The Instigator
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
ds3020
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is God real?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,185 times Debate No: 11699
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

While I know this is a VERY generic debate topic, I have been trying to amass as much evidence for god as I can. As an atheist, my preacher wishes to have a 'talk' with me about my belief. I plan on proving to him irrefutable evidence against God. To do so, I need to know every argument that could be made for him and that is why I am holding this common debate. As a note, I would like these arguments to revolve around the Christian god, or god in general. Also Round 1 and the beginning or Round 2 will be the posting of the arguments. In the next round my opponent will discuss WHY he/she believes God to be real. Then in the beginning of Round 2 I will refute case and present my own. Rounds 2 and 3 will be rebuttals, and round 4 no new arguments will be presented. I look forward to any opponent willing to accept this debate. Good luck to whoever accepts.
ds3020

Pro

Here are a few arguments he may or may not make,

1. Things have to had come from somewhere, to explain this from a more scientifically palatable perspective: Matter and energy had to come from somewhere. The only explanation for this would be some transcendent form of creation
2. George Bush(just kidding). Glenn Beck
3. There are many things we cannot explain without supernatural intervention. Why a ducks quack cannot echo. Why I accepted this debate. Why Tiger woods is so amazing.
4. No proof that a god doesn't exist.

ha. I have no intentions of actually convincing you, but these would be the foreseeable arguments from my perspective.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

Thanks for accepting the debate. But, because you accepted, I expect a full debate on the matter, and that you will try to win your hardest. I will now refute my opponents attacks then present, if space permits, my points against God.

1. Something can't come from nothing.

Relativity lost its place when cosmologist began to use it to find what happened in the very beginning. But a new field of science that can explain basically EVERYTHING is coming into view. This is called quantum physics and scientists are more often basing their research according to this science. A theory proposed, is that, because of quantum gravity, there is no space time boundary. This is basically saying that you will not hit a point in space where you simply cannot go any further. Since space is time, this means time is never ending. As time itself is a constant, this means it truly has no beginning or end. It just simply is. This means all of space had no beginning and that it is completely infinite. According to quantum physics this is completely possible and eliminates the need to create a reason for not knowing the facts, like God.

2. George Bush is an idiot.

I never considered this.... Perhaps... perhaps there is a God..... Oh wow... I have to think on this...... NOT!!!!

3. Cannot explain why some things happen.

[http://www.snopes.com...] Ducks quack. The rest is stupid.

4. No proof.

This is why I will present my case.

MY CASE

This is very few reasons as compared to the ones I have. Just for the sake of time on my part.

1. The Bible contradicts itself.

According to Christianity, the Bible is perfect and flawless, yet, this is not true. [http://atheistempire.com...] This site alone has 180+ inconsistencies in the Bible. If the Bible was real, then it would not have these in there. Because the Bible is not real, this must mean God is not either.

2. God has never been experienced using one of the five senses.

All objects can be experienced with one of the 5 senses. Either God is the ONLY exception in this universe (scientifically and logically improbable) or he is just an idea and doesn't have to conform with reality. (Much more likely).

3. Something can't come from nothing.

I have shown the universe is infinite, and this mean nothing was created from nothing. But what created God? Since he 'created' the universe, what created him? Since something can't come from nothing, God cannot exist.

I have given only three, but very important facts as to why God doesn't exist. I am displeased with the fact that my opponent chose to only make 2 real (weak) attacks. This is important to me and I highly suggest my opponent makes A LOT of attacks in the next round. Until next round.
ds3020

Pro

(Note to my opponent, I'm trying to present arguements from the perspective of a typical pastor, which may make the arguments a bit odd or infantile)
You misunderstand the time-space correlation, time is a function of space, they are not one in the same. Quantum physics has many inconsistencies. It proposes that the universe is infinite(spacial sense of the word), and is expanding. It also concedes that there is a finite amount of matter/energy (the two may be interchanged) in the universe. But the idea of a zero point field and zpe(zero point energy) have been fairly accepted by those within the science. The main argument against zpe (proposed by quantum physicist Mikio Kaku) is that it violates the law of conservation of energy.
Seeing the flaws of quantum physics as a science it should (by my opponents standards) be rejected.

Seeing this it does not refute that the matter of the universe (and hence energy of such) had to come from somewhere.

I know GB is an idiot, I like to add a little bit of levity to arguments. Laughter is good for the soul.

So there is an explanation for everything? Simply not true. Human intuition and emotion (excluding evolutionary imperatives for the fight or flight instinct and mating) exist, and for no perceivable evolutionary purpose.

Moving to my opponents case.

From atheistempire.com "Many inconsistencies may not be the fault of the original biblical authors; translation and reproduction may be at fault.". In addition to this, these inconsistencies rule out a literal interpretation, but a figurative one is still plausible.

There are very many things that haven't been observed with the five(+) senses. Love. Quantum Physics. Joy. Emotion in general. Everything you said about quantum physics is based on conjecture that cannot by your logic exist in reality.

