The Instigator
jackgilbert
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
alitar
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
jackgilbert
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,695 times Debate No: 118178
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (167)
Votes (4)

 

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. 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 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. 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.
alitar

Con

Hello pro,

I will start of by saying that yes the chances of all these things happening does seem very small but, You have to remember the Universe is 13. 8 billion years old. For greater than half that time life had a chance to evolve. It is like" 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" but that man has billions of tries to do so.

My second question to you is if god exists why doesn't he help us? He didn't stop the Holocaust, 9/11, Rwandan genocide, Rape, Murder, Slavery. This god also is against LGBTQ rights so is he really as moral as you believe.

Thank you
Con

(I would like to say that I respect your beliefs and don't mean to offend you)
Debate Round No. 1
jackgilbert

Pro

Thank you con for your response. I will do my best to go over your arguments and defend my case.

The chance of life forming is a little more complicated than spinning a Russian roulette wheel over and over again til it goes your way. In other words, There isn't just one improbable thing that has to happen for life to form. There are many events that have to happen in sequence for life to arise spontaneously. The temperature, The moisture, The atmosphere, The arrangement of chemicals, The density, And many other conditions have to be perfect for a life form to arise. They must all be perfect at exactly the same time. If even one of them is a tad off, The process won't work. Now remember, In order for life to continue after the first one, It would have to reproduce. This is where the main problem comes in. There is a lot of things a cell must have in order to reproduce. In fact, The life form people are thinking of probably couldn't reproduce unless it had the following things: DNA, Plasma membrane, Ribosomes, A nucleus, Centrioles, Chromosomes, All of which you are assuming functions properly, Works together, And can perform meiosis, Mitosis, And protein synthesis which are essential in asexual reproduction. This is a little more complex than it sounds. Fun fact, Not even the smartest scientists in the world have come even close to creating something half the complexity as this. They haven't even created something remotely to resemble the simplest protein. The entire process of reproduction is beyond the scope of this debate but we both agree it is complicated. It is far too complicated to arise in such a short amount of time. That is, Before the life form dies. Can this really form spontaneously? All of these nearly impossible events must occur in the perfect order at exactly the same time. A simple life form that can reproduce is a little more than a ball of cytoplasm. It is a working machine that has incredible complexity and cannot be chance.

You said that if God is all good and all powerful, Why does evil exist. There is a simple one word answer. Free will. When God created us he created us with the ability to choose. When mankind sinned, Evil was brought into the world. If God were to put an end to the evil things mankind is doing, It would simply be a violation of our free will. We chose to sin, And thus, Sin must be punished. That is why God sent his Son to die for us and pay the penalty for our sins.

I mentioned a few other arguments in the first round that would lead you to the conclusion that there is a God. In your next argument, Could you please address those?

I look forward to your response.
alitar

Con

Hello Pro,

1. You said that god caused the Big Bang. This is not true, It is caused by quantum fluctuation https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Big_Bang? Scrlybrkr=67e98caa#Cause. Newton's laws break down at the quantum level. Come on man! Do some research before you make these claims.

2. Your process of life coming into being is flawed to no end. We have proof of evolution; do you know how close your DNA is to a ape. 99% you are 99% ape DNA. The reason all this happened is that the animals that didn't evolve beneficial traits DIED. Look, You keep pointing out the unlikeliness of life but this is all explained by natural selection not god.

3. If your god is all knowing and all powerful then how can we have free will. He knew what we were going to do with it and thus we have a fated action. Free will can only be real if we can do something else. If god knows what we are going to do in the future and god is never wrong then we can never do anything then what god sees in our future.

3 1/2. Also in your previous bible god is seen interning all the time so much for free will.
Debate Round No. 2
jackgilbert

Pro

1. Here, You are simply putting words in my mouth. I never said God caused the big bang. I said (probably in one of my other debates) that the big bang does not refute the idea of God because God could have used the big bang to create the world. So here you are literally arguing a point that I didn't even make. You said that quantum fluctuations caused the big bang. Quantum fluctuations are a point change in the energy of a volume in space. But if there was once nothing, Than where is the energy to make quantum fluctuations possible? Quantum fluctuations can't come from nothing. They need energy to occur. Thus, The creation of this entire universe and everything in it from quantum fluctuations is impossible.

