The Instigator
bobygun01
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PointProven
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is the existence of God probable?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,532 times Debate No: 119004
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (48)
Votes (0)

 

bobygun01

Pro

It seems your former opponent has refused to provide a substantial response to your arguments and has forfeited his position. If you accept I'll try to represent the pro position as best I can. And you can start by presenting your arguments in the contrary to the resolution.
PointProven

Con

Seeing as the question is "Is the existence of God probable? ", I have the much harder side of the debate. If the question was "does god exist", It would be easier for me to make points on why I think he does not. You see, We only know less than 1% of what the universe has to offer, And it is very possible that a God is out there and we just haven't seen him yet. Then again, You could say the same thing about goblins and dragons if you wanted.

Now that we've acknowledged that there could be some sort of deity in the infinite universe, I will explain why the Christian god simply cannot exist. I am assuming you are Christian.

Let's first start with how the Christian God is defined.
God
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Sounds simple enough, Right? Can't really disprove any of that, So let's look at some of God's attributes.

Omnipotence: all powerful

Omnipresence: present everywhere

Omniscience: all knowing

Omnibenevolent: all good

Those are the main attributes of the Christian god, Other than that "he works in mysterious ways", Right? Anyhow, Let's compare some of these attributes. Many of them contradict each other.

Omnipotence, Aka all powerful, Has been time and time again proven to be logically impossible. This an argument you've certainly heard before but I'm going to use it nonetheless: Can your god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? If so, He is not all powerful. If he cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it, Then he is not all powerful. It's a paradox, So either way, He is not all powerful. So let's cross that one off the list.

Omnibenevolent and omniscience also cannot coexist. For example, If you are all good, That means you are incapable of evil. That also means you are incapable of allowing evil to happen. Now I don't feel like going in to all the times God has done something completely and utterly evil, Because christians like to cherry pick when it comes to those parts of the bible. Instead I'm going to talk about the free will argument. The reason this is relevant is because if god is all good, He is incapable of allowing other people to do evil, And if god is all knowing, Then he knows all the evil that someone will ever do. I'm too lazy so I decided to copy and paste a comment I left of another debate when making this same point. So here it is:

God and free will cannot coexist.

If god knows everything, It means he knows everything you'll ever do.

Therefore, God knew Hitler was going to kill a ton a jews.

If god knows everything you will ever do, And he still put you on earth to do all those terrible things, God caused you to do those things.

Also, If god made you, He made your soul and everything about you, That would include everything you will ever do. Thus, We would not have free will.

You see, God and free will contradict each other, Therefore you can only believe in one or the other, Or else you are contradicting your other belief.

If you believe in God, You do not believe in free will, If you believe in free will, You do not believe in god.

I believe in free will.

Now, Seeing as the common attributes of the christian god contradict each other, While it may be possible that some deity can exist in the universe, Your god, As you describe him, Simply cannot.

But to answer your question, No, The existence of god is not probable.
Debate Round No. 1
bobygun01

Pro

Firstly, To clarify, I posed the resolution in the phrasing of probability since in reality neither of us can undoubtedly and absolutely prove or disprove the existence of God but rather merely provide a likelihood based upon the evidences we have and what conclusions we can draw from them.
God is attributed to be Omnipotent meaning he has no limit in strength or abilities. As you said the argument, "can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? " is a paradox. The fact that we have created (within the barriers of language) this theoretical concept of "an object which god cannot lift" has absolutely no relation to God's abilities. The very concept of an un-liftable object is a theoretical supposition that we humans make in the assumption that just because of the way our language is structured, There are constraints imposed on God. There are similar objects made such as, "if God is really omnipotent then why can't he lie? " and these fall under the same category. God cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. He is still all powerful in all regards of sovereignty over all creation but He has created abstract boundaries which he abides by which excludes all courses of action except those that are deemed sinful. If you wanted to delve into absolute and utter technicality he could still lie and instantly vaporize all of the universe like Thanos but it is against his nature to do so. He said not to lie, And created morale laws which he has absolutely no incentive to transgress since the laws are only applicable to mortals subject to the whims of "earthly desires" such as selfishness (the root of all sin).

