The Instigator
FuzzySquid
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Eugenious
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God, And everything he does cannot be proven in anyway.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
FuzzySquid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 200 times Debate No: 122773
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

FuzzySquid

Pro

Hello there! I don't know who my opponent will be, But I just wanted to say the best of luck to you! With all due respect, All my arguments are not meant to be taking in an offense way, So people take this with a grain of salt. With that being said, Let's commence!

So first, I would like to define a few terms. When I say God, I mean the biblical figure form the Christian religion. Anything else will be off topic. Also when I say proven, I mean that there is no scientific, Or logical reasoning to why God is real, And therefore he is fake.

Secondly, I would like to do this a little bit differently this time. I'll be keeping my first argument short and sweet, By only saying things that I know off the top of my head. Then I would like my opponent to respond with some lighter arguments. After that I will be providing a more detailed report on this topic, And I would like my opponent to follow in the same manner.

With that being said, Let's get to my points.

1) Science breaks down near God

So what do I mean by this? Well it's really simple in fact. No science, Can prove the existence of God in anyway shape or form. Immortatily, Holiness, Ect. And how can he create stuff? All these questions have no answer from Science. Unless you're saying that 5000 years of Science is all wrong, Which is highly unlikly. Now hear comes a misconception about Science. Some people belive that it is Science that is wrong, And that we need to change it, But that is not what Science is. Science is a way of observing our world, And creating new worls to describe it. It is nothing more than describing an object, And I'm sure that everyone can agree on how to describe an object (brown, Tall, Coulourful). We observed that an apple fell, So we called that gravity. If you call gravity wrong, It's like saying that apples don't fall down. It's eaiser to lift an object with a ramp, So we call it Mechanical Advantage (MA). So saying that MA is wrong is like saying that everysingle rampe you see is useless. Since can't be wrong, Since all those fancy words are basiclly just adjectives (kind of). But none of our observations or methods can explain God and the power he has.

2) There is no real life example of him

At this point in society, We have advanced so far that no one has ever seen, Heard, Or sensed God. All the reported sightings or feelings of God is just as credible as ghost sightings. People claim the bible is written by God. Proof? None. At this point in time, God is just another story. For comparison, The Bible could be from another planet and we don't know. There's just not enough solid evidence that points to God being real, So unfourtunatly we have to dimiss this as fake.

Well there's my short argument. I hope my opponent follows the guidelines that I have provided and I wish the best of luck to him/her. Thanks for tuning in!
Eugenious

Con

Greetings, It is a pleasure to debate such an important topic today. What we are talking about today is the greatest question anyone could ask: Is there evidence for God. Things get especially interesting when we speak of specifically the God of the Bible. Without any further ado, Let's get right into it.

My opponent's first statement after introduction was that there are no scientific or logical arguments for the existence of God. I intend to prove the exact opposite. I am slightly irritated by my opponent's guidelines of first doing lighter arguments, But he started the debate, Therefore I must follow his requests. I will present three logical arguments for the existence of God, With only basic definitions of each. These logical evidences are supported by science, So the scientific reasons will therefore be included. Two of the three arguments have long names, But I will define each. I only include the full name to be as precise as possible. Here are the arguments:

1. The Cosmological Argument.
Simply put, This argument says that everything that has a beginning must have a beginner. The universe gives numerous evidences that it s in fact aging, So it must have therefore been "born" at some point. And if it is to have been "born" something OUTSIDE of it must have created it. Once again, There are many things to observe in this argument, But, So as to keep my opponent's guidelines, We will hold further statements on the subject.

2. The Teleological argument.
Simply put, This argument says that design demands a designer. I can best illustrate this argument by asking you to imagine the following: You're walking along a beach, When you come across a Macbook Air, Just lying in the sand. Now, Is your base assumption that this was formed from natural processes, Or is it that it was created by an intelligent mind outside of itself? I want to briefly break down the arguments made within this argument. When I say that the creator must be outside the created, I mean this: a thing cannot create itself. I pray that this is a widely accepted statement among the readers right now. In the same way, We see incredible complexity and design in nature and all throughout science, So there must therefore be a designer outside of the universe. This briefly sums up this argument.

