The Instigator
MYTN
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
soontobelawyer
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

There is a low enough probability for the existence of God to doubt his existence.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,956 times Debate No: 1435
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (20)

 

MYTN

Pro

Though there is no definite scientific proof for the existence of God, there such a low probability of God's existence that we may well assume that he does not exist. To use the cliched analogy, though someone may claim that there is a giant pink elephant giving Osama bin Laden a piggy back ride while jumping through a hoop of flames to the sound of gospel music on Mercury, there is a low enough probability to assume that that situation is not occurring.

My first point, is the clash between the role of religion and the role of science in explaining how the world works. Though religion in early human civilization was used to explain natural phenomenons, upon the advent of the scientific method, humanity has found a credible source for discovering facts. In the many cases we have seen, when the claims of religion and the claims of science has ever clashed, 100% of the time science has won. When it has come to Earth's orbit around the son, the longevity of the Earth, the categorization of species (the Bible claims the bat is a bird in Leviticus), the evolution of species, the shape of the universe, science has unanimously won these battles. The main reason is because the method employed by science, which uses close scrutiny and peer reviewed research before stumbling on a claim. Religion on the other hand, does not use this method and has mostly used old doctrines and traditions to decide the make up of our world. Only religion, with this method that has obviously never worked, claims that there is the existence of God, whereas science using credible methods has never claimed such. Considering science has been 100% right out of the time, and religion wrong 100% of the time, based on religion's record religion is wrong about God as well.

My second point, is the logic of "to have a creation, there must be a creator." Theists often use this argument in order to show the logic of God's existence. But if this were true, wouldn't God also be a creation, and therefore need a creator? This makes the existence of God a constant conundrum, something theists are not able to explain nor address. The notion that something can intelligently exist outside of time, outside of space, with omnipotent control over every aspect of our physical world is a long shot. Granted, scientists are still not sure how the universe was created and what "existed" before the Big Bang, but to then place all your bets on this God is not based on any scientific method, but to base it off of traditional values that human beings are often too nostalgic to let go of. The notion of a God that is both a creator and a creation in this respect is a logical fallacy, which also makes his probability of existence faint at best.

My third and last point is the theist's argument that life itself is so complex that there must have been a God to create it. But when compared to Darwin's theory of evolution, that life started at incremental improvement starting from very simple beginnings to finally adapt to current perfection, this is a more proven, observable, and logical answer. In order to have a God that created us, you would first need to provide the logical argument of how God can both be a creation without a creator with omnipotent power outside of our physical realm, with scientific data to back it up. Of course, this has not been an issue in the scientific community because the scientific community does not find this hypothesis (and yes, it is a hypothesis) credible or observable. Darwin's theory of evolution on the other hand has been tested and observed. The reason why we always need a constant supply of new and improved flu vaccines is because the flu virus has a small enough database in its DNA to change itself. We see this process happening right before our eyes. Scientists have also found that given the right material, and given the state of the Earth when life first began, cells were able to form with some essential amino acids. These amino acids formed together to make a cell, which clumped together to make algae like substance, and so on and so on. Though these steps may seem improbably, given the millions and millions of years, time is able to provide breathing space for life to form. God on the other hand, is hypothesized to have constantly existed and created life on Earth in a condensed amount of time, which provides no observable evidence, no explanation of how that God has that intelligible power, and therefore ceases the probability of God's existence.

Of course, though we may be debating this issue, the only place where this issue is not debated is the scientific community, the community that has the most credibility in determining these issues because they provide through the most scrutiny, peer reviews, and objective amendments for their findings. When compared to the only group that advocates the theory of God creating life on Earth, the religious community, it holds no proven facts or credibility. Based on religion's knack for getting facts wrong 100% of the time, God's untempered yet intelligent existence and his compressed timing for life on Earth, God's probability is low enough to assume he does not exist.
soontobelawyer

Con

God exist He does there may not be scientific record of a lot of stuff but hje exists because the best things in life are the things you caint see just cause you caint see him doesnt mean he doesnt exist

For example how did you get here were did adam and eve come from were does rain come from were did earth come from a big test results show that things caint from out of no where they have to made by someone or something.
Debate Round No. 1
MYTN

Pro

Wow, I'm kind of mad right now. I just put in an hour's worth of argument that attempts to tackle the logical and scientific aspects of God and all you could do is cite an argument that I've already addressed? (that something can't come out of nothing)

First off, you never addressed any of my points, which is that God lacks scientific evidence, that God is Himself a conundrum because people like you cite that something cannot come out of nothing (which you exclude when referencing to God), and that there already is an answer to how life got on Earth that is much more plausible and probable.

