The Instigator
HappyHeathen
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Axiom
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

There is no evidence supporting the existence of the biblical 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 4 votes the winner is...
Axiom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,486 times Debate No: 24988
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

HappyHeathen

Pro

I propose that there is no evidence supporting god's existence. Belief relies on blind faith alone. I also propose that any and all evidence we do have about the universe either remains neutral towards a god being involved or else goes against an intelligent designer having a hand in its creation.

I am new to this site so this debate is mainly so I can get used to the format here. The rules will be just to follow standard debate protocol and remain respectful. If you want to argue from a point of logic then sources are not needed but any claims of fact, (that could reasonably called into question), should be backed up by their source.

Thanks
Axiom

Con

I thank Pro for this interesting debate. As my opponent has supplied no definitions, I will provide them:



Evidence: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)


ev·i·dence


n.


1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.


2. Something indicative; an outward sign:


3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.



Types of evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org...)



  • Anecdotal evidence

  • Intuition

  • Personal experience

  • Scientific evidence

  • Testimonial



My role as Con will not be to prove that God exists. My role as Con will not even be to prove that the evidence in favor of God isn't vastly outnumbered by the evidence against his existence. My role as Con will simply be to prove that there is at least one (however small it may be) piece of evidence that does support the existence of god. My opponent's statement that there is 'NO EVIDENCE,' is an extremely bold generalization that will be easily disproven.


Let me state again: I am not proving the existence of God. I am not even proving the likelihood of his existence. I simply have to prove that there is at least one piece of supporting evidence for a biblical god's existence. Also, my opponent states "Belief relies on blind faith alone." This is a bold assertion that I reject and present rebuttal for bellow.



So, I am going to list evidence supporting the existence of the biblical god (not proving) and this will prove my opponent's extremely bold assertions false:



Evidence and Arguments for The Existence Of God:


Cosmological Argument: (http://www.faithfacts.org...)


1. Finite and contingent beings have a cause.


2. A casual loop is unsound.


3. A casual chain cannot be of infinite length.


4. Therefore, a First Cause, must exist.


This argument provides scientific as well as a priori evidence that the universe's existence requires an explanation and that the First Cause (instigating factor of creation) can be a possible description of biblical god.


Kalam Cosmological Argument (http://en.wikipedia.org...)


1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of existence.


2. The universe has a beginning of existence.


3. The universe has a cause of existence


Further explanation:


"Why couldn't natural forces have produced the universe? Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang. Nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:



  • spaceless because it created space

  • timeless because it created time

  • immaterial because it created matter

  • powerful because it created it out of nothing

  • intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed

  • personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don't make choices)


Those are the same attributes of the God of the Bible." (http://www.faithfacts.org...)


'Scientific Evidence' for the existence of God:


Recent scientific studies suggest that that which is proven to be created and finite, must have an infinite creator. (http://www.leaderu.com...)


Ontological Evidence: (http://en.wikipedia.org...)


"...but the arguments typically start with the definition of God and conclude with his necessary existence, using mostly or only a priori reasoning and little reference to empirical observation." There are a few versions of the ontological argument but here's what one looks like:




  1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.

  2. The idea of God exists in the mind.

  3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.

  4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.

  5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.

  6. Therefore, God exists.



Evidence from Morality: (http://en.wikipedia.org...)


Generally, the normative argument purporting moral evidence is this:



  1. Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed. (Moral realism)

  2. Existence of God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives.

  3. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives.


Personal Testimony:


Eye-witness statements of hundreds and thousands supporting miraculous observations or encounters with a biblical god are also forms of evidence. The bible is perhaps one of the biggest forms of testimonial evidence, but there are others who claim faith healing by god, others who claim they heard god's voice and others who provide personal testimony that god reached out and touched them. (http://www.cbn.com...)


Other evidence:


The evidence stemming from scientifically recognized laws of Thermodynamics or the Law of Conservation of mass also exist. (http://toptenproofs.com...)



