The Instigator
devilsadvocate109
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Balacafa
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Is there only one god?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Balacafa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 428 times Debate No: 78579
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

devilsadvocate109

Pro

I don't know either way, I want your opinions. There may be many gods or there could be one. There could be a whole race of gods or theres only one. What do you think?
Balacafa

Con

Since Pro hasn't been specific I will argue that there are no Gods. This is still against the motion ( Is there only one god).
Debate Round No. 1
devilsadvocate109

Pro

If there is no God then how was the earth and everything on it created?
Balacafa

Con

Just because religion has an "answer" as to what was pre-Big Bang, though, doesn't make it correct just because the other side doesn't also have a hypothesis. Just because some book said so it doesn't automatically mean all followers have suddenly discovered the deepest mysteries of the universe. In that regard, neither religion nor science has a head-start but the difference is that science is flexible in its attempts to find the truth.

"The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity."

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

This alone proves how the Earth and the universe could have been created without a God. Unless you feel like you can contradict the words of Professor Steven Hawking (arguably one of the worlds greatest scientists) then your question has now been answered. Since Pro has provided nothing more than a question I cannot really say anything else because there is nothing else to answer. I hope that Pro will not pose one question at a time for the next 5 rounds because that will leave me very little to respond to.

Sources

http://www.theguardian.com...

https://www.google.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
devilsadvocate109

Pro

Ever heard of Einstein? Do you believe he knew what he was saying?
Balacafa

Con

Firstly, I wasn't talking about Einstein and if you are making the comparison between Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein then it is interesting to note that Steven Hawking has found problems with Einstein's theory of relativity. They cannot be both be wrong. Again, I must note that Pro hasn't posted any form of an argument - just two questions.

Moving on, I believe that God doesn't exist. In religious texts none of the supernatural has been scientifically proven. As well as this there have been mistakes in religious texts such as the bible that states:

- The Earth is flat
- Rabbits chew the cud
- Bats are a type of bird

Religion, throughout history, has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. An example of this includes the Christian crusades, and the present day suicide bombings by Isis. If these religions were actually true surely God would prevent people like Isis and the Klu Klux Klan from doing these sort of things - giving a negative view of the religion throughout the world.

The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happen, which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates to relieve pressure. What happens when you can prove, and others can't deny, the Big Bang theory and the sequence of Evolution, which both have such large amounts of logic behind them that it's hard to deny that they are true. This is called "The God of the gaps" factor.

I have been forced to write a shorter argument due to the fact that I have been given nothing to refute.

Sources

http://forum.davidicke.com...

http://creation.com...

http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 3
devilsadvocate109

Pro

devilsadvocate109 forfeited this round.
Balacafa

Con

I extend all my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
devilsadvocate109

Pro

devilsadvocate109 forfeited this round.
Balacafa

Con

I extend all of my arguments. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
devilsadvocate109BalacafaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited turns; Con provided sources. Conduct and sources vote goes to Con.
Vote Placed by roguetech 2 years ago
roguetech
devilsadvocate109BalacafaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Obviously Con wins for giving arguments and sources. However, I'd like to note I didn't find the arguments compelling. The quote from Hawking is an argument from authority, and does not *negate* a possibility of creation. Also, Con failed to address Einstein's religious beliefs (deism). Since Hawking's *science* was not addressed, Einstein's religion becomes relevant. I also dispute that religion "has an 'answer' as to what was pre-Big Bang", and that science does not. Rather, the answer provided by Genesis *contradicts* science. As framed, the "mistakes" in the bible isn't relevant to any god existing, and the use of religion for control is also irrelevant.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
devilsadvocate109BalacafaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture