The Instigator
OsamaTheCityzen
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
The-Holy-Macrel
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 88397
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

OsamaTheCityzen

Pro

I believe in the existence of a God, and Con will have to argue otherwise. This will not be a religious debate about which religion (or lack thereof) is right, it is purely about the concept of God. With that being said, I will use (and Con may also use) examples from religions to prove or disprove God's existence. For example, Con may argue that God doesn't exist because Christianity says so and so, but if I bring a counterargument from Judaism, and in a later round refute Judaism and bring an argument from Christianity then that is completely fine because the debate aims PURELY to prove or disprove God's existence, nothing more and nothing less.

The debate structure is as follows:
R1-Acceptance AND basic argument as to why God does not exist.
R2-R4-Arguments
R5-Conclusion/No new arguments

I look forward to this debate.
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

First, I am christian.
I was raised christian but I started questioning my faith.
My faith was only strengthened.
I always argued for the side of god but I want
to argue against it so I can destroy all atheistic
arguments thus further destroying my doubt.

My logic:

Find or create strongest atheistic arguments --> Try to destroy them --> Problem solved -->
Create strongest christian arguments --> Try to destroy them --> Close all loopholes and find illogicallicies -->
Go spread strong, indestructible christians --> Spread destructive anti-atheistic arguments.

So this will be interesting.

Good luck Pro.

////////////

This is the best one I have seen so far, it will hold you off until I can bring an ultimatum.

Me:
? --> Creation/Big Bang --> Now

You:
? --> God --> Creation/Big Bang --> Now

The topic of god only delays the subject.
Just a unnecessary link in the chain.

What created the big bang?
Christian: God
What created god?
Christian: ...

It makes no difference if god "exists"
if you can't prove where god came from.
Debate Round No. 1
OsamaTheCityzen

Pro

Thank you, and I agree this will be some entertaining debate!

Your main argument seems to be that if God always existed, then what created him?
First off, I disagree that it makes no difference if God exists if we can't prove where he came from. If we can prove that God exists, then it won't matter where he came from and here is why: Both atheists and religious people agree that there was something in existence that led to the creation of the universe. The only difference is that atheists believe that it occurred naturally by a series of perfect coincidence whilst others believe that it was caused by an intelligent being. If I have to prove where God came from, you will have to prove where the first thing that created the universe came from, and it can't be "ever-existing" or intelligent because that would be God, and it can't be a "random explosion that led to the universe" because what was there before this explosion? Also, God is not bound by the limits of time nor reality. He exists in a completely different way than we do.

It only makes sense that there was an intelligent being behind the creation of the universe. Would you believe me if I told you that in somewhere in the middle of the Sahara desert, there was a strong storm that kicked up the sand, tossed it around, and then settled a perfect amount on a hard surface, then after a few years and a lot of lightning strikes that sand turned into glass (because sand+lightning/heat=glass) and since they have some petroleum that was brought up to the surface of the Earth that was also struck by lightning and made silicon, and over millions, even billions of years, that silicon battery and the glass screen and also the plastic casing (also from petroleum) came together and created the perfect mobile phone? No, and you will tell me that I'm a fool for thinking that. Similarly, it is illogical to think that the universe created itself coincidentally.

Now that I got that out of the way, I will address an issue atheists in general (not necessarily you, but to close the gap) bring up: They say religion contradicts science. My answer to that is simple: Not all religions contradict science, and what we know to be contradicted is mainly theories and could turn out wrong. Statistically, science is not a reliable thing to trust in because it is always changing. We used to think that the Earth is flat, then we discovered that it was round. We used to think many things about the atom that turned out to be completely false. You will tell me that we have exact proof that we're right, but that is exactly what was said by ALL the scientists before. They even reached a time when they thought they knew everything. Now, with the advancement of science, we know that what we know is so little and that no matter how much we try there is no way we will know everything there is to know. The large hadron particle collider experiment finally concluded that we know at most 4% of the universe. This entire universe that has trillions of stars, planets, and stretches for trillions of light years, and also keeps expanding, is made mostly of things we do not yet know how to measure and do not fully understand, like dark matter. Science is nowhere near knowing everything, so I don't think it would be logical to believe in science (which is mainly what atheists do). I'm not saying to ditch science. We should still pursue knowledge and yes trust in facts that we can observe, but know that it is not final and could be disproven later.

