frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Convince me that God is not real

Opening Argument

m_abusteitm_abusteit 97 Pts
edited August 3 in Religion
Couple of years ago I posted a debate on here entitled "Evolution" when I was an atheist. at the time, I was an atheist. But now by the grace of the lord Jesus Christ, I believe in God and I am a christian due to extensive evidence and arguments and because of personal experience. I believe God exists due to extensive evidence, scientific, philosophical and logical such as the incomprehensibly unlikely fine tuning of this universe for life to exist (or even for the universe to exist) which requires a deliberate designer mind. Moreover, the kalam and contingency argument were very compelling and convinced me. The ontological argument also shows God must exist if he is possible. In addition, the introspective and digital physics arguments also exponentially increase the odds that God exists. Finally, the argument from immaterial consciousness or the soul sealed the deal. I narrow down to Christianity through the evidence from the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which substantiates his claims that he is God as proven in Mark 2 where he claims to be lord of the sabbath or when he demands as much glory as God the father or when he says he is the way and the truth.
Max_Air29ErfisflatTungol
  1. God exists

    15 votes
    1. Of course he does, there is extensive evidence.
      46.67%
    2. No, The world just popped into existence from nothing.
      13.33%
    3. I do not know.
      40.00%
«1

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • There is so much evidence in favor of God.
    Erfisflatm_abusteitGeorge_Horsespobrien333
  • One theory about how the universe came to life is quantum fluctuations started a chain reaction to create everything. This is supported by the Uncertainty Principle. According to wikipedia, "states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum or energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval."

    But what evidence is there in favor of God as you say? People already figured out an omnipotent being is impossible. (can God create a boulder he cannot lift, and then lift it? If he makes the boulder but fails to lift it, he's not omnipotent. If he can't make the boulder, he's not omnipotent.)
    m_abusteitspobrien333
  • It is seemingly impossible for something to appear out of nothing.
    God would be something, so it is seemingly impossible for God to exist.
    But of course, we know that matter exists. Don't we?
    So at some point in the past something must have appeared from nothing.
    Though it does seem rather bizarre that that something was a God and not a few fundamental particles.
    Nonetheless. As I see it, the existence of everything actually relies upon a magical event.
    Therefore seemingly, anything is possible.
    Erfisflatm_abusteitDawnBringerRivenGeorge_Horse
  • One theory about how the universe came to life is quantum fluctuations started a chain reaction to create everything. This is supported by the Uncertainty Principle. According to wikipedia, "states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum or energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval."

    But what evidence is there in favor of God as you say? People already figured out an omnipotent being is impossible. (can God create a boulder he cannot lift, and then lift it? If he makes the boulder but fails to lift it, he's not omnipotent. If he can't make the boulder, he's not omnipotent.)
    Oh boy where do I even begin?


    Scientist were trying to find the minimum amount of energy in a area of space so they created a vacuum by taking out all the objects, air molecules and particles that may have kinetic energy. After they did this they realised there was still energy in this area of space. It is electromagnetic infrared radiation, radiation like light but at lower frequencies, it is what brings heat from the sun to the earth. So they dropped the temperature of the area of space to temperature -273 degrees absolute zero temperature, and made it pitch black to get rid of all infrared radiation. Then they realised there is still energy left in this area of space they call this energy zero point energy or vacuum energy where energy fluctuates creating virtual particles upon measuring or observing. 
    It is the energy that causes the speed of light to have a limit by creating "friction" in the electromagnetic world. It is also the energy that allows atoms to exist. Ever heard of electrons orbiting around specific orbitals or "energy levels"? Usually when an electron accelerates (eg orbiting around a proton) it will give out energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation and its horizontal velocity will slow down causing to to eventually fall into the object. Ever wondered why these 'energy levels' exist allowing electrons to orbit without losing energy and falling into the object? There's a theory going around that the energy absorbed by electrons from zero point energy equals the electromagnetic radiation given out at these energy levels that's why the electron doesn't lose revolving velocity and fall into the object. And hence allowing atoms to exist.


    Vacuum energy is not nothing, it is something (low energy).


    Secondly, quantum vacuum fluctuations are the result of observing. You can only have those virtual particles keeping with the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg and with the experimental test of non-local realism (could be found on arvix). So even if you want to invoke quantum fluctuations, you would still need a spaceless, timeless, supernatural observer (God) who observed or measured the vacuum energy to create the virtual particles.  


