The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
condeelmaster
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is there a G-d?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 469 times Debate No: 85914
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

harrytruman

Pro

Accept and I will give you proof.
I am defending the G-d of the Torah.
condeelmaster

Con

I accept the challenge. Hope to have a great debate. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

Argument #1; the Brain:
The first and most well-known proof is the complexity of the universe, but I will not argue this, I will argue that the complexity of the human brain is evidence of G-d.
A human brain, Dr. Ben Carson [1] and Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi [2] can both attest to this, could not have happened on its own. The complexity is just too much to have been random.

Argument #2; philosophy:
This is a logic that is used to prove G-d:
1). G-d is possible.
2). G-d exists in one of these alternate universes.
3). G-d exists in all possible universes.
4). G-d exists.
My opponent admits that before the Big Bang there were no laws of physics, hence anything could happen before then, even things that always existed, he and Steven Hawking use this to prove the Big Bang. The issue is that is only proves that it is possible that the Big Bang could have happened, not that it did.
Likewise it proves that G-d is possible, except if G-d is possible, he exists. Hence my opponent must prove that there was laws before the Big Bang to prove that G-d exists, in which case he must refute the Big Bang Theory and propose a different one.
Argument #3; the Torah:
The Torah claims that G-d exists, and the Torah has been proven to be a scientifically accurate book [3].

[1]. https://www.youtube.com...
[2]. http://www.divineinformation.com...
[3]. http://www.divineinformation.com...
condeelmaster

Con

1) The brain

"The first and most well-known proof is the complexity of the universe, but I will not argue this, I will argue that the complexity of the human brain is evidence of G-d.
A human brain, Dr. Ben Carson [1] and Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi [2] can both attest to this, could not have happened on its own. The complexity is just too much to have been random."

This is a classic. If I don't understand something then I invent whatever to solve it. Then I can say: I don't understand the complexity of computers, God must have made them. This is pretty absurd. Anyway, I can present some arguments refuting this.

a)

What Pro is assuming with his argument is that complexity needs a designer. I must admit this sounds really intuitive. Nevertheless, it has some flaws.
If complexity needs a designer then the complexity of nature must have been designed. Thus, god designed nature. But let's examine god. He is all knowing, all mighty, all goodness, He is everywhere and nowhere, and so on, and so on. To summarize, god is quite complex, isn't it? Then, if god is complex he must have been designed, right? As you see this reasoning contradicts the nature of god, which is supposed to be the source of all, and to have no designer.

b)

This argument has a deeper assumption: that existences must be caused. Again this is super intuitive, but flawed. If existence must be caused, then nature has to have a cause: god. But then if god exists he must have been caused by something. But god can't be caused by anything. Again, this argument reaches a contradiction.

c)

Another assumption in this argument is the single nature of god. If there is indeed a design behind the universe, how you know it is only one god? Maybe, it is a committee. How do you know it is all mighty and all that stuff? We are capable of creating pretty good recreations of nature, so maybe someone with just a bit more intelligence than us could have created our nature. So this argument is invalid again.

d)

The other assumption of this arguments is that evolution is false. This is way far from logic. Evolution has been proved, both rationally and empirically. Brains started being less complex and by the natural selection process they got more and more complex. I can't explain all Darwin's theory in just a few characters, but if you are interested read his books.
A basic explanation could be this. Some mutations happen in species (you can see black and white people, well they are mutations). The best mutation is the one who survives, the other dies. Then mutations happen to the mutation that survived, and the same "elimination process" happens again and again. This is the natural selection process. By this process species get more complex and more apt to survive.

2) Philosophy

This is a logic that is used to prove G-d:
1). G-d is possible.
2). G-d exists in one of these alternate universes.
3). G-d exists in all possible universes.
4). G-d exists.”

This is non sequitur at its best. We are starting from the premise that god is possible, which is not explained nor proved. So the argument is already invalid. However, we then jump to “god exists in one of these alternate universes”. What is Pro talking about here. What alternate universes? The he states “-d exists in all possible universes”. How you go from god exists in one universe to god exists in all universes.

This argument needs further explanation, if it has one.

“My opponent admits that before the Big Bang there were no laws of physics

Pro is here referring to another debate we had. Nevertheless, He is lying. What I said was that our laws of physics did not apply in the singularity before the big bang. This does not mean there were no laws, but that they were different.

“Likewise it proves that G-d is possible, except if G-d is possible, he exists.

