Instigator / Pro
12
1469
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#3071
Is God Real???
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
3
2
After 4 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
Bones
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
26
1780
rating
30
debates
98.33%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank You Bones, for joining this Debate.
I am here today to present my argument as to my thesis on if God exists.
Firstly, let me specify "God". By the word, I mean a metaphysical being responsible for all life on Earth.
Argument 1:
Bible References:
Yes, Yes, blame me for trusting the Bible, but people have been writing this thing for generations, and if God was fake, I don't believe they would go to that much trouble.
Ok, that was a joke. There are many arguments to that that I won't dwell on, but nevertheless, I've made a list of all references from the Bible about if God is real.
Romans 1:20
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
Romans 1:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Revelation 4:11
“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
The Bible makes many arguments towards this, and shows a very clear understanding that God exists. Those without Faith won't believe him, those with will.
I admit, this was a bad argument, however, I do hope this next argument stirs you well.
Argument 2:
Our Consciousness:
The workings of human consciousness are similarly miraculous. Like the laws of mathematics, consciousness has no physical presence in the world; the images and thoughts in our consciousness have no measurable dimensions.
Ah yes, the age old question. Where does our conscience go when we die? Does it stay in our body. Perhaps it moves around, haunting people who have oppressed it.
People have tried to solve this problem for decades, but followers of Christianity have a simple solution, the timeless Heaven and Hell.
I mean, it would make sense, right? What other solutions are there?
As it turns out, a lot.
OK, OK, OK, I know I'm being self contradictory here, but there are numerous possibilities about where we go when we die, but these possibilities are the result of Gods, or Goddesses.
TECHNICALLY, this isn't God, but the argument stays the same. Metaphysical Beings controlling where we go when we die.
Other than this...… there's a explanation that I really like:
Source: Where Do We Go When We Die?. How death reminds us of how we should… | by Mike Sturm | Medium
After death, you continue to exist as the difference you have made in this world. The people whose lives you touched, whose paths you’ve helped guide, and whose minds you’ve changed, carry a bit of you with them.
This doesn't support my argument, and I know you're going to call it out, but I like to think God made it that way. It's a good thought.
Argument 3:
The Universe:
Forgive me for drawing a quote from a TV show, but it's basically my entire argument for this.
Sheldon: Did you know that if gravity were slightly more powerful, the universe would collapse into a ball?
Mary: I did not.
Sheldon: Also, if gravity were slightly less powerful, the universe would fly apart and there would be no stars or planets.
Mary: Where you going with this, Sheldon?
Sheldon: It's just that gravity is precisely as strong as it needs to be. And if the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the strong force wasn't one percent, life wouldn't exist. What are the odds that would happen all by itself?
Mary: Why are you trying to convince me to believe in God? You don't believe in God.
Sheldon: I don't, but the precision of the universe at least makes it logical to conclude there's a creator.
As I said, forgive me, but it does make sense. Using this logic, I've come to the conclusion that God exists.
REBUTTAL FOR THE QUESTION I KNOW IS COMING:
Science: Science is a hard one to rebut. But, I'll draw a quote and a website to answer.
The history of the universe can thus be seen as an endless chain of changes, but Aquinas argued that there must be some transcendent entity that initiated the chain, something that is itself unchanging and that already possesses all of the properties that worldly objects can come to possess. He also claimed that this entity must be eternal; because it is the root of all causes, nothing else could’ve caused it. And unlike all worldly objects, the transcendent entity is necessary—it must exist.
Take note to read the website as well.
Finally, remember I'm new and this is my 1st argument. I bid you well, Bones.
Con
#2
THBT: The God of the Christian bible does not exist.
Welcome to this cite and your first debate deadfire27.
==
Definition:
- God
- The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent being worshiped by those who strictly follow the Christian faith.
- Exist
- To have real being
==
CONTENTION 1: The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit (also a rebuttal to your third argument)
The argument from improbability is one of which creationists often offer to argue in favour of the existence of God and is often seen as completely convincing. To some degree, theists are correct - the improbability argument is very strong and susceptibility unanswerable - although precisely in the opposite direction of which creationists intend. The argument from improbability, when paired with basic knowledge of biology is practically unanswerable.
