The Instigator
Cindela
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
Devils_Advocate
Pro (for)
Winning
108 Points

The Existence of 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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,701 times Debate No: 627
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (46)

 

Cindela

Con

Hello, I am debating against the topic of, "Is there a God"
I only have one thing to say: if you can't prove that there is a god, then you lose the debate. The opppostition's job is to prove that god exists, and if there is no proof, you don't prove that god exists.

I rest my case.
Devils_Advocate

Pro

I shall take the position of a pantheist.

A pantheist deifies the "all", or the Universe. The Universe is God, and God is the Universe.

The universe demonstrably exists (as much as we can show that anything exists).

Therefore God demonstrably exists.

In the future, you may wish to be more specific about the entity you refer to as God. :)
Debate Round No. 1
Cindela

Con

I guess that it is my fault that I forgot to say what I meant by "god"
By god I mean a higher being with concious thought. "God" has two main qualities:
all seeing
all knowing.
However, "God" is defined by Merriam Webster as
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler

Now you said: "Therefore God demonstrably exists."
However, the above definition shows us that "God" is a SUPREME reality. A diety that just exists is not a God. That god has to act to be a God. God cannot just exist to be a God. Thank you
Devils_Advocate

Pro

You said: <>

I do not; and that was not stated as the original debate topic. The original debate topic is "Is there a God?"

Now, also from Merriam-Webster, the very same dictionary you are using:

pantheism:
1: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

God, from this perspective, exists.

A better, generalized definition of "god" would be: the object of deification. A pantheist deifies the universe. The universe is God to him/her. You and I may not agree that the universe is god, but that doesn't matter: Who are we to say what other people may or may not deify? God is subjective on a per-person basis. The entity that is subject to a pantheist's deification can be shown to exist.

Many gods do exist. Many gods do not. The universe exists. The Christian god does not.

(I'll probably lose a few votes over that last sentence :) )
Debate Round No. 2
Cindela

Con

I concede, you are very right when you say that to you, the universe is a god, and therefore god exists. You have proven that a "god" exists.
Devils_Advocate

Pro

Thank you. You should start another debate with the further refinements as defined in your second post, that would be interesting to watch.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
mrumno, you bring up a good point. I think the difference lies in the meaning that we ascribe to a soul and to spirit.
The soul is defined, in part, as "the spiritual principle embodied in human beings" while spirit is defined as "animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms."

As a Christian who also has Native American ancestors, I have tried to reconcile the two. Native Americans will only kill an animal for survival and waste nothing while they offer prayers to Creator for the animal's spirit, having fulfilled its purpose in the bigger picture of the universe. In Christianity, we were given dominion over the whole earth. I am an NRA certified Marksman, but never have hunted. I have gone fishing, but eat my catch. Even bugs can serve as an excellent source of protein if lost in the woods.

While keeping bugs out of our homes might be essential for good hygiene and disease control, willfully stomping on an ant on the sidewalk just isn't right.
Posted by mrumno 9 years ago
mrumno
If animals do have souls as you are asking nonce love, then would it not be wrong to kill any of them, and if animals have souls and bugs are animals, we should stop killing them also?
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Both direct and indirect evidence for God's existence are well known and well documented. Nothing in history is better known or better documented than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We even use the year of His birth as the basis for our calendar. He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection. The laws of probability cannot give us a reasonable explanation for either the Messianic predictions or the resurrection, let alone both by the same person.

Jesus' miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted Himself or His miracles.
Posted by Nonce_Love 9 years ago
Nonce_Love
mrumno: Who says animals do not have souls?
Posted by Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
Devils_Advocate
Davisc09, from your writing it seems like your belief stems from:

a) your awe
b) your ignorance
c) your poor reasoning skills

Please don't that the wrong way. It is not an insult, just an observation. You're not alone. It "seems" to be human nature to seek out a protector... a cosmic security blanket, if you will.
Posted by Davisc09 9 years ago
Davisc09
I am often questioned about my faith and I find myself on the spot.

Recently in our short human history, science has advanced at an uncontrollable rate. We have made discoveries that have changed the lives of everyone on our planet. And because of our new discoveries, we have found reasons in our own mind to doubt those things we longed believed: that a supreme being exists and holds all that happens here in his hands.

Since the very beginning, man has believed in something bigger than himself. When our ancestors looked at the night sky, or gazed out upon a seemingly endless landscape of natural beauty, or even watched the way a seemingly simple insect went about its daily tasks, they saw something bigger that science. What they observed in their lives was their reasons for believing in whatever God they chose.

Today, my beliefs stem from the same ideas as my ancestors. My belief in God comes from the accumulation of everything I have seen during my life. The things I have experienced and the events that have unfolded before me cannot be explained by science. They are sole proof that a God does exist, and he holds everything in his hands.

Science cannot create conviction, guilt, love, emotion, or even a sense of justice. If you believe that certain actions are right or wrong than you believe in justice. If you believe in justice you believe in absolute truth. If you belief in absolute truth, you believe in an absolute truth maker: a god.

Science can't discern between right and wrong. We are spiraling morally in America because we think that God is an allusion. Wouldn't it be more convenient if their wasn't a teacher on the playground, keeping us in line and keeping us safe? But then again, we can get away with whatever we want, right? Sure, I can murder innocent people. There's no God out there to punish me.

As I have said, it is all a matter of my own faith. The miracle of existence gives me no choice but to believe in a Greater Power: God.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Ah, but 'tis real to me, my friend. Science can neither disprove, or prove, its existence. In the universe, 2% is a big difference.
Posted by mrumno 9 years ago
mrumno
Is the knowledge of you having a soul real? or is it merely human instinct to want to think we are better than animals who even share 98% of the same dna.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Given the right injury I will leave my physical body and meet my God firsthand. Science is incapable of explaining everything. I know I have a soul and that is enough for me!
That knowledge is intuitive and has nothing to do with memory.
Posted by audraxheartsxyou 9 years ago
audraxheartsxyou
If he can argue his point and explain miracles and such..

Someone else did.

Therefore its done.
46 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 week ago
dsjpk5
CindelaDevils_AdvocateTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mharman 1 week ago
Mharman
CindelaDevils_AdvocateTied
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 
Vote Placed by cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
CindelaDevils_AdvocateTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
CindelaDevils_AdvocateTied
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 
Vote Placed by Padfoot36 9 years ago
Padfoot36
CindelaDevils_AdvocateTied
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 
Vote Placed by King_Jas 9 years ago
King_Jas
CindelaDevils_AdvocateTied
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 
Vote Placed by undecided_voter 9 years ago
undecided_voter
CindelaDevils_AdvocateTied
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 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
CindelaDevils_AdvocateTied
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 
Vote Placed by tarsjake 9 years ago
tarsjake
CindelaDevils_AdvocateTied
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 
Vote Placed by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
CindelaDevils_AdvocateTied
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