This has no logic at all. Is like saying, if I throw a coin is possible that it falls heads up, ergo it will fall heads up. The possibility of something happening does not mean that it will happen. The same applies with god. It may be possible, but this does not prove that it exists.

3) The Torah

“The Torah claims that G-d exists, and the Torah has been proven to be a scientifically accurate book.”

LOL. I can only say LOL.

The Torah is a sacred text. I can have all the respect of the world towards the Torah, but I cannot accept it is a scientific book.

As Rabbi Meiselman said “how can we base religious views on questionable science?

Religion dismisses science. If you read the Torah you will observe that it opposes to science in all the possible ways. Also, if you listen to the speeches of rabbis, you will see the great confrontation between science and the Torah. Read “New Heavens and a New Earth”, “Torah and Science”, or “Torah, Chazal and Science”. You will see the great opposition to science from the Torah and the ones who believe in it.

So, no, the Torah is not scientifically proved. Thus, this argument is quite wrong.


This is enough to negate the resolution, but I will now address some of my arguments against god to make my point even stronger.


4) The good ol' omnipotence paradox

This is a school one but let me explain it.

God is omnipotent, thus he can do everything. Then, can he create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

If the answer is yes, then god is not omnipotent, because he can't lift that rock.
If the answer is no, then god is not omnipotent, because he can't create that rock.

Both answers lead to the conclusion that god is not omnipotent. This is a prove that the Christian God does not exist.

5) The problem of evil

Another classic.

God is omnibenevolent, thus he is always disposed for good. Then, why does evil exists? If god was really omnibenevolent, he wouldn't let evil exist. This means that god can't be omnibenevolent. Then, the Christian God cannot exist.

6) Poor design

Pro said that god was the designer of the universe,thus the design of our world. If god is really omnipotent and omniscient, the he must have done a perfect design, or at least a very good design.

However, if you observe nature and humans, you will see the design is quite poor. We humans have lots of fatal flaws. For instance, the existence of the pharynx (which creates the possibility of chocking), the appendix (which is useless but can cause severe infections) or the form of women's genitalia (which generates the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy, which ends in the obligation to abort).

Then, the design of the nature is rather poor. Thus, god cannot be omniscient and omnipotent. This means the Christian god cannot exist.


Conclusion

I refuted all of Pro's arguments. Also, I gave a trinity of arguments
(hahah a trinity) against the existence of the Christian god. Ergo, the resolution is negated, the Christian god does not exists.


Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

1). If there is a computer, it was made by someone.

a). Put simply; I was referring to physical intricacy, G-d is not limited to this physical form, hence this law does not apply, because this law applies to matter, and G-d is not made of matter.

b). Again, these laws apply to physical matter, G-d is not matter, hence this law does not apply.

c). Everything yealds a consistent design, hence it was made by one creator, in fact, there are many witnesses to this, such as Guru Nanak, who knew this so well that it is the first sentence of the Guru Granth, "G-d is One," this is repeated in the Torah, "G-d is One," or "there are no other gods beside me (since I am not referring to G-d I do not have to use a dash.)
Claims are not proof, however, when multiple claims consistent with each other and the claim or had no interaction with another, this is an indication that what they are saying is fact.

d). Actually, evolution has NOT been proven, in fact it has been disproved, by many people including myself, right here for example:
www.debate.org/debates/Evolution/54/

2). Very simple: according to Quantum physics, whenever there is a choice made, the universe "splits" into many universes, in each universe is one of the possible outcomes of that choice, then when those universes reach another choice they split into different universes again indefinitely.
Point being, if something could have happened at any one point in time, it is a reality in some parallel universe.
So if G-d is possible, or could/could have existed at any point, he exists in one of these universes.
Since G-d is omnipresent, if he exists in one universe, he exists in all of them.

a). As the audience can see, we are not that unlike each other, we prove out theories the same way, you say that the laws of physics do not apply to a singularity so it didn't have to abide by certain laws, I say that certain laws of physics do not apply to G-d.

b). In one universe, the coin will land on heads then, the difference is that a coin on heads does not affect our universe, G-d existing in one universe does affect ours as he can control other universes.

3). I don't understand your argument, can you maybe quote something he said that is scientifically innacurate?

4). Very simple answer: G-d is omnipotent, so he is limited by his decrees, so given the scenario that G-d makes a rock too big for him to move for some reason that you have not specified, could he move it? Well he made it immovable, so no, however, what G-d can do is make the rock no longer too big to move, then he can, so G-d can limit himself, but only for as long as he wants.

