The Instigator
LOL98700z
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God Truly Exists

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...
Thoht
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,158 times Debate No: 119737
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

LOL98700z

Pro

Round 1 is opening round and outline round. Please post your arguments here

C1: God isn't a being that can be reveal to us, But through experiences in daily life.

C2: The reason that God don't responds to your prayer is because the thing you want, Is often what not god wants you to have.

C3: The reason that God don't prevent suffering is because the majority of us have fallen, And refuse to accept that god is a being that is much higher than us and more holy than us, But instead, Dreamt him of a stranger human.
Thoht

Con

1. If you are saying that God cannot reveal himself to us if he wanted to, Then how is he God? He has, If the Bible is said to be true, Revealed himself to many humans in the past. Your first point is null and void according to the evidence you currently accept alone, Much less logic and reasoning.

2. God does respond to prayers. Exactly the same regardless of the prayer's religion, Who they are praying to, Or even if they don't pray. People get what they want and get what they don't want exactly equal across all religions and lack of religions. This point has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, But only goes to show that the majority of religious people do something that has absolutely no effect on reality or God's plan, If he exists, And so they are doing nothing but waste their time. No difference in prayers versus non prayers is consistent with the position that God does not exist. If it were otherwise, It would be evidence in your favor.

3. Humans have not 'fallen. ' To say so is to say that we are all judged based on the sins of our ancestors, Which you have no moral argument for, And no sane people argue for in our world.

If you believe the story of Adam and the origin of original sin, What you have to believe is that humans possessed no knowledge prior to eating the Apple and were expected to have knowledge of what was bad or good prior to eating the apple.

They had no knowledge prior to eating the apple. How can God judge them for not knowing that eating the apple was something they shouldn't do, Particularly when he created the snake that convinced Eve, And then Eve used her knowledge to get Adam to do the same. All while God was present, Able to interfere, And does nothing but watch.

We don't tell children to not walk into traffic, Tell someone else to tell our children to walk into traffic, Sit by and watch them walk into traffic, And then blame them for walking into traffic before they even know what cars are.

My arguments.

1. The universe works without a God. If you say God needed no beginning with no evidence, I can just as soundly say the Universe needed no beginning with no evidence. The argument gets you nowhere. Your position is not an evidence based position. Mine is that I don't know.

2. God is not omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, And omnibenevolent. If I can point out hundreds of ways our reality could be better, Then it was not made by a perfect creator. In fact, Omni anything is impossible. There is always a limit. To say that this is not true is to claim something again with no evidence. Omnibenevolence cannot exist because I have no reason to accept God's morality, Just as you have no reason to accept mine. God can think things are good or bad if he'd like, But that does not make them so. Morality exists outside of any God. You can say God is all-powerful as much as you'd like, But might does not make right. There is no reason to accept a being's morality simply because it is more powerful than you or more intelligent than you. I am twice as intelligent as some people that exist today. Does that mean they should all accept my morality immediately? No. If I can think of ANY way our reality could be improved, Then the creator is not perfect. If the creator creates imperfect beings that he wanted to be perfect then he is the one at fault. He is not perfect. If he wanted to create perfect beings, Why did he create beings that would defy him within one generation?

You can say he wanted imperfect beings, But then how can you blame us for original sin and still call god omnibenevolent?

To conclude,

God certainly could exist. That is the position of ALL agnostic atheists and even me as an antitheist. The thing is, If he does exist, He has explaining to do long before we accept him as any sort of authority on morality.

To accept that God is a source of morality while unjustified suffering exists is to say that Human morality does not matter that only God's morality matters and that God could torture us and inflict the most suffering imaginable on us and still be omnibenevolent. You can believe that if you want. You can be a slave to an eternal dictator. I submit that you would not submit yourself to eternal suffering if God willed it. That you would fight him as I would and call him evil as I would.

Human morality is dictated by no other being than humans. We have no reason to follow God's morality even if it did exist because God's morality could say that it is good that humans suffer eternally, And we as humans have no reason to accept this. Few of us would, If any.

