The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JimShady
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

None of the three most practicted religions' Gods exist.

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: 8/7/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 372 times Debate No: 94505
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I will contend that none of the three most practiced religions Gods exist. The three are Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.

My opponent will contend that one or more of these religions' Gods exist.

Victory for Pro if can Pro can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that none of these Gods exist.

Automatic victory for Con if Pro doesn't win. Can be no stalemate.

Structure
R1 acceptance
R2 Arguments
R3 rebuttals
r4 defense of r2 arguments against opponent's r3 rebuttals.
JimShady

Con

(Note, I am just starting out on this website, so I'm a novice, but don't go easy on me. Good luck.)

So first off, clarification. Muslims and Christians worship the same God, but have different perspectives of him. The God of Abram/Abraham, who's first son was Ishmael, is the same Allah that Islam prays too. There's different names for him, different interpretations, similarly to Jews and Christians. And then Hinduism practices polytheism, but it's worthy to note that their supreme God is Brahma, the sort of creator of the universe, much like Islam and Christianity's God. So, to make it simpler I'm going to compare the Trinity, Allah, and Brahma all as the same God, the creator, but people just have different opinions on who he actually is.

So, reading your debate description and how you will win, it says that you must basically disapprove God's existence. That's not verbatim, but I think that's a fair analysis. That makes it easy on me, because it never says that I have to prove Brahma/Trinity/Allah are existent. And that's one thing about religion, it is extremely hard to prove that God is real. And the reason for that is because, if we could prove his existence, than their would be no need for faith, and faith is very central to almost all religions. If one religion could absolutely prove that their God is the real one, everyone would flock to it, be saved or enlightened, and then no more point for religion. Religion thrives on faith (one reason their might not be many miracles nowadays is because if someone filmed a vision of Jesus, everyone would jump on board to Christianity).

Therefore I'll try my best to prove to you he is real, even though it's not my job. It's your job to tell me why God isn't real. Proving he IS is hard enough, but proving he isn't, at least right now on Earth, is impossible. For all we know, Deists may be right in saying God started the world, then left is behind. That's why he seems to not be here. So saying that God isn't real because we never see him can be shoved aside in that maybe God does not want to reveal himself. Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity think God STILL interacts with us, but even if he doesn't, that's not to say there is no God. I admit I am ignorant in God's nature, and I'll admit that these three religions probably have some untrue doctrine, as we are only human, but that's a simple misinterpretation.

So, as far as proving God is real to you, that's not gonna be simple, I can already see you refuting it. And if it was simple, then everyone would be a theist, not an atheist. But I'll try, anyways.

First, a topic that many will go to first: how did everything get here. You might've heard this one before, in fact, I know you have. What I wanna know is how you answered that. Let's start with your computer mouse. Why is it existing? Because it was built. Why was it built? To make manufactures' money. Why do they need money? To buy food. Why do they need to buy food? So they have energy. Why do they need energy? Because their body needs it. Why? Because they will die. Why? Because they are living, and without energy, you die. Why are they living? Because they were born. Why were they born? (skipping entire family history tree). Why was the first man and woman on Earth? Because they were created. Why? The answer to that leads is because God wanted to create them. They didn't create themselves, and if you argue evolution, then the very first organism ever... who created it? Chemical reaction? Who created those chemicals? Ultimately, you will be backed into the corner of that something had to have created them. A supreme being. Hindus, Christians, and Muslims may view him differently, but nevertheless, there is a creator. Ask about any thing and why or how it exists, and you will end up with the same result: a God. Try it, it's pretty fun.

Unfortunately, I'm that may not convince you. I've even heard an argument by Professor Hawking that because of the fundamental law of gravity, somehow, (I'm not a big scientist, so I was kind of lost) matter had a way of creating itself. And let's just say that's right, to get my point across. Because of gravity, nothing can come into something.

Sounds promising, even though that I can easily just ask "Where did the law of gravity come from?"

So, now it's your turn. Disprove that Allah, Brahma, or the Trinity is not extant. Trust me when I say if you can, I will be an atheist from here on out. And I have full confidence that it is impossible to prove God isn't real. But I'm looking forward to your answer, and thanks for reading my paragraphs.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

R2 Arguments


Claim 0: There is no evidence that God exists, therefore scientifically God doesn't exist.

