The Instigator
DSky25
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Dpowell
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is literally no proof that God exists

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...
DSky25
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 581 times Debate No: 55237
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

DSky25

Pro

I have yet to hear any one individual present logical and scientific information supporting the existence of God in the Abrahamic sense. Not one religious official has represented a more potent authority than the last. My contention is that God only exists if you believe he exists, just like big foot and the men in black. Neither of the three have any evidence other than eye witness testimony. The difference? Believers in God have not even seen him, they just know better than the rest of us...yet they still make every flaccid attempt to discredit the non-believers.
Dpowell

Con

No, there may not be scientific evidence that God exists, but there doesn't have to be. We found proof of life on either Mars and/or Jupiter, and scientists currently can't explain why or how. And how do explain atoms? They didn't just poof into exsitence. Someone, or something had to make them, and all that leads to God. He doesn't have any physical shape or form, so 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. And further more. How do explain Jesus? It's already in historical records, not including the bible, that he was real and did all the things that people say he did. An ordinary man can't just do that stuff. Now can they?
Debate Round No. 1
DSky25

Pro

I will address your points in the order you have presented them:

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.
Dpowell

Con

Like I said before, the bible is not the only eye witness. Plus scientists will be able to explain almost nothing I have mentioned. Only life on other planets would be explainable, because that's easy, everything else is almost impossible. Jesus on the other hand is the easiest, as anyone who pays attention to World History would be able to do.

How can you prove he does not exist?
Debate Round No. 2
DSky25

Pro

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.
Dpowell

Con

I apologize to my opponent for my lack of attempting to debate. But my computer isn't really good for this kind of stuff. It's old and slow so I have to keep it small and sweet or my computer will take forever to submit my counter.
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.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DSky25 2 years ago
DSky25
" When you study the Bible and its claims and compare them to what we see, such as determining the claims of fulfilled prophecies, you will find that there is no evidence which refutes the Bible but there is much evidence to support it."

-Please cite any compelling evidence. Compelling evidence should require a majority of academic scholarly support. Otherwise, your position is based solely on opinion or controversy.
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
creationtruth
Here's some proof: http://www.debate.org... (Intelligent Design)

The proof that He is the God of the Bible can only come from the Bible itself, just as the proof that He is Allah must come from the Qur'an. When you study the Bible and its claims and compare them to what we see, such as determining the claims of fulfilled prophecies, you will find that there is no evidence which refutes the Bible but there is much evidence to support it. It is also logically consistent and fairly easy to follow and divide in terms of dispensations [Adam-Moses (Promise), Moses-Christ (Law), Christ-Present (Grace), Tribulation-Judgment (Kingdom), and then Eternity). The scientific evidence for a recent creation and the Flood is also very compelling:

http://www.debate.org... (Evolution vs Creation)
http://www.debate.org... (Age of the Earth)
Posted by E_Pluribus_Unum 3 years ago
E_Pluribus_Unum
A specific definition of "proof" is sorely needed for this debate.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Kbub, didn't a mars rock come back with some microscopic life on it?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Um, we haven't found life in Mars or Jupiter yet .
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
baus
DSky25DpowellTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully shifted the BoP while Con forgot it was on him.