Is there any proof of God?
Debate Rounds (4)
I think that the fact that you can't communicate to god, he is untouchable, and he always have existed are just a way to make it harder to disprove. Lets say there is a flying cheese watching over who created the universe in 21 days and there is no way to see him or communicate to him. Boom! Instantly invincible to being disproven. That is what I fear religion has trapped you with. I recognize that you may have been raised to believe what you do and it may be hard to wrap you head around this much like it would be for me. I just want a straight answer on how the bible is a good source of information because it could be easily made up. I must say though, Jesus is a pretty good author.
I am generally a person who likes to be original so I made up my own scientific theory and religion that ties in together. Since I am able to make up both scientific theories and a religion that are just as believable as any other that proves that both are just ideas. Good scientists know that but too many theists take their religion as fact. Both are just ideas/beliefs that are impossible now to prove so I consider the big bang a "nontheist religion."
My real belief is that the world probably happened by chance and that the universe is eternal just as many religions believe their god is. It has just always been, never created, it is existence. My conclusion is that the bible is 99.99 percent wrong but the idea of god is just what created the universe so really there is only the people like me who think the universe has always been and people who think it was created by something, on purpose or not. I think that really comes down to opinion and every religion is just a way it could've happened.
Since there is actually no way of ever in our life time finding the answer that answers my question. There is no proof of god or no god. Religion itself is a question and the religions are just an answer someone made up based on observations. Of course out of all the ideas on how the universe happened, no one is going to have the exact answer. All holy books AND theories are just fiction for now. I liked this conversation very much and I hope to talk to you soon
There is also evidence that confirms Bible accounts as well. There is a part in the Scriptures that says that the ruins of Babylon would never be inhabited again. Many centuries later, Alexander, the famous Greek conqueror tried to set up his capital where Babylon was, whether a smack in the face to God, or lack of knowledge of the Scriptures, either way when he tried doing so, he got dysentery and died.
Jnaejnae forfeited this round.
talacon1 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by pie5434 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: The reason why I voted Con is because when I read the round 2 of Pro it asks questions that him/herself could not answer about the bible. With that, the con's side was to refute the resolution and didn't have to defend science in any way so pro wasted a part of their speech defending something not req by the resolved. Also, they talk about the seven day thing and how its different for everyone. 1) Irrelevant 2) If the bible says something about it then it can't be different for everyone unless the bible is in different versions (Then you'd have to defend all these different versions). Con I doubt the Bible is 99.99% wrong(No proof it is and there are stories that are good lessons=not wrong). Last speech Pro double turned him/herself when they said "In the Bible, which was written over a 2000 year period by many different men" and then in the last speech about Alexander. Basically, not some holy force that did it could of been someone who wrote it after he died during those "2000 yrs.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.