The Instigator
Aodugbesan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Is there a 'God' behind it all?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 757 times Debate No: 22761
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Aodugbesan

Pro

Yes, who else created and saved us? why is then people who died and got saved tell stories about heaven? Whether you call that force God is another issue. There is no way a person can sit and think that the world just happened like that. There is so much order with its existence that you just cannot dispute there is a force.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

i accept this debate. As my opponent has already made arguments, I'll make my own responses. I wish to also point out that my opponent holds the burden of proof.

Firstly, my opponent claims that people have been saved and got into heaven. I would firstly like to say no-one has, and my opponent has not justified nor cited anyone who has. Furthermore, any 'saving' done, or any saving that my opponent thinks has been done, can be attributed to a obsessional neurosis. An obsessional neurosis is something discovered by Freud. He sums it up as follows:

"I am certainly not the first person to have been struck by the resemblance between what are called obsessive actions in sufferers from nervous affections and the observances by means of which believers give expression to their piety. The term 'ceremonial' which has been applied to some of these obsessive actions, is evidence of this." [1]

The structure of obsessive actions, for Freud, concerns compulsions and prohibitions. (Usually we think only of the compulsive character when we think about someone being 'obsessional'). Freud also observes that the ceremonials are usually done in private (proving conclusively that he never spent any time in a football team's changing room).[2]

To conclude, these 'savings' are just delusions people have.

Moreover, my opponent states that "There is so much order with its existence that you just cannot dispute there is a force."

I disagree. The only force that needs to exist is natural selection. As it is put by Dawkins:

"Natural selection is the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence...of all life. It has no mind and...it has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of the watchmaker in nature it is the blind watchmaker"[3].

These characteristics show that firstly we can have an entirely naturalistic explanation of the world and, moreover, there is no need for God to be supposed.

Also, as my final argument, my opponent needs to give reason why God is behind it all. God is defined as:

" The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being" (Oxford Dictionary)

Therefore, my opponent needs to justify God existing as the source of moral authority: he has to prove that God would be a moral source, that morals are objective, and that there exists objective truth (in inverse order). Otherwise, my opponent cannot justify his claims.

I await my opponent's response.

1 - Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices (1907)
2 - http://www.freud.org.uk...;
3 - The Blind Watchmaker (1986)
4 - http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
Aodugbesan

Pro

Aodugbesan forfeited this round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Aodugbesan

Pro

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

My opponent has conceded all his previous arguments.

He has instead stated that the Bible has evidence of God's existence. This is circular. He states the Bible holds evidence of God, because it was made by God. I propose an alternative hypothesis. My hypothesis states that the Bible was created by man, as it holds the properties that we would expect of a book created by man.

For one, it is full of historical and scientific errors[1]. For another, it is written in a way that we would expect man to write it: full of song, metaphor, allegory and other factors. Finally, it is more reasonable to suppose a man wrote a book (which is incredibly likely and happens daily) over the idea that God wrote it (which would be an impossibly rare occurrence.

Finally, I wish to propose a syllogism against the existence of God:

  1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
  2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
  3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is less than a being that exists only in the mind.
  4. If God only exists in the mind, then we cannot conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
  5. We can be imagining something that is greater than God.
  6. Therefore, God does not exist.
In light of this, I suggest a vote CON.

1 - http://www.freethoughtdebater.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
Aodugbesan

Pro

Aodugbesan forfeited this round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

My opponent has twice forfeited this debate. On the grounds that all arguments my opponent has made have now been dropped, and no new arguments can be made in the next round (as per precedence), I shall conclude here.

My opponent has posted little argument in favour of his position. I have refuted all his claims, including some claims around the claims he made. Further, I put forth my own argument which is (at this time) unrefuted. For these reasons, I urge a vote CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
Aodugbesan

Pro

Aodugbesan forfeited this round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Stephen_Hawkins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 5 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
Extend the argument time to at least 24 hours and I'll take it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
AodugbesanStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF