The Instigator
ANANIGMA
Pro (for)
The Contender
jackgilbert
Con (against)

"I don't know - therefor GOD" Does evidence exist? Can it be proven?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
jackgilbert has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 273 times Debate No: 106283
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

ANANIGMA

Pro

If there is a God, then where is the evidence. Damascene said, "The knowledge that God exists is naturally inborn in all men. Therefor God is self-evident."I propose that the very self-identification of our own existence and everything in the known Universe is evidence of God.

My first point is if you walked into a room and there is a dead body on the floor with a knife in the victim's back. Would you say to yourself there is no dead body on the floor, there is no room? So to a believer, their own existence as well as the existence of the universe around them is evidence of GOD. A non-believer may not choose to call this by the term "GOD" as the subject implies, but any argument against a believer is over personal nomenclature at this point. Is it Intelligent design or Evolution. Simply though... would a non-believer argue that they don't exist and the universe doesn't exist?

Another argument I challenge is the fantastical imagery used to describe God. Just for example "God is a Sky Daddy who watches everything and knows everything and is perfect, so and so on". This has always been a straw man argument and has more in common with Santa Claus than any religious text I know. In Genesis for example, God is simply the Creator.

So my second point is can something come into existence skipping over it's own creation process and just appear? I say NO and for one example I use a composition of music. There is no evidence that Ode to Joy or works of art like it created themselves, it took Beethoven the composer to create it from nothing. So evidence shows that Music like the Universe was created.

The Last argument is whether it is an intelligent creator. First I will say this, we have intelligence and we didn't create the universe. Imagine though what kind of intelligence would be needed to create the atomic structure that we know makes up the universe. A dog has intelligence but if he/she sees his master build a house, the dog only understands that "this is a object". The dog doesn't comprehend all the materials and planning that went into its master creating that house. We are the dogs, We know our home (our Body and Universe) exists, but we can not even begin to comprehend how it was created...
jackgilbert

Con

Let me begin by saying that there is reasonable evidence that shows that God exists. Scientists have found archaeological evidence that show that Jesus exists. For example, they found bones of James. James was claimed to be Jesus's brother. They have also found remains of the tomb where it is believed that Jesus was laid and scientists have also found manuscripts that prove Jesus existed.
If Jesus existed in this world, then it can be shown that God exists as well. While Jesus lived on the earth, he performed hundreds of miracles such as turning water to wine, healing dead people, healing sicknesses within seconds, feeding 5000 with only two loaves of bread and three fish, and the greatest one of all, he rose from the dead after being crucified. None of these miracles have any explanation. When Jesus performs these miracles he points every single one back to God. God is the reason Jesus did all of these things.
It can be shown that the Bible is accurate because all of it's prophesies that it made came to pass. For example, the Bible prophesied that Babylon would rule over Judah for 70 years. And from 609-539 B.C Babylon ruled over Jerusalem. Another prophesy was that Ninevah would be destroyed by fire. Not only was Ninevah destroyed, it was destroyed by fire. Another prophesy was that Jesus would come and die on the cross for our sins and resurrect 3 days later. Sure enough, Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave 3 days later. If the Bible is historically accurate, then how can you say it is not a credible source to prove God is real? Anyway, the Bible talks about God and how he is all good and all powerful. The Bible is proof that God exists because it is a credible, historical document which made hundreds of prophesies that all come true. How is this not proof that God exists.
Now to my opponents arguments. His first point was that the universe and all of life is not good evidence for God. Look at the complexity of life. life is the most complex thing on the universe. Take a cell for example. It has DNA, mitochondria, ribosomes, cytoplasm, capsule, plasma membrane, cell wall, chromatin, rough er, smooth er, nuclear membrane, nuclear material, channel spores, endoplasmic reticulum, golgi apparatus, and golgi body. I am going to take the DNA and BRIEFLY describe it. The DNA is the place where all the information about the cell is stored. Science has shown that if you were to take a tiny sample of DNA and write out all of the information in it, you would have a pile of books 500 times higher than from here to the moon. That's a lot of information. And that's just one function of the microscopic cell. I could go on and on about animals, plants, mushrooms, yeast, parasites, black holes, rain, the human brain, combustion, the structure of energy, gravity, planets, the list goes on and on. Most of the stuff we know of is a small fraction of everything that is out there. This CAN'T BE A PROBABILITY. This can't originate from a single cell. This points to intelligent design. An intelligent designer had to have designed everything with unique functions, details, and qualities.
Now to my opponents second point is that God could not have always existed. God is the intelligent creator of this universe, and he is omnipotent, omnicient, and omnipresent. A being this mighty can't be created by nothing. God does not just appear. God has always existed. God is almighty and is not bound by any scientific laws, rules, or theories. If he were then would not be all powerful.
Now to my opponents third argument. He said that it takes so much intelligence to create this complex universe. EXACTLY. That's why this universe has to come from an intelligent designer and not a random probability that doesn't explain any of the complex life in the world we have today. My opponents argument actually proves intelligent design.
In conclusion, God is real and he created the universe. Complex life cannot come from nowhere, and there has been historical evidence that proves Jesus, the Bible, and God to be real. If God did not create this world, who did?
Debate Round No. 1
ANANIGMA

