You cannot prove nor disprove God or any deity.
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1 is accepting the debate.
Round 2 is first arguments with no rebuttal from either side.
Round 3 is refuting your adversary; no new evidence is to be brought to the table
Round 4 is defending your points. No refuting each-others' defenses.
Before we begin, please state where you are coming from weather it be Theist or Atheist. Please tell me if you have any confusion. Thanks!
As of now i make my main 5 points as to why I believe what I believe:
1)I am an agnostic as to the question of God. I think that it is impossible for the human mind to believe in an object or thing unless it can form a mental picture of such object or thing, so furthermore, proving god is impossible due to the fact of proof of God existing.
2) Disproving God is impossible because science doesn't have all of the answers. We can't search beyond the universe or everywhere in the universe. There are tons of questions that aren't answered and can't be answered. For example, there is no proof of unicorns right? Well, does that mean that there is a 100% chance that they can't exist in all of the universe or other universes? No that is irrational, the same to say if you say they have to exist.
3)We as humans don't have the mental capacity to know if there is or isn't something as powerful as a deity in our universe.
4)Heaven and Hell (afterlife) again, cannot be proven nor dis proven, see my previous arguments. (Though I think the idea of after life is irrational, but that is another debate for another time)
5)People don't like the idea of not knowing what their cause is, so they will often cling onto a deity looking for moral or mental support, trying to disprove other people's ideology. Atheist much rather accept the idea of no god at all, but will often try to disprove god, both acting irrational.
I now await my adversary's response, looking forward to see what he brings to the table.
Thanks to my opponent, and please do not worry about taking time to respond. This is after all why I try only accept arguments with three day time limits. I mean we all have other things to do outside of the Internet.
In my initial statement I said that I would be showing that the Biblical God can be disproved using biblical canon. Now potentially if my opponent has read some of my prior arguments then he will surely know and be ready to rebut my first piece of evidence that the Biblical God cannot exist. So without further ado, I present prayer as proof that God cannot exist.
In the bible it says in Mathew 21:22 "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."(1) I am pretty sure I am not misinterpreting this when I say that means if you pray for something,then you will receive it. It also means regardless of what you pray for "you will receive whatever" you will receive it. However when we look at scientific studies showing the power of intercessory (third person) prayer we find that prayer does not work.(2) In fact even in cases where prayer has been "shown" to work, careful analysis shows that this is due to faulty statistics or dubious methodology employed.(3,4)
In one of these studies the authors actually state that their methodology is not accurate when they are testing the efficiency of prayer on hearing improvement.(3) The words by the authors about their methodology are as follows,"Due to time constraints, hearing thresholds were measured for all subjects only at 3 kHz in each ear separately instead of across the whole frequency spectrum; we took additional measurements as time allowed." Additionally they only see a minor difference in improvement in a set that includes 18 ears of 11 patients? But most people have 2 ears, so conveniently the authors set is 4 ears short and there is no reason given for this. My guess is that they are hiding the data which shows prayer has no effect.
In another study regarding the effect of prayer on heart surgery patients the author shows actually that the patients that are prayed for actually do worse.(4) They show that prayed for patients have a greater chance of dying (9.01 %) than non prayed for patients (8.78%). However,if the bible is true the reality is that no patients that get prayed for should die.
Now possible rebuttals against these studies by theists are that prayer does not work in these situations as the people praying lack faith. This is valid as it says in Mathew that faith is required for prayer to work, however I believe this can be overcome using two pieces of logic.
(a) why would you pray at all if you did not have faith? This throws the no faith idea out the window, as if you did not have faith you would not pray. This for me is reason enough to dismiss the non faith rebuttal, but there is an easier way to test it.
(b) In James 5:14-15 it says "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."(5) This means that all we need to do is get clergy to pray to God and it will work. To the best of my knowledge this has never been done and I don't know why. It would be the slam dunk for prayer studies as it would work if it was true, but I can guarantee you that it will not work as all other studies have shown it does not work.
However, an even easier way to test the prayer hypothesis would be for any Christian to just pray for something they really want i.e.. house, car, wife. Then, and this is important, after this prayer just sit back and wait and do nothing. If the bible is correct your prayer will be answered and you will get given what you want. A good piece of advice however at this point would not be to hold your breathe as you will pass out.
In conclusion, if prayer does not work then the bible is incorrect in saying that you will get what you pray for. However, I stated that the bible is the source of information I will use in this debate. We have to then conclude that God does no answer prayer as he should, this means then that God is not real.
Over to my opponent, I look forward to hearing your rebuttal.
My opponent uses the ideology of prayer in his answer and there is no logical rebuttal because i agree with his point about praying. Prayers are normally unanswered and don't work as often as they should. However, I strongly stress the point to my opponent that he and I are only human and we are not exactly capable of understand a deity in full, nonetheless prove or disprove him. I must stress that the bible was ,in fact, written by humans, having historical and factual inaccuracies. Science, however, has not discovered even a tiny portion of our galaxy, and the universe is such a large place that we don't know what is exactly out there, and through all of the things we don't know, isn't it possible that a deity can be one? I once again say the unicorn argument, "There is no current evidence of unicorns, but does that mean there is no way in all of the universe's mysteries that there isn't one unicorn?" No, we don't know, and we probably never will know for sure, especially for a god of that matter. However, i believe the prayer argument is weak because the bible is full of inaccurate in many things that we know aren't right.
I again apologize for my last second response, and I will be sure to respond ASAP on the next round :)
My opponent has stated in round 2 that he is an agnostic to the question of God as he says it is "impossible for the human mind to believe in an object or thing unless it can form a mental picture of such object or thing" This seems to me to be an atheist position,as my opponent is saying he does not believe in something if he cannot form a mental picture of this thing. How I have to wonder is my opponent been agnostic about a god, when it is evident that he cannot believe according to his definition.
Agnosticism is the position of someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities.(1) Yet my opponent has said you can only believe in an object which you can from a picture of. It is impossible to form a picture of god according to my opponent when he states "We as humans don't have the mental capacity to know if there is or isn't something as powerful as a deity in our universe." This means that according to my opponents belief position that god does not exist.
I also want to add here that I am not sure what my opponent means when he says "proving god is impossible due to the fact of proof of God existing." This seems to me to be a serious contradiction, as the proof is impossible yet it is a fact? I would like my opponent to clarify this.
I have to agree with my opponent that science does not have all the answers. However science is the search for truth, that means if there is not an answer for a question science will try answer the question and not take the default theist position. To clarify the default theist position is: I don't understand hence god. Additionally,it should be noted that such a big question which affects society at large, i.e.the existence of god, has been researched using the tools science has. Unfortunately for theists and agnostics alike, everything points to no deity or no heaven and hell. (2-4) Additionally, I agree with my opponent there may or there may not be Unicorns in the universe. However, a far more logical position is to say there are no unicorns as all evidence we have shows there are no unicorns. This same logic should get applied to a god hypothesis,as all evidence shows there is no god. This is position is made even more relevant than the unicorn example as this god is meant to be everywhere.
My opponent has essentially pinpointed the problem with theism. He said that people like to cling to a deity so that they feel they have a cause. But, this is not evidence that a god exists or doesn't exist in any way. This is purely a psychological response to wanting some meaning in life beyond what we are able to do ourselves. It is sad that some people are not able to live a full life without a belief in a deity, that makes them do good things. This argument is very weak to show that there should be a cause to actions, especially since we understand a lot of the psychology of doing good.(5)
Over to my opponent for their final defence for their points.
On my first refuted point, I have pointed out in my introduction I'm an agnostic-atheist, meaning I doubt there's a god, but I think there may be a God or a deity somewhere in the large universe. Allow me to redefine deity: a god or goddess of any kind, not just one that humans depict.
To clarify with my "We as humans don't have the mental capacity to know if there is or isn't something as powerful as a deity in our universe." What I mean is a deity has so much power correct? He can kill all of us if he wanted or he could make us all billionaires if he just give the command. We as humans don't know of that infinite power first hand so we cannot know if one exists or not.
To my "proving god is impossible due to the fact of proof of God existing." I am sorry, I must have made a typo within that sentence, and am not sure what I exactly meant by it.
Back to my unicorn argument: My opponent is somewhat correct in saying, "a far more logical position is to say there are no unicorns as all evidence we have shows there are no unicorns." However, I stress something key in round two, which is, "No CURRENT evidence of unicorns" and how I said how little we know about our universe. Yes, as of current science we can say there is no God, but even though unlikely, what if scientists come out with discovery of a deity tomorrow? New things are found everyday, and maybe one day a deity will one of those things, but both you and I don't know that.
With my theism argument, I was saying that theists will cling onto God for a cause and will try to prove that he exists by clinging onto him. Atheists don't cling, and try to disprove them, both not knowing for sure if one is real or not. My final thing to say is and my main argument this whole time has been: "There is no evidence for a god, yet it would be unwise to simply say God doesn't exist. Nobody knows the answer to this question. So stop pretending you know the answer."
I wish my opponent luck in his defenses.
Thank you to my opponent for their rebuttals.
I do want to remind my opponent that when I accepted this debate I said I was coming from the atheist position and that I intend to refute the Biblical God using biblical canon and the Bible. I then went on to produce the evidence for the non existence of the biblical God by showing that prayer is non effective and according to biblical canon this is meant to be effective. My opponent has then stated that "My opponent uses the ideology of prayer in his answer and there is no logical rebuttal because i agree with his point about praying." My opponent has even gone further to say that prayers go unanswered "Prayers are normally unanswered and don't work as often as they should" and this is the basis of my evidence and proof that the Biblical Go does not exist. If the biblical God existed then prayer would work and that is according to biblical canon. As such, I have proved to my opponent (and he has agreed?) that the Biblical God does not exist. This means my opponents argument that it is impossible to refute a deity is flawed as I have effectively shown that at least the biblical God can be disproved.
In refutation of this my opponent has said that " that he and I are only human and we are not exactly capable of understand a deity in full, nonetheless prove or disprove him. I must stress that the bible was ,in fact, written by humans, having historical and factual inaccuracies." But in coming into the debate I said I intend to use Biblical canon and the bible as the evidence to disprove God and my opponent did not object. So I have to wonder why my opponent disagrees now? Also I am not sure how my opponent can say "i believe the prayer argument is weak because the bible is full of inaccurate in many things that we know aren't right." While I agree with my opponent that the bible has many errors, that was not the point of the debate. If the bible is meant to be inspired by the omnipotent Biblical God then it should be accurate and is held in this view by most Christians or at least should be. (1,2) However, as I pointed out before prayer does not work (3) according to the biblical verse from Mathew 21:22 which says "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."(4)
I would say I would pray for a good outcome for myself in this debate, but I know it will not work. Finally, I would like to thank my opponent for a stimulating debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheOncomingStorm 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||1|
Reasons for voting decision: I'm sorry con, but as long as I'm the one voting this debate isn't going to go in your favor. I gave conduct and arguments to pro as the debate was on a deity in general, and while pro stuck to the topic, con tried to change the debate and committed the red herring of attacking a specific deity thus leaving millions of possibilities open. Pro was able to affirm that a deity could neither be proven nor disproven.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.