The Instigator
Candid_atheism
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
AnotherInconvenienttruth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Candid_atheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 72633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

Candid_atheism

Con

Looking for a religious person to debate on if it is reasonable or not to believe in God!

Definition:

GOD: Creator, Omnipotent, Omnscient, Omnipresent and Omnibenevolent.

Reasonable: Logical
AnotherInconvenienttruth

Pro

As an apologist, I will show that God's existence is not only logical, but it's the only way to account for all that we observe in reality. I will use primarily scripture and science in this debate, and depending on my opponent's arguments, I may include other fields of knowledge if need be.
Debate Round No. 1
Candid_atheism

Con

I can collect my thoughts and try to tell myself, "hey wait a minute why am I even Atheist, something can't come from nothing". Well, then what about God? He came from nothing didn't he? Or was just always there? I really wonder how God found out he was God in the beginning, before the spawn of life. And that begs the question, what was God's beginning? What was God's first day or start as being God then? I wonder when he realized that he was almighty, he just starts chilling and relaxing being all eternal and able to forge anything he wanted, I'm sure. But, It's hard to fathom that this God people believe in was just always there, sitting up in some celestial VIP room and doing nothing like a weirdo. Then he decided he might create some kind of science experiment that we call life.

Since you will use scripture. So will I. In Isaiah 45:7, God creates evil, therefore he is malevolent not omnibenevolent.
I will exaplain more in the next round.
AnotherInconvenienttruth

Pro

I have to say, I'm really disappointed with Candid_Atheism's response; I was expecting something that required a little more thought to refute. His argument is assuming that God wasn't always God, and that God is a finite being who is stuck in time with the rest of us. The problem with that is that according to Genesis 1:1, God created space, matter, and, time: In order for God to create space, matter, and time, God would have to be a being who is nonspatial, timeless, and immaterial; that would make God an infinite being. God would also have to be all-powerful (omnipotent) because according to Psalm 33:6-9 and 2 Peter 3:5, God created space, matter, and time out of nothing in an instant by speaking them into existence. I can't comprehend that kind of power, and neither can Candid_Atheism.

Candid_Atheism also took Isaiah 45:7 way out of context; if anyone would read Isaiah 45:1-13 and Isaiah 46:5-13, they would realize that in that context, God was talking about how he was going to use Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, to judge the Babylonians, and that Cyrus was going to be the one who allowed the Jews to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem (a prophecy whose fulfillment is recorded in Ezra 1:1-4). When you read that verse in context, and the Bible as a whole, you will realize that the only time that God is the one who creates a disaster is when he is judging people or a nation for their sins, and he usually judges a nation after he's given them a couple hundred years to repent (see Genesis 15:12-16 for an example).

Returning to the definition of God that Candid_Atheism gave at the beginning, there are several passages that show that God is omniscient, but we will focus on two from Isaiah. I think these two passages alone make it clear that God is claiming to be omniscient:

Isaiah 40:12-14: "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance? Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord, or instruct the Lord as his counselor? Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding?"

Isaiah 42:8-9: "I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols. See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you."

To show that it is reasonable to believe that God exists, and that God is omnipresent and omnibenevelant, we'll step into science for a bit. In Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 48:12-13, and 51:13, it is clearly stated that God is the one who stretches out the heavens. "Stretch" is a synonym for "expand", and anyone who studies the bible knows that the term "heavens" means "universe". In other words, if God was causing the universe to expand like the book of Isaiah says, then we would expect the universe to be expanding when we observe it. In 1927, Edwin Hubble discovered red light shifts in every observable galaxy through his telescope, indicating to him that all the galaxies were moving away from each other, which is exactly what you would expect to see if the universe was expanding.

Anyone who studies the New Testament knows that the main message that Jesus communicated over and over in his ministry like a beating drum was that he was the God of the Bible in human form, specifically that he was God the Son, one of the three persons of God's trinitarian being. In Colossians 1:15-17 and Hebrews 1:1-4, we read that Jesus (God) holds this reality together by his word. In Job 34:10-15, we are told that if God were to stop holding this reality together with his word, all of humanity would cease to exist. In other words, if God is really holding everything together by his word like the Bible says, then we would expect to find something in the universe that never changes, and if this thing did change, we would all cease to exist.

Lo and behold, we find a whole bunch of somethings like that in the Anthropic Principle. According to this principle, there are a whole bunch of anthropic constants (life-supporting conditions) in the universe that we've discovered so far, and if ANY SINGLE ONE of those constants were off in the slightest degree in any way, shape, or form, humanity would cease to exist. In other words, something is holding all these constants in place, keeping our universe and thus the human race alive. Evolution certainly cannot explain the Anthropic Principle, and a deistic god who doesn't interact with our universe cannot explain the Anthropic Principle. Only the God of the bible can explain the existence of the Anthropic Principle.

