The Instigator
conservative.justice
Pro (for)
The Contender
Kira2003
Con (against)

Is God Real?

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
Kira2003 has forfeited round #2.
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: 5/17/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 319 times Debate No: 114027
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

conservative.justice

Pro

Pro: God Exists
Con: God Does Not Exist

Round 1 is for greeting any arguments in the first round will be ignored

Thank you for accepting my debate.
Kira2003

Con

I am against god, I do not believe in a man up there.
Debate Round No. 1
conservative.justice

Pro

Pro
As a man of science, I completely understand that nothing can come from nothing. One atom cannot create an atom from nothing. Humans do not create chairs, we only manipulate wood and nails. If you have a vast void of absolutely nothing, there is nothing that can possibly come out of that. Nothing can come from nothing.

Nothing can come from nothing
+
There is something
=
Something must exist outside of creation that has power of creation, which created everything
We call this thing God

OR
The universe is eternal
The universe is not eternal though. The Big Bang Theroy which is the most accepted theroy of the creation of the universe States that the universe is not eternal and had a specific starting point, and will have specific ending pointing. Therefore there must have to be something that created the universe. We call this thing God.

God is outside of creation, He is the one who was never created, but is eternal. He is not formed by anything, He just IS. He created everything out of nothing and has control over existence.

That is the simplest proof of God"s existence. That is not talking about if God is good or bad, or if the Christian God or Muslim God is right or wrong, it is only that there is God
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
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
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Dinis 3 months ago
Dinis
All we find ideal is the ideal qualities of God. All we find unfavorable are the ideal qualities of Satan.
God made us according to His image. You are taking a stance in which you pit God against what already exists, when in reality, We came after God, we are his image. Not that He has to fit our criteria either.
Posted by missmedic 3 months ago
missmedic
There is no direct evidence that any god(s) exist. Likewise, there are no purely theoretical arguments that prove any gods either. In addition to the lack of reasons for a God's existence, the Argument from Incoherence holds that the very concept of god is self-contradictory and impossible, therefore, theism is false and atheism is true. But the concept of a creator god is even more problematic - for this 'creator of everything' must have inherent traits that it itself did not create. It must be intelligent and rational (therefore, it can't have created intelligence nor logic). It must have desire, drives, motivations, an amazing omniscient thinking mechanism, and it can't have created itself. So it seems impossible and untrue to say that "everything must have a cause, therefore there is a god". Each property of god is itself a contradiction of the idea that god is the sole creator. All those uncreated self-traits lead to an impossibly unlikely situation where a complicated and multi-faceted being is invoked in order to explain a Universe that is said to be too complex to have self-created. The very concept of a creator god contradicts itself, and is impossible and incoherent. The First Cause of everything is not a god at all, it is merely the natural laws of an atheistic universe.
Posted by Dinis 3 months ago
Dinis
Very well, you question how I must have a great deal of faith in believing there to be a creator. It takes an equally great or even greater faith to believe that the universe was ripe for creating itself, then suddenly had the capacity to create life, a balanced system of physics in atoms and molecular makeup, and already had basic foundations of the universe just there.

Do you propose it had existed all along, that the materials were there since the beginning of time?
This manner of thinking is exactly the same as God. I believe God was always existing, and we don"t have the capacity to understand such a celestial being. Second, science has only provided theories, even modern day science can"t prove that the Big Bang, in either form, to have truly occurred.

Very well, let"s follow this line of logic.

We know a car cannot create itself, it requires a intellectual being to create it, such as a human. We should also reason that organic beings like humans could not create themselves, therefore an even superior being was required.

Organic beings are superior entities compared to that of in-organic entities, such as cars or robots, due their limited mobility and independent capacities.
I argue that organic beings are the superior creations of that of God. While robotics and machines are the inferior creations of humans, God"s creation.

Do you propose that superior beings can be created by accident, while inferior beings need a creator?
Posted by Dinis 3 months ago
Dinis
Very well, you question how I must have a great deal of faith in believing there to be a creator. It takes an equally great or even greater faith to believe that the universe was ripe for creating itself, then suddenly had the capacity to create life, a balanced system of physics in atoms and molecular makeup, and already had basic foundations of the universe just there.

Do you propose it had existed all along, that the materials were there since the beginning of time?
This manner of thinking is exactly the same as God. I believe God was always existing, and we don"t have the capacity to understand such a celestial being. Second, science has only provided theories, even modern day science can"t prove that the Big Bang, in either form, to have truly occurred.

Very well, let"s follow this line of logic.

We know a car cannot create itself, it requires a intellectual being to create it, such as a human. We should also reason that organic beings like humans could not create themselves, therefore an even superior being was required.

Organic beings are superior entities compared to that of in-organic entities, such as cars or robots, due their limited mobility and independent capacities.
I argue that organic beings are the superior creations of that of God. While robotics and machines are the inferior creations of humans, God"s creation.

Do you prose that superior beings can be created by accident, while inferior beings need a creator?
Posted by Demon88 3 months ago
Demon88
You use the term nothing to imply the absence of anything, and thus assert nothing can come from nothing. This is logically true. In the absence of everything there can be nothing. However, when science uses the term nothing it has a much different meaning.

If one were to describe the universe today we would talk about stars, planets, moons, comets, etc. If we were to rewind time to before these bodies formed we would have particles and gases unseen to our eyes. This would be a universe where nothing exists. Yet it is not a blank canvas devoid of substance. Also the Big Bang is a term far too often misused as it describes an expansion event not the formation or popping into existence of matter. No scientist claims there was once a nothing that birthed a something.

As for the idea that some being can exist which violates your very own assertion is intellectually dishonest. You have framed the debate in such a way to force your opponent to taking up an argument which may not be their own, that is the idea of Your idea of nothing creating something. Even if that were to be absolutely true it would by no means equate to their being proof a god exists. The logic does not follow, "because nothing cannot come from noting therefore a god must exist" is not a rational nor logical argument.

Before you can assert properties to your god, such as being beyond space/time or needing a creator you must first prove this being exists. Then, and only then, can you begin to discuss the finer points of what characteristics such a being may possess.
Posted by Dinis 3 months ago
Dinis
Elaborate?
Posted by canis 3 months ago
canis
Hi.. Another "magic" story...
Posted by Dinis 3 months ago
Dinis
No, it is a correct form of logic.

Nothing comes from nothing in a physical matter. But a spiritual being is not bound by those rules, for it is not something in our realm as humans or even the universe.
Posted by canis 3 months ago
canis
"God is outside of creation, He is the one who was never created, but is eternal. He is not formed by anything, He just IS. He created everything out of nothing and has control over existence.
God is outside of creation, He is the one who was never created, but is eternal. He is not formed by anything, He just IS. He created everything out of nothing and has control over existence."

You do not even follow your own logic.."nothing comes from nothing"...So according to your own logic you are just telling a "magic" story...
This debate has 6 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.