The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
42 Points
The Contender
Cindela
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

god's existence cannot be proven

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: 12/24/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,736 times Debate No: 952
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (27)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Depends on the level of proof you want, and how you define God. But ultimately, if you define God in any meaningful terms, or with substantial level of proof, God's existence cannot be proven.

incidentally. I believe in God's existence, but I don't claim it's definitive proof.
(Faith is arbitrary; and the act of faith -- of its very nature -- involves man's free choice (libero arbitrio).)

CAUSATION
everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.

Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it. This is not analogous completely, but it makes an important point. That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random. But, it's still the point that it's arbitrary, like the spaghetti monster, to say intelligence is necessary.

Now, It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. Ultimately this analogy does not fly either though, because a bike is specific, whereas the world is something that could have always been. (if god can alway have been, the world could always have been)
So we have the spaghetti monster on the one side and the bike on the other, ha.

In broader terms, there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian. perhaps as you were saying, if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily. If that can just be, so can God.

Some people insist there's "something" that just "has" to be. As Ronald Knox put it, you can add as many links and as large as you like to a chain, but at some point you have to have a peg to hang it on, reiterating the point of an infinite chain argument. Some people like to hang their argument on this "thing" that must just be.
it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.

now, the big bang actually helps verify the dogma of God's existence as certainty, because we stop talking about the never ending chain as much. But was there anything before the big bang? We shouldn't assume so, it seems sufficient proof to say at least as far as that goes, that there ws nothing before the big bang, and if scientists are allowed to make deductions like this as a degree of proof, deductive while not inductive, the theologian should be able to too.
So, we see empiracally that there was a first cause, the big bang. if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next ones then God? Or if it was random chance, is that God? To make God's existence mean anything, that is not God. If you define God as some abstract first cause, you're not defining him as much if it could just be a bunch of particles or random chance.
So if particles and random chance are possible, then God's existence isn't proven. Even if we assume nothing before the big bang.

you'd just be stomping your foot saying that a first cause, ie God, can just be without a cause, cause he's the first cause and can't have a cause before him. it's like a leap of logic that's not necessarily warrnated or based on anything we've seen as humans empiracally.

definitive proof would be proving either logically that there was a first cause, beyond particles and random chance. proving that there wasn't anything before the big bang that went back on and on. as of now we just have evidence for God. like if you see a dark spot, you have evidence that it's a shadow and thus would need an object causing it, but it could also be a natural dark spot where the sun don't sun. (no i'm not saying in anyone's behind.....) i think it'd be techincally deductive proof, not inductive. i forget the meaning of those words or if they ar teh right words but it's one of those.

ORDER AND INTELLIGENCE
same for intelligence. that there is order to hte universe doesn't prove God.
First of all, you're arguing that something complex, ie existance, was created by something that would be presumably even mroe complex?
where'd that complexity of God come from?
ockham's razor. The simplest solution would be the most probable.

Order could just means that order happened to occur, if we assume random chance and particles.
if you define intelligence as order then sure, but that's not saying much. you have to give the intelligence consciousness to mean anything substantial.

same with somethign complex like a watch. it's just proof, even more proof, but not exhaustive. when you look at something complex like a watch, it didn't spring up out of nowhere. it got here as an end product of earth formation, and evolution, and trial and errors and all that. if it did just spring up, you'd have something.
if life can form from elementary particles, that would eventially give rise to evolution to complexity. as per the world being ordered, it seems like it just follows laws of entropy and order just happened to occur givne gravity and such. it's not an unreasonable argument. but i agree God makes most sense, just isn't proof.

but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. I suppose here it'd be reasonable to say God exists, almost certainly, but I simply cannot see how you could say for sure.the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?

order is indicative of inteligent consciousness but not a proof definitively.

OTHER ARGUMENTS
but it's not without evidence theisitc faith. miracles is one. nderf.org is too.
though, nderf is pretty shaky about who or what God is doeother than many claim he exists.
miracles that can be done over and over would be very good proof in itself but that is lacking.
you could argue that miracles are proof, but, still, why would something complex ie miracles require something even more complex, ie God? This goes with the argument about about order and how it's almost miraclulous…. It's not definitive proof but at least with miracles, it's much closer.

"God as existance". a catharisis so theists can certainly claim God exists. no one would deny existance, rational people anyway. and you can call that God if you want, but it's not saying much of anything.
Cindela

Con

I am going to take this debate in a pantheist's point of view. Pantheism, by Merriam Webster's definition, is a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe. For a pantheist, the Universe and everything in it is God. The Universe exists, and so does everything inside it. Therefore, I have just proven that God exists, with a pantheistic point of view. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"I am going to take this debate in a pantheist's point of view. Pantheism, by Merriam Webster's definition, is a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe. For a pantheist, the Universe and everything in it is God. The Universe exists, and so does everything inside it. Therefore, I have just proven that God exists, with a pantheistic point of view. Thank you."