That being said, The universe works without the God Theory. It is correct that there is still much we don't understand, But no evidence we have confidence in, No laws that currently remain unbroken, Require a God. Therefore, The claim that God Truly Exists is one that is completely faith based and not driven by evidence. The claim could be true, But since there is no solid evidence it is true, We cannot say God Truly Exist. Therefore, Con wins this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
LOL98700z

Pro

(First of all, Thank you for responding to my debate. I am pretty amateur coming to a religional topic, So, I wish that I will get a firsthand experience on how to talk about religion. )

C1: You see, When I say that God can't appear to us, It is a fact. In Last Century or so, He had not appeared to anyone, Giving reasons for atheist to suggest that God don't exist. However, Indeed he had appeared before many people in the account of bible. For example: Moses, Samuel, David and many others to just name a few. However, I will not be able to quote all of the bible verses due to running out of room. However, My opponent suggest that God is not God because he can't appear to us. However, Here is the problem, How is it logical that simply because he doesn't appear, Means that he doesn't exist? It is like if a person never calls you, It doesn't means that he isn't alive.

C2: God respond to prayers. However, I didn't make it clear of what I am suggesting. There are several significant reason why God would not answer your prayer:
1. Wrong motives
"When you ask, You do not receive, Because you ask with wrong motives, That you may spend what you get on your pleasures. " " James 4:3
When we say wrong motive, You are talking about things of luxury or personal expenses that wasn't really needed. For example, If a woman living in tropical area went to Canada and saw someone with fur coat, And prayed hard for God to prepare for her a fur coat, Is it going to happen? No, It is as simple as that. God won't answer your prayer if it is your personal greed.
2. The Communication between you and God had been interrupted by sin:
But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you, So that he will not hear. " Isaiah 59:2
One of the most important thing of praying to god is that the sin you have commited will prevent you to speak to god. Many would ask why does it prevent us from speaking to God. God had made it clear in the bible that:
For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness;
with you, Evil people are not welcome.
The arrogant cannot stand
in your presence.
You hate all who do wrong;
you destroy those who tell lies.
The bloodthirsty and deceitful
you, Lord, Detest. (Psalm 5:4-6)
God love the world and is just. Therefore we do know that he detests sins and evil.
3. Doubt:
But when you ask, You must believe and not doubt,
because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea,
blown and tossed by the wind. " James 1:6
One word that Jesus had repeated said is the issue of faith. When Jesus was walking on the water to the ship, Peter tried to walk on water toward him, But almost immediately dropped into the water when he grow afraid of the wind. Jesus said: " Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith, " he said, "why did you doubt? " If you have doubt, God will not answer you. Many believers often ask a very similar question that always comes down to: Why doesn't God respond to my prayer? I always ask them this question: "Is your faith, Really faith? Or is it simply Personal will? "

C3:Case 3 might be the most confusing one indeed, I have not made it clear and I apologize for that. However, It is very clear in the bible, That there is a very profound change before the New Testament and after it. In the old testament, God brings destruction to cities and population who had commited extreme sins, For example the city of Sodom. However, After the new testament, God accepted who we are, However, He does expect us to become more like christ when we put our faith into the Gospel.

Now, To my opponent's 3 argument.
1. The Universe works without a God: I can indeed understand that kind of understanding of the universe. However, That kind of argument is also weak, Due to the Big Bang Theory is still just a Theoretical model. Maybe the Singularity is God. However, Since we both don't really know the answer to that, Maybe that will be a question that will only be solved after death.

2. God is indeed Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent and omnibenevolent. My opponent talks about a limit and how society can be better. However, My opponents does seem to be forgetting 1 key fact here: no matter if you are a evolution believer or a Christian, There is a certain point where human did exist: in my case: 6000 years ago. Thus, Us, Modern man, Have no right to point out anything wrong with the present reality due to the fact that we, Human had changed it to the present state. Secondly, My opponent talks about a limit to the power of God. However, To compare that kind of limit, Is like to compare between a mouse and a human. Is there any kind of comparability? I fear not. God is beyond our wildest imagination. While our definition limit to power might be unbelievably huge, It would still be nothing for God. My opponent also did suggest that God isn't omnibenevolent due to he created imperfect beings. However, Here is the question, Did the bible ever mentioned that he wanted to created perfect creatures? The Bible only said that:
So God created man in his own image, In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
I ask you, Where did God ever said he wants to create a perfect being? Also your argument that we had corrupted ourselves is very much untrue. The snake, Which is the embodiment of Satan, Was the entity that lead us into sin, Disobeying god's word.

