The Instigator
Trooper
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Daltonian
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Is God real?

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 6 votes the winner is...
Daltonian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,312 times Debate No: 55445
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

Trooper

Pro

God is real. Why is God real you may ask.
1. The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

2. Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

Just a few of example of why God is real
Daltonian

Con

I'm glad to accept your challenge. I will go right ahead and rebut your points, and I apologize if you wish I had not.

Before I start to rebut your points, I must point out that even if you were correct on every single point you've presented (which you are not), that still provides no precise evidence that God is real, only that we live in a world that has some probability of being created by a god.

There is no solid correlation between the "points" you have provided and a definite existence of god, and if you think there is, please say so and justify it

1. "Size Perfection"
- Why do you consider Earth's size to be perfect?
- Do you suggest that an alternate form of life that is dependent on different elements of existence could not survive in a different scenario?

2. "Water"
You say no living being can survive without it, and that water is uniquely suited to life. I would argue the opposite, that all life have suited themselves to water.
- Why does the existence of water solidify God's existence? Could it not also signify the existence of evolution, and the suggestion that all species evolved and adapted to accommodate themselves with water?

3. "Only planet"
The suggestion that Earth is the only planet in, as according to science, an endless universe is ridiculous. You can not cognitively say that "Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining any type of life" if we as species do not have omnipotent knowledge of the entire universe, none the less the exact functions of some of the moons in our own Solar System (say, Titan)
- What leads you to affirmably know there is no other planet like Earth?
- Have you seen the entire universe?

I await your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Trooper

Pro

Be willing to examine science. As we reason, do not suppose or hope. Stand on indisputable facts. We will see facts from a broad array of different kinds of science. They will demonstrate that an all-powerful Supreme Being, of infinite intelligence, carefully provided more than sufficient proof to remove all doubt that He exists.

The Bible is God"s instruction to mankind. He expects all who are willing to read the Bible, to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21). Surely this God would not then expect us to assume His existence, while instructing us to prove everything else from His Word!

Before beginning this study, remember, assumptions do not count! Neither do superstitious myths or traditions based on ignorance! What can be known from science? Only accept facts. Think rationally and clearly. Then accept what can be proven!
Daltonian

Con

Thank you for your rebuttal. You seem to be straying from the topic at hand: Is God Real?

- You originally attempted to prove God was real through logic. I rebutted. It is now your duty to rebut my hands, since (to my 2nd point)..
- You hold the burden of proof in proving his existence.
- My only burden is refuting your claims to his existence. I have nothing to prove, but rather things to disprove.

1. The Bible
- "The Bible is god's instruction to mankind" - can you prove this? What differentiates this from other religious texts like the Gospel of the FSM? What proves that this document is verifiable?

2. My Duties
I have no duties in proving any inexistence of god, I am not arguing from a "positive" standpoint, but a "negative" standpoint, which claims that, since there is no evidence or verifiable reason (assuming the bible is not verifiable) for me to believe in a god, I will not.

3. What can be known from science
A better question can be, what cannot be known from science? Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Just because, to you, science may be an opponent of religion and some sciences supposedly carry a "bias", that does not change it's definition as simply being knowledge acquired from study. Denying the reliability of genuine science is akin to denying the reliability of knowledge itself, it cannot be done.
Debate Round No. 2
Trooper

Pro

I cannot force you to believe in God, but if you were trying to you should have by now. I can only tell you about God. According to a recent national poll, 93% of all Americans believe that there is a personal God or a Spirit of power. However, nobody has ever seen God with their eyes, and most people agree that God's existence cannot be proven by logical arguments. As many confirmed atheists say, if God's existence cannot be proved, why should anyone believe that He exists?

The ones who believe in the existence of God, especially Christians, have written many long books, short articles, and everything else in between trying to prove God's existence to the doubters. They have used examples from nature; they have constructed logical arguments using scientific facts and theories and philosophical considerations. The nonbelievers have also written many books and articles trying to show that God does not exist. The believers remain believers; the doubters remain doubters. Usually, nothing much is gained for either side by these arguments. But we have found that human beings actually can prove to themselves the existence of God.
Daltonian

Con

Humans can prove the existence of a wide variety of things to themselves; that does not make it true.

Hitler proved to himself that Jews were an inferior race, and I'm sure many have proved to themselves that unicorns exist as well - are these things considered as being true?

The human mind is not definitive or ultimately true, the ability to accept something says nothing to it's genuineness.

Science, the definitive study of nature, and study in it self, has provided no cognitive explanation for a god, there is no reason to assume one is or is not real.

Since we can not assume one is real, I therefore have a lack of belief one exists - I do not believe on does not exist, as that would be a double standard and still an assumption.

You have provided no reason thus far, according to the basis of knowledge, to hold a belief in god. Therefore, I lack one. I do not believe your god isn't definitely real, I just lack any belief in it - agnostic atheism. I await your conclusion and any possible justifications for belief in god that accompany it.

Keep in mind, voters, that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, not with the one listening to it. I should not be responsible for justifying his claims in my own mind, "like the 93% do".
Debate Round No. 3
Trooper

Pro

Nobody can say there is NO god, it is not possible to scientifically prove it. And that's an indisputable proof all by itself. In logic there is a principle that states: every effect must have an adequate cause. This is the basis of all science. This "law" of correct thinking bears a relationship to the origin of the universe. It is well established that the universe has not existed forever. Dr. Robert Jastrow, internationally known space scientist, declared that "modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe."
If the universe has not existed forever, how can its origin be explained? There are only two possibilities: it was self-created; or it was created by something or someone other than itself, and of a nature different than the material. However, no material thing is able to create itself. If that were possible, there would be evidence of such. But the First Law of Thermodynamics argues that matter is not now being created. Since matter could not have formed itself, it must have a non-material source, i.e., a "mind" cause. Great thinkers have concluded that this Mind is God.

It's been great debating with you
Thank You
Daltonian

Con

Nobody can say there is no god; but one can say that they hold no belief in one. You can not justify a negative; the disbelief in god is not stating something, rather, denying something. It is not maintaining the position that god is definitely untrue, but rather that there is no reason to believe one exists.

The origin of the universe may be explainable, it may not be. Whether we know the answers right now is irrelevant - we can never fully understand the origin of the universe, as no one was present to witness it. Who are we, and who are you, at our current level of knowledge, to say that material can not create itself? Is god the only non-material source, ever? Or are there other ones - ones that science could explain? Your suggestions are not definite, and how can you attempt to say that God is real if all of your "proposals" are only mere possibilities?

All my opponent has done in this debate is suggest just that - a possibility that god is real - and I do not deny that possibility. Heck, I don't deny the possibility that somewhere in the universe, unicorns exist too - but I don't believe it's true either, because there's no reason for me to.

I don't believe that god is definitively unreal. I have never said there is no god, only stated there's no reason for me to believe in one. I don't have a belief in him because there is no reason to - I simply state the utter reality: we as humans can not be definite about anything beyond the realm of science. And for anything beyond the realm of science, no evidence exists to justify it. The lack of belief in something and an actual belief that something does not exist are easily separable. The origin of the universe, the fine details of how our Earth functions - that's irrelevant. All we can do, as humans, is differentiate between something that has evidence for us to believe it is true, and something that is not. We have no power beyond that. If we did not weigh our decisions and do things for a reason, we would not have made it this far. An intellectual needs justification for things - whether that justification be for something as simple as having an early lunch, or believing in unicorns.. so why is god any different?
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
TrooperDaltonianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: it seems pro didn't exactly take this as a debate but rather a conversation, and he didn't try to uphold his part after con rebutted his round one arguments
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
TrooperDaltonianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's round 1 arguments were shot down and after that point the debate went off course and was more like a conversation and or preaching.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
TrooperDaltonianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refutes Pro's constructive as unscientific. Con refutes Pro's first rebuttal as baseless question-begging. Con refutes Pro's second rebuttal as ad populum, Con refutes Pro's third rebuttal as a positive statement not backed by facts, unlike the alternative.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
TrooperDaltonianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided no real tangible evidence for God, only Assumptions out of Ignorance of the Universe. There are millions of other planets with exactly the same ability to sustain life as Earth. Originally Earth had no oxygen in it's atmosphere and if it was not for photosynthetic bacteria forming, and endowing the earth with oxygen, it would still be uninhabitable for animal life, including humans. Con pointed out Pro's fallacies. Nobody provided any sources and there was good conduct on both sides.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
TrooperDaltonianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't even touch on filling his burden of proof.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
baus
TrooperDaltonianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro literally did not provide a single piece of evidence to support his case. Burden of Proof was on Pro, as Con rightly pointed out and Pro came nowhere near meeting this in the slightest.