Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6210
Any belief in God’s existence cannot be reasoned from evidence
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1522
rating
10
debates
60.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Any God has no substantial solid evidence to be deemed to be real. In today's age when most of the world has cameras and where events are recorded with the utmost accuracy there leaves no solid substantial evidence to the point where any person could deem any God to be a real thing. Past historical records are illegitimate, they are not authentic, many records are concocted from a mix of misinformation and outright forgery . Therefore, today's authentic evidence for a God is entirely not possible as a result of our technology not allowing evidence for false claims and the past's evidence
So, the evidence God exists is he (or you may deem the god 'it') made it apparent.
Polytheism is a hoax that has no place in this discussion becuase if Polytheism is true, all answer eventually to 1 head god that made the others which are actually demigods. Notice Zeus, Odin, El, whoever else, they are the top god of the 'pantheon' of so-called gods. Hinduisn has Brahman and accidentally suggests we are all demigods from Brahman in a way.
Evidence does support God. Jesus did exist and there is evidence. Muhammad did exist, there is evidence. Tell me, if God existed what would you need made apparent?
How about this:
Atheist reality suggests that by pure ubrelenting chaotic luck, we have laws of physics, chemistry, biology and psychology holding the world together as we know it. By the sheerest luck ever we spin on a ball in the middle of an ever spanding universe expanding into a big black endless abyss and weeee we spin spin spin around ourselves around the sun, moon around us, barely any other pmanet witb any life and the mist life eber recorded was tiny amoeba type life on Mars... Hmm.
Now, it gets even weirder. At the atomic level we break further into randomisation. Electrons can be at 2 places at the literal same time. Light is a wave and particle at the same time, quarks are some sort of innate magic element in atheist doctrine. Quarks cant be seen or recorded at all but are calcykated to be a system that clearly God used in taking designing reality to executing his plan.
They think by sheer uncontrolled random chaotic luck, you don't melt right now or become blue fumes. It is all pure chaos, pure luck yet we have consistent laws of physics, chemistry, biology and psychology.
Speaking of psychology, it doesn't seem to matter to atheists how many near-death or deid and came back shirtly after people tell you they met Go, an angel, the devil and/or demon(s) the atheist will dismiss it as hallucination every single time.
Every single time they want to explain consciousness and self awareness without a God given soul, they gaslight us to feel ridiculous as they skirt around the fact that a bunch of flesh, muscle and bones should have absolutely 0 self awareness in their reality.
Meanwhile, Catholics are too busy inventing hospitals, revolutionising science (bug bang theory is actually from a Catholic Priest scientist Georges Lemaître who figured God initiated Genesis via a so-called God particle known as the primeval atom. I am not saying that proves God real, I am saying atheists took a Catholic Priest's theory and turned it into a blasphemic lie that it is how a godless reality began. He did not say that he was a Roman Catholic!
At every stage of atheist belief system is denial, 'but -but-but' mindgames and 'not good enough' to every miracle and proof of God.
They will read holy scriptures solely to find holes in them and be left feeling meaninbgless, worthless and a simple accident if reality. If you believe in atheist evolutiin, you really think a bacteria became an eyeball, brain and that somehow aFter a bacteria became a fish, eventually they evolved to became a human as well as a moth.
It is just utterly insane to the point I don't know if they are joking. I am aware sone Catholics buy into macroevolution at that sclae now. They may as well come out of the metaphorical closet and sag they deny Genesis is an inerrant Bible book. Even if it is, how can you say a bacteria became all that?
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
Firstly your mention on polytheism is completely irrelevant and random, I’m didn’t mention anything about it. All I was saying is that any God, not matter which one doesn’t have sufficient evidence for someone to believe in him as a result of any evidence as what evidence does exist simply does not exist, or is weak.
The existence Jesus or Muhammad is not evidence for God. The existence of either of them does not support the existence of God. If you want to attribute evidence of God to the supposed miracles they preformed first you have to prove they even happened, the only evidence of their miracles comes only from their scriptures. For their miracles or association with divinity to be a historical fact there must be many pieces of evidence from multiple reliable authors who collectively have no association with each other in order to insure the story is not made up.
