The Instigator
925nine
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
backwardseden
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does God Exist?

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 1 vote the winner is...
925nine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,594 times Debate No: 119505
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (78)
Votes (1)

 

925nine

Pro

I will argue that given our current knowledge it is more likely that God exists than not.
I will use 3 pieces of evidence:
1. The ancient argument.
2. The improbability of humans evolving the way that they have.
3. The improbability of nature being the way it is.
1.
p1: We have to believe that logic is inherent to the universe that we are in.
p2: Existence has to be cyclic in nature. As otherwise there would be a point in time where a change has occurred from nothing and nothing and nothing implies not nothing cannot both be true.
p3: The physical observations show that
a: The universe is expanding and is expanding eternally.
b: Objects radiate away heat.
Both of these imply that our universe is changing in a single direction eternally.
P4: Our universe is a part of Existence. Therefore Existence is changing in a single direction eternally. Therefore existence is not cyclic. Therefore Existence is not logical.
P5: We have to believe that existence is logical and therefore have to come up with a logical explanation to our observations.
P6: The explanations can be split into two categories : The natural, The intentional
P7: As it is unnatural for something to act against its own nature. The explanation that an illogical existence is naturally behaving logically is not logical.
Conclusion: Therefore it could only be that it must be that the illogical universe is intentionally acting logically. As such it could only be that God exists and is making the universe behave logically.
2.

E1: All human tribes believe in religion of some sort. This is also seen in places where the natural selection factors are at a maximum. Example: islands off of India, Amazon, Aboriginals. . .
If God does not exist than the selection pressures are so powerful that they can determine the shape of a person's nose and the thickness of a person's eyebrows. As such it doesn't make sense for evolution to allow a delusional ape to survive much less conquer the world. As there are many atheists in the world the solution isn't far fetched either and so for humans to have evolved this way is extremely unlikely.

E2:
On this note humans and perhaps other animals as well have the ability to dream. Again this is something extremely unlikely to occur naturally and the explanation that it is simulations for possible situations isn't convincing because not only are many or most dreams completely surreal and unrelated. Furthermore the mind could just have evolved to teach the skills without the need for conscious decisions. It would require a very specific set of conditions for "dreams" to be the most optimal evolutionary path forward and so it is extremely unlikely.

E3:
Near death experiences, Many people report having near death experiences. These experiences can involve out of body experiences to other phenomena as well. Furthermore though the number of samples are very small. People born blind report being able to see in near death experiences. All of this and the fact that there seems to be no obvious direct evolutionary benefit to having these experiences as you are about to meet your demise indicates that for such an evolutionary path to be taken is extremely unlikely.

E4:
Death bed visions. Many people see death bed visions even when their illness doesn't relate to the brain and they are not on medication. As there is imminent demise there cannot be much direct evolutionary benefit in this occurring. As such it is extremely unlikely to have come about by random chance.
E5:
The placebo effect. Even if you do not accept that it cures people. The results of the placebo effect are overwhelmingly positive. The response system which is one of the most vital system's evolving to not be optimized and to work on belief is not very logical. As such it is is extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance.
E6:
Humans grow out their beards and their hair.
The explanation for this is that like the peacock's evolution it is a negative effect which if you can manage to survive with highlights other positive traits. I would argue that this is relatively rare type of evolution and so for it to occur in human's is extremely unlikely.
E7:
Human's having emotion's towards things that they wouldn't have evolutionarily encountered. Example: landscapes and images that weren't near us in Africa. Like large snowy mountains and flying bald eagles evoking a feeling of majesty in people when the African Savannah was a largely flat plain. And there is no reason for an eagle to evoke the feeling of majesty.

