The Instigator
superbowl9
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
miadm.13
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

The Christian God exists (3)

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 7 votes the winner is...
superbowl9
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 60006
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

superbowl9

Con

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real.

Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals.

Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate.

You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments.

I await my opponent's arguments.
miadm.13

Pro

First Off, if there is no God...then where did we all come from? I am not sure what your views are for the beginning of the world...but if you believe in the big bang, then you must consider the origin of that "bang."

It could not have come out of nothing. I personally do not believe in the big bang...or evolution for that matter.

But the facts stands that we are all here and that we came from something. That something is God. We have to accept that there is a higher being out there...because we are just too complex for coming out of nothing.

My point is: The origin of the world came from God. It could not have started out of randomness or could not have come out of nothing...because something or SOMEONE had to put it there.
Debate Round No. 1
superbowl9

Con

I'd like to say that I accidentally made this debate three rounds instead of four, so It'll be a little short. I'd still like my opponent to write "no round" for the third round, however because this will be so short I will allow my opponent to counter-rebut any rebuttal I have made in the third round. No new arguments though.

Thanks to miadm.13 for accepting. Finally I get to debate someone my age. I'll move onto your arguments now.

"First Off, if there is no God...then where did we all come from? I am not sure what your views are for the beginning of the world...but if you believe in the big bang, then you must consider the origin of that "bang.""

We're both proposing an uncaused cause with this. Mine is the big bang, Pro's is God. The big bang is the far more likely cause because there is a lack of evidence for God, while we can see after effects of the big bang. Also, I could turn this argument right back on its head by saying "if you believe in God, then you must consider the origin of God".

"It could not have come out of nothing. I personally do not believe in the big bang...or evolution for that matter."

Why not? If something cannot come out of nothing, then where did God come from? If he was always there, wouldn't it be simpler if the universe was always there? Why add in God? Also, the big bang and evolution are not really related, besides the fact that they're both theories.

"But the facts stands that we are all here and that we came from something."

Well, the second "fact" is not a fact at all (why did we have to come from something?), and we assume the first fact to make living life in this universe easier. How do I know that everyone else isn't a projection coming from my mind, or that life isn't all just a dream? I have to assume that this reality is, in fact, reality in order to make progress in it and better my life.

"That something is God. We have to accept that there is a higher being out there...because we are just too complex for coming out of nothing."

The big bang theory doesn't state that we came out of nothing, but even if it did, why are we too complex to come out of nothing? Wouldn't God have had to have come out of nothing, and isn't he much more complex than us? It's so much simpler if the universe is the uncaused cause.

"My point is: The origin of the world came from God. It could not have started out of randomness or could not have come out of nothing...because something or SOMEONE had to put it there."

Why did this have to happen?
miadm.13

Pro

"We're both proposing an uncaused cause with this. Mine is the big bang, Pro's is God. The big bang is the far more likely cause because there is a lack of evidence for God, while we can see after effects of the big bang. Also, I could turn this argument right back on its head by saying "if you believe in God, then you must consider the origin of God"."

-Say that their was a "big bang." Something had to start that. Why? Because it couldn't have just appeared. For example: I want to make a cake...to make that cake I (me) have to have certain ingrediants...to make that cake right? So for something to appear (i.e. Big Bang)...then someone (God) would have to form that.

"Why not? If something cannot come out of nothing, then where did God come from? If he was always there, wouldn't it be simpler if the universe was always there? Why add in God? Also, the big bang and evolution are not really related, besides the fact that they're both theories."

-Because their has to be some beginning to something. A random explosion that happened out of nothing is illogical. There must be a higher being to start that. In other words...something/someone that has ALWAYS been around.
-I don't exactly understand what you meant about the universe always there...First off...even if that was possible, our world would have been dead LONG AGO.
-You add in God, because like I said...you must have someone to always be around. (i.e. a Higher Being)
-I would like to point out that you said they were theories. :)

"Well, the second "fact" is not a fact at all (why did we have to come from something?), and we assume the first fact to make living life in this universe easier. How do I know that everyone else isn't a projection coming from my mind, or that life isn't all just a dream? I have to assume that this reality is, in fact, reality in order to make progress in it and better my life."

