The Instigator
Migrating_Hacker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
progressivedem22
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Should people trust 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 4 votes the winner is...
progressivedem22
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,089 times Debate No: 46430
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

Migrating_Hacker

Pro

Many people believe in God ,but there is lots of atheist that don't believe in God.Is God real or false?
progressivedem22

Con

I accept.

My main argument will be that it is virtually impossible for us to "trust" in God when we have no evidence that a God even exists. The definition of "trust," from Merriam-Webster, is [1]:

1. belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc.
2. an arrangement in which someone's property or money is legally held or managed by someone else or by an organization (such as a bank) for usually a set period of time
3. an organization that results from the creation of a trust

To trust God, we must be almost certain that God exists, is fundamentally good, and is worthy of our trust. However, we cannot verify this. Moreover, if we accept that God is concurrently omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipotent, we must ask why good people suffer. Why hasn't God stepped in to ensure that 20 young children weren't killed in a mass shooting in Newton, Connecticut?

Conclusion: We cannot trust God, because we have no reason to believe he exists.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Migrating_Hacker

Pro

Theist vs Atheist
progressivedem22

Con

To be fair to you, I will address your comments as your arguments. But first, I'd like to clarify my last argument, which didn't quite come out correctly.

My point is this:

We are to accept that God is concurrently omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent and therefore He knows that tragedies will happen, is present during them, wants to end them, and has the power to end them. Yet they still occur. Because He allowed them to happen he is either not all-good or not all-powerful. Most people opt for the latter, which is a deist view. If we accept that, isn't prayer rendered meaningless? If God can't intervene, then why should we pray or trust in Him?

You commented that God is the source of intelligence. Can you prove that this is true? The burden of proof is on you to prove this to me.

You also commented that the "end of the world is coming" and that people brought pain upon themselves. Can you prove this? If this is true, why do good, faithful people suffer?
Debate Round No. 2
Migrating_Hacker

Pro

My respond is the Holy Bible its responds to most of your questions the rest you have to ask GOD.
progressivedem22

Con

But this is a debate between the two of us, and you're telling me that, in order to gain answers to my objections -- my arguments intended to cast doubt on the existence of such a God -- I need to consult a religious text, the validity of which I doubt (and which, mind you, contains a lot of things that Christians today do not follow -- e.g., don't eat shellfish, don't work on the Sabbath, no premarital sex, don't wear cloth from more than one fabric, etc.) or God, whose existence I doubt.

As I said, the burden of proof in this debate is on you to prove to me that a God exists. Prove it to me, and I will believe and trust in him. I am open to that possibility. However, there is insufficient evidence -- in fact, no evidence -- for God's existence. If God were real, would he not have revealed himself to us in a clearer manner? Why would God -- the most intelligent being imaginable, by the biblical account -- give us the capacity for logic and reason, and then ask us to suspend it?
Debate Round No. 3
Migrating_Hacker

Pro

I agreed with what your saying is right ,but Jesus died for us and change the way we live. Your answer are from the Old Testament which we don't have to follow anymore. Instead of arguing I'm going to try to be a better Christian ,for Christ is in me so.....
progressivedem22

Con

I've heard the argument that you "no longer need to follow the Old Testament." But here's the problem: the churches still DO follow the Old Testament -- or some of it, anyway. Why are religious denominations still opposed to homosexuality, birth control, any form of premarital sex, etc.? We don't often hear about shellfish -- even though consumption thereof was also condemned in Leviticus -- but the churches choose to follow and effectively cherry-pick parts of the Bible that they wish to follow.

The argument extends far beyond the validity of the Bible -- far beyond the fact that a literal interpretation of Genesis, or of the Great Flood, has been disproved by modern science. The fact of the matter is that you keep asserting that there is a God, just as you asserted that "Jesus died for us." There is solid historical evidence behind the existence of Jesus, but can you prove that he was divine? Can he prove that he was both the son of God and God Incarnate? The point is, you cannot.
Debate Round No. 4
Migrating_Hacker

Pro

you have no proof he exist and can't say he doesn't exist because you haven't felt him or have you touch him.Have you gotten touched by his spirit?
progressivedem22

Con

You're right; I can't prove that he doesn't exist, nor would I argue that he doesn't. I don't know.

But the problem is this: I cannot prove a negative. In much the same way that I cannot prove to you that the world was not created 30 second ago and we were all born at our current ages with our memories, I cannot prove to you that God does not exist. You're the one asserting -- making a positive statement -- that he does. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

Conclusion: You have not made any plausible arguments proving that God exists, nor have you countered any of mine.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Migrating_Hacker 3 years ago
Migrating_Hacker
...uh
Posted by Migrating_Hacker 3 years ago
Migrating_Hacker
seriously (lol) Get lost.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
I've been busy, darn lol.
Posted by Migrating_Hacker 3 years ago
Migrating_Hacker
Finally you respond.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
Gave up what? lol.
Posted by Migrating_Hacker 3 years ago
Migrating_Hacker
You gave up
Posted by Migrating_Hacker 3 years ago
Migrating_Hacker
i can still comment
Posted by Migrating_Hacker 3 years ago
Migrating_Hacker
Any way i never said the world was created in 30 sec the answer is on the Bible
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Migrating_Hackerprogressivedem22Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were logical and consistent, whereas Pro made non backed assertion which were easily defeated. As such argument points to Con. S&G goes to Con as Pro made multiple errors. Conduct is tied, although I was swaying to Con as Pro did not address any of Cons points. Sources are shared.
Vote Placed by Matt_L 3 years ago
Matt_L
Migrating_Hackerprogressivedem22Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because of the apparent lack of interest from Pro. Spelling and grammar goes to Con for obvious reasons. Arguments go to Con because his arguments were never actually refuted by Pro and because there was more substance to them. Sources go to Con because he provided the only one.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Migrating_Hackerprogressivedem22Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made arguments and Pro didn't.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Migrating_Hackerprogressivedem22Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never made a true argument, instead he asked questions "you have no proof he exist and can't say he doesn't exist because you haven't felt him or have you touch him.Have you gotten touched by his spirit?" That was literally one of his rounds, yes the whole round.