Conclusion: While I could give more examples the point is that the materialistic explanation is highly unlikely to be correct and the way the evidence is. It indicates a specialnes towards humans which would not be present without intention and so this implies that God Exists.
3.
E1:
The laws of physics are such that you cannot go past a certain speed and you cannot have a certain amount of energy concentrated in an area (black hole). Time and space seem to be pixelated and the universe seems to care about information and observation. While some might argue that these are necessary for intelligent life. There is no real evidence against why just the uncertainty principle and a continuous universe wouldn't produce life.
E2:
The first self replicating configuration of molecules (life) occuring so soon after the world had liquid water. This is extremely unlikely compounded by the fact of the carbon density in the water not possibly being that great either and any other explanation involving life evolving elsewhere and coming to earth is also extremely unlikely.
E3:
Evolution evolving two sex organisms are also extremely unlikely. Evolution is about information being able to resist change caused by entropy through various means the main one being replication. As such sexual reproduction which changes information is directly against the optimal behavior of evolution. (The expected behaviour would be cells that form colonies that form organisms that lay eggs which give birth to themselves). Furthermore if the diversity of sexual reproduction provided such a great advantage in those specific conditions, Than the limits within species doesn't make sense. As such only very very specific conditions would produce the sexual reproduction that we see today and that is extremely unlikely to have occurred randomly. While the family unit would create a dynamic which was very different and would be more prone to being religious and so it would be much more likely for sexual reproduction to occur if God existed.

Conclusion:
The world that we find ourselves in is highly unlikely to have come from pure materialistic probability as the evidence against it indicates some intention this implies that God Exists.

Final conclusion:
All the evidence is highly unexpected under the materialistic hypothesis. If they are all about (1/1000 ) than because 5 sigma = (2/700000) is the proof we use for physics we could say that god is more likely to exist than not and so God Exists.
backwardseden

Con

I could simply end this debate with a simple two words by asking "which god? " Nah. That"d be far too easy. Hmmmm now did you come up with ALL of that on your own? Or were you a naughty little boy/ girl and did you do some plagiarizing? But bet that as it may, Did you get to watch yesterday"s Atheist Experience? You might want to
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=nBI4y4gUHBg - Atheist Experience 22. 50 with Tracie Harris & John Iacoletti and the call starts at 43:15
p1: We have to believe that logic is inherent to the universe that we are in. (The Atheist Experience ---perfectly--- identifies and tackles this subject so there"s no need to hash it out)
p2: Existence has to be cyclic in nature. As otherwise there would be a point in time where a change has occurred from nothing and nothing and nothing implies not nothing cannot both be true.
p3: The physical observations show that
a: The universe is expanding and is expanding eternally.
That is unknown
b: Objects radiate away heat.
Both of these imply that our universe is changing in a single direction eternally.
That is unknown
P4: Our universe is a part of Existence. Therefore Existence is changing in a single direction eternally. Therefore existence is not cyclic. Therefore Existence is not logical.
That is a guess and you don"t know that.
P5: We have to believe that existence is logical and therefore have to come up with a logical explanation to our observations.
No "we" don"t. Perhaps someone else does.
P6: The explanations can be split into two categories : The natural, The intentional
You "can" scrap the intentional until you can test and demonstrate it. You have to assert it.
P7: As it is unnatural for something to act against its own nature. The explanation that an illogical existence is naturally behaving logically is not logical.
The Atheist Experience tackles this.
Also everything in the universe is not known and not explained. It is not known what is logical and what is illogical - yet. And "we" may never know. That would be a very good thing!
Conclusion:
Which god? Why limit yourself to only one god? Why not have 6, 1, 000, 1 billion, 1 quadrillion?

2.
E1: All human tribes believe in religion of some sort. This is also seen in places where the natural selection factors are at a maximum. Example: islands off of India, Amazon, Aboriginals. . .
Religion is created to explain the unexplained.
"If God does not exist"" Well the B. O. P. Is always upon you. No exceptions, None. Because after all nobody, Not one person has ever proved that a god from any "tribe" and or the supernatural has ever existed in the entire existence of the human race. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is a god is an extraordinary claim in which requires more evidence than simply pointing to an old book. That is simply not rational, Not sufficient to the claim. Sorry, Its not just an opinion. There"s more to life than that. " Matt Dillahunty
"As there are many atheists"" Whoa there Spot the blunder drug. You don"t even know what an atheist is. Let"s define one right now. 1. A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. THat"s it. That"s all an atheist is. Nothing more. Nothing less. So please do not turn atheists into something that they are clearly not.

