There is no God
Debate Rounds (4)
Arguments against god:
First off I will propose the simple "Problem of Evil" set fourth by Epicurus.
1: Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not all loving ergo the god that is commonly described is false.
2: Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not all powerful ergo the god that is commonly described is false.
3: Is God able and willing? Then why is there evil? This cannot be an option since there is evil thus god is either 1,2 or 4.
4: Is God neither willing nor able? Then why call him god?
~~Epicurus (adapted by me)
As we can see with the above argument god is either no all powerful thus your god is wrong, god is either not all loving thus your god is wrong again or your god simply isn't a god. QED.
Next is the "Omnipotence Paradox".
Can god create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it?
1: If yes, he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift said rock.
2: If no, he is not omnipotent because there is something god cannot do.
3: God does not exist.
This is why omnipotent beings can never exist.
The third and final logical argument is the "Omniscience and Learning argument".
(The formal argument is complex and thus I will make it simpler but I will still link to the full one)
1: An all knowing being, God, exists.
2: God is and always has been all knowing.
3: Being all knowing means you have all experimental knowledge.
4: Having all experimental knowledge means one knows what it's like to learn something.
5: 'Thus God knows and has always known what it's like to learn.'
6: Know what learning is like obviously means you have learned something!
7: Learning means that you went from not knowing to knowing.
8: Thus God went from a state of not knowing to one of knowing.
9: 'Thus God was once in a state of not knowing...'
10: Meaning God has not always been all knowing.
11: "God has always been omniscient and has not always been omniscient."
12: Thus your god does not exist.
I could provide more logical ones but I shall move onto the evidential arguments.
The main thing here is that there is simply no dire need for a god. The universe can come from nothing! This may sound like a shocking notion to one who still clings to classical physics but in the quantum world things come from nothing, uncaused all the time. Here is a video by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss regarding "A Universe From Nothing"!
Again I could provide more but for times sake and the sake of the readers I shall not but I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADD MORE EVIDENCE. I await my opponent's response :)
nires forfeited this round.
God is willingto prevent evil that is why he gave us freewill
one thing you should know is that everything has pairs, is there suck thing as cold. no. it is the absence of hot
is there such thing as dark. no. it is just the term used to tell the absence of light.
what we call the absence of good is evil. god created good but we cerated the absence of good. evil.
i think first you should find out the meaningof god. god is allpowerful he can do anything he wants. right now you are comparing god to humans. if god was like humans then why call him god?
just because we, weak humans learn something that doens't mean good has to. you 'explanation' does not make sense. it has another side to it. you say that god what noy knowing at one stage then who tought him. no one. just because we humans are weak and is not able to do amny things that doesnt mean everything has to be just like us. no. Stop comparing god to humans..
You say that we happen in coincident then why do all alien movies that are famous has a stucture like us. hands eyes nose and so on. if we happen to be cincident, then why is there such a strong food cycle that if one animal is out of it it all brakesdown.
How does this work at all? But let's run with it. So he is able to but there is still evil hence he is not all loving.
I am not comparing god to humans, I am comparing him to his definition! He is supposed to be all powerful thus my paradox has gone unanswered. Please extend the omnipotence paradox since my opponent has not answered it.
What are you talking about? I am not comparing god to humans, I'm going by the bloody definition of god! His definition is that he is all knowing thus he must know what it is like to have learned, (logical) and if he knows what learning is like that means he must have learned at some time thus he was not all knowing at a time ergo your god does not exist.
Let it be known that my opponent has not actually answered my arguments, she is just accusing me of comparing god to humans which I am not. Also, before I get to the last comment may I request that you proof read your writing? It's quite hard to understand your arguments with so many grammatical errors. Thank you.
Last comment: //You say that we happen in coincident then why do all alien movies that are famous has a stucture like us//
ummmm because the directors chose a familiar figure so we would not dislike them. If you look at all the alien movies where the aliens are the bad guys they look nothing like humans. Also, you are aware alien movies aren't real right?
//if we happen to be cincident, then why is there such a strong food cycle that if one animal is out of it it all brakesdown.//
It is because our ecosystems are interconnected and we developed via coevolution. If anything this disproves god because why would god make such a fragile ecosystem?
ALSO, my opponent has given no arguments for god's existence, she is just trying to refute mine which will not cut it. My opponent also dropped my argument that a universe can come from nothing thus I win.
if i was to say that a baby was born knowing everything in this world.. eventhe whole galaxies .you would think i am insane. this imagination is unbelievable right? but then if god wasn't unimaganable, if god at one stage knew nothing, then what is the point of him being god?
i would not have really become a muslim if god not knew in one stage. and how can you say god did not know one stage, then you are refering and saying that god was born in one stage. if god was born then why is he god. See there is a limit of what we see. imagine an everlasting world. that is impossible right?
you think it is because the amount our brain is capable of carrying is little.
You say that if god is able to prevent but is not willinghow is god god. you most certainly have did somethiing evil, you could have prevent it but you didn't then you are not a human, you have free will but you still chose the wrong path, then you are not human.
what is the point of being born when there is only evil and death in this world? was everything in coincidence/
dont you think it is a little sad saying themost beautiful creatures were not created?
aha. you have said that i am making so much grammer mistakes. See i am not perfect. How can someone likeme that does have some knowledge about the world make a very simple mistake. But saying that humans, animals and nature all happen in coincidence and are all perfect.. dont you think that is bizzare. (by the way i am very excited about teaching someone tthe right religion that i cant type poperlt.. sorry :))
directors choose something like us because we are too perfect. create something that looks better then humans.. i dare you. actually we are the one that is ruining the ecosystem.
in your religion what happens when you die? just wondering.
God does exicts. god helps us in all are needs. I want ot just tell you that i amonly 13 and am sorry that i couldn't persuade you to the right religion. I am truly sad and am about to burst out intears for not showing you the real world and from not saving you from the wrong path.
Sorry for everything.
May god show you the right path...
I will pray for you my friend every prayer i do for you to actually became a true believer. May god forgive you from all the sins you have comitted.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit and Con's arguments were largely opinion/assertions while Pro easily obliterated them
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.