5). Evil exists because people choose to be evil, and evil exists not because G-d made it, evil exists because of pride.
So G-d didn't make evil, this part Is cleared up.
Next off, why does G-d allow evil?
Put simply, G-d knows the beginning from the end, so he knows what each move will do, so he chooses the best.
It's very simple, every action has a reaction. So let's say you go back in time to kill Hitler, would you do it? According to you, G-d should, the issue is that something worse would happen as a result.
Hence the reason G-d doesn't, also, G-d must protect free will, violating free Wil is the worst sin in existence, so since he is good, he doesn't do it, it would be like being asked to commit a rape to save someone from getting shot, should you do it?

6). Put simply, your kidneys could malfunction, does that mean they are a flaw? So your point about the pharnyx is disproved. Something being useless is not a flaw, so yourdebate about the appendix is disproved, and finally, when G-d created humans, diseases did not exist, so this is irrelevant, so the last two are also disproved.
Also, I am a Jew now amigo in case you haven't noticed, and I never believed in the trinity, let alone now.
condeelmaster

Con

1) The brain

a) & b)

Pro's contention here was that he was referring to matter, and god is not made of matter. Then, I have to assume that if god is not made of matter he is made of something. And then, if god is made of something, he was made. Then, god had a creator. Again we reach to the same contradiction.


c)

" Everything yealds a consistent design, hence it was made by one creator"

This is not a strong argument. There are plenty of things designed by more than one people that have a consistent design. For instance, books, games, buildings, electronics, computers, musical instruments. As a matter of fact, most things are designed by groups of designers instead of one lonely designer.


"Claims are not proof, however, when multiple claims consistent with each other and the claim or had no interaction with another, this is an indication that what they are saying is fact."

This statement is really cool because it proves my whole point. There are multiple claims consistent with each others that have no interaction one another expressing "god does not exist" and "god exists but is not the Christian god". Actually, the claims Pro is talking about come from one only book: the Torah. On contrast, anti-god claims come from many books and many thinkers. So using this reasoning, is a fact that god does not exist.

d)

" Actually, evolution has NOT been proven, in fact it has been disproved, by many people including myself"

Firstly, I didn't know Pro was at the level of such a master mind of science as Darwin.
Secondly, evolution is absolutely accepted by the scientific community, and even by Christians and Jews(Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, Rabbi Hirsch, the Rabbinical Council of America, and others).


2) Philosophy


Now that the argument is better explained I can refute.

It's indeed a quite interesting argument, since multiverse theory is not so much accepted by religion. However it has some flaws.

First, the argument is based upon the premise that god is possible. That was not yet proved by Pro, so the whole argument falls.

Secondly, the argument is also based upon the premise that god is omnipresent. However god cannot be omnipresent. Why? Two facts prove this:
      • 1) If god is omnipresent, then he is evil and sin. If god is present in all places and all things and at all times, then he is compulsory evil and sin. But this would contradict the perfect and pure description of god. Then god cannot be omnipresent.
      • 2) In order to have a mind, there must be something external to yourself. There must be objects that are external to a being that it can become aware of and grasp itself in relationship to. Then, without external objects there's no thinking, thus no mind. There can be no external objects for an omnipresent God, so he cannot have a mind. But this would mean that god is a non thinking being. Then god would not be god. So it's impossible for god to be omnipresent.
As you can see, being omnipresent is impossible for god. So Pro's argument is incorrect.


3) The Torah

The Torah is an allegorical text. This means that all stories and statements and "facts" are just metaphors that serve to the didactic aim of the text. This means The Torah is basically like the tales we tell to kids, they are not true, they are specifically invented to teach kids some lessons of life.

However, if you want to make a literal interpretation of the Torah, you will find some great errors. I will list some here:
  • - There were plants in the earth before the creation of the sun. Plants can't live without solar energy.
  • - The mention of water above the atmosphere (The Firmament). Satellites and astronauts had never seen it, although if it - exist they must have run into it.
  • - Leprosy is cured with a ritual to God: sprinkling the blood from birds over the person. Not much to say here.
  • - Donkeys speak in human languages. Not much to say here
  • - The moon is light. The moon just reflects light.
  • - God separated darkness from light. Darkness is not a substance, how could he separate a non substantial thing??
  • - Pi is equal 3. This is actually from the "sequel" of the Torah: Nevi'im. But still wrong. The circle depicted in Kings is unreal, there can't be a circle of that dimensions because it would mean Pi is 3, which is not. Quite interesting that they devolved, because Egyptians had already calculated Pi it the right way.
4)Omnipotence

"G-d is omnipotent, so he is limited by his decrees,"

So Pro is saying that god has not limits but he is limited. Pure contradiction.

"so given the scenario that G-d makes a rock too big for him to move for some reason that you have not specified, could he move it? Well he made it immovable, so no, "

Here Pro concedes that god wouldn't be capable of lifting the rock. Then he is not omnipotent.


5)The problem of evil

"Evil exists because people choose to be evil, and evil exists not because G-d made it,"

First, this contradicts the deterministic fashion of the universe that has a god. If the universe has a "divine plan" that god made, then people can't choose anything, they just act according the plan.

Let's show another contradiction of Pro's argument:
"G-d knows the beginning from the end, so he knows what each move will do, so he chooses the best" "G-d must protect free will"

Pro says there's no free will and then he says god protects free will. What???


6) Poor design


"your kidneys could malfunction, does that mean they are a flaw? "

Exactly.

" Something being useless is not a flaw, so your debate about the appendix is disproved"

Having something that is useless but can cause death is a flaw.

"when G-d created humans, diseases did not exist"

But now they exist, so there was a flaw in human design that caused the start of diseases.



I will now add a new argument against god.


7) Schellenberg's hiddenness argument

This is a well know argument that goes like this:

  1. If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
  2. If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
  3. If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
  4. If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
  5. Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
  6. No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
  7. God does not exist (from 1 and 6).

Sources:

- The Torah
- The Bible
- Why God Cannot Think: Kant, Omnipresence, & Consciousness - Matt McCormick
- Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason - J.L. Schellenberg

Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

"1) The brain

a) & b)

Pro's contention here was that he was referring to matter, and god is not made of matter. Then, I have to assume that if god is not made of matter he is made of something. And then, if god is made of something, he was made. Then, god had a creator. Again we reach to the same contradiction."

G-d is a spirit, but significantly different from the design of a human spirit, and infinite. G-d is not made of something, this is not the correct wording.

"c)
This is not a strong argument. There are plenty of things designed by more than one people that have a consistent design. For instance, books, games, buildings, electronics, computers, musical instruments. As a matter of fact, most things are designed by groups of designers instead of one lonely designer."

It"s called the spiral, it exists everywhere in nature, another one is the tree branches, which appear also everywhere in nature.

"This statement is really cool because it proves my whole point. There are multiple claims consistent with each others that have no interaction one another expressing "god does not exist" and "god exists but is not the Christian god". Actually, the claims Pro is talking about come from one only book: the Torah. On contrast, anti-god claims come from many books and many thinkers. So using this reasoning, is a fact that god does not exist."

Alright, I am going to clarify what I am saying here, there is much more claims than that in the Torah, there is for example the Guru Granth.
Nextly, these atheists claim there is no G-d because they supposedly have no proof, so let"s put this into perspective here, it would be like if a murder happened, and there are 10 witnesses that say it happened, but there are 7 billion people on earth who claim they did not see it happen, therefor, no murder happened.

"d)

Firstly, I didn't know Pro was at the level of such a master mind of science as Darwin.
Secondly, evolution is absolutely accepted by the scientific community, and even by Christians and Jews(Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, Rabbi Hirsch, the Rabbinical Council of America, and others)."

Charles Darwin? Scientific master mind? Did you know that most of his theories have been proven false, it"s just that these theories are not known of because they are so embarrassing? He thought, for example, that if a Giraffe stretches out his neck, its offspring will have longer necks, he thought that Black people were dumber than white people because they had a bigger brain.

"2) Philosophy

Now that the argument is better explained I can refute.

It's indeed a quite interesting argument, since multiverse theory is not so much accepted by religion. However it has some flaws.

First, the argument is based upon the premise that god is possible. That was not yet proved by Pro, so the whole argument falls.

Secondly, the argument is also based upon the premise that god is omnipresent. However god cannot be omnipresent. Why? Two facts prove this:
=607;1) If god is omnipresent, then he is evil and sin. If god is present in all places and all things and at all times, then he is compulsory evil and sin. But this would contradict the perfect and pure description of god. Then god cannot be omnipresent.
=607;2) In order to have a mind, there must be something external to yourself. There must be objects that are external to a being that it can become aware of and grasp itself in relationship to. Then, without external objects there's no thinking, thus no mind. There can be no external objects for an omnipresent God, so he cannot have a mind. But this would mean that god is a non thinking being. Then god would not be god. So it's impossible for god to be omnipresent.
As you can see, being omnipresent is impossible for god. So Pro's argument is incorrect."