In your following paragraphs you struggle to comprehend how the universe has no obligation to make sense to you. There are so many questions we don’t have the answers to, however, that does not point to evidence for God. A lack of understanding does not mean we place God in the gaps, which is what you’re doing, whatever is not explained you attribute it to God. If we debated a few hundred years ago your arguing points would talk about the creation of the Earth and the sun since we didn’t know how they came to be. Once scientists answer more questions in the centuries to come your line of arguments would change. Highlighting how inconsistent this line of argument is.
Your next argument mentions the primeval atom, which is absolutely not evidence for God. Just because a catholic theorizes that particle it doesn’t attribute God to having made it.
Evolution is a fact, there is so much evidence that I find it incredulous that you could deny evolution. From fossil record, biogeography, anatomy, embryology, radiometric dating to DNA and mutation it all proves evolution.
The existence Jesus or Muhammad is not evidence for God.
Let us see if that is true.
If Muhammad exists, Jesus did because he states Jesus as Isa is a prophet:
In Islam, Jesus referred to by the Arabic rendering of his name Isa, is believed to be the penultimate prophet and messenger of God and the Messiah being the last of the messengers sent to the Children of Israel (Banī Isra'īl) with a revelation called the Injīl (Evangel or Gospel).
If Jesus exists it means God exists. He did many miracles and was a virgin birth. A woman virgin birthing a male would be impossible without a miracle.
1. God is sovereignThis miracle makes it clear that the sending of Jesus was entirely the sovereign work of God himself. The astonishing births of Isaac, Jacob and Esau, and then others in the Old Testament all the way down to John the Baptist, at least involved both a father and mother who wanted a child and—as we put it—were “trying for a baby”. But this most astonishing conception of them all involves no human desire or intention or involvement; God simply does this miracle by his own sovereign decision in the womb of the very surprised Mary (and to the surprise of the uninvolved Joseph).The apostle John writes that Christians are given “the right to become children of God—children born [spiritually] not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will”; instead we are “born of God” (John 1 v 12-13). What becomes true of us spiritually by new birth (entirely the decision and initiative of God) echoes what was true of the Lord Jesus’ supernatural conception: no human desire or husband’s will was involved.No human beings did anything to help God send Jesus; God decided to do it, and he did it. There is no room for spiritual smugness on our part.2. God did not adopt JesusThe virgin conception of Jesus proves to us that God did not adopt Jesus as his Son. Sometimes people suggest that Jesus was a remarkable man, and so God decided to adopt him as his Son, perhaps at his baptism or at his birth. But the virgin conception means that from the very first moment of his human existence, Jesus was (and had always been) the eternal Son of God. Indeed, in that instant the One who had been God the Son from all eternity took upon himself a human nature: “the Word became flesh” (John 1 v 14).This moment—this hidden, unwitnessed instant in the womb of the virgin Mary—was the most astonishing miracle in all of human history.3. God became manThe virgin conception of Jesus points to the mystery that this boy was at the same time both fully human—inheriting a fully human nature from Mary—and also fully divine. In some astonishing way that we can never completely describe or analyse, Jesus Christ was, and is, fully man and fully God. He is fully human, and yet without the taint and defilement of the sinful, spoiled nature that each of us inherits from our father and mother.This matters. It means that, standing in heaven now at the right hand of the Father, there is a perfect high priest who is able “to feel sympathy for our weaknesses”, who “has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin” (Hebrews 4 v 15). Jesus understands that loss of temper with your housemate, that selfish decision for your own comfort over serving others, that lustful or covetous thought. He knows. And yet he was without sin; and so he can save you out of it all.No wonder Christians down the ages have stood in awe and wonder as they—and now we—have contemplated the miracle of Jesus Christ, the Son of God made flesh.
The debate states evidence, it doesn't state logic. I did not make a god of the gaps argument, Pro made it up.
First, let us define evidence:
From same source:
So when I discussed electrons being in 1 of 2 places at once where we cannot tell which and the sheer chaos of atheist reality meaning it makes it incredibly unlikely that there is no God.
Let us say a court case occurs.
In one side we have the atheist reality, in the other the monotheistic (this is why I ruled out polytheism, I want it irrelevant to the debate). The atheistic side is clearly the defense. The problem is they see themselves as the prosecutor of each specific God. Since they simulataneously play defense when attacked and prosecution/offense when faced with evidence there must be a God, they end up avle to weasel out of the burden of proof in a corrupt duality approach.