Oh, I just looked at your profile, and you're eleven years old.

Ugh!!!...

...you could've at least tried to use some punctuation marks.
soontobelawyer

Con

soontobelawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MYTN

Pro

I guess I'll just sum up this round by rebutting your points

"the best things in life are the things you caint see"

You fail to describe exactly what the best things in life are, so I will define them for you. The best things in life are blackjack and hookers, which we can obviously see. Therefore God does not exist.

"For example how did you get here were did adam and eve come from were does rain come from were did earth come from"

I got here in ways only an OBGYN doctor can explain specifically. I have not talked to Adam and Eve so I don't have a credible source to explain how they got here. Rain comes from clouds. Earth comes from space.

"a big test results show that things caint from out of no where they have to made by someone or something."

I would like to see this "big test results." And with your logic, if things can't come from nowhere, then that would ultimately leave out God, who is claimed to have come from nowhere (to argue that God has no beginning is another argument, but I would think that is just as far fetched).
soontobelawyer

Con

Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

2. Does God exist? The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.
The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information... did it come about just by chance? Was it merely biological causes, perfectly forming the right tissue, blood flow, neurons, structure? The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How does one explain the human brain?

3. Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.

4. Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.
This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is therefore true. Scientists, for example, have discovered new truths about the universe which overruled previous conclusions. But as science has progressed, no scientific discovery has countered the numerical likelihood of an intelligent mind being behind it all. In fact, the more science discovers about human life and the universe, the more complex and precisely designed we realize these to be. Rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts further toward an intelligent source. But objective evidence is not all.

There is a much larger issue. Throughout history, billions of people in the world have attested to their firm, core convictions about God's existence -- arrived at from their subjective, personal relationship with God. Millions today could give detailed account of their experience with God. They would point to answered prayer and specific, amazing ways God has met their needs, and guided them through important personal decisions. They would offer, not only a description of their beliefs, but detailed reports of God's a
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by spinaltap 9 years ago
spinaltap
I forgot to mention that was for d4l, mina and soontobelawyer
Posted by spinaltap 9 years ago
spinaltap
liar liar pants on fire.
liar liar pants on fire.
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't explain your comment below

"I know that She did not get this off of that website because I made that website I am co president and I know she did her research"

Of course I can't prove you're not the co-president of a website (despite the fact websites don't have co-presidents), but I find it extremely unlikely.

Oh, and just so you know, lawyers and debaters have a ton in common, so one can be a lawyer while using debate skills
Posted by d4l 9 years ago
d4l
Hello, My name is Mina Correl I am 11 years old I want you to know its pretty funny how you even think I know soontobelawyer one I hate lawyers and 2 d4l stands for debater 4 life me and whoever that person is have two different dreams and aspirations.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Yeah, d4L's definitely the same person. Account was created just before that comment was posted, earlier today. Also, it's the exact same text.
Posted by MYTN 9 years ago
MYTN
My rebuttal to that argument is (assuming it's the Con's actual argument, apparently there's a plagiarizing controversy) is that I do not outright not believe in God. My argument is probability, which shows that I still give room for the belief in God, it's just that there has been such lack of evidence that I'm not compelled to. In the scientific community, this would be considered a hypothesis, something not proven but is still given a say were it able to produce some evidence.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
I thought con's beginning argument in the third round was interesting. She said:

"But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon."

The same is actually much more fittingly used for why people still believe in God. Thanks for illustrating it so well. When people are so desperate to believe something, they will act more like the hear/see/speak no evil monkeys to retain their faith in the face of overwhelming evidence and reason.
Posted by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
Have any of you people ever read the book, "Why I Believe"? It has been a life changing experience for many.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I don't know about this plagirism claim, but I do know that the con committed abuse in that she waited until her final round to post an actual argument. To me, that's highly unfair since the pro has no way of addressing her case. There are other reasons she loses, but this is the main one.
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
D4l, you're obviously the same person as soontobelawyer, with a different account because you didn't want to have an 0-4 record. And yes, your entire text is copied verbatim from that website.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
MYTNsoontobelawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MYTN 9 years ago
MYTN
MYTNsoontobelawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
MYTNsoontobelawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by spinaltap 9 years ago
spinaltap
MYTNsoontobelawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Teafood 9 years ago
Teafood
MYTNsoontobelawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
MYTNsoontobelawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by stevster 9 years ago
stevster
MYTNsoontobelawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
MYTNsoontobelawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
MYTNsoontobelawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dbaytor 9 years ago
dbaytor
MYTNsoontobelawyerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30