The Instigator
hippobob
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
David199323
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

the reality of God

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 842 times Debate No: 13874
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

hippobob

Con

First, I would like to preface my argument by stating that I am a 16 year old from the United States, who attends a Quaker meeting house every Sunday, yet struggles to accept the existence of God.
Here are the tenants of this debate:
=====================================================
1.) I accept spirituality fully, and accept people of all religious and cultural backgrounds.

2.) I expect tangible evidence of the existence of a greater power, that must be explained by scientific experiments.

3.) I do not mean to offend the religious by arguing against the existence of God, I am merely stirring debate.

4.) I define proving the existence of God as making an argument evidenced by cited facts, an argument that could be considered more likely than all other alternatives.

=====================================================

I will now state my claims against the idea of a greater power.

=====================================================

1.) CREATION OF ALL WITHIN THE UNIVERSE
The creation of the Universe can be explained by the Big Bang Theory (which will here to forth be referred to interchangeably as the BBT), and thus negates the likelihood of the creation of the universe and all that is within by a greater power. While the Bible states that God created the Universe and all that remains within, this is a more daunting task than it first appears. The first Tenant of cell growth is that all cells must come from preexisting cells. For God to have made the Earth, therefore, there needed to be preexisting materials. With that in mind, one can then make the conclusion that the creation of the Earth out of nothing is scientifically impossible, thus denouncing God from his post as the creator.

2.) CHISTIANITY AND JUDAISM
The Christian and Jewish idea of God is, as described by their holy texts, an impossible anomaly by the standards of Science, as for him to be the Creator of all in existence, he would have had to create himself out of nothing, which is equivalent to stating that an empty space could transform into an all-powerful being of consciousness, instantaneously. The Bible also states that God loves all. This is contradictory to the combination of (A. The way God created the world and B. His omnipresence). If God loved all of his creations, and could see into the future, why did he craft a world where he knew his own creations would cast him (God) off as the sole creator of the universe, thus forcing them to an afterlife of eternal suffering? As a whole, the Christian and Jewish God is impractical, illogical, and scientifically impossible.

3.) THE DISMISSAL OF ALTERNATE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
If one were to look down through history, you would find an assortment of different religious beliefs, spanning across the whole of the globe. The Aztecs, the Greek, the Chinese, the Native Americans, the tribesmen of Africa, and the indigenous people of Australia all created these unique beliefs, with the single similarity of the idea of a God, a greater power. All of these cultures had unique practices and times of worship, accepting and building off this one parallelism, creating their own communities with them. Now I ask you this. If you would so readily cast off the ideas of these civilizations, what would make your religious belief the true one? As there is no religious belief that holds any more credibility than another, I am forced to dismiss all as actual fact.

I thank you, my fellow debater, for your input, and wish you luck!
David199323

Pro

Hello, I would like to thank you for this debate. I am 17 years old from Canada and I am an Atheist. I accepted your challenge because would like to take the other side of this argument for once :). I hope that the fact that you are debating a fellow atheist is not discouraging to you.

Your 4 tenants are very well put :)

I will begin with my counterarguments:

1.) I agree that scientific evidence points toward the big bang theory as the beginning of the universe. Your example of cells is flawed because it does not account for the first cell. God could have been the one to initiate the big bang and therefore he had the materials. He just guided them in a way that would create the earth and the rest of the universe that we see today. He guided it by creating forces like gravity, strong force, weak force, and electromagnetism. In this way god is still the creator, though he does not just poof things out of thin air.

2.) This argument is a little contradictory to your first point. You say that empty space cannot transform into something. Then I have to ask you, where did all the energy in the big bang come from. You can say theories like previous universes imploded but it had to start somewhere and that start could have been god. God does not need to be created because he was the original thing. He was always around. You are arguing against the judeochristian ideology though I am just arguing for the existence of a God (not necessarily) the judeochristian one. This comes from the title of this debate. If you wanted to debate against that type of god you have to be more specific. An answer that Christians and Jews would give to your question is that you cannot comprehend god's logic because he knows all and so your judgement are insignificant.

3.) You say that many different people around the world have adopted an idea of god. Isn't it strange that all of them believe in some kind of god in the first place? Their must be a reason that all cultures around the world have the idea of a supreme being. This could possibly mean that all of these people experienced god as he guided them. Their uniqueness is based on interpretation of different experiences and because god is all powerful, he could have came to them in different forms so that all people can come together and marvel at the different interpretations (instead of having wars over them). I agree that no one religion holds more credibility than the other and they are probably all wrong in a "big picture" sort of way.

I would like to make a small argument before I let you reply

We are debating the existence of a God so it can be any god that has the power to do anything. You cannot say their is no god because then you are making a positive claim which leaves the burden of proof with you. You cannot possibly prove a negative so God could very well exist. Just like unicorns. Just like fairies.

Thank you for making this debate and for the good luck that you wished me. I too wish you good luck and I really hope to learn from your response because I will definitely approach it with an open mind :)
Debate Round No. 1
hippobob

Con

hippobob forfeited this round.
David199323

Pro

Ill keep this going just in case you might want to answer :)
Debate Round No. 2
hippobob

Con

hippobob forfeited this round.
David199323

Pro

David199323 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
hippobob

Con

hippobob forfeited this round.
David199323

Pro

David199323 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
hippobob

Con

hippobob forfeited this round.
David199323

Pro

David199323 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Lol, Atheism, you don't accept anything that can't be proven?
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
It is not the burden of Con to prove a negative. it is the burden of pro to prove his affirmative, which he will not be able to do. Ergo, Con auto-wins if he plays he cards right.
Posted by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
Again you can't prove a negative so Pro automatically wins.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Easy win for Con if he knows how to play it right.
No votes have been placed for this debate.