The Instigator
Thalmos
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

God's Existence.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 67495
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

Commondebator

Con

I accept

The BOP is on the person who makes the claim, so my opponent will somehow have to prove that god is real. However, that is highly unlikely so I will go with 1credo’s style of argument for the existence of god. This debate goes towards whoever makes the most convincing arguments.


C.1 Praying does not work
A 1997 study at the University of New Mexico, involving 40 alcoholics in rehabilitation, found that the men and women who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse. (1) In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications. (2)

Apparently an eternal being that answers prayers as many religious texts promise simply do not work.

-An eternal prayer answering being is supposed to answer prayers
-Prayers left unanswered
-Eternal prayer answering being does not exist

C.2 An eternal being is logically impossible
God, supposedly can do whatever he/she wants. However lets look at some things not even god, being an eternal being can do.

-Show a square circle
-Shut a revolving door
-Show a circular square

If god is all good, he cannot possibly be all knowing

-God is all knowing, he must know all the immoral things
-If god knows all immoral things, god is not all good
(Vice versa)

C.3 No evidence presented for god
Lets face it. We have observable evidence for god, except for philosophical statements and questions that science has not discovered yet. Firstly,

Complexity =/= Creator

This is quite a popular argument made by theistic advocates. However, the fact that the universe is extremely complex and has trillions of systems does not mean a being designed it all. To upset theists even more, the complexity does not even have to be designed. The isotropic expansion from a singularity, and some thorough research of how new elements are made can very well explain the complexity in the universe as well as-if not better as a god

C.2 There is no need for a god to explain the universe
“How else did the universe come to be?”

I will present my arguments for the big bang, showing that god is not necessarily needed to explain the universe

Evidences for the big bang

Accelerating expansion of the universe
The accelerating universe points out evidence towards a huge possibility of
a singularity for the creation of the universe. The evidences for the expansion of
the universe include the isotropic distribution by the redshift of the electromagnetic
spectra. (3)


2. Cosmic microwave background radiation
In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipitously discovered the cosmic background radiation, an an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band. the radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions.This discovery showed radiations that were isotopic and further supported the big bang theory. (4)

3. Other evidences supporting the big bang include abundance of primordial elements
Galactic evolution and distribution, and Primordial gas clouds.

What’s more, the theory of the big bang actually has evidence behind it, unlike god. Another question that may come up is that

“How can something come from nothing?”

Actually it is possible for quantum fluctuations to exist before time and matter itself. What's more is that it more credible than god, for the different evidences point out a huge possibility, when there is little to none for god.

1.http://godisimaginary.com...
2.http://www.nbcnews.com...
3.http://en.wikipedia.org...;
4. http://en.wikipedia.org......









Debate Round No. 1
Thalmos

Pro

Thalmos forfeited this round.
Commondebator

Con

To be honest,my argument wasn't a very good argument and I apologize for that. Nevertheless, I leave my argument extended.

(I realize that I was foolish to include the prayer bit)
Debate Round No. 2
Thalmos

Pro

Thalmos forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
You made a good point. The pray thing was the only thing I could add to have extra reasoning. However, I guess it is not the best point.
Posted by USPharaoh 1 year ago
USPharaoh
So we have come to splitting hairs on prayers to articulate the existence of a god have we? The assumption being that greedy prayers will not get answered but an altruistic prayer should get answered. I don't think I could possibly judge the deeds or acts of others outside of a surface level..that would take an all-knowing being, but who's to say that the prayer being made while looking perfectly unselfish, would be massively detrimental to the good of humankind if it were to be answered. Granted I'm using an extreme situation to make a point but you get what I'm going for.

Bottom line is this - - If you insist that an unanswered prayer "means he may not exist!"...then you must agree that an answered prayer means that he/she/God does exist. Myself, I can't go along with that reasoning but that is exactly what you are stating. Dragging prayer into the debate as a means to try to disprove a god is a losing stance since an answered prayer would be considered proof positive of a god...and an unanswered prayer *may* only prove that it was answered in a way that we could not fathom at the time.

"ALL good means you do not even know bad things. But, god is ALL knowing, so he DOES know bad things" ALL knowing does not equate to being ONLY good. All knowing does not make one bad. All knowing is a requirement of omnipotence. I know of about 4 bank robberies in the last 4 months here, but I never made a cent of of any of them.

