God is real
Debate Rounds (5)
I am going to argue today that athiesm is correct, and that no God of any kind, or any religion, really exists. I know lots of people out there are religious, so feel free to join and argue my belief.
The debate will go like this:
R1: State your opinion
R2-3: Defend your opinion
R4: Rebut opponent's opinion
R5: Closing statements.
Just to help clear things up, I am defending the Christian God (as understood from the Bible, in a natural reading style, which I have found is best defined in the protestant denomination).
Omnipotent-All powerful, able to do all that is doable
Good- God is Good, and the basis of Goodness. Evil is not an entity that God created, but is the absence of the purpose and goodness that should be. Just as dark is the absence of light, is a way, evil is the absence of good. I suggest researching this for a better understanding
All truth is in God- The law of non-contradiction is based in God's character. Paradoxes do not exist because all truth is in God, and it is God's nature to be non-contradictory. Logic is not a boundary, nor a limitation of God. Logic is a description of God's character, and as God made everything, all truth is in God
Morality- God created all things, so we have an obligation to him as our creator. Morality is objective.
This is my opinion. I hope this clears up some confusion so that you argue against me correctly. I find it important to define what I am defending, and this is what I am defending.
I'm curious to see your reasoning!
Here is my proof that God is not real. First off, think of world disasters. If God is supposedly the overseer of the world, who is in charge of what happens and helps to stop it, then why are there tornadoes? How about war? If God could stop those things, he would. Also, they say that God loves all. Then why does he allow people to die in prisons when they did nothing wrong? Why would he let innocent people get kidnapped, raped, or even murdered?
Another proof is simply the impossibility of the whole idea. It is physically impossible to supposedly "rise from the grave". When one is dead, they are dead.
Also, science has proved evolution. Humans were not "created", but instead they were evolved from other primates, like monkeys.
This is my part one of my argument. Your turn.
I will give the moral argument for the existence of God. My opponent assumes that there is a moral standard in his argument, as he labels things as being "wrong". His moral argument presupposes an absolute standard of morality. If he did not, then his arguments would be invalid, and his standard of wrong would be meaningless. My opponent's argument proves God exists, because God is the only possible source for an absolute moral standard.
I will also address the problem of evil that confuses people. People commonly say that God would make everything perfect and would stop "bad" things from happening. There are many problems with this.
This presupposes that people "deserve" a perfect life. But from the position that I am defending, people are inherently bad, not good. God created free will, people are not mindless robots. People chose to live their life in rebellion against God (as seen in Genesis). Evil existing in the world proves that God exists. The only way that "bad" things could exist is if there is a standard of right and wrong, and this standard of right and wrong can only exist if God exists. You could claim that "God wouldn't do that", but then you would claim that you know what an all knowing, all powerful God would choose to do if he existed (It isn't very likely that you have the ability to determine/predict what an all powerful being that you don't even believe in would do).
My opponents own argument proves God's existence. I will elaborate on this more.
We start with objective morality (which my opponent uses and assumes in his argument).
This standard must either have an impersonal source (derived from "nature"), or a personal source (determined from a person/being).
The source is personal, because if it was impersonal, then there would be no reason for following it. It would also be a law, like the law of gravity, which we can't break. But Morality is a standard that we can go against, so the source cannot be impersonal. A personal source would have meaning, because we would have some kind of responsibility to this personal source.
Because that standard of objective morality is from a personal source, it must be an objective personal source.
This objective personality must be all powerful and have created everything, or else the objective moral standard would cease to be objective in its application. If this objective personality wasn't all powerful and didn't create everything, then moral standards would not be absolute and all applying.
Because this objective personality is all powerful, and created everything, the attributes of being all existing and all knowledgeable would follow. These are important attributes for morality to always be objective, and have an objective, personal source. Without them, the objective personality would not be qualified to be the objective, all powerful personality that is required by objective moral standards.
Objective moral standards are between individuals/persons and are relational. That would mean that objective moral standards must have existed befor this objective personality created all things, or else this objective moral standard would be arbitrary.
From this reasoning, this objective, single personality must also be described and exist as a single objective personality, and yet also be descried in 2 or more persons. If not, then objective moral standards would become an arbitrary standard that was created when the objective personality created all things, and at this point, moral standards would cease to be objective.
All of these attributes describe God as known from the Bible. He is the absolute source of all goodness, he is all powerful, created all things, and is one God, described as 3 persons (father, son, holy spirit). Morality presupposes the Biblical God. For my opponent to argue against this, he would have to abandon right and wrong, in which case, he would have to abandon his own argument.
Also, reasoning/logic presupposes objective moral standards. For what reason "should" we accept a conclusion that was "logically" determined? Terms such as "should" are meaningless unless there is an objective moral standard. If their wasn't, then no one could say that we "should" be logical, and not live in a false world of our imagination. My opponent expects us to accept his conclusion based on the reason he gives. But without an absolute moral standard (which presupposes God), my opponent's argument would be meaningless, and there would be no reason to accept it. Why should we? Well we should accept a conclusion taken from the premises, if there is an objective moral standard that gives terms like "should" meaning. Without morality, reasoning (and debating) fails. Without morality, no one "should" be logical, logic would be arbitrary.
My opponents argument proves that God exists. He attempts to use reasoning and morality in his argument, which presuppose that the Biblical God (which I am defending), exists. The only way to argue this is to abandon reasoning itself, and accept all things (especially this debate) as being arbitrary.
First I would like to point out that my argument does not, in any way, prove God's existence. I do not know how you get that from a paragraph talking about how God's existence is physically impossible, but whatever floats your boat.
Speaking of floating boats, I will talk about Noah's Arc.
In the story of Noah's Arc, "The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits". which means Mount Everest would have been covered in water. This would have left behind much evidence, geographical, and genetical, because all animals except for 2 of each type died. There is no genetical evidence of this ever happening.
Also, God supposedly "answers prayers". However, most prayers are left unanswered. Those that are are just coincidence.
This is a quick, proving answer to whether God exists or not. The answer: no.
About prayers, your argument just shows that you don't know much about what prayer is. Prayer isn't "pray and God gives you everything you want". How we see prayers being answered is what we would expect from a Biblical viewpoint. You may disagree, so I suggest that you read about what the Bible says on prayer.
My point that I stated earlier, that morality presupposes God, is a argument that I personally like. Try reading through it again. If some part of it is confusing, just ask for clarification on a certain point!
My argument is that absolute morality presupposes an absolute personality (God). And that Logic presupposes absolute morality, because without absolute morality, there is no reason to be logical.
gocubsgo25 forfeited this round.
gocubsgo25 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: The debate title is "God is real", but Con claims they will argue "no God of any kind, or any religion, really exists", and Pro states they are "defending the Christian God". Wtf?? The arguments on both sides are a little vague. No sources. Con provides the Euthyphro Dilemma, and evolution (without mentioning why it's relevant). Pro states god could still exist if it's evil, and ignores evolution. Con then addresses on specific claim in one specific book of a few religions (Noah's Ark), and one specific practice of some religions (prayer). To which Pro responds, "Na uh!" Since no sources or demonstration was made by either side, I give the debate to Pro for nattering on about morality. If Con had actually *explained* how evolution is counter to religion (e.g. disputes Genesis or establishes religion has comparatively little predictive power) or had mentioned there is not objectively any objective morality (and not forfeited two rounds)...
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.