The Instigator
Adrian14
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
lasya
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Is God real?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Adrian14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 525 times Debate No: 119950
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Adrian14

Pro

Hey, I saw you are an atheist. Would you like to debate this topic?
lasya

Con

Is God real?

One must then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, It is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. The idea of a "Lord" was created to give an explanation to the unexplainable, To become a gateway to power, And especially to explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs.

||DISCLAIMER||- I have debated a similar topic before, Such some view, Points, Or rebuttal may be similar.
Debate Round No. 1
Adrian14

Pro

Adrian14 forfeited this round.
lasya

Con

Though I do not know your reasons of your forfeit, I will assume that it was the failure to post your argument in time, And so i will continue to debate and expand upon this topic.

Yet, First as an Atheist, I must clarify: Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, We live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for.

So, Is there really a "God"

Well we must think of it this way, Leading to one of the most asked and debated upon questions, If god created the world, Then who created God. Now this argument can go both ways, What created the Big Bang? Simply I put it as such: we confide in a God, : pray, Worship, Talk to a person we believe exists, Yet only, That does sound like an imaginary friend. Growing up, Many have heard that your imaginary friend is nothing but a figment of your imagination and that it is time for you to move on for your child-like self and accept reality as we someday will be forced to. Should we not listen to our own advice and realize, That god is nothing but an imaginary friend, And we need to technically grow up from such profound beliefs.

How we have used god to harm us:
Of course, People of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, And it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy. Most of the time we consider Miracles to happen in the name of God, Yet we fail to realize how the narcissism and self-centered claims of such people tend to be. After all, We are talking about the same God who had dropped Infants, And wiped out cities in the name of "Sin". We have become controlled, Limited, And confined in our own bubble of religion, Refusing to expand to our full capabilities because god is always 'watching us".

So, I really do hope I am able to hear your point of view and rebuttals in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Adrian14

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.
lasya

Con

lasya forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Is-God-real/163/

If that does not work find the user CDC and look for his second debate. That should be the is God real? One which Adrian14 copied from.

If you cannot find his account go to Pro's profile and find jackgilbert in his/her friends list. Click and search through his debates to find the most recent Is God real? Debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by timmyjames 3 years ago
timmyjames
Adrian14lasyaTied
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: Pretty straightforward
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Adrian14lasyaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: timmyjames did not provide any reasons for his voting decision. This is why I am giving Con more points than I want to. Pro gave poor arguments. It was chance and your side is wrong therefore mine is right. Instead of attacking the claims Con made directly he/she instead talks about mutulaism. Pro's argument sums up to things are complicated therefore God and motion clearly states to a God and intelligence design which is false because of the infinite regression. Con provides the claim that God is like an imaginary friend when she states this "nothing but a figment of your imagination" which is correct because people who have imaginary friends cannot verify its existence which is similar to God. None of them get a sources point because 1 used chance arguments and another didn't include any. Con gains the conduct point because Adrian14 copied jackgilbert. Proof in the description and would like other voters to take that into consideration.

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