Pro

Interesting. I agree with you Jack, you win! My first point was that the universe and all life IS the evidence of God. Same with the second and third point. We both agree there is proof for the existence of God. You went more in the scientific direction to make your point where I went with a more philosophical claim. If you want we can debate on which is better evidence of the existence of God if you want. Science or Philosophy. Your call.
jackgilbert

Con

Alright, thanks man, we can have a debate about whether science or philosophy is better evidence for God, when you do you want to start?
Debate Round No. 2
ANANIGMA

Pro

K debate sent
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DawnBringerRiven 4 months ago
DawnBringerRiven
Rediculous. Even if Jesus exists that doesn't definitively mean God exists. That's the same as saying if Mahmmed exists, which he did, that means the Islamic religion is also true. Both religions can not be true at the same time. Life being complex does not give proof that God exists. Life coming from nothing and God coming from nothing are both possibilities, no matter how unlikely, does not prove God's existence at all. Your proof for god is flawed and does not prove God's existence in any way.
Posted by ANANIGMA 4 months ago
ANANIGMA
To be fair western society has been doing this. We have progressed past the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus by keeping the good and reworking the ones that we felt needed to be.

I think the lawmaker must be perfect, otherwise there would be anarchy. I am sure you believe your morals are acceptable and good but you can't say everyone on earth would agree with you completely. There needs to be obedience to a law. The problem is finding what laws actually lend themselves to a prosperous and just society. Call me an pessimist but things are looking worse and worse the more we alter these laws.
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
missmedic
When classing harmless things as immoral results in persecution we've reason to condemn the misclassification. But you can't do that with a dogmatic and immutable morality, so it's only through abandoning certain widespread religious ideas that progress towards a truly just and consistent morality is possible. There's an ongoing need to develop and refine our moral understanding. The problem is the false and morally corrupting idea that the lawmaker is perfect. It's corrupting because, in causing us to accept unjust laws, it leaves us defending the indefensible. We don't base morality on revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behaviour is doing what's right, not what we're told unless what we're told is also what's right.
We can live with purpose without having faith that this purpose was ordained for us. What we value as a people will always matter more then what we believe is true.
Posted by ANANIGMA 4 months ago
ANANIGMA
What parts of the philosophical content of the bible needs to be changed due to new knowledge and information? Particularly for the better of society.

Moral certainty does not come from religion but from those who misuse religion. Jeremiah 8:8-9 says, "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, And what kind of wisdom do they have?" There are about 30 other verses (OT and NT) that do not support being wise in your own eyes. Remember that even those who champion against religion are displaying moral certainty.