Firstly, I did prove it to be possible, I brought up how you thought that the Big Bang had no issues because no laws applied to the spec. This in the same way can be applied to G-d.
Nextly, how is G-d compulsory to sin? Please explain.
Lastly, I think I may know what you are saying, a mind is a computer, but if there is nothing with which to compute, it cannot think. This has a very simple explanation, G-d is sentient of everything at all times. Meaning that he is sentient of every event, and every object, this is what he computes.

"3) The Torah

The Torah is an allegorical text. This means that all stories and statements and "facts" are just metaphors that serve to the didactic aim of the text. This means The Torah is basically like the tales we tell to kids, they are not true, they are specifically invented to teach kids some lessons of life."

This is not true, just a claim.

"However, if you want to make a literal interpretation of the Torah, you will find some great errors. I will list some here:

"- There were plants in the earth before the creation of the sun. Plants can't live without solar energy.
"- The mention of water above the atmosphere (The Firmament). Satellites and astronauts had never seen it, although if it - exist they must have run into it.
"- Leprosy is cured with a ritual to God: sprinkling the blood from birds over the person. Not much to say here.
"- Donkeys speak in human languages. Not much to say here
"- The moon is light. The moon just reflects light.
"- God separated darkness from light. Darkness is not a substance, how could he separate a non substantial thing??
"- Pi is equal 3. This is actually from the "sequel" of the Torah: Nevi'im. But still wrong. The circle depicted in Kings is unreal, there can't be a circle of that dimensions because it would mean Pi is 3, which is not. Quite interesting that they devolved, because Egyptians had already calculated Pi it the right way."

1). I don"t remember this in the Torah, but regardless, plants can, just not most plants, there are plants that live deep in the sea that don"t need the sun.
2). It referred to the sky as an ocean, so what- it was metaphoric speaking, not that it isn"t true, it"s just that it compared something to something else.
3). Actually, if someone was a leper, you kick them out, unless they become cured, this is not in the Torah.
4). It was a miracle, so? What is inaccurate here?
5). We all know that the moon just reflects light, yet, we call it "moon light," even though it is actually sun light reflected from the moon, but we don"t call it that, even though we know that is what it is. The Torah knows this too, it still refers to the moon as a light though.
6). The Torah knows this, it meant that he made times where there is light, and time when there is darkness, because before the earth was in a continuous twilight.
7). They were rounding amigo, plus I don"t know where you got this verse.

"4)Omnipotence

"G-d is omnipotent, so he is limited by his decrees,"

So Pro is saying that god has not limits but he is limited. Pure contradiction.

"so given the scenario that G-d makes a rock too big for him to move for some reason that you have not specified, could he move it? Well he made it immovable, so no, "

Here Pro concedes that god wouldn't be capable of lifting the rock. Then he is not omnipotent."

G-d cannot be limited by external forces, so he is omnipotent, but he can be limited by his own decrees, so he is not omnipotent, however, he can alter his decrees, so he is again omnipotent. G-d can be limited, but only b himself, and only for as long as he wants.

5)The problem of evil
First, this contradicts the deterministic fashion of the universe that has a god. If the universe has a "divine plan" that god made, then people can't choose anything, they just act according the plan.

Let's show another contradiction of Pro's argument:
"G-d knows the beginning from the end, so he knows what each move will do, so he chooses the best" "G-d must protect free will"

Pro says there's no free will and then he says god protects free will. What???

This is commonly brought up, "if G-d knows what you are going to do, there is no choice."
This is a common misconception, it is actually like history, when you read a history book, you know that Lincoln is going to get killed, or that Adolf Hitler is going to kill the Jews etc., but this does not mean that you chose these to happen, Wilkes Booth chose for Lincoln to be shot, even though you knew he would do it, and Adolf Hitler killed the Jews because Adolf Hitler chose to kill the Jews, not because you knew he would.

"6) Poor design

"your kidneys could malfunction, does that mean they are a flaw? "

Exactly.

" Something being useless is not a flaw, so your debate about the appendix is disproved"

Having something that is useless but can cause death is a flaw.

"when G-d created humans, diseases did not exist"

But now they exist, so there was a flaw in human design that caused the start of diseases."

You see, these things all happened after humans fell from G-d, it is not the way G-d designed us, and so there is no flaw in the design. The cause of all this is diseases that came along latter.

I will now add a new argument against god.