To better help you out here"s a video that explains what an atheist is.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=7o5h0DdcyTA&t=264s - Reasons for accepting atheism

"in the world the solution isn't far fetched either and so for humans to have evolved this way is extremely unlikely. " But you don"t know. You guess by the words you use "is extremely unlikely". And very recently was found a tribe of apes that murders AND stands erect which were two things once thought to be impossible.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=cVQRoF0W84o - Gorilla Walks Upright
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=4XP6T1CMgBQ - Aftermath of a Chimpanzee Murder Caught in Rare Video | National Geographic
E2:
"On this note humans and perhaps other animals as well have the ability to dream. " Actually animals do have the ability to dream.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=5kvbRoAdl_s - Dogs Dreaming Compilation
"Again this is something extremely unlikely to occur naturally"" The brain is a fully little thing/ tool isn"t it? And nobody knows the entire function of it. Its not even close. So what is dreams are surreal. It most certainly does not prove a god(s).
E3:
Not one NDE has ever panned out. Notice how nearly all of them take place in hospitals with professionals around, Like doctors? Yep you would need to demonstrate and test and assert that these take place. Not give off slices of "I don"t know. " and thus imply "therefore god".
E4:
Death bed visions. Sounds like The 6th Sense which has a better rubbish explanation than the one you gave. Its still doesn"t prove a god(s)
E5:
The placebo effect. Agreed. " The results of the placebo effect are overwhelmingly positive. "
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=JcPwIQ6GCj8 - How the Placebo Effect Really Works
Regardless it doesn"t prove a god(s).
E6:
Humans grow out their beards and their hair. Well so do dogs, Yaks, Lions, Seals etc. It doesn"t prove a god(s).
E7:
"Human's having emotion's towards things that they wouldn't have evolutionarily encountered. " Well man"s understanding of other animals towards this ideal is simply "I don"t know" because man does not know. Regardless, Onc again and this is becoming extremely tired, This does not in any way prove a god(s).
"Conclusion: While I could give more examples"" Save yourself the trouble. Again you would need to test, Demonstrate and assert that a god exists. How would you do this since no one else has?

"The other problem with an argument like this is NOT a reason why anybody believes in a god. This is literally m***erbation, Mental m***erbation. This is people going off to argue to argue because this is not a reason why anybody believes in a god. This is an excuse that people use to tie up people in useless philosophical discussion that really aren"t relevant to why people believe a god exists. It really doesn"t help answer the question at all. And its really not intended to. Its intended to be a diversion. " Tracie Harris (taken from yesterday"s Atheist Experience call from the first video posted. She"s right.

So POOF that entire argument is as useless as it gets and gets trashed because in no possible way proves a god(s).
3.
E1:
"The laws of physics" Well let"s most certainly hope that you are 100% correct and that life does exist elsewhere. Wouldn"t that be great if its discovered within our lifetimes? Here"s a line from the classic film Planet of the Apes "Somewhere out there in the universe there has to be something better than man. Has to be. " I 100% agree. One thing for sure its not the god of the bible with all of his hate and horrific terror especially hating children.

You mentioned black holes. There are an estimated 125 billion galaxies in this known universe. At each center are supermassive black holes. Then who knows how many others are lurking elsewhere? There has not even been 125 billion people ---ever--- to inhabit planet earth. So the god of the bible favors black holes over man. Black holes what are they from what is known? Nothingness. They are super mega weapons that devours everything that gets close to them including light. So once again the god of the bible favors these super mega weapons over man. And these super mega weapons are so powerful that for some they guide spiral galaxies. Again, The god of bible favors big black blank holes over man. Way to go god! Keep up the good work.
And nobody can even prove this god even exists.
E2:
"The first self replicating configuration of molecules (life) occuring so soon after the world had liquid water. " Well that"s an invented excuse. That answer is "I don"t know" because nobody does know - yet. Its really bothersome when someone invents excuses, Rather blatantly, And doesn"t have the foggiest idea as to what is true or not.
Obviously you have not heard of the Miller-Urey Experiment from 1952 which was very famous.
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
E3:
"Evolution evolving two sex organisms are also extremely unlikely. " How would you know? What tests, Demonstrations and assertions have you done to confirm this hypothesis? Strange isn"t it but they survived through a known at least 5 mass extinctions.
I see. So you can"t explain something, So your conclusion, Without thinking, Rationalizing, Reasoning, Using common sense, Using logic because there is none within god, Your religion and the bible, You automatically state "therefore god" rather than doing some actual reach to find out what is true and what isn"t true. Of course that is only true if you are trying to illustrate the character of the god in the storybook of the bible.
" Assume that we have no answer. Then the answer is "I don"t know". The answer isn"t "I can"t think of anything better, Therefore a god did it. ""Matt Dillahunty

Conclusion:
My opponent has not once used his bible to prove that his god exists, That is of course that in which god he is trying to portray as being true. So if it is the god of the bible that is what my opponent is trying to portray, Then the bible is the only outlet that he has to prove that his god exists or not. He cannot make leaps and bounds into some other guessing game and thus invent excuse after excuse after excuse in which in no possible way did and or does the bible depict and or characterize.
Debate Round No. 1
925nine

Pro

925nine forfeited this round.
backwardseden

Con

backwardseden forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
925nine

Pro

925nine forfeited this round.
backwardseden

Con

backwardseden forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
925nine

Pro

925nine forfeited this round.
backwardseden

Con

backwardseden forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
925nine

Pro

925nine forfeited this round.
backwardseden

Con

backwardseden forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
78 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Adrian14 3 years ago
Adrian14
There are many parts of evolution that are unknown. For example, The fossil record only contains a few of the millions of transitional forms that are required for evolution. There is also the huge mystery on how the first life form developed as well as how it survived. We have little to no information about those, Thus, It takes faith to believe them. But as you said, Why believe in anything based on faith?

"Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence. " Matt Dillahunty
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@omar2345 - Exactly. Its also through rocks that point to "some sort of evolution" as you have stated. And as with faith, How can there be knowledge upon it when its not testable, Demonstratable or assertable?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@malus_pudor

It is not really I don't know therefore evolution. It is the evidence scientists have found through fossil fuels points to some sort of evolution. That only applies to ideas based on faith not knowledge since not knowing something requires no knowledge which why it is better to say I don't know therefore God.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@malus_pudor - Wow. There's a backup to prove evolution as its been crosschecked and rechecked by scientists from across the world. There's no backup, None, To prove god because no one has ever proven god in the history of the entire human race. But what people do is since they do not have an answer for something is they say "therefore god" when it could easily be gods (quadrillions possibly and doesn't have to settle on just one), A different god entirely that has nothing to do with your god, Something completely unknown that man doesn't know etc etc etc which is why all good scientists of merit will say "I don't know" when they don't know. But those who are christian cannot state that because dare their god be imperfect? Why no, Of course not.

"Assume that we have no answer. Then the answer is "I don"t know". The answer isn"t "I can"t think of anything better, Therefore a god did it. ""Matt Dillahunty.
Posted by malus_pudor 3 years ago
malus_pudor
Thanks Omar, Though it seems the answer I'm getting is very much, "I don't know, Therefore evolution. " I'm sure there must be a reason, Or we have a hypothesis to investigate!
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@malus_pudor

Still difficult to understand but from your answers I would say the scientists that gave the answers do not know enough to explain what part of evolution you are talking about. It is better for a scientist to be ignorant then a religious person. Reason is one is more willing to change their mind and the other pretty much can be summed up as I don't know therefore God. The answers you were given were poor and do point it out to them. If they are non theists say that is what theists say about God. I thought science explain things and Religion assumes it.
Posted by malus_pudor 3 years ago
malus_pudor
preliminary should be pulmonary, My apologies.
Posted by malus_pudor 3 years ago
malus_pudor
Let me try:

Muller called evolution a conservative process -- meaning that only the essential bits are needed. Yet, Multi cellular organisms have systems that are codependent upon one another to maintain life. The reasoning for these codependent systems (such as circulatory and preliminary) is that an organism simply adds something new and then makes it necessary. But how is this possible? If the organism is stable and thriving, Why would an unnecessary system be added? Furthermore how would it be made necessary?

the best answer I've gotten at work has been, "It just does, " or "Think about building a bridge and then you remove a stone after supports are built. . . "
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@malus_pudor

Any way of using smaller words and keeping the questions smaller?
Posted by malus_pudor 3 years ago
malus_pudor
Oh, Okay, So discussing evolution, There are some major questions I have never really gotten answers to and I was wondering if anyone here might have answers (Yes I know this is an irony considering where I work). . .

Natural selection is identified as a conservative process, I think Muller said this, In that all things which are necessary are maintained and that which is not is ultimately excised from the organism. Yet, The argument against irreducible complexity claims that you add a new system and then you make it necessary -- is this not a flaw in the argument? A system is stable as is, Then an unnecessary part is added, Why is it not excised by the first statement of natural selection? Also, How do codependent systems evolve? I have always wondered is it due to regression of an organism to a dependent state where at once it was not dependent?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
925ninebackwardsedenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff over half of the rounds. That's poor conduct.

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