The Instigator
tightenup314
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
zgb1997
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Is God real

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 7 votes the winner is...
zgb1997
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,747 times Debate No: 30253
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (7)

 

tightenup314

Pro

i have gone through all the things about darwin and the bible. i am a catholic born and raised so i believe that there is one but im curious about what people think
zgb1997

Con

Challenge accepted.
I await your argumentation in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
tightenup314

Pro

God is real how else did we get here. there is no way a little organism could develop into a huge adult like us today
zgb1997

Con

I thank my opponent for presenting his exposition.

Said exposition, however, was horribly unarticulated, and it was very hard to discern how what my opponent has written would be a proof in support of the existence of God.
I do believe, though, that what my opponent wanted to say is that the theory of evolution is highly improbable.

Since his exposition was only one sentence and I have a lot of writing space - well, why don't I just go and explain and prove evolution.


THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

To even begin learning about, and understanding, evolution, one must begin from the moment the first nuclei in the universe were created, later forming atoms.

The first atoms formed were those of hydrogen, the simplest element of the periodic table. Later, nuclear fusion in the furnaces of stars would go on to form more complex elements, such as nitrogen and oxygen.
As the universe progressed through its early years, so did more of these elements form, and through the explosions and accretion [1] through which our planet was formed, came onto the surface of that very planet.

Due to the conditions of the early Earth, which were extreme heat, frequent electrical discharges etc., chemical synthesis of the first compounds was made possible.
One such compound is water, which is a molecule made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom.

The problem in understanding evolution is what happens next - the creation of organic compounds from inorganic ones. Religious people like to claim this is impossible.

However, the Miller-Urey experiment, conducted in 1952. [2], proved the contrary. Miller and Urey simulated the conditions of the early Earth, adding elements such as hydrogen etc., and the result of the experiment was astonishing - amino acids (organic compounds), sythesized from inorganic elements and compounds.
This definitely proved that organic matter can originate from inorganic matter.

Since the early Earth was booming with the conditions named, a large number of amino acids formed - that was more than sufficient to form the first peptides, which would then go on to further sythesize into polypeptide chains.

The moment when polypeptdie chains exist, the evolution of life can begin. Polypeptide chains are the main prerequisite for the formation of the first cells, and we can almost definitely state that their creation led to the creation of the first cell.

Afterwards, cells would become single-cell organisms, and some cells formed colonies - creating the first multi-cell organisms. To survive in the harsh conditions, these organisms' genetic structure, and by extension, their cell structure, changed to suit the conditions, and they evolved.
This is the first trace of evolution on Earth.

What followed is the growth in size of such organisms, to accomodate more adaptations to the constantlynig condistions, as well as development of sentience and instincts. That is a long and interesting story, but unfortunately, there's not much space for me here, so I'll leave it as it is.

After some time, evolution created the common ancestor of humans and apes - the australopithecus [3]. It is an extinct genus of hominids, and its most prominent early subgroups were australopithecus amanensis, australopithecus afarensis, and australopithecus africanus. Through examination of the australopithecus fossils, scientists were able to conclude with certainty that the australopithecus very well matches the defined stage of evolution of hominids at that given time (about 3.5 million years ago).
Another proof is one well known - humans share 96% of their DNA with the common chimp. [4]

Following that, there came the Neanderthal hominids, and the Cro-magnon ones, finally resulting in the species we now know as homo sapiens.


That is the historical flow of evolution.
If one wishes to look for modern proof of evolution, there is enough of that as well:

1. ATAVISMS [5] - Atavisms are evolutionary throwbacks. They are defined as the appearance of an evolutionary trait which is considered obsolete - such as tails on humans, which we sometimes see appear. Such appearances re even documented on human embryos. The human appendix is also an atavism

2. DEFUNCT GENES - Some genes found in certain species (humans as well) have no use in today's life. However, such, or similar genes, were adaptations made by certain organisms long ago - and yet they appear today. That is definite proof of evolution.