Back to my argument that not all religions contradict science, an example is Islam. The Quran, which is the religious book of Islam, is full of scientific miracles. Astrophysicists today unanimously agree that stars and planets are formed from nebulae, which are a mix of gas and dust, basically a smoke-like material. The Quran says that "He [God] turned to the heavens when it was 'smoke'" (41:11) and in another part says that "the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them" (21:30). Dr. Alfred Kroner, a world renowned geologist and a professor at Johannes Gutenberg University in Germany said that, "Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin". The Quran also talks about the formation of an embryo, and details the steps exactly of how it is formed. Fourteen centuries ago, they had no way to see those fetuses let alone accurately describe their shape. It also describes the mountains as "pegs" that are deeply rooted in the ground, and only with modern geological technology, we discovered that mountains have a very deep foundation and go very deeply in the ground. The Quran also talks about a barrier between oceans and other oceans and other barriers between rivers and seas. Modern technology allowed us to measure temperature differences and salinity differences at the borders between oceans and see visible barriers between them. That, also, was impossible to measure with their technology. The Quran also talks about how clouds are formed, how the cerebellum is responsible for decision-making, and also that iron was "sent down" to the Earth as opposed to forming there, which was recently found to be true. Therefore, religion does not contradict science.
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

The thing is if you say something was just there why can't I?

Just as god was just there energy was there.

Most of the energy turned into matter.

Galaxies formed, then solar systems, then planets.

Then the earth cooled and had water from melted icy asteroids and comets.

Now note the earth had 4.6 Billion years to accomplish this.

http://krishna.org...
The chemicals essential to life can be formed through simple chemistry.

4.6 Billion years. For the first cell to form.

4.6 BILLION years for life to evolve.

300 years ago we were in colonial times.

You will probably live a little over 75.
http://www.cdc.gov...

Four of you could fit this timeline.

Think of how long your childhood and young adulthood was.

20 years.

Multiply the feeling of the length by 3.5.

Now 4.

But then 10,000,000.

You can also thaw in a third or fifth of it's current number.

That is a lot of time.

The internet we are arguing on was created less than 30 years ago.

The point is, in that amount of time it can happen.

There doesn't have to be intelligent design.
Debate Round No. 2
OsamaTheCityzen

Pro

I will go back to the example of the phone. In a trillion years even, would a phone be able to form in the Sahara desert, have its software developed, evolve to reach long distances on its own, improve its camera quality, be bigger, and overall improve itself in every manner and have many different types of operating systems? No, it has to be created by a person, who is intelligent. Same thing with the universe. That energy and everything that took place, that could have been caused by God. Religion does not contradict (nor encourage) the Big Bang theory for example. It could very well be that God allowed all that to happen, but He designed it. Look at our bodies for example, we have all these systems in our bodies that are so perfectly designed and would take forever to replicate in real life. Our kidneys perform such powerful things that to be replicated need whole entire machines. Yeah, kidneys do fail, but if you see the design it is very intricate and to this day we fail to produce something that does the same function in the same exact way (and no dialysis does not do it the exact way). Look at our livers, the function of our liver is carried out perfectly. Our intestines would be bigger than a baseball diamond if spread, but it still manages to fit (https://online.science.psu.edu...). Each strand of DNA is 2 meters long (http://www.sciencefocus.com...) but wrapped very tightly together to fit in our cells. Our brains can store an unlimited amount of information, and just think of how they work. It's fascinating how our excretion system works; you have a divided partition for liquids and others for solids, and they pass through the intestines where the water is re-absorbed from the solids into the body to prevent dehydration. Our hearts also work perfectly, they keep pumping and adjusting to the amount of oxygen we need, and our lungs support it. My point from all this is that even after 4.6 billion years you NEED an intelligent being to design everything. It is not enough for it to happen on its own because then we would have very messed up systems.
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

It is not living. It doesn't evolve. It is a bad example.

The messed up or defected would die off while the fittest survived.
http://www.britannica.com...

Survival of the fittest.

By the way in the Miller-Urey experiment amino acids formed.
Here is the link again: http://krishna.org...

Amino acids make up DNA.

Any yes, we all work perfectly.

But it is the product of millions of years of evolution.
http://www.livescience.com...

It may all be fascinating to you but evolution and
natural selection are to thank for our near perfection.

God doesn't need to exist.

If unlikely there is a chance.

It seems to have happened.

But there is a chance of god, right?

Let me spread some doubt.

Consider all the religions, faiths, and deities existing today.

If there was one true god why wouldn't it destroy the other blasphemy?

It doesn't make sense.

Gods are a figment of humans imagination.
Debate Round No. 3
OsamaTheCityzen

Pro

To address survival of the fittest: It does not apply to humans. Even Darwin said that himself, because humans have always adapted themselves to different environments and managed to live even with weak bodies by using medicines, etc. Consider the time when people only lived to be 40 years, such as in Ireland during the Potato famine. They were very weak and had some of the worst immune systems but they still reproduced. They had access to medical things, just like we do today. A sick person can still reproduce, and his kids won't be the best, but they will exist. Diseases are passed on, yet we still manage to make our bodies work perfectly. Can you explain the brain to me? How does memory work? How do your eyes see? All these intricate tiny things could not have been formed even over billions of years, even by survival of the fittest. Look at fossils and skeletons as far back as we can find, these humans still were generally the same shape as us. They lived just like we did, but on trees instead of houses. If the dead of them were not fit, why can't we see the dead of them that had no brains, eyes, livers, etc?

Also about God, majority of religions (and namely Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) believe that life is a test from God. If you believe, you will go to Paradise, and if you don't, you will go to hell. God allows those other people to exist so he can test them if they will believe later on and test the believers if they will fall to the others' traps. In other words, God told us that he will leave other people and not destroy them. Keep in mind though, that God does destroy some people and nations if they disobey, but not everyone.
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

Not to us humans but to our ancestors it did.

We are a breakthrough in evolution and everything has changed since homo sapiens.

Evolution isn't what it was.

And there is still genetic drift and ect.

And there were people who would die from weak immune systems.
Obviously.

But human intervention is a still just a factor.
We are doing incredibly well at healing the sick though so it definitely distorts things.

Think back to the middle ages. We didn't have the medicine we have today.
(note this was pre potato famine)

Strong knights and warriors would live the weak would die in battle.

They would go home and reproduce.

Hidden natural selection there.

And they could have evolved.

Over a really, really, really, really long time.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

Hence 4.6 million years.

No wait, 1000 times that.

4.6 BILLION years.

And the last 3 sentences of the first paragraph are nonsensical.

But what I really need to address is the arguments presented in your last post

is in all three other posts.

No mas!

I destroyed it.

You have failed to prove god definitely exists.

You lose.
Debate Round No. 4
OsamaTheCityzen

Pro

You did not definitely win, that is up to the voters to decide.
I will now conclude.
My opponent presented arguments that tried proving that we cannot know for certain whether God exists or not. His goal, however, was to prove that God does not exist. Throughout this debate, I brought arguments about the integrity of humans and other creations, as well as scientific miracles in religious books, to prove God's existence. My opponent, on the other hand, was not able to prove that God doesn't exist, but he brought arguments to show me that there is no way to prove for sure whether God exists or not. Simply put, my opponent was to prove atheism, but he argued for agnosticism. He may think that he disproved me, which I disagree with, but he did not prove his own argument that God does not exist.
Good luck, Con
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

Pro
I believe in the existence of a God, and Con will have to argue otherwise. This will not be a religious debate about which religion (or lack thereof) is right, it is purely about the concept of God. With that being said, I will use (and Con may also use) examples from religions to prove or disprove God's existence. For example, Con may argue that God doesn't exist because Christianity says so and so, but if I bring a counterargument from Judaism, and in a later round refute Judaism and bring an argument from Christianity then that is completely fine because the :
|
|
|
|
exerpt >>>>> :"debate aims PURELY to prove or disprove God's existence":

Neither of us accomplished this.

It was worded as an agnostic debate.

Now i understand why we need burden of proof.

But i did destroy all of pro's arguments.

Pro also did not prove his side.

May the voters vote be unto the best arguments then.

It is in their hands now.

Thanks for a good debate pro.
|
|
|
|
:, nothing more and nothing less.

The debate structure is as follows:
R1-Acceptance AND basic argument as to why God does not exist.
R2-R4-Arguments
R5-Conclusion/No new arguments

I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by OsamaTheCityzen 8 months ago
OsamaTheCityzen
See, I think this debate is for the sake of arguing only, not reaching a conclusion. Con is making it hard and denying many things, but I am still trying.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 8 months ago
The-Holy-Macrel
I have freaking weird dreams.
I can interpret them but still...
Posted by PonticGreekMacedonian 8 months ago
PonticGreekMacedonian
I know you will call me crazy but I have actually heard the voice of God in a dream and I knew it was him because by hearing that voice I felt calm, safe and warm!!!
No votes have been placed for this debate.