As I said for "God is existance", this argument is essentially that. You can call it God if you want, but it's not really proving much of anything. It seems more like a catharsis for theists can feel they've proven God.
Do you think defining God that way proves anything substantial?

There's not really much of a debate here if you simply want to call existance etc God.
Cindela

Con

<> It might not prove anything substantial, but it is a way to prove that god, by a pantheist's point of view, exists. The topic is whether or not god's existence can be proven. I have just shown that god's existence can be proven through pantheism.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Anyone can define things randomly... you haven't proven anything substantial, other than the fact you are good at labeling things randomly.

I have acknowledged that God's existance could be proven that way. you should have not taken this debate, because I said that was a cop out argument, in my mind, and I was looking for more substantial arguments. That should have been clear.
sp If you did more than just declare God is existence, then you'd have a purpose to join the debate. But you didn't. So, you joined the debate with no purpose, and there's no way you could win a debate like that.

or... I've always agreed you could define God that way, so I don't know what your point is. can you tell me ??
(though even if you did tell me, which i'm pretty sure you couldn't do... it shouldn't have taken you till the third reply to tell me, when i have no chance to reply)
Cindela

Con

<< Anyone can define things randomly... you haven't proven anything substantial, other than the fact you are good at labeling things randomly. >> How have I not proven anything? I have proven that God can be proven to exist through pantheism! How can you say that I have not proven anything?

<> You never specified that people could not argue as a pantheist. You also never said what you were looking for. And it was not clear.

<> What do you mean, I joined with no purpose? I joined this debate to show that it is possible to prove god's existence as a pantheist. This is just a personal attack.

In the end, I have shown that your arguments can all be proven wrong through pantheism. In conclusion, pantheism defines the Universe and everything in it as God. You can prove that the Universe exists, and therefore God exists through a pantheistic point of view. This debate is solely about whether or not God's existence can be proven or not, and because I have show that you can through pantheism, I win this debate.

Footnote: The religious views presented in this debate do not represent that religous views of the debaters necessarily. Thank You
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
How was my argument based on "faith"? I was saying that god's existence could be proven, and I showed that it is possible through a pantheist's eyes? What is faithful about my statements?
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
OH! And just because I appreciated Cindela's efforts, she did NOT get my vote.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
Cindela's argument strikes me more as "faith" than proof. Perhaps it was in the presentation. The debate could've been better, but unlike the others, I appreciated Cindela's contribution, even though it was dangerously close to being confused with circular logic.
Posted by AMBagoli 9 years ago
AMBagoli
diary girl....good argument...i understood what u were saying, but technically cindela also has a point. u failed to define many important semantical aspects of your arguments leaving your whole god concept vague which opened you up vulnerable to the pantheism attack.
Posted by transpicuous 9 years ago
transpicuous
Holy cow Cindela, can I do not think I could present a more pathetic and disinteresting argument if I tried. I agree with dairygirl in that you should have never taken this debate if this was going to be your argument.

The human race has to use reason when we are confronted with situations in which there is no evidence to be studied and interpreted. Such as in the case of deciding whether or not there is a God.

Though we have no tangible evidence in this case, we must use reason. Your use of pantheism is totally dependant upon cause and effect otherwise known as the theory of "if this then that". Such as IF something goes up THEN it must come down.

You pantheism argument implicitly uses this theory of cause and effect by suggesting that IF the universe exists THEN so must God.

But that is not cause and effect, but rather a baseless assumption or guess. How does pantheism "know" that the existence of the universe is the cause of a god?

It doesn't, it merely has "faith" that it is so.

Your argument cannot be disproved or proven. And the burden of proof rests with the you, which makes your ONE and ONLY argument invalid.
Posted by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
even though you cannot prove god, one cannot prove evolution as for there a many gap periods unaccounted for.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cCindelaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
dairygirl4u2cCindelaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
dairygirl4u2cCindelaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by khaylitsa 9 years ago
khaylitsa
dairygirl4u2cCindelaTied
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 YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cCindelaTied
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 Padfoot36 9 years ago
Padfoot36
dairygirl4u2cCindelaTied
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 King_Jas 9 years ago
King_Jas
dairygirl4u2cCindelaTied
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 padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
dairygirl4u2cCindelaTied
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 NapoleonofNerds 9 years ago
NapoleonofNerds
dairygirl4u2cCindelaTied
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 undecided_voter 9 years ago
undecided_voter
dairygirl4u2cCindelaTied
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