The Instigator
atheistman
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
CommanderTaco
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points

The Existence of God

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 8 votes the winner is...
atheistman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,332 times Debate No: 9991
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (8)

 

atheistman

Con

Definitions

God: any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship;
in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty

Exist: to have reality or actual being;
to occur or be present

Sources: http://www.yourdictionary.com......

I will be arguing that God does not exist. I will let my opponent present his arguments first.
CommanderTaco

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for defining his terms.
I would like to argue that god does indeed exist, why? well for 1.) things beyond are understanding happen.
2.) faith has shaped our culture in so many ways that it seems denying the existence of god is denying the existence of man.
3.) all matter and life came from somewhere and the bible states that "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth".
I would like to see my opponent come up with a counter argument before we get more in depth with the religion and historic reasons as to why it is a proved fact that god does indeed exist.
references:
1.http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 1
atheistman

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and good luck.

"things beyond are understanding happen."

This is true, and when you look farther and farther back in time you see that it was true for more and more things that we now understand today. It was originally thought that the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe, in which all the planets and the sun orbited. We now understand that the Earth is actually a sphere and orbits the sun, like the rest of the planets in our solar system. It used to be thought that all species on Earth were created, but we now know that they came about through the process of evolution. Although you might not accept it, evolution is the cause of the diversity of life, but since we're not debating about evolution, I'll move on. A long time ago when people understood almost nothing about Earth and the Universe, they used God or Gods to explain things. Such as the Sun God, the Rain God, The Sea God etc. The reality is that science allows us to understand more and more about our universe and everything in it, and just because there are things we don't understand right now, doesn't necessarily mean that you have to jump to the conclusion that God is responsible for it.

"faith has shaped our culture in so many ways that it seems denying the existence of god is denying the existence of man."

It's true that faith has influenced some of our culture, but it did have a lot of negative influence. Wars, crusades, terrorism, among many other things have all been done in the name of religion, and it's a good thing we've let go of past traditions such as stoning adulterers and burning 'witches.' Again, just because a lot of cultures have held onto old beliefs doesn't mean God exists.

'all matter and life came from somewhere and the bible states that "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth"'

I can write a book claiming it's the word of God, saying the universe was actually created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that doesn't mean that book is true. There is no evidence that the Bible was written by anything other than humans, and there's no evidence that a lot of its claims are actually true. There is actually overwhelming evidence against a lot of its claims, such as evolution over creationism. The scientific explanation for where life came from is abiogenesis. There is a video at the top explaining it. The explanation to where the universe came from is the Big Bang. If you want some evidence that the Big Bang occurred, turn on either your radio, or your TV. Adjust either the radio so you hear static, or your TV so you only see black and white dots/hear static. Most of the sound you're hearing is actually the sound the Big Bang made billions of years ago. That sound is still echoing throughout space and can be picked up through TVs, radios. The argument that everything must have come from God is a useless argument since you'd have to explain where God came from.

Now I'll let my opponent present his arguments.
CommanderTaco

Pro

After a while of thinking over what my opponent said I am now ready to begin my round.
My opponent said that it would be useless to talk about god being responsible for the universe because I would have to then explain where god came from, the same can be said about the big bang. Where did the big bang come from. I posted a video that speaks about the big bang and a little on evolution.

Another counter argument my opponent posted was that science explains most things but agreed that there are still some things that science can't explain and that is why some scientists out there do believe in god, how do you describe miracles- an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.religionnewsblog.com...
And how do you describe ghost if ghost are real then that must mean that there is an after life and if there is an after life there must be a god.
Debate Round No. 2
atheistman

Con

Although this debate isn't about evolution or the Big Bang Theory, I will still respond to my opponent's points.

"My opponent said that it would be useless to talk about god being responsible for the universe because I would have to then explain where god came from, the same can be said about the big bang. Where did the big bang come from. I posted a video that speaks about the big bang and a little on evolution."

