The Instigator
GMDebater
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
callunu
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Abrahamic God Exists

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
GMDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,029 times Debate No: 17050
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

GMDebater

Con

I will argue that the Abrahamic gods do not exist.

Definitions

I will be defining the Abrahamic gods as the gods of Islam, Christianity, and Juadism.

Structure

Round 1: Acceptance, pro's first argument
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing Statements.
callunu

Pro

What is your utter and complete proof that the Abrahamic gods do not exist.
Is it not too much of a coincidence that three different religions, have the same basic fundamentals? Sure, Christianity and Judaism were the same at one point, but explain Islam.
Debate Round No. 1
GMDebater

Con

What is your utter and complete proof that the Abrahamic gods do not exist.
Is it not too much of a coincidence that three different religions, have the same basic fundamentals? Sure, Christianity and Judaism were the same at one point, but explain Islam.

According to the rules and structure, you are supposed to go first and present your opening argument. Is that really all you got?

You have the BOP to show that they do exist. I will make the claim that Christianity, Judaism and Islam borrowed from each other. It is clear they contradict each other on serious matters.

Argument 1: The lack of imperial evidence

The argument goes as followed:

There has not been any reliable, testable evidence to support the existence of the Abrahamic God. If God interacts with our universe in any meaningful way, then the effects of his interaction must be detectable and measurable; however, there is no detectable and measurable evidence.

It is not rational to believe that the Abrahamic gods exist because there is no evidence, and if the religions are true, then God would interact with his universe. He does not, therefore, he cannot exist.

There is such a thing as the scientific method. The scientific method was developed in order to prevent the assertions of unproven or improvable theories.

First, a hypothesis is formulated as an explanation of a particular phenomenon. The hypothesis is based on observation or experimentation, then that hypothesis must be tested repeatedly to provide firm evidence for its truth.

Unless repeatable, empirical evidence can be presented for a claim such as "God Exists", then it will always remain an unproven hypothesis--this is a hypothesis which belief in it is unwarranted.

Argument 2: Problem of Evil

The argument states the following:

The Abrahamic God is, by definition, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving

There is avoidable suffering in the word.

Therefore, that leaves us with three possibilities:

  1. God is not able to stop the suffering, therefore, he is not all-powerful.
  2. If he does not want to stop it, then he is not all-loving;
  3. If he does not even know about it, then he is not all-knowing;
  4. If God can stop it, knows about it, and refuses to stop it; then he is the cause of evil.

The argument has been stated before as one of my all-time favourite quotes:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Argument 3: Problem of Religious Diversity

The argument states the following:

The competing religions are mutually exclusive, and thus they cannot all be true. Since there are a multitude of competing religions, and a multitude of equally credible, yet contrary testimonies and scriptures; the probability that any given religion is true is extraordinarily low. Consequently, it has a high probable that all religions are false.

Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.

- Christopher Hitchens (1982)

Argument 4: Problem of God's silence

The Argument states the following:

If God wants humans to believe in him and to follow his will, then he would deliver his message directly, and not leave it up to fallible, sinful humans to do so. There is an endless plethora of confused and contradictory messages (Bible, Torah, and Koran).

If God is, in fact, a supremely powerful being who wants us to set things right and wants to prevent us from getting things more wrong, then he should have made his views eminently clear to us all. If he has not given the strong evidence required by his desire to have us believe in him, then he clearly does not exist.

If God wants something from me, he would tell me. He wouldn't leave someone else to do this, as if an infinite being were short on time. And he would certainly not leave fallible, sinful humans to deliver an endless plethora of confused and contradictory messages.
- Robert Carrier (2006)

Back to you!

callunu

Pro

Thank you for your arguments. I will now attempt to rebut them in the order of which you presented them.

Argument 1:The lack of imperial evidence

Although there is a lack of imperial evidence, The basis of religion is Faith. Faith in God, Faith in things unseen, Faith in the undetectable. However, there is one major fact that directly links to God, or at least a higher entity. The fact that all of the conditions in the universe, solar system and Earth are all perfect for life.

