The Instigator
Proving_a_Negative
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Peili
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is there enough evidence to rationally believe in 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,044 times Debate No: 70372
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

Proving_a_Negative

Con

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing Statements

I will argue that it isn't rational to believe in god.

BOP is shared. I have to provide evidence for non theistic models of the universe whilst you provide evidence for theism. Whoever has the most and best evidence wins.

God: the creator and ruler of the universe and Source of moral authority. A supreme being.
Peili

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Proving_a_Negative

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate.

The Origin of the Universe
The big bang serves as our best explanation. There are many variations of the big bang so I will describe the one I tend to agree with the most. The universe is in a cycle of expanding and then contracting, over and over again. What started this cycle? Scientists don't really know. However, we don't know how "nothing" behaves. We are going to assume that before the universe came into existence, there was nothing. What is nothing? Nothing is absence of space, matter, energy, time, and the laws of physics. Have we ever seen how nothing behaves at all? No. Who knows what it is capable of? Okay, this may seem far fetched when I say it. Look at this quote from Stephen Hawking. "Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." No laws of physics could mean random generation of matter, space, energy, time, and laws of physics. What are the odds that all the laws of physics were exactly right for sustaining life? Incredibly small. Just one constant, gravity, had to be extremely precise to allow our galaxy to be what it is. If the gravitational constant was slightly greater, we would have almost nothing but black holes. If it was slightly smaller, everything would be too far spread out leading to the heat death of the universe. Does this show we have a creator what meticulously designed it perfectly? No. We haven't seen all the times when the laws of physics weren't capable of sustaining life. The universe could have gone this cycle googleplex times and this might be the very first time that life could exist. What is the evidence of the big bang? The existence of background radiation. The absolutely devastating force of the big bang was predicted to leave the exact amount of radiation that we see in space today after billions of years. Everything is expanding. We can see this from the redshift in galaxies. There is more if needed. Check out this website for more evidence: http://www.astronomynotes.com...

Abiogenesis
First of all, we need a planet with the right conditions. With 100-400 billion planets in our galaxy alone (quick Google search) and with about 100 billion galaxies in our universe (another Google search), there was bound to be at least 1 habitable planet. What is the recipe for life? We need proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, water, and lipids for a primitive cell. In the environment, we need water, a source of energy, and a temperature range that would allow all three states of water to exist. How do we get proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids? Since earth did have a perfect starting environment (we can assume this since there is indeed life on earth), then we can form the monomers that make up said organic molecules. The Miller-Urey experiment provides the best explanation as to how we formed the monomers. He was able to produce a wide range of organic molecules in an early earth atmosphere. What good is it if all the monomers are great distances apart from each other? Well, that is where the lipids come in. Lipids will spontaneously group up in a pattern as to minimize contact with water in the hydrophobic section of the molecule. When enough of these group up, they form the cell membrane. The cell membrane can group up all the other needed molecules for life. They are permeable to only certain molecules, but they have mechanisms to allow all the needed organic molecules to enter. Given enough time, you will have all the ingredients for life grouped together. If it is needed, there will be more on this topic. Keep in mind, this is still one of the biggest questions in modern biology. Scientists are still wondering how it occurred.

Evolution
Macroevolution is the changing of one species into another. This probably occurs due to random mutations. Most mutations are harmful to a species, but that effect is null. When there is a beneficial mutation, it quickly dominates the previous species through natural selection. What evidence do we have? We have countless fossils that show gradual change over millions of years. Check some fossils out on the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History website. Also, viruses have been seen to evolve over the little time we have actually known about evolution. To see proof of this, check out: http://viralzone.expasy.org...... Why haven't we seen any beneficial mutations yet? It's a good question, but there is a very logical answer behind it. The odds are we won't observe any beneficial mutation. Why? The theory of evolution is no older than the book "On the Origin of Species" which was published in 1859. This means that it is about 156 years old. Life originated on this planet approximately 3.5 billion years ago (that is a rather small estimate. Also I got the number from source number 6.) To fully understand the scale of this, let's say life began at the beginning of a 24 hour day. Evolution was theorized approximately 3.851 milliseconds before the next day. I rounded that number up to help you as much as I could. Also, keep in mind that we are only able to observe so many organisms at one time. There are countless billions of different living creatures on the earth at any given moment. What am I saying? It would be a surprise if we did see a beneficial mutation. It would mean that evolution is occurring at a much faster rate than assumed before. We want to see this because we are trying to prove our theories wrong as much as possible. It furthers our understanding of the earth.

