The Instigator
henrypence7
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
chrmon2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is God Real?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 119598
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

henrypence7

Con

First of all, There is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of a supernatural being. Furthermore, There are thousands of different gods that people believe in. How do we know which is true? Nobody has ever communicated directly with a God. Most religions are based around explaining the unknown. In the days of the Greeks, Nobody knew why there was thunder or lightning, Or why the oceans shifted, But as we were able to explain such things Gods like Zeus and Poseidon fell out of favor. Nowadays, There are still many unknowns, Like how did the universe come into existence? What happens when we die? It is easy to explain them with the existence of a supernatural being, But there is no evidence to support it. These complex concepts have not yet been figured out but science will provide answers, As it has done. We can explain many phenomena in the universe already, Such as evolution and the Big Bang theory. Although some may dispute these theories, They are supported by solid fact, Even though there are still questions to answer, There are no indisputable facts that support the existence of any gods.

Additionally, Most religions are very centered on our planet. The universe is huge, And it is ludicrous to believe that our planet has any significance in the vast universe, That is likely full of other intelligent species that are simply too far away to discover. People have always had an assertion that we have a special place in the universe. We used to believe that the earth was in the center of the solar system, With the sun and other planets orbiting. It turns out that earth is simply another planet orbiting a random, Relatively small star in a random, Tiny galaxy in the middle of a vast cosmos. The sun, Compared to other stars, Is ridiculously small (https://spaceplace. Nasa. Gov/sun-compare/en/). And the earth is also a ridiculously small object compared to other things in space. It is only the fifth largest planet in the solar system, And is about a million times smaller than the sun. Our galaxy is also ridiculously small compared to other galaxies. It is ridiculous to believe that a god, Who presided over the entire universe, Would put so much detail into this insignificant planet, And take the time to watch over all of us and decide who goes to heaven and hell.

The concept of heaven is another attempt to make humans seem significant in the universe. It is difficult for people to explain the concept of death, Since nobody alive has ever died. But there is absolutely no evidence supporting the concept of heaven, Reincarnation, Or any other idea. It is difficult for people to grasp this, But when people die, They simply cease to exist. There is no evidence to support any life after death. Your conscience, Feelings, And thoughts simply cease to exist.

In most religions, God is described as both all powerful and all good. But if that is true, Then why are there natural disaster, Why is there murder, Why are there so many terrible things in the world? Why do so many terrible things happen to innocent people? The only explanation is that God is either not all powerful, And is incapable of stopping these terrible events, Or God is not all good, And willingly does not prevent these terrible things from happening to people.

Finally, One common argument raised by believers is that we have no idea why and how the universe as created, And that the existence of God is a reasonable explanation as to the creation. Well, In contrast, Where did God come from? Who or what created him, And why? Did god exist before our universe, Or was he created with it? These are simply unanswerable questions, Whereas the questions of the origin of the universe are explainable through scientific experimentation and reasoning, We simply do not have advanced enough technology to find the answers.
chrmon2

Pro

I'm going to list a few reasons why a rational person ought to believe in God.

1) The Cosmological Argument

This argument goes as follows.

I. Everything with a beginning has a cause

II. The universe has a beginning

III. Therefore, The universe has a cause.

Since God does not have a beginning, He need not have a cause. The universe, However, Began at the Big Bang

2) The Teleological Argument

Had the conditions of the Big Bang been even slightly different, It would have been impossible for life to exist. Many naturalists try to explain away this fine-tuning problem through a multiverse. However, If we were only one universe in a world ensemble, It would be much more likely that our solar system exists through a random collision of particles. However, It does not.

3) The Resurrection of Jesus

There are three accepted historical facts which are best explained by the resurrection of Jesus.

1. Jesus' tomb was discovered empty on the Sunday after his crucifixion.

2. Separate individuals saw appearances of Jesus shortly after his death.

3. The initial disciples suddenly believed in the resurrection despite every predisposition not to. (The early Christian church was heavily persecuted, And Jews had no belief in a dying messiah. )

For these reasons, I think it is plausible to conclude that the Christian God exists.

The Problem of Evil

My opponent has raised the problem of evil as his objection, Which has already been debunked by various scholars. The doctrine of Original Sin holds that while God initially envisioned a perfect world for humanity, The sin in the garden meant that the world was cursed. Unless my opponent can prove that Original Sin is a self-contradiction or cannot exist for some reason, We can conclude that the Problem of Evil is not sufficient for withholding belief in God.

