The Instigator
Jnaejnae
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
talacon1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is there any proof of 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 1 vote the winner is...
Jnaejnae
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 854 times Debate No: 64268
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

Jnaejnae

Con

I am very atheist. In this debate I am looking for the reasons why god is so believable. To me it seems like the theists just read a book and now they believe every word. I think god would be nice to believe in but I don't see ANY legitimate evidence. It would be nice if some theists can support their religion with good proof and not quotes from an unreliable source. I want a nice and mature discussion and not like the ones on youtube :D
talacon1

Pro

There is one very simple reason to believe what the Bible says. To explain this, I must first ask you- how can we perceive that God exists? Think this matter over carefully. I will give you the answer that the Bible gives that confirms in one of many ways that the Bible is correct.
Debate Round No. 1
Jnaejnae

Con

The legitimacy of the bible is what really is the problem. It was just written by a guy who claimed he saw an angel. I can write a book about a religion I made up and it would be just as legitimate as the bible. I would really like to see the proof on how the bible is in any way reliable. I think people perceive god because they are searching too hard for an answer that isn't there. I am not debating on whether the bible is correct. I am debating whether or not the bible is just a fiction book or the word of god. If you want we can tackle both.

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.
talacon1

Pro

There is something called cause and effect. Basically, there is a cause for every effect. So what you see, everything around you is an effect. What caused this effect? Let's say for a moment that scientists are correct about the big bang. What caused it? What caused the singularity? What caused it to explode, and could an explosion really create the universe around us? Also, not all religions say that God created everything in a week or whatever. Only the most extreme ones do. The truth of the matter is, it took many, many trillions of centuries to create what we have today. Scientists have proven this. Now, I promised to show you from the Bible that it is correct beyond a doubt. Remember cause and effect? Well, long before the enlightenment, or the time that people started looking for scientific answers, a man wrote about cause and effect but probably never knew it. In the Bible, which was written over a 2000 year period by many different men, it says that we can perceive God by the things around us- God being the cause, and the universe being the effect. The rhetorical question is: What or who could have made the universe so vast, and yet so detailed?
Debate Round No. 2
Jnaejnae

Con

Quickly about the 7 day thing, Most Christians and other people that believe in the 7 day thing also claim that the bible states time passes different for god, so trillions of years could've felt like a day for god. Now about the cause and effect thing. I understand the fact that if the big bang happened it happened for a reason but no one actually knows what caused it. That is what I like about science, they know that their teaching may be wrong and are just educated guesses. A big explosion happened in the universe and there is a ton of physical evidence, if I flew out in space RIGHT NOW and took measurements with the correct tools and knowledge I could bring back HARD EVIDENCE that an explosion of some kind happened.

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
talacon1

Pro

Let's think about life for a second. Could we have evolved by chance? Well, all life is made up of the basic components of the universe- molecules, atoms, and particles. Now, everything scientific has to be proved in a laboratory to be found fact. This means that if we do something similar to the big bang, we should arrive at the same conclusion. What if we took a radio, disassembled it, and then put it in a bag to shake up all the parts... what are the chances that we could put it back together just by shaking it in a bag, and what are the chances that it would still work if we could? This is why I believe in a creator rather than just thinking everything happened by chance.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
Jnaejnae

Con

Jnaejnae forfeited this round.
talacon1

Pro

talacon1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jnaejnae 2 years ago
Jnaejnae
Sorry I missed round 4, I can host another debate if you want to.

First of all since it had such a small chance of happening it proves some higher being. That is in no logical way, related. How do you know it was a small chance? Maybe atoms can only form in one way and the planets and solar systems and galaxies. Maybe there is no other way it could've happened, therefore your little "proof" of god is false. You just gave a perfect example of this bad logic. It is complicated therefore someone made it. There is no logical way to get to that sort of conclusion.