Sources
1. http://www.hawking.org.uk......
2. http://www.astronomynotes.com...
3. Bada, Jeffrey L., and Antonio Lazcano. "Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment." Science 300.5620 (2003): 745-746.
4. http://humanorigins.si.edu......
5. http://viralzone.expasy.org......
6. http://www.lpi.usra.edu...
Peili

Pro

Con, thank you for this well-stated topic.

First, let me say what I am not going to attempt in this debate. I will not attempt to "prove" that there is a God. I will certainly not attempt to convince atheists that there is a God - that, I have found, is a fool's errand. My goal in this debate is to demonstrate that there is enough evidence to rationally believe in God. I am not arguing in favor of any specific religion, but in support of it being rational to believe in God in general.

There are four points of evidence I want to put forth.

The cosmological argument
The evidence in this case is the existence of the universe. I will state this point simply and directly.

1. Everything for which we know the beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. It appears that the universe had a beginning to its existence.(1)
Therefore:
3 The universe most likely has a cause of its existence. The cause, whatever it may be, is what we call "God."

The teleological argument.
This argument is that the physical universe shows signs of design. The evidence in this case the apparent presence of order in the physical word. It could be stated like this:

1. In every case we are aware of, when order is present it is the result of an intelligent will.
2. In every case we are aware of, when there is no intelligent will at work there is no order.
3. There appears to be order in the physical universe.
Therefore:
4. An intelligent will, what we call God, most likely had a part in the creation of the physical universe.

Premise one and two are easily seen in our world. We see it often in everyday life. It is the difference between painting a portrait and kicking an open bucket of paint. It is the difference between a drum solo and a drum set falling over. It is the difference between playing basketball and a group randomly wandering on a basketball course. In each case, the first had an intelligent will at work to design the outcome, and second did not. In each case, the first shows signs of order where the second does not.

Premise three is also easily seen. It is seen in snowflakes, gravity, and the second law of thermodynamics.(2)

If all the premises are true then the conclusion is true belief in God is rational.

The ontological argument.
This is NOT Anselm's ontological argument, but a prior ontological argument made famous by Thomas Aquinas. The evidence in this case our concept of perfection.

We as people have a theoretical concept of perfect - that much seems straightforward. However, we have no experience of perfection in the physical world. Nothing that we see around is perfect. No matter how hard we try or how far we search, everything has some level of impurity or imperfection in it. So where did our concept of perfection come from?

In every other area, our intellectual understanding is limited by our experiences. Try imagining a color that does not exist in the physical world? That would be a new color that you have never seen and that is not a combination of other colors. Or try imagining a shape that is not a shape you have seen and cannot be created by combining other shapes. Such things cannot be done. We can imagine new shades of existing colors, or new combinations of existing shapes, but not new colors or shapes.(3)

However, we can imagine perfection even though we have no experience of perfection in the physical world. Where does this understanding of perfection come from? The most likely explanation is that there is a perfect Something which is not part of the physical world but is still in some way part of our experience. That perfect Something is what we call God.

Argument from experience.
The evidence in this case is the claims of those who say that have had experiences with the Divine. Millions, if not billions, of people have claims to have encounters with God, either through the experience of miracles or through mystical experiences of the Divine. However, these experiences are often discounted as evidence. Such a large number of claims would not be discounted if we were talking about any other topic, even if the experiences could not be replicated at will. Why are they discounted when it comes to God? We are not talking about a few dozen, or even a few hundred, first hand experiences. We are talking about millions upon millions of people making claims of what they have experienced firsthand. Such persistent and widespread claims cannot be dismissed without hard evidence showing that they are false.

Conclusion:
I do not think that the evidence presented here is likely to convince someone who already decided that there is no God to change his or her mind. However, it is sufficient evidence for someone who believes in God maintain the claim that believe in God is rational.

