The Instigator
Roi
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
jackgilbert
Pro (for)
Losing
5 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
06days21hours17minutes56seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,110 times Debate No: 119376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (139)
Votes (3)

 

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.
jackgilbert

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.
jackgilbert

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.
jackgilbert

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
139 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 5 hours ago
backwardseden
"That's not true. I do not try to make people mad. " THEN STOP POSTING DEBATES THAT HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED! So you do deliberately try to make people mad, Angry, Infuriated, Get them p**sed off etc etc etc Now what is so difficult to understand about that?
"Even though the arguments are not debunked. " That's one of the major reasons why you have no genuine friends or loved ones is because you simply don't get it that you are a true loser and NOBODY who IS genuine wants to have a god damned thing to do with you. AND even worse is you don't WANT to get it as you ---NEVER--- learn from your mistakes and correct them. AND even \worse is you ---NEVER--- come up with something that is original.
"People do not base their friendships off of beliefs, My friends actually respect my beliefs. " Well when you state that you would have your friend to be shot to death because you value your faith in which is unproven in all aspects, Because there is no proof for your god, Not one single itty bitty smug little atom as compared to every single black hole in this universe in which numbers at least 125 billion AND there's never even been that many people here on planet earth, Then its not a belief. What it is, Is pure insanity.
"and not all of them are Christians" You don't get out of your closet long enough for that to occur. So once again you've proven yourself to be a compulsive liar. And you've proven yourself to not believe in your god AND your storybook god most certainly does not believe in you. Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 and 17: 2-5. Don't hand me "the law" crap either and that your savior changed things, In which you cannot even prove has ever existed and most certainly did not have any powers to change your god's laws if he did. Now are you willing to look at some videos that 100% proves this jackiebaby? Why no. Of course not. All you are willing to do is sit in your corner and cry your life away.
Posted by omar2345 1 day ago
omar2345
@jackgilbert

Yes.
Cause and effect.
Posted by jackgilbert 1 day ago
jackgilbert
@omar- fair enough. First off, Do you believe everything that exists must have a cause of existence?
Posted by omar2345 1 day ago
omar2345
@jackgilbert

Give me 1 argument and I will debunk it.

Kalam Cosmological, Ontological, Moral etc
Something like examples I gave above.

I will happily state the flaws in the argument.
Posted by jackgilbert 1 day ago
jackgilbert
That's not true. I do not try to make people mad. You don't have to come into my debates if you don't want to. But let's say your right. Who cares? If I used the same debunked arguments I'm only hurting myself (Even though the arguments are not debunked.
People do not base their friendships off of beliefs, My friends actually respect my beliefs. You don't which is why from your perspective, You don't think I have genuine friends and loved ones. Thankfully, I do. I have genuine friends and loved ones and not all of them are Christians. But even if I didn't I have the love of Jesus Christ and that is better than anything I could ever ask for.
Posted by backwardseden 1 day ago
backwardseden
Yes 100% you do ---deliberately--- try to p**s people off jackiebaby and you know it. So stop with the childish worn out antics that simply don't work anymore. There's a saying in which your mind is far too small to grasp "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Only here its not only that but "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on me." But I know I'm preaching to your gizzard because there's absolutely nothing that you are capable of learning. Its why you post your same ole god damned arguments time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. You don't have any genuine loved ones or friends jackiebaby. Ain't no possible way. Not when your morals are so bankrupt and corrupt that you'd have a supposed friend (who's really you) take a bullet because you have your unproven god neatly tucked away on some bookshelf and prefer it. Now if this was an actual court case, how do you think jurors would find you? Yeah, it'd be extremely wise to take that insanity plea because NOBODY who is sane would ---ever---, not for any reason back you. And you don't think you p** people off?
Here's one mega difference between you and me jackiebaby among many others... I would ---never--- sacrifice a friendship for a belief. Now notice that I didn't even mince terms jackiebaby and mention the word "genuine". That's being "moral" jackiebaby in which you are totally incapable of. No. Morality is not subjective when it comes to lunacy.
ARE---WE---CLEAR????????
Posted by jackgilbert 1 day ago
jackgilbert
@subjective morality is self-refuting. You are essentially saying that subjective morality is true, Which contradicts the whole belief, That there is no truth.
Posted by jackgilbert 1 day ago
jackgilbert
I don't try to make people mad. And anyway, Why would that person be you? Who's the one starting these arguments in the comments section?

"you have no genuine friends or loved ones. " I said I'm not arguing about this anymore and I'm not. If I know the truth, There's no reason I need to convince you.
Posted by backwardseden 1 day ago
backwardseden
@WhiteHawk - jackiebabyu is NOT hopeful for anyone nor to anyone, Not ever. That's the entire point. Did you notice that the little tiger posted ANOTHER debate entitled "is god real? " 100 billion to 1 jackiebaby will use the same---exact---fricken arguments that are NOT his to begin with AND have been debunked by AT LEAST 13 others? All the little boy is trying to do is p**s people off and for no other reason. The little tiger has 0 intention of a participating in a genuine honest good debate. He is a true child attempting to compete in an adult world and failing miserably at it. But I hope he proves me wrong and does have a genuine debate that is his. That way I can commit suicide.
Posted by WhiteHawk 2 days ago
WhiteHawk
How about stop this argument? It's obviously not going anywhere and no one is reaching a common ground. This is not helpful for anyone.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by omar2345 1 day ago
omar2345
RoijackgilbertTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering dsjpk5 vote so that it becomes null.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 day ago
dsjpk5
RoijackgilbertTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Michael's poor vote.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 2 days ago
backwardseden
RoijackgilbertTied
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.