So in summary, Con would need to demonstrate how my arguments are false and then provide evidence against the existence of God in order to win this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
henrypence7

Con

henrypence7 forfeited this round.
chrmon2

Pro

chrmon2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
henrypence7

Con

henrypence7 forfeited this round.
chrmon2

Pro

chrmon2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
henrypence7

Con

henrypence7 forfeited this round.
chrmon2

Pro

chrmon2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
henrypence7

Con

henrypence7 forfeited this round.
chrmon2

Pro

chrmon2 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Roi 3 years ago
Roi
- because the fact that you were born already means that the conditions for this occurrence necessarily had to have been met. Back to the teleological argument - for life to have formed and for us to be here discussing it, It already necessarily means that the conditions were met. If the conditions weren't met, I wouldn't be able to tell you "look at that, God doesn't exist" because neither I nor you would be here. Again, For us to be discussing this, It already necessarily means that whatever needed to happen for this to occur has happened. For the same reason that you don't think that you are the "chosen one" because, Against all chances, You were born is the reason you can't say that God exists because life has formed.
Posted by Roi 3 years ago
Roi
Chromon2 - con actually does not need to provide evidence against the existence of God to win this debate. He only needs to demonstrate the invalidity of your arguments as the burden of proof lies on you. To demonstrate that God almost certainly does not exist, One only needs to demonstrate that the evidence in favor of God are false, Because a claim with no evidence is not worthy of accepting. Atheism isn't necessarily the claim that god certainly does not exist, It is the rejection of the claim that he does.
The cosmological argument fails to demonstrate a god because it doesn't show how the cause for the universe has to be a god. Why does it have to be a being that is omnipotent, Omniscient, All good? It's an assumption and an unreasonable one too as we have no evidence for anything remotely simmilar to this. It makes much more sense that the cause is some kind of a natural phenomenon, One we haven't yet discovered, But is, Or was, Present. You have no idea what kind of conditions there were before the universe, Hence you can't make a justified claim. God is the furthest thing from a justified claim. Not only does it have no evidence and is so far away from anything we know to exist as it involves supernatural suppositions, But it is also more of a mystery than the one it is trying to solve. You can't solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery.
The teleological argument is also invalid. It tries to prove god by saying that if god doesn't exist than the chances of life forming are extremely small. I'll give you an analogy to demonstrate my view: the chances of you being born are also extremely small, Much smaller than the chances of life forming because not only for you to have been born life had to form, But each one of your ancestors had to have sex at the right period so that eventually your grandparents would be born, And then your parents, And then you. So, Because you were born, Do you say "I must be the chosen one"? No. (Next comment. . . )
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Skye2468

"But there is evidence that points in the right direction. "
Evidence doesn't point. It is either proves the existence of a God or it is bad evidence.

"But indirect evidence. "
Indirect: not directly caused by or resulting from something.
Flaws in this Example: Indirectly I blame God for my mistakes. With that I now believe God is the fault of my mistakes.

"not all evidence has to be scientific or observable. "
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Yes it does. It has to be available for it be evidence.

"common sense that something can't come from nothing. "
Common sense is not evidence therefore it is not a fact. Therefore it is an assumption until we indicate the belief or proposition to be true.

"So there must have been something that caused everything to come into existence"
I think I told you this before but if I haven't. Here it is: your arguments boils down to I don't know therefore God or the God of gaps arguments. The fallacy would be an argument of ignorance. You don't know you think it is God.
Common sense: is sound practical judgment concerning everyday matters, Or a basic ability to perceive, Understand, And judge that is shared by ("common to") nearly all people.
Basically practical judgment can still be wrong and still be considered common sense whereas a fact cannot be wrong and still be considered a fact.
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

"That doesn't absolutely prove the existence of God"
I would go far as to say it doesn't do it at all.

"But that atleast leaves the possibility open and can serve as indirect evidence that points in the right direction of the truth. "
Non-theists are open to evidence for God. Indirectly I have shown the flaws in it.

"Many I talk to blow literally everything off that I say. "
Oh come on. I took your arguments and found flaws. Nothing was blown up instead presented and shown the fla
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Some will say no. . So you will dream a god. . .
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
No. . . . Is it not just simple not to dream. . ? . .
Posted by TheBoldDebator 3 years ago
TheBoldDebator
What happened? I was debating you on this topic!
Posted by Skye2468 3 years ago
Skye2468
I would possibly accept this debate, But would you be willing to listen to what I have to say? There is no absolute proof that God exists, But there is evidence that points in the right direction. Not necessarily direct evidence, But indirect evidence.

How I like to think about evidence is ""Facts or info that raises or lowers the probability of something"" and not all evidence has to be scientific or observable.

For example, For the most part we know it's common sense that something can't come from nothing. So there must have been something that caused everything to come into existence. That doesn't absolutely prove the existence of God, But that atleast leaves the possibility open and can serve as indirect evidence that points in the right direction of the truth.

I probably won't be on for a week or so, But if you would like to debate me about this I will send you a debate when I get back on. Please though if I debate you please consider and think about the things I say. Many I talk to blow literally everything off that I say.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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