The amount of variables and factors in this Goldilocks zone are astronomical. It is impossible for so much to be defined as a "coincidence." It would be like taking a few bits of metal and plastic, throwing it in a heap randomly, and it falling in such a way that it creates a super-computer. Its just not possible. Unless there was someone, or something that built the computer. This is where God comes in. Scientific method has failed to give us solid proof that the universe was created by complete coincidence. No one is 100% sure.

However, it can be explained if there was something, an entity, that was behind the creation of the universe. The architect of the universe. This entity would of been responsible for the whole universe being as it is. Lets take the obvious example of Earth and the Solar System. If Earth had been any smaller, or bigger, the gravity would not be appropriate for life. If the Earth had been any closer, or farther from the Sun, or the Sun been any bigger, or smaller, there would not of been temperature levels suitable for life. The list goes on and on. I repeat from the second paragraph, there are just too many variables for this perfection to be a coincidence. This is why a higher entity, God, would of been necessary for the creation of the universe.

Argument 2: Problem of Evil

First of all, there are four possibilities you stated, and not three. Seeing as 4 is basically the same as 2, but in different wording, it should be included with the second possibility. It should not be separate.

Anyways, back to the subject. Yes, God is all knowing, all powerful and all loving. He is the Creator of all that is, was and will be, and we are His children. Think about it. When parenting a child, you do not shield them from everything in the world for its whole life, dictating how he or she grows at every step from birth till death. The child would not be its own person. Look at humanity as a child. It is growing, changing, not yet at its peak of growth. If God funnelled us to an exact point, we would have no choice, and that would make it so we would all be sheep. As no one wants to be a sheep, God has given us freedom out of His love for us, thus proving that He is, in fact, all loving. Keep in mind that there is not just God, but also the Devil. The Devil is in fact the causation of evil, and the embodiment of the evil mankind suffers today.

So God is not in fact the cause of Evil, but the Devil is.


Argument 3: Problem of Religious Diversity

This argument is not on topic, as the debate is on Abrahamic Gods, and not any other religions.

Argument 4: Problem of God's Silence

As stated in the other rebuttals, God has faith in humans, and therefore humans should return that faith in Him. He needs not show himself, as the ideals He has sent down should be enough. This Faith should carry on, and there should be no need for Him to reveal Himself. Also, this argument is directly saying that God is a physical Entity, which he is probably not.

Finally, If you look at the Torah, the Koran and the Bible, they have the same base fundamentals, the same basic messages, and similar characters. All three have a Jesus Christ, for example. All three promote peace and love. All three have one God, and only one God.

Your turn!
Debate Round No. 2
GMDebater

Con

Hello there, I thank my opponent for this debate. Unfortunately, we already agree with each other. I should have made it clear in the rules that I wanted someone from the Abrahamic faith. Anyway, I'll still defend my arguments.

Although there is a lack of imperial evidence, The basis of religion is Faith. Faith in God, Faith in things unseen, Faith in the undetectable. However, there is one major fact that directly links to God, or at least a higher entity. The fact that all of the conditions in the universe, solar system and Earth are all perfect for life.

The amount of variables and factors in this Goldilocks zone are astronomical. It is impossible for so much to be defined as a "coincidence." It would be like taking a few bits of metal and plastic, throwing it in a heap randomly, and it falling in such a way that it creates a super-computer. Its just not possible. Unless there was someone, or something that built the computer. This is where God comes in. Scientific method has failed to give us solid proof that the universe was created by complete coincidence. No one is 100% sure.

