The Instigator
pretendpotato
Con (against)
The Contender
tomorrow2427
Pro (for)

Do we have good reason to think god exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
tomorrow2427 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 112272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

pretendpotato

Con

Throughout the history of mankind there hasn't been sufficient reason to believe in God. Still billions of people believe in God. I'm in the position not that, "God doesn't exist," but that we lack sufficient reason to believe in god. Change My Mind.
tomorrow2427

Pro

With all due respect, I'd like to suggest that your comments reflect a common misunderstanding. It's all well and good to talk about "facts" and "reality." But you're forgetting that there are different kinds of facts and different ways of apprehending truth. Stated simply, you're confusing science with history.
Debate Round No. 1
pretendpotato

Con

Well that all depends on what you mean by any of those terms. Science is the pursuit of knowledge and History is just the past events that occurred. In the pursuit of truth I haven't found evidence to believe in a God(defined as an actual entity outside of our minds.) Where have I confused Science with history? And what reliable ways of apprehending the truth are there that can lead you to a God? All I was saying was that there's yet to be a compelling argument to be able to remain agnostic about the issue yet meaning not that because he hasn't been proven that he doesn't exist but he has to be proven with evidence that hasn't been presented.
tomorrow2427

Pro

We all know and believe many things about ourselves, our world, and the people around us. Many of these things can't be "demonstrated by logical, controlled, and repeatable methods." You can know, for instance, that your mother loves you, and that a particular Beethoven symphony lifts your spirits. But you may not be able to "prove" any of this objectively. That's just the way life is. You should realize this if you're a "hard-headed realist."

The kind of "proof" you're talking about belongs almost exclusively to the realm of hard science. We call it empirical proof. It's the kind of proof that depends upon verifiable and repeatable experiment. By way of contrast, the evidence for historical events such as the life of Jesus Christ is forensic in nature. It's the same kind of evidence that lawyers use to build a case in a court of law. Even the "softer" sciences, such as psychology and sociology, are heavily dependent upon evidence of this nature. You need to keep these two different kinds of "proof" separate in your mind if you want to think clearly and carefully about the world in which we live.

You're right. We can't prove empirically that Christ lived, died, and rose again. But then we can't prove empirically that George Washington was the first President of the United States either. In other words, we can't devise a repeatable experiment capable of demonstrating these facts in a controlled laboratory environment. But that doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of forensic and historical evidence to support them. Far from it.
Debate Round No. 2
pretendpotato

Con

That still doesn't answer if we have good reason to believe. You've only established different ways of approaching the truth but not how those lead to god. Forensic evidence still relies on evidence to indirectly confirm something. Empirical evidence can prove things to higher degrees of certainty. Any personal God knows this and withholds this form of evidence or simply doesn't care enough to prove it. For an impersonal god that doesn't manifest itself in anyway isn't a god that could be rationally justified.
Also, the first paragraph is completely unrelated. You don't have to prove feelings because they're just feelings. You can prove that you feel a certain way.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
1. WTF is a multiverse? And 2. Why does a person that does not believe in god have to believe in this multiverse? 3.Define Faith, as Christian change the meaning? 4. You contradict your self "no evidence can be gathered about something tens of billions of light years away", how do you know how far away it is if there is no evidence?
Posted by asta 3 years ago
asta
Why do atheist accuse Christians of believing on something that requires faith when atheists believe in the multiverse, which is also based on faith since no evidence can be gathered about something tens of billions of light years away.

Both require faith; at least the religious people are honest.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 3 years ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
As i pointed out, you only jump to those conclusions because of your misconception of God when in fact the evidence, logic and reason say otherwise.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
The Christian god has to many descriptive failings, contradictions and limiting attributes to be a true god.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 3 years ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
Darth_Unicorns you assume God is a scientific question, and if God existing is objectively true then proving God doesn't exist needs evidence. Science cannot determine if the following statement is true, "science is the only way to determine truth" and that's because it is a philosophical claim. You don't see an atheist arrange a debate with a theist then just sit back and say to the theist "prove God exists" you backup your own claim. To "debunk" the evidence for God one has to provide counter arguments, not just opinions and demands for more evidence. And using your logic there is no evidence that debunks the existence for God so he must be "fact until we know better" Any claim made needs evidence to back it up in order to come to the truth. This comment for example, "it is merely the natural laws of an atheistic universe" where is the evidence this statement is objectively true? There is none. God is a philosophical question and science is simply the method we use to understand the natural universe we live in and the fact the universe began to exist and is not eternal reasonably and logically shows that the evidence points to a creator. It is not a mere "God of the gaps" argument. Evil is simply the absence of good and God can allow evil things to happen in order to bring good from it. Evil situations builds our character, makes us love, makes us learn, makes us stronger, makes us empathise, makes us help. If I"m standing at the top of a tall building and see two cars driving fast through the streets towards each other, they can"t see each other but I know they are going to collide. Just because I know its going to happen doesn"t mean I caused it. The train carts need the locomotive to move them, but the locomotive doesn"t need the train carts to move it. Something to think about.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 3 years ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
@missmedic @Darth_Unicorns, you have a misunderstanding of God, and the state of the human person. God is omnipotent and benevolent, loves us and wills for us to love him, hence why we live in a world of free choice. God is existence itself and all logic, intelligence, good and truth constantly, consistently and eternally transcend from God as he transcends space and time, this is why he is unchanging. We are in a fallen state that is not currently in the presence of God and ultimately we will either be with God or a separate state from God. Because of his love for us he will respect our decision to reject him or accept him. Rejecting him freely cuts you off from God and this is eternally true if this is your choice at the end of your life. You cannot be with God when your choice is evil (absence of truth) because of Gods unchanging good/true nature, it would be contradictory and impossible to be with him. You can know things about God which he reveals but not fully fathom him because we are not God, we don"t even fully understand ourselves. God can only ever will the good, and wills the good for us which we in turn have to also will and do. As for your misquote of me, I actually said "Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause" You can come to know God through reason and this idea that science must prove God exists when science itself is largely theoretical, is just nonsensical.
Posted by Darth_Unicorns 3 years ago
Darth_Unicorns
@Just-Call-Me-PK, that is not how it works. That statement assumes that God exists. In science you come up with something, give it evidence, try to debunk the evidence and if you can"t then it is fact (until we know better). In this case God is the idea and you need evidence to prove it before atheists (including me) have to say why God doesn"t exist. Also your omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God doesn"t exist he is a thing to show you how it would work if this being was a thing

1. God exists
2. He is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being
3. Being omniscient, he knows all evil
4. Being omnipotent, he can stop all ways of evil happening
5. Being benevolent, he wants to stop all evil
6. End result- A character who knows all evil wants to stop all evil and can stop it so there is no evil
Contradiction- Evil exists

Credit to Viced Rihno (a YouTube channel)

Therefore your version of God does not exist or he screwed up massively at the start and can"t reverse it (but you would have to prove this).

Now I will leave you with this quote, "Theism is standing in a room full of light and looking for a pink cat with 9 legs that isn"t there and shouting "I"ve found it!"
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
You do understand the 3 laws of logic? https://oregonstate.edu...
God belief violates the law of Identity, when you and your bible say that god is unknowable. The concept of a creator god is even more problematic , for this 'creator of everything' must have inherent traits that it itself did not create. It must be intelligent and rational (therefore, it can't have created intelligence nor logic). It must have desire, drives, motivations, an amazing omniscient thinking mechanism, and it can't have created itself. So it seems impossible and untrue to say that "everything must have a cause, therefore there is a god". Each property of god is itself a contradiction of the idea that god is the sole creator. All those uncreated self-traits lead to an impossibly unlikely situation where a complicated and multi-faceted being is invoked in order to explain a Universe that is said to be too complex to have self-created. The very concept of a creator god contradicts itself, and is impossible and incoherent. The First Cause of everything is not a god at all, it is merely the natural laws of an atheistic universe. The more you know the less you believe............
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 3 years ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
There is no good evidence at all that God doesn"t exist, which an atheist would have to show to back up the claim as it is a positive claim, just as it is a positive claim to say God does exist. Some atheists like to disagree with evidence for God without actually showing evidence for there claim as you can see from the comment below. What would class as "direct" evidence? Nobody could ever fully understand or explain God because they are not God. God is existence itself and transcends space and time and is not bound by laws that bind us. My last comment is one good example (of many)of evidence for God, can you provide evidence that shows God doesn"t exist or at least explain why my example is flawed? Thank you.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
There is no direct evidence that any god(s) exist. Likewise, there are no purely theoretical arguments that prove any gods either. In addition to the lack of reasons for a God's existence, the Argument from Incoherence holds that the very concept of god is self-contradictory and impossible, therefore, theism is false and atheism is true. The very concept of a creator god contradicts itself, and is impossible and incoherent. The First Cause of everything is not a god at all, it is merely the natural laws of an atheistic universe. Obviously more can be said but that is a start.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.