The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Oberbeck
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

gods 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: 1,845 times Debate No: 957
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (16)

 

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.
Oberbeck

Con

God be as real as apple pie don't you know. He make this whole world. See, i got all the evidence there is right here in my Bible. It done says that God create the earth and the sky and water and the air and the people in six days and rest of the seven. Now how you gona argue witth that? See maybe you some kinda pinko and you all full of lies from the pinko school, but I done know you is wrong. You just try to argue with my Bible!!?
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Oberbeck

Con

Oberbeck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Oberbeck

Con

Oberbeck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chi 9 years ago
chi
your right it cant be proven but if you ask him for sighns they will happen and life is easier you just know when it happens that it is real
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
I honestly don't get why everyone is so against liberals. I am just as good of a person as anyone of you conservative christians.
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
This site, liberal heaven? Granted there are liberals, but there are a ton of hardcore conservatives that really press their views. And oberbeck, are you serious?
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Leonitus, I am a conservative Christian myself, but you must admit that the Con didn't provide much of an argument.

Then again, the Pro forfeited the rest of the rounds. That could be the only reason to vote Con.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
well its sad to see con will loose becuase this site is Liberal heaven but you got my support .
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
I fail to see how it is pure arrogance. If you truely believe in something why should you think someone else's method is right? I can tolerate it all day long, doesn't mean I have to think its right.
Posted by upstreamedge 9 years ago
upstreamedge
i agree you can't "prove" the existence of a god, but I feel you can't disprove it either.
Posted by SeducedbyPoetry 9 years ago
SeducedbyPoetry
I totally agree with dairy girl. I personally believe that there might be a higher power, but to me, the stories in the Bible are just that, stories. It does nothing for me, personally and there are a ton of inconsistencies and rather dated beliefs (sanctioning slavery, inequality of women, rejecting shellfish etc) that I do not believe are consistent with today's times. So to say that the Bible is the ONLY moral code, to me, is pure arrogance and shows little regard for the beliefs of others.
Posted by Oberbeck 9 years ago
Oberbeck
the devil done create that utter one seein cause he all evil and tryin to break us all into pinkos
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
even thought the debate hasn't even started, i'm going to vote for you, i agree completely
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cOberbeckTied
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 chi 9 years ago
chi
dairygirl4u2cOberbeckTied
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 YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cOberbeckTied
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 Gao 9 years ago
Gao
dairygirl4u2cOberbeckTied
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 Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
dairygirl4u2cOberbeckTied
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
dairygirl4u2cOberbeckTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
dairygirl4u2cOberbeckTied
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 dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cOberbeckTied
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 batman 9 years ago
batman
dairygirl4u2cOberbeckTied
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 kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
dairygirl4u2cOberbeckTied
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