The Instigator
esisCOA
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Ron-Paul
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

(PRO)Man Created God or (CON)God Created Man?

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 4 votes the winner is...
esisCOA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,911 times Debate No: 20191
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

esisCOA

Pro

Definitions - Man - humans. God - the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

i made the edit so as to define man and god as I am seeking to debate them, if my definitions do not match your belief then this debate is more then likely not for you. thanks for your time.

Rules - 1st round acceptance only.
round 2 - state your stance
round 3 - attack the opposing stance
round 4 - close your argument

thanks in advanced to the person who wants to debate this with me.
Ron-Paul

Con

I accept. State you stance.
Debate Round No. 1
esisCOA

Pro

It is my stance that God is a creation of mankind. God was created to serve one purpose, and that is to explain the unexplained. Mankind has always had a need to try and explain things no one understands due to the feeling of vulnerability of having insecurities. Where do we come from? How did we get here? What is our purpose?

Back before science, life was much simpler, and imaginations much more vivid. Back then it was common for folk lore to be of the subject of simple people managing to complete amazing feats, feats that are now known to be impossible to have completed. There are amazing and graphic tales of beasts being slayed by the most humble and vulnerable lone warrior. However I don't think for a second that these tales were meant to depict actual battles between actual monsters and mankind. Rather a metaphorical tale representing how man kind has survived through more realistic hardships. The reason for this is due to the fact that we had no logical answers to the questions of the people in that day and age, and the best way to explain how we survived was through a tale expressed with vivid and often exaggerated imaginations.

In the old ages before science, this is seen over and over again. And I believe God falls under the same category. With no logical explanation of the three questions in the opening paragraph, due to the lack of science, the next most logical answer was to tell a grand tale of a supreme being who created all and created man, and gave him purpose. Why? because it was a answer, and not just any answer, it was a answer in the form of a grand tale that at the time was imaginably logical. And that, my friend, was what put away the insecurities of those times and let peoples mind rest at ease.

Another point is the fact that science has been proving so many biblical stories to be impossible and/or untrue. Ever since modern science has been taken seriously, religions' credibility have been severely damaged. And while I do admit God has not yet been disproved, many believe it is now just a matter of time before science obliterates the rest of religion, God along with it.

So my main stance is that I do not refute God exists, rather it is my point that he only exists in the minds of those who believe the tales told by people ages ago who needed a way to explain the unexplained in order to ease the mind of the insecurities of not having a logical answer as to how we were actually created.

I await your stance. Please do not attack any of my points, that will be done in round 3.
Ron-Paul

Con

Questionable Point 1: There have been many times of people who have been dead for a minutes, then brought back to life say that they had seen the gates of heaven and their passed away loved ones.

Main Point 1: One of the main arguments of the God debate is how long humans have been around, how long animals and plants have been around, how long life has been around, how long the Earth has been around, and how long the Universe has been around. Believing that God exists, I take a rather unorthodox stance on these debates, citing that humans have been around for 2-3 million years, life has been around for 3 billion years, the Earth is 5-6 billion years old, and the Universe coming to existence 15 billion years ago through the big bang. First, no one knew how that big bang came into existence. Then several theories popped up, including the Stephen Hawking's theory on the beginning of the Universe and the Parallel Universe theory (look it up if you don't know what either of these theories is about). The "mainstream" (this is highly debatable) theory is that there are parallel universes, and that there is a cycle to the genesis of a universe. The most accepted theory for how the big bang happened was it was just a big area of hot gas which exploded. But where did that gas come from? No scientist has ever been able to even make a theory regarding that subject. And the scientific law that matter can neither be created or destoryed ultimately destories any spontaneous matter creation theories. So God created the hot gas, and that inevitably started the ball rolling.

My Beliefs Point 1: I take a rather weird side of this debate. I say that all of the commonly accepted scientific theories (except of global warming) are the result of real world phenomena, not some heavenly, divine decision. But I say that God created the area of hot gas with the intenion for it to explode, thus creating the universe. So that one divine thing made everything possible. This hot gas seems to have come into existance like 10^-6 seconds before the big bang becuase there is no history before that. And since that time is within the realm of a day, the first day when God said "let there be light" was the big bang. And the bible never said that the six days of creation were continuous.

Friendly Advice Point 1: This debate may be more difficult than you ever expected. This will get very complicated in Round 3 when we post rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
esisCOA

Pro

Thank you for your stance, now we will attack each others round 2 stances in round 3.

AoQP1 - people who say they saw these things are actually hallucinating. Prior to any near death experience your brain releases a chemical known as Dimethyltryptamine. This chemical is believed to be the driving force behind the near death experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

AoMP1 - I agree with most of what you said here, up until the point where you say god created the hot gas. I am no scientist, however I just cannot see a god sitting around waiting to flick the big bang switch as a ideal theory as to what happened before the big bang, for me it is more likely a recycling method in which the universe has been created millions of times already, and died and recycled itself and a new big bang happened over and over. think of it this way, the current universe dies. Black holes start eating other black holes gaining strength. eventually all matter in the universe is in the form of one extremely small, yet extremely powerful black hole (hence why there is no light) and the black hole is so powerful, it is collapsing space itself, and as it does this it draws gas deposits which collect around the black hole. and once there is nothing left for gravity to work with... BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we have a new universe. now of course this is just my own speculation, but I would have a easier time believing this then your theory.

and my ultimate attack is the one you used against me - if god created the gases, then that would mean your argument that matter cannot be made or destroyed is false, because if it were true even god wouldn't be able to create any gases as they are matter. and no offense but "god creating matter" sounds like it falls under the "spontaneous matter creation" theory.

lastly if god created everything, what created god?
Ron-Paul

Con

Attack Point 1:
God does not just serve the purpose of explaining the unexplained. He also establishes well-being to the world. In the old days when most people believed in God, there was a hearty system of values and obligations that one must make not just to himself or society, but to God himself. People were always weary of breaking one of God's commandments. It established law. Even when people went to war, they prayed for forgiveness before and after the battle for the purpose that their killing was justified. This system of values ultimately made society a good place, until the 20th Century.

