The Instigator
johncwms27
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
alpineseven
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

There is no logical proof for the existence 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  
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: 12/28/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,163 times Debate No: 1105
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (16)

 

johncwms27

Pro

While I cannot disprove the existence of God, I think it is highly unlikely that there is a God. There is no substantial evidence that God exists and every logical proof I hear is a fallacy. Somebody prove me wrong and argue, logically, that God exists!
alpineseven

Con

I think there are many logical reasons for a God or Creator. In my view atheism is one of the things i dont understand more than anything else. How could someone live their life, this life, without a belief that there is something real out there. When you look around the beauty you see in almost everything. I realize as much as anyone as soon as I say look how beautiful the world is the argument fond to most who believe in "No God" is this "how can you say the world is beautiful when people die, when people starve, or when people are lonely? How can you believe in God when a monsoon wipes out so many innocent people?" This is always a difficult question to answer because the bible has the only answers to those questions and this is not a debate about the bible. The bible teaches that God made this world perfect but man chose to sin and the bible states in Romans "The wages of sin is death". That means because we have sinned the world and people in the world are fallen and in a fallen world bad things happen. Now that may cost me the debate for going off subject, nevertheless I will leave my comments.

Even in the bible there are Many prophecies that have been proven true. It has been calculated that you could fill up Texas two feet deep with silver dollars representing the chances of having less than half of the predictions of the bible coming true. That is why the claims of a God in the bible are so relevant.

One thing I cannot stand is when people fill these rounds up with countless words trying to prove their point. Given the fact that I am a mediocre reader I will end my chance at this round here and save my points about God, without the bible, for the next round. Sorry if that makes anyone upset. Ill do better next round! Thanks for the challenge too!
Debate Round No. 1
johncwms27

Pro

Thanks for the post. I'm going to respond to each of your paragraphs separately.

First, you mention that a typical atheist might say "how can you say the world is beautiful when people die, etc". I would argue with anybody, atheist or believer, who doesn't see the beauty in the world. Both now, as an atheist, and in my past, as a Christian, I've been amazed at the beauty in the world. The idea that all the living organisms on the world came through evolution instead of a God makes it even more fascinating to me. As an atheist (who doesn't believe in the afterlife), I believe that any day could be your last, so life is more precious to me than if I believed I would live eternally. But the beauty we see in the world has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.

I have heard the myth about the silver dollars filling up Texas, and when I was a Christian I would tell that to people too...but the truth is I have never found any evidence, any studies, any publications to suggest that is true. With all due respect, you're going to have to provide me more information about the study before I believe it.

Many Christians use an argument that goes something like this -> "the world is full of complicated organisms and beauty, and it couldn't happen by chance. Just like a watch must be designed by a watchmaker, so also must the earth and all its complicated parts be designed by a 'Designer' (God)". I call this the Complexity Argument. First, evolution doesnt mean that things happened "by chance", as many Christians suggest. But that's not my main objection to the argument. Let's say we have a Complexity Scale of 1-3, with 1 being less complex and 3 being more complex. The numbers we chose don't matter -- all that matters for our argument is that a #2 is more complex than a #1, etc. A typical Christian's argument is that since the world is so complex, it must have been designed by an even more complex Creator. Of course, any God who created the Earth, and listens to/answers billions of prayers simultaneously, would have to be more complex than the universe. So the universe (and everything in it) is a #1 on the complexity scale, and God is a #2. Here's the rub: If the universe (a #1 on the scale) is so complex that it requires a Creator, then a #2 (God) would, by definition, also require a Creator. In other words, if God made the earth, then who made God? It leads to an infinite regress, which must end somewhere. So now the question is this: is it more probable it started with the Universe, or is it more probable that everything started with a God? A God would be more complex, and thus more improbable.

This is one of my arguments against the existence of God. I look forward to your reply!
alpineseven

Con

Because of the title of this debate, there is no reason I should loose. "There is no Logical proof for the Existence of God" If we break down this title we see two things: 1, the word Logic or Logical. and 2, (and this one i will admit is thanks to a user comment below) the word No.

If you understand the word logic you understand the definition for logical which is: "according to or agreeing with the principles of logic" also "reasonable; to be expected".

Summing it up the word logic means this: Reasoning or Sound Judgement.

In my first round I started out with the thought that there are many "logical" ways to prove God and that is true because we as humans are very capable of using reason and judgment. Not saying they are correct but even good theories are simply logic or reasoning and judgment: these are not always correct. So, here is my logical reason to why there is a God.

Think rationally with me for a minute. If you were to walk down to the street and see a quarter laying in the open you would think "someone accidentally dropped that there". If you were to see a roll of quarters you would think "someone accidentally dropped those there" but if you walked to the street and saw 100 rolls of quarters standing on their tops you would relies someone deliberately put them there.

In the same sense we now know, thanks to Anthropic Principles, there are OVER 100 variables to our universe, these are conditions that make life on earth possible. One example is the distance of the earth from the sun. If it were any different we could not survive. So either this earth was finely tuned by a powerful something (what we would call god) or there are googleplexes of universes out there. Logically it is more probable that a greater power had a hand in it here.

Not only is the logical evidence for God, It is very strong evidence for God.
Debate Round No. 2
johncwms27

Pro

In response to the scenario about 100 rolls of quarters: this doesn't prove God's existence in any way. Of course we would think somebody deliberately put the rolls of quarters there - because we know where quarters come from...we know that quarters are man-made. But your analogy (a very poor analogy, in my opinion) compares the rolls of quarters to the magnificience or complexity of the earth. This is a false analogy because, unlike quarters which are man-made, we are unsure about the origins of the earth (and universe, etc.). Hence the reason we are debating this.

On to your next paragraph...

Let's assume there are over 100 variables that are necessary for life on earth. I can't prove the exact number of variables...I expect there are many more. But frankly, the number of variables doesnt matter. If these variables werent set as they are (in other words, if the sun were farther away from the earth) then we wouldn't be here to talk about it. This does not mean it was caused by God. You suggest there are only two possibilities: (1) the Earth was fine-tuned by God, or (2) "there are googleplexes of universes out there." A googleplex is an office building, so I assume you meant "there are googles of universes out there". And yes, there are billions of planets out there and an incredible number of solar systems and galaxies.

It all comes down to the complexity argument I presented in the last round. I don't know why you did not reply to my argument. You say "Logically it is more probable that a greater power had a hand in it here". But no, thats not logical at all. And it has nothing to do with the chicken or the egg argument, as you suggest. You say it started with God (which would have to be more complex than the Universe he created. And if God is more complex, he is, by definition, less probable than something less complex). So in fact it is logical to assume that it didn't start with God. The Universe was formed somehow, either by some variation of the Big Bang Theory or by God. The Big Bang Theory (along with Darwinian evolution) explains how matter can begin as something simple, and become more complex. Religion suggests that everything started from a most complex entity (God), who then created something less complex than himself. Simple events are more probably to have happened than complex events. So, contrary to what you stated, it is actually more logical to believe that God did not create the Universe.

You say that your argument is "very strong evidence for God" but you have provided no logical evidence, in my opinion. I hope you realize that it is a logical fallacy to use the Complexity argument to try to prove God's existence. I hope that in your final post you will address the Complexity argument or at least provide some logical reasons for God's existence. Frankly, I'm not satisfied with you "100 rolls of quarters" example because I already refuted that in my second post.