"if god is all good, He is incapable of allowing other people to do evil" and "If god knows everything you will ever do, And he still put you on earth to do all those terrible things, God caused you to do those things. "
This is a false equivalency. You are attributing God creating sentient and fickle natured humans with the ability to make morale choices (not puppets) to God "causing" us to do terrible things. This doesn't follow deductively. Think of it like this, If God created us without the ability to make choices, Then we are merely robots and thus the creation of a universe set in perfect order is futile. However if he creates us with free will and the ability to choose whether to or not to choose sin as Adam did in the garden then the 'weight' of morality is placed upon us and not Him. One could say he is evil for creating us with the ability to sin and do wrong but this argument is predicated on the assumption that God is by ANY means bound by a sense of morale law. As mentioned earlier, He is the creator of all morality and himself supersedes the morale weight we bear. This isn't 'unfair' by any means. There is no higher authority that can make the judgement that God is in the wrong by giving us this ability for evil since He Himself is the creator of all morality. Consider the morale choice Adam and Eve were given in the garden, They were told they could enjoy all the bounties of the earth and any fruit in the garden except one mere "tree of evil". Adam and Eve, As we know, Chose to break God's commandment and therein commit evil and bring sin and death to all mankind. From God's perspective there were an infinite amount of realities which would possibly play out; resulting in death and life. If God FORCED them to choose to remain holy then they would not be free creatures with free will. So because of our freedom to make choices, Sin and the ability for us to commit evil and horrible acts are allowed. But also, In contrast, Because of this freedom, We are able to experience great joy, Happiness, Love, In polarity with the great sadness we experience and because of this war between good and evil a balance is found. Death brings forth new life and life is valued even greater due to its fragility.

In refutation of the argument of contradictions in God's nature and the alleged contradiction of God's existence and man's free will I reinstate my claim that it is probable that God exists.
PointProven

Con

The thing you are criticizing is the christian definition of god.

" The fact that we have created (within the barriers of language) this theoretical concept of "an object which god cannot lift" has absolutely no relation to God's abilities. "

I'm not the one who gave god these attributes, You christians are. I don't believe in god, I am using the ways YOU CHRISTIANS describe him. By you criticizing the attributes I provided, You are only agreeing with me. I understand how flawed these arguments are, I'm not the one who made them, Christians did. Christians describe god in the ways I provided, And when I point out how stupid it is, You act like god is something completely different. If you disagree with the way christians describe god, You probably shouldn't be a christian.

"The very concept of an un-liftable object is a theoretical supposition that we humans make in the assumption that just because of the way our language is structured, There are constraints imposed on God. "

Again, This is how the christians describe god. I don't believe god has "restraints", But based off the attributes christians give him, YOU'RE the one that believes that. The whole point I was trying to make was that god's attributes (that christians gave him) completely contradict each other. Also, As I've said, I fully believe that there COULD be a god that we haven't seen. The problem is how christians describe him. The way they describe him is flawed, Certain traits contradict each other, And it just can't exist because of simple logic. But that's what they believe, Therefore, The christian god does not, And CAN NOT exist, Completely based off of how you describe him.

" God cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. "

First off, An all powerful being can lie, But an all good being can't. He is both, Therefore he can do both, And yet neither at the same time. Notice how little sense that makes. Second off, How do you know what is and isn't against god's nature? Who are you to say what he does and doesn't do? This is the stuff I'm talking about. People from every religion have the audacity to define what god is and isn't. This is why it's so easy to spot contradictions causing people to tweak their definition of god on the spot, Which you have already done.

" He is still all powerful in all regards of sovereignty over all creation but He has created abstract boundaries which he abides by which excludes all courses of action except those that are deemed sinful. "

Here you are, Continuing to define god, As if you have any idea. None of us do. That's why I believe that if there is a god, There is no way it is EXACTLY 100% what the christians described. Or any religion, For that matter.

"This is a false equivalency. You are attributing God creating sentient and fickle natured humans with the ability to make morale choices (not puppets) to God "causing" us to do terrible things. "

God is supposed to be all perfect. Therefore any flaws that his creations posses, Must be intentional, Otherwise he is not all perfect. So if god intentionally made us full of flaws, How is it our fault when we do something bad? It isn't by that logic. Therefore god caused us to do anything bad we've done, Or will do. It's really that simple.

