The Instigator
Roi
Con (against)
Tied
9 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Tied
9 Points

Does God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,760 times Debate No: 119376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (192)
Votes (4)

 

Roi

Con

To start, I'd like to mention that in this debate, It is pro's job to put forth evidence that supports the exitence of God, And my job to show how this evidence is not valid. I don't need to put forth any evidence of my own because the burden of proof lies on the person making the flame that God exists. My position is that there is that I am unconvinced that God exists, Due to the zero amount of valid evidence I have heard or seen, And therefore, It is unreasonable to believe that God does exist. It still leaves the possibility that God does exist, But that possibility is equal to the possibility that the spaghetti Monster exists, Or that leprecons are real.
I'm not arguing that it's impossible for God to exist, I'm arguing that it is unreasonable to believe in god. Therefore the burden of proof lies on pro.

Pro

If it's okay with you I will use the same opening argument from another debate as it would be redundant to re-type a new one.

The first thing atheists tell me when I say that God exists is that no one can prove it. This is partially correct because we cannot see physical signs of him. That does not mean however that there aren't good arguments for him. I will give a few of them here.
The first is the argument from design. When you look at the world around us, You see the complexity of it. Take DNA. It contains the amount of information equivalent to 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica's put together. Every life form on this earth has them. Without a God, In the equation, Then it all must have come from nothing. But if it takes a very smart person-years to put together even one, Then wouldn't there have to be an even more intelligent person to put together 1000 sets of encyclopedia's in the first one-celled animal. Or did it all just come together from an explosion, Also known as the big bang? If so, That is an awful lot to be arranged perfectly from a single explosion. As a matter of fact here are some probabilities of it coming together from actual material.
1. The chance of life forming from non-life is 1 in 10 to the 40, 000th power. That is 10 with 40, 000 zeros after it
Source: https://www. Scienceforums. Net/
Source: www. Ideacenter. Org/contentmgr/showdetails. Php/id/740

2. The chance of the universe coming into existence by chance is 1 in 400 quadrillion
Source: https://blogs. Plos. Org/

3. The chance of a simple protein coming from dead matter is 1 in 1. 28 with 10, 175 zeros after it
Source: http://www. Creationstudies. Org/

4. The chance of the earth by itself coming into existence from nothing is 1 in 700 quintillion
Source: https://answersingenesis. Org/

5. "The chance of evolution occurring is equivalent to the chance of a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outerspace, Knocking down a satellite that then crashes down on a target on a van on a highway"
Even in a billion years, That's never going to happen
Source: https://answersingenesis. Org/

Another thing about evolution. What about mutualism? Mutualism, Is a relationship between two organisms where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, The blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, And at the same time, The oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, Thus causing both to benefit. Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for evolution to be true, This case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, Teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, The sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, The blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, If these don't happen at the exact same time, The process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible. If mutualism is that complicated, Can you even imagine the rest of the world? How can it be chance? How can it all come from an explosion that I don't even believe to be possible. Nothing cannot produce something so I don't see how this explosion could have occurred. This world calls for an intelligent designer, Not chance.
My second argument is the argument from motion. According to Isaac Newton's first law of motion everything that is in motion will stay in motion until acted on by another force. At the same time, Nothing will ever be in motion until acted on by another force. In other words if anything is in motion, There must be a force that causes it to do so. This law completely contradicts the idea that there is no God. You see, Everything in this world is in motion. Because nothing can set itself in motion, There must be an outside force that is the result of all motion today. Because God is all powerful he can do anything and therefore does not need to be set in motion and is the only thing that can be the root cause of all motion today. Otherwise, Isaac Newton is wrong.
My third argument. How does matter arise to make this whole scenario possible in the first place? The big bang is bound by some very important scientific laws. The law of conservation of energy, The law of conservation of mass, The law of biogenesis, And Newton's first law of motion. All 4 of these scientific laws and the big bang cannot be true at the same time because they are contradictory. The Big bang is believed to be the result of all energy and mass but the law of conservation of mass says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. You believe in the big bang theory but the Big bang itself is a theory and according to the scientific method, A scientific law has so much more credibility then a theory. So, In this case, In order to believe in the big bang theory, You are forced to rely on the LEAST reliable data while ignoring the MOST reliable data. Not good scientific practice.
My third argument is the cosmological argument. Here is what it states:
P1 everything that exists has a cause of existence
P2 Because the universe exists, It must have a cause of existence
P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, That cause must be an outside force
P4 That outside force is God
P5 God created the universe
C God exists
I will probably get lots of questions on this particular argument which I will answer in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Roi

