The Instigator
dgm9
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheOregonian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I have proof God does exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 757 times Debate No: 87726
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (0)

 

dgm9

Pro

I love these pros and cons none of them have any foundation, just point of view. The Fundamental church view is He did it in 6 days (speaking everything into existence) BAM! The scientific view of an evolving is understandable however they still haven't completed the puzzle as of yet. When anyone says creation began with a Big Bang I say, I believe that but what caused that? They say it was an atom and I say I believe that also but where did the atom come from? Cosmic dust or a molecule. I can believe that also but they had to have a beginning. That's the piece of the puzzle the scientific community hasn't figured out because that's where God comes in to the puzzle He says He created the heavens and earth and all that is therein. The Church with their view that it happened in 6 days and that God spoke everything into existence isn't very biblical either because if you read the Gen. account you'll actually see that God did it in about 20 plus seconds, WHAT!! Well how long does it take to say, "Let there be light" or "Let the earth bring forth seed after its kind." Is God handicapped with a speech impediment? If we knew Scripture or had a teaching beyond "something things we just have to believe by faith," something that makes sense like FACT that would solve the question wouldn't it? Do you know that Scripture tells us, "A thousand years is like a day and a day like a thousand years to God? If we were to apply this to creation we could see that with a 365 day year (which wasn't at that time) multiplying that by 1000 we'd see 365,000 years x 6 days we'd see more than 2,000,000 years I can see an evolving here and it says the earth was without form and void not it wasn't there it could have been there trillions of years. But the real question to put an end to pros and cons is DOES GOD EXIST? Is there PROOF? The answer is yes. If your interested to know write voiceofthesign @aol.com this fellow is from Colorado and has written a booklet entitled, The Signature and I have never read or heard anyone explain with proof the existence of God. He has a PDF file that he will share with you. Than come back here and tell me what you think
TheOregonian

Con

I accept the challenge. Since you did not define terms, I will do so here:
PROOF-
noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

EXIST-
verb
1.
have objective reality or being.

GOD-
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

To prove a negative is impossible, therefore, the Burden of Proof rests with you. Show me your "proof".
Debate Round No. 1
dgm9

Pro

dgm9 forfeited this round.
TheOregonian

Con

Since Pro forfeited a round, I have nothing to refute.
Debate Round No. 2
dgm9

Pro

dgm9 forfeited this round.
TheOregonian

Con

The majority of Pro's R1 is unrelated. He then mentions The Signature, which I have read. I will refute that here.

"There are two ways that God reveals Himself, establishing Himself as The Lord and only God Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and all that is therein to humankind. First, through the working of miracles 1 Cor. 12:10. However, a manifestation of God in the earth is sporadic and only occurs at widely separate intervals within history... Now, I"m going to show what God has declared is the second way; He reveals Himself and has revealed Himself. Without question the only God and Lord of the entire universe through the Holy Bible, of which NO OTHER BOOK CAN MAKE THIS CLAIM! This is The Signature of God!"

The reason manifestations of God are "sporadic and only [occur] at widely separate intervals" is because most human beings realize that their hallucinations are just that and not a bearded man in the sky trying to talk to them, or whatever else might be the case.

The rest of this section gives examples of miracles,l all covered by the above statement.

The most annoying argument apologists use is the argument from scripture.

"My Holy Book is true because in my Holy Book it says that my Holy Book is written by God and my Holy Book says that God is never wrong." Or something of the like.

I will also refute all of Pro's R1 rambling.

"I love these pros and cons none of them have any foundation, just point of view."
My foundation is that a negative is assumed to be true until proven otherwise (the same reasoning that leads to "innocent until proven guilty).

"The Fundamental church view is He did it in 6 days (speaking everything into existence) BAM!"
Yes, and I disagree.

"The scientific view of an evolving is understandable however they still haven't completed the puzzle as of yet."
Here inlies the greatest strength of science and the worst weakness of religion: We can say "I don't know yet." Religions give answers to unanswerable questions, but scientists search for those answers. In a religious community, when asked an existential question an answer is expected, but in a scientific one, "We don't know yet" or "I'll look into that" are perfectly acceptable.

"When anyone says creation began with a Big Bang I say, I believe that but what caused that? They say it was an atom and I say I believe that also but where did the atom come from? Cosmic dust or a molecule. I can believe that also but they had to have a beginning. That's the piece of the puzzle the scientific community hasn't figured out because that's where God comes in to the puzzle"
I have never heard anyone say that the Big Bang was caused by an atom, but I get your point. You're using the First Cause argument. There are two good refutations to this, I will explain both. The first is logical: If you were to use an infinite regress like one of Zeno's paradoxes to prove the existence of something that you claim to be the end of this regress, which is an apt description of the First Cause argument, your argument is subject to the special pleading fallacy. The infinite regress is infinite, and if you try to end it with God, then what created God? The only answer to an infinite regress is an infinite cycle, which leads to my next refutation.
This one is scientific. It is called the Big Crunch Theory. It is one of many, none of which have been definitively proven, for the future of the universe. I personally think this the most likely. It goes like this: Our universe is one of many throughout time, following a cyclical pattern. As our universe ages, the quantity of dark energy which aids the momentum from the Big Bang will diminish, and the said momentum will be overcome by gravity. Our universe will then begin to condense into a singularity, a stage known as the Big Crunch. This singularity now includes the entirety of the Universe's mass, mostly in energy, in a very small area. This forces matter out, in a Big Bang, the start of the next Universe.
Source: http://www.iflscience.com...