2. In this section, You are getting abiogenesis and evolution mixed up. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life started in the first place. Evolution is the theory of what happened after life began. That is, How one life form resulted in billions of species. In order for God not to exist, Both abiogenesis and evolution have to have happened. I argued that the process of abiogenesis is not true and is inconsistent with all we know about life. You claim that the unlikeliness of life forming is explained through natural selection. This is not true however. Natural selection is an attempt to explain evolution, Not abiogenesis. It does not explain how life came to exist in the first place.
Your point that natural selection explaining abiogenesis is simply not true because evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing.

In addition to this, Even if evolution were true, It doesn't necessarily refute the idea of God. Why? Because God could have very well created all life through evolution. It could be part of his intelligent design. Do I believe in evolution? No, Because there is quite a bit of evidence against it. But my point is, Beliefs like the big bang and evolution don't necessarily disprove God.

3. This is one of those questions that have been asked over and over again. The answer is still the same and although I would love to go into it, That is not this debate is about. The topic is titled, "is God real? " All we are arguing is whether or not a God exists. Whether that is the Christian, Islamic, Buddhistic, Or Roman God is irrelevant to this debate. All we are arguing is whether or not a God exists. Let's save this topic for another debate.

3 1/2. Same as above

I would like to argue one last thing. Your entire case against God is invalid and here is why. You haven't presented a plausible alternative to how the universe was created. You briefly mentioned evolution but haven't really backed it up with any real evidence. You haven't addressed my case against abiogenesis which is the base of all atheistic beliefs for the origin of life. Basically, You have claimed that God is not real, But have not presented an alternative explanation to how the universe came to exist. In debate, We call that a Prima Facie and they are invalid every single time.

Here is a list of my unaddressed points in this debate:

1. The cosmological argument and how it proves God.
2. Newton's first law of motion and how it proves God.
3. How intelligent design proves God.
4. Why the theory of abiogenesis is inconsistent with all we know about life.

I look forward to your response.
alitar

Con

I'm done,

You obviously won't believe any of my arguments. I give up you win. If you think that all scientist and atheist are wrong and
you are right then fine. Have fun yelling in your echo chamber. Nothing you said proves god and intelligent design is just plain wrong. You are wrong and if you don't believe me ok.

Bye
Debate Round No. 3
jackgilbert

Pro

Yes, I won't believe your case against my arguments because they aren't my arguments. Obviously, If I did believe your arguments I wouldn't believe in God which means this debate would never have existed in the first place. I will however address your one point for evolution.

"do you know how close your DNA is to a ape. 99% you are 99% ape DNA"
When a simple google search disproves your point you need to re-evaluate sir.

I am interested in debating the free will topic, So if you are interested, Challenge me.
alitar

Con

Hi Pro,

Nah you can just put your arguments out to talk to the voters. I'm not going to argue now.
Debate Round No. 4
jackgilbert

Pro

sounds good. Do you believe that the idea of our free will and God's omnipotence are contradictory?
alitar

Con

Hi Pro,

Kinda, I'm no theologian so maybe theres an explanation but I couldn't find any satisfactory answers while searching.
Debate Round No. 5
167 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
backwardseden
@Nartnod7875 - Well here's the definition of Religion: 1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, Nature, And purpose of the universe, Especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, Usually involving devotional and ritual observances, And often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
If you use Buddhism under that context, Then no its not a religion. It has nothing to do with "the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies". Now definition #2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. In that context then yes. Now if you google a question such as "Is Buddhism a religion? " SHEBANG! Wow are there sooooo many different versions as to if Buddhism is a religion or not.
However, I'm inclined to agree that religion in belief supreme deity (especially when no one can even prove its deity exists) and spiritualism/ spiritual beliefs (in which case some of those beliefs are true) are two different things. I am a veryyyy spiritual person. It hurts me deeply to see man's complete raping of the earth in which when I first read it at 14 I was completely shocked at GE 1:26 which its god gives man permission to rape the earth. Its not the fact that this god cannot be proved that counts. Its the belief. Especially when "More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason. " George Carlin. He's right. WRONG! There's sooooooooo many reasons to NOT believe in the god of the bible.
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
backwardseden
"Stop making excuses for your holy book. It is an abomination. It encourages abomination. And the more you sacrifice your humanity and morality to make excuses like "well god really wanted people to love each other but they just wouldn"t so they just wanted to nudge them in the right direction by saying you can own people but don"t beat them too damn much. " Its still a weaka$$ immoral god. And YOU are better than that. Stop making excuses for the immorality. Take responsibility for your life and realize that if a GOD tells you that you can own somebody, That GOD is a piece of s--t. " Matt Dillahunty

