The Instigator
Jnaejnae
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JayConar
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

There is no Proof of God

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 5 votes the winner is...
JayConar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,065 times Debate No: 64955
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (5)

 

Jnaejnae

Pro

After much research and debates I have come to the conclusion that god, or at least our idea of it, is false. I recently had another debate about this and I would rather have a new opponent for some fresher views.

There are many fallacies that some may call proof when in reality it proves nothing. I will give you some examples of false proof.

"We are here and the world is too complicated to have happened by chance," it probably did just happen on chance, it maybe wasn't chance but that doesn't prove that your religious book (whatever it may be) is 100% true.

"You cannot disprove it therefore you have no proof against it and I am right" That is actually called an "Argument from Ignorance" and is a fallacy in logic and is by definition, bad evidence. Keep in mind that the theist holds the Burden of Proof so don't start on about how I have no proof that science or something. This discussion is about religion. Keep it that way.

"Humans are created flawed beings, we don't understand him, he will always be a mystery." I wish not to be rude but to me that sounds like a lame excuse to use when you are trapped with no more things to say. If god created human which are flawed then god is flawed. He gave you free choice so some choose to be bad? So god can feel love? Any being that needs love is flawed. He put Adam and Eve right next to the apple. That must be a mistake and therefore god is flawed. If god is not flawed explain that. I realize that this isn't only about Christianity but I used Adam and Eve only as an example.

"The big bang, where did that come from? huh?" Keep this also in mind when you respond: I am an atheist, the lack of belief in a god. I think the big bang is a little over the top to and I lean on science only because nothing is more logical, not because it is the certain truth.

There are more examples but I can point them out once you try to defend your side. I really hope we can have a good mature debate and I can't wait to see what person chooses to debate.
JayConar

Con

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate on this topic with him.

Arguments:

The Argument:

Pro believes that I am unable to provide any proof of the existence of God. Thus all I need to do to win this debate is to offer up any sort of proof of the existence of a God, as Pro did not specify which God. In fact, Pro openly states that 'I realize that this isn't only about Christianity' thus inferring that there is no limit on which 'Gods' can be chosen in my providing of proof for their existence. Thus, allow me to provide some definitions:

God: [1] 'in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.'

In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Proof: [2]'Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.'

The Gods:

We have seen some of the requirements that need to be met for something to be given the status of God. These are:

1. Have power over nature.
2. Be the creator or/and ruler of the universe.
3. Be the source of moral authority.

The fact is that, due to the vague definitions of what a 'God' actually is, anything can be deemed to be a God. Thus, the God of my choosing, the existence for which I shall offer proof for, is the Big Bang. It created everything and, thus, must be the creator of the Universe and, as moral authority would not exist without humans to create it, and as humans were only allowed to evolve by conditions created by the Big Bang, the Big Bang must be the source or all moral authority. The Big Bang was a natural phenomenon, which created everything, thus it had power over nature.

Argument for the existence the Big Bang:

'[3]The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.'

Sources:
[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
[3]http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
Jnaejnae

Pro

I was really looking for proof of god. Not a definition. I hope you were just warming up. Sorry it took me so long to respond.
JayConar

Con

My opponent has not rebutted my argument, so there's not really much for me to say here other than I fulfilled the terms of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Jnaejnae

Pro

Sorry, the reason there was no rebuttal because I am on your side. The Big Bang is real whether religious or not. You did not give me the argument I asked. The Big Bang is in no conscience control over nature nor is it a being, it was an event. You argued against me but on my side. I am not the one breaking rules here. Sorry I posted that though. I put a comment on what I meant to say. There is no edit button on the thing so the only way to reply was to wait for yours.
JayConar

Con

Ok, I change my argument.

My argument is no longer the Big Bang, but instead is the Laws of Physics.

The Laws of Physics fulfill the criteria of dictating the natural universe and causing the Big Bang, therefore creating it. Thus the Laws of Physics can be referred to as the God's of the universe. They created it and therefore everything in it is their creation. There are no objective morals but that's fine the Laws of Physics can still have moral authority because we were created as a result of the Laws of Physics creating the universe and thus our grasp on morality is due to the Laws of Physics. Thus the Laws of Physics are the God's of the universe and their existence can be proved by the Big Bang, which you agreed happened.
Debate Round No. 3
Jnaejnae

Pro

Stop trying to be such a smarty pants. In the comments I mentioned I wanted proof for either Christian, Muslim, or Jewish god. You are just wasting my time with things I already know. If you stop supporting my side maybe I will have a proper debate. If you are trying to actually argue that the Laws of Nature and the Big Bang then you are in the wrong place because I am all for those. I know I wasn't specific enough in my comments but you knew what I meant and you are just trying to be annoying.
JayConar

Con

My opponent asserts that: 'In the comments I mentioned I wanted proof for either Christian, Muslim, or Jewish god.'