The term “Ultimate Boeing 747” is derived from Fred Hoyle’s amusing photograph of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard. Hoye’s asserted that the probability of abiogenesis occurring on earth is no greater than the chance of a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard and assembling a Boeing 747. In a nutshell, this epitomises creationists' favourite argument - an argument that can only be made by one with limited knowledge of natural selection. Consider the true implications of the improbability argument.
P1. If God exists, then God has these two properties
- He created all the natural, complex phenomena's in the universe
- He has no explanation for himself
P2. Anything that creates the natural, complex phenomena in the universe is at least as complex as such phenomena
P3. Thus, if God exists, then God must have the following two properties
- Anything that creates the natural, complex phenomena in the universe is at least as complex as such phenomena
- God has no explanation for Himself
P4. It is very improbable that there exists something that
- Is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe
- Has no explanation for His existence
C1. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that God exists.
In more layman terms consider the following direct application.
P1. If God exists, God is an ordered system and more complex than the universe he allegedly designed.
P2. From the Boeing 747 gambit complex systems either originate from design or chance occurrence.
P3. If God exists, God was not designed.
P4. From (2) and (3), God originated by chance or does not exist.
P5. From the Boeing 747 gambit the occurrence of complex systems by random chance is improbable.
C1. From (4) and (5), God probably does not exist.
By the theists own logic, it is statistically improbable that something which wasn't created and is of this magnitude of complexity just came into being. Like how the creationist asserts that an eye cannot just come into existence, I assert that a God cannot just appear by mere chance.
To further apply this to our debate, consider what you stated in your third argument. You asserted that because the chances of Earth coming about in the way that it did is so low (in the sense that if the gravity was just a bit stronger, the Earth would collapse) that there must be a creator. However, this is faulty argument, because the fact that we are here in this debate imply that whatever small chance of Earth forming did happen. The universe is a big place, with large numbers of planets and solar systems, it shouldn't come as a surprise that somewhere, there be life. In the grand scheme of things, it would be much more unbelievable if someone asserted that in the trillions of planets across the galaxy, there isn't any sign of life whatsoever. Nevertheless, if you think that this example represents an unlikely scenario, consider God. God, being a thing which is so complex that it can bend the laws of physics and be everywhere at anytime, must be more intricate than anything in the universe. Thus, the chances of this extraordinarily fine tuned being popping into existence is simply unimaginably low.
==
CONTENTION 2: Animal suffering
Wild animal suffering is the suffering experienced by nonhuman animals living outside of direct human control, due to harms such as diseases, injury, parasitism, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, weather conditions, natural disaster's, killings by other animals as well as psychological stress. Let's evaluate first three scenarios in moredepth.
- Disease
- Animals in the wild suffer from diseases which circulate in a similar manner to human colds and flus, such as epizootic's, which are analogous to human epidemics. Some well-studied examples include chronic wasting disease in elk and deer, white-nose syndrome in bats, devil facial tumour disease in Tasmanian devils and Newcastle disease in birds. Diseases, combined with parasitism, "may induce listlessness, shivering, ulcers, pneumonia, starvation, violent behaviour, or other gruesome symptoms over the course of days or weeks leading up to death."
- Injury
- Consider interspecific competitions; a natural interaction in population ecology whereby members of the same species fight to the death for limited recourses. These interaction often lead to fractures, eye injuries, wing tears and self-amputations, all extremely painful injuries which further lead to behaviours which negatively affect the well-being of the injured animals.
- Parasitism
- Parasites can negatively affect the well-being of their hosts by redirecting their host's resources to themselves, destroying their host's tissue and increasing their host's susceptibility to predation. As a result, parasites may reduce the movement, reproduction and survival of their hosts. Parasites can alter the phenotype of their hosts; limb malformations in amphibians caused by ribeiroia ondatrae, is one example. Some parasites have the capacity to manipulate the cognitive function of their hosts, such as worms which make crickets kill themselves by directing them to drown themselves in water, so that the parasite can reproduce in an aquatic environment, as well as caterpillars using dopamine containing secretions to manipulating ants to acts as bodyguards to protect the caterpillar from parasites.
What is the point of all of this? I attempt to demonstrate what seems to be a clear fact. Animals are often born into worlds in which suffering from factors outside of their control is simply a part of life. Why is this the case? If an all loving God really existed, why did he allow animals to be born into this cycle of violence and torment. Why do animals get their tongues ripped of by parasites? Why do cows get born and bred with the sole purpose of eventual execution? Why did God create a system in which animals live fearful lives, weary of being ripped into shreds by hungry predators? Why didn't he create a more loving system, perhaps one which does not involve the essential torture of animals? This is simply not what an omnibenevolent being would do.
