There is literally no proof that God exists
Debate Rounds (3)
Point 1: There may not be scientific evidence that God exists, but there doesn't have to be. We have found proof of life on either Mars and/or Jupiter, and scientists CURRENTLY can't explain why or how.
-As a preface, I have emphasized currently for a reason. You have effectively concluded that scientists are no longer going to attempt to further explore or analyze the rudimentary evidence that they have gathered suggesting the existence of life on other planets. Scientists are not making assertions about the nature of this life other than the high probability that it does in fact exist. They came to this understanding through the scientific method and deductive reasoning, not through a book that was written 2000 years ago when man thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Furthermore, just because the scientists cannot CURRENTLY tell how or why, does not mean that the exploration for how and why ends tomorrow. All throughout history, scientists have made discoveries and gathered rudimentary evidence but that does not mean that they could not tell you how of why 50 years from their initial discovery. You have effectively said that scientists will not ever know how or why life began on other planets. The fact is, they will as long as the necessary research methods provide the details to fill in the blanks, just as every other scientific process in the past has done. So, your position is historically nonsensical.
Point 2: And how do you explain atoms? They didn't just poof into existence. Someone, or something had to make them, and all that leads to God. There's no possible way to find scientific proof that he's real or not, so the only way to know if he's real or not is to die.
-Firstly, the conclusion you are drawing is a logical fallacy. It is based solely on opinion and lacks any objective clarity. Atoms can be explained in many ways and no, they did not just "poof into existence". I think what you are trying to say is that the initial concentration of matter and energy that exploded into the universe did not just "poof into existence". Well, in that case, why are you not giving the very matter and energy that created us the respect it deserves? Are you assuming that just because it does not have reflective thinking or two eyes and two ears, that matter and energy are not capable of having been the force that created everything? I would assume that you would assert that God is above our understanding and that his plan and design could only known by him. We could then conclude that God could take any shape or form regardless of our own personal ideology of what God is or what he looks like. This would support God being the matter and energy that exploded to create all of us. I would also say that the assertion that a creator MUST exist for us to come to be is a slippery slope because you can ask infinitely who created each prior creator. Lastly, you have made another logical fallacy. You have asserted that God was the logical conclusion for things that "poof into existence", yet you claim that the only way to know whether or not God exists is to die? Which is it?
Point 3: Simply put, Jesus.
-Jesus does not point to a creator or any other explanation than a man who existed at a certain period in time. Are you trying to imply that the eye witness testimony (which is scientifically the most inaccurate evidence for even recent events, let alone coming from a historical telephone 2000 years old) of a relatively small group of people claiming Jesus performed miracles is the smoking gun? Would you then believe that people claiming to have been abducted by aliens are equally as verifiable? Especially since the eye witness testimony is much, much, (did I say much?), larger than the eye witness testimony claiming Jesus performed "supernatural" miracles. Oh yes, and these are modern accounts from people who have more accreditation than people who may or may not have existed. And yes, no ordinary man can do that stuff, which is why it is so unbelievable, even more so considering the circumstances illustrated above.
How can you prove he does not exist?
I do not understand what you are trying to convey. You have not addressed any of my points that I have made and have only given me one sentence explanations that I am expected to take for face value. This is not how a debate works, you are trying to convince me that my position is invalid and all you have said is that I should take World History? That is your only supporting evidence for your position? That I should take World History? I will be kind enough to dignify your arbitrary question that is not relevant to the scope of this argument (if it can even be called that) with an answer.
Q: How can you prove he does not exist?
A: I don't need to do that. My job is to objectively look at the "evidence" for God's existence, presented by people like you. I do not go out looking for evidence to disprove his existence, I only look at what is put in front of me and decide whether or not it is valid. I can't prove that he does not exist any more than you can prove he does. That is the entire point of my position.
And about your counter to what I said. If people like you actually paid attention to certain events they'll see that the lord had something to do with it, and you'd all realize that there's proof. All that proof you say that there is "literally" none of, is all around you, y'all just pass it off as random coincidences. Others just rearrange the facts to prove their point. And if y'all don't want to believe, that's not my problem, just don't do stuff like this, and actually pay attention to every little detail.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully shifted the BoP while Con forgot it was on him.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.