7) Schellenberg's hiddenness argument

This is a well know argument that goes like this:

1.If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
2.If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
3.If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
4.If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
5.Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
6.No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
7.God does not exist (from 1 and 6)."

Alright, you are saying that because G-d does not interact with everyone, he is not loving, so he does not exist.
Enable to disprove this I must establish that G-d not interacting with everyone does not mean he is not loving, because I will NOT argue that G-d can be un-loving and still exist, this would be contradictory.
Very simply, it wouldn"t accomplish anything. The Muslims know G-d exists, but that doesn"t help them to be better people, and he cannot "force" them to be good people, so he knows it is better to just stay out of the way, and rather just work with good people that believe in G-d.
condeelmaster

Con

1) The brain


a) & b)

"G-d is not made of something, this is not the correct wording."

That's the wording Pro used. Any way let's read this other quote from Pro: "G-d is a spirit, but significantly different from the design of a human spirit". Then god has a design, then god was designed, then god was created. You can't avoid the contradiction in this argument.

c)

"It"s called the spiral, it exists everywhere in nature, another one is the tree branches, which appear also everywhere in nature"

Having spirals and trees everywhere is not a conclusive evidence for a single god. There could have been two gods, and they agreed to design spirals everywhere.


"Alright, I am going to clarify what I am saying here, there is much more claims than that in the Torah, there is for example the Guru Granth."

Nevertheless, you have just some old books against thousands of modern books.


"Nextly, these atheists claim there is no G-d because they supposedly have no proof, so let"s put this into perspective here, it would be like if a murder happened, and there are 10 witnesses that say it happened, but there are 7 billion people on earth who claim they did not see it happen, therefor, no murder happened."

That's not the correct example. In that murder you have 10 ocular witnesses who can give a live testimony. In contrast, in the god's case, you just have some doubtfully passed testimony of people who died long ago, who we are not even sure if they really lived or where just invented characters. The murder happened, god didn't.

d)

"Charles Darwin? Scientific master mind? Did you know that most of his theories have been proven false, it"s just that these theories are not known of because they are so embarrassing?"

They are not known but Pro knows they are false...


2) Philosophy


"Firstly, I did prove it to be possible, I brought up how you thought that the Big Bang had no issues because no laws applied to the spec. This in the same way can be applied to G-d"

The same misconception again. The singularity had other laws, but it had laws. Laws of physics do not apply to the singularity, but there were some laws anyway. Show where I said that the singularity had no rules please.


"Nextly, how is G-d compulsory to sin? Please explain."

Because if he is omnipresent, he is sin. In a simpler way: if he is everything he must be evil and sin.


"G-d is sentient of everything at all times. Meaning that he is sentient of every event, and every object, this is what he computes."

But he cannot be sentient of anything if he doesn't have any external object. To be sentient one has to have something external. God does not have something external, then he cannot be sentient.


3) The Torah


"there are plants that live deep in the sea that don"t need the sun."

Come on! This is kinder garden level: plants feed themselves by photosynthesizing. To do so they need the energy form the sun. Plants in the deep ocean still have energy form the sun.


Let me emphasise on this:

" it was metaphoric speaking"

Pro concedes that the Torah has metaphoric language. Thus, he concedes it's an allegoric, not scientific, text.


4) Omnipotence


"G-d cannot be limited by external forces, so he is omnipotent, but he can be limited by his own decrees, so he is not omnipotent, however, he can alter his decrees, so he is again omnipotent. G-d can be limited, but only b himself, and only for as long as he wants."

If he can be limited he can't be omnipotent. It doesn't matter in which fashion he is limited, but as long as he can be limited he cannot be omnipotent never.



5) The problem of evil


"This is a common misconception, it is actually like history, when you read a history book, you know that Lincoln is going to get killed, or that Adolf Hitler is going to kill the Jews etc., but this does not mean that you chose these to happen, Wilkes Booth chose for Lincoln to be shot, even though you knew he would do it, and Adolf Hitler killed the Jews because Adolf Hitler chose to kill the Jews, not because you knew he would."

It's not the same. History already happened. You have no control over past not future events. But god is different. He can control events, he can know what will happen, and he has a "divine plan" that says what will happen. Then, free will does not exist if god exist. And since free will exist, god does not exist.


6) Poor design


"You see, these things all happened after humans fell from G-d, it is not the way G-d designed us, and so there is no flaw in the design. The cause of all this is diseases that came along latter."

Then we are flawed anyway. Because if god made us in a way we were going to fell from him, he made us with a flaw, a fatal flaw.


