The Instigator
skravlekassen
Pro (for)
The Contender
Aleksa_Stojkovic
Con (against)

Which arguments do you've for either God existing or not existing?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
skravlekassen has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 191 times Debate No: 107201
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

skravlekassen

Pro

I want to hear your argument for either why God exists or why it don't exist.
Aleksa_Stojkovic

Con

Arguments for:

(1) From every observation that I have made, and from every observation that others have made throughout the history of mankind, there is not even one example of chaos transforming into order without the involvement of intelligence. Why then, should I choose to believe, that intelligence was not involved in the origin of mankind and nature? It would be contrary to everything I know as a person.

Of course, you may say that chaos can become order, for you have seen beautifully structured snowflakes form by themselves as they fall from the sky. However, this is not a legitimate objection in the context of mankind and nature - the reason is, such a structure made by the laws of nature is entirely limited to pattern formations, and not the type of order that we find in nature (i.e., inside cells).
_______________________________________________________________________________________

(2) Everywhere in nature, we find what is often referred to as irreducible complexity. Basically, this is a biological system with multiple components, where the removal of a component causes the entire system to fall apart or not function properly. This means, that the system could not have been assembled step-by-step in a Darwinian fashion, but requires pre-planning, which requires intelligence.

Initially, it was thought that no such system exists in nature, and that all of them can have a pathway of assembly that can happen step by step. However, with the immense amount of knowledge that humanity has uncovered about the machinery in our cells from the 70s and forward, it is exceedingly clear that there are not only a few, but hundreds upon hundreds of such systems in nature.

One example of such a system is the bacterial flagellum, which contains over 40 components, and can not be deconstructed and made step by step by nature alone, without the involvement of intelligence. Of course, numerous people have tried to refute this. However, their refutations are riddled with incoherency and misunderstanding. To learn more, view the lectures of dr. Michael Behe.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

(3) If you were a man that does not have a high position in society, living in a world that does not have the technology to mass produce material, or communicate efficiently (i.e. no printers, no typewriters, no internet, no telephones) - and you had a message, which by the way contradicted the interests of both the governmental and religious authorities, what would be your chances?

This is precisely the environment that Jesus Christ lived in, and not to mention that he didn't sugar coat his message at all, but spoke entirely without a filter, offending a great number of people in the process. After his death, only twelve people were left to talk about his message actively, and all of them suffered exceptionally horrific deaths - this basically told everyone: be quiet, or face death.

What are the chances of his message suceeding under these circumstances? The chances are microscopic. And yet, that exact message has defied everything, entirely changed the course of history, dominated for millennia, been translated into 3312 langauges, copied more than 5,000,000,000 times. What are the chances that a carpenter could get this going in a mere three years of work?

I do not have arguments against.
Debate Round No. 1
skravlekassen

Pro

Arguments against:

* It's a possibility there's no God because of the "cause and the effect" don't always have to apply in every cases and being the universal law. Time is also necessary in the "cause and effect" law. So if there were no time or space before big bang, then there wouldn't be a "cause and effect" law and if that's the case - everything can come from nothing. Another paradox with the God belief is "Who created God?". If God could come from nothingness, so could the universe.

* Another common argument theists are using is "There's a lot we can't comprehend and there's many unexplained things. Therefor it has to be a God". But why can't we just be honest and saying that we simply don't know? There may be an logical explanation we've not discovered yet, but just assuming something to explain something we don't have any knowledge about can be very flawed.

In the witch trial for example people blamed at other people and said because there's a lot of diseases, accidents etc. it has to be witches instead of finding the actually scientific explanation on the issue. If we're keeping our self to what we knows are the reality and doing research instead of just assuming things, then we would easier come to solutions. I can claim I've a pink dragon under my bed. But that don't mean people have to believe in it. Both because of the possibility of I lying and lack of evidence. Not believing in a claim don't mean being hundred percent sure it's not true. It simply just mean I need evidence and being convinced to believe.

You've to prove something is true because it's your claim. That's how hypothesis works.

* Luck and randomness might occur. Considering how many planets there's with no life on that means things hasn't worked out may hint to that things have "failed". It may just be "luck" or very random that it's life on earth and not on many other planets. Don't you think the planets might have a different result if it was intelligence behind it? It may be like winning in a lottery. Thousand people don't win, but only one do because of the randomness.

----
(By the way. I'm a theist too. But I've been an atheist for a couple of years and can therefor see things from their point of view too. I wanted a discussion now. So why not playing the devil's advocate?)
Aleksa_Stojkovic

Con

I shall respond to each of your points individually, and I request that you place numbers instead of *'s, in that way I can address your points in a more efficient way, I would not have to repeat parts of what you wrote in order to identify what I am addressing.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) You state that cause and effect does not necessarily apply at all times, for time is a requirement. However, this is false. Nancy Cartwright's definition of causality does not reference time. For more information, see (Causal Laws and Effective Strategies, p. 423). However, I didn't bring this to the table in my previous post, and seeing that this is a neutral statement, I don't know why you have.

(2) You state that our lack of comprehension of the world around us causes us to arrive at the conclusion that there is a God. Here, you are unknowingly mixing two concepts into one - let me separate them: (i) there are people who conclude that God exists due to them not understanding the world, and that is not a logical conclusion (ii) there are people who associate incomprehensibleness with order as opposed to chaos, and therefore, conclude that there is an intelligence that is responsible, and that is a logical conclusion (see my A1).

(3) You mention the witch trials, in which people, especially the Catholics, were quick to conclude that certain diseases, accidents and so on, had causes rooted in witchcraft and demon practices - when in fact, the causes were less sinister in nature. I believe that in this case, you do not differentiate between religion as a doctrine, and the actions of those who consider themselves religious. I am also certain, that you can not positively prove one way or another, whether or not certain events were in fact caused by divine forces.

(4) You state that I have to prove what I claim, and whether or not I approve of that statement, entirely depends upon your definition of prove - these can vary wildly, I assure you of that. Now, you should also be aware that agnostics do not have to prove themselves, because they do not make a claim of knowledge, but of not knowing. On the other hand, atheism makes a claim of knowledge and is therefore required to prove it's claim, in the same way that religious people are required to prove their claim. Both claim knowledge.

(5) You state that luck and randomness might occur, in order to explain away improbable events that cause people to believe in an intelligence. Of course, luck and randomness happen sometimes. However, statistics exist for a reason. When something is likely to be the case, it most likely is the case - therefore, it is natural to believe what is likely, and disbelieve what is unlikely. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to naturally flow towards the unlikely conclusion, simply because things happen.


Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Aleksa_Stojkovic 3 weeks ago
Aleksa_Stojkovic
I try to respond well, because I see myself as a representative of religion in this case, and I don't want to disappoint or paint a bad picture for you and the viewers
Posted by skravlekassen 3 weeks ago
skravlekassen
You're very good at argumentation and I think you're a difficult opponent to argument against, Aleksa-Stojkovic. I'm very impressed! : - )
Posted by Aleksa_Stojkovic 3 weeks ago
Aleksa_Stojkovic
+ the title should be "God of the Abrahamic religions is easily proven to be false" with you as the Pro, taken directly from your words
Posted by Aleksa_Stojkovic 3 weeks ago
Aleksa_Stojkovic
Pill_Junkie_Monkey Disagree entirely, feel free to sign me up for a debate.
Posted by Pill_Junkie_Monkey 3 weeks ago
Pill_Junkie_Monkey
Depends on how you define God. If you define God to be the one of the Abrahamic religions, then that is easily proven to be false.
Posted by Aleksa_Stojkovic 3 weeks ago
Aleksa_Stojkovic
missmedic - It is quite simple to post your ideas in comments where serious dissection and scrutiny does not take place. It is a whole other thing to present your ideas in a controlled debate environment, where I would take apart your text and individually respond to every point on a fundamental level.

If you desire, please do make an invitation and arrange for the two of us to debate, but I am not willing to discuss these things further in the comment section. However I am glad that you remain here and observe my debate with skravlekassen, it will be an interesting debate :-)
Posted by missmedic 3 weeks ago
missmedic
I'm realizing that everything I've ever written about religion's harm boils down to one thing.
It's this: Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.
It therefore has no reality check.
And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self-correction. Of course it has other elements -- community, charity, philosophy, inspiration for art, etc. But those things exist in the secular world, too. They're not specific to religion. The thing that uniquely defines religion is belief in supernatural entities. Without that belief, it's not religion. And with that belief, the capacity for religion to do harm gets cranked up to an alarmingly high level -- because there's no reality check.
Any other ideology or philosophy or hypothesis about the world is eventually expected to pony up. It's expected to prove itself true and/or useful, or else correct itself, or else fall by the wayside. With religion, that is emphatically not the case. Because religion is a belief in the invisible and unknowable -- and it's therefore never expected to prove that it's right, or even show good evidence for why it's right -- its capacity to do harm can spin into the stratosphere.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.