The Instigator
Kris
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
debatecvm
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Proof of God's existence - the big one, right?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 956 times Debate No: 15997
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Kris

Con

There's basically no hard proof for God's existence. I put it to the debating community that there's only proof that Jesus existed, through scripture, but not that God is his father or that God ever existed. Jesus may have been a wonderful, altruistic person, sure. Surely the world is now better for his teachings and philosophies. I can't see any evidence for the rest of it though.
debatecvm

Pro

I propose that there is evidence for the existence for God. When you take into account the existence of our universe, the existence of morals, and the historical substantiation of Jesus there is significant evidence to support the existence of God.

The existence of the universe itself, assuming the universe to be a contingent being, can be seen as evidence supporting the existence of a God, according to Dr. William Lane Craig (A prominent professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology). If the universe exists, then it must have had a beginning. Regardless of by what method you happen to believe the universe came into existence, the fact that the universe must have had a beginning that is defined by both time and space is indisputable. If the universe has an absolute beginning, then it must have come from "nothing" or there exists something outside of both time and space (God) that must have contributed to its beginning. A universe, which allows for the existence of living beings, also supports the idea of creationism. The precision with which our universe and world were created are incredible. The chance of life occurring randomly is infinitesimally small.

The existence of morals also supports the existence of God. Morals by definition pertain to the distinction of what is right and wrong. They are "founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom" (dictionary.com). Morals are objective and without a God, how could objective morals exist? While society, law, etc… may make certain actions unacceptable, it is morals which make them objectively wrong. If objective morals exist then there must be something to support their existence. This something is God.

In regard to Jesus, it is historically acknowledged that he existed and carried out various "miracles" throughout the course of his life. Jesus claimed to be God and maintained this notion over the entire course of his life. If a person does not believe that Jesus was who he claimed, then it stands that the only logical explanation was that Jesus was a heretic and was mentally unstable. There can be no other explanation for the perpetuation of his claims as the Lord. If he was mentally unstable then it is unlikely that he would have carried such reverence with so many people during his life and was been able to single handedly begin one of the largest religions in the world.

The resurrection of Jesus three days after his death seems to be the pinnacle point of belief in his claims to being God. If Jesus truly did rise from the dead in the manor described by the Bible, then he must be Lord. Biblical scholars and historians in general accept that the tomb where Jesus was buried was vacant on the third day after his death. The proposals that the body was stolen by the disciples are undermined by the fact that after the resurrection the disciples began their ministry. Why would these men, after seeing the crucifixion, take up a false cause which would lead to their similar deaths? The resurrection is also supported by the witness of believers, non-believers, and enemies of Christ who saw Jesus alive after his death.

In summary, given that the universe both began and is designed for life, the existence of objective morals, and historical support for the Biblical account of Jesus's life and resurrection it is evident that there is substantial support for the existence of God.
Debate Round No. 1
Kris

Con

I think your points are well constructed but fundamentally flawed, in particular in that you define a God according to your evidence for his existence.

To fully prove that a God exists, your arguments need to be the other way around. For me, and in my opinion any other rational person, to be fully convinced that a benevolent God who designed the universe exists, I'd need to see evidence other than the fact the universe exists.

Of course, life as we have come to define it is incredibly unlikely. However, whatever the scenario an organism with the capability of intelligence eventually finds itself in, they would consider their existence equally unlikely. Something has to be the product of a given path of events, and therefore you can easily argue that the reality we find ourselves in now, and call life, was inevitable.

Objective morality has always confused me as a point for the proof of God. I understand why people try to use it, but again the evidence for this theory can be broken down in a different way, therefore it cannot be considered a proof. An ethologist would probably call what some people see as "objective morality", altruistic mutualism, and it's not only seen in modern humans. A specific example I can recall was the anthropological discovery of some Neanderthal remains, showing clear evidence of illness from its bones. The bones were diseased sufficiently that it is commonly accepted that the individual must have been cared for, or else it wouldn't have survived for as long as it did, to be able to display such a level of disease-caused physical alteration. Now, of course this appears to be at first glance a completely selfless act. I don't think, however, that such behaviour provides more proof for the existence of God than it does for altruistic mutualism. It's not exactly preposterous to suggest that hominids advanced beyond the intellectual level of simply looking out for oneself, and realized that if they engendered a reputation for helping others then they might get helped out when they needed it too. I think it's quite a bit less likely that instead of this being the reason, in fact it instead proves that a God exists. You can see this pattern of realization over a human's life span too. Every child is born selfish, but usually learns over time that if it tries to be nicer to others, this will probably reap its rewards eventually.

The formation of the universe as we know it does not provide evidence for the existence of God. You are defining God as something outside of space and time as we can perceive it. This is just a bit too convenient. I informedly subscribe to the scientific process for reasons such as this—creationists have certainty without any proof, whereas scientist rigorously attempt to provide proof, but without any certainty. Their lack of certainty does not detract from their scientific rigour, it only proves that they aren't idiots and cannot justifiably assert any fact absolutely. It's simply not a proof to say that something beyond our perception, knowledge, or capacity to explain must be God. By the same logic would you argue that microscopic things were God before the invention of the microscope?

I also consider the argument that Jesus couldn't have started one of the biggest religions in the world unless he was God flawed. Whichever big religions in the world happen to eventuate, somebody has to contribute to their instigation. I really do see it as, well Jesus happened to start Christianity. It's not as though Taoism, Shinto, Judaism, and Islam aren't also pretty big, among others... do you also propose that, e.g. Mohammed is God, by the same logic?

To summarize, I consider that all your lines of evidence for God's existence are too tenuous to be regarded as PROOF. If it was PROOF then it wouldn't be debatable, and I asked for a response PROVING the existence of God.
debatecvm

Pro

debatecvm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Kris

Con

Kris forfeited this round.
debatecvm

Pro

debatecvm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Kris

Con

Kris forfeited this round.
debatecvm

Pro

debatecvm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Kris

Con

Kris forfeited this round.
debatecvm

Pro

debatecvm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
The resolution allows for a reasonable burden.

The three rounds eliminates the "yeah buts" to ad nauseum.
Posted by Pastafarian 6 years ago
Pastafarian
Define Big
Posted by Kris 6 years ago
Kris
Moreover could you explain your criteria? I deliberately set the debate at five rounds. It was on purpose.
Posted by Kris 6 years ago
Kris
Okay, I'm new to this website and deliberately posted a debate topic that I knew would instigate some interest. I don't know how to set the old ball rolling though, maybe you can.

K
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
I would like to take this debate. Max at 3 rounds.
Also change the resolution to "Is there even a shred of evidence for God?"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
KrisdebatecvmTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)