The Instigator
gt4o2007
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
utahjoker
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

There is no evidence for a 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
utahjoker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,459 times Debate No: 34618
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

gt4o2007

Pro

I would like to use my round 1 to assert my position. I do not know of any evidence for a god of any religion. With this debate I would like to let everyone know that the burden of providing proof is on the believer of a super natural order. Thanks in advance for accepting the debate who ever you are.
God-A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
Evidence-That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
utahjoker

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent defined two words in round one, evidence and God, but I will define one more the word no. No- a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request;to reject, refuse approval, or express disapproval of (1). It seems silly for me to define the word no, it's so simple but it is very important in this debate. If my opponent and I were in the court of law and my opponent had to prove that there is no evidence of God, while I would have to give some evidence the first thing I would summit to the court was the Holy Bible. The Bible is the word of God with many prophets giving account of seeing God like in Genesis 32:30- And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel : for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved (2) or Exodus 33:11- And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend (3). I'm sure that using the Bible as evidence of Gods existence would not be good enough for some. For the final evidence I would summit in this round I would call Jacob and Moses as witnesses. Witnesses are used in trials as evidence and are allowed in court (4). Many people would question if Jacob and Moses really existed, but the Bible is not only used as a religious book it is also used as a book of History so the possibly of Jacob and Moses really existing is a very real (5). Once they retell their account in Genesis and in Exodus it would be evidence in the court of law.

I would like to pass the debate on to my opponent so in conclusion for this round I would have summit the Bible into evidence and have called Jacob and Moses as witnesses.

Sources
(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) https://www.lds.org...
(3) https://www.lds.org...
(4) http://www.detaineeinquiry.org.uk...
(5) http://carm.org...
Debate Round No. 1
gt4o2007

Pro

I would like to point out that con has said that the Bible is evidence for God. Now lets realize that there are many religions that have now nearly gone extinct and gods that are not believed in anymore yet they have "Eye-witnesses" and you would not say that Zeus is the controller of the universe with the other gods like Poseidon god of the sea that controls the oceans on our earth yet if you went back to the Greeks you would have believed in there gods to because they would have preached there gods to you. Onto Moses and Jacob they said that they could talk to god you might have faith that they talked to god face to face but there is a religion right now that says they have a church leader that talks to god The Catholic Church yet I guarantee that if you are not of The Catholic Church you would think he was crazy. Last but not least the Bible cannot be a history book because you would have to not accept Evolution but you would have to accept that your religion says dinosaurs co existed with humans and that The Great Flood killed all life on earth except for Noah's family and 2 of every animal were on his ark. I send this back to Con to make a better case for evidence of God.
utahjoker

Con

I wouldn't say that Zeus is the ruler of the world or even that Greek gods even exist, but if someone claimed to see them that would be evidence even if the evidence is proven to be false, but still evidence.

I am sure that if I wasn't religious religion would sound very farfetched, but the old phrase comes into play "Reality is crazier than fiction." Just because something sounds farfetched does not mean that it isn't true. I would ask my opponent how they think the world and universe was created. I believe that the earth was organized by Jesus Christ under the direction of God, someone could say that is farfetched, and I would say that the idea of the universe being created from a single atom than an explosion created the universe in the big bang sounds farfetched. Any account of the world and Universe being created sounds very farfetched.

The Bible is used as an History document because the Bible has writings of ancient battles or cities that have been proven by bone recovery like what my sources said in round one.

I would say that the Earth being created is evidence of god like what Genesis says of how it happened. There is no other real solid account of Earth being created so the evidence of Genesis could be used in an argument of how the world began.
Debate Round No. 2
gt4o2007

