The Instigator
boring_neuroscience_stuff
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mabbott
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is there enough evidence to prove the existence of a god?

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: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 119640
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

boring_neuroscience_stuff

Con

There is no reason to believe a god exists other than the possibility for creation that exists simply because we don't know our origins for a fact. To clarify, I can claim that it is possible for horses to fly when we aren't around them and for innate objects to have social conversations we cannot perceive.

Now, The only thing separating those theories from creationism is the logical sequence or divine material evidence that creationists use to claim that their beliefs are factual.

The burden of proof lies on the believer, So I will allow them to provide me with their points. I am mostly interested in the physical and philosphical argument that use logical reasoning to support creationism rather than prophecies from holy books. But anything is welcomed.
Mabbott

Pro

Yes, People have seen him. I believe that you exist so why can't a God. Like the argument of: there is earth so why can't there be heaven.
Debate Round No. 1
boring_neuroscience_stuff

Con

People claim to see him yet this has never been measured empirically. People also claim that placebo, Homoeopathy, Prayer and other things cure them. The earth can be empirically observed and its existence can be tested using material instruments we have. Heaven cannot, And therefore its existence has no foundation making it similar to my flying horses' example.

There is a very simple explanation for this. Humans have a need to understand things, One thing a religious person will never say is "I don't know". God is always a viable explanation for anything past our understanding. The human brain is good at making gods. Isolate someone in a room forever and they might think they are a god, Or god is talking to them, Or god is the wall in front of them. They might hear it, See it, Feel it. Hallucinations and delusions are very common and in fact an important part of the human survival mechanism. They enable us to cope with stress. Mothers that lose their children can sometimes think that they're child is alive and with them. That doesn't mean he is. The only difference with organized religion is that you have people pointing you towards a specific delusion.

Now my debate was about whether God can be proven. "Why can't a God [exist]" suggest that you are referring to faith. Well, The easiest answer I can give you based on experience and research is that when you enable people to follow "harmless" religions those often extend to others that want no part of it. For example, Religion has stood in the way of stem cell research potentially preventing millions of people with lifelong, Debilitating conditions and no hope from having a chance. Because "God" says a zygote has a "soul". When in reality, (or as far as we know), A zygote is no more human than a tree bark in terms of sentience (no neurons means it is no different than a skin cell in terms of sentience).

Similar unfounded beliefs are pushed on millions of Muslims today in countries like Iran. The majority of Muslim kids are circumcised without their consent despite the procedure being the removal of a sensory organ for no reasonable medical reason. In the present time and modern toiletries, Infections due to having a foreskin are not a medical concern.

To answer some of the comments. I disagree, God doesn't require faith only for someone to believe. By this logic, We should accommodate the delusions of everyone including schizophrenics. Just because it's on a mass scale doesn't mean a belief is warranted. A believer will always extend their beliefs on others unless they aren't really a believer. Because believing means that you think something is real. And by that logic, Having unfounded beliefs can lead to society were others who don't abide are punished, Excluded or brainwashed. Yes, Teaching a newborn that god exists based on 'faith' is brainwashing.
Mabbott

Pro

I'm sorry I don't really wanna be in this debate I mean I guess that means you win but I mostly just don't want to read what you write because every night when I get in bed my brain runs over the thoughts of heaven and I get racked with anxiety and sadness making it difficult to fall asleep. I don't really know about the existence of a god but I do believe in a heaven or heaven like thing if you disagree please don't tell me. I read this thing that helped me that said If there is life on earth which is a miracle itself then why couldn't there be heaven. (also I didn't expect anyone to reply but If you see this could you come to the technology category and argue about cell phones you seem like a good debater :)
Thanks for understanding

You Win (i guess)
Debate Round No. 2
boring_neuroscience_stuff

Con

boring_neuroscience_stuff forfeited this round.
Mabbott

Pro

Mabbott forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
boring_neuroscience_stuff

Con

boring_neuroscience_stuff forfeited this round.
Mabbott

Pro

Mabbott forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
boring_neuroscience_stuff

Con

boring_neuroscience_stuff forfeited this round.
Mabbott

Pro

Mabbott forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alitar 3 years ago
alitar
I kind of like how mabbott at least has the decency to admit god is like santa claus for adults.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Evidence. . No at all. . Dreams. . A lot. .
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@John_C_1812_II - "GOD is a numerical axiom. Yes, There is proof to establish this fact. " Well then you prove your god RIGHT NOW and YOU make him plop himself right here in my living room right now. Until you can do this, Then you have nothing but gibberish roaring out of your smoggy Los Angeles brain.

