The Instigator
kohai
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
9 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 3 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,862 times Debate No: 15639
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

kohai

Con

Does God exist? That is the question!

I believe that there is no God. However, the burden of proof does NOT lie on me, but on the theist. So, I will kindly allow my opponent to start the debate off!
socialpinko

Pro

"I believe that there is no God. However, the burden of proof does NOT lie on me, but on the theist. So, I will kindly allow my opponent to start the debate off!"

You are making the positive assertion that there is no god so the BOP is on you. You are also the instigator of this debate so I will allow you to begin this debate and we may post our arguments beginning next round.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Con

Hello socialpinko, thank you for accepting my challenge! I wish you the very best of luck.

"You are making the positive assertion that there is no god so the BOP is on you."

Actually I'm making a negative assertion. Science cannot prove a universal negative such as:
"There is no such thing as Santa" or, "There is no God"

So in fact, the burden of proof does lie on the Theist.

However, since you insisted that I start off this debate I shall make a few points:
1) There are numerous contradictions in the Bible, Koran and all holy books.
2) Just because a book claims that it is from God or that God inspired it does NOT by any means PROVE that God did in fact inspire it.
3) There are numerous scientific errors in the Bible, Koran and many other "holy" books.

If you would like a list of some of the contradictions in the Bible, please visit this website
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
If you would like a list of some of the scientific fallacies in the Bible, please visit this website
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
socialpinko

Pro

"Actually I'm making a negative assertion. Science cannot prove a universal negative"

If you admit that you cannnot prove your assertion then this debate is already over.

1) There are numerous contradictions in the Bible, Koran and all holy books.
2) Just because a book claims that it is from God or that God inspired it does NOT by any means PROVE that God did in fact inspire it.
3) There are numerous scientific errors in the Bible, Koran and many other "holy" books.

This might disprove the existence of the Christian or Muslim gods but does not disprove the existence of the Deistic god or the Greek and Roman gods.

Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Con

"This might disprove the existence of the Christian or Muslim gods but does not disprove the existence of the Deistic god or the Greek and Roman gods."

Let's suppose for a moment that the Greek and Roman gods do in fact exist. Here are a few questions:
1) Why are they now, "Extinct religions"
2) Since they have been extinct for thousands of years, why haven't the gods punished us for ignoring them?
3) If the Roman and Greek gods do in fact exist, why do we see the Greek and Roman gods sinning in their own religion? The Greek and Roman gods are corrupt and the religion contradicts a lot of science.

"It does not disprove the Deist god"
True. So allow me to do that.

First, we need to define what Deism is. Deism (from Latin deus ‘god') is the belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Deism is based on nature and reason.

How could a god exist that doesn't even care about his own creation? Please answer that question! Why would he do it in the 1st place?

Secondly, according to your profile, you are secular under your religious profile. So aren't you arguing against yourself?
Note: I know we spoke about this private, but I just want the rest of the voters to realize this as well!
socialpinko

Pro

"1) Why are they now, "Extinct religions"
2) Since they have been extinct for thousands of years, why haven't the gods punished us for ignoring them?
3) If the Roman and Greek gods do in fact exist, why do we see the Greek and Roman gods sinning in their own religion? The Greek and Roman gods are corrupt and the religion contradicts a lot of science."

Response:
1)Just because belief in them has mostly died out does not conclusively prove that they do not exist, just that their existence is improbable.
2)Just because you haven't seen or heard from someone in a long time does not mean that they are dead. This makes it possible but there is still the possibility that they are incapacitated or busy doing something else.
3)As in most religions, deities are not usually bound by their own rules. And even if they were corrupt, this could disprove their benevolence and perfection but not their existence.

"How could a god exist that doesn't even care about his own creation? Please answer that question! Why would he do it in the 1st place?"

This is an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot imagine the deistic god's intentions does not conclusively prove that it does not exist. We don't completely understand how the world began but does that prove that the world does not exist?

To end, my opponent attacks me for defending a position which I do not personally hold. The point of a debate is not always to further one's own agenda. I am debating on a position which I do not personally subscribe to because I usually argue on the other side and wanted to see if I could defend this position.

The reason for why I am debating on the side I am debating on or the position which I personally hold should be of no importance to either my opponent or the readers.
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Con

1)Just because belief in them has mostly died out does not conclusively prove that they do not exist, just that their existence is improbable.

Actually, no-one worships the Greek and Roman gods any more. Not only does that make their existence improbable, it makes it impossible.

2) Just because you haven't seen or heard from someone in a long time does not mean that they are dead. This makes it possible but there is still the possibility that they are incapacitated or busy doing something else.

This is true. I must admit, I do not see your point.

3)As in most religions, deities are not usually bound by their own rules. And even if they were corrupt, this could disprove their benevolence and perfection but not their existence.

In some religions they are, some they are not. However, how is it possible for a god to make a rule then break his own law? How can they possibly justify them punishing people for breaking their law if they break their own law.

It is like a king can make a law, but cannot break it. If he does, then he can be punished for that crime.

In addition to my previous arguments, I will add a few more.
1) Why doesn't god answer prayers? In the Bible, Koran and many other "holy" texts, the deity promises that if you pray in his name, then he will answer it. However, sometimes prayers work and sometimes they don't. And in fact, we can pray to two different deities and have the same exact outcome if we didn't pray!
Let me expand on this.

If you are a Christian who believes in the power of prayer, here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.

Take a coin out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Allah, the Islamic god:

Dear Allah, most gracious, most beneficial, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Allah's name I pray, Amen.

Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won't get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails.
What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Allah is imaginary. We prayed to Allah, and Allah did nothing. We can prove that Allah is imaginary by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Allah each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Allah has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray.

Even if we find a thousand of Allah's most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same.

Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Allah is imaginary. We look at Allah in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on. We know that people who believe in Allah are delusional.

Now let's try the experiment again, but this time let's pray to Jesus Christ instead of Allah. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:

Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the Bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.
Now flip the coin. Once again, after the fifth or sixth flip, the coin will land tails.
If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. We can gather together a group of Jesus' most pious followers to do the praying and the result will be the same. Jesus will have zero effect on the coin.

If you are a Christian, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Allah you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Allah is imaginary. But with Jesus... Something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why Jesus did not answer your prayers:

It is not his will
He doesn't have time
I didn't pray the right way
I am not worthy
I do not have enough faith
I cannot test the Lord like this
It is not part of Jesus' plan for me
And on and on and on...

Note: this argument is from this page http://godisimaginary.com...

I also encourage you to go to these websites and read each argument http://godisimaginary.com...
http://www.infidels.org...
socialpinko

Pro

/"Actually, no-one worships the Greek and Roman gods any more. Not only does that make their existence improbable, it makes it impossible."/

I know that no one worships the Greek and Roman gods any more, but this does not conclusively prove that they do not exist. You have not in any way shown that lack of belief in them makes their existence impossible then belief in them would make them exist.

My opponent's second point is that since we have not heard from the Greek and Roman gods in a while, this means they do not exist. My opponent did not respond when I wrote that this does not necessarily mean that they do not exist, just like not seeing someone in a while does not abslutely prove they are dead.

After this my opponent states that becausesome deities will break their own rules, this makes their existence impossible. I do not think that my opponent completely understands what he is arguing here.
He writes:

/"how is it possible for a god to make a rule then break his own law? How can they possibly justify them punishing people for breaking their law if they break their own law."/

To respond to my opponent's first question, we can simply factor in omnipotence. God made the rule so he has the power to break it. To respond to my opponent's second question, whether or not a deity can morally justify breaking their own rule does not mean they cannot exist. This means that perhaps, if a deity exists, it is malevolent as I have already pointed out.

/"It is like a king can make a law, but cannot break it. If he does, then he can be punished for that crime."/

This analogy does not apply. A king while being powerful is not all powerful as in how a god would be. Kings are merely men who were born into a lucky blood line. A god is a supernatural and usually all-powerul being.

Why doesn't god answer prayers?

My opponent goes on to claim that since not everyone has all of their prayers answered, this conclusively proves that god cannnot exist. My opponent of course forgets that there are gods who are impersonal and do not interact in human affairs such as the Deistic god. This point is moot in that there still can exist a god even if my opponent's logic follows.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Con

I have thought long and hard about this debate. I feel that there is nothing left to do but resign. I humbly accept defeat.

I feel that I could have made stronger arguments and should have started with defining God. However, just because I lose a debate doesn't necessarily mean that I am wrong.

There is no way to scientifically prove that there is no God. It is like me saying, "There is a fire-breathing dragon in my room that only I can see." Science cannot disprove that, however, most people would not beleive it even if they do lose an argument.

I thank my opponent for this debate. Perhaps we could debate on something we disagree on.

I would like to point out to the voters that if you read my opponent's profile, he is an Atheist as well. It has been kind of funny debating on something you both agree on.

I say that this has been a good debate.

I shall do what is right and humbly accept defeat.
socialpinko

Pro

I certainly enjoyed this debate and I think it is unfortunate that me and my opponent could not finish our debate. Oh well. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
my bad.
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
Really? Are you trying to annoy me on purpose? *sigh*"I humbly accept defeat." <---- He conceded defeat and so despite what the votes say, you won.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Me? I'm not winning either. It's tied.
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
"He won?"
I mean Pro
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Why do my personal beliefs count in this debate. It's called playing devil's advocate.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
I had no reason to continue and I really didn't know how to respond.
As I posted, my opponent is an atheist so you could still vote con!
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
He won?
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
Lol, Con made the worst argument in the history of DDO and yet he won; n00bs will never stop surprising me.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
okay, well anyway, I'm not sure how to respond. Luckily I have more time.
Posted by wolfhaines 5 years ago
wolfhaines
Actually some people do still worship the Greek and Roman Gods. Perhaps they are saving us all from punishment? We may never know.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kohaisocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "Allah has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray." - one can not make up an experiment as empirical proof
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 5 years ago
bradshaw93
kohaisocialpinkoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: while i agree with con, pro brought better arguments overall. con at bet disproved the existence of the christian and muslim gods while leaving out the deist and greek gods
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
kohaisocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded. Not sure why. Otherwise, this debate is a tie, not very well argued by either side.