Conclusion:


My opponent makes a very bold statement saying that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a biblical god. Notice, I do not have to prove god's existence. Nor do I even have to offer the conclusions of the arguments being the most likely explanation for god's existence. I simply have to prove, as per the debate's intent, that there is indeed evidence for god's existence. And I have done so. My opponent is refuted.

Debate Round No. 1
HappyHeathen

Pro

Thank you con for accepting my first debate on this site. I obviously see mistakes made in my original assertion that, with hindsight, I wish I would has thought out beforehand. That being said, these are my mistakes to deal with and I appreciate the trial by fire.
So lets see what I can salvage because I not only see a defensible position but also still having the correct position.

Cosmological Argument

Rebuttal of Aristotle's Prime Mover has been well established. To postulate that everything must have a cause and then conclude with something that does not have a cause(infinite) is illogical. Why cant an infinite chain of natural events be the prime mover? Your proposal of a god being the prime mover violates Occam's razor in that it goes on ad infinitum. Your god requires another god to create him, and that one requires another, since nothing can be created ex nihilo.

b. Kalems argument is refuted by quantum fluctuation. The temporary appearance of particles of energy out of nothing.

http://universe-review.ca...

Scientific Evidence

I created a painting the other day that is finite and created, yet I am not. You have also failed, by your own prerequisite to prove that the universe is created thus needing an infinite creator.

1. If god exists then he must be perfect
2. If god exists then he must be the creator of the universe
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. The universe is not perfect
5. Therefore it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
6. Hence god does not exist

Regarding the biblical god

1. if god exists then his attributes are consistent with the existence of evil
2. The attributes of the biblical god are not consistent with the existence of evil
3. Therefore the biblical god does not and cannot exist.

Finally

1. Hypothesize a god who plays a role in the universe
2. Assume this god has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence
3. Look for this evidence with an open mind
4. If you find such evidence then conclude that god MAY exist.
5. If you do not then conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this god does not exist.

Ontological Evidence

To quote David Hume:
...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.

The best rebuttal, however is:

"In his development of the ontological argument, Leibniz attempted to demonstrate the coherence of a supremely perfect being. C. D. Broad countered that if two characteristics necessary for God's perfection are incompatible with a third, the notion of a supremely perfect being becomes incoherent. The ontological argument assumes the definition of God purported by classical theism: that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Kenneth Einar Himma claimed that omniscience and omnipotence may be incompatible: if God is omnipotent, then he should be able to create a being with free will; if he is omniscient, then he should know exactly what such a being will do (thus rendering them without free will). This analysis would render the ontological argument incoherent, as the characteristics required of a maximally great being cannot coexist in one being, thus such a being could not exist"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Evidence from Morality

Is there any single moral construct that isnt debated ir disputed? I am at a loss to think of any. If morality was universal then I would think there would be at least something we would agree on.

Personal testimony

Using this as evidence means that we had evidence of a flat Earth a few hundred years ago. We have evidence for bigfoot and not to mention the millions of young children that offer evidence for Santa each and every year. Argumentum ad Populum.

Other

The 2nd law of theromodynamics applies to a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from the sun it is not closed and this law does not apply.

Conclusion

As my first debate on this site I have definitely learned to better prepare my initial claim. I went into this half heartedly and I wish to thank Con once again for the lesson. My allowing Con to define the terms was my downfall. I do believe that I have countered all of cons "evidence" to the best of my ability but having "evidence" defined by Con has definitely handicapped me. Especially regarding personal testimony. Anyone who claims anything about anything automatically can qualify as evidence with those definitions so I felt handicapped and forsee defeat at my own hand.
Axiom

Con

I thank my opponent for his prompt rebuttal. And don't worry about any errors in premise. We all make them with our first debates.