" Think of it like this, If God created us without the ability to make choices, Then we are merely robots and thus the creation of a universe set in perfect order is futile. "

That was a stupid comment, I hope you know that. Also, I explained it in the last bit.

" However if he creates us with free will and the ability to choose whether to or not to choose sin as Adam did in the garden then the 'weight' of morality is placed upon us and not Him. "

God is all knowing, Which means he knew adam would eat the apple. Or Eve, I forget who did it, Maybe both. Either way I explained why free will and god cannot coexist, And you just ignored it.

"Adam and Eve, As we know, Chose to break God's commandment"

An all knowing god would've known that they were going to break his commandment. Christians never do understand that, And I'm not sure why.

"We are able to experience great joy, Happiness, Love, In polarity with the great sadness we experience and because of this war between good and evil a balance is found. Death brings forth new life and life is valued even greater due to its fragility"

Now that is something I can get behind. I do like some if the values of modern christianity. That was beautifully said and I agree with that part.

" I reinstate my claim that it is probable that God exists. "

You need to provide some figures, Otherwise you are just saying that.
Debate Round No. 2
bobygun01

Pro

"The thing you are criticizing is the christian definition of god. ". . . "I'm not the one who gave god these attributes, You christians are". . . " If you disagree with the way christians describe god, You probably shouldn't be a christian. ". . . "Certain traits contradict each other, And it just can't exist because of simple logic. But that's what they believe, Therefore, The christian god does not, And CAN NOT exist, Completely based off of how you describe him. "

You have yet to prove decidedly that the attributes that describe God are in direct conflict.

You have cited a nonsensical and illogical theoretical example the "rock so heavy he cannot lift it" which I have already addressed as irrelevant due to it being an undefinable question and not because it defies the characteristics of a christian God but because the example is nonsensical and undefinable, It operates under the assumption that an infinite entity could create an equal infinite power source which isn't possible because it is an undefinable mode of thought.

"Omnibenevolent and omniscience also cannot coexist. ". . . "God and free will cannot coexist. "

These statements are making the assumption that God abides by the morale laws which have been placed upon US (humans). As I have said, God has the ability to do evil but it is not in his nature. Meaning, Of all the observations we have made about His nature and all His actions, We have found no inconsistencies such as him. Sin and Evil and similar terms are irrelevant to consider when describing his nature since, He by no means, Is bound by moral law and even if He was, For some reason, He would have no reason to "sin" since all sins are made in relation to other beings around us and this isn't applicable to an entity like God.

"Here you are, Continuing to define god, As if you have any idea. None of us do"
I define God based upon the way He is described in His "inspired" word. If you disagree with the validity of the Bible then I will gladly have a separate debate with you on the inerrancy of Scripture.

"An all knowing god would've known that they were going to break his commandment"
Yes of course. I acknowledged this, "From God's perspective there were an infinite amount of realities which would possibly play out; resulting in death and life. If God FORCED them to choose to remain holy then they would not be free creatures with free will. So because of our freedom to make choices, Sin and the ability for us to commit evil and horrible acts are allowed. "

You still have yet to concretely refute the thesis.
PointProven

Con

Ok this is starting to get old. Every person I have a debate with on this topic fails to realize the true insanity of what they are saying.

"You have yet to prove decidedly that the attributes that describe God are in direct conflict. "

Well actually, I have. The fact that you refuse to listen is not my problem. It is your own that I hope you will overcome one day.

"You have cited a nonsensical and illogical theoretical example the "rock so heavy he cannot lift it" which I have already addressed as irrelevant due to it being an undefinable question and not because it defies the characteristics of a christian God but because the example is nonsensical and undefinable, It operates under the assumption that an infinite entity could create an equal infinite power source which isn't possible because it is an undefinable mode of thought. "

Again, Christians describe god in such a way that is simply impossible. Also, The "rock so heavy even god cannot lift it" argument, Also known as the omnipotence paradox (look it up if you actually want to learn something), Is not nonsensical. It's a simple way of showing major flaws in the way christians describe their god. Just because you don't want it to be that way, Doesn't mean it isn't.

