The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Shadowguynick
Pro (for)
Losing
0 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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 600 times Debate No: 35625
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Mikal

Con

I take the position that believers of any type of faith hold a large burden. I as an atheist can neither prove or disprove the existence of a celestial being. I can only take facts and assume the most logical conclusion, that there is not a God. To disprove this argument, one most provide iron clad evidence that there is a God.
Shadowguynick

Pro

I will accept this debate. However I am not taking the position that there is a christian God, or an Islamic God. Only that the idea that God is a supreme being who made the universe. I take this stance as you did not specify which god. Now in your second sentence you admit that you cannot disprove god. Yet by taking the facts that we know you can make a logical conclusion that there is no god. Please state these said facts in the next round, but I will assume you mean scientific evidence of the big bang. I perfectly agree that the big bang has a strong scientific backing. However there is a strange quirk of God. Who's to say God didn't make the big bang? And if we find evidence of what did make the big bang happen who's to say God didn't do that? And you could keep going on. This is very logical, and proves that the existence of God can coincide perfectly with science. This means that now both are equally logical conclusions. Now let's also look at the fact that scientists, although they have come very far, are no where close to finding the answers to how the universe works, how it exists, why it exists. Why should it? God is really the only answer thus far provided, and he makes sense. Now God is a more logical conclusion. Thus by your reasoning that we should believe the more logical of the choices. Now, as you have not provided any facts that make the existence of God illogical I will wait until the next round to expand my argument. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

Hello and I am grateful that you accepted this debate. I would first like to mention that I did not state a specific God, because I believe everyone of faith holds the same burden. When you believe in a God and accept the teachings of that God, whether it be a christian God, Allah, or any other type of celestial being you take a very difficult stand. You are essentially saying that you have chosen the correct God out of all the deities and religions that have ever been created. Unless you believe in Multiple religions which would be a fallacy, because almost every religion contradicts the next.

I entirely agree that if a God does exist science could support the existence of said being. In fact many modern Christians and Catholics hold this belief. It is called theistic evolution. People who hold this belief, admit that evolution is a fact but go on to say that God guided the process. This also extends to what you mentioned, that God could have caused the big bang.

I would first like to state as I mentioned earlier that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a God. To be able to to claim there is no God and prove so with absolute certainty you would have to be able to perform some type of test or experiment, which is impossible because religion is faith based. When you can not see a God, touch a God, or feel a God it turns into semantics. Trying to disprove a God would be the exact same thing as trying to argue that you have an imaginary friend. You can hold fast to the belief that he is there, and even claim that you know him personally but without being able to put variables into the equation then it is simply faith. Once you admit that you believe by faith, the argument is over because you are arguing due to personal experience and not facts.

Now lets take a look at why we can draw a factual conclusion that a celestial entity does not exist. First if a God does exist, he must exist out of space and time(at least as we perceive it). Second he would have the ability to do anything he wants. In addition to the first two our Morality would stem from him(which is probably the strongest case to support a God). If there is a God, as most people view it, why would he create us. If there is a God why would he allow bad things to happen to people to have faith in him. Would he not reward them?

Most of this argument is semantics due to there being no case to support it. The burden of proof stems further when you claim what you specially believe, whether it be Christian, Islam, Judaism or another other type of faith. Then one has to look at the claims that that specific God and religion makes. Bear in mind the point i made earlier as well, once you admit there is a God, you are saying that everyone who believes in a different type of God is wrong. Every person is an atheist in some regards. Christians are atheists in regards to every God but Christ. The same can be said about any other religion. Just through sheer probability and Odds, if someone can state that over 10 thousands deities and Gods are false, would the most logical answer not be just to take it one God further?

We have proof we can exist without a God, through evolution, the big bang, and the entire theory of evolution. We are one of among many species whose sole purpose is to adapt and survive. Science has shown us how we can evolve, and how we live. It has shown us our purpose is to live and die. Due to evolution, we have received a conscious and emotions, that help us make our reason to live. Through this stems morality, world views, and cultures. To even think that we as humans were made to worship a God, in a way is very boisterous and self centered statement. With all the galaxies and planets that we know of, we tend to believe we are the center of the universe and everything points to the fact that we are just one more species.

In short this whole argument can be finished with the idea that one has to first submit proof there is a God or the most rational and logical explanation is to believe there is not one. It is the same way we look at santa claus and the cookie monster. Until someone can show iron clad evidence to support it, all it can be is a hypothesis.
Shadowguynick

Pro

I thank you for your rebuttal, but if I may counter...

1. You state that God must exist outside space and time. But perhaps he just lives in another space, another time. As in another universe. Scientists are already investigating whether multiple universes can exist, and many believe they can. Therefore God can simply live in another universe.
2. Your next argument seems to rely on the idea that God is moral. You say that since God seemed to create us in his image he must be about as moral as us. Yet he may not have intentionally created us. He might have created the universe and it's laws, and watching for the results. You could say God is simply a scientist, watching the experiment of our universe. And like a good scientist he won't interfere with his experiment to skew the results.
3. You state that since there are many different religions it is likely that they are all wrong, due to the fact that they can't all be right. However this focuses on organized religion, as I am arguing for the existence of a supreme being that we don't know anything about. There is a difference because of the fact that a supreme being as I am describing it could correspond to any religion. Therefore we must look at organized religion as a whole, and not many different sectors.
4. You say we can live without God, but you could equally say that we can live with God as well. The fact that God doesn't need to exist doesn't mean he doesn't, and in fact I can argue that if God had started the big bang then we would need him. Oh and just a fun fact technically we are the center of the universe. In fact everything is the center of the universe. But I'm getting off track.
You lastly say that God must be the most logical conclusion. Given my refutations of your points, and the point I made that scientists still need to answer why the universe exists. Not how, but why. God can provide that answer, as I stated before God may have set up a universe for an experiment. Or for fun. Or because he's God and he can.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

The most difficult part about this argument is the last point you made. That is the fact that we have to a reason to exist. The simple answer is that we have no reason to exist. As i state previously all scientific data points to the fact, that we are just another species out of the millions that we know about.

You also make the point that God could exist within another universe. Even science is working on a explanation for a similar theory, howbeit it is very out there but still a more viable option that a magical being in the sky. This idea plays into the multiverse theory. Some scientist are starting to hypothesize that if a multiverse does exist, we could actually be projections from the future. At this point in the future technology is so advanced, that we could be a simulation. Think of it like a sims game. For more information on the string theory and the multiverse check the link below

http://www.math.columbia.edu...

When you take the pro argument, you assume the burden of truth. This entire argument is hinged around the fact that there is no evidence to support a God. The essence of belief is faith. Without evidence to support a God, we assume the most logical conclusion and learn from what science teaches us. There is no overall purpose in life, other than to live and to die. As i also stated earlier, without evidence to support a God, the most reasonable assumption is that there is none. The same can be said for any other test or experiment. Without proof, all you have is a hypothesis. It becomes a law when evidence supports it.

In your rebuttal you mentioned that the universe could function with a God and that a God would give us a purpose in life but you have not mentioned anything to support the fact that such a being exists. A pro argument supporting a God must offer proof that a God exists, and then i will offer a rebuttal to the evidence that you provide. Until that evidence is provided I still believe that the most logical explanation that people believe in a God by faith and not facts.
Shadowguynick

Pro

You misunderstand what I meant in my last point. I fully acknowledge that we as human beings don't have true reason to exist, other than to replicate DNA. But why does the universe as a whole actually exist? Why did the big bang happen? According to science, the big bang started as a singular point, a point so small that it practically did not exist. Then it rapidly expanded into what we know as our universe. Yet we do not know why that singular point was there, why in the midst of no time, no space, came forth time and space. Science can explain how that happened, but they don't know why that happened. There's logically no reason it should have happened. If we go back to life for a moment though. Life also has no real reason it exists. It just does. However there is factual evidence to how it did happen. We know that life started as DNA molecules, who eventually started to protect themselves with other molecules, and that it eventually evolved into what we know as life. But with the big bang we can explain what happened when it happened, but we cannot explain how that singular point was there in the first place.

You say that the future could become so advanced that they can make little universe projections, like a sims game as you said, and that we are just one of those. Yet what makes the maker of this projection not God? God is essentially the supreme being that created the universe we live in, set its laws, and created its dimensions. The maker of our projection would be our God. He fits all of our notions of God.

You say that without evidence it is logical to believe there is no God, and that we should follow science. However I have proved that God fits very nicely with science. Therefore it would be just as logical to support atheism or theism. However because of the questions that science can't answer we have to assume that theism is more logical because of the fact that they can provide answers. My evidence is logic. Your last statement was that people believe in a God by faith, and not by facts. However you can believe in a God by logic. And I have indeed proved that God is a much more logical choice between atheism and theism.

I would like to thank you for debating with me. I found this a very interesting debate, and I would like to thank you for including the link to an article on multiverse theory. I tried to argue for the existence of God in a way I don't believe many people have seen before, and I hope you found my arguments were sound.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
Thank you, and thank you for explaining what he meant. He worded it rather strange. It was nice debating you, and it seems to me you have probably. And if you do, congratulations!
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
And also my apologies for wording the initial statement wrong. Perhaps it would have been better worded to say since there is no evidence to support a God the logical conclusion is that there is not one. That you defool for making this apparent to me.

Either way I enjoyed our debated and it was nice to see someone debate this from a different view point
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I believe he is stating that when you take on the pro argument for this you bear the burden of proof. Because you can not prove a God does not exist, it is a viable alternative to assume one does exist.

Most people who try to argue this point will try to play the morality argument or the fine tuning argument which you hinted at.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
@DeFool please explain your reasoning better so I myself can get better at debating. It sounds like you are saying that my argument was hard to disprove, yet you also say that con had better arguments. I am confused as to which of us you believe had the better argument then?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Inductivelogic 3 years ago
Inductivelogic
MikalShadowguynickTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Everything on here is virtually a tie. The only reason I am voting for CON is because he somehow managed to put the BOP on PRO which is sort of funny since he took the initial stance. Since it played out this way though, arguments to con since pro could not meet BOP. Also sources to CON because he had one and PRO did not
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
MikalShadowguynickTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: The R1 instigation states a common logical mistake: "since I cannot disprove the existence of gods and goddesses, I cannot be certain that they do not exist." Despite this, CON asserts that he is quite sure that there are no such things. PRO responds with a well-known fallacy: "It is logical to think that a powerful alien created the universe because we cannot prove absolutely that it did not happen that way." (It is notoriously difficult to prove a negative; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc.) We also cannot prove absolutely that Barack Obama did not create the universe, but we can speculate about the matter in order to expose the fallacy in the argument more clearly. This argument formed the centerpiece of PRO?s argument. Arguments, CON.