7) Schellenberg's hiddenness argument


"you are saying that because G-d does not interact with everyone, he is not loving"

Almost that. The reasoning goes like this. If god is perfectly loving, then he must be always open to personal relationship with each human. There's no way to refute that. If you love everybody, you are open to engage personally with everybody.


"and he cannot "force" them to be good people"

Firstly, if he is omnipotent, he can do it. Secondly, if he cannot convert them, he would still interact with them because he loves them. If you say that he does not love Muslims just because they are Muslims, the god is not perfectly loving.



I will now give another argument that raised from a quote from pro.


8) Atheist's Wager

"The Muslims know G-d exists, but that doesn't help them to be better people,"

This quotes makes me think of the next argument

Michael Martin compared the results of two different decisions in life. 1) Believe or not in god. 2) Be good or be bad.

We get this data:

If a benevolent god exists:

Believe Not believe
Being good heaven (+) heaven (+)
Being bad hell (-) hell (-)


If no benevolent god exists:

Believe Not believe
Being good positive legacy(+) positive legacy (+)
Being bad negative legacy (-) negative legacy (-)


As you can see, being good is better than believeing in god. If you are good you always get a positive value, while if you believe in god you have a 50%-50% chance. So is more important to be good than to believe in god.




I will no give a last argument defending the non existence of god.


9) God is dead

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

Friedrich Nietzsche - The gay science

Nietzsche proposed that god does not exist because he has no meaning. The development of modern science and modern moral values make god purposeless. As people changed their way of acting by being hypocrite and unmoral, god lost his meaning. As said by McGillQueens: Due to hypocrisy “God has lost whatever function he once had because of the actions taken by those who believe in him”. Then, if god has no function or meaning, he does not exist.

To clarify, "God is dead" is a metaphor. It means that the idea of the existence of god has died.





Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

1). you are not quite understanding what I am saying, this argument is that if G-d exists, he will be composed of something, or have a design, and thus, a creator. G-d is a spirit, in spirit, there is no time, and hence they can always exist. G-d does not have a "design," I said "design" because I didn"t know the correct wording to refer to the differences between the spirit of G-d and a human spirit.
2). Sure, the creations could end up this way given there is two G-ds, but I have reason to believe that there is only One.
3). these "old books" are not "disproven" by a bunch of atheists claiming there is no proof. You can claim you saw G-d and this be proof of G-d, but you cannot claim you saw "no G-d," and this be proof of "no G-d." These books have not proven the elusive "no god," therefor they do not prove anything, they are just claims of no proof, not even as credible as proof less claims, and you are pairing them up against books that have been scientifically proven.
4). Well let"s see how many people claim they met G-d, first there are the 10 Sikh Guru"s in the Guru Granth, then there is the 45 prophets in the Torah, then there is Abraham and Isaac and the rest.

5). Right here amigo; from him, but has been altered since.
6). G-d is not "everything," everything comes
7). what do you mean an "external object," you mean something he is sentient of?

8). No, they don"t, there is no sun light at certain levels. Also, you are yet to provide a verse to accompany this.

9). I can"t see where I put "metaphorically speaking."

10). Have you listened to a thing from my argument?

11). The flaws came along later, there is a reason why G-d doesn"t violate human will, if he did- he would basically be a rapist, violating free will is the worst evil you can do.

12). Firstly, you misunderstand what I say, G-d is physically capable of doing this, he is not "morally" capable of this. Secondly, this is all dependent on your definition of perfectly loving.

13). you won"t find an argument here, being good is better than believing in G-d.

14). G-d has not "lost his purpose," science is merely researching the universe around us, which was made by G-d, furthermore people being hypocrites does not disprove G-d, and religion becoming obsolete because people are jerks about it does not disprove G-d either.
condeelmaster

Con

1)

Pro's rebuttal to my rebuttal was that god is in some way the exception. Everything needs a creator, except god, because he is god. I get that god can be different, that he can be an exception. But, if god can be an exception, why the universe can't be one? It would be more logical to say that the universe is the only thing that does not need a creator, and in that way you wouldn't need to invent something supernatural.

2)

" Sure, the creations could end up this way given there is two G-ds, but I have reason to believe that there is only One."

Pro here concedes the possibility of the existence of more than one god, something that would contradict Christianity. However he says he has " reason to believe that there is only One". Which ones? We don't know....