(1) http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
(2) http://www.grc.nasa.gov...
(3) http://www.reddit.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Proving_a_Negative

Con

Thank you for the good debate.

Rebuttal

"The cause, whatever it may be, is what we call 'God.'"

I cannot agree more that there was an uncaused cause to initiate everything. The cosmological argument convinces me so. What the cosmological argument fails to do is show that the first uncaused cause was god as defined by the definition given round 1. The uncaused cause could be absolutely anything as far as we know. Calling it "god" carries a lot of cultural and religious meaning behind it that shouldn't be there. It could also be called "unicorns" for the same purpose.

"The teleological argument. This argument is that the physical universe shows signs of design. The evidence in this case the apparent presence of order in the physical word."

The universe with all of its matter, space, time, and energy are governed by 4 different forces listed here: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu... These can explain almost everything in the universe as to why it occurs. In a closed system, entropy will increase as stated by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, the earth is not a closed system. This is mostly due to the sun. With the sun, there is a possibility that entropy will decrease on earth. Nature has the ability of making itself more complex. We see this through the origins of life to the great diversity of life today. Prokaryotes evolved into Eukaryotes which began making multicellular organisms. Life has the ability of making itself more complex whilst still following the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Design can be explained this way. In addition to this, we must use Occam's Razor to decide which explanation is the best. While we can use many different explanations to show how design came, the simplest one is always the best. Of course this is a subjective perspective to use, but how do we explain god? We have no way of testing the supernatural. We have the physical universe and that's it. Therefore, atheism should be selected as the winning theory.

"The ontological argument.
This is NOT Anselm's ontological argument, but a prior ontological argument made famous by Thomas Aquinas. The evidence in this case our concept of perfection.

We as people have a theoretical concept of perfect - that much seems straightforward. However, we have no experience of perfection in the physical world. Nothing that we see around is perfect. No matter how hard we try or how far we search, everything has some level of impurity or imperfection in it. So where did our concept of perfection come from?

In every other area, our intellectual understanding is limited by our experiences. Try imagining a color that does not exist in the physical world? That would be a new color that you have never seen and that is not a combination of other colors. Or try imagining a shape that is not a shape you have seen and cannot be created by combining other shapes. Such things cannot be done. We can imagine new shades of existing colors, or new combinations of existing shapes, but not new colors or shapes.(3)

However, we can imagine perfection even though we have no experience of perfection in the physical world. Where does this understanding of perfection come from? The most likely explanation is that there is a perfect Something which is not part of the physical world but is still in some way part of our experience. That perfect Something is what we call God."

This entire argument is nothing but a giant red herring. The idea of perfection is a subjective stance that we take. It depends on the person. Ask any 2 people what they think of when they hear the word "perfect." This doesn't illustrate god's existence in any way. As far as shapes go, I can come up with plenty that don't come from existing shapes. Try the area enclosed by the function f(x)=sin(x)+x, g(x)=cos(x)-x+2, and h(x)=(x-4)^3. If you actually want to graph it and try to find shapes make sure you use radian mode and the standard window (zoom 6). You could argue that you can make this shape by cutting out a box with a bunch of infinitesimally small circles to fit that shape. If you wish to do that, then there are absolutely no shapes that aren't related to normal geometric shapes. Also I would like to point out to everybody that one of his references comes from "reddit." It pertains to this paragraph.

"Argument from experience.
The evidence in this case is the claims of those who say that have had experiences with the Divine. Millions, if not billions, of people have claims to have encounters with God, either through the experience of miracles or through mystical experiences of the Divine. However, these experiences are often discounted as evidence. Such a large number of claims would not be discounted if we were talking about any other topic, even if the experiences could not be replicated at will. Why are they discounted when it comes to God? We are not talking about a few dozen, or even a few hundred, first hand experiences. We are talking about millions upon millions of people making claims of what they have experienced firsthand. Such persistent and widespread claims cannot be dismissed without hard evidence showing that they are false."