However, I find that he is trying to disprove the evidence with hypothesis, arguments and even opinion. But remember, all I have to do is prove 'one' piece of evidence in support (not proof) of the existence of god and I fulfill my BOP. And as my opponent concedes the point on 'testimony' being evidence, there is no real point in me debating further. But because I'm a good sport, and I respect Pro and his efforts, I will continue for the sake of enlightenment.

Cosmological Argument:

Unfortunately my opponent misses the key phrase, "Finite and contingent beings have a cause." As the biblical God is defined as neither finite nor contingent, my opponent's arguments ad infinitum do not stand. And an infinite chain of natural events cannot be a prime mover, because if you have infinite, it means infinite in all directions of time. If you have an endless stream of points in time preceding this moment, you can never, logically, arrive at this moment. Thus the earth never would have reached causation.

"b. Kalems argument is refuted by quantum fluctuation. The temporary appearance of particles of energy out of nothing."

This is one of the most common mistakes in attempts to refute the KCA. Out of nothing? No. It is in a close system, with active forces and presupposed laws of energy. No matter. But not 'nothing.'

As for my opponent's arguments against the existence of god, I leave untouched. My BOP is not to prove god's existence, it is not to refute doubts raised about it either. It is simply to supply evidence supporting his existence (evidence that can be significantly outweighed by evidence against his existence. I never contested this point).

And as for my opponent's argument "I created a painting the other day that is finite and created, yet I am not." Are you suggesting you are not finite and created? This is obviously not true.

And once again for my opponent's next point, I am not going to dispute that there is evidence against god's existence. But by theory, if you can find evidence refuting something, then by definition there must be evidence supporting it as well. Because you cannot disprove a negative.

And as for Ontological, Moral assertions: my evidence has to be neither convincing or irrefutable. It simply has to be plausible and supportive of the existence of god. It fulfills both these counts and thereofre upholds my BOP.

Personal testimony

"Using this as evidence means that we had evidence of a flat Earth a few hundred years ago. We have evidence for bigfoot and not to mention the millions of young children that offer evidence for Santa each and every year. Argumentum ad Populum."

Well my opponent's first assertion about a flat Earth is false. It is not a personal testimony, it was a hypothesis. As for bigfoot and Santa, I agree. These are both perfect examples of how evidence can support something hard to believe in. And so yes, I agree, we do have evidence for Santa and bigfoot. Not proof albeit. But evidence all the same. This supports my BOP.

Other

The 2nd law of theromodynamics applies to a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from the sun it is not closed and this law does not apply."

It does apply as this law can be directed at not the 'earth' but the 'universe.' Which is a closed system.

Conclusion:

I thank my opponent for his efforts despite the bleak outlook. And it is true, I had a very small BOP to uphold in this debate and I have done so quite easily. He made a forgivable mistake in not defining and in making a broad statement. But defended vigorously nonetheless and I commend him for it. However, as this debate was set up for him to lose by himself, I find that I have easily succeeded in proving that there is evidence (not conclusive and not proof) supporting (not proving without contest) the existence of god.

Debate Round No. 2
HappyHeathen

Pro

Conceeded and I thank you once again for the lesson.
Axiom

Con

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
I'm not sure you can't vote for someone who concedes. But abstractposter's vote was clearly a votebomb, and it's good that it has been countered.
Posted by Axiom 5 years ago
Axiom
WTF abstractposters. Firstly, you lied about who you agree with as your profile states you're 'Christian.' And secondly, you can't vote for someone who has conceded! Your RFD also makes absolutely no sense! Please can someone counter this childishness. He gave seven points to someone who conceded!!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Magicr 5 years ago
Magicr
HappyHeathenAxiomTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter abstract. Pro conceded.
Vote Placed by abstractposters 5 years ago
abstractposters
HappyHeathenAxiomTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's very existence contradicts Pro's argument because I voted for Pro.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
HappyHeathenAxiomTied
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: Pro conceded.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
HappyHeathenAxiomTied
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: Pro conceded.