The Instigator
Ahzeem
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
Logos
Con (against)
Losing
40 Points

Is there a God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/20/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,701 times Debate No: 728
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (26)

 

Ahzeem

Pro

My argument is simple. Everything has to come from somewhere. Where or who everything comes from is the big question. Society today has thousands of answers to questions that plague our entire world. "Is there a God?" "Where did the universe come from?" or my favorite, "Which is the right religion?". In this argument I want to say that only one question is to be debated and that is whether or not there is a God.

I will first say that in order for anything to be explained or any question to be answered, one can not escape a never ending paradox. One can say that faith can be without paradox because it is a gift from God and nothing can be more true then a gift from a perfect being. But I want to point out that even faith is in question. The story of Abraham is a paradox of faith. With that being said I reiterate that something always begets another.

In this world, science poses a lot of answers. Science can be completely dismissed as a logical means of answers towards religion because science is not the rock bottom way of answering things. Science is not powerful enough to explain to every extent how something is true or false. One could ask how is science real or logical. Everything can be questioned.

I finish by asking you to prove one thing. Without this answer, you cannot say that there is not some higher power that has something to do with our existence. Prove that science can answer everything and that the variables we base our equations on in this galaxy are infinite throughout the entire universe. Science only holds truth as far as we can see but not as far as we can imagine.
Logos

Con

For the purposes of this argument I will assume we are using the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful definition of God.

Your logic possesses several flaws. You are saying that if I cannot conclusively prove EVERY scientific theory correct, then there must be a God. That is absurd! There could be any number of contemporary scientific theories that may or may have flaws in them, but lack of evidence to support one of them does NOT definitively establish the existence of God.

More to the point, you still have yet to establish some logical evidence SUPPORTING the existence of a deity. Questioning science is not the same as presenting logical proof as to why there is a conscious being whose omnipotent nature supersedes the rational order of the universe.

It may be fair to say that science cannot definitively, 100% prove that all matter in the universe was originally contained at a single point in space, and it exploded outward from that point (Big Bang theory). However, it also cannot be conclusively proven that at some point there was an intelligent being with the ability to create the entire universe as it exists currently, and did so. In logic, the explanation of a phenomenon which requires the least assumption is considered the best explanation. (Occam's Razor.) So, which of these explanations for the origin of the universe requires the least assumption:

1) Gravity (an observable force) attracted larger and larger bodies of matter together, until all matter that exists (or at least all matter within a remarkably large area) was collected at one tiny, tiny point in space. When all this matter could not be contained so closely together, it exploded, forcing all matter in the universe outward from that point. Matter slowly collected together as it traveled away from that point, forming stars, galaxies, planets, etc.

2) There exists an unobservable, conscious being whose existence cannot be verified. For an unknown reason, this entity poses the ability to create matter from nothing (not usually considered "possible"). This deity creates all matter in the universe, arranges it into galaxies, has it all travel away from one random point for no particular reason, then vanishes, never to be seen again.

It is not reasonable to assume that there is an unobservable entity with the ability to circumvent all known laws of nature, especially when those laws of nature support and are supported by testable, observable phenomenon.

It would be fair to say that the Big Bang example I raised does not explain where the matter came from, but your statements do not explain where God came from either.
Debate Round No. 1
Ahzeem

Pro

I am glad you have responded the way you did. What you are saying is that God can not be real because logic and the laws of the universe say otherwise or if not to say that this disproves the existence of a God, it makes it very unlikely. Well I say to you that science once again can not be used in this manner.

What we know, what our brains are attuned to can only be described as a minute fraction of the entire universe. So small, that you can not possibly begin to think we are here out of coincidence. Not yet at least.

I can not tell you why a supreme being would make us how we are and make us think the way we think but if you just look at every dimension of thought and energy in our image of reality, you have to think that something is happening behind the curtain.

Think of it this way. Let us say that a spaceship is traveling to the outer reaches of the universe. This ship came from Earth. Every tool utilized on that ship completely depends on everything we think we know. Now that ship travels into some random black hole. What we believe will happen is completely wrong. The ship materializes into some weird object because molecules may act differently and every instrument aboard fails because math and science are a random happening of variables and equations that hold true on our planet but have absolutely no validity anywhere else.

This will be looked at as something more to learn. But how can you possibly say that. If nothing holds true in that hole, then how will it ever be explained. By our perception, science and math could never tell us. God must exist. Without a God, none of this, what i am doing now, what you are doing know, what our universe is doing know, and how we exist now could not be possible.

You say gravity and I say, give me a choice. What is gravity. What if gravity isn't real. What if we are completely wrong about everything. We could be. The best thing we have to answers is ignorance. We sit around and wait for things to happen and then say how it happens using math and science. I have seen some math equations that speak of the universe in more then 20 dimensions. Some only round it out to about 8. In order for anything we know to exist, our mathematicians are MAKING UP DIMENSIONS! By making up I of course by your standards mean they have yet to come up with more crazy theories on how they exist.

I am afraid that in order to explain life itself, you take on a much more complicated approach that once again will always fall into a paradox. Your math and science will only take us so far. My answer is much less complicated. Someone or something, an energy of sorts controls or had at one time control over this universe. Everything that is, can be explained. So let me end this argument with this...

"The universe works on a math equation that never even ever really even ends in the end."

or

God = Universe

I am pretty certain by Occam's Razor my theory would be the correct one.
Logos

Con

"What you are saying is that God can not be real because logic and the laws of the universe say otherwise or if not to say that this disproves the existence of a God, it makes it very unlikely."

I am not saying that there CANNOT be a God, but that there is no evidence to support such a claim, and that until there IS evidence it is not reasonable to assume that God exists.

"I can not tell you why a supreme being would make us how we are and make us think the way we think but if you just look at every dimension of thought and energy in our image of reality, you have to think that something is happening behind the curtain."

If one considers the infinite possibilities of what can exist in the universe, obviously some of these will be beyond the realm of current human understanding. However;

1) Simply because we can imagine something does not necessarily mean it is true. Your black hole analogy is flawed because there is no way to know that all of "what we know" would fail if we got too close to a collapsed star.

2) There are some examples of natural phenomenon that science cannot fully explain currently. Key word is "currently." Simply because we do not know the logical explanation for why phenomenon X occurs does not mean said occurrence was caused by a supernatural forces or a conscious deity.

"You say gravity and I say, give me a choice. What is gravity. What if gravity isn't real. What if we are completely wrong about everything. We could be."

Again I bring up Occam's Razor. Gravity is an observed, testable, explainable force. It takes less assumptions to state that gravity exists and prove it than to state that gravity is an illusion and that there is another force we don't know about that causes the universe to act the way it does.

"I am afraid that in order to explain life itself, you take on a much more complicated approach that once again will always fall into a paradox."

You have yet to demonstrate an example of such a paradox, or show why such a paradox is conclusive proof of a deity's existence.
Debate Round No. 2
Ahzeem

Pro

If I were to state a single paradox, I would have to go on forever. Our existence is a paradox. Why are we here on this planet? Well if the answer is to or at some time was to thrive and live together in peace, we are doing a horrible job. So we were put on this earth through science or what have you and our nature, as is the nature of every living thing on this earth, is to survive and flourish. Well now we have done such a great job of evolving that we have some how created a hell on Earth because of how we think and how smart we think we are.

It is common knowledge that the more you think about something, the more screwed up you will be when you try to act. Like a question on a test, your first answer is usually always the best because a subliminal spark is sent through your brain to tell you that somewhere along the line, that answer sounds right. The big problem today is that we have had too much time to think about the question of life and not enough time believing in our instinct.

The notion of God is completely destroyed by religion. Religion is a wonderful way to think too much about something. In this debate I am just trying to completely move away from these kinds of things and enter into an absence of thought. If you close your eyes and fall back into the darkness of your mind, you do not think in rational, scientifically plausible manners. Your mind and what it can due goes above and beyond what science can tell you.

My final words in this debate will be about your accusation as to how I have not shown the existence of God. The existence of a higher power is shown to you every day. Through everything you do, all the beauty you see, all the love you may or may not feel towards someone. I absolutely agree with every single thing you have said about science and how it explains everything we know. But there lies your flaw. Science is over thinking. We will always as humans, find ways to over think things and ways to make our existence on this world meaningful or at least plausible. It is comforting. It truly is. But your greatest achievement in life, I truly hope, will not be to say that I almost came close to the answer. There will always be an almost in everything we do. The only thing that doesn't almost come to an answer is God.
Logos

Con

"Our existence is a paradox. Why are we here on this planet?"

This question is not a paradox. A lack of a definitive answer, or even an answer at all, does not establish a paradox.

"So we were put on this earth through science or what have you and our nature, as is the nature of every living thing on this earth, is to survive and flourish."

This post demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of science. To state that human life developed through natural processes is NOT saying "we were put on this Earth through science." Science is a method for examining and interpreting evidence to reach a logical conclusion. Evolution is a scientific idea because it is the most logical explanation of the origin of life, and because it fits with the observable evidence we have. Also, how you claim to know the "nature" of every living thing on Earth is beyond me. It is true, all species demonstrates a survival instinct, but this fact does not demonstrate their "nature", whatever that might be, and it CERTAINLY does not show that there is a God of any kind.

"Well now we have done such a great job of evolving that we have some how created a hell on Earth because of how we think and how smart we think we are.""

Evolution in no way guarantees that life will be happy and safe for all. Life may be unpleasant and even hellish in many parts of the world, but again, this does not disprove any scientific tenants at all. More to the point, wouldn't this "hell on Earth" you describe make it LESS likely there is a benevolent deity looking out for the welfare of mankind? Are you saying that God would create all life on Earth only to watch it destroy itself?

"The existence of a higher power is shown to you every day. Through everything you do, all the beauty you see, all the love you may or may not feel towards someone."

Chemical reactions in the brain are not definitive proof that God exists.

"I absolutely agree with every single thing you have said about science and how it explains everything we know."

That is NOT what I am saying! I am saying that, until there is solid, demonstrated evidence SUPPORTING the existence of a deity such as the one you have described, THEN it is reasonable to accept its existence as true. I in no way am saying that "science" is some sort of religion in itself with all the answers. I am saying that answers found through the scientific method are better than those based on assumption and belief. Science is not about making answers, it is about FINDING and EXPLAINING them. And I will admit there are questions we have not found the answer to yet, but this fact does not prove that every answer found though science so far is wrong!

"In this debate I am just trying to completely move away from these kinds of things and enter into an absence of thought."

In that, at least, you succeeded. However, you still have yet to demonstrate any real evidence. Empty rhetoric is not a logical foundation.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Pricetag 8 years ago
Pricetag
I didn't say who I voted for or why I voted. I actually didn't even vote. I was just throwing that out there as a reason for why everything's here, nothing more.
Posted by Ahzeem 8 years ago
Ahzeem
well it doesn't really matter who believes in a God so much as to who loves to challenge themselves to a debate. I myself do not believe in a God. I challenged myself to debate something against my beliefs. Logos is actually a good friend of mine and we had a good laugh over this one. I must say to you "Pricetag" that you are not here for the right reasons. Logos stated nothing about the law of conservation of energy and he still made a good point. You don't vote for what side you believe in, you vote for who won the debate in your mind. I do believe that logos shall win this one so i wish to consider this my formal public congrats towards him.
Posted by Pricetag 8 years ago
Pricetag
It's possible that because of the law of conservation of mass and energy that everything has always been here. Just throwing that out there for the skeptics that still believe in God.
Posted by tylerc29 8 years ago
tylerc29
This debate annoyed me, because while I agree with the Pro's position on the topic, the better debating was clearly done by the Con. The Con side not only brought forth their own arguments, but responded to all of the Pro's arguments. Good job.
Posted by fenderjazzerguy 8 years ago
fenderjazzerguy
Even with the Big Bang theory something had to make that original energy, matter, whatever. Something had to start it all. I believe there is a higher deity, force, or something that science cannot explain. Until we can fully use our brains, or even figure out how our brain fully works we will never understand this.
Posted by TexasRanger 8 years ago
TexasRanger
I'm right here! Hello, i DO exist!
Posted by TexasRanger 8 years ago
TexasRanger
What you all fail to realize here is that Chuck Norris is already declared, and officially KNOWN as the supreme super-god; therefore, this debate is WORTHLESS because there's already an answer. A PROVEN answer. And as we all know, you cannot provide a counter-example to a proven statement.
Posted by gack1224 8 years ago
gack1224
Essentially, there is a point where it is impossible to understand completely what is and is not. You can understand the concept of infinity without ever proving it (you can prove that something can be divided again and again until physically impossible to see by a human, but that itself entails that you can never see/prove it directly).
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logos 7 years ago
Logos
AhzeemLogosTied
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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
AhzeemLogosTied
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 YummyYummCupcake 8 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
AhzeemLogosTied
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 Ristaag 8 years ago
Ristaag
AhzeemLogosTied
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 Araj 8 years ago
Araj
AhzeemLogosTied
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 Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
Devils_Advocate
AhzeemLogosTied
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 aaroncoleman 8 years ago
aaroncoleman
AhzeemLogosTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
AhzeemLogosTied
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 Scyrone 8 years ago
Scyrone
AhzeemLogosTied
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 zainie143 8 years ago
zainie143
AhzeemLogosTied
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