The Instigator
Sharkeater
Pro (for)
The Contender
Finalfan
Con (against)

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
Finalfan 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: 6/28/2021 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 613 times Debate No: 127844
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Sharkeater

Pro

A debate on the existence of God. This doesn't necessarily mean the Christian God, Just a higher being. My opinion is that there is a God because the universe exists, So there must have been a creator. Science states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, Yet the most widely believed theory about the start of the universe is the big bang. The big bang states that there was an immense flash of light that began the universe. This means that the universe is not eternal, It had a start. If matter cannot be created then how did the universe come into existence without the help of a higher power? You don't look at a house and ask yourself if it had a builder simply because you can't see them. The universe is the same way. It had a builder, But just because you can't see it does not mean it's nonexistent.
Finalfan

Con

The age-old mystery. Does God exist? I doubt this for more than good reason. I will be using observable phenomena as my arguments as the burden of proof cannot be met from either side. This is a semantics argument only. Whether God exists or not should be secondary to our ability to communicate our position. I should be in agreement with my opponent on this and if declined I'm willing to debate what burden of proof means. Also, I must clarify that if my opponent wishes to use scripture it will be ignored. If my opponent does not agree to these terms I'm happy to withdraw and Pro can repost. . That being said I will start by saying that it is by desire mostly that I do not believe in God. The thought repulses me. The idea of a cosmic dictator is a fever dream nightmare to me. I have read enough of the bible to know where it's going, Nowhere! This is why I will not allow scripture as an argument. Then it will change the debate to "Is the bible a book of mythology like Homer's Odyssey only far more convoluted. I am a skeptic that uses concepts like Occums Razer as a guide to making appropriate predictions I can rely on and none of my observations lead to there being a God of any kind. Only hallucination and shared psychosis from my perspective as there are more denomitions of Christianity alone than there are sentences in the Bible. . Talk about the Tower of Babble and Cognitive Dissonance. People see what they want to see. My oponent is not limiting this to the Christian God which really doen't matter. I could ask for proof but will get scripture or some stoner pondering of where the universe comes from. Not to be an insult but it truly des feel like its a chemical problem to even pull at the thread of whether a Go exists. Well if it does it is some arbitrary conclusion in math or panantheism which is null to debate in the firt place not unlike Pro on the side of Solipsism.
Debate Round No. 1
Sharkeater

Pro

My opponent stated that, "proof cannot be met from either side. " While I agree that definitive proof cannot be found, We can look at several observations to find a conclusion. My first point is how rare life itself is. Observations have shown that there are about 300 million habitable planets in the Milky Way alone. Even with that large of a number we haven't found any evidence of extraterrestrial life. Life itself is still unexplainable to scientists as we have no idea how it could have scientifically started. Seeing as we are still clueless as to how or why life on Earth started, It is completely plausible that it was created by a higher power. Several people claim that all intelligent people are atheists, Which cannot be further from the truth. Albert Einstein, Who is regarded by many to be the smartest person to have lived said, "The more I learn about the universe, The more I believe in God. " He was not a Christian, But he still believed that the universe was created by a God. Another observation that could lead to the existence of a God would be human consciousness. I find consciousness quite miraculous as it has no physical presence. It is non dimensional speaking in terms of physics as we currently know it. Although it is non physical, It still decides our actions in a completely separate world. I find no scientific explanation as to how something non physical can determine actions of a physical world, Other than the existence of a God.
Finalfan