Con

Thanks for accepting the debate.
Firstly the argument of fine tuning is invalid because this argument asserts from the start that if humans exist than the universe must have been built for them due to all the precise conditions that must be met. That is the mistake. The universe wasn't built for us, We evolved to fit the universe's conditions. If the conditions were different, It is possible that we wouldn't exist or that we would exist but we would be different, In accordance to the given conditions.
Here's an analogy, Before you were born, The chances that the one sperm that "became" you to be the one that reached the egg are extremely small. There are millions of other competing sperms. So does that mean you can say "the chances that I would be born out of the other millions of sperms are extremely small. Therefore, Some powerful creature chose me to be born over all the others? . " That obviously makes no sense. Apply this logic to God. The argument of fine tuning is no different.
Your other argument of how something cannot come out of nothing is also invalid. Sure, The laws of physics don't allow something to originate from nothing, But did the laws of physics exist before the universe? If absolutely nothing existed before the universe, Which scientists have no evidence for, But assuming it's true, Than neither did physics exist. No physics, Something can come out of nothing. But when I'm saying that there was no physics, I'm making an assertion, I have no evidence to support that, Just like you have no evidence to support that there was nothing before the universe. I'm just mentioning that because it offers one possible explanation as to how the universe came to be without a God having created it. It shows that a God is not necessary. Another explanation is the multiverse theory, Which states that there are infinite number of universes all within a greater multiverse. So according to that theory, Before the universe there was something: the multiverse. That is another way of showing how God is unecessaru and far from being the only explanation.
Finally, So far what you've done is you've given instances of what if God didn't exist, Which by the way I've demonstrated to be wrong, But you haven't presented any evidence to lead one to believe in god. In order to reach a conclusion, You look at the evidence and based on that draw a conclusion. You don't draw a conclusion first, And then try to get the evidence to point in that direction.

Pro

Sorry I have lost track of time and don't have time to post an argument. I promise I will have one ready next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Roi

Con

Alright then, I'll have to wait until you post your argument because, As I've mentioned, The burden of proof lies on you, Meaning that you must present evidence, And I must show that they are invalid to show that believing in God is unreasonable.

Pro

I'd like to take a step back from all the minutia of this round and simply look at the core thesis of this debate. What does it truly say? Now let's look at what my opponents arguments are all trying to say to you.
He says the burden of proof lies on me, Yet he is the one making the claim. I however, Make no claim. He says God does not exist, That's his claim. It is not my job to dis-prove this claim, It is his job to prove it. Thus, The burden of proof lies on him and he hasn't provided enough evidence to prove that God does not exist.
From there, Because my opponent has not sufficiently proved his claim, This debate is basically over. After all, His position is ultimately self-defeating because is making a claim against a hypothesis that can't truly be tested. You can never prove the non-existence of something, You can however prove it's existence which is what I have come here to do. Thus, Although this debate was really over from the get-go, I would still like to go through my opponents arguments and provide some of my own.

He says that the universe wasn't built for us, But rather, We evolved into the universe. First off, I would like to point out that he gives absolutely no link between these arguments, But I would still like to address this claim. The earth is the only planet in the universe that is possible for life to exist at all. If any of the conditions of the earth were changed, Life would not be able to exist at all. It would be impossible for us to evolve differently because we couldn't even evolve at all.

Your analogy is flawed. The correct analogy would be this. Let's say you were blindfolded and were told to reach into a sack with trillions and trillions of balls. They were all white except for one black. Although each ball has an equal chance to be picked, The probability of picking a black ball is almost certain. This is exactly like the universe. There are trillions and trillions of possible universes yet only one of them is life permitting. Each universe has an equal chance of existing, Yet it is almost certain that a non-life permitting universe will exist.

You also said that the laws of physics did not exist when there was nothing. This is another claim that my opponent hasn't presented evidence to back up. Laws of physics don't come into existence. They are natural laws that according to the atheist worldview, Have no origin. They just are.

You also said that there is a multi-verse hypothesis. The question for you is now, Where did the first universe come from before the multi-verse existed?

You haven't addressed the cosmological argument or the argument from motion which I have claimed both prove God. Because you haven't addressed them, They have to be accepted as true.

This concludes the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
192 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@backwards- You know what, I am just going to let you have whatever opinion you want. I know the truth and that I have genuine friends and loved ones and you don"t have to agree with me for it to be true. After all, You don"t even know me.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
omar2345
@jackgilbert

"The fastest way to lose an argument is to lose your temper. "
This is a faulty statement. More than likely losing your temper would be someone shouting.
Without a temper: God has not been proven to exist.
With temper: God has not been proven to exist!