This is possibly a bandwagon fallacy, but I'm going to assume it isn't. This evidence falls under the category of subjective. Subjective evidence is inferior to objective evidence to begin with. Good evidence is relevant, verifiable, representative, cumulative, and actionable. With subjective evidence, you have to take their word for it and believe me there is a lot of bias. Things like "feeling the spirit" and getting really lucky can be described as an act of god by somebody who really wants god to act in their life. You will probably argue that something very unlikely in the past has occurred like somebody plummeting to the ground at terminal velocity and surviving. This is nothing but a statistics taking action. If, lets say, you classify a "miracle" as something 1 in a million, then the odds are it will happen. Say that there is a 1 in a billion (not million) chance winning the lottery, which everybody in the world participated in, and there could be multiple winners. The odds are that somebody will win. The odds that nobody will win are .091188%. Sure, the people who won are going to think it was a miracle, but statistically speaking, somebody was probably going to win. Theists will point out a statistically unlikely event (such as somebody survived these incredible odds) after it happened already and say god did it. If you call it out before it happens, then it is truly incredible. Even if you did it before, can you do it again? People like to ignore all the victims who haven't survived those injuries or odds.

Sources
1. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
Peili

Pro

Let me start with Con"s arguments.

First, Con described what he calls the big bang by saying, "The universe is in a cycle of expanding and then contracting, over and over again." Let me be extremely clear: This is NOT what the Big Bang Theory states. By examining the current position and relative speed objects in the universe, the Big Bang Theory extrapolates what likely happened when this universe began. It does not describe a cycle of the universe expanding and then contracting.

The idea of a contracting universe is not part of the Big Bang Theory. While this idea has been thrown around for a while, and even written about by a few scientists, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the universe has or ever will contract. The idea of a contracting universe is not science.
Sources:
http://www.space.com...
http://science.nasa.gov...
http://science.nationalgeographic.com...

I should also note that Con"s description of what "no laws of physics could mean," amounts to an atheistic version of miracles. It allows for the dispensation of natural laws " what we would normally call a miracle " but denies any kind of Miracle Worker.

Finally on this point, Con"s suggestion that there may have been a "googleplex" (I assume he meant "googolplex") of universes before this one is based on his false claim that the universe is cycling between expansion and contractions. While we cannot disprove this hypothesis, we should recognize that there is no evidence to suggest that it is true.

Second, Con discusses abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is also a fundamentally unsupported idea. Yes, earth can support life. Yes, the materials that make up organic life were likely present in primordial earth, and they may have been grouped together. However, there is no evidence to suggest that life could spontaneously come into existence from these materials. This is another example of what is essentially an atheistic miracle. It is the atheist saying, "I don"t believe in God, and life exists, therefor abiogenesis must be possible." In logic, it is called begging the question. We have to assume a non-theistic worldview in order to establish a non-theistic worldview.

Third, Con talks about evolution. Actually, I have no problem with this. Evolution is a fine theoretical model to explain the process of species diversification. Unless we are talking about a literal six day creation, which not the topic of this debate and has never been universally accept by any religion, the issue of evolution has no bearing on the debate. The theory of evolution in no way diminishes the work of a Creator God. I will point out, just for fun, that Con has overstated evolution a little bit. As of yet, there is not clear evidence of gradual change over a lengthy period of time.
Source:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Now let me turn to Con"s rebuttal.

Cosmological:
I tend to agree that the cosmological argument could allow for a non-theistic creation of the universe. However, the cause of the universe is a non-thinking Being, we have to ask what took it so long to create the universe. Again, there is no evidence to support a cycle of expansion and contraction in the universe. So if the universe were created by an unthinking force then that creation should have started immediately from eternity, and the universe by now should be infinitely big. A more rational approach is to say that a thinking being " a God " chose from eternity when to create this universe.

Teleological:
In this case, Con has more or less made my case for me, and I consider the strong of my points. Con advocates for physical forces " constant laws " at work in the universe. Based on everything we can observe about order, those forces should not exist if there was no an intelligent will to create them. The existence of consistent laws provide perhaps the best possible example of order in the universe, and that order indicates design. Design, by definition, requires a Designer.

Ontological:
Here Con has confused "perfect" with "ideal." What is ideal for any two people may vary widely. Perfect, on the other hand, is an objective standard. It is one which is never found in our physical universe, but it is not the less standard that does not change from person to person. Also, yes the example of a "new" shape is once which is based on existing geometric shapes. That"s the point. We know only the shapes that we have seen. We cannot create a new one.

