The Instigator
jackgilbert
Pro (for)
The Contender
Soriak
Con (against)

is God real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
jackgilbert has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 322 times Debate No: 114296
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

jackgilbert

Pro

For the first round please just accept the debate. Arguments will begin next round.
Debate Round No. 1
jackgilbert

Pro

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. There is a reason why we don't see signs of him which I will go into in a minute. But atheists seem to think that because we cannot see him means he doesn't exist. But gravity, wind, and atoms can't be seen, so does that mean they don't exist? Of course not. That argument presented by atheists is flawed. The next thing I get from atheists is that we have proof of atoms, gravity, and wind, yet we have no proof of God. Well, there is a reason for this. Christianity is the religion I believe in and it is 100% a faith-based belief. And well, if we had piles of evidence for him, would it then still be faith-based? Faith is the belief in the unseen but if we see God, then we no longer believe in God by faith. As a matter of fact, if we had piles of evidence for him, then everyone would believe in him and therefore be saved, which again contradicts the Bible and what Christians believe.
But back to my point of there being good cases for God. There are many of them but for the first round, I will go into three of them.
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: http://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: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com.........

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 DNA 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 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.
So tell me, If God does not exists, then give me a step by step explanation of how the universe was created from nothing.
Soriak

Con

Reply

My opponent outlines his case as follows,

1) Argument from design
2) Argument from motion
3) Cosmological argument

I will first clarify my position regarding my opponent"s introduction. Then refute their arguments outlined in their case.

Excerpt from opponent"s text: "But atheists seem to think that because we cannot see him means he doesn't exist."

My Response: I agree with my opponent that this is a common argument by atheists, and I agree with my opponent that this argument is fallacious. I do not argue that because we cannot see something, that it must not exist, so I agree with my opponent here.

Excerpt from opponent"s text: "The next thing I get from atheists is that we have proof of atoms, gravity, and wind, yet we have no proof of God. Well, there is a reason for this. Christianity is the religion I believe in and it is 100% a faith-based belief. And well, if we had piles of evidence for him, would it then still be faith-based? Faith is the belief in the unseen but if we see God, then we no longer believe in God by faith."

My Response: First, my opponent concedes that there is proof of atoms, gravity, and wind, and agrees that there is no proof of God. My opponent"s reason for there being no proof of God, is because God is a faith-based belief. The problem with this is that this type of reasoning seems to justify belief in anything as long as there is some reasonable explanation for it. Let me clarify.

There is no difference in believing in the traditional Christian God and a God I"m making up, let"s call him X. There are many phenomenons in the world, now what my opponent"s type of reasoning allows for me to do, is to say all of these phenomenons were caused by X. Then if someone asks me how I can argue they were made by X, I provide the explanation that none of these things are likely without X. Essentially, I make the case that X has to exist because without him everything would be improbable. Typically, a logical person would argue that this proof of God would work only if there was a way to know that this is empirically true, and not just a theory that makes sense. But my opponent says you just need faith. Then voila, I"ve argued the existence of a made up entity, X, by giving reasonable explanations for why he exists (not proving that he does exist, because although it makes sense, that doesn't" mean it exists. Existence is empirical, not what makes the most sense). We do not live in a world, where everything that exists, exists, because it makes the most sense.

Onto my opponent"s three main contentions:

Argument from Design Response: This argument serves to show that life without God is improbable. I agree. I won"t contest this argument, but what we must redirect our attention to is this important point. The argument from Design does not prove the existence of a God, because the reasonable explanations that make God more probable is only there because my opponent fallaciously bypasses the step of showing that God is even possible, or that God is the only explanation. Without showing this, although it might make more sense if there was some God that coincidentally provided an explanation for all phenomenons, in order for us to believe there is such a thing, we need more than just, "have faith", because although faith seems like a reasonable concept, God can be substituted with any supernatural entity. I don"t grant my opponent the premise of faith.

Argument from motion: The problem with this argument is that the premise is unwarranted and arbitrary and most importantly relies on faith. The premise I"m referencing that is unwarranted and arbitrary is the idea that God is exempted from this regress. Coincidentally, Christianity provides an explanation for why God can escape the argument from motion, which will coincidentally prove the existence of God. But keep in mind that God can easily be replaced with any other made up entity as long as we provide some sort of reasonable explanation (X). Do not grant my opponent this bypass! Yes, Christianity is a faith-based belief, and that"s the problem with getting other people to agree with you. We do not share the commonplace that faith can fill in for a logical gap, and I don"t agree that the argument is enough to lead to the conclusion, God exists.

Cosmological argument: Finally, in response to this last argument, the voters must be familiar with the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is defined as "Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.". This fallacy is painfully obvious, here"s an example "Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound." Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound.". Now applying this to the cosmological argument which states that the universe has a cause, we must remind ourselves that the premise that "things have a cause" is only because of our anecdotal observations of everyday life. Essentially, we notice parts of our lives being caused by external things, and we conclude that things must have an external cause. However, this does not mean that the universe must have a cause, only because parts of the universe have a cause. Therefore, this does not prove that God has to exist, because the cosmological argument makes the fallacy of composition in arguing that the whole universe has to have a cause because of our anecdotes on parts of life.

Therefore, my opponent has not met their burden of proving God exists.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Soriak 4 months ago
Soriak
It's been Pro's clear and explicit intention to argue for the Christian God.
Posted by Debatism 4 months ago
Debatism
Lol! Wow ok I'm sorry, but yes "Gods" exist Trump is seen as a God in some eyes and minds! Plus their have always been this presence of a "God" or Gods, each one has a (name)! God isn't a actual given or excepting name. So my question is what God blesses America, and no place eles? G. Gold, O. Oil, D. Diamonds run America! I love you all!
Posted by Soriak 4 months ago
Soriak
Because believing certain things can lead to undesirable consequences.
Posted by salehtelese 4 months ago
salehtelese
I believe god is real and everyone can have their own opinions why debate and poo on peoples beliefs
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.