:22-25 very clearly says it was in Bethsaida, but John 8:59-9:1-6 says that it was in fact outside of the temple.

The point is not that anyone cares about whether or not John or Mark was correct in where the biblical Jesus cured the blind man, it is that the Bible is anything but 100% consistent with 'no errors', as you have stated. The above link has literally hundreds of contradictions, too, if you're interested in checking some more of them out.

Transitioning into a more philosophical approach: Anselm's Proslogion (can be found here: http://www.stanselminstitute.org...) stakes the claim that God exists based on a simple series of arguments:

1. One can imagine a being than which none greater can be conceived.
2. We know that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone.
3. If the being we imagine exists only in our mind, then it is not a "being than which none greater can be conceived".
4. A being than which none greater can be conceived must also exist in reality.
5. Failure to exist in reality would be failure to be a being than which none greater can be conceived.
6. Thus a being than which none greater can be conceived must exist, and we call this being God.

However, when Guanilo applies the same series of arguments to a patently false conclusion (see the Lost Island: http://www3.nd.edu...), it can be seen that Anselm's argument was in fact invalid. An excellent review of the exchange can be found in William E. Mann's paper 'Locating The Lost Island' (https://www.questia.com...). Something Mann touched on but didn't expand to it's fullest extent is the fact that if we can appreciate an island to be a thing which has no upper limits and thus could be infinitely perfected, we must appreciate the same of something else with similar parameters... The universe, perhaps. If we apply Anselm's same argumentative strategy, originally used to prove the existence of God, to a universe with no upper limit to how great it can be, we find that since there is no limit to greatness in conceivable universes, God (should He exist) could not under any circumstance create the greatest conceivable universe. In fact, there would be infinitely many conceivable universes greater than any one universe that this God could create, which opens it up to be wondered what this situation would tell about that creator's 'unlimited' power or 'unlimited' love for us. It becomes easy to imagine a being exactly like this God but with enough power to create these greater universes, thereby disproving the existence of God as Anselm argues it to be.

St. Thomas Aquinas takes to a different approach: Aquinas says that he can prove God's existence in not one, but five ways. There are however numerous problems with these (more than one for each way), which I am dissapointed to not be able to discuss due to word limit restrictions. However, I would be happy to state these problems in my next argument, should you be interested. Most can be found here, anyways: http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...

On a closing note, professor emeritus Michael Martin procures a logical, truth-of-premise progression in the article found here: http://www.patheos.com.... He states: "For example, although one cannot know with certainty if the concept of God is inconsistent, one can know with certainty that if it is, then there is no God."

Many of these debates seem to spiral into a "well you can't disprove Him!" type of thing, and so as Dawkin's said: ""That you cannot prove God"s nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the nonexistence of anything." Bring on your proofs!
Debate Round No. 1
ImAJesusFreak

Pro

I will argue no more, for you have beat me with nonsense you have heard from other atheists and the internet. Only that (tons of opinions and nonsense I do not have time for to respond) have you beat me with. You have not changed my mind and I will stand for my faith in God and his one and only begotten son. I wish not to call myself a Christian, but a follower. When somebody says "Oh, he is a Christian." They expect more from you and the way you live your life, then just simply being called a follower of Christ. From man to man, what's the point of not believing in anything, and spending your life debating other Christians and other religions and "proving" they're wrong. Then what's the point of life then? You believe that we won't go anywhere when we die. Then where do we go? If you believe, at least, that we have souls (if you do) then where do those souls go? A frog? A bird? An ant? The point is, if you don't believe, if you don't get saved, if you believe we don't go anywhere when we die, then the life you're living is incomplete, and pointless. What's the point of being a human being, living life for 70 yrs, and then not going anywhere when your time is up, then what's the point? Anyway, head my warning, you better get your life straight and asking for forgiveness and get saved before the crap hits the fan. Or if you die before then, well, you will know a new meaning of pain and regret. Thank you for making me more of a follower, and may God bless and I will be praying for you! Bye!
Endy

Con

At least do me the pleasure of debating this with me! I find your response inadequate for a number of reasons: for starters, I don't think you even read enough (or any) of my argument to make a claim that it was 'nonsense' (everything I said happens to be source-able and factually based). I even mentioned in my opening statements that I identify with agnosticism and you've dismissed my argument because you claim I've heard it from 'other atheists'.

I'll hold off on making any new arguments until I've received an actual response to the ones I've made, but I would like to analyze and respond to your last argument, piece by piece:

1. "You have not changed my mind and I will stand for my faith in God and his one and only begotten son."
Response: I'm glad to hear it, and as I have already stated I'm happy for you. This is, however, not relevant because I came without the intention of changing your mind (just to debate this topic, which is the function of this website).

2. "From man to man, what's the point of not believing in anything, and spending your life debating other Christians and other religions and "proving" they're wrong."
Response: From man to man, I joined debate.org yesterday and this is the first time I've ever debated the existence of God (it"s been a disappointing start). I made it very clear that I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, but the most important consequence of this, in my opinion, is that you should avoid creating a debate on the existence of God if you're not interested in hearing arguments about the existence of God. If a claim that God doesn't exist is offensive to you, that's completely understandable- just don't instigate a debate on it. When you do that, debate.org seeks out from its entire member base a competitor to debate the side of God not existing, so I'm not sure what else you expected to hear coming from the Con side of this debate.