Warrant 0: "Now, the atheist will counter my affirmative proof argument by crying, "Well, OK, but there isn't any affirmative proof of God." Fine, even if we grant that assertion (which some will dispute), then the proper scientific stance should still be one of uncertain agnosticism--not definitive atheism."[0]

Impact 0: No affirmative proof of God means beyond a reasonable doubt we conclude that God doesn't exist. This is because science is involved in so many fields of study. From biology, evolution, psychology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and many more. Many of these fields have alternative explanations for previously scientifically unexplained events.

Thanks for the debate. Look forward to what you have to say next.


Sources
0. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
JimShady

Con

First, after I posted my Round 1 comment, I saw your structure system in which I was only supposed to ACCEPT the debate in the first part. Sorry, I missed that part and jumped right in, but I hope that isn't a big issue. So here is my rebuttal.

Science has come a long way in the world, I will agree with you there. Back when events like crop failure and a plague happened, everyone blamed it on a scapegoat witch and killed her. Nowadays we know that events like this are because of specific rain areas (I'm not a meteorologist.) and viruses, not demons inside innocent people. Science has come a long way to explain the world around us.

Let me tell you though: science will never answer the creation question. Theories have been provided, but not answers. This question has been asked for thousands of years, and neither side has been conclusive. Many people will argue that science will provide the answer, it will take time, but it will come through. I'm firm in my belief that it won't. It will remain, and if my words right here can be stored in a database until the world ends, I'm %100 sure that my statement would be true even then.

You could say in response that theists will never prove God is real, and that's OK, we won't. That is what faith is for, again.

Like I said, proving God is not real is completely impossible. It's what you should be doing in this debate, but it simply won't because you can't. In your next response, I'd like you to give evidence on why he isn't existing. I'll be on your side if you do, believe me.

You state "No affirmative proof of God means beyond a reasonable doubt we conclude that God doesn't exist." I'll use an example here to explain how that statement is false.

Now, you may think I'm crazy with this example right here, but here me out. Let's say this quarter, right next to me, is God. Like I said, here me out. There is no evidence that this quarter is God, so you should say that, therefore, this quarter is not God. By definition, at least for Christians, Islam, Judaism (I'm not certain on others), God is all-powerful (supreme, infinite power, does what he wants, can manipulate physics, chemistry, gravity, etc.), all-knowing (knows everything there can possibly be known) and all-present (is everywhere in the universe) (see Source 1 at the bottom). So, God can manipulate the physics to make himself a quarter (and also manipulate your mind to make you think he isn't), know how to make himself a quarter, and, being everywhere, why COULDN'T he be a quarter?

So, to say you can't prove god is real, therefore he isn't, can't work. Because, by definition, Brahma, the Trinity, or Allah, can do anything, even making you not be able to prove it. To say that God is not all powerful, knowing, and present, is perfectly fine, but you and I would not be talking about the same God then. And the God we are discussing, the one from the 3 most practiced religions in the world, is, so this is perfectly possible.

I really my quarter example helped out. Don't think of it out of the ordinary, though! We know Catholics believe a wafer of unleavened bread is truly the body of Jesus, and a quarter and a bread wafer show physical similarities! (I'm not saying this US currency beside me is God, but I will not refuse the possibility that it is not him.)

I'd also like to site that anything proven in biology, evolution, psychology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and many more does not contradict the existence of God. Being all powerful and knowing in the world of science and physics, he can actually MAKE this stuff happen! To say that he can't, as I said before, is not in league with the God that Hindus, Christians, and Muslims worship. Just give me anything that science has discovered, even evolution. Nothing will be contradicting to the existence of a deity.

In summary, this powerful being that us theists worship is perfectly capable of making himself unbeknownst to us if he wants (personally, I think he has revealed some already, but that is beside the point.) To say he doesn't exist simply because he chooses not to reveal himself, which he can do if he wants, is proof, is, well, wrong. You can't be sure. As Dr. Kardaras states, you should be if anything an agnostic.

I don't know the official way to add sources, but here's mine, in case your interested. Source (1): http://study.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

R3 Rebuttals

Opponent's arguments in bold and italics. My arguments in plain text.

"So first off, clarification. Muslims and Christians worship the same God, but have different perspectives of him. The God of Abram/Abraham, who's first son was Ishmael, is the same Allah that Islam prays too. There's different names for him, different interpretations, similarly to Jews and Christians. And then Hinduism practices polytheism, but it's worthy to note that their supreme God is Brahma, the sort of creator of the universe, much like Islam and Christianity's God. So, to make it simpler I'm going to compare the Trinity, Allah, and Brahma all as the same God, the creator, but people just have different opinions on who he actually is."


Sounds good, simple is better.


"And that's one thing about religion, it is extremely hard to prove that God is real. And the reason for that is because, if we could prove his existence, than their would be no need for faith, and faith is very central to almost all religions."


