The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheArtist
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

a god is a factual impossibility

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TheArtist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,021 times Debate No: 98198
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

the lack of facts proves the impossibility of a factual possibility.. factual impossibility
TheArtist

Con

Hi vi_spex, great topic, thank you for this debate.

" The lack of facts proves the impossibility of a factual possibility". I will firstly answer this statement with the legal concept of the burden of proof. For a statement or accusation to be brought to the table, the burden of proof usually lies with the accuser or the party making the statement. In this case, if you claim that there is a lack of facts proving the impossibility of a factual possibility of a god, you would have to prove the lack of facts. Also, how does the lack of facts prove anything? This is the burden of proof again, if you make a claim that something did not happen or does not exist, facts need to be provided for this. A lack of facts does not prove or disprove anything.

If an apple falls from a tree but there is no-one to observe it yet, is it no longer a fact that it fell from the tree or that the lack of facts of the event prove that there will never be a factual possibility that it happened?

When the apple fell from the tree, and no-one saw it happen, there is a lack of facts that it happened. Does this prove the impossibility of a factual possibility that it ever happened? If someone observes that the apple did fall from the tree later on, it doesn't only become fact when the evidence is gathered, it was a fact before but the evidence has only been found now. The lack of facts or evidence at present does not say anything about the possibility of the evidence in future or that the fact is not true.

Thus, how can the lack of facts prove that God's existence is not fact? Also, how would you define a fact about God when He is not of this world and is not limited by space, time, matter and things we can see and understand? When so many people testify how God has changed their lives throughout the Bible, through history and to this day, is it not evidence that there is a God working in people's lives? If you could hear all these millions of people's testimonies, one after the other, would that not be evidence of God? If so many people in the past and present were prosecuted and died for their beliefs in God, does this not say anything about how convinced they are that God is real? In comparison, is anyone willing to stand up and be oppressed, prosecuted, tortured and killed for their beliefs in evolution or the validity and accuracy of scientific studies conducted by a few fallible human beings? For so many believers in God throughout history, His existence was without question and they put their lives on the line to prove it.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you". In order for God's existence to become a fact in someone's life, they need to ask, seek and knock with an open mind and heart and those who do, shall find the truth and they will know that God cannot be found in a scientific study, be captured on a youtube video or in an article somewhere. These are worldly things we understand and is what we often use as fact but God works in the heart and soul and is far greater than these things.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

fact=personal memory
TheArtist

Con

Many people have experienced God's existence in their lives in a powerful way and can tell you all about it from personal memory. People have shared these experiences in the Bible, online and verbally.

If fact=personal memory as per your definition, how can you claim that there is a lack of facts of God's existence when there are so many accounts of His existence shared from personal memory?
Debate Round No. 2
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheArtist 1 year ago
TheArtist
There has been thousands of gods, but God of the Bible is truly unique. We have knowledge and evidence of Him, the Bible itself alone has a wealth of evidence for example. So I'm not speaking for any other gods here as they all fall short on the amount of evidence and in many other respects. Not trying to sound arrogant but this is my personal findings.

But the position that there is no god and therefore God of the Bible also does not exist, the question begs, where did the universe come from? This boils down to, where did matter and energy come from? We do not have current knowledge or proof or evidence of where it came from, in fact, scientific laws (1st law of thermodynamics) show that energy can not be created or destroyed. So BELIEF and faith is required (in natural processes) that the universe came into existence by itself i.e. that all energy in the universe came from nothing and at the same time, ignore the proof that says it cannot. That is not science, but the denial of the laws of science to further a belief system or religion. A godless religion, but religion nonetheless.

By the same standard, is belief required to know God of the Bible exists? Yes, but there is also reasonable evidence and knowledge to substantiate that belief. Can it be proven that He doesn't exist?
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Santa Clause has taught us that millions can believe in the same thing and all of them be wrong.
Humans have invented thousands of gods over thousands of years, and all have been myths, so what is there to prove? You do not use or need knowledge, proof or evidence for gods.
The only thing needed for gods to be, is belief. However believing in something does not make it true or real. The more you know the less you believe.
A lot of horrible things in this world get done for "some form of a higher power"
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
humans are not machines
Posted by TheArtist 1 year ago
TheArtist
Agreed, man has always seeked a god and has always been fascinated by the idea. Today that fascination sometimes translate into hollywood movies, computer games, comic superheroes etc., all exhibiting some form of greatness or excellence greater than man himself.
Posted by TheBenC 1 year ago
TheBenC
When every culture on the planet comes up with some form of a higher power, you need to disprove it. The fact is humans are designed to seek a higher power. If you say there is none, going against basic programming and instincts, then you must prove it.
Posted by TheBenC 1 year ago
TheBenC
When every culture on the planet comes up with some form of a higher power, you need to disprove it. The fact is humans are designed to seek a higher power. If you say there is none, going against basic programming and instincts, then you must prove it.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
nothing is a word*
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
nothing is also a word
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Yep. But it would do fine without.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
so does the word ape
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ChadIrvin 1 year ago
ChadIrvin
vi_spexTheArtistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems to me that "pro" had no desire to debate the topic.
Vote Placed by cwt002 1 year ago
cwt002
vi_spexTheArtistTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost spelling and grammar due to a lack of capitalization and punctuation. Then Pro made zero arguments and no rebuttals to Con's statements. There were no sources from either party and I thought conduct was equal although it seems that Pro did not even attempt to engage in an intellectual argument.