"I'm with whitehawk, Go to your local pastor, Tell him your problems with Christianity, And he will answer them. "
There is a problem with this. Yes the local pastor would be very knowledgeable on the subject but will also be heavily biased so much so he would use it to influence the person asking for knowledge. Kent Hovind is a con artist I don't see how you can't rebut this. Not a real doctor paid for his degree. Proof if you want it. Uses Christianity and creationism to support his wealth. I highly doubt he actually believes in the Religion so asking him a question like are you a con artist? He would use his biases that is the wealth he is gaining from lying about evolution and supporting creationism to support his cause. Similar to the local pastor as in there biases will most likely change the information to suit their agenda.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
WhiteHawk
@backwardseden, I literally cannot take you seriously anymore because of what you called me XD. What was it again? Haha, I'm done here.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
Its not my point of view you simpleton bacon and eegads. This is how humanity works you overweight glob of hamburger ash spill.
People know ---exactly--- when you lie jackiebaby. You are not your own self replicating lie detector test that you think you can pass with flying colors. Newsflash: You can't pass a single one of them.

"You cannot lie to your genuine friends, Thus you do not have any. " Ain't what I said jackiebaby. Yah might want to recheck that. See, You re truly terrible at interpreting what people tell you. Since you are, There's a 0% of a chance that you can interpret your bible correctly. Now let's add one word to YOUR statment and thus make it stand out and thus it will be real. "You cannot constantly/ continually lie to your genuine friends, Thus you do not have any. " Notice that standout difference jackiebaby?

""If you present debunked arguments, You won't have friends. " Frankly, No one has ever said that to me. For a third time, They don't need to. Its not a requirement that they do. They will just think you're an a$$ and move on.

"I have genuine friends and loved ones that God has blessed me with and I would die for them right now. " Not when you tell them that you'd take your god, A belief in which you cannot even prove your god exists, Above them. AND you tell them to take a bullet/ DIE for this arrogant gullibility belief. Its really quite insane jackiebaby. "They would do the same for me. " Absolutely not would they because then they would not be your genuine friends to employ such barbaric absurdities and severe mental disorders. So you know what a having a couple if mental orders is like jackiebaby? Why no. You've never suffered for more than one day in your life.

OK I'm done. You don't want to pay any attention, Then continue as you are, Remain friendless and loveless because that is what you genuinely want and you do ---everything--- in your power to maintain it.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Not everyone sees me from your view. If you think that I am a compulsive liar, Then fine. But everyone I know does not see me from that perspective.

"You cannot lie to your genuine friends, Thus you do not have any. " This is a classic example of circular logic. How could you make either claim without assuming that I don't have genuine friends or loved ones.

You essentially said the same thing. "If you present debunked arguments, You won't have friends. " Frankly, No one has ever said that to me.

I have genuine friends and loved ones that God has blessed me with and I would die for them right now. They would do the same for me. At this point, You are just saying this because you are angry, And as Mardy Grothe famously pointed out,