How did the universe come into being?
The Big Bang.
But the Big Bang would need a cause, which must be God.
But what created God?
But what created the Big Bang?
But what created God?
But what created the Big Bang?

See, this is simply circular reasoning. Scientists may never know what actually caused the Big Bang, so we should either admit that we don't know, or try to find out the answer through science. I watched the video you posted and I noticed it contains a lot of fallacies. The presenter claims that evolution could not have happened because mutations are usually harmful and are improbable. This is wrong because when a bad mutation happens, the new strain of species has less of a chance of survival. Because of this, species with harmful mutations typically die out, while the offspring with beneficial mutations typically survive. This is known as 'survival of the fittest,' and is a driving force of evolution. Mutations are not as improbable as many creationists think, because much of DNA is 'junk' information, and mutations within that are harder to detect. Also, a reason why evolution can take millions of years to occur is because major mutations aren't common.
He then tries to prove that stars could not have formed in an expanding universe. This is false, because dust and gases still form space clouds, even when the space around them is expanding. The cloud then collapses due to gravity, and begins to swirl. The collapsed cloud heats up over millions of years, due to the hydrogen pulled into the swirling cloud. Once a certain temperature is reached, atoms fuse together to form Helium and a protostar is formed. The protostar gains mass until it stabilizes, and a star is formed. See, no God or supernatural powers are needed to explain the formation of stars.
He then claims that if the Big Bang is right, then everything should just be expanding instead of some things rotating around others in the universe. First, everything was simply expanding. Until the planets and suns formed. The suns had much greater masses than the planets, so the planets were pulled into orbit around the suns, because of the stronger gravity emitted from the suns' mass than the planets'. Then moons formed, and were pulled into orbit around the planets. Orbit in solar systems does not mean that the universe isn't expanding. He then claims that the surface of the Earth in its early days was much like it is today. This is false, when the Earth was formed, the surface was an extremely hot toxic wasteland covering in volcanoes. He even contradicts himself, at one point of the video he says that a local flood happened to the Earth opposed to the global flood, but then he claims that the layers of the Earth are evidence of a 'global flood.' Obviously this isn't a reliable video if the presenter bases all of his arguments against "What science says"
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.odec.ca...

"Another counter argument my opponent posted was that science explains most things but agreed that there are still some things that science can't explain and that is why some scientists out there do believe in god"
Actually this is false, 93% of the National Academy of Science members are atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

And over 99% of scientists in the fields of life sciences are evolutionists.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

"how do you describe miracles"

'Miracles' are simply events with perfectly logical scientific explanations, that either weren't known at the time, or weren't investigated. Often when things turn out far better than expected, people label it as a miracle because they think it was too good to be true.

"And how do you describe ghost if ghost are real then that must mean that there is an after life and if there is an after life there must be a god."

Creaks in an old house or doors opening because of pressure changes could trick people into think ghosts are haunting their houses. People who are unable to sleep for several days because of an illness might hallucinate and 'see' dead relatives while he/she is still awake. A person might confuse dreams with actual things they've experienced. Photographs of ghosts are little more than out-of-focus specks of dust or other airborne particles too close to the flash and lens of the camera. Other photographs are merely misuse of the camera. A shaky hand can cause blurs, and a person who doesn't know how to properly use the night portrait setting on a camera might see 'energy' from distant lights. When people visit a 'haunted house' they've usually been told what 'ghost' is there and where. That subconsciously biases the visitor and often causes them to 'feel' something. 'Psychics' who claim to talk to the dead are only skilled in an art called "Cold Reading". A major factor in a successful "Cold Reading" is the psychic tossing out very vague references ('I'm seeing water.') and the person being 'read' only remembering the 'hits' - the vague references the psychic got right - and forgetting the 'misses'. Still other 'experiences' of feelings of unease can be caused by very low frequency sound waves, such as from a passing vehicle, wind across an open window, etc. There is also no evidence that human bodies contain souls.

"Consider this. If a paranormalist could really give an unequivocal demonstration of telepathy (precognition, psychokinesis, reincarnation, whatever it is), he would be the discoverer of a totally new principle unknown to physical science. The discoverer of the new energy field that links mind to mind in telepathy, or of the new fundamental force that moves objects around a table top, deserves a Nobel prize and would probably get one. If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake." -Richard Dawkins

But let's say ghosts do exist, and there's proof of them. That still doesn't necessarily prove God, it could just mean that there are other types of energy on Earth that were unknown to us. I personally don't believe in ghosts or an afterlife, but even an afterlife doesn't mean God exists. It could mean that energy escapes humans after they die, or something similar to that.

In conclusion, a significant case for the existence of God has not been presented yet. Evolution and the Big Bang both are well established scientific theories, and ghosts/an afterlife have no evidence. But even if evolution and the big bang were proven wrong and ghosts/an afterlife were proven right, it would not necessarily mean God exists.
CommanderTaco

Pro

my opponent has made many great arguments to counter my debate but there are still mystery's that remain that may prove gods existence
1.) why do we live in a universe that operates by laws such as physics.
2.) why do atheist always pursue the thought of god even though they claim not to believe in god
3.) Jesus claimed to be the son of god, and Jesus performed miracles such as healing people.
http://www.everystudent.com...
These are a few thoughts in which I would like to see how my opponent would counter and I wish him luck in our final round.
Debate Round No. 3
atheistman

Con

First, I'd like to thank my opponent for his compliment about my arguments, and for this debate.

"why do we live in a universe that operates by laws such as physics"

Laws of Physics are not 'laws,' like the political laws you think of when you hear the term. Laws of Physics are simply observations based on what we've observed about the universe. Laws of Physics may not even be impossible to break, just very improbable. If physical laws were created, then why didn't the creator add additional laws such as laws to prevent black holes, natural disasters, asteroids from hitting Earth etc?

"why do atheist always pursue the thought of god even though they claim not to believe in god"

This isn't true for all atheists, but some atheists argue against the existence of God because they see it as a failed hypothesis or an outdated belief. Imagine you're Galileo in the 1600s, and you've just discovered that the planets orbit the Sun opposed to the Sun and the planets orbiting Earth. Wouldn't you try to show everyone the real truth, instead of have everyone continue to cling to outdated beliefs? Another reason some atheists argue against religion is because religion has and still continues to cause a lot of wars, conflict, suffering, and unfair laws placed on the People. Many religion-based laws still exist in the U.S. today despite the Separation of Church and State clause in the First Amendment. These laws are victimless crimes and only exist to force people not to do things that some people find distasteful. Religion-based laws are a lot more prevalent in the Middle East where almost every law is based off of religion, and many of the punishments are death. Religion has also slowed the progress of mankind, since the Church has opposed almost every scientific advancement, from the Sun Orbit discovery, to Evolution, to stem cell research. Religion also divides people and can cause racism and over-the-top patriotism. I think if there wasn't religion, humankind could be more united, peaceful, and could advance society greatly. Also, I don't see why atheists arguing against the existence of God is proof or evidence that God exists. I even see it as evidence against the existence of God, because one would assume if a God wanted his people to believe in him, he would hardwire the belief into them or show himself to the world.

"Jesus claimed to be the son of god, and Jesus performed miracles such as healing people."

There have been historians living in the time that Jesus is said to have lived, yet none of them mention Jesus. You'd think that he would be know all over the globe if he could walk on water, turn water into wine etc, yet there is no mention of him except in the bible. Even if Jesus did exist, there is no guarantee that he performed 'miracles' during his life.

Thank you, and vote CON.
CommanderTaco

Pro

I thank my opponent for for this debate and that we were both freely allowed to share our opinions on this topic. This was a pretty fun debate and I hope to have more that challenge me to think such as this one. Stubborn people like me will always claim to their beliefs no matter what and debating seems like a peaceful way to argue about them. I hope people vote on this debate with their beliefs and structure of the speeches. Again I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and wish him luck in his future debates, and I would like to thank those who read this debate as well and hope you'll got as much enjoyment as I did that is all. Vote to your beliefs and never let anyone take away what you believe in.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 4 years ago
GeoLaureate8
The point I was making is that one should not assume that heaven and hell are the only possible afterlife. In my view, the sky carnival and the fire pit are the least possible versions of the afterlife. Our own science already shows that there are probably millions of other dimensions, not just the two in Christianity.

It is my opinion that Hinduism is metaphysically superior to Christianity. The historical accuracy of either doesn't matter to me.
Posted by Alex 4 years ago
Alex
Geo if you would like a debate on why Christianity is more valid than hinduism I would be happy to teach you.
Posted by atheistman 4 years ago
atheistman
jwscavalier60, the voting period is already over, but the point of voting on this site is to vote for who debated better, not based on your actual beliefs.
Posted by jwscavalier60 4 years ago
jwscavalier60
Although I personally believe more closely to CommanderTaco in that there is a God. (I am a Christian) Atheistman did a much better job on this debate. I will however vote for CommanderTaco because I believe he is correct.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"If there is no afterlife, then we rot. If there is, then you either go to Hell or Heaven. Why not just take the right choice out?"

Fail. Who says Heaven and Hell are the only other alternatives? What about the afterlife of Hindu's? There's no Heaven or Hell.

What if there is an afterlife, but no God to judge where people go? What if the afterlife is just another dimension in the Universe, completely unrelated to religion?
Posted by atheistman 5 years ago
atheistman
You can live your life to the fullest with the knowledge that there is no afterlife. What's the point of wasting your life basically preparing yourself for your 'next life,' when there's almost no chance that there actually is a 'next life'?
Posted by 4chanforthewin 5 years ago
4chanforthewin
@atheistman

Of course, your name is a dead giveaway that you do not believe in God.

However, we shall see. It won't matter who's right anyways... If there is no afterlife, then we rot. If there is, then you either go to Hell or Heaven. Why not just take the right choice out?
Posted by atheistman 5 years ago
atheistman
"We'll all see if we're in heaven or not, won't we?"

Unless of course, there is no afterlife. Then the only thing you'll be consciously aware of is your last breath.
Posted by 4chanforthewin 5 years ago
4chanforthewin
We'll all see if we're in heaven or not, won't we?

Personally I am a Christian, and you can't prove God exists, you can only believe in Him.
Posted by atheistman 5 years ago
atheistman
"Micro evolution is small part in the fairy tale of evolution. Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are hence "micro-evolution." Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else. Long-term evolution, though, requires "macroevolution", which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another."

The only points you make about evolution is that you don't understand the first thing about it. Macroevolution is not 'turning a fish into a cow or duck,' it's when a species DNA becomes mutated to the point that it can't breed with the original species anymore. Breeds of dogs such as the African Lion Dog are examples of macroevolution, since they can't breed with wolves. Other breeds with more similar DNA to wolves, simply result in a sterile hybrid of a wolf and a dog. You accepting the fact of microevolution means that you accept the fact of macroevolution, since small changes over a small scale of time result in large changes over a large scale of time.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by mrkkid17 5 years ago
mrkkid17
atheistmanCommanderTacoTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 5 years ago
Lifeisgood
atheistmanCommanderTacoTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by lexo62 5 years ago
lexo62
atheistmanCommanderTacoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 NakedPaulToast 5 years ago
NakedPaulToast
atheistmanCommanderTacoTied
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 DictatorIsaac 5 years ago
DictatorIsaac
atheistmanCommanderTacoTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
atheistmanCommanderTacoTied
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 Lucky120 5 years ago
Lucky120
atheistmanCommanderTacoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:25 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 5 years ago
InquireTruth
atheistmanCommanderTacoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05