The Instigator
qopel
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
BigSky
Pro (for)
Losing
5 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
qopel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,249 times Debate No: 30409
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

qopel

Con

Science can"t prove there is no God, but science can prove things in the Bible are false.
Science has given us answers that directly contradict what the Bible claims. A
good example would be the story of Adam and Eve. The Bible claims Adam was created from a pile of dirt, and then, for some reason, God needed a body part, like a rib, in order to create Eve.
Evolution is a proven fact. It"s not "just a theory" as many falsely claim it is. A scientific theory, as opposed to the layman"s definition of a theory, is the highest form of proof that science has to offer. The entire fossil record that can be measured with various forms of radiometric dating, along with DNA and other scientific evidence, overwhelmingly proves that humans did evolve from lower life forms. Either it was a pile of dirt, or a long process of evolution. Only one of those has been proven true.
If anyone wants evidence for any scientific theory, it can be obtained. People
are not expected to read science books and blindly believe what they say, like the Bible. Most anything in a science book can be proven with experiments or a math equation.
The use of logical fallacies, and claiming science isn't true, will hinder a person
from being able to learn about what is really true.
It"s one thing to use God as an answer for things that we don"t have answers to,
yet. However, Creationists will insist that the Earth is no older than 6,000 years
old, that man lived with dinosaurs and that evolution is a hoax. Some will even go
as far as to suggest the Devil planted fossils in order to trick scientists!
Those who ignore the scientific evidence in order to continue to believe what
the Bible claims, without evidence, are being ignorant.
Atheism is the default position. If you don"t choose to believe, you end up not believing. That"s why it"s not a choice. Atheism is not a belief. It"s a non-belief. You can"t turn your back on something you don"t believe to exist. If there is nothing, which direction do you turn your back to?
A good way to explain this is with the American justice system. When somebody
is accused of a crime, it"s the prosecution"s burden of proof to prove him/her guilty. Nobody is required to prove they are innocent. We are all considered innocent until proven guilty. That"s the default position no matter if we committed
the crime or not. It"s just like the default position to not believe in a God, no matter if there is a God or not. The jury can either decide that there is enough evidence to claim guilt or they can say there isn"t enough evidence, in which case they claim "not guilty". No jury is required to claim somebody innocent. If there is exculpatory evidence that can prove innocence, like a solid alibi, the person
shouldn"t be on trial to begin with. They can be found "not guilty" and still have
committed the crime. (OJ Simpson might be a good example of that). It"s not
black or white.
In order for something to be believed to be true, you need evidence to back it
up. Atheism is the default position, just like innocent is the default position. You"re innocent until guilt is proven and you"re an atheist until God is proven. This only works if you actually care that what you believe in is actually true. If you just want to claim somebody guilty without evidence or claim there is a God without evidence, then what"s really true doesn"t matter.
If somebody makes a claim that there is a God, the burden of proof is on
them to prove that there is a God. If you really care about what you believe in as
being true, you can"t just believe things on faith. If we did that, we would believe
all kinds of whacky things, like aliens, Big Foot, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. With
faith, you could make anything up (like a flying spaghetti monster) and claim it is
true, just because you believe it. Saying, "Since you can"t prove it not true, then it
must be true" is a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance. That kind of
logic just doesn"t work.
Nobody knows for sure that there isn"t a God. Of course there"s a chance that there is one, just like there is a chance that there are other things we can"t prove. The thing is, you can"t go around making claims that things exist that you can"t prove. If you want to believe in unicorns, for example, you have the freedom to do so. That doesn"t make them real and you have no justification for claiming them as real, just because you believe in them. All you can claim is that you believe they are real, not that they are real.
BigSky

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for making this debate. Since my opponent chose the Con side of the issue, I will assume my opponent does not believe in God. I will make the case that Evolution does not prove that God doesn’t exist, and why God does exist.

My opponent did not provide definitions, so I will do so.

Evolution: Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation,
natural selection, and genetic drift.

God: The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Exist: To have actual being.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Why I believe in God, or, why God exists:

If you believe in logic, than you believe in God:
You agree that it is impossible for nothing to create something, right? Everything must come from something. Now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if I say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.) Thus meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) must have created everything. As for the then how was God created question. God does not need to be created because he has been around forever; you may say how is this possible? God is without time. He lives in the past present and future and to him time is a mere physical boundary that humans live in.

http://able2know.org...;

This, my dear opponent, is why I believe in God. Now I will show you why the theory of evolution does not disprove God’s existence.
A while back, a debate took place on DDO titled “Evolution does NOT preclude Christianity.” I will refer to this debate throughout my argument. You can find it here:

http://www.debate.org...

While there are those who believe that the existence of God means that Creationism is ultimately true as we interpret it, there are a smaller percentage of Americans who believe that there is a theistic evolution, 32% to be exact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com......


When a passage is re-interpreted to match the physical world God made, it will likely be truer to God's original intention, because God made the world. If a person does actually believe God is the creator, they must accept the truth about the physical world. They should not fear it (as the Church did with Galileo's findings) because it comes from God, the same presumed source as the Bible.


-User Known as Avalanche


“If somebody makes a claim that there is a God, the burden of proof is on
them to prove that there is a God. If you really care about what you believe in as
being true, you can"t just believe things on faith. If we did that, we would believe
all kinds of whacky things, like aliens, Big Foot, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. With
faith, you could make anything up (like a flying spaghetti monster) and claim it is
true, just because you believe it. Saying, "Since you can"t prove it not true, then it
must be true" is a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance. That kind of
logic just doesn"t work.”

For the sake of this debate I told my opponent a more logical reason for why God exists, but while a big part of my religion is based on faith, it is also based on the Bible: a text that has established its ethos by not only supporting the most followers, but for being the bestselling book of all time.

http://answers.yahoo.com...

http://home.comcast.net...

“Atheism is the default position, just like innocent is the default position. You"re innocent until guilt is proven and you"re an atheist until God is proven.”

This is a completely biased and untrue statement. You claim atheism is the default position out of your own personal opinion, and that you must be atheist. I could say that you are Catholic until you prove that God doesn’t exist, and it would have the same meaning as what you just said.

Thank you for the interesting topic, I look forward to your response.

Debate Round No. 1
qopel

Con

I will accept the definitions my opponent has provided.

My opponent falsely claims that I agree that it is impossible for nothing to create something. It is impossible to prove such a claim, since there has never been a "nothing" to examine. The definition of "nothing" has not even been established.

My opponent claims "something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) must have created everything". This is assuming that everything had to have been created. Science has demonstrated that things such as trees, don't need to be "created", since they simply can grow from seeds. God does not come down with a set of blue prints and a tool box to "create"" trees. Science has also proven that it is possible for stars and planets to form naturally without the need for them to have been created by a God.

My opponent is making claims without evidence:
"God does not need to be created, because he has been around forever".
Where is the evidence for that?
I might also add, that if a God could be around forever, then so could the Universe have been around forever. That would make the God unnecessary as a creator, since the Universe would have already existed before a God had a chance to create it.

"God is without time".
Again, a claim without evidence.

"He lives in the past present and future and to him time is a mere physical boundary that humans live in".
Can that be proven?

If those are the reasons my opponent believes in God, then the belief is without evidence and based on faith alone. Faith is the excuse to believe something without evidence.

Now I will refer to a logical fallacy my opponent is trying to use in this debate.

"While there are those who believe that the existence of God means that Creationism is ultimately true as we interpret it, there are a smaller percentage of Americans who believe that there is a theistic evolution, 32% to be exact."

This is called an Ad Populem. It does not matter how many people believe a certain way. There was a time in history when most people believed the Earth was flat. That didn't make it true.

"...the Bible: a text that has established its ethos by not only supporting the most followers, but for being the bestselling book of all time."

The fact that the Bible is a best selling book, doesn't make it true. Neither does the fact that is has the most followers. In order to use the Bible as evidence, my opponent would first have to prove that the Bible itself is true.

My claim that Atheism is the default position is not just a personal opinion of mine. Atheism is the lack of a belief, not a belief. The moment a person is born, they have no belief in anything, which means they are Atheist. That's the default. Only when a human can be taught and comprehend the meaning of a God, and then believe it as being true, do they become a theist.

My opponent has attempted to use the statement: "you are Catholic until you prove that God doesn't exist". This is a classic shifting of the burden of proof. The moment I'm born, I am not a Catholic, I'm an Atheist, so how can I be a Catholic until I prove God doesn't exist? Again, the burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. You don't have to prove God doesn't exist. The person claiming God exists is the one who has the burden of proof.

I will ask that my worthy opponent only make claims that can be proven with true facts. Making claims that can not be proven is just a waste of time.
BigSky

Pro

Thanks for my opponents insightful response.

“My opponent falsely claims that I agree that it is impossible for nothing to create something. It is impossible to prove such a claim, since there has never been a "nothing" to examine. The definition of "nothing" has not even been established.”

Nothing- Here are just a few “established” definitions of nothing.
1. No thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
2. No part, share, or trace : The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
3. Something that is nonexistent.
4. Nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.
5. Something or someone of no importance or significance: Money is nothing when you're without health.

http://dictionary.reference.com...


“My opponent claims "something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) must have created everything". This is assuming that everything had to have been created. Science has demonstrated that things such as trees, don't need to be "created", since they simply can grow from seeds. God does not come down with a set of blue prints and a tool box to "create"" trees. Science has also proven that it is possible for stars and planets to form naturally without the need for them to have been created by a God. “

Where do seeds come from my opponent? Originally, I mean. Science has not documented what happened before the big bang. The bible has.


The fact of this debate is that my opponent says there cannot be a God because creationism is invalid. My opponent doesn’t recognize that believing in evolution does not mean you do not believe in God. So when you are voting my dear voters, please at least take this into account.


“My opponent is making claims without evidence: "God does not need to be created, because he has been around forever".

Where is the evidence for that?”

The Bible.

Before my opponent asks for evidence again, I will ask him for evidence. So far he hasn’t put forward any evidence saying that since creationism may not be valid, there is no God. If one cannot prove that God is non-existent, which my opponent cannot, and I can offer proof that God is existent, which is the more valid claim?

“I might also add, that if a God could be around forever, then so could the Universe have been around forever. That would make the God unnecessary as a creator, since the Universe would have already existed before a God had a chance to create it.”


Who says the Universe has been around forever? There is no proof of it, and I surely never said that. Also, God is not tied to the Universe, he doesn’t need it.


"While there are those who believe that the existence of God means that Creationism is ultimately true as we interpret it, there are a smaller percentage of Americans who believe that there is a theistic evolution, 32% to be exact." This is called an Ad Populem. It does not matter how many people believe a certain way. There was a time in history when most people believed the Earth was flat. That didn't make it true.”

I merely stated that there are people in the world who believe in both evolution and God; I did not say this proved that God exists. I will not humor my opponent’s ignorance.


“The fact that the Bible is a best selling book, doesn't make it true. Neither does the fact that is has the most followers. In order to use the Bible as evidence, my opponent would first have to prove that the Bible itself is true.”


My opponent once again pushes the burden of proof upon me, when it is obviously a shared burden. The bible is a credible source because it is a more credible source then any theory a scientist has written about time before the big bang, because there hasn’t been a credible theory about what happened before the big bang. It’s all guesses. Also it is not “a” bestselling book; it is “the” bestselling book.


“My claim that Atheism is the default position is not just a personal opinion of mine. Atheism is the lack of a belief, not a belief. The moment a person is born, they have no belief in anything, which means they are Atheist. That's the default. Only when a human can be taught and comprehend the meaning of a God, and then believe it as being true, do they become a theist.

My opponent has attempted to use the statement: "you are Catholic until you prove that God doesn't exist". This is a classic shifting of the burden of proof. The moment I'm born, I am not a Catholic, I'm an Atheist, so how can I be a Catholic until I prove God doesn't exist? Again, the burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. You don't have to prove God doesn't exist. The person claiming God exists is the one who has the burden of proof.”

Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God.


http://dictionary.reference.com...


Atheism is by definition the belief that God doesn’t exist. Not a lack of belief. Since a person has no beliefs at their time of birth, then they cannot be atheist. I brought up the Catholic belief to show how ridiculous my opponent’s statement was. The burden of proof is not necessarily on the positive claim, you claim there is no God, prove it.


Thank You

Vote Pro

Debate Round No. 2
qopel

Con

My opponent has not made any valid points.

My opponent has previously stated ""something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) must have created everything".
Based on that statement, I will have to assume that "no matter" and "no time" is my opponent's definition of "nothing". My opponent is leaving out energy, which is something.

As I previously stated, it is impossible to examine "nothing" (No matter what definition you want to give it),
which means it can't be proven that something can't come from nothing.

The Big Bang states that the Universe came from a singularity. A singularity isn't "nothing".

My opponent asks the question, "Where do seeds come from?"
Seeds come from trees. Trees evolved from lower life forms.
That is a proven fact.
Although science does not have an answer as to how the first life form came about,
science has several possible ways that it could have happened, and they do not
require the help of a God.

http://youtu.be...

My opponent said "Science has not documented what happened before the big bang."
That's like saying "Science has not documented what lies North of the North Pole."
Since the Big bang was the beginning of time itself, it would be impossible for
something to happen before the Big Bang.

The Bible claims to have answers, yet has no evidence to back those answers up.
The Bible itself, can not be used as evidence for anything, since there is no proof
of who wrote it, nor is there proof of what it says is true. The contents of a science book,
on the other hand, can be proven true with experiments and observations that can be repeated
over and over.

My opponent says, "...believing in evolution does not mean you do not believe in God"

First of all, nobody "believes" in evolution. Evolution doesn't require faith, because it is a fact,
not a belief. It's true that there are people who accept evolution, and still put critical thinking
aside when it comes to God. That still doesn't prove there is a God.

As I motioned before, the Bible can not be used as evidence for anything, since it is just a book,
much like a Harry Potter book. It has no evidence to back up what it says.
My opponent has asked me to provide evidence that "since creationism may not be valid, there is no God."
This is an attempt of my opponent to try to shift the burden of proof.
It is impossible for anyone to prove there is no God. However, I am not claiming there is no God.
I am claiming that there isn't enough evidence to prove there is a God. The burden of proof,
is in fact on those who make a positive claim.

You don't believe something until it is proven false. You only believe something when it is proven true.
If you believed everything until it was proven false, you would then believe in any God that ever existed!

My opponent asks, "Who says the Universe has been around forever?"
I never said it was. All I said was that if God could have been around forever and was not created from nothing,
then it is also possible, based on that same statement, that the Universe itself COULD have also been around forever.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. It is not a claim that God doesn't exist. I am not "pushing" the burden of proof on my opponent.
I already explained why the burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim.
My opponent is not being honest when insisting that I am claiming there is no God.

Conclusion: Since my opponent refuses to admit that the burden of proof is on the one making a positive
claim, the debate is useless. The only evidence my opponent presented was the Bible, which has been
proven to be nothing more than a book of fairy tales, based on the lack of evidence for its content.

Science has been able to provide many answers that prove the Bible wrong. Although science does not have
all the answers my opponent is demanding answers for, it still doesn't prove that there is a God.

Primitive man used to claim that God created lightning, because of the lack of scientific knowledge
of what it really is. For every new answer science proves true, another Bible explanation becomes obsolete.
Every unanswered question does not automatically mean a God is the answer. It means we
haven't found the scientific answer, yet.
BigSky

Pro

Thank you for the quick response.

“My opponent has not made any valid points.”

I believe I have made a few, but if you insist.

“Based on that statement, I will have to assume that "no matter" and "no time" is my opponent's definition of "nothing". My opponent is leaving out energy, which is something.”

In his last argument, my opponent stated that “nothing” didn’t have a documented definition. Now he is saying that for something to be nothing, it needs to have zero energy. He still has yet to provide a definition for “nothing.”

“As I previously stated, it is impossible to examine "nothing" (No matter what definition you want to give it), which means it can't be proven that something can't come from nothing.”

Space is a vacuum. A vacuum is space entirely devoid of matter, or anything.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

An argument can be made that space is mostly “nothing.”
One could examine space, since that there is nothing to observe, you are observing “nothing.”

“My opponent asks the question, "Where do seeds come from?"
Seeds come from trees. Trees evolved from lower life forms.
That is a proven fact. Although science does not have an answer as to how the first life form came about, science has several possible ways that it could have happened, and they do not
require the help of a God.”

If there is no actual fact about how a seed came to be, then how can there be a theory that disproves God’s existence? Seeing as how one major theory is creationism, you could say that there is no need for science.

“The Bible claims to have answers, yet has no evidence to back those answers up.
The Bible itself, can not be used as evidence for anything, since there is no proof
of who wrote it, nor is there proof of what it says is true. The contents of a science book,
on the other hand, can be proven true with experiments and observations that can be repeated
over and over.”

The bible is a written account of God’s existence. It has never been entirely disproven, and has been scrutinized with new interpretations from various religions. It is constantly becoming more credible.

http://etoddfisher.com...

“First of all, nobody "believes" in evolution. Evolution doesn't require faith, because it is a fact,
not a belief. It's true that there are people who accept evolution, and still put critical thinking
aside when it comes to God. That still doesn't prove there is a God.”

Evolution is known by scientists as a theory, not a proven fact. Scientists want to know the truth about everything, but they never say the word fact. This is because if that theory is ever disproven, they wouldn’t have falsely called it a fact.

Fact: Something that actually exists; reality; truth.
Theory: A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

“As I motioned before, the Bible can not be used as evidence for anything, since it is just a book,much like a Harry Potter book. It has no evidence to back up what it says.”

Harry Potter is not a religion and has been worshipped since Moses freed the Jews.

“Then it is also possible, based on that same statement, that the Universe itself COULD have also been around forever.”

This debate is not based off what could have been, but what is.

“Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. It is not a claim that God doesn't exist. I am not "pushing" the burden of proof on my opponent.”

I posted the definition of Atheism on my last post. It is a belief, a belief that God does not exist, by definition.

Atheism- The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

My opponent insists that I have the burden of proof because I am the “Pro” argument, but my opponent states that there is no God by taking the Con side of the issue. I have given my reasons; I would like my opponent to give his.

“Conclusion: Since my opponent refuses to admit that the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim, the debate is useless. The only evidence my opponent presented was the Bible, which has been proven to be nothing more than a book of fairy tales, based on the lack of evidence for its content.”

Where is this proof? You repeatedly say the word proven but have no sources and no argument.

“Primitive man used to claim that God created lightning, because of the lack of scientific knowledge of what it really is. For every new answer science proves true, another Bible explanation becomes obsolete. Every unanswered question does not automatically mean a God is the answer. It means we haven't found the scientific answer, yet.”

And when you have those answers, you will be able to make a more valid argument.
Thank you to the audience for reading.
Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
It's OK when you vote bomb me though, right, Bigsky?
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
Wiploc that was just an unfair votebomb.
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
I plagerized nothing. But you can't always win.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
I'm new to this, but I learned my lesson.
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
whoops, meant pointed out any sources that weren't credible
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
You should have pointed out any inaccuracies in my spelling during the debate.
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
Challenge me anytime.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
It has been pointed out that my opponent used more "sources" than I did. It is possible, with the millions of websites on the internet, to find a source that fits what you are trying to claim as true. That doesn't mean that the source is accurate. The voting should not be based on how many sources are used, but on the accuracy of the sources used.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
Let's do another debate with set definitions and rules this time. I never brought up the word nothing...you did, so you need to define what nothing is. Space is something.

The last argument was just bellyaching and complaining. Let's do it right.
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
By taking the con position, my opponent didn't say that he knew whether or not God existed, he made the argument that God does not exist. Which he never attempted to prove.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
qopelBigSkyTied
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 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: Full Forfeit for plagiarism.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
qopelBigSkyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Pro used sources, while con used nearly none. Arguments: Con was hypocritical: he claimed that con used no evidence when he didn't either, while pro has provided logic. Conduct: Pro has used circular reasoning: using the Bible to prove the Bible.