The Instigator
H501
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Non-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 1 vote the winner is...
harrytruman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 393 times Debate No: 91724
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

H501

Pro

I believe that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea of a "God"-whichever you follow.
harrytruman

Con

There were 3 million witnesses of G-d giving Moses the Torah on Mt. Sinai, I provided proof, thus- I win.
Debate Round No. 1
H501

Pro

You can't provide proof unless that proof can be proved to be true. Basically, you need to "prove your proof" So tell me. Have any witnesses confirmed this? No. Therefore, your evidence is invalid because it can't be backed up.
harrytruman

Con

That's because they're all dead, it's like saying the French Revolution never happened because all those witnesses are dead now. But I still need to prove there were 3 million witnesses, so let's put it this way. If Moses gave the Jews the Torah without them witnessing it, they wouldn't accept it. Think of it, if there were a guy, and he told a large group o ~3 million people that they were enslaved in Japan, and he brought them out, and he parted the Bearing Straight, and migrated them into Mexico, then they fought giants and whatnot, they would say "but Moses, maybe you aren't feeling right, we never lived in Japan, and you never parted the Bearing Straight, and we never saw G-d give you that book!" That way, Judaism would never have started to begin with.
Debate Round No. 2
H501

Pro

I'm not saying that the fact that those people are all dead means that it didn't happen, I'm saying that the fact that they're all dead means that whether or not that actually happened is disputable. Very disputable. The French Revolution is different, because there are hundred of written accounts about it that prove it happened. There are only two written accounts that corroborate your story, and those accounts were written by the same group of people. The authenticity of these accounts is debatable. It's like finding info on Wikipedia. Sure, it could be true....but if no other site backs this info up, then you can't say that it is reliable. Essentially what I'm getting at is, your evidence is shaky, and it can't support your argument. Please find some other information that you think supports your ideas, instead of repeating yourself. I would also like to leave you with a paradox. If God (Or, if that offends you, G-d.) is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and evil exists, then one of those can't be true. G-d would destroy the evil, right? The argument of "Free Will" doesn't explain this, because if free will existed, then G-d wouldn't be omniscient.
harrytruman

Con

"I'm not saying that the fact that those people are all dead means that it didn't happen, I'm saying that the fact that they're all dead means that whether or not that actually happened is disputable. Very disputable. The French Revolution is different, because there are hundred of written accounts about it that prove it happened. There are only two written accounts that corroborate your story, and those accounts were written by the same group of people. The authenticity of these accounts is debatable. It's like finding info on Wikipedia. Sure, it could be true....but if no other site backs this info up, then you can't say that it is reliable. Essentially what I'm getting at is, your evidence is shaky, and it can't support your argument. Please find some other information that you think supports your ideas, instead of repeating yourself."

Again, you can't introduce these stories without everyone seeing it, Christianity and Islam were only accepted without any decisive proof because people wee forced by Constantine and Mohamed to believe their new religion, here is no evidence of Jews being forced to accept the Torah.

Also, DNA can hold more information than any computer that we have, and it holds it in the size of a molecule. If humans can't devise something that efficient, remind me again why it can happen on its own?

"I would also like to leave you with a paradox. If God (Or, if that offends you, G-d.) is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and evil exists, then one of those can't be true. G-d would destroy the evil, right? The argument of "Free Will" doesn't explain this, because if free will existed, then G-d wouldn't be omniscient."

It all depends on your definition of G-d and who you're asking, if you ask the Christians they will say that evil comes fro Satan, the Buddhists/Sikhs say it comes from pride, G-d says this:

"See, I [God] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil." - Deuteronomy 30:15

"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7

Basically, G-d created and allowed evil because things won't work without it, if humans aren't tested, they won't get better.
Debate Round No. 3
H501

Pro

That was an excellent response to my paradox, but you still haven't proved that G-d (I'm going to start typing that in order to keep people from being offended) exists. You say that there is no proof, but we should believe in him anyway. This makes sense, but it doesn't prove that he is real. In order to convince someone that G-d exists, you shouldn't say "Oh, believe this.", you should say "This is concrete evidence that supports the idea of G-d, etc. etc."