3. "You believe that we won't go anywhere when we die. Then where do we go? If you believe, at least, that we have souls (if you do) then where do those souls go? A frog? A bird? An ant? The point is, if you don't believe, if you don't get saved, if you believe we don't go anywhere when we die, then the life you're living is incomplete, and pointless. What's the point of being a human being, living life for 70 yrs, and then not going anywhere when your time is up, then what's the point?"
Response: No. My first statement should have alerted you that my personal beliefs, though irrelevant, don't align with either atheism or reincarnation (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I can appreciate that you find more value in life through your religious views, but you need to appreciate that other people find the exact same value from other places.

4. "Anyway, head my warning, you better get your life straight and asking for forgiveness and get saved before the crap hits the fan. Or if you die before then, well, you will know a new meaning of pain and regret. Thank you for making me more of a follower, and may God bless and I will be praying for you! Bye!"
Response: Thanks for the warning, but please don't say things like this on a site about debating (especially not if you've instigated the debate on God's existence). They"re not relevant and make for poor arguments.

Still interested in hearing those proofs on your side- I am truly open to hearing your side of the argument and came with an interest in knowing the arguments for God"s existence. So far, you"re doing a convincing job of letting me know that there aren't any.
Debate Round No. 2
ImAJesusFreak

Pro

Challenge accepted. (Though I will not debate previous arguments)

Here is something I used from
http://www.everystudent.com...

Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

But first consider this. When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."

There you have it.
Your proof.
Endy

Con

Sorry Pro, but I think you missed the point on this one. I was asking you to read and hopefully even talk to me about my previous arguments- it's hardly a debate at all if you say "God is real, debate me on this", and then I make an argument and you respond "I will not debate previous arguments, BUT here are 8000 characters I copy & pasted from an article".

Furthermore, not that there's much sense in trying to make this a debate at all anymore, the article you copy & pasted gave some truly tremendous facts about the world- and I'll agree that they are amazing, and the Earth is an incredible place- but I don't think it argued what you were hoping it would. That article wrote about things that are great and could (that's the key word) be explained by the existence of a God, but this has two consequences:

1. It in no way necessitates the existence of a Christian God (and I can only assume that's what the debate was supposed to be about, what with your opening statement centering around the bible). If it was actually a proof that a God exists, this would be an issue for the reason that if it appears to be proving every/any God exists (ie. if it's explaining both the existence of a Christian God and an Islamic one, or hundreds of others in any combination), even if we are unable to spot the problem in the premises it can be shown that there is one, because the existence of the Christian God is thought to be mutually exclusive. So in lamence terms, if it's proving the existence of two Gods there's a problem, because two can't exist at once. Therefore, we would have to reject it (again, if it was actual proof. See point #2 for why it's not).
2. Every one of these things also has an explanation rooted in science. Therefore, it's not actually a proof at all- the article you copy & pasted was just someone saying "this is an explanation!".

I guess that's it, if you'd like to debate again I would be willing to start off from my first argument if you were wanting to actually have a debate. If not, thanks for the discussion that we did have. Thanks in advance to any voters that drop by (vote Con of course), I'd hate to see this one go to a tie when it wasn't really a debate at all on my opponent's end.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Endy 1 year ago
Endy
We know, what I'm saying (in as friendly a manner as I can) is that you didn't. Spend a little time reading finished debates and articles on the topics you're interested in, and your debating skills will improve to the level where you can prove a point logically, and critically analyze opposing views rather than just refuse to talk about them! Cheers
Posted by ImAJesusFreak 1 year ago
ImAJesusFreak
I really don't care who wins. I just wanted to prove a point.
Posted by ImAJesusFreak 1 year ago
ImAJesusFreak
Actually, thanks for advice. You know at 14, you can really bite off more than you can chew on this site. I totally agree with you though. There is things I should've done, an con should've done. Again thank you for advice. All I can say is I hope you believe in the gospel yourself. Just have a blessed day my friend and I will be praying for you.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
I'm very disappointed with Pro's lack of a fight. He was antagonistic with his opening statement with describing some atheists as dumb*** & belittled their arguments as no valid from jump. He also makes some definitive statements that are really only his opinion, which weakens his argument right off the bat. He also lets the opponent know that his only proof is the bible, which in many cases is not universally accepted 'proof.' He also did not capitalize on any of Con's arguments, which he surely could have. Very disappointing. I agree with G-Dawg regarding never a serious attempt on Pro's part & probably a non believer ........ they do that on this site I have seen. Even more disappointing & gives less credence to this site, altho not the site's fault.

Con's closing statement of "Bring on your proofs!" could have been handled if Pro had wanted to. If Pro didn't think he was going to be inundated with 'facts' from atheists sites, he shouldn't have tried this debate. Pro asked rhetorical questions, which one does not do in a debate. & what is worse is that he preaches to someone that is obviously not receptive ........ so why preach? Pro sounds like a young passionate believer & I give him credit for that. But I must ask him to study his research material a bit more so as he is able to go toe-to-toe in a debate such as this. Debating for the sake of debating is senseless. One has to be schooled in both sides of an argument, I see this lacking greatly on this site, to be proficient with debates. There is just too much opinion & lack of valid background reasoning.
Posted by G-Dawg 1 year ago
G-Dawg
Looks like Endy won this pretty quickly, however, considering the instigator is ImAJesusFreak, I doubt this is meant to be serious.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TBR 1 year ago
TBR
ImAJesusFreakEndyTied
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: The debate was conceded by Pro, and restarted only to have Pro copy and paste non-supportive arguments - never addressing Cons argument, and never presenting any of his own. Pro was argumentative and dismissive from the start (Conduct for Con) Con had a good argument that simply was dismissed (points for Con)