3. The Moral Law Argument.
Let me ask you this: Is murder wrong? How about rape? Child abuse? This argument says that if there is in fact moral law, There must be a moral law-giver. Allow me to explain. If there is no God, There cannot be a standard for morality. William Provine, Widely acclaimed atheist, Made the following statement, "Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, And I must say that these are basically Darwin"s views. There are no gods, No purposeful forces of any kind, No life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be completely dead. That"s just all"that"s gonna be the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, No ultimate meaning in life, And no free will for humans, Either. " Did you catch the phrase "no ultimate foundation for ethics"? This is from the mouth of an atheist. Mr. Provine truthfully understands that if there is no God, There is no ultimate meaning or purpose. If there is no purpose, And there is no standard, There cannot be moral law. Once again, I have the irresistible urge to write more, As there is truly so much more to write, But this will suffice for now.

As for the science of it all, We see that the universe shows signs of aging. There must therefore have been a beginning. We see a vast amount of complexity in the most amazing form in nature. And we see clear moral laws throughout humanity. Each of these supports the idea that there is a God. I look forward to reading my opponent's response, And I pray that all reading this will observe the evidence with an open mind. I await my opponent's answer.
Debate Round No. 1
FuzzySquid

Pro

Hello, And thanks for accepting my debate. I'm sorry that you don't like my guidelines, But thank you for following them anyway. It's highly appreciated. Now for my argument, I will be providing a more detailed report on why God cannot be proven, And in addition to that, I will be going up against some of my opponents statements. With that being said, Let's get right to it!

Clashing with my opponent:

1) The Cosmological Argument

So in my opponent's argument, He referenced the Cosmological Argument, And said that everything must have a beginning. And yes, I agree with him. The universe is well observed into having a beginning. It's called the Big Bang (the universe expanded from a single point). What happened before the Big Bang is up to speculation. It could be an infinite cycle of the universe expanding and then contracting (Big Crunch). But all we know is that our universe did indeed have a beginning. So this explains that the universe doesn't have to be created by someone.

But what I don't understand is how God can be explained using this argument. This argument does not contain any solid evidence to why God is real, And simply just states speculation on "facts". And if everything has a beginning, What was God's beginning? My opponents stated that everything has to be "born" at some point. So who created God?

2) Moral Law Argument

My opponent made a mention of Provine, And said that if there is no purpose, If there is no meaning, Then there cannot be moral law. We need to explain our thoughts and actions. Will we can simply explain them though desire. I completely agree with Provine in the sense that when we die, We die. But that doesn't mean our lives are useless. We live to experience life. We explore new places, Meet new people, And buy amazing things. We create morals so we can live life better. We have moral laws so we can experience things better. True, There is no point to our lives in the grand run, But we do make it worthwhile for us, And the future generations.

But I seem to be a little bit confused on this point. You believe in God, Yet your are referring your arguments from a strong Atheist. Please elaborate on where you're going in your next argument.

Providing my arguments:

1) Gravity

So in my last debate, I talked about how God cannot be proven by Science. Well now I'm going to be providing a more in depth research on why this isn't true (mostly concerning size). First, I want to talk about his size. I've read that people still don't know God's definite size, But I heard that he can big enough to hold several planets in his hands. Well a problem arises. Gravity. If he is truly that big, Then his gravitational mass will be enormous. If he is big enough to hold multiple planets in his hand, Then his mass would be 2 x 10^32 kg. And that's assuming he couldn't grow bigger. Instantly, He would attract planets, Suns, Ateriods, And they would just pelt him with debris everywhere he goes. He would also get swallowed up by super massive black holes and red giants (super big stars). And if he could shrink down to a normal human's size, Then the insane amount of gravitational force he has would make him collapse into a black hole. That black hole would easily be the size of Earth, And could last for thousands, If not millions of years. But does this happen? I think not.

