The Instigator
Cindela
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
Partyboat
Pro (for)
Losing
34 Points

Is there a "God"?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,681 times Debate No: 661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (21)

 

Cindela

Con

First off, I would like to thank everyone who is reading this and I would like to thank my opponent for debating me.

Now to the actual debate.

Before I give my points, I would like to define God:
God is All Seeing
God is All Knowing
God is Benevolent
God is a Higher Being (a.k.a. not human, something more like an angel)

If there was an actual God that follows the above criteria, then why do we have so much suffering in the world? There is extreme poverty in China, there are genocides happening in Darfur, and many people do not know where their next meal will come from. If God is truly all seeinging and benevolent, then he/she would see the suffering, and being benevolent as he/she is, would fix the problem.

If God does exist, then why haven't we seen any proof?
By proof I mean scientific proof, concrete proof. Not that you had a vision and God told you to do something.

Going by the criteria posed above, I say that there is no God, and if the opposition is unable to provide proof otherwise, then I win this debate.
Partyboat

Pro

Hello, I will try to debate this, even though the argument for both sides is like talking to a wall.

God may be all knowing and all seeing, but that doesn't mean (s)he holds our hand the whole through. (S)He created this universe and placing animals, plants, and humans down in order to have some joy in the world. While some choose to be righteous and good, others are devilish in their actions. Just because there is misfortune in some areas, means God is ignoring.

To prove to one man or women there is a God is an impossible feat. They must find faith on there own account. But to those who believe God is in our hearts and souls and whats keeps our drum beat to the correct tune. Of course we are only humans and make mistakes. For me to give you scientific evidence is impossible; for I don't believe there is any. But to tell millions of people there isn't a God and expect them to believe you is never happening.
Debate Round No. 1
Cindela

Con

"God may be all knowing and all seeing, but that doesn't mean (s)he holds our hand the whole through." You said this. Are you saying that allowing millions of people to suffer is letting us learn a lesson? If God were truly benevolent, then he/she would help. He/she has not done anything to help. There are plenty of people helping in his/her name, but it is not God himself/herself that is actually helping. Just as an example, every 5 seconds, a CHILD dies from starvation. Are you saying that a benevolent God would allow this to happen? Would any person in with a consience allow this to happen if they had a choice to stop it? By our definition of God, he/she must be benevolent. Letting a child die every 5 seconds is not benevolence.

"S)He created this universe and placing animals, plants, and humans down in order to have some joy in the world. " Once again, how is haveing millions of people die everyday to things that could eaisly be prevented joy? Would you be joyful if you were starving everyday and had no education and was suffering form malaria? I don't think so. And yes, this does happen.

"To prove to one man or women there is a God is an impossible feat." Let us say for a moment that there is a God. If he/she showed us all some actual proof, that he/she existed, would he/she not be giving us proof? Would that not be concrete evidence to show that God exists? Therefore, it is not impossible to prove it.

"But to those who believe God is in our hearts and souls and whats keeps our drum beat to the correct tune. Of course we are only humans and make mistakes." How does this prove that God exists? You are just reafimming what I said.

Becuase the topic of this debate is "is there a god?" and the oppostition has not provided any argument showing that there is, I win this debate. The arguments that Partyboat have said have all been reufted by me and shown to be immaterial. Thank You
Partyboat

Pro

Partyboat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Cindela

Con

I am not going to post anything new. If you want to look at my previous arguments, scroll up. We can just make this a 2 round debate.
Partyboat

Pro

no following argument from me. Since there is nothing else to say. I believe Cindela won the debate though.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Really? Because I'm quite convinced that I exist. And if you're using it to mean trust that's simply equivocation. As for love, there's pretty clear evidence that love exists even excluding all the people with first hand experience there are fundamental changes in physiology as well as difference which show up on fMRI and brain chemistry.

You do not have faith in your family in the same way you have faith in God. You trust your family and you leap to an absurd conclusion with God.

You cannot prove God exists because God doesn't exist. I could give you a number of good reasons to doubt the existence of God. Just as I could give good arguments to doubt unicorns and goblins. The problem isn't that both sides are equal. If that is the case you should suspend your belief and neither believe or disbelieve... and guess what? That's atheism.

The problem is one side is saying you don't have one smattering of evidence and the other side is saying of course we don't have evidence we believe it more because it doesn't have evidence. When strictly speaking, you have no evidence for false things. -- To consider that evenly matched and thus a job for faith to fill in the gap is silly. I can't prove the existence of leprechauns either. Where does that leave the issue? Believe in leprechauns anyway?