Experiential:
This deals with those who claim to have experienced the Divine, either through claims of miracles or through mystical experiences. The experience itself is subjective, as Con rightly points out. However, consistent reports of the experience is objective evidence. The entire field of psychology is built on the reports of subjective experiences. One example can be seen as an outlier. A few hundred would make a pattern. Millions of experiences would need to be considered evidence in our understanding of reality. In no other area of study would we discard such a large number of supporting claims.

Thanks for what has so far been a quality debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Proving_a_Negative

Con

Rebuttal

"First, Con described what he calls the big bang by saying, "The universe is in a cycle of expanding and then contracting, over and over again." Let me be extremely clear: This is NOT what the Big Bang Theory states. By examining the current position and relative speed objects in the universe, the Big Bang Theory extrapolates what likely happened when this universe began. It does not describe a cycle of the universe expanding and then contracting."

Notice how I also said that there are many different variations of the Big Bang and this is the one that I tend to believe preceding me describing it. The Big Crunch which follows the Big Bang is a hot topic in the realm of science. I'm not sure what sources you were looking at. Either the rate of expansion of the universe is going to win or the strength of gravity will win. If expansion wins, we will inevitably end up in a heat death scenario, but if gravity wins then we can end up either in the big crunch or big bounce. There are more theories but these are the main ones. To check all of them out, see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"I should also note that Con"s description of what "no laws of physics could mean," amounts to an atheistic version of miracles. It allows for the dispensation of natural laws " what we would normally call a miracle " but denies any kind of Miracle Worker."

I do not doubt the possibility of a god, I just deny that it contains as much evidence as an atheistic model of the universe. As to the no laws of physics, anybody's speculation is valid. There is uncertainty. This does give any credit to god though until more is understood on this topic.

"Second, Con discusses abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is also a fundamentally unsupported idea. Yes, earth can support life. Yes, the materials that make up organic life were likely present in primordial earth, and they may have been grouped together. However, there is no evidence to suggest that life could spontaneously come into existence from these materials. This is another example of what is essentially an atheistic miracle. It is the atheist saying, "I don"t believe in God, and life exists, therefor [therefore] abiogenesis must be possible." In logic, it is called begging the question. We have to assume a non-theistic worldview in order to establish a non-theistic worldview."

Here is another theory of the origin of life. The RNA world hypothesis. What this theory suggests is that nucleic acids assembled in an order such that it would resemble RNA and that it would be able to self replicate. This is not far fetched, since the only organic molecule we need is a ribosome. Ribosomes are able to self replicate as long as there is a temperature allowing the nucleic acids to unwind, which could happen near a thermal vent in the ocean. The ribosomes would eventually end up near a thermal vent, denature, self replicate, rebind, then repeat. Given millions of years, the cycle would become easier with the addition of other proteins and perhaps a lipid bilayer. Slowly but surely, the cell will self generate. Here is more info: http://exploringorigins.org.... Also note that I'm not saying abiogenesis did for sure happen. I'm simply saying that this is most likely. Also, self replicating RNA molecules have been made in the lab as a bonus. Check it out: http://www.newscientist.com...

"I tend to agree that the cosmological argument could allow for a non-theistic creation of the universe. However, the cause of the universe is a non-thinking Being, we have to ask what took it so long to create the universe. Again, there is no evidence to support a cycle of expansion and contraction in the universe. So if the universe were created by an unthinking force then that creation should have started immediately from eternity, and the universe by now should be infinitely big. A more rational approach is to say that a thinking being " a God " chose from eternity when to create this universe."

What is there to suggest that when the universe was created, it wasn't at t=0? Didn't the creation of the universe lead to what we call time? What if the universe is in a cycle of expanding and contracting thus explaining why we haven't reached the "end" of the universe? Basically, you suggest that if the universe exists in a non end point, then god or some other thinking being created it. This is logically incoherent.

"In this case, Con has more or less made my case for me, and I consider the strong [strength] of my points. Con advocates for physical forces ' constant laws ' at work in the universe. Based on everything we can observe about order, those forces should not exist if there was no an intelligent will to create them. The existence of consistent laws provide perhaps the best possible example of order in the universe, and that order indicates design. Design, by definition, requires a Designer."

