Is God real?
Debate Rounds (4)
I say no arguments next round.
Both sides must provide some argumentation and reasoning. Just saying that there is no real proof is not enough for Con to win.
Now on to my argument. I believe that God does exist for the main reason that the world is very complex and perfect. There are so many factors that make life on earth possible that it is unreasonable that it was an accident. I heard an analogy once that said if you have a 10,000 piece puzzle and you throw all the pieces on the ground, no matter how many times you do it you will not end up with a fully completed puzzle. It takes an intelligent being to put together the puzzle. I find it much more likely that the universe was created intelligently instead of randomly exploding into place.
The bible does not explain exactly how Earth was created, so it is completely possible that the big bang was how God created the universe.
This is false because it says (using bible to disprove his argument) as stated "In the beginning God created the heavens and the EARTH.
He also states that
But the Big Bang does not disprove God.
This too is dis proven by what i previously stated by the Bible never mentions the Big Bang
He states that
world is very complex and perfect
If it is so perfect then why doesn't everyone get along? Why does everyone have their own personal views of the world? why isn't every argument one sided? Why is God then for questioned?
What I mean by the Big Bang explains maybe that the big bang made life on Earth ONLY
and also families usually don't have just one child and stop (don't know exact percentages) so why would God (one child referring to humans not just one race)
For his argument states that
It takes an intelligent being to put together the puzzle
Not every person is Intelligent and according to you God is God not a PERSON so you can't clam that plus almost every one can put together a puzzle just a different time rates so you expect me to believe that someone can make the universe and the Earth in 7 DAYS? I don't believe it.
My argument is that God wouldn't know what a family is if he is alone he wouldn't know how to create MATTER which I used to prove that God can't excite if matter can't be made or destroyed so how can he create this "perfect" world you clam we live in. If God experimented with it then it was an accident!So don't clam that. Well according to Christians and you that God is perfect the he would know what number to make.
First, the Con says that the Big Bang disproves God. He does this by saying that the Bible never mentions the Big Bang. This is an illogical argument because no one understood the universe back when the Bible was written. The creation of the universe was described in ways that people could understand it back when it was written. For this reason, the Big Bang does not disprove God.
The next point that Con makes is that our world is not perfect, so there cannot be a God. When I made this argument, I was talking about Earth and the conditions required for life to exist, not the society of the humans that inhabit it. Con's argument about people not being perfect does not disprove God either. God created us as imperfect beings so we could learn and grow on Earth then return to him. The imperfection is part of the Christian understanding of God's plan and is therefore not reason to disbelieve God.
Con's next point is that if God exists, then he would create more than one species. Con has no backing or logic to this claim, only the question "why not?". Also, Con's analogy about about most families not stopping at one child works in my favor because God did not stop at one, he created billions of people. Finally, Con says that the Big Bang is the reason that there is only life on earth, but this neither disproves God, nor does it make any sense.
The next point is a continuation of my complexity of creation argument. The Con makes a bunch of jumbled arguments against my analogy, but they do not disprove God. The puzzle idea was simply an analogy; not all the parts will fit in exactly. Finally, Con says that God could not create the world in seven days. This is an illogical argument for two reasons. Firstly, God is God, so by definition he can do things, like creating the universe, that our mortal minds cannot fully comprehend. Second, day and night were not in existence when God started creating the universe, so there is no reason to think that he measured his time by our measurement of days.
Finally, Con says that God would not know how to create a family or matter. This is unreasonable because humans did not need to be told how to create families, so why should God not know? Also, as I said before, God is God so creating matter is not an issue for him.
I am winning this debate because the Con has no arguments that disprove God and my argument about the complexity of creation still stands.
Yes my argument is logical because the Big Bang disproves God you are illogical because you just said that people didn't understand the universe so you just said God isn't real because the people didn't understand the universe so how can God be real.
I am too if Earth is so perfect so why are resources limited and why do certain disasters happen that kill thousands.
YOU NEED TO READ AFTER THAT I MEAN THAT HUMANS!!!!! ARE ONE CHILD. so it doesn't support you
God is God what does that even mean God is God you are you I am ME it doesn't even prove that he is real and if God is only one thing then how can you compare him to himself? NO The Bible says on DAY ONE... so yeah there were days. Human do get told how to create families and GOD was not so how could he know LISTEN TO WHAT I AM SAYING MATTER CAN NOT BE MADE OR DESTROYED.
I am winning because the pro is using ill efficient facts does things I tell him not to do I bring reason and I do support it.
You have not that concludes this debate.
First, Con just saying that the Big Bang disproves God does not prove anything. He did not explain how God was disproved, so the Big Bang should not play a role in the voting. Even if you do vote by the Big Bang, God is compatible with the theory, as I have explained before.
Next, Con says that our Earth is not perfect. Once again, I am talking about the conditions required to support life, not circumstances that make life less enjoyable. Compared to every other planet that scientists know about, our Earth is the only one remotely capable of sustaining life. This is what I am talking about and I believe that this is evidence of God.
I have no idea what Con is talking about when he says "YOU NEED TO READ AFTER THAT I MEAN THAT HUMANS!!!!! ARE ONE CHILD", so I am skipping it.
What I meant by "God is God" is that because of the nature of God as understood by Christians, God is not subject to all the laws of chemistry, physics, etc., such as the law of conservation of mass. I'm sorry if this was confusing, but it does not change my arguments.
Con's argument that God would not know how to create families is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, God pretty much invented families. There is no reason that God could not create something new. Also, in the non-religious view of evolution, there had to be the first family at some point. Because of this, there is no reason that God shouldn't be able to make a family.
I should win this debate because the Con has no strong reason that God is not real, but my argument about the complexity of creation still stands. Voters, please keep in mind that there is no real way to prove weather or not God exists, so vote based on argumentation and without bias. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Secondguy was more lucid and cogent, better at refuting his opponent's arguments. Firstguy flirted with incoherency, sentences quit scanning.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.