    Moreover, before the universe there was no space (https://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/). What I mean is that there was no space to hold the vacuum energy and no space for the vacuum energy to even exist. Vacuum energy can only exist in empty space but you need the space dimension for that.

    In addition, Who created the vacuum energy?
    DawnBringerRiven
  • @PowerPikachu21

    as for your stupid and childish boulder "counter-argument"? 

    God can create a boulder as heavy as possible and still be able to lift it.
    LoganL549TungolDawnBringerRivenVincent_Costanzospobrien333
  • Space is an intangible reality.
    Matter is a tangible reality.
    God is an unproved theory.
    The truth is yet to be uncovered.
    PowerPikachu21m_abusteit
  • @m_abusteit So God is unable to make a boulder which God can't lift? God'd defined as being Omnipotent (able to do anything), Omniscient (knowing everything), and Omnibenevolent (all loving) Though here's another contradiction I found: Can God learn anything?

    There's also the Problem of Evil; specifically natural evil; hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, natural disasters. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he'd want to stop these disasters. We still have storms, even when we pray. If he's able but not willing, he's malevolent. If he's not able to stop them, he's not omnipotent. You might call these disasters a test, but remember: God's also supposed to be all knowing, therefore know the conclusion of the test, making it pointless. If he already knows the result, he's malevolent for allowing disasters to slay innocents. If he doesn't know the result of this test, he isn't omniscient.
    m_abusteitDawnBringerRiven
  • @PowerPikachu21

    Wait hold a minute what happened to your quantum fluctuations as part of atheist dogma. 

    I just told you which you do not seem to understand. God can make a boulder as heavy as possible (infinite weight) and he would still be able to lift it.

    Evil entered the world when man sinned. Most evil is man-made (holocaust, colonialism and African starvation, etc.) 
    The disasters are a test that God already knows the answer to. But who benefits from the test? The test-taker or the test-maker. Obviously the test-taker because he gains patience and more faith in God.

    Why do you deny all the evidence there is for God?
  • @m_abusteit I'll be honest, I'm not an expert on quantum fluctuations, so I'm not sure how to address your objection to that.

    But what I do know is that God is paradoxical. You concede that God is unable to create a boulder he can't lift. As he cannot create the boulder, he's not omnipotent. You also haven't said if God can learn. If he can learn, he's not omniscient, since he doesn't know something. If he can't learn something, that's something he's unable to do, therefore he's not omnipotent.

    "Evil entered the world when man sinned. Most evil is man-made"

    But then why do tsunamis exist? What benefit does this have? If it's a punishment, then God isn't omnibenevolent, and additionally not omnipotent because God could've just not had any evil in the first place. Why did the Apple of Eden (the one that Adam and Eve ate that spread evil) have to exist? If God does know the result [evil spreading], he's malevolent for literally creating evil.

    "The disasters are a test that God already knows the answer to. But who benefits from the test? The test-taker or the test-maker. Obviously the test-taker because he gains patience and more faith in God."

    So basically you're saying that I gain faith in a supposedly benevolent God because he makes people's houses get destroyed by earthquakes? That seems counter productive to me.

    I deny evidence for a God because he hasn't shown himself directly, so I believe there's no reason to believe in God.
    ImbsterErfisflatDawnBringerRivenGeorge_Horse
  • @PowerPikachu21

    I did not concede the boulder. I just said God can create a boulder as heavy as possible and he will still be able to lift. There is no too heavy for him.

    That's a childish view of omnipotence you got. God has infinite power but he will only use this power on what he wants. What he wants is determined by his nature. In 2 timothy 2:13, it says God can not deny himself which means God is a rational non-contradictory concept who will not use his infinite power on something that will contradict his nature.

    "Why do tsunamis happen?"

    Evil entered the world through sin.

    "If it's a punishment, then God isn't omnibenevolent, and additionally not omnipotent because God could've just not had any evil in the first place. Why did the Apple of Eden (the one that Adam and Eve ate that spread evil) have to exist? If God does know the result [evil spreading], he's malevolent for literally creating evil."

    It is not a punishment. It is a test. He can stop it but he won't because then he would be breaking his nature and what he declared on adam and eve when they ate the apple which means God is still omnipotent. He loves us but in order to keep with his perfect justice, he can not interfere to keep his declarations. Plus, it could look evil to you but it could not be evil at all. For example, A vaccinated child will think their parents are evil for allowing the pain of the needle to be inflicted on them with the permission of their parents. But are their parents really evil for trying to protect them from greater dangers like viruses. What if God is sending tsunamis to drive people out of low-lying areas so that rising sea levels will not drown as many people. Who knows? I just told you the point of the test was for adam and eve's benefit and not to God's benefit. Adam and eve became more patient and in control of their desires and they were more obedient to God post-Eden.