There exists laws of nature. We can't explain the origin of the laws of nature. We simply know that they exist. This doesn't suggest god built them. We can't rule out the other possibilities here. What if there are an infinite number of universes with all the different combinations of laws governing their universes? Remember we are debating about the existence of evidence for god as defined in round 1. We still don't entirely understand lightning. The reason is that it is difficult to examine due to the randomness and the speed of lightning. Should we still argue that Thor is behind it all? Absolutely not. Uncertainty doesn't suggest plausibility of god.

"This deals with those who claim to have experienced the Divine, either through claims of miracles or through mystical experiences. The experience itself is subjective, as Con rightly points out. However, consistent reports of the experience is objective evidence. The entire field of psychology is built on the reports of subjective experiences. One example can be seen as an outlier. A few hundred would make a pattern. Millions of experiences would need to be considered evidence in our understanding of reality. In no other area of study would we discard such a large number of supporting claims."

Please check out this video pertaining to a similar debate: https://www.youtube.com... (from 1:25:00 to 1:26:00). Matt Slick, a Christian apologist, is describing why he believes in the Christian god and not any other god. His reason is a personal experience with god. Dan Barker describes how other people go through similar but completely different experiences with other gods. What this comes to is a complete mess. We can't take subjective evidence and turn it into empirical evidence of god's existence. I highly encourage you to watch all of the debate because I found it quite entertaining and informative.

Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://exploringorigins.org...
3. http://www.newscientist.com...
4. https://www.youtube.com...
Peili

Pro

Con says that he stated that there are many versions of the Big Bang Theory before describing the one that he subscribes to. However, what he described simply is not the Big Bang Theory. His description of a contracting universe is not found in the Big Bang Theory. I thought that I was clear on which sources I was using, including National Geographic and NASA.

Saying that, "Either the rate of expansion of the universe is going to win or the strength of gravity will win," is true but not that useful. It is saying that either the universe will continue to get bigger or it will not. That is a Tautology.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even if we accept the idea of a contracting universe " which again there is no empirical evidence to support " that still does not give us any reason to think that it will eventually result in a new universe being created. Anyone is free to believing that these things will happen. However, this is a debate about having enough evidence to rationally believe certain things. There is no evidence to support the idea of cycle of expanding and contracting universes.

Con then gives another theory about the rise of life on earth. This one falls prey to the same error as his earlier one: There is no evidence to support it. Con again makes the leap from non-living material to a living creature without any explanation or evidence about that central change. This "molecular biologist's dream" still requires "a magic catalyst" that is unsupported by any evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Then Con writes that "There exists laws of nature. We can't explain the origin of the laws of nature." However, the very point of this debate is to explain their origin. Are they more likely the result of an intelligent Creator or not? Obviously we cannot rule out all other possibilities with absolute certainty. However, based on everything that we do know about order, the existence of these ordered laws strongly suggests that God did create them. Again, the claim that there are an infinite number of universes is entirely unsupported by evidence.

(I don"t want to introduce new arguments at this stage in the debate, if we accept the idea of multiverse with an infinite number of universes then this produces new evidence for God. Perhaps we can take this up in a different debate.)

The bit about "uncertainty doesn"t suggest the plausibility of god," is a red herring. At no point have I suggested that uncertainty is the issue. Rather, it is the evidence that is the issue. And the apparent existence of order in the universe is evidence of creative Will at work.

Finally, Con brings up a video about personal experience relating to the Christian God and not any other god. Once again this takes us off the topic. This debate is NOT about one religion over another. That could be an interesting debate, but it is not this one. We are debating the evidence for God in general, not for any specific God. Again, the empirical evidence is the consistency of the subjective evidence. If we were talking about an isolated incident or two that would be one thing. However, the enormous number of claims provide evidence for something beyond the individual.
Debate Round No. 4
Proving_a_Negative

Con

Proving_a_Negative forfeited this round.
Peili

Pro

In this debate Con voluntarily took on a shared burden of proof. Con has provided a few theories, but no evidence. And that"s what this debate is about: evidence.