2) Livability

Secondly, I want to point your direction to how God could survive. All living creatures need energy - food and water. At his solar system size, He would literally need to clean out entire planets for food. And to drink enough water, He would literally have to strip mine a galaxy for all the planets containing water. And don't forget about the square-cube law. It basically states that the your bone's cannot grow stronger fast enough the bigger they get. That's why whales live in the sea, Because they are so big that there's bones could not physically support them on land. And what about breathing, Or blood circulation. Robet Wadlow. He was the tallest man that ever lived. Standing at 2. 72 meters tall, He could tower over 2 people standing on top of each other easily. But he sadly did at 22 since his heart could not pump blood strongly enough to reach the rest of his organs. In other words, If God is that big, How could his heart support him?

To back up my two points, Please read my first argument in my first speech. Science is not wrong, Science is just what we see.

To conclude my debate, I have stated multiple concise reasons to why God cannot exist, Some about science, Others about logic. Unfortunately I ran out of space so this is all I have room for. I thank you once again for following my guidelines, And I can't wait to see what you'll bring out in your next argument. I hope that I've provided an interesting debate and I'm feeling excited about the results. Good luck and thanks to all!
Eugenious

Con

I would like to start this by thanking my opponent from the bottom of my heart for being so polite throughout this. You have no idea how much I appreciate this. Even if we share different views, It is nice to meet civil, Respectable people from all different worldviews. Now that's out of the way, Let's look at some of my opponent's arguments.

Let's start with the Cosmological Argument. My opponent rightly confirmed that the universe did in fact have a beginning. I"m glad that we can agree on that, As it would have led us into a thousand tangent if we disagreed on that idea. The reason that this argument proves the existence of a creator is that the opposite view requires an impossibility: something coming from nothing. Never have we ever observed any material thing come from nothing. Before I continue, I would like to define "nothing" and "something. " By "nothing", I mean a literal nothing. The absence of any form of matter. Something, I would hope, Is self-explanatory. I merely mean any material thing. No material thing has ever come from a literal nothing, And this scientific impossibility is required by my opponent's idea of the beginning of the universe.

Now, For the Moral Law Argument. I apologize for being unclear. Allow me to explain first why I quoted Provine. I merely quoted Provine to show that this is in fact a view held by atheists, And not just a creation of my own. It was not intended to "prove" anything. Per se, But simply to illustrate my point. I apologize for the confusion. Now, For the meat of the argument. I have only one question for my opponent: "Who creates the morals? " If it is us, As in each person, Then morality is entirely subjective. Let's say that my created morality says that it is ok to murder. Who is anyone else to tell me that it's wrong? If we as people decide moral values, Then it is subjective. If it's society that makes the morals, Then I have another question: "Let's say you lived in the Aztec society long ago. Their society says that it's perfectly fine to do human sacrifices. Now, Does that mean human sacrifice is now moral to them? Society cannot be the standard, Because then morality would change from society to society. As we all know, If something is not constant, It cannot be a standard. We as people differ from one another in our morals, And societies differ in morality. Some people are pro-life, Some are pro-choice. Those are ethics statements. They have to do with the individual morality of each individual. Overall, Our morality cannot come from us as people, Or us as societies, Because those "standards" aren't constant. The only %100 consistent standard for morality is God. Thus, The Moral Law Argument.

Now, For my opponent's arguments concerning God's size. First off, I must say that I've never encountered this argument before. There is a very simple answer to this, But for that answer to work, My opponent must understand that if he is to attack something that is within the Christian worldview, I must answer within the Christian worldview. Essentially, We as Christians believe that God exist in the spiritual realm. He is not a physical being. He is a spiritual being. So, He has no physical "size, " per se, But instead exists in the spiritual realm. Once again, This answer is the Christian's way of refutation. The Scriptures teach that God is a spiritual being, So He cannot be "measured", If that makes sense.

Once again, To refute the livability problem is the exact same answer as the last argument. If God is a spirit, Then he is not physical. If he is not physical, He needs no physical energy, Food, Water, Or anything of the sort. The Christian God is not a physical being in this physical universe. One of my statements in my last argument spoke of how God must be outside the universe to create the universe. In the same way, He is outside space and time, For he created both.

In this debate, We have observed some simple logical and scientific evidences. Each of the philosophical arguments I presented (Moral Law, Teleological, Cosmological) have never been adequately refuted. This is not to say that my opponent is inept or not an adequate debater, But instead to say that you cannot defeat truth. I was disappointed to not see any form of response to the Teleological Argument, As I find it to be one of the most powerful. Even with this dropped point, I thoroughly enjoyed this debate, And I pray that each person reading this will read and understand the truth. God's not Dead!

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Eugenious 2 weeks ago
Eugenious
It was a pleasure debating you too, "FuzzySquid. "
Posted by FuzzySquid 2 weeks ago
FuzzySquid
Well! Could we settle it down please? I would prefer if the comment section wasn't full of hate. Well thanks again @Eugenious for debating, You did a great job. I can't wait for the votes.
Posted by backwardseden 3 weeks ago
backwardseden
Just so you know I stopped reading after your first sentence. Your bible, In which you haven't read, Clearly, Is the most hateful book ever published. Your unproven god in it murdered 2, 821, 364 all in only one little splatch of land with genocide after genocide after horrific genocide simply because it was jealous which is NOT A REASON which included babies, Children and pregnant mothers (that's abortions unto you supposed christians which is a HUGE supermassive hypocritical contradiction) in which you perfectly justify. So DO NOT talk to me about hate when you try, Ever so desperately, To try and s--t shovel you're unproven god down peoples throats, Thus declaring war on them with all of YOUR hate. Thankfully with each passing day your religion is being pushed back and back and back. Its lost 5. 1% of its following since 2007 and atheism has doubled. Yeah. Have fun watching today's Atheist Experience. If you are not an all out believer in your god, Then you are an atheist. So that number of 5. 1% is certainly MUCH higher. Anything else poopy doll?
Posted by Eugenious 3 weeks ago
Eugenious
I just tried to start a debate with old "backwards", But to my dismay, He isn't accepting challenges. So he's willing to attack other people on their debates, But too cowardly to try to prove it himself? Nice.
Posted by Eugenious 3 weeks ago
Eugenious
And, You know, "backwardseden, " you said that I ignored arguments. But, It seems you failed to notice that my opponent left the Teleological Argument entirely ignored. It seems that your own line of reasoning is starting to backfire, Huh?
Posted by Eugenious 3 weeks ago
Eugenious
Do you realize the amount of hate you write with? You did say that we would no longer be communicating with me on the comments section of your profile. I would really appreciate it if you kept your word. Before I end this message, I want all other atheists reading this to take a look at this guy, One of your representatives. Is this really supposed to be called civil or polite? I said nothing offensive or rude this whole time, And this guy resorts to name calling. Real grown-up there. You're really a 58 year-old? You used names like "sneezerag jaw maw" and "bumbling babbling baby brained big black blank" and words like "Unedumacated"? I mean, Really? Is this what you're resorting to? Name-calling the likes of which I haven't heard since Kindergarten? Will you please learn to debate in a more grown-up manner? Just stop with your petty insults.
Posted by backwardseden 3 weeks ago
backwardseden