However, it can be explained if there was something, an entity, that was behind the creation of the universe. The architect of the universe. This entity would of been responsible for the whole universe being as it is. Lets take the obvious example of Earth and the Solar System. If Earth had been any smaller, or bigger, the gravity would not be appropriate for life. If the Earth had been any closer, or farther from the Sun, or the Sun been any bigger, or smaller, there would not of been temperature levels suitable for life. The list goes on and on. I repeat from the second paragraph, there are just too many variables for this perfection to be a coincidence. This is why a higher entity, God, would of been necessary for the creation of the universe.

My opponent admits to the fact that there is lack of imperial evidence. I am happy to see that he conceded that point to me.
My opponent contends that the basis of religion is faith. I will concede that point as I agree with him.
My opponent also contends that "The fact that all of the conditions in the universe, solar system and earth are all perfect for life." I ask my opponent, well why isn't there more life on other places. As far as we know, Earth is the only place that we know of intelligent life to exist. This poses a problem to your challenge.

As for your second paragraph, I ask why there isn't more life in other "goldilocks" zones. Also, perhaps we are looking at the wrong place. What if there was life that could be suited outside the "goldilocks" zone?
"Scientific method has failed to give us solid proof that the universe was created by complete coincidence." I'm sure you have heard of the big bang theory. There is much evidence for it.

I must ask my opponent, who created God?


First of all, there are four possibilities you stated, and not three. Seeing as 4 is basically the same as 2, but in different wording, it should be included with the second possibility. It should not be separate.

Anyways, back to the subject. Yes, God is all knowing, all powerful and all loving.

He is the Creator of all that is, was and will be, and we are His children. Think about it. When parenting a child, you do not shield them from everything in the world for its whole life, dictating how he or she grows at every step from birth till death. The child would not be its own person. Look at humanity as a child. It is growing, changing, not yet at its peak of growth. If God funnelled us to an exact point, we would have no choice, and that would make it so we would all be sheep. As no one wants to be a sheep, God has given us freedom out of His love for us, thus proving that He is, in fact, all loving. Keep in mind that there is not just God, but also the Devil. The Devil is in fact the causation of evil, and the embodiment of the evil mankind suffers today.

You failed to answer the question
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

My opponent blames it on the devil! But if that were true, God created the devil and thus created evil.

My opponent has failed to give evidence for the devil. I will also contend that the devil was created as an attempt to explain away evil and explain why there is evil in the world.

This argument is not on topic, as the debate is on Abrahamic Gods, and not any other religions.

This is an entirely relevant point. If the Abrahamic god does exist, why is there religious diversity in the Abrahamic religions? Seriously, there are countless branches of Christians, Jews and Muslims!

As stated in the other rebuttals, God has faith in humans, and therefore humans should return that faith in Him. He needs not show himself, as the ideals He has sent down should be enough. This Faith should carry on, and there should be no need for Him to reveal Himself. Also, this argument is directly saying that God is a physical Entity, which he is probably not.

Finally, if you look at the Torah, the Koran and the Bible, they have the same base fundamentals, the same basic messages, and similar characters. All three have a Jesus Christ, for example. All three promote peace and love. All three have one God, and only one God.

God has faith in humans? What?
Why should there be no need for him to reveal himself? If God is a spiritual entity, then he breaks the E=MC2 law. I'll expand on this in future rounds. The attached video will explain better than I can. However, I'll still expand in future rounds.

Sadly, the Torah, Koran and the Bible do NOT promote the same basic message. The Torah does not have Jesus Christ and none promote peace and love.

callunu

Pro

callunu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
GMDebater

Con

Arguments extended. Vote con!
callunu

Pro

callunu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
The "Abrahamic God" assumes that the same God is shared by Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

The Argument from Evil is better stated is that there would be less sufferin than there is if God were omnipotent and good. Humans could still exercise free will if small children did not die of strange diseases.

If God is not subject to the concept of injustice, then humans cannot know good from evil, because there is no way to know exactly what is exempt. Religions claim is is possible.

If there is no empirical evidence then there is no proof of existence. God might nonetheless exist, if there is also no disproof. The resolution calls for proof of existence.
Posted by callunu 5 years ago
callunu
Hey, Just like to say that I'm not religious in anyway, and actually agree with what your saying. I am just doing this for fun :)
Posted by Whatwhat1219 5 years ago
Whatwhat1219
(cont.)...applies to something that has a judge or an owner, or in other words, something that has restricted rights. God, however, is eternal without a beginning, and is the true owner of absolutely everything, as God is the Creator of everything. If someone said it would be injustice if Aļļaah did so and so, then he has actually appointed himself as a judge of the Creator. How is that for arrogance?

Of course, I'm not your opponent, but just read the arguments and felt like I wanted to reply. Though I didn't address all of them. I myself have to put up an argument for a debate I'm currently in :S
Posted by Whatwhat1219 5 years ago
Whatwhat1219
GMDebater said <Unless repeatable, empirical evidence can be presented for a claim such as "God Exists", then it will always remain an unproven hypothesis--this is a hypothesis which belief in it is unwarranted>

This is based on the premise that God is a spatial entity. Though Christians and Jews believe that God is a man or physical being, Islam doesn't. If the empiricist accepts the existence of God for the sake of argument, then they must accept that God can't be grasped by the sensory perceptions. This is because only the material object or something in a place can be grasped by the senses. Again, if they accept the existence of God (meaning the One Who existed before everything - time, places, darkness, light, etc. <--- thus proving The Creator existed without a place and is not material/spatial), they must accept that God isn't observable.

Not to mention that the nixing of somethings existence because of no "empirical evidence" is pretty close minded. I have never seen another person's mind; yet I hesitate not in believing that the people I deal with have minds/intellect. I see that in their speech and behavior--that is, I see the signs of their intelligence, and likewise, when I see the creation, I see the signs for God's Existence.

Nowadays, scientists are able to discover many things because of technological advances. One hundred years ago, some empiricists would say since amoebas aren't observable, they don't exist. To the contrary, in the present day, one can use a microscope and see that it surely exists - such an application of empiricism is flawed.

You also continued to say: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

This is one of the most hubristic sayings I've ever seen. God is not subject to the concept of injustice, because this concept onl
Posted by Whatwhat1219 5 years ago
Whatwhat1219
GMDebater said <Unless repeatable, empirical evidence can be presented for a claim such as "God Exists", then it will always remain an unproven hypothesis--this is a hypothesis which belief in it is unwarranted>

This is based on the premise that God is a spatial entity. Though Christians and Jews believe that God is a man or physical being, Islam doesn't. If the empiricist accepts the existence of God for the sake of argument, then they must accept that God can't be grasped by the sensory perceptions. This is because only the material object or something in a place can be grasped by the senses. Again, if they accept the existence of God (meaning the One Who existed before everything - time, places, darkness, light, etc. <--- thus proving The Creator existed without a place and is not material/spatial), they must accept that God isn't observable.

Not to mention that the nixing of somethings existence because of no "empirical evidence" is pretty close minded. I have never seen another person's mind; yet I hesitate not in believing that the people I deal with have minds/intellect. I see that in their speech and behavior--that is, I see the signs of their intelligence, and likewise, when I see the creation, I see the signs for God's Existence.

Nowadays, scientists are able to discover many things because of technological advances. One hundred years ago, some empiricists would say since amoebas aren't observable, they don't exist. To the contrary, in the present day, one can use a microscope and see that it surely exists - such an application of empiricism is flawed.

You also continued to say: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

This is one of the most hubristic sayings I've ever seen. God is not subject to the concept of injustice, because this concept onl
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
GMDebatercallunuTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
GMDebatercallunuTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Hey, it is "empirical" not "imperial." The argument from religious diversity does apply, since it presents facts relevant to the existence of the Abrahamic God. The forfeits left Con's other arguments unanswered.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
GMDebatercallunuTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Obviously the devil can not stand the divine truth, but ...
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
GMDebatercallunuTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit