The Instigator
Cham
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
sakskidz
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

There is no proof of God's existence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 8 votes the winner is...
Cham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,147 times Debate No: 34066
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (8)

 

Cham

Pro

If you are to induct logic, God does not exist as far as we know. He only exists in faith, the creation of the mind of an individual. By "God", I am referring to the Christian God.

Where is proof that God exists? There is no physical evidence of his existence. Here are the only arguments for his existence:

1) Prove the God doesn't exist!
This in itself is a logical fallacy. Specifically referred to as Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam. "[Appeal to ignorance]: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa." (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

You cannot logically support the point "prove that God doesn't exist" because that is clearly leaving the bounds of logic by a miles. I could similarly say that there are dinosaurs at the center of the Earth. PROVE ME WRONG! Just because there is no evidence against the existence of an entity does not mean that that entity exists.

2) "Perfection" of the Universe
The universe is beautiful in appearance. There is no way that this universe could have created its own beauty. Therefore, someone must have created it!

The use of perfection to prove the existence of a higher being is exotic in relation to itself. Let me explain. Beauty is a concept that our minds create. Other animals may not see beauty in the universe the way we do. Does that make the animal wrong? No, it's all our preception. This can be backed up by countless studies and science. If you decide to take up an argument on this front, I will be prepared to prove you wrong.

3) Absense of Knowledge, Must be God?

We are such "perfect" creations. Someone must have created us, right? There is no other explanation! Well, there is evolution. There are so many people who still claim evolution to be false. Even with this ignorance, we cannot claim that God is behind everything that we have no explanation. We are humans, we have endless curiosity. I think this is our fault, we need an explanation for everything. Even if it is illogical.

4) Are you saying that God doesn't exist?

Not at all. I am simply stating that we have no proof of his existence in this physical world and arguing against that with logic is not going to get any believer of God anywhere.

With this point, I'd like to end off my frontier. Please, if you do end up debating, please do not make it a wall of text. Be clear and to the point. Thank you.



sakskidz

Con

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
Debate Round No. 1
Cham

Pro

"God's Design"

I must ask you, how does science and how lucky we are to have life on Earth have anything to do with God? Just because we cannot comprehend how lucky we are and how this world came to be does not mean that God has to have created us.

You are attempting to use science to prove the existence of God when science is a linked study that supports itself without the induction of God into it's bounds.

We have found a couple planets capable of life in this galaxy. In fact, there are studies showing that through the billlions upon billions of planets, hundreds of them could have life. How do you explain this?

And if we were the only life in this entire "universe", how does that in any way prove the existence of God? We are not certain about many different aspects. For all we know, many of our conceptions on life could be wrong, this is all knowledge we have gained through observation. Have we observed life in other planets? No. Does that mean that we are the only life in the entire universe? No.

You are following this hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Please look into your logical composure, you still have not directly proven that there is solid proof of God's existence.
sakskidz

Con

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.

He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."14 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."15

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.16

Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.

Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."17 This is God, in action.

Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."18

God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dsvstheworld 4 years ago
dsvstheworld
The planet only seems perfect to us because we evolved to fit in it, so of course its perfect for us. If it were different, we would have evolved to fit that, and that would be perfect. Also saying the planet is perfect does not prove god. For all you know we are the science experiment of a distant alien race and the created this planet like we create an environment in a terrarium perfect for a snake or lizard.
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
Such a sad debate. Con made every logical fallacy I can think of!
Posted by maleusdei 4 years ago
maleusdei
Based on the theory of one cannot exist without the other, it would be easier to prove God's existence by proving demons exist. There is substantial scientifically documented proof of demons. Also that God exists by having an affect on demons, if he didn't exist he would have no affect!
Posted by Nordenkalt444 4 years ago
Nordenkalt444
Pro has a strong starting statement with plenty of hypothetical opinions, but it contains gibberish and doesn't make sense as he is trying to make his case. Good attempt to argue, but also needs more sources and examples to back himself up. I have to give this one to Con.

Best regards,
a fellow atheist
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Legitdebater 4 years ago
Legitdebater
ChamsakskidzTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro for pointing out that there's no evidence that God exists, whereas Con failed to prove God existed beyond reasonable doubt. Sources to Pro because although he used Wikipedia; not the most reliable source and only one source, at least he used one.
Vote Placed by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
ChamsakskidzTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made nothing but an argument of ignorance fallacy, also the idea that because Jesus says he's an expression of god does not prove anything. There was no empirical, demonstrable or testable claims made to prove the existence of god, which was the resolution.
Vote Placed by SaintMichael741 4 years ago
SaintMichael741
ChamsakskidzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I like how this debate is debate is about the proof of god, not about his existence. I think that Pro had the edge in this debate. He started out strong and maintained his advantage. Con spent too much time talking about how perfect the earth is and not enough on countering pro in my opinion. Although pro should not be using wikipedia as a citation.
Vote Placed by Greematthew 4 years ago
Greematthew
ChamsakskidzTied
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: Great arguments from both, however, con provided a bit more convincing arguments as to why there is a creator.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
ChamsakskidzTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Leojm, please justify your arguments points.
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
ChamsakskidzTied
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: Wikki is not a reliable source. I actually edited that cite. It's not trusted.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
ChamsakskidzTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro demonstrated that none of the arguments he or Con presented were proof of God's existence; Con failed to provide any valid proof of god. Con threw in some points about Jesus at the end, but even they failed to make a prima facie case, in that they were mere assertions. Pro was the only one with sources, as well, winning that point. Conduct was tied (as Pro never stipulated no more arguments in the last round, though I don't think it's entirely a kosher thing to do), and S&G seemed the same to me.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
ChamsakskidzTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate prompt is "There is no proof of God's existence." That is the prompt, not "God exists." Let's break this down: Conduct: Tied. Fairly civil all the time Spelling/Grammar: This goes to Pro. Con needs to re-check his arguments before posting. Arguments: Con gave some proof of God's existence. That gives him the shazam-type win he needed for this. I don't know if he did it on purpose, but hey. Sources: Pro used Wikipedia and Con used none. Wikipedia is not a real source so sources is tied. Winner? : Con!