    "evidence"

    So you do not believe in God due to a lack of empirical evidence? Depsite the fact that I provided a plethora of empirical evidence for God in the OP (Beginning of the universe requires a supernatural cause, incomprehensibly unlikely odds for fine tuning of the universe require a deliberate eternal designer mind, moral realism require a universal lawmaker, contingency of the universe require a supernatural necessary cause, etc.), you are not being consistent. Do you not believe that your wife is loyal? Well you have no picture or touchable evidence. Do you not believe Logic exists despite having no picture nor tangible touchable evidence? Math? Morals? etc.
    DawnBringerRiven
  • @PowerPikachu21

    as for your stupid and childish boulder "counter-argument"? 

    God can create a boulder as heavy as possible and still be able to lift it.
    Don't know if someone beat me to it, but that is an actually intelligent argument in physics. Google "An immovable force meets an unstoppable object" or something to those effects. If God is all-powerful, He can take something that should be called unmovable and move it. By rights, everybody but Him could call it unmovable. But could He create something not even He could move, and still retain the power to move it if he chose, or change the laws he set to it and move it? Think of Thor's hammer for a truly childish analogy. It's largely a philosophical concept.
  • LoganL549LoganL549 33 Pts
    edited August 11
    @m_abusteit So God is unable to make a boulder which God can't lift? God'd defined as being Omnipotent (able to do anything), Omniscient (knowing everything), and Omnibenevolent (all loving) Though here's another contradiction I found: Can God learn anything?

    There's also the Problem of Evil; specifically natural evil; hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, natural disasters. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he'd want to stop these disasters. We still have storms, even when we pray. If he's able but not willing, he's malevolent. If he's not able to stop them, he's not omnipotent. You might call these disasters a test, but remember: God's also supposed to be all knowing, therefore know the conclusion of the test, making it pointless. If he already knows the result, he's malevolent for allowing disasters to slay innocents. If he doesn't know the result of this test, he isn't omniscient.

    I was talking to a friend with a strange perspective; he says that, if he were God, he would want to make a world perfect and/or balanced, and not change what he had created, thus evil. Seeing it as, nothing is wrong if laws are in place, balance, if things went as was somehow planned, or if things were not broken, if things were destined... he sees things as a coder would. If there is no bug or glitch, things are as they should be. Thinking without bias, without discrimination towards what is negligibly right or wrong. It's a weird concept, but it's, I suppose, like saying.... volcanos will happen, but were made for a reason. They act under the predetermined laws set in place, with no unexpected side-effects, as it were. For all intended purposes. Some may think God created us as some sort of sandbox, for his enjoyment, out of curiosity because of his omnipotence and omniscience. But then, as you say, if you know what will happen, why play the game? Think of nature, and how after a volcano comes fertile soil. I guess, in life, it comes down to seeing the positives in life.

    I think a lot is overthought with no result, in all the energy put into being pondered. Not to say that asking questions and finding answers isn't bad, but... when something seems so incomprehensible as "God created an un-liftable, or an alleged infinitely heavy boulder"... how does that make sense? There's got to be a weight that is heavier than any amount of strength applied to move a mass. You see the logical fallacy? Infinite strength versus infinite weight. Or does God have infinite +1 strength, to put it into context, measuring or gauging based off of units?

  • You'd wish this were true that since you can't help every kid on the street then God can't but the problem here is you're still pushing for the fact he's omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
    @PowerPikachu21
    Great effort for using philosophical concepts you could've gone biblical so I'll do the honour. 
    I'll be disproving these three omnis easily with the BIBLE.

    https://thechurchoftruth.org/god-is-not-omniscient-tower-of-babble/

    In the tower of Babel arc, God had to come down to see what people are up to? Omnipresent?
    God uses fact finding tests to see if people will follow another God maaanyyy times in the old testament. Omniscient?
    Yeh if this were Minecraft and I had godmode I can't drive anyone out if they have a chariot of iron. Judges 1:19. Omnipotent?

    Many more if you take time to read. Don't even argue not to trust the Bible cause it's just a collection of books cause I'll argue I don't trust your future arguments if it's just a collection of your personal experiences that made you believe in God. 
    The Bible is always a primary basis.