"I would say that instructions to kill homosexuals is immoral. I would say the subjugation of women is immoral. I would say that having women inferior position to men is immoral. I would say that selling your daughter into slavery is immoral. I would say that sacrificing the first thing that comes out of your house is immoral. I would say that substitutional atonement is immoral. I would say that the very concept of sin is immoral" the idea that I could somehow offend a god or something that I could think or do which has no impact in or around in reality is immoral. I would say holding someone responsible for the sins of their father under the fourth or the tenth generation is immoral. How many more do you need before you recognize you are making excuses that advocates for immoral positions? " Matt Dillahunty

Oh and btw, I answer approx 85% or more of the questions you pose unto me. You've avoided probably a good 80% or better of the questions I posed unto you. Now why is that? Its because YOU---HAVE---NO---ANSWERS. Its because YOU are such a coward that you do not have the foggiest clue as to how to say "i---don't---know".
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
backwardseden
I don't "think" of things in the bible as being B&W. I "know" (see you don't know anything) of them as being absurd, Irrational, Illogical, Cottage cheese farts, Preposterous because they cannot possibly be acted out, Silly, Inane, Fatalistic, To be urinated upon,

"I have yet to find an example of a moral standard in your holy book that I find morally correct. Caller "Then if your moral standards are so superior to the living god, Then convert me. " Matt "My moral standard is superior to the character, In fact my moral standards are superior to almost any character in the bible. I have no problem with that. I"ve said it many times and explained it many times before. I could maybe rattle off a list of sins. " "Matt hasn"t killed anybody. How"s about that? " Yeah. I think anybody who advocates slavery is morally inferior. I think anybody that advocates genocide and slaughter is morally inferior. I think anybody that advocates infinite punishishment for finite crimes and deeds is morally inferior. I think anybody that is omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent who creates a society to knowing that people are not going to be able to live up to his standards spends an eternity punishing them or spends many thousands of years punishing them trying to correct his mistakes over and over again he creates Adam and Eve they fail he banishes them out of the garden then there"s the tower of babel then there"s the flood there"s well actually there"s the flood then the tower of babel, Sorry I got that backwards, Its failure after failure after failure after failure after failure and then finally it culminates. And the only loophole that the creator of all the laws of the universe can come up with, Why didn"t he just forgive everybody or change the laws? But instead he just comes up with a loophole where he comes down bodily and sacrifices himself to himself to act for a rule that he created? Its absurd. Its laughably absurd. And its immoral. " Matt Dillahunty
Posted by Nartnod7875 2 weeks ago
Nartnod7875
backwardseden

So I guess we can say that religion has two sides. One is deity worship. The other is a system of spiritual beliefs, Doctrines and principles that a group of people follow.
Posted by jackgilbert 2 weeks ago
jackgilbert
Backwardseden, These are the same objections that we have gone over again and again. You think of things in the Bible as black and white.
Posted by Nartnod7875 2 weeks ago
Nartnod7875
backwardseden

I think I know where you're coming from. From the perspective of history and theology, Religion has been described as the practice of worshipping an all powerful, Supreme being. And that's how religion is defined in the dictionary: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, Especially a personal God or gods. Buddhism, Nowadays, DOES qualify as a religious form of practice. Although it wasn't like this in the beginning, People who follow Buddhism engage in activities such as worship, Donations, Praying, Dietary rules, And most of all, Percieving Buddha as nothing but a very powerful guy and someone to answer your problems and "love". I have family members who interact with Buddha like how Christians communicate to God. They worship and pray and then they continue their everday lives.