Looking forward to the last post, and feel free to invite me to any religion debates you create
alpineseven

Con

Frankly all you asked for was a logical reason to why there is a God, I gave you that. It doesn't prove there is a God but it shows a logical reason to why there may be a God. That is simply put, The best I can do. No one can prove there is a God, in that case no one can prove anything at all. The best I can do is what your Debate Title suggest: Give a Logical reason for God. That was extremely Logical. Whether You think My analogy was good or not is irrelevant. If 100 rolls of quarters fall on their ends all together... That is impossible, simply put. If you think I was proving God by the quarter scenario you are wrong, no one would do that in a debate, I was however comparing them to the chances that all of the variables on earth happened by chance and therefore giving a logical reason of God by those variables.

In your variables rebuttal you proved exactly what i was saying... You said if the variables were different then we wouldn't be here to debate this anyways. I agree and that was my point. There is no way the evolutionary process could have molded all things within inches of life or death. Gravity is almost exactly what it has to be for us to live here, if it was any more we would be crushed, if it was any less we would float away. Realizing this you must realize that gravity couldn't have evolved into the perfect percentage, it would have crushed everything or let everything float away in the process.
Even darwin stated that if it could be proved something couldn't have evolved by small changes his theory would break down. Well gravity couldn't have. along with many other things.

That is why all of these things would have had to happen precisely the instant of the Big Bang. That is the reason it is similar to quarters falling exactly on end and comparable to a googleplex of other universes out there, NOT BILLIONS OF PLANETS like you stated but googleplexes of UNIVERSES.

Now the Googleplex statement. A google is different from a googleplex. maybe a googleplex is an office building i dont know. But it is also the following...

A google or googol is 1 followed by 100 zeros. It is precisely the same distance from 1 as infinity.

A googleplex is actually a 1 followed by 1 Google of zeros or 1^google. there are not that many universes in our solar system. No computer can figure that number out.

The chances of 100 variables being perfect in our world are past the odds of infinity. It cant happen and that is why my argument is more than logical for the existence of God.

Finally I will give my opinion of God, and it is simply an opinion and is free in this debate. God is so simple, He is love, He is just, He is strength, He is Freedom, He is everything and though that may seem complex In human eyes God is saying I am the way and the truth and the life... if you trust in me I will open your eyes to wonderful things which you do not understand!

Thanks for the debate you are very intelligent and this was a fun one!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by International_72521 8 years ago
International_72521
I believe in the existence of god because of my deterministic views on how things are already set in place for example, the life a person has, genetics, parents, gender, etc. If you take choice as a chemical reaction happening in your brain triggered by the environment and the choice can be altered by drugs then determinism could be true. If determinism is a fact then that implies that there is an origin. But then you wonder if everything is already set in place, then what is the purpose of everything if you know what is going to happen? Well it from this perspective, imagine god(s) is a storyteller or director of a film which is called life and we are the audience. So we are watching this film not knowing what will happen but the god knows, but we watch it anywas because it's interesting, filled with sadness, happiness, pleasure, and pain, all the emotions and perspective that life offers to the viewer. At the end of the film, the audience realize the movie isn't a black and white film where good fights evil, or the point of the movie is to teach a lesson, but simply to provide entertainment, beauty, interest, to make something happen, in the universe of nothing. So that my claim for gods existence.
Posted by alpineseven 8 years ago
alpineseven
I appreciate your concern, I have actually taken a class on big bang and it is very interesting. I just feel it takes more faith to believe in that than a god. With all due respect to you my friend, you asked for a logical reason and I provided that. Logic is simple and sometimes i think we over look the simple things time and time again. For those of you who would have people believe that the belief in a creator is ignorant I would ask that you take a look at your own beliefs. In my mind BOTH EVOLUTION AND CREATION are "logical", but of course that word is subjective to many things. Even darwin had trouble believing his own theory. Thanks again for the debate and congrats on the win!

Daperdan thanks for the comment you are right 1^ anything = 1 that was actually supposed to be 10^ but regardless an inexcusable error.
Posted by johncwms27 8 years ago
johncwms27
I wish I could debate this longer because I'd love to reply to your last post. But I'm not going to hijack the Comments section with another post. I will say that I hope you (alpineseven) read up on the Big Bang and evolution. Even if you don't agree with the theories, at least you will be well-versed on the subject. With all due respect, some of your comments suggest that you aren't familiar with the Big Bang theory or the theory of evolution. I only hope that your interest in debating this subject will lead to an interest in reading about it as well. Thanks for the debate.
Posted by Gato 8 years ago
Gato
The argument that "The universe is beautiful, it is only logical that someone created us" is so stupid!

Beauty is subjective!

It's also laughable because how is it "beautiful" when we don't have an "ugly" universe to compare it to.

The universe is neither beautiful nor ugly. Bad or good. It just is.

Also the universe can only be judged as perfectly designed if we know what it was designed FOR. If it was designed for the sustainence of human life, like many of you religious folk would have us believe, then I would argue that it is very inefficient in doing so.
Posted by RepublicanView333 8 years ago
RepublicanView333
I was thinking last night...in our universe...in our infinitly huge universe...just look at a blade of grass...and look at the finest details...and think if there wasn't something bigger...why even bother for what ever created us...why bother making these tiny details?...if there wasn't something bigger...
Posted by Dapperdan2007 8 years ago
Dapperdan2007
"The chances of 100 variables being perfect in our world are past the odds of infinity. It cant happen..."

I call bs.

"1^google"

That would be 1, actually. 1^n=1

I don't think the con provided any logical proof in his arguments.
Posted by KikoSanchez 8 years ago
KikoSanchez
Obviously Pro wins because the title states 'proof' not argument. God is a non-falisifiable concept, so Pro will always win.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 8 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
Also Pro reverts back to the classic chicken and egg case against god, you just use a lot of words.
You say if god created us who created god? And if someone created god who created that someone?
the problem with that is that it goes outside the definition of god.
The definition of matter is something concrete, something that occupies space , and that space where it occupies cannot be occupied by anything else something that requires a force to make it change direction or state of matter.
But god isn't bound by any of those laws or the laws of matter, and becuase of that it is not requisite to the definition of god that he be created at all, in many dictionaries he is called the uncreated being.
And again matter doesn't have the comfort of not being bound by the laws that define OUR world. Therefore matter to enter a state of being (i.e. to react to form a compound to move from one direction to another) needs a force. However The laws state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Now again these laws define matter, however in this case the laws in our textbooks aren't the laws that are in nature. Becuase if one law says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and another says that matter was never created there is a contradiction. Because in order for matter to be in the state it is today it needed a force to put it in that state. Now for us thats the manufacturing process, but if you trace the ladder of action and reaction wayy past manufacturing way past industrialization, way past the formation of the Earth way past the big bang.....Where was the first action, what was the first reaction? And where did that force come from that put that caused that first action?
Because of another law the law of conservation of energy, we say that Energy cannot be created nor destroyed either. So scientist say all the energy that exist today has always existed. And if the energy always existed to put that first action into place where did it come from?
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 8 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
I would like to point out that the question is that there is NO logical proof that there is a good. To win this debate, Con must simply stick to ONE logical proof, and you would win.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
johncwms27alpinesevenTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Marsupial 8 years ago
Marsupial
johncwms27alpinesevenTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by alpineseven 8 years ago
alpineseven
johncwms27alpinesevenTied
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 
Vote Placed by Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
Devils_Advocate
johncwms27alpinesevenTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by johncwms27 8 years ago
johncwms27
johncwms27alpinesevenTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Leonitus_Trujillo 8 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
johncwms27alpinesevenTied
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 
Vote Placed by RMK 8 years ago
RMK
johncwms27alpinesevenTied
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 
Vote Placed by zjack3 8 years ago
zjack3
johncwms27alpinesevenTied
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 
Vote Placed by Murasaki 8 years ago
Murasaki
johncwms27alpinesevenTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by double_edged_words 8 years ago
double_edged_words
johncwms27alpinesevenTied
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:30