The evidence is that the physical world appears to be ordered, and order is a hallmark of design. The evidence is that we have an understanding of perfection but we see no signs of perfection in our universe, suggesting our understanding of perfection must come from outside of our universe. The evidence is the people continue to claim experiences of the divine in numbers that cannot be ignored without strong evidence to contradict it. Con has not be able to provide that evidence.

As I said in my opening argument, I am not arguing in favor of any specific religion. Nor am I trying to "prove" that there is a God. I don"t expect atheists to start converting in droves from this debate. However, I have provided sufficient evidence to show that it is rational to believe in God. Con has not been able to show that this evidence is false, much less provide more compelling evidence in favor of a non-theistic worldview.

While not everyone is going to accept God, there is enough evidence to rationally believe in God.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 2 years ago
Fascist_Ferret
this is your very first post rex: "Evidence is in the mind of the beholder. What is evidence for one, may not qualify as evidence for another. So yes, one absolutely needs evidence to believe in something, be it heartfelt, concrete, visual, abstract, etc."
Evidence is not in the mind of the beholder. If it is not universal evidence then it is not evidence. We cannot make things up in our mind (God) and then say that that is your evidence. Heartfelt? So because you believe in your heart that God is real, then that qualifies as evidence? A friend of mine once said that while he was in a college class, many of the students including the teacher began debating the existence of God. Most were not in favor of God and my friend kind of sat there shaking his head. He told me that during that class he heard a faint voice telling him not be discouraged "for they are wrong, for they are wrong." He said to me "You see man. he's there, he's always there, and I know that he was there with me." I responded very casually with "that's interesting. The mind is a very powerful thing." Of course that pissed him off, but come on. He didn't hear God talking to him. If he did, he imagined it. People have imagined much stranger things before. But according to you rex, that is evidence enough for the existence of God, even though it is most certainly not actual evidence.

"If one needs no evidence, of any kind, it is blind. One needs faith to believe in God. Faith is the belief in something that doesn't require definitive, empirical proof."
So your faith is blind. That is exactly what you are saying because you have no empirical evidence for the existence of God. Faith in anything without definitive, empirical proof is blind. If you 100% believe that God is real, that is blind faith. In all of these discussions you have provided not proof at all for God. You have simply stated that your feelings and personal relationship with God qualifies as evidence. But it's not.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 2 years ago
Proving_a_Negative
Somebody explain what is going on please.
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 2 years ago
Fascist_Ferret
In the other discussion TBR said this : "Actuality Fascist. Your getting everyone mixed up. You may not be paying close enough attention.

'Fascist, Your, '... why "God is better than you and me". I would think it would be easy, right?" I don't believe I ever specifically said that, but I'll give it a go.' (the ' denotes your own quote rex, whil " denotes TBR quotes)
Its the subject of the debate, not a question directly to you. Look up at the top of the page!"

Then the next post TBR says: "Shi* Now he has ME doing it. That first Fascist should be rextr05 REX05! You are mixing everyone up, and its getting to ME now!"

Mystery solved.
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 2 years ago
Fascist_Ferret
Excuse me, I retract my statement about your quote. You did not misquote me, I must not have written that sentence correctly when I presented it earlier and that is I thought it was wrong. I apologize. Earlier what I meant to say was that it is interesting to see someone who believes that car crashes and other random occurrences in life explain a magical wizard warlord in the sky calling me an idiot. Irony? I must have deleted that last part because that is what I meant to say. And it is true. How can you call me idiotic when your only proof of a fairy wizard who rules us all is that any chance occurrence or random event in life such as the examples I provided, i.e surviving a car crash, a war, etc...? This doesn't make sense, non of this is proof. PERSONAL proof is not proof, it is simply absurd conjecture and some kind of gut feeling which is certainly not evidence for anything.

Everything else stands. I did not misrepresent your beliefs you stated them clearly. You said "Oh .... why is that? I use my faith to assume that cuz that's all we have other than strange occurrences throughout our lives that indicate there is a God" in response to my statement that believing in God because you survive a car crash or a war is ridiculous since of course many other died, and you are not special. Therefore God had nothing to do with it. So like I said, I was not wrong, nor a liar. You believe that random, chance occurrences like car crash survival can explain God in some personal way, which once again is not evidence.