"These statements are making the assumption that God abides by the morale laws which have been placed upon US (humans)"

Let me stop you right their before you continue going through life with such insane thoughts in your head. Seeing as god is 100% a human invention, He HAS to abide by any morale laws that we humans do. As you know, I do not believe in god, Therefore I believe that god was made up by man. So by that logic, God must abide by the basic laws we do. Meaning that if something is logically impossible for us, It is for god as well.

"I define God based upon the way He is described in His "inspired" word. "

Why a christian would use the word "inspired" in quotation marks is beyond me, But anyway, The way god is described in the bible is vague and can be interpreted in any sort of way, So please don't use the bible to describe what modern christians believe god to be. They will tweak their definition of god in a moments notice when debating atheists. My mother does it, My religious friends do it when the topic of god comes up, Heck, Even you have done it a few times in this debate. You choose to define god in the best way to win an argument, And people reading this debate are foolish enough to listen to it.

"An all knowing god would've known that they were going to break his commandment"
"Yes of course. I acknowledged this, "

You do realize that that defeats your free will argument, Right? Must I explain why? Please tell me you understand because I don't feel like going into this again.

"You still have yet to concretely refute the thesis. "

You say that as if the burden of proof is on me. You are making the claim that god exists. Me saying "god doesn't exist" is hardly a claim, As much as it is a RESPONSE to a claim. You see, You can't claim something to NOT exist, That claim wouldn't exist if you didn't claim something TO exist, Understand? So instead of me refuting your "thesis" how about you prove the existence of god?
Debate Round No. 3
bobygun01

Pro

"Also known as the omnipotence paradox (look it up if you actually want to learn something), Is not nonsensical. It's a simple way of showing major flaws in the way christians describe their god. Just because you don't want it to be that way, Doesn't mean it isn't. "

The weak personal jab aside, I have considered this paradox before, And it is still not a definitive usurper of the likelihood of God's existence. The hypothetical situation is nonsense and I have already addressed it as nonsensical with justification. But, Since neither of us are seeming to give ground in this line of thought I will, For the sake of argument, Theorize that the "power" of God is limited due to His nature. But in proportion to us He would still be all powerful and sovereign. I personally find an all wise entity with a consciousness that far supersedes ours infinitely a better conjecture to the incredibly complex arrangement of the Universe from the Earth's perfect orbit which if only a few feet off kilter would freeze the earth, Or the earth's magnetic field which is the EXACT density required to filter and reduce the Sun's UV rays and therein allowing life to flourish on earth while still yielding benefits via photosynthesis, To the super complex DNA coding which we still don't fully understand and have never observed once mutating into another species but rather only seen cases of "microevolutions" which are necessary for a life form to survive a changing climate. It seems much more "probable" to me that these amazing natural events came about through the oversight of a sentient entity rather than mere chance and an unknown origin which scientists have absolutely no clue where we/it came about. And if you have any REMOTE inkling as to the origin of the singularity prior to the Big Bang then please do tell.

"Seeing as god is 100% a human invention, He HAS to abide by any morale laws that we humans do. As you know, I do not believe in god, Therefore I believe that god was made up by man. So by that logic, God must abide by the basic laws we do. Meaning that if something is logically impossible for us, It is for god as well. "

Bruvv, I hope you truly grasp how bloody ridiculous that logical train of thought runs. If God exists, Then He owes ABSOLUTELY nothing to us. God doesn't abide by the same basic laws we do because HES A BLOODY FRIGGIN GOD and laws are made for humans! Your allegation that God is "100% a human invention" has no REMOTE bearing on the topic at hand. You essentially just said, 'because I disagree with you, Your wrong. ' If God does indeed exist as I believe, Then He isn't a human invention and therefore not subject to our "basic laws" and anything logically impossible for us is irrelevant to Him.

"The way god is described in the bible is vague and can be interpreted in any sort of way"

Goodness me! Glad to know we have a Bible scholar here with us. If you'd actually read the Bible you'd see him being very consistent yes even between the OT and NT. Just because some people interpret God different ways has no bearing on His actual nature. People naturally have differing opinions on things obviously, Like us for example, But the disagreement on the interpretation of data or ideas has no bearing on the absolute truth behind it all.