How does the Anthropic Principle show that God is omnipresent? It's simple: In order for God to be holding everything together by his word, he needs to be everywhere at once. This is no problem for a nonspatial, timeless, and immaterial being like God. Because God is everywhere at once holding everything together by his word, he is able see everything that everyone does like Proverbs 15:3 and Job 34:21-30 say he does.

How does the Anthropic Principle show that God is omnibenevelant? According to Psalm 14:1-3 and Ecclesiastes 7:20, there is not a single human being who fully submits to God and never sins against him. According to Isaiah 64:6, all of the "good" deeds that unrepentant human beings do are nothing but filthy rags to him. According to 2 Peter 3:7-9, the reason that God hasn't destroyed this reality and judged all people yet is because he is giving everyone the chance to repent of their sins and submit to him. According to Ezekiel 18:21-23, God doesn't want anyone to perish. In other words, the only reason that people like Candid_Atheism continue to exist despite the fact that they blaspheme God by pretending he doesn't exist, and slander his character by saying that he is the one who creates evil, is because God is giving them every chance possible to repent and submit to him before their judgement comes. The fact that Candid_Atheism and I (along with the entire human race) are allowed to exist at all in light of who we are and what we have done against God is a powerful testament to how good and loving he really is, because we don't deserve it.

In short, the expansion of the universe, the Anthropic Principle and the fact that we continue to exist despite our sins against God not only show that it is 100 percent reasonable to believe God exists, but it also shows that he really is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevelant.
Debate Round No. 2
Candid_atheism