"He says He created the heavens and earth and all that is therein."
Again, argument from scripture.

"The Church with their view that it happened in 6 days and that God spoke everything into existence isn't very biblical either because if you read the Gen. account you'll actually see that God did it in about 20 plus seconds, WHAT!! Well how long does it take to say, "Let there be light" or "Let the earth bring forth seed after its kind." Is God handicapped with a speech impediment?"
No, but He is extremely lazy, along with being evil, narcissistic, and bipolar.

"If we knew Scripture or had a teaching beyond "something things we just have to believe by faith," something that makes sense like FACT that would solve the question wouldn't it? Do you know that Scripture tells us, "A thousand years is like a day and a day like a thousand years to God? If we were to apply this to creation we could see that with a 365 day year (which wasn't at that time) multiplying that by 1000 we'd see 365,000 years x 6 days we'd see more than 2,000,000 years I can see an evolving here and it says the earth was without form and void not it wasn't there it could have been there trillions of years."
I honestly have no clue what you're saying here.

"But the real question to put an end to pros and cons is DOES GOD EXIST? Is there PROOF? The answer is yes. If your interested to know write voiceofthesign @aol.com this fellow is from Colorado and has written a booklet entitled, The Signature and I have never read or heard anyone explain with proof the existence of God. He has a PDF file that he will share with you. Than come back here and tell me what you think"

I have told you what I think: It's bs.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
You have R1 to refute Con.
Posted by squonk 1 year ago
squonk
@ Brian

The Oxford English Dictionary defines faith as "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." So which dictionary gives us the "objective definition" of faith: the OED or Merriam-Webster? I say neither. Actually, words have no "objective definition." Dictionaries don't give you the "objective definition" of any words; they can only tell you how words are used. Words may be used in different ways, by different people, in different contexts.

Most Christians I know accept that faith is not based on evidence or proof. When a Christian tells me, "I have faith that the Bible is true" I don't expect them to provide any evidence or rational justification for their belief that the Bible is true. Why not? Because the word "faith" implies that their belief is "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 1 year ago
WhineyMagiciann5
god is an unfalsifiable paradox. meaning with all of our current knowledge, he cannot be proven right or wrong. atheism and theism is just what you personally think.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Brian: Hahahaha ok I will side step your reasoning for not debating me and will accept your challenge! Start a forum and I will join! Your a funny guy! :)
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
@ finalfan you would negatively affect my elo. However if you wish to discuss in the forum section I would be more than glad to discuss with you.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
@squonk 1 Faith:strong belief or trust in someone or something 2 Faith: belief and trust in and loyalty to God http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Trust: firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something. https://www.google.ca...

Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. https://www.google.ca...

Trust is a synonym to faith and belief. You can make your own definition if you like, but by objective definition, faith is the same as trust.

If you want to debate about the science behind the existence of God we can. As I said, I believe it is both logical and rational to believe in God. I am not relying on my emotions alone but with reason and science to back it up. I also don't find atheists in general to be illogical, the same way you shouldn't find Christians to be illogical. I just have a different belief and I wish to maintain why I have faith in God.

"Christianity is ridiculous, irrational nonsense." Extremely debatable. If you want to debate this I'd be glad too.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Brian: argument from ignorance followed by Pascals wager! You believe in the Abrahamic God? If so we need to debate, my friend!
Posted by squonk 1 year ago
squonk
Brian, trust is not the same as faith. Here's an example, to illustrate the difference between trust and faith:

Your friend Terry is about to start a new sales job at a car dealership. You TRUST that Terry will succeed at his new job, because he has years of experience selling cars.

Your friend Fred is about to start a new sales job at a car dealership. Fred has never been a salesman before. He has no experience. Still, you have FAITH that Fred will be successful.

Faith isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it's stupid or wrong to have faith in your friends. When my friend is going away to law school, I have faith that he'll become a great lawyer. This faith is about EMOTIONAL SUPPORT; not reason. Honestly, what do I know about being "a great lawyer"? Next to nothing. Do I truly have the ability to determine who will become "a great lawyer" before their first day of law school? Hell no. Still, I have faith that my friend will do great...without evidence, without knowledge, I can still have faith.

Faith in God works the same way. It's about EMOTIONAL SUPPORT; not reason. That doesn't mean Christianity is bad, stupid, or wrong. It's just not a science. It's not like biology or cosmology; it's more like painting or poetry. Art. Art can be ridiculous, irrational nonsense. Christianity is (frankly) ridiculous, irrational nonsense. That doesn't make it worthless.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
@finalfan does anyone know? Nobody knows how the earth started. Nobody knows if the universe is eternal. It is not only logical to me from a scientific standpoint, but philosophically if I am wrong about God, so what? I still had a good life. The guidance in the bible will do anyone well. If you are wrong about God, maybe you had a good life but you wasted the rest of eternity. So philosophically it is logical to believe in God.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Brian: isn't that an argument from ignorance? Also.. A-biogenesis might be an answer to your questions of genesis! Where the word God is kind of a copout! To me its the same as saying "I don't know"
No votes have been placed for this debate.