And on the issue of multiple people thinking I mix things up and lie, like I said the incident you are referring to was when TBR addressed me when he meant to address you in the other discussion, which he even admitted to. He admitted that it was you who was mixing things up and lying. But of course you won't admit to any thing like this. I actually have the backbone to correct myself when I have made an error or mistake, like below.
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 2 years ago
Fascist_Ferret
"Oh .... why is that? I use my faith to assume that cuz that's all we have other than strange occurrences throughout our lives that indicate the is a God"
That is what you said in response to my statement that believing in God simply because you survive certain random circumstances or that other random events may happen in your life is ridiculous. Once again Rextr, you are trying to deny your own beliefs after they have been called out. Your three most recent posts have simply been to try and tell me "nuh uh, I didn't say I believe that," when clearly you did. I can't quite figure you out right now. You are flip flopping more than Mit Romney on your beliefs. And of course even more irony as you misquoted me. Paraphrasing and quoting are two different things. Learn the difference. You quoted me as saying "It's quite interesting to see someone who believes that car crashes and other random occurrences in life explain the existence of a magical wizard warlord in the sky. Irony." No, rather this is verbatim what I said and I am copying and pasting it right now: "It's quite interesting to see someone who believes that car crashes and other random occurrences in life explain the existence of a magical wizard warlord in the sky. Irony?" You are a hypocrite. Accusing me of misquoting you when I never quoted you, I either paraphrased or interpreted what you said, yet you literally just misquoted me for everyone to see. Also your misquotation of me doesn't even make any sense. You HAVEN'T explained the existence of your magical wizard warlord in the sky. You have simply stated that he exists because in your heart you know it to be true. That doesn't explain his existence. And yes you are the only one who thinks i get mixed up. The other time you are referring to, TBR even corrected his mistake and said that he meant to address you regarding lies and misquoting, not me. So looks like the shoe is on the other foot, liar ;)
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
facist, your, "It's quite interesting to see someone who believes that car crashes and other random occurrences in life explain the existence of a magical wizard warlord in the sky. Irony" .......... is a lie & one that twists what I say for your games you play. " Car crashes????? "Random occurrences to explain God's existence...???? Man what are you talking about. I'm not the only one that has told you that you get mixed up or lie on this forum. This is a prime example. Like I keep telling you, grow up.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 2 years ago
Proving_a_Negative
wow this debate has quite a few comments. All I want to see is some hard objective evidence that is repeatable for god. I haven't seen any and don't expect to see any. Hopefully I'm proven wrong in this debate, but sadly I won't be probably.
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 2 years ago
Fascist_Ferret
Sorry Rex, but It's not my idiocy that is bothering you, it's my logical responses. It's quite interesting to see someone who believes that car crashes and other random occurrences in life explain the existence of a magical wizard warlord in the sky. Irony?

If no evidence exists for the existence of something then it becomes evidence against its existence over time. The absolute zero lack of evidence for the existence of God is actually proof against his existence. Is it total proof that he doesn't exist? no of course not, but as Dawkins says it certainly tips the scales dramatically.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
Fascist, That was an allegory to tell you it is what is the least reason for a person to ask God to come into ones life. If in fact they do the asking, they will find that God responds & the rest is history.

Your, ""I use my faith to assume that cuz that's all we have other than strange occurrences throughout our lives that indicate the is a God."
More proof against God. Thank you. I won't even ask you why or how you think that from what I wrote. For one thing as it says, I was referring to something not included in this particular sentence. & if it was regarding the word 'strange,' strange can be good & it's personal, rational, absolute & completely real occurrences in my life & other people will tell you the same that have a true belief in God.

OK, your are bothering me with your idiocy ......... don't reply to me anymore.
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 2 years ago
Fascist_Ferret
"I use my faith to assume that cuz that's all we have other than strange occurrences throughout our lives that indicate the is a God."
More proof against God. Thank you.

"I would much rather take the chance that my belief in God will save me a spot in heaven, then take the chance of finding out after I die that I was wrong with no belief"
You said it, and I responded accordingly. If you believe it don't deny it after you have been called out for doing so
No votes have been placed for this debate.