Finally, I'll only comment on my opponent's horrible wording - "no way a little organism could develop into a huge adult".
Children. Your arguments is invalid.
This demonstrates why proper wording is key.

Now, after proving evolution, I'll add my own argument as to the nonexistence of God.


LACK OF EVIDENCE AND INCONSISTENCY

For any claim to be considered true, it needs to be testable and falsifiable. Religion is the opposite - it is dogmatic. Indeed, it is against religion to question dogmas, for to do so would be to question the belief itself.

Yet, religion wishes that its theory of a creator be accepted as a universal explanation of the existence of the universe and life.
Unfortunately, as Cristopher Hitchens once remarked: "What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". [6]

The only so-called evidence for the existence of God is the Bible, Qu'ran or any other holy book. There are two key problems here: these books offer information that we definitely know is wrong, for example the young Earth theory, which was proven to be wrong by radiometric carbon dating.
The other problem is obvious - there are many holy books. In this insignificant spot of the universe, there are loads of groups which claim that it is their deity who controls the universe. Are they all correct? Or all wrong? I'd say the latter.

Furthermore, let's take one religion, Christianity for example. Some parts of the Bible are interpreted metaphorically, while in some situations, the Bible is quoted with immense precision. How on Earth do creationists know when and how to interpret the Bible?
Can we really accept as evidence a theory whose only proof is a 2000 year old book, the wording of which cannot be agreed upon by its supporters themselves?
Definitely not.

Finally - the biggest problem religion has - scientists. Those pesky scientists that just can't keep their noses out of everything and keep proving stuff, right? Well, religion seems to he decided that whatever scientists prove, it'll just be claimed to be God's creation. However, it seems God himself had no idea he invented thing x before scientists actually discovered it. This shows the failure of the "God of the gaps" argument at its worst.

Generally, a doctrine which either tries to pacify its opponents, or incorporate their findings, is extremely inconsistent both inside and outside and not to be accepted. If you combine that with an extreme lack of proof for any of its claims, we get a fine reason to reject God. No proof, no evidence. And the God of the gaps is getting smaller.

The burden of proof is on religion to prove the existence of a creator (see Russell's teapot [7]). Until that happens, the idea of a creator is to be logically rejected and considered a figment of imagination.

Back to my opponent.

SOURCES:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikiquote.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
tightenup314

Pro

i know the evolution theory but the word theory is in their the definition of theory is that a lot of people agree with it but it can also be proven false. that being said you don't hear the theory of God or anything like that. that being said it is true and there is no way of proving it wrong and i don't need more then a couple of sentences ]
zgb1997

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for presenting his arguments and for this debate as a whole.

To begin with, he left much of my case untouched, especially my argument about the lack of evidence for the existence of God, as well as the inconsistency of religion.

His only attack towards my proof of the theory of evolution revolved around the definition of the word "theory". Unfortunately, it seems my opponent is not familiar with said definition.

The definition of "scientific theory" is as follows:

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method - and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon." [1]

This applies to the theory of evolution, which has had proof offered as to its validity time and time again - some of that proof was mentioned in my exposition in round 2, but it was largely ignored by my opponent.
Furthermore, this definition also states that theories are accepted as valid explanations of phenomenons - this also applies to evolution.

Now, of course the theory of evolution is falsifiable - in fact, if a theory is even to be accepted in the first place, it must leave some space for scientific falsification. A theory that lacks said space (like the theory - nay, hypothesis - of a creator) is to be immediately rejected and dismissed.

