The Instigator
Stupidape
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

God(s) exists.

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...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 404 times Debate No: 93887
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Con

Outline.

I. Intro
II. Can't 100% prove a negative, but can get very close
A. Evolutionary psychology
B. Multiverse, big bang theory, etc
III. Do agnostics truly believe there is a 50/50 chance of God existing?
IV. Do you believe the Earth is flat, Elvish is still alive, the sun revolves are the Earth?
V. Conclusion
VI. Sources


I. Intro

I will argue that there are no Gods at all. I left the topic as it is so people that are both monotheistic and polytheistic can argue. The likely hood of God existing is the same that as that of the tooth fairy existing.


II. Can't 100% prove a negative, but can get very close

Its not possible to prove a negative, but you can get really close to 100%. Think unicorns, the more technology we develop and forests we cut down, the more sure we can be that they don't exist.

A. Evolutionary psychology

Many religious people ask "why is God so pan-human? Surely, God must exist then." I like this theory on why we believe in religion and God. "Yet another explicable feature of religion is signs of expertise in occult knowledge. If you're the one who knows mysterious but important arcane knowledge, then other people will defer to you." [1]

Think about it, if a person has the expertise in occult knowledge gene, that person will have an evolutionary advantage. That person will be more likely to have his/her belly full, mate, and pass on his/her genes.

B. Multiverse, big bang theory, etc

Many question how the universe began. There is the multiverse, big bang theory, primordial soup, and evolution to explain.

III. Do agnostics truly believe there is a 50/50 chance of God existing?

I find this a silly question, but an agnostic implies there is a 50/50 chance. I don't think this view gives much credit to science.

IV. Do you believe the Earth is flat, Elvis is still alive, the sun revolves are the Earth?

To people who still believe in God after reading, I ask you the above questions. Do you think the sun revolves around the Earth? Why or why not?

V. Conclusion

Science has already answered most of the big questions in my opinion. Yet, people still believe in God and murder innocents in the name of God. Thanks for reading and good luck.

VI. Sources
1. http://ffrf.org...
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks Con for instigating this debate.
Con has allowed the challenger to be either a monotheist or a polytheist, so I qualify.
Any time I get the chance to demonstrate god, it really brightens my day.
Con didn't provide definitions for god, so I will; I'll also follow Con's outline.

*Definitions*

god - a deity.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

theism - belief in the existence of a god.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


*Intro*

I will argue that there is a god. Since the topic was left "as it is," I will be defining my god. I also reject that the likelihood of god existing is equal to that of the tooth fairy existing.


*No Need To Prove A Negative*

Con doesn't actually have to prove anything, because the burden of proof is clearly on me, Pro.
So, as long as Con can refute my case, Con doesn't need to cut down any more trees to disprove unicorns.


*Evolutionary Psychology*

Con points out that many religious people ask, "Why is god so pan-human?"
I think it's a great question, with a simple answer; all humans need the earth and the earth needs energy.
God provides energy to the earth, therefore to all humans as well.

I also fail to see why knowing god requires any expertise in occult knowledge.
Understanding how god gives us energy allowed people to more likely have a full belly, mate, and pass on genes.


*Multiverse/Big Bang*

I agree there's many questions on how the universe began, but none of them are relevant to whether or not god exists; no one's claiming that god created the universe.
If the beginning of the universe is but a guaranteed instability of zero-energy quantum fluctuations, it's still irrelevant to whether or not god exists.


*Agnostics' Beliefs Of God Probability*

Well, agnosticism, with regards to god, is just wrong, because agnosticism means one cannot know/doesn't know if god exists; but god's existence is completely knowable well beyond 50/50.


*Earth/Elvis/God*

Con asks:
"Do you believe the earth is flat."

My response:
No, it's spherical; we have live shots of earth.

Con continues:
"Do you believe that Elvis is still alive?"

My response:
No, he died in 1977; we have dental records.

Con furthers:
"Do you think [god] revolves around the earth?"

My response:
No, because god revolves around the barrycenter between all celestial objects in the solar system and god.


*Heliolatry*
http://www.dictionary.com...

I'm what people refer to as a heliolater, because I worship the sun; the sun is the god whose existence in which I believe.
I don't know what Con is talking about when they say "people still believe in God and murder innocents in the name of God."
I thought everyone believes in god by necessity...we literally all begin and end our days with god, and there's really no need to murder those who don't believe in god, because god keeps on a shinin' whether or not others believe.

Any time I go out on a godly day, I'm reminded of how god brightens my life and gives me the energy I need to survive.
I witness god providing food for plants, providing photogenic compounds necessary for all life, and driving our water cycle so that agriculture is attainable.