In Conclusion:
1. Despite there is a lack of scientific evidence on if God exist, I am going to argue that both Science theory and religion are on a rocky surface. However, No matter what you say, God still exist in granting our prayers and others. Atheist can be Atheist while Christians can be Christians.
2. To claim that God truly not exist and say that he isn't all powerful is also a false claim and not driven by evidence, However only supported by mankind interpretation of God.
3. Con and Pro would neither win. Without more evidence, Con can't just throw out human interpretation of the scripture and also how had been doing in real life, But instead, Must give solid evidence.

Sources:
"7 Reasons Why God Won't Answer Your Prayers - by Pastor Brad Bergman. " Coastal Church, 21 May 2018, Coastalchurch. Org/7reasons-why-god-won't-answer-your-prayers/.
"Does God Hate the Sin, But Love the Sinner? " 98. 5 KTIS, 27 Oct. 2017, Myktis. Com/2017/10/god-hate-sin-love-sinner/.
Thoht

Con

Rebut

1. If God exists he CAN appear to us. That he doesn't is evidence that he does not exist BECAUSE he has supposedly visited humans in the past, And there's no logical reason for him to not. It would in fact save billions of people from wasting years of their lives discussing the issue. If I go out to prove any individual person's existence I can actually find evidence that they existed. I can find live witnesses, Pictures, Videos, Et cetera. If you ask me "Did X person exist 4, 000 years ago? " my default position would of course be I don't know. I have no way of verifying if they did or not. If a random book said they did I would say heck maybe they did, But thousands of people claim that they have been visited by thousands of different gods even today. I have no reason to trust your thousand year old witnesses over live witnesses today, At the very least.

Saying "God visited people a long time ago, But he can't now" without giving a valid reason why he cannot when he is supposedly the ultimate powerhouse of the universe is a claim no one can take seriously. I don't know why you expect us to without providing the reason God can't appear to us.

2. God doesn't respond to prayers. Any. Tons of studies have been done on tons of different religions.

en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

If your argument is that so few humans fit the conditions required for prayer to work that the answered prayers are unmeasurable by studies, Then it may as well not exist. People may as well not waste their time.

Either way the fact it cannot be shown to have happened and all studies point to neutral, And in fact some studies point to people being prayed for faring slightly worse is indeed evidence of the nonexistence of a being that supposedly puts his finger on the scales for those who believe in him and pray for him.

You can still claim your God exists but that he doesn't answer prayers. But, If prayers being answered is a critical part of your religion, You can't hold onto your religion and still claim you have science and evidence behind it. You can't come to a debate centered around logic and reasoning and make claims like "God Truly Exists. "

3. So at first God genocided humans and then God decided after some thought that genociding humans is a poor teaching tool, Then tried alternative methods? What is godlike about this? He is at fault here. Not only did he fail to teach humans right from wrong, He killed them. He eliminated the possibility that they could avoid eternal damnation. He directly condemned them to eternal suffering. Their fatal flaw? Largely, Dancing around gold statues and having sex. Not paying enough attention to him. It sounds more like 2 year old attention seeking tantrum behavior than what I would expect from an omniscient God. There's really no way around this for you.

You can't say that the Old Testament was meh but God fixed it all with the New Testament so everything's right again. That is admitting your God is flawed. Again, Why call him God even if he does exist?

My arguments

1. Saying that we don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe is proof of God's existence is ridiculous. God doesn't exist just because we don't have the answers yet. You can say there are 2 competing theories currently. 1. The God Theory and 2. The Big Bang Theory. We have heaps and mountains of evidence for one of these and effectively no evidence for the other. God is not required for the theory that we have the mountains of evidence for, So why do you accept one theory and not the other?

Again, You can say your theory is that God started it, But no one is saying that couldn't be true just that we don't know.

Again, Admitting to lack of knowledge here is not something that supports the position "God Truly Exists. "

2. You claim God is Omni all of these things and don't justify that claim at all. You don't respond to my justifications for the opposite claim. In fact you admit my claims have some validity. Again, If his power and knowledge has a limit then he is not omni anything.

Your claim for God desiring imperfect beings is also flawed.

2a. If God created us in his own image then he either failed, So he is flawed, Or he succeded, In which case he is flawed. Nothing about humans is perfect. If he is alike us in any way, He is flawed. On top of that, Is he both male and female? Is he of every race? The world may never know!