Your absolutely right the philosophy is to root out the errors in your own way. That is how you acquire knowledge. Almost every prophet in religion has their own take on this fundamental law. Even the Buddha spoke of this, "Through zeal, knowledge is gotten. Through lack of zeal; knowledge is lost. Let a man who knows this double path of gain and loss place himself where knowledge may grow."
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
missmedic
Ananigma;
Religion can be a philosophy, but it is a philosophy that can't change or improve when new knowledge and information comes along. Science is a tool not an action. And I did not say that religion causes wars.
Let me clarify, it is not religion, it is the moral certainty religion espouse that cause conflict. As to the ten commandments most invoke the death penalty for disobedience and the first four are about god's ego, and have nothing to do with morality. You know something is wrong with the morality of the bible when improvements can be made just by taking thing out. Examining your philosophy will allow you to discover and root out all errors and contradictions and allow you to more easily acquire knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by ANANIGMA 4 months ago
ANANIGMA
- missmedic

If we learned religion is at its root a philosophy for life: we would understand the progressive message behind it. Discernment is a law beaten into all religions and it's unfortunate not all heed it's warning. You stated that religion causes wars and people flying into buildings. Can you recognize this is also true for science? Science created the atomic bomb as one example. The good side of religion teaches us that each life is sacred and murder is one of the 10 commandments. It's about how we use the knowledge and power we have and religion is a guide on how to properly do so.
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
missmedic
Faith doesn"t bring us beyond reason, as amply shown by the fact that not a single problem " be it scientific, philosophical or socio-political " has ever been solved or even mildly ameliorated by faith. On the contrary, faith has a nasty tendency to make bumbling simpletons of us, to waste our energies, time and resources on pursuit that do not improve the human condition, and at its worst it convinces people to drive planes into skyscrapers, or to mount "holy" crusades to slaughter the "infidel." Faith is not a virtue, it is a repudiation of one the few good things human beings have going for them: a little bit of reason. The same reason that Newton, Einstein, Galileo and Darwin used in there discoveries.
A belief that cannot change can"t be moved closer to truth. Choosing not to live according to faith may, in fact, be a moral choice. If we accept that our beliefs can be wrong and change them when necessary, we stand a greater chance of understanding each other. Without faith we have the tools necessary to bridge differences. The possibility of a peaceful coexistence improves. Faith is not all bad, yes " but it may do more harm than good.
Posted by ANANIGMA 4 months ago
ANANIGMA
- missmedic

The debate is whether there is evidence of God or not. As far as Science showing humility, I completely disagree and I think anyone who seriously studies in the field would to. Science is cut-throat and you don't encounter nearly the amount of mockery in religious claims as you do with scientific claims. Peoples careers have been ruined in the field because of making an unpopular claim which was completely dismissed by their peers but later was revealed to be true.

I believe I am trying to bring to the discussion empirical evidence and removing faith from the argument. It's wrong to say the religious approach is arrogant when one of the fundamental understanding by believers can be summed up in Proverbs 3:5-6

"Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths."

And to say religious people have been unable to provide explanations to the unknown because they were blinded by "faith". That is entirely wrong. Most of our greatest discoveries were made by people of faith. Newton, Einstein, Gallileo, even Darwin. Matter of fact having a faith in a creator has inspired many people to strive to become closer to understanding God, not to prove that God does not exist.
Posted by ANANIGMA 4 months ago
ANANIGMA
DrAnomaly -

I am presenting that God was not created but is the creator. Otherwise, you have a chicken and egg scenario where the egg came first but then who/what created the egg. We would end up with something like, "Joe created the egg" and in response "Who created Joe?". Followed by "Chris created Joe" and no ends arrives until you assign a creator. God is the creator, nothing coming before.

It takes time to create (insert whatever). So if someone says "it took time to create God" then "time came before God and now time (creator) is God (created)". Like my original argument states our awareness and knowledge of Time for example is evidence of a creator.

"Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons" Daniel 2:20-21

So here, Daniel knew God came before Time. I believe it's an ageless philosophic truth and the debate is whether the evidence is enough to support the claim, "There is God".
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
missmedic
It would be a bit ignorant to say with any certainty that a god did it, because we do not know, but it is pure arrogance to say my god did it. Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn't provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, but investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.