I disagree. Often in biblical texts people knew Jesus was real but still did not have faith in him. There would be plenty of room for faith if we scientifically proved God existed.

Faith "3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters; refused to break faith with his friends." [1]


Think about it, you know certain people exist, but are you loyal to them? Do you trust them? I have shown even if there was as much evidence that God exists as humans exists, faith would be very important. Finally, several religions would inevitably claim God was "their God" if God was proven to exist. In other words, the question would remain of which God?


"If one religion could absolutely prove that their God is the real one, everyone would flock to it, be saved or enlightened, and then no more point for religion. Religion thrives on faith (one reason their might not be many miracles nowadays is because if someone filmed a vision of Jesus, everyone would jump on board to Christianity)."


No, they wouldn't. People, particularly with strong beliefs against Christianity would think it was a ruse.


"The answer to that leads is because God wanted to create them."


That is one possible solution. Yet, there is no scientific proof to back that claim up. At best there is anecdotal evidence from religious texts that may have been tampered with, mistranslated, or misinterpreted. Not only that but many creation stories exclude each other.


"They didn't create themselves, and if you argue evolution, then the very first organism ever... who created it? Chemical reaction? Who created those chemicals? Ultimately, you will be backed into the corner of that something had to have created them."


Perhaps there is no reason nor explanation, that it simply just is. For right now the something from nothing theory seems to be the best answer to the question. The universe has a net energy of nigh zero. Quantum fluctuations could have started the big bang. [2]


"A supreme being. Hindus, Christians, and Muslims may view him differently, but nevertheless, there is a creator. "


There is no scientific evidence to support that view.


"Ask about any thing and why or how it exists, and you will end up with the same result: a God. Try it, it's pretty fun."


Something from nothing theory which is backed by evidence is my answer. [2]


"Sounds promising, even though that I can easily just ask "Where did the law of gravity come from?"" [3]



The multiverse theory explains how the constants of the universe were created. [3]


"So, now it's your turn. Disprove that Allah, Brahma, or the Trinity is not extant. Trust me when I say if you can, I will be an atheist from here on out. And I have full confidence that it is impossible to prove God isn't real. But I'm looking forward to your answer, and thanks for reading my paragraphs."


Science has explained away most mysteries involving God. There will be some dispute about which way photosynthesis evolved, yet all this dispute reinforces Darwin's theory of evolution. The same goes for other theories, there will always be some level of mystery in the universe. Which version of abiogensis is the correct version? Yet, all these versions reinforce abiogensis.

Finally, even if you don't somehow buy the scientific version, there is plenty of other faiths that could defeat your argument. For example Deism and Judaism. Deism is a belief that God created the universe and then disappeared. Since miracles are at best extremely rare, Deism seem much more likely than the three most popular religions.

Jewish people reject that Jesus Christ is the son of God. As well as rejecting all other Gods except the Judaism God. If the Judaism God is the one and only true God, then no other Gods that can exist.

Conclusions, my opponent has not even dented my case. Science can explain everything my opponent mentioned as well as deism and Judaism.

Thanks for the debate.

Sources.
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. https://medium.com...
3. http://www.space.com...
JimShady

Con

Your arguments will be bracketed 4 times, [[[[like this]]]]. I don't know how to bold, so that's why. For each rebuttal you gave, I'll obviously dispute it (some I shall agree). Here goes.

1.) [[[[Sounds good, simple is better.]]]]

Indeed.

2.) [[[[I disagree. Often in biblical texts, people knew Jesus was real but did not have faith in him...Even if there was as much evidence that God exists as humans exists, faith would be very important.]]]]

Here's the deal. It's my mistake, I should've made it clearer. The faith that I'M talkin' about is faith that God exists, not faith that he is trustworthy. This discussion is about the existence of Allah, Trinity, or Brahma, not if we should have faith in there ideals and teachings. You are correct in saying we shall still need faith, but what I'm saying is there'd be no more need for the faith that God exists, which is very central to a religion. You definition says [[[[loyalty to a person or thing]]]]. In this case, the faith I'm talking about is loyalty to the belief (belief=thing) that God exists. So, you are entirely right here! Everyone would then need faith to claim that the God belonged to their religion. But that's irrelevant to a discussion only about the faith that he exists. Not your fault for saying that, I should've been more precise.

3.)[[[[No they wouldn't. People, particularly with strong beliefs against Christianity would think it was a ruse.]]]]