The original Buddhism was not religion, But a cultivatuon practice. Buddhists didn't follow Buddhism just to go to their version of heaven, But to become enlightened themselves, To reach the level of enlightenment. Buddha paved the road for the next line to follow. You had to leave your worldy possessions, Relinquish your desires, Medutate, And suffer. Although there are some people who still do this, The vast majority do not and are as described earlier.
Posted by Nartnod7875 2 weeks ago
Nartnod7875
jackgilbert

Hey, Man. I just want to have a discussion. You don't have to worry about us bashing each other.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that you were implying that one of us asked that question: " The question you asked 'Why is Christianity the right religion? '. . . " (jackgilbert).

I want you to clarify on the answer you gave to alitar.
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
backwardseden
@Nartnod7875 - Well Buddhism is not a religion (thankfully! ) christianity is. And wow is christianity ever so power hungry governed by its storybook character god - a superior ego god complex in which his bible is entirely about. His god is entirely about being in control, Being in charge, Having that power, And being power hungry. Ego ego ego! What are the 10 commandments. His god flooding the earth, Destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, All--of---his---genocides? If only Jack and people like him were to read the damn thing then perhaps a lot of wars and hate would stop. But nah. Jack and others like him do not under ANY circumstance read their bibles no matter what the cost. If they did, They would find out in it that their god has knowingly murdered 2, 821, 364 when tallied up which included babies, Children and pregnant women (abortions in which christians are so against = a supermassive hypocritical contradiction as we all know) in which he and millions are perfectly fine and overjoyed with. Yeah that proves their overwrought insanity. They ---must--- be in order for themselves to claim of themselves to be christian. Not knowing any better doesn't work.
A book that I recommend Jack check out (naturally he didn't and won't) is called Drunk With Blood showing his god's perfect insanity. Within this link there is a table of all of god's murders showing both how many murders his god has committed in the bible and what the author thinks the outcome would be as there is no mentioning of how many died. As an example there's 20 million listed for the number of deaths in the great flood. But there's nothing mentioned as to how many were horrifically tortured to death and their lives were innocently snuffed out according to the ideal that was bible (even though there's 100% proof the great flood never happened). There is also some audio from some of the book. Http://dwindlinginunbelief. Blogspot. Com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible. Html#sthash. 3MIUIx6B. Dpuf
Posted by jackgilbert 2 weeks ago
jackgilbert
I did. Listen I got 3 people pounding me with questions so I have completely lost track of it.
Posted by jackgilbert 2 weeks ago
jackgilbert
I did. Listen I got 3 people pounding me with questions so I have completely lost track of it.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by JimShady 3 weeks ago
JimShady
jackgilbertalitarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Hello, good debate. I'll be really concise with this vote. Conduct point goes to jackgilbert, because alitar starts to pick up a hostile tone in Round 2. Also, he gives up, which is not respectful to his opponent or the audience. Pro was also a little mean, but Con was meaner in my opinion. S/G is tied, as well as sources. Both used questionable sources, Wikipedia and answersingenesis (uh...) . As for Convincing Arguments, jackgilbert auto-wins these 3 points for the alitar concession. However, I think both sides had some good arguments regardless. The argument from design and its probabilities were stated well, as was his Newton law argument. Con made some good comebacks with the 99% DNA similiarity stat and the breakdown of Newtonian physics at the quantum level. While both sides put up honorable arguments, in the end this is a technical win for jackgilbert. Good job to both sides, better job to Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 4 weeks ago
dsjpk5
jackgilbertalitarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by tejretics 4 weeks ago
tejretics
jackgilbertalitarTied
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: Con concedes.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 4 weeks ago
backwardseden
jackgilbertalitarTied
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 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: J.G.'s sources are unreliable. They are not proofs because they cannot be proven as there is nothing to compare them to. So his entire debate falls apart. Nobody has ever been able to prove God. J.G. is no exception. He's used the same old tired arguments time and time again. They've all been debunked by others time and time again. Add Con to the mix.