@Eugenious - And you are? Ah yes, I didn't mention you once in the previous posts here for this debate now did I? See, You like nearly every single supposed christian because there is no such a thing as being a christian, You cannot read nor comprehend, And therefore you cannot possibly interpret your bumbling babbling baby brained big black blank bible correctly, Not a chance in this universe, As you being a 16 year old spoiled brat, Unedumacated, Unintelligent, And clearly without any genuine friends or loved ones, All in which are HUGE red flags, You opened your maw like a sewer rug rat and thus pretended that you actually have something of value to say, Not only in your tee hee argument in which you ab-so-lu-te-ly got spit fired slaughtered on because there is no scientific evidence in your p**sed upon bible to support any of it, But when you opened your sneezerag jaw maw to me which gives me free reign to leave this small little message rightful for you. See, You happen to think you are ever so smart when in fact you happen to be one of the top 10, Easily, Dumbest people here on DDO and I say that with utter kindness. Too bad if you don't like it, Deal with it. Get and education first on what you are talking about, Get that evidence AND THEN you might have something of value to say. Its never the reverse like you have thus far always done. Got it? But then again, There's no evidence, None, For your god's existence and there never has been.
Posted by Eugenious 3 weeks ago
Eugenious
Ah, Backwards, We meet again. What is it I recall you saying, Something about our last conversation being our last communique? I see you are a man of your word. (Sarcasm intended. ) I would truly appreciate if you kept your nose in your own business and kept to your original statement about no more contact between us. So far, "FuzzySquid" has been very polite, And you are trying to turn things sour once again. Please, For the last time, Leave me alone.
Posted by backwardseden 3 weeks ago
backwardseden
@FuzzySquid - Np. No worries. You are right with everything you've said. He has no outs! Exactly. How did his unproven god come to be? Morality? Wow. He should read his fricken bible to see how immoral his god is.
Your opponent automatically assumes that his god is real without any proof whatsoever as he expects everybody to follow what he believes on a whim and cannot prove anything. The only proof that he has for his god's existence is his bible in which contains absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever to prove his god. The double whammy is that no god would be stupid enough, Not ever, Not for any reason, To use text, Namely his bible, As a form of communication, The worst form of communication to a god when if a true god would simply be able to talk to all of man and let every single person know what its plans, Laws, Rules, Are. This so-called god can even be friends, Show love, Peace, Kindness, Care, Harmony, With every single person in which it has never done in his bible. Regardless, There's never been an instance of 50 years of peace since this god's of your opponent's inception, Not anywhere, Not at any time, Not during any time. This also puts things into clear perspective. Text? With all of its fallacies. Nope. Its supermassive hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies, Its utter silliness that no god would approve of, How its unproven god truly hates children, Calls for sacrifices of animals, Murders babies, Children and pregnant women (abortions - yet aren't these supposed christians supposed to be against abortions? ), Its god issues death warrants in those who blaspheme, Are gay, Commit adultery, Do not worship it and worship other gods, Work on the sabbath, Those who curse at their parents. Now the thing is 4 of those are directly from the 10 commandments! Its unproven god in his bible has committed who knows how many genocides? There's slavery that is an ongoing thing throughout his bible! Etc There's sooo many things!
Posted by FuzzySquid 3 weeks ago
FuzzySquid
@backwardseden Thanks for your tips! I sadly didn't notice your comment before I posted my argument, But I will consider that for next time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 weeks ago
backwardseden
FuzzySquidEugeniousTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: It is up to Con to prove that his god exists through the mentioning of The Cosmological Argument, The Teleological argument, and The Moral Law Argument in which he did not do because these do not prove a god, much less his god. It is also very clear that he has not read his bible because there is nothing scientific in any way to support these arguments, especially the morality argument in which his god is completely immoral. Pro is right "There is no real life example of him." Nobody in the history of the human race has ever proved any god from any religion. "And simply just states speculation" Again Pro is right. Con "If God is a spirit, Then he is not physical. If he is not physical," He uses that word "if" which means he does not know. It means he guesses. Pro handily wins this debate.

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