-Why do we have to come from something? Because we are matter. Back to the Cake analogy...a cake is made our of flour...sugar...oil...(matter)
-I don't really get what you were saying...you have to base your knowledge of what you have experienced and things like that. You have to trust reality, (this isn't the Matrix) or else you basically have no truth and everything is an illusion.

"The big bang theory doesn't state that we came out of nothing, but even if it did, why are we too complex to come out of nothing? Wouldn't God have had to have come out of nothing, and isn't he much more complex than us? It's so much simpler if the universe is the uncaused cause."

-I meant this: the big bang theory somehow appeared (out of nothing)...there had to be someone to start it.
-How are we too complex? another example: a clock. In a clock there are springs and gears of various shapes and sizes. Without those very very specific tools...the clock would not run. But how much more complex our we than a little clock! Our bodies function just right so that life is even a possibility. examples: heart, brain, eyes, ears...organs. Those intricate little details just in our bodies are incredible. There is no way that someone (God) didn't design that. Like an artist paints a picture, God formed his world.

"My point is: The origin of the world came from God. It could not have started out of randomness or could not have come out of nothing...because something or SOMEONE had to put it there." Why did this have to happen?"

-First you didn't refute this
-Second, like I have continued to say...there MUST be someone of a higher being (God) that formed everything. We are much too complex, and everything is so intricate that it is impossible to imagine random materials (which by the way somehow appeared out of nowhere) exploding together and magically gluing themselves into one perfect masterpiece.
Debate Round No. 2
superbowl9

Con

"Say that their was a "big bang." Something had to start that. Why? Because it couldn't have just appeared. For example: I want to make a cake...to make that cake I (me) have to have certain ingrediants...to make that cake right? So for something to appear (i.e. Big Bang)...then someone (God) would have to form that."

The cake analogy is flawed because when we see a cake, we know exactly how a cake could come about through someone creating it, and this is always how cakes come about. However, when it comes to universes, we don't know how they are created or if they were even created. We don't even know how many there are. Also, I again ask: if the universe is evidence of a designer, wouldn't god be evidence of a designer and so on until we have infinite gods creating other gods? Basically, you say that the universe couldn't just have appeared, yet God could have.

"Because their has to be some beginning to something. A random explosion that happened out of nothing is illogical. There must be a higher being to start that. In other words...something/someone that has ALWAYS been around."

Why couldn't the universe have always been around? The big bang theory does not say the big bang came out of nothing.

"I don't exactly understand what you meant about the universe always there...First off...even if that was possible, our world would have been dead LONG AGO."

How? The world seems to be working pretty fine, and it's been around for a good 4.5 billion years.

"I would like to point out that you said they were theories. :)"

Yes, they are theories. Just like the theories of gravity and heliocentrism. Theories have a lot of evidence to back them up, they're not just guesses.

"I don't really get what you were saying...you have to base your knowledge of what you have experienced and things like that. You have to trust reality, (this isn't the Matrix) or else you basically have no truth and everything is an illusion."

Exactly, we have to trust in our reality to function, but who's to say this isn't the matrix? We can't be sure, but we make the assumption because it would be dumb not to.

"I meant this: the big bang theory somehow appeared (out of nothing)...there had to be someone to start it."

You're on the right track, but that's still not what the big bang theory says. Why did there have to be someone to start the big bang? Why can't that be the uncaused cause? Which is more reasonable as an uncaused cause: the universe, which we can observe and is obviously here, or an extremely problematic god?

"How are we too complex? another example: a clock. In a clock there are springs and gears of various shapes and sizes. Without those very very specific tools...the clock would not run. But how much more complex our we than a little clock! Our bodies function just right so that life is even a possibility. examples: heart, brain, eyes, ears...organs. Those intricate little details just in our bodies are incredible. There is no way that someone (God) didn't design that. Like an artist paints a picture, God formed his world."

Back to the cake example, we know that these things are designed by people, but we don't know that the universe was designed by anyone. Humans are not too complex to come about in 14 billion years; nothing is.

"Second, like I have continued to say...there MUST be someone of a higher being (God) that formed everything. We are much too complex, and everything is so intricate that it is impossible to imagine random materials (which by the way somehow appeared out of nowhere) exploding together and magically gluing themselves into one perfect masterpiece."

That's a poor example. Humans came about through natural selection, which is not a random process, and the Earth etc. came about through cosmic evolution, also not an entirely random process.

I'd like to note that Pro has not even argued for the existence of the Christian god, just a higher power of some sort.

Thanks for the debate.
miadm.13

Pro

The cake analogy is flawed because when we see a cake, we know exactly how a cake could come about through someone creating it, and this is always how cakes come about.

-My point was with this analogy is that we know that cakes don"t just appear out of nowhere. They are created. They don"t magically appear. I"m relating this to the universe. So bear with me, cake=universe.

However, when it comes to universes, we don't know how they are created or if they were even created. We don't even know how many there are.

-Why would the universe be any different? Everything else in this entire planet was created"so why wouldn"t the universe? Humans are created beings by a creator.

Also, I again ask: if the universe is evidence of a designer, wouldn't god be evidence of a designer and so on until we have infinite gods creating other gods?

-I don"t really get the point you are trying to make here. God made everything"never any "mini gods"

Basically, you say that the universe couldn't just have appeared, yet God could have.

-For something to be created it has to have an author, an artist, a designer. Something had to have started it all. I don"t want to get too technical so I am not going to rant but"because is the author of all, and the Creator of all"He also created time. (hours"years") So before everything was around"there was no time. So God never appeared"He just has always been around. Something has got to be around for everything to start.

Why couldn't the universe have always been around?

What do you even mean?? Always is forever. That means that the universe has always"(which my head can"t rap around) has been here. Things don"t last forever"the universe would be looong dead.

The big bang theory does not say the big bang came out of nothing.

-I would like to say that I have brought this point up and you have yet to define Big Bang"
Here: explosion that started universe: the explosion of a single extremely dense mass of matter that started the universe according to a popular theory big bang theory

-The reason why I defined it (since you didn"t) is the fact that there was an explosion of MATTER. If the big bang were true"where did this matter come from? Someone would have had to put it there. In other words, God would have to create it.

ME:"I don't exactly understand what you meant about the universe always there...First off...even if that was possible, our world would have been dead LONG AGO." YOU: How? The world seems to be working pretty fine, and it's been around for a good 4.5 billion years.

-The World is definitely doing fine"but I don"t believe it is 4.5 billion years old. Do you have anything supporting this? I base a lot of my life around the Bible, (I"m assuming you don"t) and after doing the math after Creation in the Genesis, the Earth has only been around for about 6-7 thousand years.
-The Bible also has never been proven wrong. Everything in it is historically correct. There was this one woman who tried to prove the Bible her whole life and never could. She actually ended up becoming a Christian and gave talks about her lifestory. My mom actually went to one of her conferences. That"s besides the point. We can observe around us (and in the Bible) that the earth isn"t billions of years old, because God created it about 7 thousand years ago.

Yes, they are theories. Just like the theories of gravity and heliocentrism. Theories have a lot of evidence to back them up, they're not just guesses.

-The theory of gravity. Really? That is a proven FACT. Throw a ball in the air and see what happens"it falls.

- Heliocentrism, or heliocentricism, is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System.
This is a proven fact. We know the planet order and the exact distance in miles and light years where they are located. Satellites are a lovely little tool.

Exactly, we have to trust in our reality to function, but who's to say this isn't the matrix? We can't be sure, but we make the assumption because it would be dumb not to.

-I"m not gonna argue this"

You're on the right track, but that's still not what the big bang theory says. Why did there have to be someone to start the big bang?

-I already defined the big bang. Someone has to put that matter there. Stuff (matter) doesn"t just appear. Just like my cake analogy. It doesn"t just appear. Why should this one particular thing be different than everything thing else that exists?

Why can't that be the uncaused cause?

-The world is so incredibly complex! There had to be a cause! The cause was from God. Look at this: Look at the world. It's too complex to comprehend. Look at humans. Do you know how complex the human body is? Are we saying that dirt and mud and rocks created this complex earth. Really? An explosion created water, air, trees, fire? What about humans? What created blood, tissue, urine, the ability to combine DNA to make babies, skin cells, neurons, the brain? An explosion created ALL of these things we still can't understand and still research? An explosion? Something greater [God] than we can fathom created the world and everything that inhabit it. (http://www.qfak.com...)

Which is more reasonable as an uncaused cause: the universe, which we can observe and is obviously here, or an extremely problematic god?

-The universe we observe and obviously is here, which I believe God gave to us to see His glory and artwork.

Back to the cake example, we know that these things are designed by people, but we don't know that the universe was designed by anyone. Humans are not too complex to come about in 14 billion years; nothing is.

-Back to what I have said over and over. We know and observe that things must be created"so why should the universe be anything different? The world is too beautiful and COMPLEX to be from some random explosion.

-You also haven"t supplied any evidence showing that the Big Bang is even possible. (there isn"t really any) Almost everything that could be of possibility has been shot down because it is too unrealistic (by scientists) The textbooks don"t tell you that though.

That's a poor example. Humans came about through natural selection, which is not a random process, and the Earth etc. came about through cosmic evolution, also not an entirely random process.

-Natural selection is a fraud. There is no "link" that has been found to even support this.

- Read this: Today"s Darwinists point to mutations as the mechanism which provides this novelty from which "Natural Selection" selects. Evolutionists should then focus on mutations to defend their theory, instead of "Natural Selection". When pressed for examples of novel genetic information or body organs created by mutation, they typically point to instances such as wingless beetles4 on islands, or the flightless cormorant on the Galapagos islands.5 The problem with these examples is obvious. While they may confer a benefit to the creatures in a specific, very unusual environment, nothing "new" is added to the DNA or creatures" body parts. They actually involve a loss or corruption of existing genetic information.6 Evolution desperately needs "Natural Invention", "Natural Novelty" and "Natural Creation". "Natural Selection" just does not pass muster as exhibit A for evolution. Rather, it is a wonderful tribute to God"s design, and His providence for a fallen world. Natural Selection X00; Evolution. (http://creation.com...)

I'd like to note that Pro has not even argued for the existence of the Christian god, just a higher power of some sort.

-That isn"t true. I"ve been saying a "higher being" and "God" because in the Bible"we do indeed call him God. We don"t pray "Oh, Christian God"" we say God.

Thanks for the debate.

-No problem! I"m enjoying this. :)
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Sorry I didn't define/give links for the big bang, I thought it would be pretty easy to find with a quick google.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. The graphic scheme above (http://upload.wikimedia.org...)
is an artist's concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat universe."

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe."

The Big Bang does not describe the origin of the universe, just its early stages.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
Of course the god believer has no idea what a theory is. A theory is a scientific idea that has an insurmountable amount of evidence. It's not a law because technically speaking, nothing can really be proven.
Posted by cleoforman 2 years ago
cleoforman
Oh fabulous, just opening out with the God of the Gaps argument. Well, as more and more of those gaps are explained by scientific evidence your God is really going to have no applicability anymore. Saying "we do not know" and "we are too complex not to have come from intelligent design" is not proof. It is a rough explanation to excuse one's own ignorance. Saying "it just could not have happened" does not provide proof of anything. And it is true that science most definitely does not have all the answers yet, but the difference between creationists and scientists are that scientists are trying to find provable explanations for "the gaps" while creationists are excepting a 3500 year-old text to explain them.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
One of the most predictable arguments by Con I have ever seen.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
superbowl9miadm.13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument is stronger than Pro's assertions, such as "But the facts stands that we are all here and that we came from something. That something is God.", which is a fallacious assertion from ignorance, thus I could not possibly vote for Blind Assertions over well constructed argument.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
superbowl9miadm.13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove that the Christian God exists.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
superbowl9miadm.13Tied
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: Pro argued in 4th round. Pro's arguments, even if they hadn't been refuted, proved only that a higher power entity exists, not the Christian God.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
superbowl9miadm.13Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro backed her arguments with sources. Pro mainly won the debate due to the argument that Con didn't refute fully.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Codedlogic
superbowl9miadm.13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to make a single argument for the Christian God. Even if Con had not refuted each of Pros points Pro would still have failed to support the proposition.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
superbowl9miadm.13Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro trotted out variations of several common arguments, that Con was able to successfully rebut. Further, even if I accepted Pro's arguments, as Con notes Pro never actually supported the *Christian* god, as per the resolution, which is a specific God who is supposed to have specific qualities that Pro never supported. As such, arguments seem to clearly go to Con. All other points seemed close enough for government work. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Mr.Lincoln 2 years ago
Mr.Lincoln
superbowl9miadm.13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Conduct, s & g, and sources were all very close, but in my opinion, Pro made a more convincing argument.