"You do realize that that defeats your free will argument, Right? Must I explain why? Please tell me you understand because I don't feel like going into this again. "

It doesn't defeat the argument and you didn't refute my rebuttal, "From God's perspective there were an infinite amount of realities which would possibly play out; resulting in death and life. If God FORCED them to choose to remain holy then they would not be free creatures with free will. So because of our freedom to make choices, Sin and the ability for us to commit evil and horrible acts are allowed"

"You say that as if the burden of proof is on me. You are making the claim that god exists. Me saying "god doesn't exist" is hardly a claim, As much as it is a RESPONSE to a claim. You see, You can't claim something to NOT exist, That claim wouldn't exist if you didn't claim something TO exist, Understand? So instead of me refuting your "thesis" how about you prove the existence of god? "

The absence of belief in a God is still a belief, Since you have to procure some reasonable explanation for the existence of the Universe. In the entirety of this debate you have yet to put forth your explanation for the origin of everything. By refuting my claim that "The Existence of God is Probable" you must have an alternate explanation which would explain our existence. Im interested to see this explanation of how the universe came about through chaos rather than order and how this is more PROBABLE.

So yes the burden of proof is just as equally on you.
Thank You for debating with me
PointProven

Con

PointProven forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RationalMaterialist 3 years ago
RationalMaterialist
The only thing probable is the truth. There is never more than one possible outcome because of universal constants. Just like there is no possible way there is more than one history.
Posted by bobygun01 3 years ago
bobygun01
"Surly, You don't believe humans are capable of understanding god and his ways, Yet here you are, Acting like you have it all figured out. Not to mention, Describing god's attributes doesn't really help your argument. I mean, You're supposed to be proving the existence of god, But all you're doing is describing him. It's like if I said "The tooth fairy is real because she has wings! " In other words, It's nonsense. "

You are right in the limitations of humans, We can't understand all of God's ways since he is a higher being. I claim to know about his attributes because of what the Bible says. And I am operating under the assumption that what the Bible says is true; for various reasons. Describing "god's attributes" DOES help my argument because the resolution is contending the mere PROBABILITY not the absolute fact of His existence. And by defending the rationale for His attributes as I know them, I am making His existence more probable. . . Not certain.

"That is circular reasoning. I do not believe in god, Or that the bible is the word of god, So why use stories from the bible as argument points? Silly. "

Me mentioning the "universe set in perfect order" served to address your biologically based critiques concerning the perfection of the universe. And that's an oversimplification of what circular reasoning is. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. That's not what I was doing. I wasn't using that specific point to back my Pro position but rather refute your misconstruing of what I was claiming.
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
"Doesn't mean he is in need of an origin himself, At least not strictly by that line of reasoning.
God would've always been there"

So why is it that we can only exist by the hands of a creator on account of the complexity of our design, But the creator itself was "always there"? That's rather hypocritical. I also find it rather humorous that you continue to describe god and his attributes, As if you have any idea. You are a mere human, Correct? Yet you claim to know SO MUCH about god. How is that? Surly, You don't believe humans are capable of understanding god and his ways, Yet here you are, Acting like you have it all figured out. Not to mention, Describing god's attributes doesn't really help your argument. I mean, You're supposed to be proving the existence of god, But all you're doing is describing him. It's like if I said "The tooth fairy is real because she has wings! " In other words, It's nonsense.

"When I initially said, "universe set in perfect order" the context, Which I don't think you picked up on and rather misinterpreted your own way, Was that the universe (and specifically earth) was set in perfect order
PRIOR to the Fall (described in Genesis). Literally, Throughout the entire Bible"

As my 5th grade teacher taught me, That is circular reasoning. I do not believe in god, Or that the bible is the word of god, So why use stories from the bible as argument points? Silly.
Posted by bobygun01 3 years ago
bobygun01
"If complex things must come from other complex things, Then where does god come from? God is one of the most complicated ideas ever, Therefore by your standards, God must have been created by something using intelligent design, Like by another god. However Christians do not believe this, They believe that god was always there. How does that make sense? "

I'm not sure where this idea originates but I certainly don't hold to it and though the original context may have been applicable to your prior opponent, It doesn't apply here. God is a "complex thing" but just because he created us. . . Doesn't mean he is in need of an origin himself, At least not strictly by that line of reasoning.
God would've always been there because he ascends above the limitations placed on us such as time, Which is merely the linear changes of environmental factors measured by given units - ie. Light- seconds etc. Time is irrelevant to God prior to creation for obvious reasons. Additionally here is no reason to assume "time" would have existed prior to creation since it technically doesn't exist but is merely an abstract label such as weight or velocity which is only theoretically brought into existence once there are mediums to measure given events by.