2b. We had to have corrupted ourselves or else there is no original sin. The idea of original sin has no meaning if humans are not culpable for it. If Satan, The embodiment of evil CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF (but that doesn't make it flawed? ), Was responsible for leading us into sin WHILE GOD WAS WATCHING and could have stopped Satan or eliminated him from existence with no effort (and still could to this day) then humans are not responsible for disobeying God and bringing original sin upon themselves. God also could have reversed it.

This means that either God made a mistake, You don't believe in original sin and God had no reason to punish us in the first place, Or God doesn't exist and the story of genesis is a ridiculously flawed fiction created by people who wanted an easy life. In any of these paths, God does not exist either literally or because he is flawed, Therefore not omni-anything, And does not fall under your definition of God.

3. Prove to me Unicorns don't exist. If you cannot prove to me that something we both agree doesn't exist then how do you expect anyone to give you some sort of extremely solid evidence of your God's nonexistence? The God that you hold onto so dearly. I submit that you cannot. That the lack of evidence for its existence is sufficient evidence in favor of its nonexistence. Until we get evidence of its existence, It cannot be said to effect us at all.

To conclude,

1. Science is entirely behind prayers not having any effect.

2. Claiming unlimited power comes with an impossible paradox to current science. That is to say, That logic and reasoning does not support the possibility of omni-anything.

3. The BoP for someone claiming "God Truly Exists" is much higher than on someone saying "Either maybe it exists or it doesn't. " Pro's position is that 100% God exists. Mine can be anywhere from 0%-99% probability and I would still win, Because it could not be said that God Truly Exists.

Currently no claim my opponent has made has held up to scrutiny. Logic and reasoning do not support any of his arguments. Science does not support any of his arguments.

There is no evidence for beings not existing. If you lack any evidence of a being's existence, It can be said to not exist. If I claim that there is no fly in your room right now and you look around and shake the curtains, Spray everywhere, Make loud noises, Put out fly traps, Try to attract them with food, Et cetera and yet still you find no flies or evidence of flies then you should probably accept that, While there isnt a 0% chance there is a fly in your room, There probably is not one.

We have, As humans, Done our best to find evidence for God. We've shaken the curtains, Sprayed, Laid traps, Et cetera, Yet still we see no evidence.

Follow the money friends. What is more likely, That humans created Gods for personal profit and fame and that many of us fall in line because our parents told us it is true (as you have to believe for the thousands of religions that are not yours) or that God exists but he is giving us the silent treatment for not worshiping him enough, After he committed the mass genocide of nearly the entire population of humanity?

Probability is not on your side friend, And it's much closer to 0 than 100.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 2
LOL98700z

Pro

I concede. . . . . . I can't write things anymore. Honestly, I need to train with Tholht.
Thoht

Con

No shame in it.

To be clear, If I saw or was provided for evidence for your God the only way my tune would change would be to try to convince people that we still must somehow fight against him anyway.

No one deserves eternal damnation. We as a society have to learn how to forgive people. Jesus preached forgiveness, A trait that is impossible to say your God has when hell is eternal.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 3
LOL98700z

Pro

Forfeit AAHHHHHHH
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@LOL98700z - Wow. You've ruined your argument before it had the chance to begin! "God isn't a being that can be reveal to us" OK Great! So then that right there according to you, You freely admit that there is something that YOUR god cannot do. This means that indeed YOUR god since there is something he cannot do is in no possible way a true god.
Posted by Cephus 3 years ago
Cephus
The problem with all of these religious "debates" is that they aren't really debates, Just a long series of unsupported and irrational claims, Made because the belief makes the adherent feel good, But there's no reason to take any of the assertions seriously at all. Others in the comments have it right. You can insert just about anything in place of "God" and you haven't significantly changed the argument any. Bigfoot. Space aliens. The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just saying that something is real and wants so-and-so doesn't prove that it is real and wants anything. But like anything in the real world, Philosophy is not the correct tool for the job, You cannot determine whether a new species of butterfly is real through philosophy, Only through science. Unfortunately, The religious insist, Not prove mind you, But insist that God is magically beyond any rational detection. Why? Because otherwise, We'd all conclude that God isn't real. It's really kind of pathetic when you think about it.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
@K_Michael_Tolman

I'm replying to your earlier post. There are three things for you to consider, And answer.

1. If something does not exist, There is no 'evidence' for its nonexistence. How do you know unicorns and fairies don't exist? They are concepts made up by humans. There is evidence of them only in books. Are you suspending belief in unicorns and fairies or do you say they don't exist?

The nonexistence of any particular entity cannot be 'proven. ' There is no 'evidence' that these things don't exist besides me being unable to sense them or find phenomena which they explain that has no other explanation. If something poops on the ground I don't assume it is unicorn poop until I have ruled out all the animals I know to exist.

2. Prophets and prophecies do not exist. Particularly when surrounding religion. Given billions of people that have existed over time I can create many stories that many people will 'fulfill. ' On top of that, Jesus was a jew. You think he didn't read the Bible and try to fulfill "prophecies" in it? Why do you think the Jews that were alive at that time did not believe that he was the Messiah? Don't you think it would have been quite convincing for them back then to meet Jesus in the flesh?

3. The argument you're making is called Pascal's Wager. There are multiple problems with your scenario. The first is that professing belief in one God will anger all other Gods. Most religions have commandments against worshiping other Gods. A nonbeliever, Or one who does not profess religion of any sort, Does not violate this. You do. So by professing belief in one God you may possibly ensure you get into its paradise, You ensure you don't get into the paradise of any of the others if you are wrong. There have been and are thousands upon thousands of Gods. You are ensured damnation in all of them but one. I am not ensured damnation in all of them. This is the fundamental flaw in Pascal's Wager. If we go by numbers alone, I am the clear vic
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"I don't believe that God CAN'T appear to us. "
I don't believe that unicorns can't appear to us.
The problem with this is that I can't tell the full future and I am sure you can't either so it is claim that I think is in falsifiable.

"I believe that these are the Last Days"
I believe that this is a bump in an otherwise amazing time to live. Life expectancy higher. More to do and generally better quality of life.

"God is not revealing Himself to us in the trials of our faith. "
Unicorns are not revealing themselves to us in the trials of our belief.

I added unicorns to make you feel what I feel about these God claims. Nonsense and founded in no reason. Instead an illusion that people conjure up would be what I would say theists are doing. Multitude of reasons but one that is not the reason is that it is right.
Posted by K_Michael_Tolman 3 years ago
K_Michael_Tolman
I don't believe that God CAN'T appear to us. I believe that these are the Last Days, And God is not revealing Himself to us in the trials of our faith.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"If you are so fond of pointing out little mistakes"
Accepting there is a flaw but not owning up to it. Fact is different to subjective experience. Not a little mistake even if you think it is the case.

"I had acknowledged that I am an amateur in religion debate to start with and you are trying to pinpoint every mistake possible"
I pointed a flaw and you did not own up to it. I am accept mistakes I have but I don't default to some sort of attack that you carried out with capital letters. Mistake is a mistake and that is not a minor one.

"(Also, Why can't I quote from my first part? )"
What part?
Posted by LOL98700z 3 years ago
LOL98700z
. . . . . . . . . I think I give up explaining to you. If you are so fond of pointing out little mistakes and missing out large ideas, I think I can't talk to you. I had acknowledged that I am an amateur in religion debate to start with and you are trying to pinpoint every mistake possible. . . . . (Also, Why can't I quote from my first part? )
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@LOL98700z

"You see, When I say that God can't appear to us, It is a fact. "

You are making a claim that you have no evidence for.
What part of that do you not understand?

"I said that there is no account of god appearing to anyone publicly in the last century or so. . "
Doesn't mean it can't.
Cannot: to be unable to do otherwise than (Merriam Webster)
God is able due to his supposed perfection yet God does not.
God is capable so God can do it but doesn't for some reason.
Posted by LOL98700z 3 years ago
LOL98700z
"You see, When I say that God can't appear to us, It is a fact. "

It is not a fact. It is an in falsifiable claim due to the elusiveness of a supposed God.
Even if it is a psychological debate I can rebut your claims and with God the burden of proof lies on you.

? So, You want some evidence, Read the damn next sentence sir. I am tired of explaining to you. . . . . . . I said that there is no account of god appearing to anyone publicly in the last century or so. .
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"WHEN THE HELL DID U SEE A NEWS REPORT ABOUT GOD APPEARING? WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH U. . . . . . "
What has this got to do with the argument I had made?
Can you not take an opposing argument?
Can you not take criticism?
You state a fact but cannot prove it to be the case.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
LOL98700zThohtTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Eh, I really can't explain the after the debate thing, but for the convincing arguments, as one can see in the debate, Pro forfeited.

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