God exists as a transcendent reality, not bound by the physical plane. The laws of the physical plane do not have to apply to something that exists separate of them. Thereby god exists

Moving to a few attacks that I'm presuming my opponent wouldn't mind hearing due to my first posts lack of substance.

The extreme complexity of conditions for the universe to support life require either a near impossible alignment of statistical implausibilities, or some form of transcendent creation or planning.

Your attempts to refute something you don't believe exists shows some form of doubt. That doubt proves that there are items troubling you. Otherwise why would you care?

I do apologize for the lackluster arguments but as I said in the comments my niece is ill and my duties to her far outweigh my duties to this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

I appologize if I may have seemed rude in my last speech. I certainly did not mean to and respect is my top concern. I will now refute my opponent's arguments.

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING

Actually, my opponent is mistaken. Space is the exact same thing as time. It is most commonly referred to as 'spacetime' and is observed in both the theory of relativity and quantum physics. My opponent states that there are many 'inconsistencies' in quantum physics, but these can only be seen when you compare them to the theory of relativity. For example, there is a limit of energy in relativity, but not in quantum physics. In quantum physics an UNLIMITED amount of energy exists hence, none created. So nothing was created, and this means no creator. [http://library.thinkquest.org...]

GEORGE BUSH IS AN IDIOT

My opponent doesn't seem to realize that 'I HAVE NO SOUL!' Hahaha!

DEFENSE OF CASE

INCONSISTENCIES

My opponent is assuming WAY to much if he is trying to tell me that all 180 inconsistencies where because of mistranslation. This is a ridiculous assumption and opponent only mentions it to try and refute fact. It is possible maybe 10 or 11 were mistakes but over 180? No.

ONLY SEE WHAT IS THERE

My opponent only mentions ideas when telling me what things can be seen. Love, emotion, and quantum physics are all idea, made in the minds of men. Ideas are not a physical construct, like God supposedly is, and cannot actually be seen. God, on the other hand, is supposed to be an actual being, and an actual object. As I stated, any object can actually be sensed with one of the 5 senses. Though it would make more sense that God is just an IDEA and that is why there is no way to see him. To say that God exists on some other plane not experienced by science is ridiculous. This is like my saying there is a magical cat that is always with us that you simply cannot see. Anything ridiculous could be protected in this way and there is certainly not a reason anyone should believe this.

EXPLANATION FOR EVERYTHING

My opponent says that not EVERYTHING has a purpose but this is not true. We evolved emotions and they help us increase our knowledge. For example, emotion is what made us start this debate. It is possible that someone may get understanding from it and, alas, emotion has an evolutionary purpose. As should everyone else.

COMPLEXITY

This is an attack I presumed would happen. My opponent states that something so complex and utterly perfect as our universe MUST have had some sort of intelligent design. This, though, is not true. The universe has been around a long time. According to quantum physics, forever, and even by relativity a VERY long time still. The fact is, that the design of our perfect planet was by chance. Even if their was a .00000000000001% chance (just as an example) that our Earth would happen at the creation of a planet, a span of infinite years guarantees that this will happen. We just find it so odd because we only view a short amount of time. If you look at the chance over a long run you see that it is very likely a universe like ours eventually happened.

WHY REFUTE A FACT YOU KNOW TRUE

Well, I am holding this so I might show OTHER people that God is a lie. Many atheists will sit back and watch Christians make fools of themselves but I wish to EXPLAIN with logic and science the legitimacy of my claims.
ds3020

Pro

ds3020 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

This debate was important to me. But this, does not matter anymore. My opponent has obviously ceded and shown with his arguments obvious laziness in the matter of this debate. For my arguments and previously mentioned reason, vote I - Neg.
ds3020

Pro

ds3020 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
He voted for me. Eh, I don't hate that much anymore
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
I officially hate my opponent.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Puck, that was the funniest thing I have ever read in my life.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
Reminds me of the Stephen Fry quote:

"God once had Bach and Michelangelo on his side, he had Mozart, and now who does he have? People with ginger whiskers and tinted spectacles who reduce the glories of theology to a kind of sharing, you know? That's what religion has become, a feeble and anaemic nonsense..."
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
This could have been a good debate. :(
Posted by ds3020 6 years ago
ds3020
Jack,
oh. Ic.
I will attempt my best to refute and rebut my points but some unexpected issues have come up. My niece is in the hospital and is ill so if my arguments "smack" of fail, I apologize. I had every intention of devoting a good amount of time to it but.. yea..
hope you understand.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
This smacks of fail.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
You can't prove or make probable an omniscience or omnipotent God.

I think Jack Nixon can prove why.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Sherlock - I see what you are saying. I did not see it that way. But I am hoping my opponent will take responsibility and it will not be necessary to take that position.

ds3020 - I have a pastor because I used to go to church. :/
Posted by ds3020 6 years ago
ds3020
Jack,
Why do you have a pastor?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
Mr_Jack_Nixonds3020Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
Mr_Jack_Nixonds3020Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by ds3020 6 years ago
ds3020
Mr_Jack_Nixonds3020Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70