However, when I accepted this debate that comment was not extant. The only thing I had to go off of was this assertion made by my opponent:

'I realize that this isn't only about Christianity but I used Adam and Eve only as an example.'

Thus my God can be deemed as anything which falls into the definition of God as I have defined above. Pro has been unable to refute my claim that the Laws of Physics can be considered a God, thus all I need to do is provide evidence. I have already done this, but I've decided to provide another evidence - gravity.

Gravity is one of the Laws of Physics. It is [1]the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward thecenter of the earth. There is proof of its existence as, when you throw an apple, eventually it will come to land on the ground.

I think I have proved two things in this debate. The first being that the definition of 'God' is too vague for it to have any real meaning, and the other being that my opponent should be more specific in setting out his debates.

Sources:
[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Debate Round No. 4
Jnaejnae

Pro

I am really sorry if I wasn't specific but NOW you know what I am looking for. You still refuse to debate with me. You can either argue against me or leave because nothing you have said I can debate against because it is TRUE. We can talk ALL day on the definition of a god or we can actually go with the topic. I WASN'T specific enough but now I am. I will make another debate on this topic and I will try to be more specific.

You now know what I am looking for so please either support your side or leave.
JayConar

Con

My opponent has conceded the debate. Thus I have won.

Vote Pro.

Thank you for this debate. Although I will point out that you should, in future, be more specific from the start as you cannot change the debate topic half way through the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jnaejnae 2 years ago
Jnaejnae
dhardage, thanks man. I asked for proof of god in religion, he gave be reasons why the big bang and Laws of physics are god. This was not a debate on the definition of god, it was a search for a reason to believe in religion. I could've made my debate more clear but I really didn't expect someone to take the question so LITERALLY, and win at that.
Posted by dhardage 2 years ago
dhardage
Con provided no evidence of any god, only a baseless claim and a couple of definitions that demonstrated nothing but the ability to move the goal posts. It's clear that there is no scientific evidence for any god, including the God of Abraham. They are creations of primitive people trying to explain things they were not equipped to understand.
Posted by Jnaejnae 2 years ago
Jnaejnae
Dont forget your grammar ;p
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
You're right. My logic is incredibly. :3
Posted by Jnaejnae 2 years ago
Jnaejnae
Yes, I cannot deny it if you try to take my side of the argument then claim that it was a debate. Your logic is incredibly.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Your complaint is that you never denied that I was wrong? I think that's something only you could have remedied...
Posted by Jnaejnae 2 years ago
Jnaejnae
lol Jay ur sassy. Coming from the guy who took my question SOOO literally it was just annoying. And you tried to debate against me by saying stuff I never denied and that I agree with completely. Noice m8
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
Its nice to be nice!

Just a comment about "gods sacrifice"

If I did something wrong (in this case even being born is a sin so yea) then I wish to take my punishment with grace and dignity. I did not ask this Jesus (whom i do not know, nor want to) to die on a cross for me. I think it is a horrible injustice that people think that punishing the innocent for the guilty misdeeds is OK, let alone good and just.

If a murderer was sentenced to death but his mom volunteered for his punishment would that be OK? would you think its ok to let the murderer go? To reward the murderer with paradise simply because his mom got to suffer for him? NO!!!

This is not logical, ethical or moral in the least.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Don't talk about yourself like that.
Posted by Jnaejnae 2 years ago
Jnaejnae
lol he thinks he won. Wow, how stupid!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by chewster911 2 years ago
chewster911
JnaejnaeJayConarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't place any definitions in the 1st round. Con placed the argument for the Big Bang, which confused Pro, prompting him to concede. I strongly advise Pro to place his definitions, because if he doesn't, the topic of the debate can vary solely on definitions if there are more than one (like this debate) ,resulting in something like what happened here.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
JnaejnaeJayConarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to rebut and he rests the points given by Con that God has created Big Bang. That is the proof given by Con. Con has mentioned that God is the creator of the universe.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
JnaejnaeJayConarTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro pretty much completely concedes
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
JnaejnaeJayConarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: He maybe a smart _a-s-s but hes not wrong, be clearer at the beginning of debates next time if you just want to make Christians mad.
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
JnaejnaeJayConarTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Basically the entire debate consisted of Pro manipulating the debate in their own favor so that they didn't have to rebut Con's arguments. Easy win for Con.