Attack Point 2:
Many biblical stories actually have root in fact. Most of the prophets actually existed, and did do most of the things in the Bible.

Attack Point 3:
It is highly unlikely that God will ever be proven true or false. If that happened, than the reason for God would be for naught. There is no way to prove either side.

Defense Point 1:
My point about that was if the parallel universe theory is true, than there must have been a first universe. The system of universes could not have been there for eternity. There must have been something that started it all.

Defense Point 2:
God allows for everything to happen. He can create spontaneous matter. But science can not.
Debate Round No. 3
esisCOA

Pro

I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate, and presenting a good challenge to my argument. He debated with class and I look forward to any other debates we might have together.

Now for closing arguments.

It is my stance that God is a creation of mankind. God was created to serve one purpose, and that is to explain the unexplained. Mankind has always had a need to try and explain things no one understands due to the feeling of vulnerability of having insecurities. Where do we come from? How did we get here? What is our purpose?

For me the answers are easy - Where do we come from? We come from evolution. How did we get here? Through evolution. What is our purpose? To continue evolving.

For a long time religion was the right answer. It explained things we had no explanation for and for this reason it worked for humans. It eased our sense of mind and made us feel invulnerable. It gave us purpose.

Then science came along and smacked religion in the face with an enormous penis called facts and evidence.

It used to be that religion was boss and science had to prove religion wrong. And ever since science has been taken seriously, it has done just that. Thus it is my belief that science need not prove religion wrong anymore, but that religion prove science wrong (something that has never happened, mind you.) AND that the ideas expressed by religion such as the topic "god created humans" be refuted until evidence to the contrary is found and proven.

Until such a day comes it is my belief that Humans created God.

ATTENTION VOTERS - PLEASE REFRAIN FROM VOTING FOR WHAT YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE! If you wanted to express your beliefs you should have taken the debate or you can start a new one. Thanks for all your time and thanks again to Con for taking this debate.
Ron-Paul

Con

Point 1: God has allowed for a plausable system of values to develop. The Bible creates this system of values that helped keep mainstream society under control for the entire period of the middle ages, the renissance, and into the industral age.

Point 2: No one has ever proven how the parallel universe world came into being. There must have been some kind of being. The universe or parallel universe has not been around for eternity. The recycling of universe material requires material for the previous universe. And the spontaneous matter creation beong impossible means that only God could create the stuff for the universe. There has to be a beginning and a God.

Point 3: God was created not only for the reason to explain the unexplained, but to have a sense of eternal happiness and no fear of eternal damnation.

Voters: As con said, please to not vote on opinion. I have presented in Point 2 of this Round and this subject in the other two rounds of the beginning theory. Please try to vote on that. There has been no debating beyond that subject.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Wandile 2 years ago
Wandile
IMO you should narrow the definition of God to one specific deity because if you just say God in the broader sense of the term, it is quite a 'set up' for you to win as you can argue that Zeus was made up very easily. But it would be harder to Disprove Allah or Yahweh. That would be more fair of a debate. Just my opinion.
Posted by esisCOA 2 years ago
esisCOA
i made the edit so as to define man and god as I am seeking to debate them, if my definitions do not match your belief then this debate is more then likely not for you. thanks for your time.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 2 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Pick a specific list of parameters, because by changing the meaning of God you've made it too vague. If you mean a deity, then can you clear that up?
Posted by esisCOA 2 years ago
esisCOA
sorry let me re-phrase that - by god I mean any religious supreme being / higher power that has been said to have created man.
Posted by esisCOA 2 years ago
esisCOA
when i say god i mean it as any form of supreme being/higher power that has ever been classified as a god by any religion. if your asking if the judeo-christian god qualifies, then yes, but any supreme being or higher power that has ever been referred to as "god" or multiple gods all qualify.
Posted by Wandile 2 years ago
Wandile
When you say "God" you mean the Judeo-Christian God right?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
esisCOARon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Not a strong debate by either
Vote Placed by Marauder 2 years ago
Marauder
esisCOARon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: on S&G: Con is better at Capitalizing at the start of his paragraphs on Sources: Pro actually sourced, and Con had quite a few statements he could have taken a few seconds to source but didnt. Arguments: I cant bring myself to give this one to either side, I could not find an ounce of substance to either argument, just lots of 'hot gases' from either side.
Vote Placed by shift4101 2 years ago
shift4101
esisCOARon-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Guys, this was awful. Both of you practically conceded. I bare say the either of you made an argument. I did find the grammar of Pro more childish, so I award that point to Con.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
esisCOARon-PaulTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had sources, con didn't. I should say source. He also said hallucination and con never refuted that properly. pro eeks out a win. Sorry ron