    Hopefully this will simplify the debate and you'll come to accept your Abrahamic God, the god you returned to, because he fine tuned the universe, does not have a single omni. By simplify, no more of these omni talk.

    Let's go to disproving God directly and not his attributes that's like proving the Flash is not the fastest person because we're still able to see him travel in seconds when we watch tv( we shouldn't even be able to catch up his speed) when the context is disproving the Flash as a fictional DC character.
    DawnBringerRiven
  • @m_abusteit

    I'm going to relatively stay relatively out of this debate, but it is unfair for you to say "Prove that God doesn't exist". It's like me saying  "You are a murderer, prove to me that you didn't murder anyone" You are supposed to prove that something does exist." There is no scientific evidence to debunk an intelligent creator, in a general sense, but saying that concluding that some

    But anyway that aside, I'm going to take a crack at your interpretation of God, (As a precursor, I believe that a God may exist, but all human interpretations of God are false or at least flawed.)

    I'm going to focus on your Christian interpretation of God, and I'm going to "debunk it" with philosophy - God is all knowing, so of course, he knows what lust feels like, but the Bible defines lust as sinful, and yet your interpretation of God claims that God is benevolent in every way. This is logically inconsistent, and can also be applied with wrath, God is very wrathful according to the Bible, and yet you claim he is benevolent.
    DawnBringerRiven
  • Well, if there should be such a perfect things as God, he should be beyond human congnition. In a similar vein as Plato's idea, what human beings can perceive is mere a limited, distorted vision of the thing that God has created. In that sense, God is not real, if a reality means what we see and touch, but ideal. 
  • @rorelie12

    You  just defeated yourself. By saying that God is beyond human cognition and therefore does not exist is the same as saying humans have no understanding of energy (beyond comprehension) so energy does not exist.




    "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of definite amount. We do not even have a unified definition of energy"

    - The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, 4-1
  • @m_abusteit

    I didn't say God does not exist. What I meant was that whether it does exist or not, ultimately it is beyond human recognition, and that the attitude requred is to keep our faith in the face of skeptism or uncertainty. My position is called agnosticism. Plus, the value of worship lies in the human fate in which we cannot know everything for certain but can still hold our faith in difficult times, even if it may not be rewarded.

    1Hacker0
  • @rorelie12 The way you worded it made it seem like you were saying God doesn't exist, but besides that I agree with agnosticism. 
  • @rorelie12 Yeah, but that only supports my theory of human interpretations of God, if God is too perfect for human understanding? Then why would an all knowing God allow or expect humans to understand, trust, and worship something that is out of their ability to interpret?
  •   @SnakesOfferingApples

    It's my personal view, so it may not sound persuading. In my opinion God is a reflection of self-portrayals of human beings, as well as an entity that represents the world view we have, which helps intergrate miscellaneous physical phenomenon into one orderly system.

    In other words, the concept of God is an archemedian point by which we can form a coherent understanding of  the physical world that is in itself full of contradiction, just as metaphysics supplements physics to form one unity.

    In this sense, I think the God as we know it springs from human understanding of the world.

    Still, back to your question, if we cannot know the existence of God, where do the existing religions come from?

    I think my answer will be like this; we cannot know directly whether or not God exists, but based on our experience in the physical world, we can formulate a system of knowledge about this world, which won't be complete without an assumption of God. We cannot probably prove the existence of God by any scientific method, but we can still assume from what we have learnt.

    So, religions are like that. They were the attemps to explain and integrate many different spheres of our lives in one universe, the center of which is the assumption of God. If the assumption of God can provide a coherent world view, even if it cannot be seen or touched, some might judge it rational to believe in God.

    Sorry for my bad explanation. As a foreigner, this is my best.


  • @rorelie12

    I agree with your world view that "God is an attempt to understand and represent the world" But I disagree, that the world as we know it can't be explained without God - science indicates that the world is automatic and can operate without one. The reason I still believe in a possibility of God is that science doesn't explain everything yet, and there are inconsistencies in science which can't also be explained.