3) & 4)

"You can claim you saw G-d and this be proof of G-d, but you cannot claim you saw "no G-d," and this be proof of "no G-d." "

I am not saying not seeing god is a proof that he does not exist. I mean, I didn't see the last James bond movie and I do not claim it doesn't exist, I'm just waiting for it to be on cable.

Jokes aside, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim that something exists. For instance, if I say that there's a statue of myself orbiting the sun, I am the one who has to give proof of that. If you can't give evidence that the statue does not exist because you can't travel to space we can't just assume that the statue is there. Is just logic.

The same applies to god. If there's no proof that god exist, then we must not believe he exists.

Pro says that there are the testimonies of seeing god. But let's examine those testimonies for a second. First, they appear in an allegoric book. Second, they are quite old. Third, they are dubitable, cause they passed through generations in dubitable ways. Finally, observing all the testimonies of seeing god, you will see the pretty much contradict one another. The testimonies from all times and cultures that claim seeing god contradict each other. Giving some particular examples: some say god has a son (Jesus) some say he doesn't; some say the Qur'an was divinely authored, some say it was the bible.


6)

"G-d is not "everything"

If Pro says so.....

God is supposed to be omnipresent, so he is supposed to be everything. If he is not everything, then he does not exist.

7)

"what do you mean an "external object," you mean something he is sentient of?"

To think you need something external to yourself. The base of thinking is external stimulus. If you don't have anything external to yourself, then you don't have nothing to think about. The thing is that, since god is omnipresent, there are no external objects for god, thus god can't think, he can't have a mind. And provided he is not matter, if he is not mind, he is nothing.

Someone could say that he knows himself, thus he know everything, However, knowing yourself directly is impossible. Is like trying to touch the tip of that finger with the tip of that finger or trying to turn around to see your face. In order to know yourself you need something external, like a mirror for example. If you don't have something external, you can't know anything.

8)

"No, they don"t , there is no sun light at certain levels."(talking about plants being created before the sun)

Come on!!! There's no direct illumination of the sun, but they still receive the energy form the sun.

Let's see the plant definition of the oxford dictionary: "A living organism of the kind exemplified by trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, ferns, and mosses, typically growing in a permanent site, absorbing water and inorganic substances through its roots, and synthesizing nutrients in its leaves by photosynthesis using the green pigment chlorophyll."


"Also, you are yet to provide a verse to accompany this."

Please, if you will say you are Christian or Jew, please read the bible or the Torah, at least the first chapter please.

According to genesis, god created the plants on day 3 and sun on day 4.

9)

" I can"t see where I put "metaphorically speaking.""

It seems like Pro doesn't even know what he writes.... Again:

"2). It referred to the sky as an ocean, so what- it was metaphoric speaking, "

11)

"The flaws came along later, there is a reason why G-d doesn"t violate human will, if he did- he would basically be a rapist, violating free will is the worst evil you can do."

Ok, so creating a determined world is not violating free will.... Interesting, isn't it?

If he knows what will happen, it means that what will happen is already determined, thus we have no free will.


13)

"being good is better than believing in G-d."

Pro concedes that being good is better than believing in god. Then, why should we believe in god if we can do something better??

14)

" G-d has not "lost his purpose," science is merely researching the universe around us, which was made by G-d, furthermore people being hypocrites does not disprove G-d, and religion becoming obsolete because people are jerks about it does not disprove G-d either."

The purpose of god was to create the universe, and to create an objective moral. Since science is proving that there's no need of a creator, and the "evilness" of people is showing that there's no objective morality, then god has no meaning nor function.

Then, if god has no meaning nor function, he does not exist.


Conclusion:

The burden of proof is in Pro. However, he only gave 3 pieces of evidence, that were totally refuted. Firstly, the universe does not need a creator, and if it does, then that creator needs a creator too. Secondly, the possibility of god doesn't prove he exists. Thirdly, the testimony of the Torah is not enough proof, and is actually an allegoric text.

On the other hand, although I didn't had to prove anything, I gave 6 pieces of information, that were not successfully refuted by Pro. Nothing can be omnipotent. Nothing can be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time. The "divine design" claimed by creationists is quite undivine, and rather flawed. God is not being all loving to human kind. Is better to be good than to believe in god. And god has no meaning, thus he can not exist.

On balance, there's no conclusive evidence that god exist. Nevertheless, there's plenty of evidence saying he does not exist.
Ergo, god does not exist.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
I will happily accept. However, you have to first define what "god" are we talking about, just to avoid semantics and that sort of stuff. Cheers!
No votes have been placed for this debate.