The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CDC
Con (against)
Winning
4 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 1 vote the winner is...
CDC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 741 times Debate No: 119793
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Pro

First round is acceptance
CDC

Con

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
CDC

Con

Since my opponent forfeited this round, I will just simply give my reasons as to why I don't believe in any God.

*side note, The burden of proof as to why God exist is for my opponent to address. *

When we are talking about God being real, We need to ask ourselves "which God/s of which religion is the correct one? " There are a plethora of Gods that exist in different religions and not everyone can be right. How do we know for sure that Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster ever existing. The evidence for any of these Gods have not be remotely observed by science. If there has not been any scientific proof of any of the God/s existing, That asks the question 'if there really is any God'? People say scriptures are evidence for a supernatural deity, But how can we be sure to say that the Bible is correct, Or the Quran, Or any religious scriptures, Especially when they claim their scriptures are the correct one.

At school (which is a Christian school), I have been told by some people that "you need faith of God existing and then you'll see the truth". There are verses in the bible that explain why people might think like this. One such verse is Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, The evidence of things not seen". However, This is a ludicrous way of thinking because that verse essentially tells us that having faith alone proves the existence of God. If we use that same logic, I could say things "I have faith in Allah, Therefore he's real", "I have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Therefore he's real", "I have faith that there is a microscopic teapot in between Earth and Mars, Therefore it exist". I could type down more examples, But i have already addressed my point. Having faith in something that is not proven by science or any other methods does NOT make something real.

I will address more of my points and arguments once Pro types down his arguments favouring the existence of the God.
Debate Round No. 2

Pro

Ok, Let's begin on the burdens of this round. As the affirmative I must only prove to you that a God exists. The matter of which God exists is a separate debate. That being said, Let me begin

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.
CDC

Con

"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 sign of Him".
You are correct with the atheist's position with God, But the problem lies in your second sentence. If we look in the bible, There are many claims that say God has physically interacted with humans. Such as Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, Moses and his supposed "power", Jesus as the son of man, And many other claims like that. So if we find undeniable, Verifiable and testable evidence to support these stories, Then that would be evidence of the physical signs of God. However, Such evidences have not be observed by science, Archeologists, Or anyone for the matter, To undeniably prove the physical nature of God.

"When you look at the world around us, You see the complexity of it. " Yes, There are many complex processes and organisms that exist, But that doesn't mean we were designed. Contrary to belief, The imperfections of nature show the absence of design.
1. The nerve travel from the brain to the larynx (the voice box). A perfect designer would have made a direct route from the brain to the larynx, But that's not the case. "It goes all the way to the heart, Wraps around a major artery and then goes up to the larynx. " (R. 1). This is also shown in giraffes where the brain travels 15 feet to the heart, And then travels back up to the larynx. What's is the point of having such a pathway when a designer could of just made a direct route from the brain to the larynx?
2. Vestigial structures are structures that once served a purpose but now have little to no function at all. A designer wouldn't need to have these organs in his works of creation because they are unwanted components that serve no purpose anymore. Such as male nipples, Pelvis in snakes and whales, Wisdom teeth, Tailbone in humans, And Erector Pili and body hair. (R. 1 and R. 2).
3. Natural disasters happen constantly across the world and affect many lives. Between 1994 to 2013, There have been 6, 873 natural disasters recorded by the Epidemiology of Disasters. Not only that, These disasters have "claimed 1. 35 millions lives or almost 68, 000 lives on the average year, And affected 218 million people on average per annum during this 20-year period. " (R. 3). If there was intelligent design, He could have just made earth not so hostile to the harm of all living organisms on this planet.
There are plenty more of imperfect examples in the universe that show how intelligent design is not so intelligent.

"Without a God, In the equation, Then it all must have come from nothing. " You are assuming that if God does not exist, Then we came from absolute nothing spontaneously. No one still has any ideas on what existed before the big bang, But randomly asserting that a creator must of been the first mover of everything without any sufficient evidence is absurd. It's not as black and white as it sounds. There are some ideas as what existed before the universe, But they are obviously not conclusive or based on sufficient evidence, They are just speculations. 1. There could have been no concept of time and there were particles in a singularity, Hence there couldn't be a before but it just happened. 2. There could have been universes recycling itself by expanding, Contracting to a singularity, And then expand to a new universe. This is known as the "Big Bounce". 3. There could be hypothetical 'white hole' on the opposite side of black holes, Spewing matter rather than sucking it in. (R. 4). Just because we don't know for absolute certainty, Doesn't mean it automatically proves that God was the initiator of everything.

Now with your probability example in examples 1-4, Just because there is an extremely small chance of everything existing, It doesn't mean it isn't a possibility. Don't just assert the existence of the universe to God because the chances of everything occurring naturally are deemed really unlikely. Things can happen.
Your fifth example, "The chance of evolution occurring is equivalent to the chance of a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outer space, Knocking down a satellite that then crashes down on a target on a van on a highway". The source where you got this quote from tries to debunk the idea of evolution but poorly does it. It states a claim, But doesn't provide any evidence to back it up. Additionally, They also quoted, "there must be a powerful and super-wise Creator. With such a Creator, You no longer need billions of years. He could create everything in much less time"say. . . Six days. " After "disproving" it they make this claim without any evidence at all to back this statement. Therefore, Not a reliable source for disproving evolution and favouring creationism.

When you are talking about the mutualism between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse, Yes they do benefit from each other and it does explain how well both the organisms benefit from each other. They also don't just eat the food from this particular fish, They feed on benthic crustaceans, Fish and invertebrates (R. 5). However, When you were mentioning that "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. " The instinct of the sweetlips was not to clean out the teeth of the blue streak wrasse, It was the instinct to find food to eat. The sweetlips would have done anything to find food in order to survive. That's the trait of which every single organisms has because every organism wants to survive. If the sweetlips knew that the blue streak wrasse would be a predator to them after their friends try to pick some food off of their teeth, The rest of the sweetlips family would find other fish to munch off their food, Otherwise the species goes extinct. That's what evolution explains to us, Survival of the fittest. If the organism doesn't have the genes to survive on this planet, They will go extinct. This can be explained without using God into the picture.

"There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible. " There are many benefits of species that are explained through evolution, But there are also many bad things that are also explained through evolution.
1. Survival of the Fittest. If a species wants to survive in its environment, It must learn to adapt to the constant changes and find new ways to continue surviving in order to keep producing offspring. Many times, Animals find methods to survive in these certain conditions, But there were animals that couldn't adapt to new changes and thus, They became extinct. Animals like, Woolly Mammoth, Moa, Smilodon, Quagga, And numerous of other cases (R. 6).
2. Bad mutations. Evolution by natural selection (the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring) explains how species change overtime. There are good, Bad, Or neutral mutations. If evolution was only about 'happy coincidences', Then there might be a possibility of a greater force, But that's clearly not the case. Things like "cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, Phenylketonuria and color-blindness, Among many others. All of these disorders are caused by the mutation of a single gene" (R. 7).
Evolution just describes the fundamental bases of how life evolves. A lot of it is just coincidences, Whether good or bad, But like i said, It doesn't automatically attribute to God creating everything.

"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. " How does Newton's law contradict no God? Like i said, No one knows what was before the big bang. The big bang is how our known universe was created, But that doesn't mean there was a 'great nothing' before it.

"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. " The big bang started from what is known as a singularity, And then started to cause this huge expansion to create the universe. This doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics, Because there could have been some type of matter before our known universe, We just don't know as of now. It's not simply as a nothing into something. If the cause was some type of God, Then the scientific evidence we've seen should show some of God's craftsmanship, But that hasn't happened yet.

"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"
Premise 1 and 2 i do agree. However, Premises 3-5 are just assumptions with no evidence. 1. We currently don't know what predates the universe. 2. You believe that since we don't know, Apparently and outside force must of started it. There is no verifiable proof of an outside force.

How you been arguing your points of God's existence is very black-and-white. Since evolution doesn't work, Therefore must be a God. It's not as simple as that.

References:
R. 1 https://www. Iampleasant. Com/2013/12/the-imperfect-design-evidence-for-evolution/
R. 2 https://www. Livescience. Com/21513-vestigial-organs. Html
R. 3 https://www. Preventionweb. Net/publications/view/42895
R. 4 https://theconversation. Com/curious-kids-what-existed-before-the-big-bang-did-something-have-to-be-there-to-go-boom-103742
R. 5 https://www. Whatsthatfish. Com/fish/oriental-sweetlips/401
R. 6 https://owlcation. Com/stem/Top-10-Most-Beautiful-Extinct-Animals
R. 7 https://genetics. Thetech. Org/about-genetics/mutations-and-disease
Debate Round No. 3
CDC

Con

CDC forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
CDC

Con

I have made my points. That's it for this debate
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Another forfeited debate from jackiebaby. Typical. And he wonders why he deliberately p**ses people off?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Fair enough
Posted by CDC 3 years ago
CDC
I'm also losing track of time because of my holiday i'm on. Sorry, My bad.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
So sorry I forfeited. I lost track of time
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
So sorry I forfeited. I lost track of time
Posted by Adrian14 3 years ago
Adrian14
@omar- I don't think so. Backwardseden makes a fuss anytime Jack makes one of these debates.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@jackgilbert

Why?
Have you got anything to say to him or do you need backwardseden to fulfil your needs?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
backwardseden, Come at me
Posted by Celeryfromtheusa 3 years ago
Celeryfromtheusa
God is real!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
AnonymousCDCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited one less Round. Not really good conduct on either side but Pro did forfeit on more Round. The problem I had with Pro's arguments were that his were probability. Con gave issues with that like which God but since Pro did not add an argument in the following Rounds. Con's arguments went without rebuttals. Best point made by Con: "There are plenty more of imperfect examples in the universe that show how intelligent design is not so intelligent." Another point that I liked "How you been arguing your points of God's existence is very black-and-white. Since evolution doesn't work, Therefore must be a God. It's not as simple as that."

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