"How perfect do you think our existence is? Sure if you look at everything without really thinking about it, Everything looks well designed, But if you actually use your brain"

When I initially said, "universe set in perfect order" the context, Which I don't think you picked up on and rather misinterpreted your own way, Was that the universe (and specifically earth) was set in perfect order
PRIOR to the Fall (described in Genesis). Literally, Throughout the entire Bible, The world is described as flawed due to the Fall, The prior estate of Earth was what I was referring to. Whether you believe in the occurrence of the Fall is irrelevant since it is an underlying assumption in the belief of the existence of God and His Word.
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because there is no evidence, Doesn't mean that object doesn't exist. Everybody should keep an open mind. "

That is a foolish way of thinking. I suppose you feel the same way about dragons and goblins? I mean, After all, No one has disproved their existence. If we should "keep an open mind", You should accept that dragons might exist, As well as god. Although I imagine that sounds stupid to you. That's how we atheists view god, And you should to. Rather than going through life thinking that things might exist just because they haven't been disproved, You should question things. Analyze such beliefs and ask "Why do I believe this? Is there any evidence that it is real? " Have an intelligent thought once in a while.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because there is no evidence, Doesn't mean that object doesn't exist. Everybody should keep an open mind.
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
You should never believe in something just because it hasn't been disproved. Rather you should demand evidence. The fact that someone hasn't disproved something is not evidence that exists.
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
And finally, The last pathetic thing you said:

"So yes the burden of proof is just as equally on you. "

Another statement that is blatantly false. You should know by now that it is not possible to 100% disprove the existence of god. Nor can you disprove the existence of leprechauns, Or goblins, Or wizards. If I told you that an invisible dragon lives in my garage, You simply cannot disprove that and I dare you to try. You can however demand that I provide evidence for this preposterous claim. So that's what I'm asking you to do.
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
That's the difference between you and I. I don't claim to have all the answers. You theists can just be like "god done did" and then you think you know literally fuckking EVERYTHING. I don't know for sure what created us, But I sure as helll don't believe it was a magic all powerful man in the sky. That is pure insanity if you ask me (or any other atheist for that matter).

Another thing, Just because we don't posses ALL knowledge about the universe and how it came to be, Doesn't immediately mean that you're god hypothesis is the only possible answer. Theists find an unanswered question and instantly go "well it must have been god then". What a stupid method of thought.

"By refuting my claim that "The Existence of God is Probable" you must have an alternate explanation which would explain our existence. "

No! You could not be more wrong! Just because I don't believe in your preposterous claim that an all powerful being created everything for nothing, Doesn't mean I MUST posses ALL possible knowledge on how our existence came to be. I just know it wasn't your magical god. For example, If I see an animal, And I am certain that it is not a squirrel, However I'm not entirely sure what it is, That does not mean that it MUST be a squirrel, Understand?
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
"And I find it quite ironic how you are now in direct conflict with your previous introductory statement"

Oh ok. Well I expect you to say how that is so, I'll keep reading. Hmm. It appears you just made a declarative statement with 0 evidence to support it. That's the christian way, I suppose.

Also I meant to respond to another thing you said but I didn't have the time.

"The absence of belief in a God is still a belief"

Nope. Incorrect. This is the kind of retarded shitt that caused atheism to be considered a religion. You could make that point that I BELIEVE god doesn't exist, But that's not how I view it. I just don't believe he does. Like I said in the debate, That thought wouldn't even exist if it weren't for people making the claim that he DOES exist. How could I believe god doesn't exist if no one ever said that he did?

" Since you have to procure some reasonable explanation for the existence of the Universe. In the entirety of this debate you have yet to put forth your explanation for the origin of everything. "

Guess what bozo? I NEVER ONCE claimed to have the explanation of our existence. Not once. Sure, Many atheists believe in the big bang, And though it sounds like the most likely explanation to me, I don't know for sure.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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