Con

We are told to not be incredulous by our religiously indoctrinating and indoctrinated predecessors. We are essentially told that we have to completely forsake are senses and just go with faith instead. Just the fact that you have to put faith before your conscience and be contrary to what you are. Is just ridiculous! "It's called faith, because it definitely isn't knowledge." - Christopher Hitchens
This Adolf Hitler-like God millions of people believe in, and please do not underestimate the power of ignorance in large numbers, has a similar philosophy to that of the historical Nazi Germany. If you aren't a certain way or don't support the whole movement, the chariot to damnation awaits, as it is written. Don't worry though, if you feel like a good person, you probably are. But, God already knows your fate because he's omniscient. We have to keep reminding ourselves though that "God is real" through songs like Kumbaya every Sunday. However, this world is so chaotic, it's like a put off Science project that someone lagged on and got kind of lazy. I'd give it a C-, if I had to give an honest judgement. There is so much calamity, disease, mutation and negativity in this utter existence. And positivity is just what we make of it. This too begs the question, why would anything benevolent even create this life? That's actually a contradiction if you ask me! If there is a God, he's a callous barbarian, that just sits around outside the fourth and third dimension and just watches over with his binoculars of indifference, while the earth itself, slowly wipes us off the face of it. Each and every single one of us one by one like dominos. Or unless we kill each other like savages. This whole God scenario is like in the movies when you see a King in his throne in an arena just watching peasants getting thrown to the lions. The King just sits there nonchalantly eating grapes. Some theists might try to defend their "God" saying it's because God created what we perceive as both good and evil and it's Satan that causes all this disaster. First of all if that were true, it would make God weaker then Satan which we both know isn't true based on religious writings or God is just a malevolent freak that allows for this evil he made, to happen. However, the God people believe in must be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God, right? Think again!. If it were the case, this God blatantly would know what all our choices are, before we even became a sperm. So what you think is free will can be discarded out the door because your every move is already known. However, he would of also known Satan would of envied power before he even created him. This God obviously will send the evil people he doesn't like to hell. However, that makes the idea of spawning evil, totally pointless. Unless like I said before, God just likes to watch the immoral people he manufactured go to town and slaughter one another, rape each other's women and molest their children. In fact he wouldn't be benevolent because that totally contradicts the whole hypothesis of there even being a God. If God is both omniscient and omnipotent he can know the future and intervene to help people. However, that has never been proven to of happened. Especially if he doesn't like evil beings already. He should just terminate evil period. He might as well just spawn all benign people, that are trusted servants, instead of having them go from earth to heaven. Just metaphorically cut out the middle man and just keep them in heaven. I mean what's the point about even having this world if the end result is just serving God after your impetus, brainless soul teleports into an overly crowded eternal theme park supposedly after death. Personally, I think it's quite condescending, to tell people that there is this God. It infers you already know everything. That you know already how the earth was made, that you have all the answers. So the verdict is simple, no it's not reasonable to believe in God. If anything, just be an Agnostic if you aren't sure. Also, ponder on this: if God is so Omnipotent and Omnipresent, Is it possible for this God to create an orientation or place he can't go to or move to? If you didn't catch on, It's a paradox. Theists may try to counter that there is no proof or evidence against God so therefore it is reasonable to believe in God though. Which the same logic can be applied to God in the sense that it has no evidence and proof therefore he isn't real. However this is a common logical fallacy known as Petitio Principii. But, is that true? Of course not! We simply have not gathered enough data about nature, Abiogensis and evolution to make it widely accepted. Mainly because the pious community doesn't want it to be true that there is no God. Much like millions of theists out there, I was indoctrinated into thinking I had something I could confide in too! Much like being addicted to porn or video games, God is an addiction too. You pray to the invisible being, when you're feeling all different kinds of emotions, just like when people watch porn or play video games addictively. Addicts, do what they do pretty much on all occasions. Nothing fails like prayer though! However, if you as a person have legitimate proof that prayer works, same thing goes with God. I encourage you to gather the data you have collected and submit it for a Nobel Prize so you can disprove me and the unity of Atheism. Most of us are programmed at a very young age by continual repetition. With the exception of the born again theist, they are more conforming if anything. Our psyche yearns for that God though, just like a mom or a dad. And if you begin to lose faith it is like losing a parent. You grieve that loss and really dwell about it. It is very difficult on the coherent psyche because of how brainwashed you can become. It's like if you grew up believing in a Superhero through your whole prepubescents, adolescents and maybe even into adulthood because you read the comic book confirming that this Superhero was real just like how we have read either the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, to confirm God is real. But, then you had outside sources that confirmed the superhero exists as well, just like people that I fellowshipped with and participated in my indoctrination in believing in God. Imagine going through that mentally all along and no one came along to tell you he didn't exist, until now. First you would try your best to deny it, actually its very likely you will deny it, unless you had a predisposed doubt. Anything else you react to will be confirmation bias. You'll only listen to what you want to hear. However, if you deny that you have an addiction to the God hypothesis, that's not unique at all. People do that with any addiction. People wonder why Atheists are so Gung-ho about de-converting the ones that do believe. Well, that is because we care for the human race and we know it's difficult to struggle with the whole God thing. It's like how most clean and sober drug addicts try to pay it forward. They realize they have been in the shoes of other suffering addicts so they are there to help. Same concept for us Atheists, most of us that is. I don't speak for everyone. Hopefully I have got your attention as a believer and have planted the seed. The God, as defined above, which millions of people blindly worship contradicts itself. Contradicting all that it requires him to be by definition, which opts out the whole hypothesis that this God exists. Making, the action of believing in the God, not only illogical and unreasonable, but totally pointless.
AnotherInconvenienttruth

Pro

Once again, I am really disappointed with Candid_Atheism's argument. Having gone and looked at other debates he has done on here, it is obvious that he is simply copying and pasting his arguments from some other source, and it is also clear that he really isn't reading and reacting to my arguments. He is simply regurgitating what New Atheists like the late Christopher Hitchens tells him.

There isn't enough space in this debate to go over all the errors he makes in his statements, so we're going to take a look at the most important ones:

"Don't worry though, if you feel like a good person, you probably are. But, God already knows your fate because he's omniscient."

First off, it looks like he didn't even read what I had to say in my second to last paragraph about God's benevolence. I clearly showed through scripture that NOBODY is good according to God's definition of good, and that the only reason we still exist is because God is giving everyone every chance possible to repent of their sins and submit to him before he destroys everything and judges everyone. The only reason that ANYONE would go to heaven is because Jesus allowed himself to be put to death on the cross so that everyone who has a personal relationship with him AND accepts his offer of forgiveness can go to heaven.

"We have to keep reminding ourselves though that "God is real" through songs like Kumbaya every Sunday."

Once again, did he even read what I had to say about the expansion of the universe and the Anthropic Principle?! I didn't prove that God exists by appealing to some kind of cult groupthink; I appealed to two of the most fundamental laws of science that NOBODY with any intelligence and study would disagree with, and then I showed how the Bible accurately talked about those two things. As Jesus implied in John 3:10-12, if the Bible tells the truth about things we can observe, then we can trust it to tell us the truth about God.

"However, this world is so chaotic, it's like a put off Science project that someone lagged on and got kind of lazy. I'd give it a C-, if I had to give an honest judgement. There is so much calamity, disease, mutation and negativity in this utter existence. And positivity is just what we make of it. This too begs the question, why would anything benevolent even create this life?"

This statement shows that Candid_Atheism does not understand what the Bible teaches and records. He is presupposing that Uniformitarianism is true. Uniformitarianism is the belief that the way things in the world and universe operate now is the way that they"ve always operated in the past. In an amazing display of prophecy, the apostle Peter saw people like Candid_Atheism coming in the future:

2 Peter 3:3-7: "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this "coming" he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God"s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

Take special notice of verse 4; notice how it perfectly sums up the idea of Uniformitarianism. Isn"t it amazing how someone writing a letter in the early 60s AD could perfectly describe a secular belief that didn"t come into existence until over 1,700 years later? Take notice of verses 5-7: Peter writes that scoffers like Candid_Atheism will deliberately forget that God spoke the universe and earth into existence out of nothing in an instant by his word. They also deliberately leave out the fact that God flooded the world as an act of judgement of the wickedness of the Nephilim and humanity as recorded in Genesis 6 (I talk about the Flood of Genesis in more detail in my blog post "The Flood of Noah is a Historical Fact" at http://truththeobjectivereality.blogspot.com...).

It's actually pretty funny. Candid_Atheism goes on in his argument to talk about how evil God is by claiming that all God does it sit back and let evil things happen, and he doesn't do anything about it. When we look at Genesis 6-7, and the entirety of the Bible, we find that the opposite is true: We find that God not only has intervened in human history to judge evil in the past, but he promises that he is going to do it again in the future. Much like the late Christopher Hitchens, Candid_Atheism doesn't like that because he knows that God is going to judge him for his evil, and he finds it to be much more comfortable for his conscience to pretend that God doesn't exist. Of course, by slandering and defaming God's character and what he has to say about himself, Candid_Atheism is implying that God exists.

"People wonder why Atheists are so Gung-ho about de-converting the ones that do believe. Well, that is because we care for the human race and we know it's difficult to struggle with the whole God thing."

Did Candid_Atheism even think about what he wrote before he posted it?! The above quote is so religious in nature that I literally can't stop laughing like a hyena; Candid_Atheism even caps it off by talking about how he hopes he was able to plant a seed in the hearts of people who believe in God, much like how Jesus himself taught about planting seeds in the hearts of unbelievers. I think evolutionist Michael Ruse summed it up best in his article "HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics", which was written in the National Post on May 13 of 2000:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Those of you who are viewing this debate, don't be smooth talked by the nonsensical, illogical, and factually incorrect religious ramblings of Christopher Hitchens-worshipping atheists like Candid_Atheism. I think I have shown crystal clearly that belief in God's existence is totally justified in light of observational science's compatibility with scripture, and Candid_Atheism didn't even bother to address any of my points. In fact, what Candid_Atheism said is so bad that I make this prediction:

If Candid_Atheism ends up getting the majority of the votes after this is finished, it will either be because the majority of the voters have an anti-Bible bias like he does, or because Candid_Atheism has created a bunch of profiles on here to give himself the necessary votes to win his debates. The second possibility may seem extreme, but when you embrace a religion that says that "right" and "wrong" are not real values, and whose leaders are not afraid to distort and suppress the truth about reality (see my blog post "American Humanists in Academia: The 21st century religious leaders" at http://truththeobjectivereality.blogspot.com...), then anything is possible for these guys.

Those of you who are voting on this debate, if you actually believe in logical consistency and solid argumentation, then please vote for me. I actually addressed what Candid_Atheism had to say, and he didn't even bother to address what I had to say, which is very rude and dishonest in a debate like this.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Sputnick1hadmelike 1 year ago
Sputnick1hadmelike
Candid_atheismAnotherInconvenienttruthTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had an amazing argument, had better conduct and I agreed with him before and after the debate.
Vote Placed by Take_that_Sputnick1 1 year ago
Take_that_Sputnick1
Candid_atheismAnotherInconvenienttruthTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was solid!
Vote Placed by Combatofawombat 1 year ago
Combatofawombat
Candid_atheismAnotherInconvenienttruthTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument didn't really show how it is logical to believe in God. Whereas Con showed why it is Illogical.
Vote Placed by GEEZUS 1 year ago
GEEZUS
Candid_atheismAnotherInconvenienttruthTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better arguments. Really got me thinking!
Vote Placed by WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 1 year ago
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Candid_atheismAnotherInconvenienttruthTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost credibility when he used scripture as evidence. I was really disappointed.
Vote Placed by AgnosticDeism 1 year ago
AgnosticDeism
Candid_atheismAnotherInconvenienttruthTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a better argument then Pro!!