Pro

Thank you con,
I am not sure if you realize this but if a book created nearly 2,000 years ago has a few statements that came out to be true after we researched and verified them does not make it a history book. History- Study of past events: the branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events. There are many scientists that are religious and have not been able to come to the conclusion that there was a Big Flood, that humans co existed with dinosaurs, light came before the sun, and that the bible says a woman came from a mans rib. All of these things are false unless you say well there is a god that is above all but that can't be true because to have an all powerful god, all knowing, everywhere at once, all doing, and infinite it could not create the universe because to be everywhere at once you can not create the universe and be within it because the universe has time and god is above space and time this also pokes a hole in the infinite part because to be within space and time would mean that we could analyze and discover god because to be within the universe you would be made of atoms and to be a biblical god you must be above the universe's laws yet an all knowing god but also an all good god cannot know evil and yet be all good and to be everywhere at once god would have complete control over hell and what is happening at every point in time. Now if god is all knowing and all powerful can god create a boulder it cannot lift? If yes he is not all powerful if no he is not all knowing. Now I would like to point out for the Bible to be a history book it would have to be 100% correct and verifiable something that we all know is not accomplishable. People can use parts of the bible as evidence for battles now that we can verify the statements in them as like you said ancient battles. I would challenge them being in the bible though because at the time of them being written the person or persons witnessed the city with many other people "witnesses" it is the equivalent to our reporters of today if they have witnessed and were there with many other witnesses to the decimation of a city and then we go and verify it we would accept it as fact and it would be written down in a way that would be read by the masses. But if that same reporter came out and said that it has talked to god and knows how the universe was created by this god the reporter would be dismissed as crazy like the writers of the bible should have been but it was written 2,000 years ago by unverifiable desert nomads. The reason genesis is not able to be used in an argument besides the fact that the way the same bible defines gods trait would make him impossible is that Evolution is true the earth was not created in 6 days and the universe is continuously expanding and is billions of years older than the earth. Your understanding of The Big Bang Theory is incorrect you stated that The Big Bang created the first atom that is not the theory the theory is that The Big Bang happened from a small cluster of atoms that all ready were there they believe them to be the Higgs atom the Higgs particle is a boson with no spin, electric charge, nor color charge. It is also very unstable, decaying into other particles almost immediately. This atom/particle was discovered on march 13th 2013. Lastly I do believe that you have faith that the bible is the word of god but to use the book that someone says is the word of god as proof is not acceptable it is like me saying I shoot lasers out of my eyes I will not show you but here is a book about how I did shoot lasers out of my eyes. I challenge Con to find some evidence other than a book written by men who think god told them what to write. Thank you for this debate and please go check out http://science.howstuffworks.com... to learn more about The Big Bang theory and not have misconceptions about it.
utahjoker

Con

The Bible if you go into the real strict definition of a history book might not fit, but if I change the wording to a book of history a historical reference if you will then I think my opponent and I have common ground. The Bible has historical facts like ancient cities, buildings, and battles that have been verified by scientist and historians this does not mean the scientist and historians have to believe in god, but this does give some foundation to the bible showing that it does have reliable things in it. Actually in an ironic twist the whole Big Flood thing is starting to be investigated by scientists, they actually have found wood that is from a boat that is located 12,000 ft. in the Turkish mountains. Whether it be Noah's ark or a very weird twist is remained to be seen, but you never know.

For a witness to be evidence someone has to believe in them. That is the difference between Moses and Jacob, and some crazy reporter. 51% of the world believe in one god and 17% are undecided which means that Moses and Jacob have creditability with 3.5 billion people in the world. This makes them evidence that a god exists.

Last thing I will say is that the Big Bang is a theory not a law which means it is not completely accepted by the scientist community. That means it is still open for debate and for someone to prove it wrong. God creating the world is a theory this is backed by people who believe in the bible.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
http://www.christiantoday.com...
Debate Round No. 3
gt4o2007

Pro

I accept that you can refer to the bible as a historical reference book as defined like ancient cities, buildings, and battles that have been verified by scientist and historians. Onto Noah's ark How did Noah round up the dinosaurs? How come they all died?

Why do you find all the penguins (every single one) down in Antarctica and nowhere else? How did they get there so fast and not a one settled somewhere else? Why do you find kangaroos only in Australia and nowhere else? How did they get across the water barrier? Did Noah have sex with his daughters in law? Did Noah's wife bear any of her grandchildren? It's certain that Noah's children practiced incest. They had to. Did God really have to kill everybody except Noah and his wife and children?

http://www.patheos.com... onto how your still only using the bible as evidence I will challenge this again. There are only 3 possibilities 1.One of the religion's is right 2. All of them are right 3. None of them are right. For you to use the bible as the only evidence of a god would mean that all other religion that do not support your Christian god can simply refer to there religions "word of god"

Lastly yes I know the big bang is a theory that is why it is called The Big Bang Theory but to say that your evidence against it is just that there are some scientists don't accept it means nothing unless they can produce another theory. Now I would like to discuss how you simplify the Big Bang by just calling it a theory it is a Scientific theory based off of the facts that we know at this time and was peer reviewed, challenged, edited, and then published.