Perhaps most importantly though, god allows our planet to maintain a habitable temperature, gravity, and atmospheric pressure; without god, the earth would literally stop spinning.

We now know more than ever about how god operates and NASA has a wonderful Solar Dynamics Observatory that confirms god's existence over and over again.
http://www.nasa.gov...


*Conclusion*

God exists.
Don't believe me?
Look outside in the sky right now, and, if you don't see god, give it like 12 hours...he'll come back; he's very reliable.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Con

There is little doubt whether stars exist. There is much a likely-hood of stars existing as there are humans existing. Yet, does the sun qualify as God? Does one simply believing an inanimate object, animal, person, or spirit is God make it true?

Many tribes worship animals, this is called Animalism. I heard about a guy on Jerry Spring who worshiped hamsters. Yet, belief alone doesn't make this animal creator of the universe nor grant miracles. The same is true for stars. Simply put, believing someone or something is God does not make it true. Just as believing a wooden chair is an adult lion won't make it true. Imagining you are Harry Potter, won't allow you to fly on a broom stick.

Thanks for the debate.

https://www.britannica.com...
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks Con for your response.
Con agrees that "there is little doubt whether stars exist."
Con also agrees that "there is much a likely-hood of stars existing as there are humans."
So far, we're both on the same page.

*Con's Questions*

Con asks:
Yet, does the sun qualify as God?

My response:
Well, we heliolaters worship him, he is our deity, he is responsible for indirectly/directly providing metabolizable energy to all living organisms on earth, and the origins of life on earth, whereby inorganic compounds became organic compounds, was driven by god.
http://www.pnas.org...

CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and god's rays can generate alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine, which are all crucial amino acids needed for life.

So, yes, the sun, as you call him, qualifies as god, because he is the deity of heliolatry and is responsible for allowing and maintaining life on earth...sounds like god to me.


Con then asks:
"Does one simply believing an inanimate object, animal, person, or spirit is God make it true?"

My response:
If the inanimate object is in fact a deity, then, per this debate, yes, it is true that the inanimate object is god; god is a deity in this debate.


*Hamsters*

Con recalls:
"I heard about a guy on Jerry Spring who worshiped hamsters. Yet, belief alone doesn't make this animal creator of the universe nor grant miracles."

My response:
I agree.
But Con, tell me...what does the creation of the universe or the granting of miracles have to do with god in this debate?
God is just a deity, worshiped by many a heliolater, irrespective of the universe's origin or miraculous happenings.


Con asserts:
"Simply put, believing someone or something is God does not make it true."

My response:
Simply put, god is a deity in this debate, and *this* is the only thing that makes "it is god" true.


Con analogizes:
"Believing someone or something is God does not make it true just as believing a wooden chair is an adult lion won't make it true."

My response:
I agree, but if you're in a debate where the definition for "adult lion" is "a separate seat for one person, typically with a back and four legs and made of wood," then believing in a wooden chair as an adult lion is not only reasonable, the existence of the adult lion is sufficed by the existence of the wooden chair.

God is a deity, in this debate, and the central focus of worship for me and my fellow heliolaters.


*Conclusion*

Con's conceded the existence of my god, and even admits that "there is little doubt whether stars exist."
Given Con's concession, there is little doubt that god, earth's star, exists.
Con can try to run the "that's not really god" argument, but this only affirms that there exists something that can be "really god," quite antithetical to Con's case.

The god of heliolatry exists and Con concedes this existence, therefore one must affirm that god exists, based on this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Con

I'm still not accepting that the Sun is God. Yes, the sun is powerful and exists, and is worshiped by some. Yet, there are plenty of other powerful inanimate objects like moons, comets, black holes, and so forth.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks Con for your lengthy response.
Con wrote a ton last round, so I might run over my character limit trying to address everything.
I'd also like to thank Con for this debate.
I hope our discussion has shined a little light on the subject.

*Definitions*

The unchallenged definitions, provided in round 1, clearly say that the term "god" means "deity."
I've shown that the god of heliolatry is a deity, and Con has conceded his existence.


*Con's Issues*

Con puts his foot down:
"I'm still not accepting that the Sun is God."

My response:
Well, the definition of god, in this debate, qualifies the sun as god, so your acceptance is as irrelevant as it is empty.


Con adds:
"Yes, the sun is powerful and exists, and is worshiped by some."

My response:
Yeah, we heliolaters worship god not only for his immense power and brilliant existence, but also for the fact that he's responsible for the origins of life, he provides the energy for and maintenance of all life, and we all base our days around him.
Heliolatry is the worship of god.


Con concludes:
"Yet, there are plenty of other powerful inanimate objects like moons, comets, black holes, and so forth."

