The Instigator
Tomas154c
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kmr9207
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 63133
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Tomas154c

Con

There is simply no proof or evidence in favor of God. I think it may have been a lot easier, in the earlier years of human history, to believe in a Creator because of the lack of knowledge about the universe. But I think it is unacceptable that people, today, are still blinded by this nonsense.
kmr9207

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank the con for instigating this debate. This argument is purely for the purpose of debating the topic at hand and is in no way meant to offend anyone"s personal beliefs or to glorify my own.

I would like to begin by defining the word "God." According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "God" is "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe." For the sake of this argument, I will assume that the god referenced is the Christian God.

Contention 1: The belief that God created the universe is the best explanation for its existence.
The String and Big Bang Theories, while providing a good explanation as to how the universe grew to its tremendous size, do not explain precisely where the particle that started it all came from. In other words, these theories are saying that something came from nothing, which is unfathomable. It makes no sense.
Some say that the universe is eternal, that it has no beginning or end, but this theory is unreasonable. To say that there was no beginning would be to say that the past is infinite, but with no evidence of infinity existing in nature, this argument is invalid.
http://www.princeton.edu...
http://www.space.com...

Contention 2: The existence of God is the best explanation for the intricate order and regularity of the workings of the universe.
The universe displays an overwhelming amount of intelligibility. Each organ in the human body performs a task separate from the one next to it, but somehow they work perfectly together to sustain life. Even the inner workings of something as small as a single cell are so organized and complex that it"s hard to think that it wasn't purposefully designed. Something as delicate as life has such specific requirements in order to be maintained that it would only make sense that the order possessed by the universe is a product of intelligent design. Anything designed needs a designer, which in this instance would be God.
Some may argue that it is by chance, not intelligent design, that the order of the universe is so overwhelmingly intricate and complex. However, "chance" being defined as "the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause," would require some sort of background and expectation in order for the outcome to be unknown or predictable. For example, a man takes the train to work every morning, and it is by chance that he meets a woman who also decided to take the train to work that morning. In this scenario, the man only expected to commute to work. It was unknown and not previously predicted that he would also meet this woman. In the case of the universe, thinking of chance as the ultimate source would be to say that order originated from chance, which is impossible. The example previously given shows that there has to be an existing scenario in order for a chance event to occur. Therefore, order must come before chance. In other words, order must be previously created before it can function in a specific way by chance.

My final contention is that there is no evidence that atheism is true.
Atheists have been working to disprove God"s existence for as long as theists have been working to prove it. With no convincing argument that God does not exist, where is the proof that atheism is true?
Debate Round No. 1
Tomas154c

Con

Argument against Contention 1: Yes it is true that we have not completely figured out what caused the Big Bang. There is also many others things about our universe that we cannot explain, but scientists are working on it. Until then, I don't think it would be reasonable in assuming it to be a divine creator because you have no proof. You said that it is unfathomable that something can come from nothing? Well now scientist are learning that "nothing" is really nothing anymore. If u took a clump of empty space and took all of the elements out of it, you would find that it still weighs something.
Also another argument is that why would a God create the universe and then wait billions of years until he creates life on Earth?

Argument against Contention 2: If the Universe was created perfectly, then we would have no natural disasters on earth such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornado's. As well as the many other potential fatalities we will
have to worry about in the future, such as when our sun dies.
Life is obviously imperfect as well. If life were intelligently created how can someone be born with autism or any number of birth defects?

The theory of a divine creator only raises more questions. You are correct in saying it's impossible to disprove the existence of God. But it is equally impossible as disproving the flying teapot, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, etc.
kmr9207

Pro

Do you have evidence to support your claims that "nothing" is not truly nothing? Also, you say it is not right to assume there is a God with no proof; how then is it right to assume the contrary if there is no proof?
To answer your question, in interpreting the Bible, not everything is meant to be taken literally. Who is to say that God didn"t simply create the universe to let things take their natural course? This can be put hand in hand with the theory of evolution: believing in God does not necessarily mean denying the theory of natural selection. In this case, God would be responsible for simply the creation of the universe, laying the foundation that the universe was built on, not the time frame in which things evolved and grew into what He planned.
In response to your argument against my second contention, I do not think you realize the point I am trying to make. Yes, there are natural disasters and birth defects that are explained by science. While those are unfortunate circumstances, think of processes such as cellular respiration and the nervous system that we as humans would not exist in the same way without. They are so detailed and intricate, it is hard to believe that this was not the working of a higher being.
And finally, I did not once in my argument try to prove the existence of any of those characters, as they are fictional and widely believed as such. While it is normal that a small child would believe in Santa Claus, for example, it is for the sake of tradition and not to be taken as a literal belief. Therefore, your rebuttal to this contention is invalid.
Debate Round No. 2
Tomas154c

Con

https://medium.com..., also Laurence Krauss' book "A Universe from Nothing" will also explain my claims that a universe can come from nothing. Also if that isn't enough, one of the greatest scientific minds in all of history, Steven Hawking, says "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist".
"Also, you say it is not right to assume there is a God with no proof; how then is it right to assume the contrary if there is no proof?" Well the answer simply lies in your question. We can never completely disprove the existence of god. But we can still make the assumption that there is no god because the basis for this assumption is the lack of evidence there is to support gods existence. Would it be reasonable to believe me if I said that I met Abraham Lincoln's ghost last night? Although you cannot disprove me, it wouldn't be reasonable to believe me.
You say that everything in the bible isn't meant to be taken literal, but the Catholic Church doesn't make it very clear as to what should be taken literal or what shouldn't be. For example: The Catechism says that "any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six day, twenty-four hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God."I have realized through all my catholic school career, all my different religion teachers would teach either Adam and Eve were literal or figurative. The problem with literally believing in Adam and Eve is that Evolution completely disproves it. The problem with figuratively believing in Adam and Eve is that it raises the question, where does mortal sin come from? The Bible claims that God created the world in seven days right? Well since it definitely cannot be taken literal, then there must be some deeper meaning behind it. What is that meaning?

You say that life is so intricate and detailed that it has to be the work of a higher being? Well why would a designer add useless body parts to the human body such as the appendix, the tail bone, wisdom teeth, etc. These vestiges of anatomy were pointed out by Charles Darwin as evidence of evolution. Although you may not be able to understand how this wasn't designed, there are many more qualified people that do understand it.
And finally, you did not understand what I meant when I brought up Santa Claus and the flying teapot and the Easter bunny. I probably could have used better examples. I was just using examples of other mystical characters to explain how you can never really disprove the existence of anything. If I told you that I have invisible fairies in my backyard, you would obviously think I was either lying or delusional. But there is no way you can fully disprove my claim right? So I apologize if my rebuttal wasn't clear enough for you, but it absolutely isn't invalid.
kmr9207

Pro

kmr9207 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kmr9207 2 years ago
kmr9207
Benji, although I'm a she, not a he, thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say. I was getting frustrated that my point wasn't getting across. :)
Tomas, I've read your argument, but have a terrible headache so I will hold off on a rebuttal until I have the time and a clear enough mind to do some research, I have to admit some of your points have me stumped. Good comeback.
Posted by Atheist1096 2 years ago
Atheist1096
Yes...exactly my point..I mean to say that the purpose of any debate is to convince the opponent of the opposite...wouldn't that be true victory?? Besidds., without this it would be an argument such as this one. Not a debate.
Posted by Benji005 2 years ago
Benji005
Athiest1096,

Referring to what you said before "you say that you don't want to convince anyone...but then you say the point of this is to produce a 'convincing' argument..contradicting yourself":

What would be the point of kmr9207 debating with Tomas154c without making an argument that is 'convincing'? Surely kmr9207 would want to argue for his side with an argument that would be successful rather than weak and unconvincing, otherwise he would lose the debate.

In meaning not wanting to convince anyone, kmr9207 may have been implying that his argument was solely for the debate rather than an actual argument for someone to listen to and believe in God.
Posted by Atheist1096 2 years ago
Atheist1096
kmr9207..you say that you don't want to convince anyone....but then you say the point of this is to produce a 'convincing' argument..contradicting yourself
Posted by Atheist1096 2 years ago
Atheist1096
Nice one neo
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
1) God can do anything.
2) God can make an unliftable mountain (because of fact 1).
3) God can lift anything (because of fact 1 makes fact 2 false and therefore fact 1 also false)
4) God cannot lift the mountain. (makes fact 2 true and fact 3 false therefore fact 1 false)

This is a paradox involving gods omnipotence (infinite power) and can only be solved by god not being absolutely omnipotent.
Posted by kmr9207 2 years ago
kmr9207
My contention about there being no proof of atheism being true was simply for argument's sake. I don't care at all what anyone personally believes and I will not try to convince them otherwise. This is simply a debate on a subject I feel I have a background of knowledge about (Catholic school raised). The point of this is to construct a convincing argument and that is what I'm doing. If I were voting on the debate and found that there was more evidence and better points made and backed for the con, I would vote in favor of it even if it didn't match my personal beliefs. But thank you for considering your bias rather than vote simply for the side you believe.
Posted by Atheist1096 2 years ago
Atheist1096
You don't want to persuade anyone.. But when you pointed out that the opponent didn't have proof of atheism's accuracy...I simply want to state that you have the burden of proof.....But if you do not want to convince anyone, or be convinced , then what is the point of this ?? And I am aware of my bias.. So I will not vote
Posted by kmr9207 2 years ago
kmr9207
As I said, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to think differently, I'm simply debating my side of the argument. When voting please vote on skill, not personal belief.
Posted by Atheist1096 2 years ago
Atheist1096
If I came and told.you that unicorns exist...and if you didn't believe in its existence you would suffer eternal damnation in a place called hell, wouldn't you be outraged?? How different would gods existence be to unicorns??. If I suggest that unicorns exist, then the burden of proof rests on me. Not the one one who disbelieves in its existence ie to prove his/her claim that unicorns don't exist. Atheists arguments are justified, as they haven't been shown sufficient evidence of the existence of god.
No votes have been placed for this debate.