My opponent then goes on to claim that:

a) No one refers to the idea of God as a theory
b) The idea of God cannot be definitely proven wrong


a) True. The idea of God isn't a theory. It cannot be, because it doesn't meet the criteria stated by the definition of the term scientific theory. The idea of God is a hypothesis, and a false one. It is a hypothesis made out of the blue with no evidence - indeed, if one were to ridicule said hypothesis, they would not be mistaken in doing so.

b) This is exactly why the idea is to be dismissed. If I, say, proclaimed the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Ceiling Cat, could you prove it wrong? You couldn't. But yet, due to the incredulity of said proclamation, you'd dismiss it, and you would be correct.
Obviously, you haven't read about Russell's teapot, in utter disregard to the fact that the link to an explanati was displayed plainly for you to use. Given that unfortunate circumstance, I'll explain.
The burden of proof is on religion to prove existence. We can know with almost complete certainty that the idea of God is false. There is only the smallest percent of space left in that dismissal, the one for falsifiability. Science is fair, you see. It always leaves space for falsifiability. Until religion proves its outlandish claims and stops using the "God of the gaps", said astronomicaly small percent is to be disregarded as a viable explanation.

Furthermore, a fallacy was committed by my opponent - one known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. [2]
What it encompasses in this particular subject is the statement: "We can't prove it is wrong, so it is definitely true."
Do you not see a problem here? Or a contradiction, perhaps?

I know, I just do, talk to the hand - the favorite religious argument. Well, I won't be talking to the hand. I'll rather appeal to reason. Reason which keeps lowering the space for religion to swim in and adapt to science. And soon, that space will diminish.
Due to that fact, as long as religion offers no proof for its claims, it is to be dismissed.

Vote con!


SOURCES:

[1] http://www.livescience.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
LOL Is god 4 real!

Probability says NO!

Evidence for god in last 200 years, NIL!
Perceivable possible evidence arising from god, NIL!

Evidence for genuine faith healings: NIL!
Evidence for Jesus performing miracles: NIL!

Legally, Jesus did not perform a single miracle, because hearsay, conspired witness accounts (bible) and anecdotes cannot be presented as evidence!

Signs from god as proposed by buybull, NIL!

From weighing up all the evidence for god.

The probability it exists is less than 0.001 %

BTW: Definition of OMNIPOTENT: Infinite Testicles!

Aye M8! :-D-
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
LOL Is god 4 real!

Probability says NO!

Evidence for god in last 200 years, NIL!
Perceivable possible evidence arising from god, NIL!

Evidence for genuine faith healings: NIL!
Evidence for Jesus performing miracles: NIL!

Legally, Jesus did not perform a single miracle, because hearsay, conspired witness accounts (bible) and anecdotes cannot be presented as evidence!

Signs from god as proposed by buybull, NIL!

From weighing up all the evidence for god.

The probability it exists is less than 0.001 %

BTW: Definition of OMNIPOTENT: Infinite Testicles!

Aye M8! :-D-
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
why peoples take the debate. if they don't know. you have edge but how easy you lose.
Posted by zgb1997 3 years ago
zgb1997
I'm looking forward to it. You just name the resolution and I'll do it.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
no problem i would like to debate the people like you.
other wise i was debating with a guy who wasted my time when saying nothing.
this is the time which i don't have much i do a lot of thing on daily bases have job and still doing a professional studies also has some family responsibility.
so i will add you as a friend and i will some day have debate with you IN SHA ALLAH ( if ALLAH wanted).
this is my favorite topic to talk about ALLAH or you say GOD.
this topic is so sensitive but ALLAH is so merciful he don't stop us talking about him.
even in negative sense like peoples do.
he is honorable he is ALL IN ALL. do not need to be admired by us.
there is every thing which admire him in different ways................go and search heart beat you will get a little idea.
indeed there are many body parts which are not under our control...............indeed under the control of him so indeed they admire him.
well spiritual touch it was.
which science don't recognize as it do not recognize spirit.
leave in talking and arguing i have spend my whole life in this................lol
if i start i don't stop.................lol
and this is not the place.
see you debate very soon.
stay blessed all of you.
bye
Posted by zgb1997 3 years ago
zgb1997
Mirza, with all due respect, the Bible and the Qur'an, regardless of the diversity of their teachings, are both holy books. And both are used as evidence for a god (be those different gods as they may). I never argued about the respective teachings of the two holy books.
Makhdoom, I wouldn't object to debating you.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
lolllllll
you put scientific criteria for every thing.
which is wrong.
as its not necessary every thing should under the laws made by science. because science is limited.
there are lots of moment science says we still don't know how this happens and what is behind it.
these give it name x-file..................x-case...................................x-rays
lol
well
man where the man is going.
ALLAH said in Qur'an why you ask those things if know will hurt you,
while the Qur'an is revealing no doubt you will informed but its not in best in your best interest.
i come many time in this situation i thought what i would not have learnt this knowldege i would be living a normal life.
what if you see him (ALLAH)
you would be throwing stones on him why you killed my father or brother.
and he is not in front of you so i make it (seen the unseen)
and let you live.
other wise if some one insult some one in front of him.
doubt we fight.
about about ALLAH (GOD)
he will kill you the spot.
well this is also logic
but not evidence which is also have, if i talk about him it would take 1000000 of year the thing will not stop the logic will not stops the evidence will not stop.
but what will happens than.....................the more you get the more you become accountable.,
so e afraid.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
lolllllll
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
dear con.
i wish i could be debating with you that i will say.................how the fist element come into existence.
you never heard about big bang.
how could a one atom become a big joint mass of matter than how it was explode the scientist still believe there was some mysterious force which did.
well i will come with the experiment................which you can perform at home ..............
and than i will give disclaimer your heart and brain should be strong other wise you would end up like them.
http://listverse.com...
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
dear con.
i wish i could be debating with you that i will say.................how the fist element come into existence.
you never heard about big bang.
how could a one atom become a big joint mass of matter than how it was explode the scientist still believe there was some mysterious force which did.
well i will come with the experiment................which you can perform at home ..............
and than i will give disclaimer your heart and brain should be strong other wise you would end up like them.
http://listverse.com...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
tightenup314zgb1997Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof. Pro made claims (or asked questions) but never defended his position, never tried to meet the burden of proof. Pro's rash spelling made him a nuisance to read even though his posts were short.
Vote Placed by Billdekel 3 years ago
Billdekel
tightenup314zgb1997Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Tightenup?s argument was a simple ignorance argument. His replies did nothing to respond to zgb
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
lit.wakefield
tightenup314zgb1997Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not even really argue for a god. I wonder if this was very painful for him.
Vote Placed by thedebatekid 3 years ago
thedebatekid
tightenup314zgb1997Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It seemed pro just gave up after round 2. He did not make a definitive statement. Nor did he try to disprove con's points in depth. Pro di not capitalize the first letter of every sentence. It is quite clear that con gave the better argument, and he used sources. I believe con earned all of the points a gave him fro this debate. Good job con.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
tightenup314zgb1997Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution was "God is real", not "God isn't real." Thus, you need to prove God exists. Con doesn't need to prove God doesn't exist. Con did answer your question of how the world could function without a God and so wins the debate. Sources also to Con for presenting sources.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
tightenup314zgb1997Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to con because pro never actually backs up his arguments. In every round, he only uses 2-3 sentences and only makes claims without using any proof. Sources to con because pro uses no sources. Spelling and grammar to con because pro does not capitalize his words. Conduct is even becuase both sides were friendly with good sportsmanship, and there were no personal attacks on either side.
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
tightenup314zgb1997Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's only arguments were that the theory of evolution might be wrong and that we can't disprove God's existence. The first point is irrelevant because it doesn't prove any god exists, although Con more than sufficiently defended evolution. Con also pointed out the argument from ignorance, which leaves no standing proof of any god by Pro. Con argued in the lack of evidence, it's fair to reject the claim, so arguments go to Con. I don't normally vote for S&G, but it looks like Pro wasn't even trying to formulate grammatically correct sentences. Sources go to Con for obvious reasons. If I have to, I can elaborate in the comments section, but I don't think I should need to. Overall, this was a very lopsided debate.