I'm also going to add some of my reasoning to why he doesn't exists here. Why was G-d present in everyday human life for thousands of years, but hasn't been heard or seen of since the development of solid record keeping? Also, how come there are no "updates"? Original religious texts support the idea of slavery and infer that men are better than women. We know these ideas now are wrong. But no changes have been made.
harrytruman

Con

First of all your paradox wasn't a question about the existence of G-d, you presented me with a paradox, and I answered it. And I never said "believe this," I only said "this is what I believe," as an answer to your paradox. You seem to get off topic here and go less on the "there is no proof" argument and instead begin to argue that the bible is immoral. Either way I want to respond to this too.

The Torah never supports the idea of slavery or says that men are better than women, infact if you read your book this should be evident; though the word used is "slavery" it really wasn't. First of all, you were never *forced* into servitude, you became an indentured servant by owing someone money. Second, you couldn't be held there forever, at most you would be a indentured servant for 7 years. Thirdly, you weren't property since your master couldn't beat you/sell you/etc. And in regards to men being better than women, this is nonsense, you should see Genesis 1:27 because it seems to be that women are equal to men.

In this last argument you deal not at all with the existence of G-d, since my arguments were not responded to, I will count them as dropped, I win thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
H501

Pro

Well, the DNA argument would be a good one- if humans were physically perfect in every way. But we're not. There are many examples of this. The appendix serves no purpose, and is dangerous, because it risks becoming infected. The fact that we eat through the same hole that we breath is dangerous too. It can easily lead to choking. No omnipotent creator would design us that way, with glaring mistakes. Now, you may be wondering, "This also disproves evolution!" It doesn't. Evolution helps species evolve to threats that they face at present, not threats that they encounter in the future. Unfortunately, this leads to defects. Millions of years ago, the appendix probably served a purpose. Now, it is a "design flaw". Evolution doesn't fix the mistakes that it makes, so we will always have appendixes. That is my response, happy? Also, in the future I would encourage you not to declare "I win" after making a point. You've done this twice already. It's a serious breach of etiquette and will result in you being looked down on by others.
harrytruman

Con

I only claimed that DNA proves G-d because of how efficiently it holds information in as little space as possible, which is better than any computer we have. Also, the appendix does serve a purpose- it is part of our immune system. Besides, just because we have genetic issues now doesn't mean that genetics were originally imperfect. As a matter o fact, I could say that all our genetic issues are caused by pollution, and this would have factual backing since cancer only began to appear in the 1890's and was unheard of up until then, then it gradually became more and more common.

Also, this debate isn't about evolution, it's about G-d existing.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ockham 1 year ago
Ockham
This is continued from my previous comment.

(5) Con argued that there is a tremendous amount of information in DNA, Pro responded that there are defects in our DNA due to evolution like the appendix and the fact that we both breathe and eat through our mouth, Con responded that our DNA may not have been imperfect originally and that the appendix plays a role in the immune system. I was going to make this point a tie, especially since Pro didn't have a chance to respond to Con's final arguments, but then I remembered that Pro dropped the argument for an entire round and decided to give the point to Con.

So, the reason I voted for Con is that although Pro won point 1, he conceded points 2 and 4, didn't press his advantage with the points Con dropped, and dropped Con's DNA argument for an entire round before responding.

Good debate on both sides - again, it was very close.
Posted by Ockham 1 year ago
Ockham
As I said, I gave the points for convincing arguments to Con, after a difficult deliberation. Here were the exchanges I based my decision on.

(1) Con introduced the point that there were millions of witnesses to the Torah, Pro responded that the Torah is not reliable, Con responded that this is like saying the French Revolution never happened, and Pro responded with the very strong point that we have hundreds of records of the French Revolution and reiterated that the Torah is not reliable. This point goes to Pro, because he is right that the Torah is not reliable and he had a very strong rebuttal to the French Revolution point. If the debate had ended here, Pro would have won.

