The Instigator
abard124
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
headphonegut
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

There is a 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 5 votes the winner is...
abard124
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,434 times Debate No: 11694
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

abard124

Con

***Disclaimer: I promise to treat religious people with the utmost respect. I would ask for my opponent to do the same for non-religious people. I would also ask for those who comment to kindly exercise respect. Please feel free to be critical, but do so respectfully, please. Thank you.***

How many times have I done this debate? Too many.
How likely am I to win this debate? Not very, considering that the majority of people are religious no matter what I say.
Do I care? Not at all.

It always seems to amaze me that there are so many people who still believe that what is written in a book is somehow of equal or more validity as what years of scientific conjecture and empirical evidence has clearly supported. Scientifically, God has not been disproven, but everything but. I don't think that it's any coincidence that the number of religious people and theists have decreased substantially, directly correlating with scientific discoveries made through the years [1]. Science was not meant to contradict religion, but in many ways it does naturally.

Before I go on any more, I will allow my opponent to argue.

---Atheism: The original non-prophet organization---

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
headphonegut

Pro

Well first of all thank you and good luck to you.
Parameters of debate: this will be a debate of theology and Philosophy, all that needs to be done is your constructive for your arguments then rebuttals thank you again for this debate.

Intro: The resolution is " There is a God" so we will be debating about "God" thereof debating whether there is a God or not.
rebuttal:
My opponents introduction is seemingly fascinating but that is all it is fascinating. His introduction would have been spectacular if the resolution was different (ex. is it silly for people to believe in God because of the bible, or the bible is flawed therefore people should not believe in God, or since the bible is incorrect no God should exist), but it is not so the resolution stands on its own so my opponents introduction shall be considered invalid, however since many people believe in the bible and that it is the word of "God" I will rebut. there is no denying the fact that the bible is flawed but that is no basis for saying because the bible is flawed there is no God this is a classical logical fallacy (The general idea behind this fallacy is that it is an error in reasoning to conclude that one thing causes another simply because the two are associated on a regular basis. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because they are associated on a regular basis The error being made is that a causal conclusion is being drawn from inadequate evidence) my opponent is assuming that people believe in God because of the Bible therefore to make his claim valid my opponent must prove that because people read the bible and believe in it they believe in God and that is quite impossible.
http://www.census.gov...
http://www.census.gov...
Constructive: Does God Exist - A Philosophical Issue
Before we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our philosophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist!

Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28).

Before we can discuss the existence of scientific proof of God, we need to identify what we mean by proof. Also, to know what type of evidence supporting the existence of God would be considered by science, we also need to know which definition of science applies.

The definition of science has changed within the last century from an overall search for truth to a more limited scope of natural explanations of natural processes. Using the current narrow scope definition, there is not any scientific proof of God. The truth or untruth of this statement is not based upon evidence or lack of evidence, but by definition alone. Even though there is extensive, solid evidence for God' s existence, none of that evidence would be admissible in the science court of law using the current definition.

Consequently, to know what evidence really supports the existence of God, we need to base our statements on the old classic definition of science to eliminate the disqualification of the evidence. The kind of evidence we need to consider is the same type that would be admissible in a court of law.

The level of proof is different in a criminal court than a civil court. In a civil court the prosecution only needs to prove that the preponderance of evidence tips the scales in their direction. Alternatively, in a criminal court a higher level of proof is required. The prosecutor needs to provide evidence that proves the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What types of evidence are admissible in courtrooms? These include direct evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, or eyewitness accounts. Also, circumstantial evidence is normally admissible unless it is abnormally weak. Although circumstantial evidence is indirect, it can be powerful evidence to prove guilt or innocence.

Scientific Proof of God – The Evidence
What evidence exists that could prove the existence or non-existence of God? Does God exist?

* First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable.

* The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer.

* Both direct and indirect evidence for God's existence are well known and well documented. Nothing in history is better known or better documented than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We even use the year of His birth as the basis for our calendar. He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection. The laws of probability cannot give us a reasonable explanation for either the Messianic predictions or the resurrection, let alone both by the same person.

Jesus' miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted Himself or His miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn't have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn't even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God.

* Jesus Christ also supported the truth of the Old Testament and quoted it many times. Consequently, with Jesus Christ, we have an eyewitness to the truth of the Old Testament. This gives credibility to the creation account and God's interaction with man. The entire Old Testament account is about how God is trying to have a relationship with man while man is separating himself from God by sin. It tells how God is long-suffering and merciful and ultimately how God sent His Son to die for our sins so God could ultimately have a relationship with us.

God's interaction with man in the Old Testament was often and powerful. Some of the main interactions included Adam, Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, the Israelites, the prophets, and the kings. In addition to Jesus' testimony to the truth of the Old Testament, ancient manuscripts, archaeology, and internal consistency also testify to its truth. Consequently, much direct evidence including eyewitness accounts and indirect evidence corroborate the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.
I will also argue inelligent design and extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Con

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

"but it is not so the resolution stands on its own so my opponents introduction shall be considered invalid"
I would like to respectfully disagree. My introduction was meant to be just that--an introduction. But if you truly were disappointed with my introduction, I will now proceed to give you some arguments which should be much more in depth and to the point.

First of all, we are, of course, not just talking about the Judeo-Christian god. And then that brings me to my next point. What makes your god (or any god) more valid than any other god? There are a lot of belief systems in the world, and they can't all be true. Doesn't it seem a bit na�ve to say that yours is true and all the rest are wrong? It would seem to make the most sense to reject religion and only look at scientific conjecture, which does not suggest the existence of a God, as I described in my introduction. As Stephen Roberts once said, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." I think that that exemplifies this argument. I think we can agree that Athena and Zeus are myths and just that, but many of us still believe in god(s). So my question to you is, how can you flout all of the other gods while you so proudly accept your own?

"If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise."
Is it not also true that no amount of evidence could convince a believer that there is not a god? As Carl Sagan once said, "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." I feel like that has quite a bit of truth to it. People cannot accept that something hasn't been explained, so they make stuff up. 2000 years later, and those ideas are so established that they are still widely believed.

"First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable."
I agree, but you're going to have to do more than just say that it can be proven if it exists. If you don't know about Russell's teapot, basically his idea is that he can claim that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Obviously, we know that this isn't the case, but there is no real way to disprove it. That's basically what you're saying. So, we agree that, since I can't prove that there isn't a god, but you can prove that there is, the burden of proof is yours.

"The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer."
Obviously, if I agreed with this claim, I wouldn't have started this debate. Please try again.

"Jesus"
I agree that Jesus Christ was a very good person. I agree that he did a lot of good things. I agree that people think that he was the messiah. But I don't agree that there's anything supernatural about him. I don't agree that he was a virgin birth, as that is not biologically possible. If you disagree with that statement, you might want to go back to the Carl Sagan quote.

"He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection."
Once again, resurrection is not biologically possible. Ferdinand Magellan once said, "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." Obviously the church no longer believes that the earth is flat, but the point still stands. The church says that Jesus was was resurrected, but I know that that's not possible, and I have more faith in basic biology than in the church.

"C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn't have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn't even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God."
And since when has C.S. Lewis had the authority to take an incredibly complex situation and unequivocally reduce it to a trinary decision?

"Consequently, with Jesus Christ, we have an eyewitness to the truth of the Old Testament."
So this guy claims to have seen something and it's now scientific truth? Who does he think he is, Jesus Christ? (That was a joke. Lol.). But in all seriousness, I could claim to have had a heated argument with a banana, and if I was adamant enough in my claim, I could get people to believe me, and it could snowball. Now, obviously that's a stretch, I'm not going to deny that. But it also seems a stretch for someone to say that God is their very own dad. Yet there are a ton of people who believe that. "If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're probably schizophrenic."

"God's interaction with man in the Old Testament was often and powerful."
As I made clear in my introduction which you rejected, I find it crazy that people unequivocally accept a book as the truth, no less a book that is many thousands of years old. Therefore, this argument is absolutely meaningless.

"In addition to Jesus' testimony to the truth of the Old Testament, ancient manuscripts, archaeology, and internal consistency also testify to its truth."
Ah, I am convinced now (in a very sarcastic fashion). Doesn't the bible claim that the earth is 6000 years old? Then explain Carbon dating. If you're going to make claims like that, you're going to have to back them up.

"I will also argue inelligent design and extend my arguments."
I would be very happy to argue evolution, and I enjoy that particular debate very much. But this is a debate about the existence of a god. So save that for another debate, if you would be so kind. Thank you.

I apologize that this argument took a long time to post, and I am looking forward to your response!

---"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and Christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd." -Anonymous---
headphonegut

Pro

headphonegut forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Con

I am disappointed that I didn't get to hear your argument, but life goes on. I extend all of my previous arguments to this round, and I'd just like to quickly conclude everything.

First of all, the US has a Christian majority. Iran has a Muslim majority. India has a Hindu majority. Does that mean that God is different depending upon where you are? Of course not. it all depends on how people interpreted he environment and how things happen. So God is just that; an interpretation of nature. Many theories suggesting the existence of God are contrary to the laws of biology, physics, and science in general. Nothing can change the laws of science. That's not possible. Only religion can blur people's minds enough to make an exception to the laws of science. The laws of science are what they are, and I apologize if they conflict with your religion, but that's life. I'm sorry if I'm blasphemous. I'm sorry if I am a heretic. I'm sorry if I'm going to hell, but I just don't see any reason to believe in something that just isn't plausible. Unfortunately, as we agreed, the burden of proof lies upon my opponent, who has not made an argument. Since my opponent has not argued, the burden of proof is unsatisfied. Therefore, there is no choice but to vote CON. Thank you.
headphonegut

Pro

headphonegut forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
Well... There you go...
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'Actually, on this site, most members are not religious and most members do not vote according to their beliefs, but according to the debate's victor.'

You have to be kidding. Point to a single religious debate where the following does NOT happen: A. Both sides are vote-bombed, or B. Practically everyone votes according to their own beliefs.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Aww, wish I could've taken this.
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
@popculturepooka: Interpret it how you will. But I wasn't trying to justify bad arguments, I was trying to explain my passion for this particular debate.

@wjmelements: I've never really run a demographic of this website, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised. But I don't know how many times I've seen someone with horrible grammar and no sources (sometimes even no arguments) get the full 7 points just on principle.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Actually, on this site, most members are not religious and most members do not vote according to their beliefs, but according to the debate's victor.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
"How likely am I to win this debate? Not very, considering that the majority of people are religious no matter what I say.
Do I care? Not at all."

...nice way to pad expectations.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
It is impossible to prove/disprove empirically, but is possible to prove/disprove the existence of god rationally.
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
@Koopin: You are correct, in fact, it can't be proven either way. But there is nothing that says we can't argue about it, right?
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
It is almost impossible to prove that there is/isn't a God
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Manny Ramirez. Resolution affirmed.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
abard124headphonegutTied
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 RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
abard124headphonegutTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 6 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
abard124headphonegutTied
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 DebatePro 6 years ago
DebatePro
abard124headphonegutTied
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 LLAMA 6 years ago
LLAMA
abard124headphonegutTied
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