The Instigator
Aurelia
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,041 times Debate No: 101984
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)

 

Aurelia

Con

I am here to debate about the existence of God. I am not trying to offend anyone with what I say. I feel as if I have reached the age (as I am not an adult) that I feel that I might want to get more than one view on this topic. I have talked to my parents about this topic and they have given me a lot of freedom to think whatever I would like to think. Most of my family is Methodist and I simply don't agree with the religion. I have nothing against people with a different religion.

The reason I would like to discuss this is that about a month ago I went to church and actually listened instead of goofing around. That day I heard a lot of things I disagreed with.

For me, I believe that there is no God so, I am an atheist. I have a passion for working in more of a science area than a religion area. I feel as if the universe is made through science, not through a God.

For those people that want answers about how we got to be here and how the universe even exists, I don't think anyone will ever know. I think there will always be things that people don't know. I think it is extremely unlikely to think it even possible that a human will even know about all of this as the earth will likely not last that long. I believe that, at some point, everything will become extinct. Which means that the human race will most likely, at some point, also become extinct.

It may seem like to some people that we are moving really fast in inventing things to find out answers to these questions but, in reality, we're not. We had the capability to make phones and 3D printers mostly since the beginning of the world. We just took a long time to find out how to create and get to the level of knowledge to make these things. This is what makes me think that we will never know the answers.

As to the religion topic, again I state that I don't believe in the existence of God. I would love to discuss this with anyone who would like to as I would like to see another side to this topic. Thank you.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for the debate Con, I accept.
I am also here to debate the existence of a god.
Con didn't bother to supply definitions for the terms of the resolution.
So I will.

Definitions

is - third person singular present of exist.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

there - used to indicate the fact or existence of something.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

a - used with units of measurement to mean one such unit.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

god - a superhuman being worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

being - existence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...


*Burden*

My burden in this debate is to show that there exists a superhuman existence worshiped as having power over nature/human fortunes; a deity.
This should be fun.
Debate Round No. 1
Aurelia

Con

Yes, this should be fun.

In round one, pro didn't supply reasoning for why they believe there is a God. Until there is something more said on why there could be a God I can't supply any further reasoning why I do or don't agree with the argument.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks again, Con, for this debate.
I'm glad to see that Con has no issues with the definitions from the 1st round.
Con therefore accepts all definitions.
This also means that my burden is how I described it in round 1.

*Superhuman Being*

Being that god played a crucial role in the origin of life on earth, controls our days and nights, maintains our habitable position in the universe, and indirectly or directly provides all metabolizable energy to every organism on earth, god is certainly superhuman; these capabilities are simply far beyond any human and necessitate that humans are utterly dependent on god.

-Origin of Life on Earth-

Abiogenesis explains that with an atmosphere, water salinity, inorganic compounds, electricity, and UV rays, from god, likely of a prebiotic earth, inorganic compounds can naturally become organic compounds in the form of amino acids.
Researchers have used CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and *UV rays,* and yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine which are the building blocks of life.
Therefore, god played a crucial role in such.
http://www.pnas.org...

-Days and Nights on Earth-

Our day-night cycle is completely based around god, to the extent that we schedule our events around god and even realize time using god.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

-Habitable Position-

God's massive gravity actually holds earth in a position in the universe that is habitable for life.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

-Food Chains-

God radiates and provides metabolizable energy to photosynthetic organisms which then pass that energy to the rest of all food chains for life on earth; this feeds us as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org...


*Power Over Nature*

God controls the water cycle, all existing food chains, earth's day-night cycle, the carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, the seasons, the weather, and the climate.

In fact, without god, none of these staples of nature could even exist on earth.


*Power Over Human Fortunes*

Farmers utterly rely on god to provide them with enough energy to grow crops, feed their families, and make money from their harvests.
How are we going to have great fortune if we don't have anything to eat?
Humans' fortunes are contingent on god directly/indirectly providing light and energy to our companies, farms, and homes.
Without god, there is no fortune for humans.


*Deity*

Being that I'm a heliolater, I worship god for everything it has done, is doing, and will do for me.
In heliolatry, our deity is the sun and we worship it for its superhuman capabilities and its power over human fortunes.
You know, you can probably go outside right now and see god, if it is a godly day where you live, and basque in its radiant energy.
If not, give god like 12 hours or so, it should return.


http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Aurelia

Con

In my opinion, I do not believe that God controls the water cycle. The water cycle is dependent upon evaporation and condensation. In addition to the water cycle, the day-night cycle is dependent on the rotation of the earth and the sun's position. For more information, I suggest you watch the movie Hidden Figures. As for the seasons, they have to do with the tilt of the earth on its axis. All of these reasons come back to science therefore, this supports my argument in round one.

If farmers depend on God and there is a dry season does that mean that God wants them to have a bad fortune? If God is in control of what happens on earth then why has there been war? This would basically mean that God encourages there to be violence. In a lot of different churches, the preacher preaches that violence is not the answer. Would this mean that God wants there to be violence and disagreement?

If God holds Earth in a position in the universe that is habitable for life then are you saying that there isn't any other place that has life?

I do however have a question for you. I looked at your profile and it says that you are an Atheist as well as a teacher. I am not saying that I don't believe you or that you don't have a good reason for debating this topic with me. However, I was wondering if, by any chance, you are a science teacher. That would also explain your profile picture. I wonder this due to the fact that you seem very schooled in the science area. Thank you again for debating this with me. I have really enjoyed it so far!
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for your 3rd round, Con.
Con didn't bother to attack any of my sources' credibility.
Con instead focused on whether or not god controls things/cares about us.
So I'll respond.

*Rebuttal to Con*

Con opines:
"I do not believe that God controls the water cycle. The water cycle is dependent upon evaporation and condensation."

My response:
What causes that water to evaporate, Con?
God's radiation directly heats the water and allows it to evaporate.
In fact, the energy that moves the water cycle, in all of its phases, is all generated by god.
Explain how the water cycle cycles without energy from god, Con.


Con adds:
"the day-night cycle is dependent on the rotation of the earth and the sun's position."

My response:
So con agrees that the day-night cycle is dependent on god's position...fantastic.
This speaks to god's power over nature, and this fact was highlighted in the sources from my 2nd round.


Con teaches:
"As for the seasons, they have to do with the tilt of the earth on its axis."

My response:
The tilted earth wouldn't have seasons if there were no god, in fact, the very tilt you speak of is maintained by god and the temperature control behind seasonal changes is generated by god's energy.


Con asserts:
"All of these reasons come back to science therefore, this supports my argument in round one."

My response:
Science clearly has confirmed the existence of the god of heliolatry; just check my sources.
The god of heliolatry can exist and science can be true; they are not mutually exclusive concepts.


Con conditions:
"If farmers depend on God and there is a dry season does that mean that God wants them to have a bad fortune?"

My response:
I don't think god gives a sh!t about us, and really doesn't care if we live or die.
Just as long as god has enough hydrogen, our fate is irrelevant to the superhuman entity that has power over nature and human fortunes, my deity.


Con reasons:
"If God is in control of what happens on earth then why has there been war?...Would this mean that God wants there to be violence and disagreement?"

My response:
Well god just has power over human fortunes.
That doesn't mean that god cares about human fortunes, so war, famine, violence, and disagreement could arise and god still has the power over human fortunes though unfortunate they may be.


Con gets fallacious:
"If God holds Earth in a position in the universe that is habitable for life then are you saying that there isn't any other place that has life?"

My response:
Holy non sequitur Batman!
Simply because I sourced and explained how god holds the earth in a habitable position in the universe doesn't mean that I sourced and explained how Earth is the only place for life; it likely isn't.

But that's all pretty irrelevant, because, in this debate, god only needs to be superhuman and have power over human fortunes and nature; this superhuman exists if Earth is the only planet with life or not.


Con mentions:
"I do however have a question for you."

My response:
Yeah, shoot.

Con begins:
"I looked at your profile and it says that you are an Atheist as well as a teacher."

My response:
Well, that's not really a question, but it would seem that you are observant.

Con continues:
"I am not saying that I don't believe you or that you don't have a good reason for debating this topic with me."

My response:
Great.
Couldn't my reason for debating this topic just be that we're on a debate site and you instigated an open debate?
Whether or not you believe me is irrelevant.
Whether or not you can refute my case irrespective of my profile is really what you should be focused on.
There is also no religion option for Heliolater, so I chose the closest thing.

Con wonders:
"However, I was wondering if, by any chance, you are a science teacher."

My response:
Is this the question you were going to ask me?
I've been teaching in my district in Maryland for 10 years and I have taught many subjects including some of the standard sciences and linguistics.

Well, I maintain that the god of Heliolatry exists and that Con has not given any reason to doubt this god's existence.
Debate Round No. 3
Aurelia

Con

Pro states that they believe more in heliolatry. Since they didn't leave any definition for this belief then I will.

Heliolatry - worship of the sun.
http://www.dictionary.com...

My response to this is that the sun isn't considered to be a god unless you are Greek.

Pro states that I, being Con, agrees that the day-night cycle is dependent upon God.
My debate to this is that I never directly said this and this doesn't supply a reason for you to believe that I said that it meant God was in charge of that. Which I don't.

Pro states that science has confirmed the existence of God. To this, I would like to say that I disagree. There are many sources that say other wise. You can search it yourself or you can see the one provided.
https://godisimaginary.com...

Yes, thank you, Pro, or debating this topic with me. It is greatly appreciated.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for the debate Con; it's surely been enlightening.
Doesn't just talking about god brighten your day?
I think this discussion shines a lot of light on the subject.
Insert extra sun pun here.

*Final Rebuttals*

Con defines:
"Heliolatry - worship of the sun."

My response:
I agree with this definition 100% and it speaks to the agreed to the sun matching the definition of god from round 1 that god is "a superhuman being worshiped."
Thanks Con.

Con responds:
"The sun isn't considered to be a god unless you are Greek."

My response:
I didn't realize that worshiping the sun required a particular nationality.
One could worship the sun and have no Greek lineage, and the example I will provide is myself.
I am not Greek and I worship the sun, which is the god in my religion.

Also, the only thing that's considered to be god in this debate is the definition from round 1.
Greek or not, the sun satisfies the definition.


Con quibbles:
"I never directly said that the day-night cycle is dependent upon God, and this doesn't supply a reason for you to believe that I said that it meant God was in charge of that."

My response:
Con, you said that the day-night cycle was dependent on the sun, and the sun is the god of Heliolatry, so you therefore also said that the earth's day-night cycle is dependent on the god of Heliolatry.

This is why science and scientific evidence in fact indicates that there is a god, the god of Heliolatry.


Con disagrees:
"Pro states that science has confirmed the existence of God. There are many sources that say other wise."

My response:
I don't know any source that would reject the existence of the god of Heliolatry; how would they explain day-night cycles?

Con responds:
"You can search it yourself or you can see the one provided."

My response:
I did search it myself, and I found that NASA has a wonderful image of god and its radiant glory.
https://www.nasa.gov...

The source you provided Con was referring to the Christian conception of god, including Jesus.
Well, nothing about the definition of god mentions anything about Jesus or Christianity, in fact, it only mentions god being superhuman with power over nature and human fortunes, which the sun clearly is.


*Conclusion*

Is there a god?
Yes.
You might call it the sun or our nearest star, but it's clearly the god of Heliolatry.
Perhaps we're all a little bit Heliolater, because of how much we rely on the sun for things.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Yeah, if you bring the evidence, I'll bite.
That's how proof works.
Posted by kenballer 1 year ago
kenballer
If the scientific evidence showed how the Judeo-Christian God existed, would you pursue a relationship with him to obtain salvation?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Ok, thanks for responding @SolonKR
Posted by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
@Aurelia
No problem. You can also reach out to Hayd (http://www.debate.org...) for debate mentoring.
Posted by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
@Magic

1. Fair. You may not have done it intentionally. But, from my perspective, you accepted this debate, provided abusive definitions in the hope that Con would accept them despite the fact that's clearly not what she wanted to debate, and she did because she couldn't have known better. In any case, you can easily find someone else to vote on this. I'm just saying that I don't condone voting on it.

2. To answer, I'd get as cheap as the definition. Your definition defined it both as what you focused on and as "a deity". I'd in turn provide a definition of deity that fits the common understanding, and circumvent the abusive definitions. I'd say "superhuman being" is necessary but not sufficient for being God. Other angle to take would be that the Sun isn't superhuman because our consciousness makes us above the Sun, and I'd criticize your position because you haven't given a good criteria for what makes something objectively superhuman. There were angles to take.
Posted by Aurelia 1 year ago
Aurelia
SolonKR, Thank you. I really like suggestions like yours. It is constructive criticism which I really appreciate. I know it can only make me better. So thank you! I will defiantly look into the debate you suggested! I will keep in mind the definition point. Thank you.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
@SolonKR

1. It wasn't a noob-snipe, it was an open debate that interested me, I didn't even look at who the instigator was.
2. Why is being worshiped not enough to be a deity and why does it require omnipotence to be a deity?
Posted by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
I won't vote on noob-snipes, but here's some observations:
Pro won on arguments. He threw definitions that made his case work, and with those established, made an argument from those definitions. Con, be careful about what definitions other people throw. In this case, his definition of "being" really hurt you--though God's typically considered a living entity, the definition made it so that even pants could be God if someone worshiped them. Definitions tell you what you're actually arguing in a case, so be careful.

Pro's case wasn't airtight. Con, you could have pointed out that being worshiped isn't enough to be a deity--you need something like omnipotence, for example. But, you ended up focusing on things that weren't relevant, like whether God is good or not.

tl;dr Con, try to focus on reasons to vote for your side, and pay attention to definitions. Forums are for the type of discussion I think you wanted, but in a debate, you're trying to prove your side should win. You got bad luck with your first debate, but keep at it and you'll improve in no time. Try reading debates like http://www.debate.org... to get an idea of what debate's all about.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: byaka2013// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: He followed classic debate guidelines and was more ethically respectful.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain S&G, arguments or sources. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. This point may only be awarded in instances where one side has forfeited a round, is insulting, or does not follow debate rules. None of these reasons are included in this RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: QueenDaisy// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Both parties made some grammar errors, with Pro failing to capitalise "God" when referring to a specific deity, rather than the general concept of a god, and hence it's a proper noun which required a capital but didn't get one. With Con, "other wise." should have been "otherwise" and "Pro states that I, being Con, agrees " should have been "Pro states that I, being Con, agree". Hence, no grammar points either way. Both sides used sources. Pro used more sources, and the sources of both sides were comparably reliable. Hence, sources points to Pro. As for actual argument, Pro essentially asserted God controls a bunch of things, but didn't justify this. All Con really needed to say to refute an unsubstantiated claim like this was "I do not believe that", which they did.

[*Reason for removal*] Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply assert the reliability of a given set of sources and say that one side had more of them. It must be clear why those sources were comparatively more reliable.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.