(2) Pro introduced the problem of evil point - if God is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful, why is there evil? Con responded that evil is necessary to test humans, and Pro conceded the point. This point goes to Con, because he had a strong rebuttal and Pro conceded it. Pro could have done a lot better if he had fought for this point more, because there are good rebuttals to Con's theodicy, but he gave up.

(3) Pro introduced two points that Con never addressed, the point that God hasn't been heard of since solid record keeping began and that there have been no updates to scripture. Con dropped these points, so they both go to Pro, but Pro did not point out that Con dropped them and they did not play a large role in the subsequent debate. This was another mistake on Pro's part.

(4) Pro argued that there is slavery and sexism in scripture, Con responded that this was off topic, but rebutted it by arguing that the Torah only had indentured servitude and that women are equal to men in Genesis. Pro did not continue to contest the point, so this point goes to Con.

I am running out of characters so I will post my analysis of the next point in a subsequent comment.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Well...You read about it. Heard about it. Thought about it....But all the "evidence" we ever thought we had was not....So in fact you just created a god.
Posted by lightseeker 1 year ago
lightseeker
there are some ways to prove that god exists.

1- i exist now, there was a time i didn't exist and there will be a time that i wont exist. it means that existence is not a defining attribute for me, in the sense that humans are not defined as beings that existence is essential to them (if it were, i would be living forever and existing forever)
2- the world we're living in is consisted of it's elements. and all those elements are something like me, meaning existence is not essential to them, and for them existence is a possibility.
3- how does a thing that existence is a possibility for, come to exist? (if you say from another thing that existence is a possibility for, that would not answer the question, it's just jumping back to the same question.
the only way we can answer that is by saying, from something that existence is a must for, meaning a thing that existence is a core attribute to.

to put it more simply, if i were to say how is life created? you might say it was created from another life (which would be jumping back to the same question). instead if u say it was created from an eternal life or from something eternal that can create life that would be the right answer to that question.
Posted by lightseeker 1 year ago
lightseeker
there are some ways to prove that god exists.

1- i exist now, there was a time i didn't exist and there will be a time that i wont exist. it means that existence is not a defining attribute for me, in the sense that humans are not defined as beings that existence is pestilential to them (if it were, i would be living forever and existing forever)
2- the world we're living in is consisted of it's elements. and all those elements are something like me, meaning existence is not essential to them, and for them existence is a possibility.
3- how does a thing that existence is a possibility for, come to exist? (if you say from another thing that existence is a possibility for, that would not answer the question, it's just jumping back to the same question.
the only way we can answer that is by saying, from something that existence is a must for, meaning a thing that existence is a core attribute to.

to put it more simply, if i were to say how is life created? you might say it was created from another life (which would be jumping back to the same question). instead if u say it was created from an eternal life or from something eternal that can create life that would be the right answer to that question.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
You should have asked the ? 1000 years ago... And there would have been plenty of "evidence", (gods made thunder and lightning).
You should have asked the ? 500 years ago...And there would still have been a lot of "evidence". but probably more in the form of "gods will". (gods did no longer "do stuff".. ). So "evidence" had gone from "actually seing it happen" to .."I think so because I read it.. Heard about it..And thought about it"
Ask the ? today...And all the "evidence" we ever thougt we had... has gone.."
Posted by DiEgO123100 1 year ago
DiEgO123100
I am a catholic. dragon of christ, even if you did find evidence of God, there would still be people who would simply refuse it for some reason
Posted by Dragon_of_Christ 1 year ago
Dragon_of_Christ
If i found a single thing that could possibly be evidense of a god would i win this debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ockham 1 year ago
Ockham
H501harrytrumanTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a difficult debate to judge because both sides did very well. I ended up giving the points for convincing arguments to Con, even though I am a convinced atheist, due to several mistakes on Pro's part. I will explain further in the comments. Again, this was very close.