Con

I'm glad we could set aside objectivity to have this debate as I have never seen evidence from either side to put both feet into anything. The value of skepticism and knowledge seems to be more important to the bigger picture of reality than leaning on a fallacy because you haven't thought about the possibility you could be wrong about everything really. Without evidence, I will not put forth an idea. Unfortunately, My opponent did. In the absence of a conclusion. "God of the Gaps" might well represent this. The rarity of life and the unforgiving universe paints a picture for me. Either this is chaos in motion and we cannot think fast enough to define it properly or there is a God and it hates existence clearly. We can discuss The Big Bang Theory, A-biogenesis, Evolution, Or even philosophy but it will bring no one closer to believing if not indoctrinated. I appreciate that my opponent did not single out a specific God but as I said in my opening statement, It makes no difference. You will not find God in the rarity of existence without circular reasoning. My opponent seems to be dependant on a presupposition as shown with a strawman of explanation for how life exists. That Strawman being God. I for one want to know the truth even if I do not have the capacity. My oponent seems to use God as a tool to cope with ignorance. This sounds harsh but that is my observation.
Debate Round No. 2
Sharkeater

Pro

My opponent stated that I put forth several ideas as factual evidence for my side of the debate. What I did was put forth several hypotheses given current data and knowledge of science. Upon the discovery of new evidence they could easily be changed. The only conclusion that I put forth was the topic of the debate, Which is whether there is a God. My opponent stated that cannot find God without circular reasoning, But I would like to turn this statement back on them by saying that it is impossible to find the absence of a God without circular reasoning. My opponent stated that I am dependent on a God to cope with ignorance, Which could not be further from the truth. What I am saying is that a God is the only current explanation that we currently have. If we were to find new evidence tomorrow, I would not deny that evidence, I would embrace it. I believe that we need to continue on as a human race to find answers that we don't currently know, So that we can have definitive answers to questions like, "Is there a God? "
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Marauder 2 months ago
Marauder
Since the debate can't go to voting period I will simply comment my vote. Agree before and After: Pro. S&G: about the same. Conduct: Pro because Con forfeited. Arguments: Pro, Con typed a lot more but said a lot less and chased a lot of extraneous points not relevant to the debate such as going on about denominations and nonsense like that. Pro was guilty that some too but not nearly as much. While that's enough to decide my argument point I wanted to mention its pretty ridiculous Con bringing up Occams Razor and then not explaining their athiest take on that normally Christian argument for Gods existence, Especially in a debate about Gods existence. "God exist" is a single assumption. It always is going to be the answer with the fewest assumptions to explain things, That's why Occam came up with his argument in the first place.

Advice to both sides, Treat these like formal debates, Not like blog posts. Be more contained by your resolutions, Don't just talk about whatever you want. And specifically try to address what your opponent says more if its relavent, Especially in the later rounds made for rebuttal. Actually use these debates to engage with each other and not at each other. If they mention something you haven't heard before give some time to looking it up and think about your response beforehand. Try to learn something from each other even if you know their wrong.
Posted by Sharkeater 2 months ago
Sharkeater
I would be glad to debate you on this topic if you would like.
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
I have never seen evidence for a supernatural being of any kind, Let alone an invisible one.
Posted by Finalfan 2 months ago
Finalfan
I had no arguments. God Exists. . If there is a Hell. . I'll debate you there.
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
You know very little of science, So stop talking as if you do it makes you look less then intelligent.
Posted by Sharkeater 2 months ago
Sharkeater
I said that was the most widely believed theory by both scientists and everyday people.
Posted by Akhenaten 2 months ago
Akhenaten
You say that in the beginning there was a gigantic flash of light. So. . . . Who is you first witness for this evidence? Lol
Posted by missmedic 2 months ago
missmedic
If the argument for gods was based in belief the believer would not have to show proof.
The KCA relies entirely on current science, And science can change.
Since science is not itself a metaphysical enterprise, The arguer cannot apply science to a metaphysical argument. There is some problem of infinite regress of a first cause. The premise that the universe began to exist is very difficult to achieve.
The more you know the less you believe. . .
Posted by DannShaka 2 months ago
DannShaka
In my humble opinion i think god could exist, But if we going to have a god we don"t use the word "god" to do bad things, Because a lot of people use the name of the god to kill people, To destroy. And if god exist just try to respect and
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.