The atheist must defend a reality where by sheer accident, meaning pure raw disorganised luck, we have consistent laws of biology, chemistry and physics.
They must defend against all claimed miracles of Jesus, all claimed miracles of Allah, all near desth or back to life experiences for God and all logic that without God, a bacteria becoming a fish and later human makes very little sense to a rational, stable mind that thinks about it.
The organisation of reality and conssitency of natural laws of science make it probable God exists.
The fact no amount of science yet has even come close to explaining how the neurons in the brain activate us to have an experience inside of the body rather than just be automated robots experiencing nothing, is another proof of God.
Can everything physical come from true raw nothingness?
Now my opponent will say God of the gaps.
If you had this much evidence stacked against you, you would lose the court case most likely.
Round 4
When I say the existence of Jesus or Muhammad is not evidence for God is that while their actual existence as men is very readily accepted by historians, however, their claim to divinity is not. Just because they existed does not mean they are the men their respected holy scriptures make them out to be. It does not mean Jesus rose from the dead, it does not mean they performed miracles. This is because the only evidence of their miracles comes from their respective scriptures. In general there simply isn't evidence of God outside of these scriptures, and the existence of these two men does not prove God as again, outside their scriptures there is little historical evidence which is proof of them as they are in their respective scriptures.
Your second paragraph is false, simply because he existed does not prove God as I mentioned earlier, there is not empirical evidence to prove he is who the Bible claims Jesus was and what he did.
"Now, it gets even weirder. At the atomic level we break further into randomisation. Electrons can be at 2 places at the literal same time. Light is a wave and particle at the same time, quarks are some sort of innate magic element in atheist doctrine. Quarks cant be seen or recorded at all but are calcykated to be a system that clearly God used in taking designing reality to executing his plan." This is essentially putting God in gaps of our understanding of physics as well as a misunderstanding of what quarks are. "quarks are some sort of innate magic element in atheist doctrine." Quarks are not magic, and they are not atheist doctrine, as you mentioned before, a Christian scientist, Georges Lemaitre discovered the big bang, just like him there are many Christian scientists who according to you are take part in the "atheist doctrine", these scientists believe in quarks and don't think they're magic or "atheist doctrine", quarks are very real and aren't atheist. John Polkinghorne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne) was a theoretical physicist who contributed to the discovery of the quark, he is a great example of a Christian physicist, highlighting how science itself isn't atheist doctrine and neither are quarks.
You then talk about how the fact we have laws of physics points towards a God, and how, by not knowing why we have emotions is proof of God. You ask atheists to explain what we can't explain yet and then say the randomness of everything the mystery of all is proof for one specific God, that's not evidence. You're pointing a lack of understanding to evidence for a specific God. You then say if I had this much evidence in a court case the court would rule in your favour, I have to repeat, your evidence is literally pointing at a lack of understanding and saying it's evidence for a God. It's literally God of the gaps, "gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God." (https://www.gotquestions.org/God-of-the-gaps.html) You are saying our lack of understanding of the origins of the universe are God and you specifically say, "The fact no amount of science yet has even come close to explaining how the neurons in the brain activate us to have an experience inside of the body rather than just be automated robots experiencing nothing, is another proof of God." Dude.
Moreover, you have yet to provide any meaningful evidence as to why God can be believed in as a result of evidence while placing God in gaps of our understanding, claiming that science is now a part of atheist doctrine.
Forfeited
Round 5
Moreover, my opponent fails to provide any evidence, providing the order of the cosmos as evidence, failing to realize that his observation is only proof that we have not answered his questions, not that it's proof of his God. Additionally, he mentions that Jesus and Muhammad are evidence for God, also failing to provide evidence of their divinity and miracles outside of their respective holy books, and claiming that since they are proven to have existed that means they were exactly who they were in their holy books. The lack of evidence leads me to conclude that people who believe in religion cannot reason that they do it out of evidence as there is very little weak evidence to conclude the existence of whatever God they believe in. That's not to say that people can't have valid reasons for believing in something unproven.
My opponent proved that quark dicoverer is Christian and I said vig bang theorist was Catholic.
Science supports god.
I have to correct some spelling errors and had more to say, so no I wont. I may sacrifice a later Round. Not Round 2 here.
Can you submit anything so I can submit my argument, I thought I had more time