Another point on which I agree on you with, although it's still more of a side topic. But it's worthy to note that people doubt the Apollo 11 moon landing happened, even the footage. One thing: you could compare a miracle with 9/11 (of course not in content), a miracle could be filmed with several hundred cams, all different angles. Yes, I know, you could still distrust it, but you'd have to admit it'd be pretty darn convincing.

4.)[[[[Yet there is no scientific proof to back that claim up...Not only that but many creation stories exclude each other.]]]]

You got me. There is none. But on my side, there's no scientific proof to disapprovemy belief (coming back to this later). Again though, what we have is faith in existance, and there's a good reason why we have ONLY that. And I already said why in Round one. And yes, creation stories do contradict, in the same way science theories do about how everything came to in to being. The 3 primary religions may say differently on the details, but not the big picture: a creator. (like how scientists go with generally the Big Bang. Two ideas are completely equal in terms of contradiction, therefore that sentence was not necessary.)

5.)[[[[Perhaps there is no reason nor explanation, that it simply just is. For right now the something from nothing theory seems to be the best answer to the question... Quantum fluctuations could have started the big bang.]]]]

You have been saying throughout your arguement that science has found reasons and explanations to problems/questions, and so therefore science will eventually explain how everything got here. Now you say perhaps there is no reason, other than it simply just is. Just wanted to shine light on that. Your something from nothing theory may be the best answer for you, but that's a mere preference. And now we get to the hard stuff (I admit, I needed to study up!) Quantum fluctuations, as stated by my first souce [1], are temporary changes in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Now, I don't understand this 100%, by the word "change" hit me. We can both agree that change is an effect. Therefore, with the cause/effect theory, we no that quantum flucuations require a cause. Name a cause, I choose God. I can't back it up with facts, but I'll at least name one. You?

You might argue you caused God, pesented in this arguement [2], but again, we are with dealing with Allah/Trinity/Brahma. He is all-powerful and prsent, not needing a creator.

6.)[[[[There is no scientific evidence to support that view.]]]]

That's fair. I should've watched my wording, but I think I've already explained why we can't and shouldn't be able to (the need of faith in God's existance.) Good catch, though!

7.)[[[[Something from nothing theory which is backed by evidence is my answer.]]]]

Not backed by evidence. If it were, religion would be dropped substantially. Just the same if it were backwards, and God was proven. Some (not all, religion and science are not enemies) science theories would be dropped. And again, cause an effect. There has to be a cause behind nothing turning to something.

8.)[[[[The multiverse theory explains how the constants of the universe were created.]]]]

This is only a theory, there's been no breakthroughs in finding an alternate universe, it right now a concept [3]. But it's an interesting one I might add, and I'm open to its possibility. The reason being that, okay, the multiverse theory allows gravity to work. What allows the multiverse theory to work?

9.)[[[[The same goes for other theories, there will always be some level of mystery in the universe. Which version of abiogensis is the correct version? Yet, all these versions reinforce abiogensis...Finally,...there is plenty of other faiths that could defeat your argument. For example Deism and Judaism...Since miracles are at best extremely rare, Deism seem much more likely than the three most popular religions...Jewish people reject that Jesus Christ is the son of God. As well as rejecting all other Gods except the Judaism God. If the Judaism God is the one and only true God, then no other Gods that can exist.]]]]

Running out of characters, but I'll try to get it in... Yes, there will always be mystery, we agree on that. According to your arguement though, science should not allow for mystery, why'll religion has much of it (whick is okay for now. More will be revealed.) And that abigensis part is great. Even with all of your quantum fluctuations and multiverses... NONE of this contradicts the existence of an all-powerful God, capable of instituting the universe with these changes and theories. All versions of creation, even the Big Bang, strongly reinforce God.

As far as other faiths, I thought we were talking about the 3 main religions. So yes, you're correct when you say Deism is more likely, but that's besides the point. We're not aiming for which God is more likely to exist, we are shooting for the existence of Allah/Trinity/Brahma. Also, Yahweh, Allah, and The Father of the Holy Trinity are the same. Different interpretations only. Christians have the Torah in their Bible. Even if that were false, and it isn't, it shouldn't and doesn't impact a debate between an atheist and an Allah/Trinity/Brahma/Yahweh believer.

10.)[[[[Conclusions, my opponent has not even dented my case. Science can explain everything my opponent mentioned as well as deism and Judaism.]]]]

Well, I figured I wouldn't dent, as I'm an amateur debater and with this topic, it's extremely hard too. To be honest, you have dented... well, cracked, maybe, my arguing technique. You have not touched my arguement, though. Science cannot explain everything I've said (i.e. what created the multiverse theory, amoung others) , and that Deism/Judaism part, not to be mean, makes no sense. Please talk more about it though in round 4.

On the topic of round 4, you must also complete the task that you said would win you this debate. Prove that God isn't real. I like your arguement, but you need to include that evidence without a doubt. That should be a main focus for you.

11.)[[[[Thanks for the debate.]]]]

No prob, by the way, if my speech sounds disrespectful, forgive me. I've been trying hard to be chivalrous and sensible, in all seriousness.

Souces:
1.) http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com... fluctuation
2.) http://www.alternet.org...'everything_has_a_cause'_is_a_terrible_justification_for_god's_existence
3.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

"I like your arguement, but you need to include that evidence without a doubt. " Jimshady

No I don't, beyond a shadow of a doubt would be too difficult. We can't even prove scientifically humans exist beyond a doubt. Instead, I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You haven't really dented my case, so I'm going to make this round short. Thanks for the debate, good job debating. Welcome to debate.org.

JimShady

Con

I'm not going to be as short as you, but I hope you still read my points.

1.)[[[[Beyond a shadow of a doubt would be to difficult.]]]]

That's incorrect, it is impossible to prove God does not exist.

2.)[[[[We can't even prove scientifically humans exist beyond a doubt. Instead, I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.]]]]

I've heard statements like that before, and some similar ones (such as that we can't prove we weren't just created only last Thursday, a theory called Last Thursdayism [1]). That's alright, it reinforces my proposal that proving God's existence, as of right now, is impossible.

The problem is that you have not even RESONABLY proven God does not exist. When you tried, I countered it extremely well in Round 2 (at least in my opinion, we'll leave it to the voters, though). However, you completely ignored by whole Round 2 rebuttal, and only disputed by Round 1 arguments. Therefore, I'm asking you to reread my Round 2 debate and counter it in the comments. If not, that's understandable. But my Round 2 is where you can find the logic that dismantles your reasonable proof of "No affirmative proof of God means beyond a reasonable doubt we conclude that God doesn't exist."

3.)[[[[You haven't really dented my case, so I'm going to make this round short.]]]]

I feel that I have, and that's the reason you made your Round 4 short: you can't refute what I have said (but if you can, feel free to in the comments). But again, we'll leave it up to the voters to see who is dented.

4.)[[[[Thanks for the debate, good job debating. Welcome to debate.org.]]]]

Bye for now. I'll send a friend request, you were an enjoyable and worthy adversary. You also did well, this was no walk in the park for me at all. See ya.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by benshapirohero 3 months ago
benshapirohero
I was happy to see we both agree beauty exists, so at least we have some common ground!

Your sources were very sophisticated and sciencey, but nowhere did I see any evidence of psychologists measuring beauty.
The closest your sources came to measuring beauty was The Science of Female Attractiveness video. They basically took beautiful people and measured their faces. We both know that's not measuring beauty; it's measuring facial ratios, which can make a person beautiful.

I have to eat dinner now. Good day mate.
Posted by Stupidape 3 months ago
Stupidape
Your wrong about beauty, psychologists can measure beauty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Posted by benshapirohero 3 months ago
benshapirohero
First, I respect anyone searching for the truth, which certainly includes you. No hard feelings. I only disagree with your approach to the issue.

Your main argument is that if we can't prove something exists with science, we shouldn't believe in it. This seems fair enough. Let's think harder though.
Take beauty, for example. No one denies that beauty exists- no one. But- hey wait a second, we can't prove it exists! It has no mass, emits no waves... in short it can't be proven to scientifically exist.
However, we can listen to gorgeous music, watch a sunset, read Shakespeare, and we know that there is beauty in this world without question. That's because beauty is actually beyond science, and you're limiting yourself if that's all you focus on.
In the same way, we can't prove God exists scientifically. (You're right!) But, like beauty, he's transcends science- God can't be put in a box, (unless he wants to ;)
The goal of my comment is not to prove God exists, but to show how your approach is a little flawed. Have a beautiful day.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
angry panda
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
ice cream
Posted by harrytruman 3 months ago
harrytruman
I can't debateyupu becasuse you didn't include Judaism, I agree with you on all three.
Posted by Falcon_Chapter 3 months ago
Falcon_Chapter
Good Luck.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
money, sex, and candy.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 months ago
dsjpk5
You've given yourself an almost impossible task. I applaud your bravery!
Posted by Stupidape 4 months ago
Stupidape
Edited debate for clarification.
No votes have been placed for this debate.