"The fastest way to lose an argument is to lose your temper. "
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
what they state with solid evidence, They rightly deserve to be insulted, Degraded and humiliated. " I'm not sure if he used the word "dehumanized" or not. Continuing 4. "Or simply walk away. Who wants to hang around, For any length of time with anyone who doesn't know what they are talking about? That answer is nobody. Its a very quick and sure way, By not presenting accurate and correct evidence, To get rid of your friends in a hurry. One thing. . . DO NOT ENTER A CONVERSATION WHERE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT or your friends will think you are an idiot and leave. Again, That's an instant F from any teacher when you try to bull s--t (yes he swore A LOT) them. These people rightly deserve to be put in their place - if you want to. Size up the situation, Make a correct decision, Is it worth it, Or once again walk away. " The professor also told us how to spot liars. Sure, I'm a poker player so I also know how to spot liars that way also in which I have found a lot more information. And yes jackiebaby there's also another secret in which I don't feel like I should divulge that to you as to how to spot liars. Perhaps one day, But not right now.
Now of course everything you just read, Its not word for word as to what the professor said. But some of it is in which I will ---never--- forget. Btw, Don't even try to lay "well I don't remember everything, Then its worthless" crap because then you would prove that your bible IS worthless, All of it.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
"I do not lie to my friends. Especially not intentionally. I have genuine friends and loved ones and I could not imagine them saying "these arguments are debunked, We can't be friends. " Lol.
Let's look at that entire statement jackiebaby shall we? 1. You don't have any GENUINE friends. So you cannot lie to them 2. "Especially not intentionally. " So that's a fallacy right there. So you lie unintentionally as you are a compulsive liar jackiebaby AND you've been caught at it oh god how many times? This is one major reason out of about 12 or so, I've lost count why you have no genuine friends or loved ones. 3. " I could not imagine them saying "these arguments are debunked, We can't be friends. " They don't have to say one god damned thing jackiebaby. When you present false evidence, Evidence that has been debunked, Evidence that is a load of B. S. And you cannot back up what you say with any truth, And you can't jackiebaby because the evidence that you present is pure crap and NOBODY of merit buys the same god damned thing over and over and over again and again and again especially when its been outclassed, Undress and proved to be unsubstantiated then those who you think are your friends, They WILL disappear from you life, Like it or not, That's life. So you keep on trying it jackiebaby andf you see how far it gets you. So don't complain to me, Complain to yourself. I'm right on this issue. Oh yeah I've been through it. It hasn't happened since I took the course in 1992. I'll never forget the professor stating "If you cannot back up what you say with solid evidence, Then you have no business saying it. Because if you do, Your friends drop out of your life in nanoseconds and your further teachers will recognize that you have no evidence to support what you claim and give you an instant F. " Guess what jackiebaby? He's right. So you keep on truckin' and see where it gets yah.
Civil? He also stated "Those who are unintelligent and uneducated and cannot back up
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
@WhiteHawk - Yeah typical. *yawn*. Extremely boring. I could sneeze my exploding brains into a glass of grapefruit juice. "And you claim he can't possibly prove you wrong, " Take one lucky guess why ---nobody--- can? See, You in being a mere stuffy runny babbit toodly stiffy upper lipped grunch that stole X-mas with a yodeling presence of a couch potato synagogue on his front lawn, You don't even know why? Go on tiger. Be just like jackiebaby on this one, Not guess, Because you, Like him, Doesn't have the foggiest idea shaking around in that tinsel mind of yours.
"Then it shouldn't be a problem to turn him into an atheist. " What an utterly stupid comment fro an utterly stupid person. That's not the goal mormon. Oh sorry, Moron. Take one lucky guess what the goal is? See you don't even know as it was woofed out to jackiebaby several times by myself AND others.
"I just changed someone's mind in a certain political subject today, " Wow. Well let that splinter of a heat insulated con-dumb ever be entombed in your you know where area. Such an astonishing feet. I should wh***ship you. Tell me some more of your esteemed astounding lifetime accomplishments so I can neatly ignore them. So if you can do what exactly? I'm lost here. Please help me to say "duh".
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I do not lie to my friends. Especially not intentionally. I have genuine friends and loved ones and I could not imagine them saying "these arguments are debunked, We can't be friends. " Lol.

By the way, Me and my friends rarely have debates like this. And when we do, Unlike this, They are civil.

I'm with whitehawk, Go to your local pastor, Tell him your problems with Christianity, And he will answer them.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
WhiteHawk
@backwardseden, If you welcome the challenge, And you claim he can't possibly prove you wrong, Then it shouldn't be a problem to turn him into an atheist. I just changed someone's mind in a certain political subject today, So if I can do it. . You obviously should be able to do it.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by zhaod1 3 years ago
zhaod1
RoiAnonymousTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented no sources for his statements, but Pro did.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
RoiAnonymousTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con said there was no valid evidence for God. Pro then used chance of a form of evidence. I don't think Con pointed it out but it is an argument of ignorance. Conduct also goes to Con since Pro did ask Con a question in the final Round knowing full well Con cannot answer and Pro did forfeit a round leaving Con without a Round to rebut. In the final Round Pro did not provide an explanation to his claims or even evidence. It was just a claim. Con in Round 2 provided a claim with explanations. There was no need for evidence and what Con did was sufficient in providing his point. Con provided flaws in Pro's arguments whereas Pro gave arguments of ignorance and also claims without explanation and/or evidence. I did like Pro's second argument in Round 1 but the argument could be summed up like this. There is motion therefore God. If Pro explained why it had to be God then it might have had a point not bearing in mind misleading information in the same paragraph.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
RoiAnonymousTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Michael's poor vote.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
RoiAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The B.O.P. is always upon theists to prove that their god exists. Pro did not do this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since god is this and has not been proved by anybody, not ever in the entire history of the human race, Pro loses this debate as he made no effort beyond the norm into the extraordinary to prove his god exists. Pro also used tired weary arguments and sources that have been debunked by at least 13 others in different debates.

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