God is real
Debate Rounds (3)
I thank the Pro for proposing such a polemic subject, and want to be clear that I respect any individual that practices or not a religion. Therefore, I ask the Pro not to take this debate in a personal harmful way, as what I say here is my view about religion, and that I hope this conversation will be healthy and beneficial for our knowledge.
In this debate, I shall prove with arguments and facts that God is not real, but an illusion, and how this is easily noticeable if seen from a neutral point of view, specially in this era of communications and technology.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu.... You will probably try the argument that more people believe that we evolved from apes and scientist say so so its true. The past has often showed us that just because a vast amount of people believe something doesn't mean its right. David c park sates the problem about the scientific world.
Hasty Generalization: A small sample is used to reach a broad conclusion. Suppose your local car dealership only sells American cars; a hasty generalization would be to conclude that all dealerships in your state or your country only sell American cars.
Begging the Question: Often referred to as circular reasoning or circular logic. An assumption is used to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used to prove the original assumption.
Misuse of Authority: Pointing to a group of experts to validate a conclusion, even if those experts disagree with each other or with the conclusion. An example would be stating that dentists prefer a certain brand of toothpaste without actually polling them on their preferences.
Appeal to the People: Using the general public as a basis for proving a hypothesis instead of relying on relevant evidence. Stating, "of course, everyone accepts that as fact,of" is one example.
Argument to Future: Stating that while a theory is not yet proven, it will be with further study and investigation.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Repeating as new, a theory or hypothesis already disproved. This is a kin to asserting that the Earth might be flat when evidence demonstrates otherwise.
Chronological Snobbery: Refuting or proving a theory by dating evidence that is extremely old, making it either no longer available or impossible to verify.
Another fact is dna. DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program. In the photo on the left, you see that a computer program is made up of a series of ones and zeros (called binary code). The sequencing and ordering of these ones and zeros is what makes the computer program work properly. In the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions.What is amazing is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!!To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night." Wait, there's more.It has been determined that 99.9% of your DNA is similar to everyone's genetic makeup. What is uniquely you comes in the fractional difference in how those three billion letters are sequenced in your cells.The U.S. government is able to identify everyone in our country by the arrangement of a nine-digit social security number. Yet, inside every cell in you is a three-billion-lettered DNA structure that belongs only to you. This code identifies you and continually instructs your cells' behavior. Serry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."
My last point is a rather basic point. Lets pretend there is no god and after we die we disappear forever. In that case believe in god would have no cost for me and we all meet the same fate. Now lets say that there is a god and I believe in him. I go to heaven and much of the world will suffer a horrible fate hell. I like to believe that I have a 50 percent chance that I will go to heaven because I believe in god. But you my friend will have a 0 percent chance because you do not believe. Do the math and you will see that my point makes sense.
Unlike you Imperiah I like living life knowing how the world really started with a way that makes sense (the existence of god) than a hypothetical process with flaws the so big it takes ignorance to believe in it (the universe without the existence of god)
Well, to get started with, no, I do not believe in the Big Bang theory and I do not need to. Even though, mate, it did not happen with no reason. It is a theory in which the whole Universe was initially extremely small and with an absurd high density and temperature. Then, the Universe NATURALLY started to expand and from ever since it has been constantly expanding.  It does not mean it was without reason. It has a reason: its nature. Scientists do not "turn a blind eye to it and proclaim that's what really happened" as you claim, and cannot do so, as it is a THEORY. Theories are possibilities, not assurances. After all, theories are theories because they have not been yet proved. God is a theory as well, no different from the Big Bang. I do not need to argue or prove how everything started existing; I am here to defend the view that God doesn't exist.
About God speaking to us in flesh, who can assure that what is written in the Bible is true? It started to be written long before Christ; that is more than 2000 years ago. In this process, many European explorers and catholics have interpreted and changed the book as they desired to preach to the native-americans in the New World. And that was around 1500 A.D. forth. Contrary to what God's supposed son, Jesus Christ, there is no historical proof that Jesus actually did miracles as it is written in the Bible.
You stated that "the sad part is that people often confuse evolution for adaptation". Oh, I'm sorry. So the seasonal vaccine for flu is not because of the evolution & adaptation of the virus to defeat the antibodies, but a useless act. You don't get used and adapted to external situations, like frequenting a new ambient everyday or living in extremely cold places like Russia and hot places like India. Everything is new to you always, is that right? Well, I guess not. Using the same reference you did, I found the sentence from the author "Scientists know we didn't actually evolve from modern monkeys, but the evidence we have suggests that we have the same ancestor that they do". Same ancestors = same origin. That already makes your argument invalid. Also in the same website: "A second line of evidence comes from looking at the bodies of modern animals. If we look at any primate, we will find exactly the same bones, even in primates that spend all of their time in the trees. We have many other similarities, some you can see on the outside, some are internal, and some are biochemical. We can use a variety of tests to see them. For example, if you compare DNA (what is DNA?), you will find that about 98% of our DNA code is just like that of chimpanzees. The other 2% is what makes us different from them". Read your sources.
DNA is part of our genetic materials, indeed, but that is no proof of the existence of a God. It surely makes us think a powerful being might have done these intelligent connections, but it does not prove someone did do it. What if it was all a coincidence, after many occasions in which the Universe happened to produce life in its infinite explosions and cosmic rays, but it was never intelligent enough to survive, and that now it did actually happen to be intelligent? Or what if we are atoms (Solar System might be an atom itself with Sun as the nucleus and planets as electrons) of another being's muscular tissue? It could be anything, but no one can prove it, unfortunately.
I never claimed I believe in popular rumors as true, so it is indelicate of your part to accuse me of such. People from human history used to believe that above the clouds there was Heaven, and below ground there was Hell. That was absolute for the people, as everyone believed in this. With scientific advances, we found out that below ground there was water, gases, microorganisms, different types of grains that compose varieties of soils, and that above the clouds there were layers of gas which had an importance in keeping our atmosphere safe, like protection from UV rays provided by ozone, and even space!. In short, it has been proven as a lie. Authorities lied then, they haven't changed much. So if I can't trust a scientist which has a certificate meaning he studied about the subject, why should I trust a missionary which follows what an old, modified book tells?
The interpretation of God varies from religion to religion. What is your view of God? Evangelic? Catholic? Islamic? Adventist? Muslim? Jewish? God differs in personality, depending on the religion. Even if you don't have one, the sources available only explain of God in the point of view of a religion, as God can change completely from a view to another. Which one is your God? To believe in God as a possibility for salvation is an old idea. It's called Pascal's Wager. "To believe in God is better, because it gives you a chance of being saved, rather than being atheist and having 100% chance of being doomed in a positive case" is a sentence that resumes the idea. But the question is: in which God? How do I know if the Muslims' God is the real one or the Catholics'? It's impossible in this age, as we are too far from the age in which the Bible was written. Perhaps you don't even use the Bible, but the Al-Quran or the Torah. Even though, neither of these books bring us complete assurance that God does exist.
As I have asked Pro in the very beginning, he should not take this into a personal, but a scientific manner. Pro is using pejorative means to harm me directly and personally, especially in the conclusion of his Round 2 argument, as he calls me an ignorant for being an atheist. Pro, I ask again, please cease from using such terms. I respect your right to practice a religion, so please respect mine not to do so.
I hope our Round 3 will be better as, hopefully, there will be mutual respect from both parties this time. Thank you.
Debate_master181 forfeited this round.
Enjoy the time!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.