I stopped doing debates a few years back...in fact I stopped this board altogether after a life refocus. Used to debate heavily,many good friends who would vote me up and I them. Back now with a new alias and somewhat altered view on my previous stances....and lost some of those friends because of my 'shift'. I can honestly say that many debates are too rigid and often not fairly scored. I deeply enjoy the freedom and fairness of comment-tates instead.
Some of my debates w/ on religion, lots of ignorance/blind bible thumpers there.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
lol you seem like a good debater. Ill debate you however Im over religious debates. Its getting boring, and it insults other's faiths because they get upset easily. This is probably my last one for a month
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
You cant prove or disprove.

You didnt win the lottery ticket after you prayed to god? Apparently lottery ticket=greed, so god isnt going to help you win the lottery

However, you want to save a family member? God should help you do that, it is unfair for someone to suddenly get into a freak accident at a young age. God didnt answer your prayer, means he may not exist!

ALL good means you do not even know bad things. But, god is ALL knowing, so he DOES know bad things
Posted by USPharaoh 1 year ago
USPharaoh
Hmm, ok so if god does not answer a prayer for me to win the lottery, there must not be a god? Not sure I can buy into that reasoning....heck, even if I were to pray for world peace it would not matter. .... "hinting" is not proving, nor would it be considered as evidence against.

Certainly you can't make a circle square, nor can you make 2 and 2 equal to 5. You and I are stuck here in (and must abide by) the laws of this universe. God however, is not stuck in our time-space, nor our limited dimensions.... granted there are many many gods that are created and trapped by our dimensions...God of volcanoes etc.... but a god that is outside of these rules can create, re-create or suspend the rules at will. The only thing proven by your comment is that a god of this dimension cannot make a circle square.

To know of immoral things does not make one immoral. An example: A judge would have to know of illegal things in order to justly had out a sentence concerning criminal activity....is that judge therefore a criminal? I would argue not. In fact, I would argue that knowing all aspects of all things would be a requirement of an Omnipotent being/entity/force..... This last argument starts us down a whole different path about good and evil that does not belong in this debate.

Again, I'm not certain if all this gets us any closer to proving God does not exist. All one has to do is provide ample evidence that current scientific understanding is not advanced enough to prove or disprove....therefore we have a draw at best.....and both sides can go back to wondering or faithfully believing....either way it is good dialogue
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
definition of prayer:a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.

There is no specific language, just recite from a holy book, or make a request. God is all knowing, he should know all prayers.

The reason why i brought up prayer is, no matter how much the world prays, it does not make a difference, HINTING that there may not be a eternal being that answers prayers

God can do whatever the hell he wants. But he cant make a circle square. Showing there isnt an eternal being. Surly, its doesn't necessarily disprove, but i wanted to add

If god is all knowing, he knows immoral things, therefore he is not all good. For an example, an all knowing being knows how to sin, knows how to get away with sin, he also knows pornographic material hinting he is not exactly all good
Posted by USPharaoh 1 year ago
USPharaoh
Too Funny..."This debate goes towards whoever makes the most convincing arguments."
How about first making intelligent comments.....lets see....where to start (maybe the easiest / silly ones):
Prayer Answering:
-An eternal prayer answering being is supposed to answer prayers........Maybe, just maybe the answers were not in the form of what you wanted.....one can't force their will over.
-Prayers left unanswered....... ..shucks, so they didn't win the lotto...
Bottom line is that prayer has little to do with proving the existence or non-existence of any god, all it really proves in human either human reverence towards or selfish nature...casting my line into the lake proves not that there are fish (or anything for that matter) that i will hook.

Let's see what's up next.
"God, supposedly can do whatever he/she wants......":
Gotta love it when a four dimensional being brings a square ball to an Nth-dimensional discussion....contradictions are impossible by definition in our 4 dimensional universe....problem is that if a creator (some bearded guy as you might call it)... exists as the Christian God then it lies outside your playground rules...across multiple dimensions that you could not fathom. It those terms then yes, a god could suspend the laws of physics as we know them today to say... raise the dead...or walk on water.
Next
"-If god knows all immoral things, god is not all good"
Hmm so it seems like you equate knowing to doing...I know how to get to Florida, therefore I must be there?? A true creator would have to know all facets of it's creation. Your argument has nothing to do with if there is a god, not sure why you even stated it in this forum....It would be better suited for a god is evil forum (presupposing that a god exists)....so it fails here in this one since the only premise would be that there IS a god but a naughty one..... (I understand where you are coming from, trying to prove something does not exist is ... well..... tough...need to b
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
lies exist
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
ThalmosCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Juris 1 year ago
Juris
ThalmosCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Crystal clear
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
ThalmosCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
ThalmosCommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No arguments to affirm from Pro, whilst Con provided substantial ones. Sources to Con for providing good sources to back his arguments. Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
ThalmosCommondebatorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF