The Instigator
stoneddragon420
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
shreyanskanswa
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

There is No 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 1 vote the winner is...
shreyanskanswa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 367 times Debate No: 77837
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

stoneddragon420

Pro

I strongly believe that there is no god. We exist because we exist, there is no "purpose" to life and we were not made.

This debate will be based on the following definitions:

God
1.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Made
made in a particular place or way. Past tense of Make

Make
1.form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; create.
2.cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about.
3.compel (someone) to do something.
4.constitute; amount to.
5.gain or earn (money or profit).
6.manage to arrive at (a place) within a specified time or catch (a train or other form of transport).
7.prepare to go in a particular direction.
8.induce (someone) to have sexual intercourse with one.
9.(in bridge, whist, etc.) win (a trick).
10.(of the tide) begin to flow or ebb.

Exist
1.have objective reality or being.
2.live, especially under adverse conditions

(First round is acceptance only)
shreyanskanswa

Con

my friend here has directly stated that there is no god. but i think that this is only his belief an it has to do nothing with what is the actual reality. we can not just claim that there is no god and everything exists as it exists, we need to have certain facts or reasoning in support of it. and i do not know on what grounds is my friend here debating
Debate Round No. 1
stoneddragon420

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. I look forward to debating with you. It seems as though I have the BoP so I will provide 3 ways that provide evidence that there is no God.

Proof#1 - Look at the impossibility of god
If you consult the dictionary, here is the first definition of God that you will find:
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."
What if you were to simply think about what it would mean if there were a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe? Is it possible for such a being to exist? Epicures thought about it in 300 BCE, and he came up with this:
"The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?"
In other words, if you sit and think about who God is supposed to be, you realize that such a being is impossible. Ridiculous, in fact.

Take this quote from the Bible. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! The impossibility of God is visible here as well. Based on Jesus' statement, let's assume that you are a child and you are starving in Ethiopia. You pray for food. What would you expect to happen based on Jesus' statement? If God exists as an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful parent -- a "father in heaven" -- you would expect God to deliver food to you. In fact, the child should not have to pray. Normal parents provide food to their children without their children having to beg for it. Yet, strangely, on planet Earth today we find tens of millions of people dying of starvation every year.
Another way to approach the impossibility of God is to think about the concept of omniscience. If God is omniscient, then it means that he knows every single thing that happens in the universe, both now and infinitely into the future. Do you have free will in such a universe? Clearly not. God knows everything that will happen to you. Therefore, the instant you were created, God knows whether you are going to heaven or hell. To create someone knowing that that person will be damned to hell for eternity is the epitome of evil.

Here is another way to understand the impossibility of God. If you look at the definition of God, you can see that he is defined as the "originator and ruler of the universe". Why does the universe need an originator -- a creator? Because, according to religious logic, the universe cannot exist unless it has a creator. A believer will say, "nothing can exist unless it is created." However, that satement immediately constructs a contradiction, because we must then wonder who created God. For a believer the answer to that is simple -- "God is the one thing that does not need a creator. God is timeless and has always existed." How can it be that the everything MUST have a creator, while God must NOT? The contradiction in the definition of God is palpable.

Proof#2- Flip a coin
If you are a Christian who believes in the power of prayer, here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.

Take a coin out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:
Dear Ra, almighty sun god, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Ra's name I pray, Amen. Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won't get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails.
What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Ra has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray.

Even if we find a thousand of Ra's most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same.

Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Ra is imaginary. We look at Ra in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on.

Now let's try the experiment again, but this time let's pray to Jesus Christ instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:
Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the Bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen. Now flip the coin. Once again, after the fifth or sixth flip, the coin will land tails.
If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. We can gather together a group of Jesus' most pious followers to do the praying and the result will be the same. Jesus will have zero effect on the coin.

This makes complete sense. It is not like there are two laws of probability -- one for Christians who pray and the other for non-Christians. We all know that. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. That goes for all prayers. Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statitical analysis.

Proof#3- Think About Science
Notice what happens when anyone is "miraculously cured". A person is sick, the person prays (or a prayer circle prays for the person) and the person is cured. A religious person looks at it and says, "God performed a miracle because of prayer!" That is the end of it.

A scientist looks at it in a very different way. A scientist looks at it and says, "Prayer had nothing to do with it - there is a natural cause for what we see here. If we understand the natural cause, then we can heal many more people suffering from the same condition."

In other words, it is only by assuming that the belief in prayer is a superstition and therefore God is imaginary that science can proceed.

You can see a direct example of science at work in this article:

Fleming had so much going on in his lab that it was often in a jumble. This disorder proved very fortunate. In 1928, he was straightening up a pile of Petri dishes where he had been growing bacteria, but which had been piled in the sink. He opened each one and examined it before tossing it into the cleaning solution. One made him stop and say, "That's funny."
Some mold was growing on one of the dishes... not too unusual, but all around the mold, the staph bacteria had been killed... very unusual. He took a sample of the mold. He found that it was from the penicillium family, later specified as Penicillium notatum. Fleming presented his findings in 1929, but they raised little interest. He published a report on penicillin and its potential uses in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology.

Fleming worked with the mold for some time, but refining and growing it was a difficult process better suited to a chemist. The work was taken over by a team of chemists and mold specialists, but was cut short when several of them died or relocated.

In 1935, Australian Howard Florey was appointed professor of pathology at Oxford University where he headed up a laboratory. This was a daunting task in an economically depressed time, and seeking funding for the researchers and work he hoped to do took much of his time. One researcher he hired soon after his arrival was Ernst Chain. Chain was paid to do cancer research, and work that spilled over into Florey's own interest and work on lysozyme. Chain became quite enthusiastic about the search for antibacterial chemicals. In looking back at old articles written about lysozyme, including those by Fleming in the 1920s, he happened across Fleming's paper on penicillin. "I had come across this paper early in 1938 and on reading it I immediately became interested," he wrote.

The Oxford team, as Florey's researchers have become known, began experimenting with the penicillin mold. They took it one step further than Fleming did: they did not just try it topically or in a petri dish, but injected it in live mice. With controlled experimentation, they found it cured mice with bacterial infections. They went on to try it on a few human subjects and saw amazing results. By now it was 1941, and England was at war. As Fleming first foresaw, the wartime need for an antibacterial was great, but resources were tight and penicillin still very experimental. Florey had connections at the Rockefeller Foundation in the United States, however, and it funded further research.
Did Fleming or Floring say, as a religious person would, "The death of this bacteria is a miracle! God has reached down and killed it in response to our prayers!" Of course not. Instead, they completely ignored "God" and prayer and understood that the belief in prayer is a superstition. They determined what was actually happening through experimentation and then made useful medicines from the mold. They took a rational approach rather than a religious approach and we all benefit
shreyanskanswa

Con

Hello, i have gone through the proofs you have provided and would like to question you on all of your proofs.
here are my questions.
Proof 1: You said that if god can and will not then he is not benevolent. I think that you need to have a look at it in a different way. You are asking here that why god does no remove evil if he can. And i think that its a genuine question. First of all you should understand that what is evil? Evil is whatever unpleasant things we see around us. Then you should understand what is pleasant. Pleasant means which is not evil. You cannot feel happiness if you have not felt sad. Similarly to acknowledge the good things around you, you will need to see the bad. If god exist then evil has to exist, because then only you need god and you can feel god. Also based on you other argument, if god were to provide everything to you then why would he give you the means by which you yourself can get whatever you need.
Also you talked about omniscience. For god to be omniscient it does not require heaven or hell. I do not know from where the question of hell or heaven came. I think you may be talking based on some religious perspective.
You are saying that god created everything, then who created god. But i want you to think that if there was no god then also something must have created us. You can not just declare that we exist as we exist. Nobody created us. Even if we came out of nothing, then that nothing would be god. You should understand that what you believe is just your belief. I am not saying that you should believe in god, but you should also not decline the possibility. You should accept the fact that you do not know. Also one thing you should see that, we are living in a infinite dimensional world, but we normal human beings can experience only three or four dimensions. I do not know that if god exists then is there a even a possibility that we can understand him, Because he is the creator of the infinite dimensions whereas our mind and thinking are limited to just a few dimensions.
Proof 2: I am not a christian and i do not believe in religious god either. I also do not agree to the fact that god will answer your prayers. If prayers were a answer then we could have got everything by just praying. But again here you are talking about a religious god. I believe in a possibility of god who created everything. But i do not believe in any religion. So i am not talking about that god. If you saying that there is no religious god, i may agree with you. But here i am not talking about religion. I just want to say that you just cannot decline a possibility of a creator with your limited knowledge.
Proof 3: Now on your science example, you are saying that prayers are a superstition and i agree with you on this. And any god who listens to prayers i also do not believe him. But again i am not talking about a religious god. And if we talk about science then science itself says that there is a reason for everything, and in such a reasonable world we cant decline the possibility of a creator.
Another thing which you talked about is miracle. Anything seems to be a miracle till a point, up to which we do not know the reason behind it, but as we find out the reason it seems obvious. All i am saying is that today we do not know anything about god and for us its just a miracle but who knows one day god may become obvious. We can not decline the possibility of this happening.

I would like to conclude with the fact that, first of all i do not believe in religious god, and not in any religion, but what i think is that i do not know, and all of us do not know, but i cant deny the possibility of god till i know it. The point when you do not know is important and when you accept that you do not know something there is a possibility of knowing. So i cannot decline the possibility of god. And i simply cannot agree with your statement that "THERE IS NO GOD". THANK YOU
Debate Round No. 2
stoneddragon420

Pro

I thank you for your reply. Problem is I said that the word "God in this Debate is referring to a religious one. And I too believe that there could be a "God" in scientific terms; a creator. We are arguing different debates now.

This debate was base on the following definition of God:
1.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

When I say There is no God I mean there is no religious God that is Moral and Just.

I will explain his situation by following by quoting from http://godisimaginary.com...
"Another way to approach the impossibility of God is to think about the concept of omniscience. If God is omniscient, then it means that he knows every single thing that happens in the universe, both now and infinitely into the future. Do you have free will in such a universe? Clearly not. God knows everything that will happen to you. Therefore, the instant you were created, God knows whether you are going to heaven or hell. To create someone knowing that that person will be damned to hell for eternity is the epitome of evil."

Obviously when you think about it. The definition of God; A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. -- Is untrue.

This is evidence that supports that what is said about a RELIGIOUS GOD in fact false.

Thank you;)
shreyanskanswa

Con

I think there is no need for debate left.My friend has admitted that there can be a creator. From god i thought that he is talking about a creator. I think that he should have used the term religious god. But whatever, i stand by what i was saying, that we cannot deny the possibility of a god and a creator. And if my friend was talking about religion then i would say its an honest mistake. If he would have said in the topic itself then i would have not accepted the debate. Nevertheless i rest my case. Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
stoneddragon420

Pro

stoneddragon420 forfeited this round.
shreyanskanswa

Con

I think there is no need for debate left.My friend has admitted that there can be a creator. From god i thought that he is talking about a creator. I think that he should have used the term religious god. But whatever, i stand by what i was saying, that we cannot deny the possibility of a god and a creator. And if my friend was talking about religion then i would say its an honest mistake. If he would have said in the topic itself then i would have not accepted the debate. Nevertheless i rest my case. Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
stoneddragon420

Pro

stoneddragon420 forfeited this round.
shreyanskanswa

Con

shreyanskanswa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
@stoneddragon420 I hope your opponent addresses the topics sufficiently in a way that refutes them. If not, perhaps I will answer them in the comments section as a side reference after the debate is concluded as I have discussed all such issues in multiple theology classes
Posted by stoneddragon420 1 year ago
stoneddragon420
@tejretics ... I ran out of characters to provide a reference so I will provide one in next round. Also nobady said that when debating proof must be thought of by ones self and therefore providing proof from anywhere is sufficient to prove a point or debate a topic.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@StonedDragon: You C/P'd your argument from: http://godisimaginary.com...
Posted by Jonnykelly 1 year ago
Jonnykelly
Being that a mass majority believes in a God, Pro has the burden of proof. So pro, you must prove beyond any doubt that there is no god.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
there=imaginary=god
Posted by Mike_10-4 1 year ago
Mike_10-4
Well this will be interesting. The BoP (Burden of Proof) is on Pro (the instigator).

I always wanted to obtain a proof that "There is No God;" so this recurring debate noise of there is or there is not, will simply go away.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
stoneddragon420shreyanskanswaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both parties forfeited rounds, but Pro forfeited more, so I award conduct to Con.