For you to be able to use Jacob and Moses as evidence since they are not alive today you must first prove that they ever existed and to use the bible to prove this would not be acceptable in the court of law because you would not be able to verify if it is them or someone else wanting to make a good story. You threw out the reporter argument but by your own definition the reporter believed in himself therefore it is evidence see the problem with your definition yet?

I send this back to Con again asking for some other form of verifiable evidence to prove the existence of a god or god's.
utahjoker

Con

I will get to the evidence my opponent is asking for. My opponent says that there is no proof that Jacob or Moses exist, but the thing is that since the bible has proven to have historical accuracy it is very reasonable to believe that Moses and Jacob did indeed live. But my opponent doesn`t find that good enough so I will call a different witness for evidence Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith claimed to have seen two people in the woods when he was praying. One of these people was Jesus while the other was God. He was alive and his existence can`t be questioned. He has over 15 million people who believe him these people are members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints. So Joseph is a witness that can't be questioned on whether he lived or not making him evidence.

The whole crazy reporter thing my opponent mentioned technology he or she could be evidence if there testimony stands.
Debate Round No. 4
gt4o2007

Pro

No just, no
The bible has not been proven to be a historical accuracy we agreed that it has a few accurate statements about ancient cities, building, and battles that are able to be verified. You have not presented any other evidence except for the bible which I have already proven could not be evidence for a Christian god. You do realize that if proof was just people believing in a statement everything would be true that you can believe in. When you were a little kid you probably believed in Santa Claus that does not make him true. If you could provide proof other than that people in a church that accept the bible as word of god believe in the bible you would have something going for you but you have stated nothing except that the bible is believed in.

"The whole crazy reporter thing my opponent mentioned technology he or she could be evidence if there testimony stands." I don't understand what your trying to say but again you want to use a court as an analogy a court would not accept a book written 2,000 years ago as evidence for if the people existed or for proof of anything. They would use it to investigate not just blatantly accept it as evidence that is why the prosecution and defense cross examine "evidence presented" so that someone can't claim they have evidence but everyone that saw it happen is dead and you can't verify that the dead people actually exist.

My opponent I believe accepts the bible as the word of god yet he cannot prove it is the word of god except by stating that in the bible it is said that it is the word of god. This is an argument from fallacy. He has also not refuted any of my claims that would make the bible a regular book not the word of god and my other claim that a Christian god does not exist. Since my opponent has the last word I will hope that he will not create a new argument but attempt to refute my claims without using the bible and the fact that someone believes in the bible as proof.

If you are asking yourself did I just say that all people accepting the bible as the word of god on faith are wrong yes, yes I did. Thank you for this debate and I send this back to Con.
utahjoker

Con

My opponent and I agree that the bible has historical facts in it, but my opponent fails to see that those same people writing the facts he believes are true are the same people who claim to have spoken and seen god. If they tell the truth about history why would they lie about god. They wouldn't.

I did use the bible as evidence because it is. I believe the bible to be the word of god so wouldn't be used as evidence. I also used witnesses who my opponent said never existed, but the irony is that they were apart of history, historians say they did exist.

If god created everything that makes everything evidence. My opponent never said I had to proof the existence of god only present evidence of that he might exist. Which I have done with the bible, witnesses, and the world.

Vote con
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by gt4o2007 3 years ago
gt4o2007
If not I can always send you a request to debate instead of leaving it open.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Thanks for the definitions, sadly I got cut in line. Hopefully that joker will provide a good argument for you.
Posted by O.Z 3 years ago
O.Z
There's no evidence against him either other than "Rationality." I look forward to seeing the defender's arguements and what they have to say.
Posted by gt4o2007 3 years ago
gt4o2007
Look forward to the debate I have defined what you wanted.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
BTW, I'm interested in accepting this challenge; I merely wish to give the instigator a proper chance for revisions first.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Define evidence.
Define proof.
Heck even define "a god."

These will all come up a lot, and you probably want to avoid semantics.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
gt4o2007utahjokerTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con showed that there is obviously evidence for God
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
gt4o2007utahjokerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice overall debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
gt4o2007utahjokerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate, and while I am an atheist, con made some good arguments, for which pro failed to match.