Yes. Both sides of the argument can be proven. If God comes down from the sky and says I'm God. That's good evidence that God exist. Just as if the very notion of God is contradictory and absurd and there isn't one shred of evidence for the idea. That's good evidence that God doesn't exist.

To say that the evidence for X and not ~X is incomplete and thus lets assume X just because even though X is absurd and the world looks exactly like ~X is true... well that's not right.
Posted by megan91509 9 years ago
megan91509
Tatarize,
Some people do need faith to believe in themselves, and love. :)

I theory though, just as I can not prove to you God does exist, you can not prove to me God does not exist. So therefore it is a question of faith. In no way can either side of the argument ever be proven true, it is strictly an argument of opinion not fact.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
- Dan Barker

You can't prove God exists because God doesn't exist. The only way to even believe God exists is by suspending your ability to reason and declare that God exists. Giving it a cozy name like "faith" doesn't make it valid, its still a grossly flawed epistemological mistake. You can faith yourself into any number of beliefs even completely contradictory ones. Take a look at the debate on Mormonism for a good example of that.

Why does it take faith to believe in:
Unicorns.
Leprechauns.
Fairies.
Gods.
Goblins.
Ghosts.

Yet, no faith to believe in:
Chairs.
Water.
Yourself.
Wind.
Love.
Families.

I'll give you some time to mull it over.
Posted by christ88 9 years ago
christ88
How about instead of debating the existence of God, go to the root. Why do people believe in God? What made people's minds create this idea? It had to have been man that created or "found out" that there was a God, but with an all powerful being like that, would humans really be able to comprehend him and understand his existence?

The bible is just man writing about his experiences. It has been translated and edited for thousands of years by none other than the flaw filled man. How then can we believe it?

God is a creation of an idea to fill the lack of knowledge that humans have about our beginnings.

Also, not entirely related, but in this year we look back at the Greeks and practically mock their gods. Who now believes in Zeus? What will people think of our religions in a thousand years?
Posted by megan91509 9 years ago
megan91509
Also, because we can not prove God exists, can you prove
(s)he does not? No, because it takes some degree of faith to believe in God.
Posted by megan91509 9 years ago
megan91509
Cindela, God gave us free will, that is his/her gift to us. We screwed up the world to what it is now. The moral perversion of our society is something God can not control, not because (s)he is not powerful enough, but because he gave us the free will to choose and through that we chose to make our world the way it is. Our hope of being saved, is living a life that upholds moral standards, and provides the world and people around us with a better quality of life.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Sagarous, suggest that the limiting is unfair. This is true, but only because there is no God. In a universe with a God it would be as trivial as showing that there are chairs.

The only limitation is that you need to prove something false. If it were true, this limitation wouldn't exist and it would be pretty easy. After all, a benevolent God would be pretty obvious if the punishment for non-belief is eternal torture a benevolent God should make himself quite apparent. I suppose you could deny it if you wanted, but you'd be hard pressed to do so.

Though, without a God, one can not only disbelieve but have good reasons for disbelief. While believers need to undermine all logic and just conclude the conclusion on the grounds that they really want to and spend considerable effort maintaining this belief.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Conceding to a pantheist position due to a faulty definition is different than conceding to this position.

The Universe is not:
All Seeing
All Knowing
Benevolent
a Higher Being.

Partyboat is clearly lost. You can't prove the existence of such a God because there is no God. You might as well argue 2+2=7 or Square Circles Exist.
Posted by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
I knew there no answer for this but, decided to debate it anyway.
Posted by sdcharger 9 years ago
sdcharger
For Partyboat, you may reply that Cindela is merely a hypocrite because in one of his debates against Devils Advocate, he states and I quote "I concede, [Devils Advocate is] very right [he] says that to [him], the universe is a god, and therefore god exists. [Devils Advocate] have proven that a "god" exists." Therefore, because Cindela has actively admitted that God exists, this debate is quite over.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
CindelaPartyboatTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 9 years ago
burningpuppies101
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 
Vote Placed by Padfoot36 9 years ago
Padfoot36
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by King_Jas 9 years ago
King_Jas
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by undecided_voter 9 years ago
undecided_voter
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by indicolts 9 years ago
indicolts
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by UN_diplomat 9 years ago
UN_diplomat
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
CindelaPartyboatTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03