"must only be religion and what is said by me is making that understanding a lie. " Wrongo badbreathitsu. That's because YOUR god IS a religion, Like it or not, Too bad if you don't as you cannot break ground rules just to suit YOUR wants, Needs and desires as all who "believe" in YOUR god are forced into doing IF they believe which essentially that's what a religion is. Now what is stated by you to prove YOUR god, Well let's look at it from the reverse. . . Why should I or anyone with a half of a slice of a cheese moldy diaper bread brain ---ever--- want to look in the deepest, Darkest realms of whatever and wherever corners to find this horrific god that is YOURS of true terrors? Sorry. That's entirely up to you with the B. O. P. ALWAYS, No exceptions, None, Upon you.

'It does not need to be only a religion if it is used in such things as "the pledge of Allegiance" or "IN GOD WE TRUST". Well golly, It is. Why don't yah look up the very definition of "religion" rather than being completely uneducated about it?
"all that must be expected is that it is a whole truth, And nothing but truth so a separation can be defined clearly to others. " What truth is there if there is nothing that has been or is proved? Why do you keep digging yourself holes of dementia that you cannot squirm out of?

"Constitutional Representation is not reverse psychology" Sure it is when its something point blank that's made up from the skull to the you know where areas to hope for a little bitty spirt.

"a presumption made is that a person is expected to introduce a religious GOD as proof. I am not that person. " Then don't pretend that you are and in the process being hypocritical about
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
So you conclude that we only need a hypothesis and the evidence doesn't matter. You still need evidence.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
In order for something to be considered evidence the hypothesis must be clearly stated, And provable scientifically, Or there must be some kind of accusation set against a form of truthful representation.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
By the way any chance of making yourself more clear? Difficult to understand what you are saying or maybe I am meant to be confused that you don't require evidence only a way to get to truth. Which is something to comprehend.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Have any evidence? One that can gather the truth requires there to be truth. Do you even have that?
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
@ omar2345
GOD by a united state of constitution is a numerical axiom. I do not need to provide evidence all that would be required by me is to give instruction on how any-one can gather evidence required to reach this truth.
A truth must be complete as a united state to be the whole truth, And nothing but truth. The question asked for detail as a truth is not vague.

@ backwardseden
GOD is a numerical axiom. Yes, There is proof to establish this fact. Yes, You can in truth ignore fact it is your choice to make. The idea/belief you are perpetuating is that GOD must only be religion and what is said by me is making that understanding a lie. It does not need to be only a religion if it is used in such things as "the pledge of Allegiance" or "IN GOD WE TRUST" all that must be expected is that it is a whole truth, And nothing but truth so a separation can be defined clearly to others.

Constitutional Representation is not reverse psychology a presumption made is that a person is expected to introduce a religious GOD as proof. I am not that person. GOD is a numerical axiom you are free to label your religious belief around if you so desire. It does not change a non-religious explanation to cast doubt on accusation.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@John_C_1812_II - "Yes there is enough evidence to establish legal representation to a non-religious GOD. " Well then YOU go right ahead and YOU prove it right now considering the fact that absolutely no one in the entire history of the human race ---ever--- has. Its not up to us or anyone to do one god damned thing. The B. O. P. For YOU to prove that there is a god(s) is ---always--- upon YOU regardless of who made the claim because it is YOU that claims a gods(s) exists when there is 0 proof for it.
Here's a hint hot stuff. . . Don't try to play the reverse psychology trick on anyone, Especially to those that know what it is. K? Now run along and play in the mud of your laughing box.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Pro states "Yes, People have seen him. " Yet does not clarify which god? Hmmm awfully strange. Because then she then states "I believe that you exist so why can't a God. " Let's look at that quote "a god". So she doesn't even know. Its an entire guess on her part. And a big one at that as throghought the entire history of the human race there's been hundreds of thousands totalling up to, Of god's in each meandering religion that she nor anyone in the entire history of the human race has yet to prove just one god, Ever existing, Just one.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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