And then you end of with some unrelated coincidence. I say someday someone will be hit on main st. and die. Once it happens somehow every other thing I said is proven? think again.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
here is one to ponder:
Intentionality is a necessary prerequisite of action. In fact, Christians claim that God acts by pure intentionality.
The second is that intentionality arises from internal or exterior stimuli. We act either because an exterior entity " such as a threat " prompts us to act, or because we have internal needs, emotions or other motivation of this sort. A being floating around in space, with no stimuli and no need of any sort, would have no motivation to act.
Given these facts, where does God"s intentionality for Creation comes from ? Obviously, God at that point cannot have any exterior stimuli, since there is nothing outside of him. He also cannot have any internal stimuli, since he is an infinite being : an infinite being by definition can have no limits such as needs, emotions, or any other such motivation. Finally, God could not have created his own intentionality, simply because such creation would itself require intentionality.The only possible conclusion left is that God"s intentionalities came from a transcendent creator. We can formulate the argument as such :
1.God is defined as Creator. (premise)
2.God is defined as an infinite being. (premise)
3.God had intentionality at the act of Creation. (from 1)
4.Before the act of Creation, God had no external stimuli. (by definition)
5.Before the act of Creation, God had no internal stimuli. (from 2)
6.The source of God"s intentionality for Creation must come from a creator transcendent to God. (from 3, 4 and 5)
1.There is a First Intention-Giver. (from 6)
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
cheyenne, you need to read more carefully before responding.

I was using the example of a person who has never seen their parents as an example where belief is justfied by evidence even though direct observation has never been made.

Your example with the check is again an example where faith is not required. It is a justified belief based on the evidence.

You seem to be conflating 'faith' and 'confidence', but perhaps you interpret both words similarly.

The level of confidence in the bible is quickly dropping among educated people in the world. This coincides with us no longer being forced to assert it as true under punishment of death. Evidence does not support the claims in the bible, so it is easily understood why, without being forced to believe in it, belief and confidence in it is dropping.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I guess I have walked in the bible definition of faith and that is what I hear when faith is mentioned.Even if a person has never seen their parents, the evidence that all people have them is sufffient evidence that he has them too.I do not have to take by faith I have a mother, I saw her for 24 of my years.Faith is still defined by believing without seeing. If bill Gates gave me a check and I deposited, I would still have to have faith in its being good to write a check against it.Now once it cleared, why would I need faith? I then can see it in my statement.That is what faith is. Believeing a person's word as the only evidence for it being true. And that can only come with experience that person's word is true.Just meeting someone, you cannot be sure if what they say is the truth.Especially the more important it would be.If someone you do not know gives a big check, there is this nagging if it will be good or not.You may not have enough faith in it to write a check till it clears.Once it clears, you do not need faith.

The level of confidence in what the bible says is true has developed over many years of observation and experience in its truth.Just as a trusted friends word is good, I can believe in what the bible says just because I have confidence in it being true and it does work .
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Scientifically, the bible is neither dismissed nor accepted. Books are irrelevant in science. They don't count as evidence.

You have a very different definition of faith, and I don't think it's one most people would agree with. Beliefs can be based entirely on evidence, even without direct observation (a person is justified in believing they have parents even if they have never seen their parents, and this is based purely on evidence and fact). This isn't faith. It is reason.

I explained in layperson's terms what a scientific theory was. No one said they were facts. They explain facts.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Faith is simply believing without seeing. There would be evidence for faith.If Bill Gates walked up to me and gave me a check for 1 million dollars. I would have a lot more faith it was real than if a homeless man gave me one. There is sufficient evidence to believe in bill gates.There is sufficient evidence in the validity of the bible. Its accuracy concerning human behavior for one. Of course that is one thing that is never discussed for its validity.The book of psalms and proverbs would be an excellent way to live.

Scientifically I see no evidence for dismissing the bible at all.Theories ,if some did not know, are not facts.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.

There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
You can't prove the validity of the bible by assuming its validity as part of your argument.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
jnaejnae,

You are completely wrong about what a theory is. A scientific theory is an overall idea that explains a set of facts and predicts new facts. In other words, when you have a whole set of definite conclusions, the explanation for those facts is the theory, which must also make predictions for future experiments.

What you described as a theory is actually much more similar to what is called a hypothesis.

I agree with the rest of what you said, basically =P
Posted by Jnaejnae 2 years ago
Jnaejnae
Atmas, Science is the logic of having consistent tests and getting accurate answers or conclusions. If a definite conclusion cannot be made it becomes a theory. Science is a mentality not a belief system and not every atheist needs to believe in it. Atheisim is just a lack of belief in god. I personally stick with science. I have talked to another former Christian and it is always fun to hear what they have to say about it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by pie5434 2 years ago
pie5434
Jnaejnaetalacon1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
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.