==
REBUTTALS:
ARGUMENT 1 RESPONSE:
Before I even begin unpacking this section, I urge you to note that using the bible as a source without proving it's credibility is a disastrous move to make. How do you know the the bible isn't just some imaginative guys journal? How do you know it is actually Gods word? What makes it a credible source? I believe that I do not need to address the versus you have provided if you cannot first prove the credibility of this book. In your own words, and with no offence intended
this was a bad argument
ARGUMENT 2 RESPONSE:
The workings of human consciousness are similarly miraculous. Like the laws of mathematics, consciousness has no physical presence in the world; the images and thoughts in our consciousness have no measurable dimensions.
I as a materialist do not find this practically relevant. But before I even get to that, recall:
THBT: The God of the Christian bible does not exist.
You have not proved why the Christian God is the one who is created consciousness. How do you know that it wasn't actually Allah's creation, or Thors, or Yahweh? Why the Christian God.
Second, how do you know that the Christian God is actually responsible for creating consciousness? The thing which irks me is when creationists look for holes in science and apply the God of the gaps mode of thinking. Just because science cannot explain something, doesn't mean that God automatically becomes the default answer. You are left to show why your answer (God) is the correct one.
In your own words, you're
being self contradictory here
After death, you continue to exist as the difference you have made in this world. The people whose lives you touched, whose paths you’ve helped guide, and whose minds you’ve changed, carry a bit of you with them.This doesn't support my argument, and I know you're going to call it out, but I like to think God made it that way. It's a good thought.
I agree with most of what you say here. It's nice to think that I still "live on" as a legacy. But what is the need to say that God made it this way? Why add God into the equation? It was completely fine until God came into the picture. I can still create a legacy I am proud of without my omnipotent father peering over my shoulders.
thx deadfire
GL for round 2
Round 2
Round 3
Pro
#5
I apologize for Forfeiting the 2nd round, as it is exam season.
I will be quitting this debate on the front that I am a Christian, and therefore biased. I will pick topics more wisely in the future.
Good day, Bones.
Con
#6
I will be quitting this debate on the front that I am a Christian, and therefore biased. I will pick topics more wisely in the future.
I accept your concession, however confused I am. Personally, I do not see an issue with a Christian debating in favour of God, in fact, I don't see any other people doing it. There is a difference between being biased and holding a view. Being biased means that you are unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something which is hardly the case here, as I am sure you are convicted of your Christianity. Nevertheless, I thank you for a good debate. GL with your exam season.
VOTE CON
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Implicit concession.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Conceded by Pro
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Concession
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Argument - Whilst I disagree with Pros reasoning for quitting the debate, Pro did indeed quit the debate and made absolutely nor rebuttals nor arguments in two rounds and appears to have offered the equivalent of a concession, and writes: "I apologize for Forfeiting the 2nd round, as it is exam season. I will be quitting this debate on the front that I am a Christian, and therefore biased. I will pick topics more wisely in the future.". This is clearly a loss of argument. And even in the instance that an argument justification is still required to warrant a victory for Con, I feel it was "absolutely imperative" that Pro answer this question here " Before I even begin unpacking this section, I urge you to note that using the bible as a source without proving it's credibility is a disastrous move to make. How do you know the the bible isn't just some imaginative guys journal? How do you know it is actually Gods word? What makes it a credible source?", and completely failed to do so with his forfeiture and apparent concession- Con
Sources - I have already included Cons argument regarding using the bible as a source in my justification for awarding him with the argument points, and therefore I feel I must factor in that Pro used a good few other sources which were non biblical and not challenged by Pro. Con himself produced sources which went unchallenged - Tie
S&G - Nothing stood out from either participant - Tie
Conduct - A concession is extremely honest and gracious and I feel should be rewarded with a thank you - Pro
It's amazing we both started becoming active at the same time. I've had 4 debates against you, 1 deleted.
Seriously, I would name you my best friend among this site.
Sorry if this sounded weird, but it's the truth, honestly.
Thank you for making my experience on this site memorable. :D
ty :)
Thanks for a good conversation, you’ve really grown as a debater.