The Instigator
UnhookedSchnook
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Edril
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is there a god?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 7/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 406 times Debate No: 78199
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

UnhookedSchnook

Con

Hello,

So the age old, common debate,"is there a god?". Currently I believe no, however if there is more, solid, supporting evident I am all ears. As we all should know there are many religions, with many different gods. So what makes one god more real than another? Religions merely provided a simple and unexplained answer to our creation. The only 'evidence' given to us are believers stories and a book from many years ago. Time and time again science has disproved such cases that were published and populations believed in (such as the earth being flat). The reason science has not yet disproved god is because the answer to our creation is most likely the hardest problem to solve. We all put our faith in science, weather it be the glasses on your face, the roof over your head or the computer you reed this on. So why bother split you faith and believe in a god? Science supplies you with all that you have, and either god or science supplies you with the platform in which you live life.
Edril

Pro

I'll bite.
The evidence for the existence of God is the existence of anything. How could we get from nothing to something? The pure logic that negates the possibility of nothingness ( I can expand on this in later arguments if you wish), the mathematical entities that exist independent of reality's existence which it describes (like a circle, or a cube, etc...), the laws of logic itself, coupled with the fundamental laws of nature (the four fundamental forces, the concept of momentum, etc...), all these things make up that which humans call God. You would need to prove that reality doesn't exist in order to prove God doesn't exist. If you can attempt a case against reality, then you are real, therefore your case is wrong no matter what it is.
Religions and choosing a god - This just means that no one got it right. Different religions are different people's attempts at understanding the same thing.

Also, Science and God are not mutually exclusive. Science is our understanding of God
Debate Round No. 1
UnhookedSchnook

Con

You ask "How could we get from nothing to something?". Well if I could answer that I would have a Nobel Prize, sadly I don't. The fact is that if there was nothing then what is god, nothing? If he/she were to exist than where did he/she come from? You say it yourself, logic negates the possibility of nothingness. Therefore the key lays within logic itself. You say logic and the laws of nature make up god, well that is incorrect, that is called physics. Physics is the branch of science that looks at how nature behaves, it practically is looking for the answer to the universe. After that, no offence, you go on to say a load of nonsense based on your previous points. It is stupidity to palm off the creation of the universe and say 'well there is no logical explanation, thus it must have been a greater power.' When something is unexplained do you make up a pleasurable excuse to keep the working class happy and make the monarchy even more powerful or search for the answer? Thanks.
Edril

Pro

Logic and the laws of nature can be called physics. One could use any noise, gesture or glyph to represent that concept. I'm using the term God (undefined) to show their significance within this particular context. If you remove everything from the universe, one by one, including all matter, energy and even space-time itself, you are not left with nothingness, you are left with a supreme entity that always existed. It transcended space-time, matter, energy, and everything else. It reveals it self and it's will to us through our natural intellect and curiosity to explore it's creation. That supreme entity (which I didn't just plug in magically as you accused) is logic, math, forces, laws of nature. You called it physics, which is fine, I called it God. I would argue it fits the definition of both words perfectly with one exception: physics, as you say, usually refers to a branch of science. Science is our understanding of reality, it doesn't represent all of reality; we know very little
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Edril 1 year ago
Edril
@meldorn
What exactly do you mean, "spiritual"?
Again, if something is detectable or has a detectable effect on the universe, it is logically possible to study it scientifically. Maybe we can't now, and maybe we never will, but it would be possible. If it isn't detectable and doesn't have a detectable effect on the universe, that's a good definition of non-existent.
Posted by Meldorn 1 year ago
Meldorn
@Edril

On the contrary, I do believe in God. I'm just throwing out some food for thought that science may not be as infallible as we think it is.

I don't agree with your premise that science can prove everything. If God is spiritual in nature, and science studies the natural, why would we expect to find definite proof of God in science? I'm not saying it doesn't exist--there is some very convincing evidence. But I don't believe there will ever be an irrefutable argument for or against his existence found in science.
Posted by Edril 1 year ago
Edril
@Meldorn
Why can't god be proven scientifically? If something is real, it can be proven scientifically. If something cannot be detected or observed, and has no effect on the physical universe, that's the same thing as not existing.

So you basically said God cannot exist, with no reasoning to back that statement up.
Posted by Meldorn 1 year ago
Meldorn
To further clarify my other comment, a better question might be what evidence *implies* a God instead of what evidence *proves* a God. God cannot be proven or disproven scientifically.
Posted by Meldorn 1 year ago
Meldorn
I'm not sure I agree with the basis of the debate to begin with. You say you currently don't believe in a God, but would given the evidence. Certainly there is some physical evidence for God's existence, but the existence of God would imply a spiritual realm, which is unverifiable using our senses. To look for a spiritual being only using physical means doesn't add up to me. Perhaps instead of looking for physical evidence to prove God exists, you would be better served asking, "If a God existed, how would that affect the physical realm, and how would we be able to observe the effects of such an existence?"
Posted by Edril 1 year ago
Edril
I wish we had more than 1000 characters.
No votes have been placed for this debate.