My response:
Yeah, Con's talking about selenolatry (moon worhsip), cometolatry (comet worship), and stellamortolatry (black hole worship) and while I'm not a member of those religions, every selenolater will tell you that the moon is god, and if you believe that the moon exists, then you believe that their god exists, irrespective of your conception of what god *should* be.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


*Conclusion*

Con just didn't cast enough doubt on the accepted definition of god in this debate being sufficed by the god of heliolatry. Con concedes that the sun exists, the sun is the god of heliolatry, and this affirms that god, a deity, exists.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 months ago
MagicAintReal
Lol!
Jerry you agreed that owning other humans as property was immoral...have you ever reconciled that?
Nope.
You def lost that and if you don't believe me, again, have whiteflame look it over and tell you who he thinks won based on the definitions and resolution...go ahead.
Jerry, you got schooled and you never responded to the main arguments there...you just lost that debate, flat out, no equivocations.
None of my arguments were bad, they were damning to your case...you're just wrong here bud.
Posted by Jerry947 3 months ago
Jerry947
I think my certainty is warranted since you didn't talk about the God of the Bible. The debate was about Jesus and you failed to address him.

And yes, you did give several bad arguments. You tried to attack the morality of the God of the Bible and failed...

You then used semantics against my cosmological argument and failed...

But no one that has seriously thought about the debate would think you had won.
Posted by MagicAintReal 4 months ago
MagicAintReal
Your certainty is unwarranted, and you admitted, in that debate, that owning humans as property is not moral, therefore your magic man couldn't be the source of moral authority...you could ask whiteflame to look at it and tell you what he thinks, but Jerry, I had nearly the same debate with others, and for the same reasons I clearly won.

You never dealt with creation as a temporal concept enough to sway anyone, and you never invalidated owning humans as property as god's moral blunder...you simply would have lost jerry...go ahead, ask whiteflame what he thinks.
Posted by Jerry947 4 months ago
Jerry947
Still wish that people would have voted on our God debate...

I am sure that I would have won.
Posted by MagicAintReal 4 months ago
MagicAintReal
Por ejemplo, http://www.debate.org...
Posted by MagicAintReal 4 months ago
MagicAintReal
Well, you're right, but if you can make the definition of god "the creator of the universe" well now that's a fact claim isn't it?
Look at *any* of my god debates where I provide the definition...I make sure that it says creator of the universe in some from, because the universe and creating itt are fact claims that can be disputed...I've never lost a god debate, ever, and I have a ton, as you may notice.

The Christian god is almost certainly considered the creator of the universe, and most people will gladly accept that definition.
Posted by Stupidape 4 months ago
Stupidape
This is a classic example of the Instigator leaving the opposing side too open ended. I've learned from this mistake as you can see from future debates. Instead, I will state that "The Christian God doesn't exist." Which of course falls exactly into the same trap. Since, whether or not Jesus is the son of God, he is still worshiped. Therefore, even someone who practices Judaism must recognize that Jesus is worshiped, and thus a God. Since most Jewish people recognize the existence of Jesus and that he is worshiped by Christians.

This is weird even stating this. Difficult to make a debate, very difficult.

I could then say, Jesus isn't God, but that doesn't help any since he is worshiped. Hmmm, this is harder than I thought. This whole thing started when I watched a Richard Dawkins video. Honestly, I don't think he knows what he is talking about. People worship people and objects, this makes them Gods. The idea of disproving the existence of hamsters, suns, stars, and so forth seems very silly to me.

Even, if you pick an immaterial God, the idea is still within their head. Sort of like, we can't hold an abstract concept in our hands, but it exists in the sense we can imagine it. Like beauty, morals, ethics, immaterial Gods, a scientific theory, math, and so forth.
Posted by MagicAintReal 4 months ago
MagicAintReal
Thanks for the vote whiteflame, you're awesome.
Posted by Death23 4 months ago
Death23
It looks like I might have to vote on conduct or sources
Posted by Death23 4 months ago
Death23
No.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
StupidapeMagicAintRealTied
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: This one's pretty obvious. Con dropped the ball here, failing to define the central term in the resolution and, thus, allowing Pro to broadly define it. In the process, Pro was able to shift the ground out from under Con's arguments, and Con spent the rest of the debate arguing past the definition. Pro wins the debate the moment Con concedes that the sun exists because Con never establishes a different definition for God or challenges Pro's definition. Based on Pro's definition, it doesn't matter what he designates as God so long as it is an object of worship. The sun is an object of worship, and Pro spends a good deal of time explaining why, though that's unnecessary. In the end, all he had to do was define the terms and pick something in the natural world. He did, and thus he wins the debate.