    P.S -
     1 - I am also foreign, but I am currently living in America.  2 - Sorry for the late response, I am currently preparing for school.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 690 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Most everyone here, without seeing one, believes in black holes. Therefore you have faith that they exist.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Erfisflat said:
    Most everyone here, without seeing one, believes in black holes. Therefore you have faith that they exist.
    Maan, .. I grew up in Detroit, there were always at least 2 to 3 black hoes both end of my street, at night, on weekends there were dozens, so I know they exist!
    m_abusteit
  • Couple of years ago I posted a debate on here entitled "Evolution" when I was an atheist. at the time, I was an atheist. But now by the grace of the lord Jesus Christ, I believe in God and I am a christian due to extensive evidence and arguments and because of personal experience. I believe God exists due to extensive evidence, scientific, philosophical and logical such as the incomprehensibly unlikely fine tuning of this universe for life to exist (or even for the universe to exist) which requires a deliberate designer mind.

    Moreover, the kalam and contingency argument were very compelling and convinced me. The ontological argument also shows God must exist if he is possible. In addition, the introspective and digital physics arguments also exponentially increase the odds that God exists. Finally, the argument from immaterial consciousness or the soul sealed the deal. I narrow down to Christianity through the evidence from the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which substantiates his claims that he is God as proven in Mark 2 where he claims to be lord of the sabbath or when he demands as much glory as God the father or when he says he is the way and the truth.

    Awesome, may God bless you.
    Please don't be offended in what I will ask you next, the LAST thing I would want is to "offend a little one", as Jesus said, a young convert to following Jesus Christ.
    Here is my question, and it's hard to phrase it in a way not to throw you off track, so please ask me to explain anything that you didn't understand? Did you become a member of the Christian Religion, .. because I noticed that you said Jesus Christ is God, the Christian Religion does claim that.

    I know the Bible never said that, nor did Jesus, he corrected the Pharisees a number of times when they tried to accuse him of claiming that he was God, but he vehemently argued against it:

    John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

    "I and the Father are one", .. as we Believers are to be "one with God", for if we don't become one with Him, .. on one mind, intent with God, we shall never get into Heaven, is this how you understand it too, or is it like the Catholic/Constantine created Christian Religion claims, that Jesus is actually God!?

    John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

    This here then would mean that Jesus was telling them that we are all God, do you think that is what Jesus was trying to tell them? "He (God) called them gods!"   what else would it mean?

    But watch this, Jesus made sure that they would not even think he said: "Well God said we are all gods, so what's wrong with me calling myself God?" and now read what he said next?

    John 10:36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe[d] that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”

    Jesus clarified it, to make sure they would not twist his words and make it that he claimed to be God, so he said: "So you say I'm 'blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

    Jesus said "I do the works of My Father", this is why he said that him and his Father are One. One intent, of one heart soul and mind just as we all are to be, doing what our Heavenly Father asks us to do!

    As for the Ontological Argument, .. was first criticized by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, a contemporary of Anselm of Canterbury. He argued that the ontological argument could be used to demonstrate the existence of anything, utilizing an analogy of a perfect island. The argument was also criticized by the famed Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas and also by David Hume and Immanuel Kant.

    The whole premise of the ontological argument is wrong, The ontological argument is widely thought to have been first clearly articulated by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who defined God as the greatest conceivable being. Anselm’s reasoning was that, if a being existed only in the mind but not in reality, then a greater being was conceivable (a being which exists both in the mind and in reality).

    http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ontological-argument.htm

    The greatest being? Like theism which includes all the Greek gods, none of which is our Infinite Creator God "I Am"!?

    God is not a being, but the Ground of Being, which is "Infinite". There can Only be One Infinite, and Infinite is conscious, as He explained to Moses: "I Am Who I Am", this is my name: "I Am", so go and tell my people that "I Am" has sent me to you!"

    m_abusteit said: "Mark 2 where he claims to be lord of the sabbath or when he demands as much glory as God the father or when he says he is the way and the truth.

    Yes, he is the Way, the Truth and the Life, TO God, .. NOT God himself.

    So I'm not going to "convince you that God is not real", .. instead I hope to convince you "who our One and only possible God is", .. because He is NOT Jesus Christ.

    That would be the sun-god, or light bearer of the Catholic Christian Religion, Lucifer, and not the Bible God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob.


  • @Evidence

    Thats not why i believe jesus is not god. 

    It is because mark 12 and deutronomy 6 v 4 establish that God is one, NOT three as trinitarians claim.

    Also jesus himself said that the father alone is the ONLY true God in john 17 v 3 and john 5 v 42-44

    The ontological argument does not fail at the perfect island because a perfect island is a contingent being that is not neecessary and therefore does not have to exist in this world.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch