The Instigator
TheTruthShallSetYouFree
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Con (against)
Winning
76 Points

There is no God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/14/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,028 times Debate No: 8275
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (12)

 

TheTruthShallSetYouFree

Pro

I challenge anyone in a debate over the existence of god(s): There is absolutely no proof to support the existence of any god. Hope to have a good debate :)
Vi_Veri

Con

I'd like to thank the instigator for this wonderful debate topic. Let us begin.

Instigator (pro side) conclusion: "There is no God."

Let me restate my opponent's first claim to why there is no God:

"There is absolutely no proof to support the existence of any god."

My opponent made a clear knowledge claim when he stated that there is *no* God. And since my opponent made a knowledge claim, he is outside the realm referring to belief (atheism and theism argument) and has stumbled into the realm of uncertainty and certainty arguments.

The gnostic claims to know, and the agnostic claims to not know.

Let me bring up Russell's teapot, or the "Celestial Teapot." Bertrand Russell suggested that between Earth and Mars there was a china teapot revolving around the sun, and it was so small that none of our most powerful telescopes could ever find it. Now, Russell suggests, that his assertion cannot be disproved.

I could even bring up the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and The Dragon in My Garage; all of which can't be disproved by absolute knowledge claims even though you can darn well believe all you want that there isn't or is a dragon in my garage.

The funny thing about all of these is that they can not technically be disproved because there is no way to gain the empirical evidence in order to make a claim that it in fact does *not* exist or it in fact *does* exist.

My opponent may be able to prove that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist through logic proofs based on descriptions of "god." But, my opponent also stated, quite clearly, that "I challenge anyone in a debate over the existence of god(s)."

So, I assert, that my opponent can not make a knowledge claim that there absolutely is(are) no god(s) in existence because he has not all the empirical evidence to to prove such a claim.
Debate Round No. 1
TheTruthShallSetYouFree

Pro

Id like to start the debate with a quote by Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

This will essentially be the main argument for why no god(s) exist. Let me break down this quote to simpler terms: Why is it that religious people claim their god is willing to prevent evil but yet the god never acts upon evil or abolishes it completely? He means that no people of one religious faith have any advantage over a completely different religion. In conclusion, that must mean that neither of said gods exist. He then asks why, if the god is all powerful, doesn't he/she/it just abolish evil once and for all. Then he asks, if the god is both able and willing to abolish evil, where does evil come from? Here is the biggest point of all: If this god of yours is supposedly all powerful, able and willing, then why does this evil exist? It would be more fair to say that no god exists if you lack proof of your god's ability to stop evil or will to stop evil when you claim he/she/it does stop evil and always will.

I completely understand your agnostic stance which says we do not have the proper evidence to prove or disprove the existence of god(s).

Also, I feel obliged to ask you a few questions.
1) If a supreme being created us, what was the origin of said being? It's existence would have to be due to the existence of an even more complex being that would of created him.
2) If a supreme being exists then why is there pain and suffering in the world? I understand the fact that humans have free will, but what about when bad and uncontrollable things happen to good, religious people? (ANY Natural Disaster, Being Born into Poverty, Being Born into Starvation, Holocaust etc.)
3) If one or any god is truly all-powerful, then why is there statistically no difference in what happens when you pray to it/she/him? (http://www.nytimes.com......)
Vi_Veri

Con

My opponent did not address any of my points nor did he, without an empirical or a priori doubt, prove that a god(s) are non-existent. He concedes to my former argument. He can even be caught conceding to me here:

"I completely understand your agnostic stance which says we do not have the proper evidence to prove or disprove the existence of god(s)."

His quote of the great Greek philosopher can not be applied to all gods (for example, Spinoza's deist god who does nothing for a reason, or any god who is not personal, or any god who is not benevolent). My opponent only addresses the traits claimed to be possessed by the Christian god.

His questions are irrelevant for a god who is not personal or benevolent.

I'll answer his questions very quickly though, in a logical fashion.

1. Regression fallacy
2. A god or group of gods that exist do not need to be benevolent.
3. A god or group of gods do not have to be personal.

Thank you and I hope for an address to my empirical and a priori concerns next round from my opponent.

Regards,

Vi Veri
Debate Round No. 2
TheTruthShallSetYouFree

Pro

TheTruthShallSetYouFree forfeited this round.
Vi_Veri

Con

My opponent has forfeited. Nothing more needs to be said.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
Now she is winning thios debate, she has become more sure than before that God cannot exist? If there is no God in such as a supreme super being like the Christian God, then you are God. It doesn't matter about them over there or him or her, you don't see in the degrees they do or hear in the degrees they do, life is based completely because you are alive. It is all about you if there is no God, you either serve God or your self in life, no one else.
Posted by yeahyeah21 7 years ago
yeahyeah21
I think there is no point in trying to disprove or prove God. You can't. Just like the Big Bang Theory seems to be able to explain pretty accurately how the universe happened, but no one knows what caused it and it can't really be proven. The Big Bang Theory is similar to religion, whether you want to admit it or not. one difference is that God has always been there and the big bang theory just at one point happened. Our world functions on belief systems--they might explain why things are the way they are, but we cannot prove a single one.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Exactly the loop hole I saw.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
The free will defense is horrible as well though.

But on topic: PRO obviously is going to lose this debate where it's going, but that's mainly because 1. he should've used another word (or define it carefully) than prove and 2. you need to define "god".
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Very good, rouge, I've heard the free will argument in a compatibilist sort argued for this quote - it seems to work in in compatibilist theory.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I have heard this quote many times before. The answer to these is simpler than most realize.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

He is not willing to see evil, but allows for it. He created humans with the will to choose.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

He is able, but again, does not prevent all evil.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

This has already been addressed, as it is a rather repetitive quote. He is able, but does not always prevent evil. Evil comes from man's sinful nature.

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

God is omnipotent, omniscient, loving, just, and many other things. We call Him God because He is so. Let me ask you something: Does your art project love you? Does the robot you just made love you? Does a building love the engineer who designed it? Well, no. If God prevented evil, he would undo the beauty of creating a people with the will to choose.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
I like this quote>>>"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Posted by 3aeed 7 years ago
3aeed
I think your Q's are not related to the topic. Just because there is pain or ... doesn't mean there is no GOD. GOD is not there to do whatever you like!
If you want to know why nothing happens when you pray or ... you should know GOD's behavior. But since you ( human ) fails to do that( because you don't have the knowledge), you can never understand the reasons!
For example, can you figure out why did post this comment or ...? Obviously, u can guess but you are not 100% sure, so how can you understand something that is supposedly creator of the world.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by trivea 7 years ago
trivea
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeVi_VeriTied
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 HeIsRisen 7 years ago
HeIsRisen
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeVi_VeriTied
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 Chase_the_Bass 7 years ago
Chase_the_Bass
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeVi_VeriTied
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 GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeVi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeVi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeVi_VeriTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeVi_VeriTied
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 LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeVi_VeriTied
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