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!

God exists

Opening Argument

This question has been asked time and time again. Atheists and theists clash even today to find this truth. I personally see no reason to assume a God exists.

But what do you guys think? Is there a God in this world? Is there no God? Or are you just neutral on the subject? Be sure to comment any information.
raehuiwspandam
  1. Does God exist?

    15 votes
    1. He is always with us.
      33.33%
    2. There was never a God.
      46.67%
    3. Maybe there's a God, but we can't say for sure.
      20.00%
«1

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • raehuiwraehuiw 24 Pts
    There is god, he created everything there is. There is no scientific explanation which proves that god is not real.
  • I just don't see how it's possible. There are many unexplainable mysteries in the universe but none that would prove the existence of a higher being.
    Macrae
  • @raehuiw How would you find evidence of something that does not exist? If it doesn't exist to begin with, then how would it create evidence that disproves it? Could you disprove unicorns, demons, angels, etc with evidence?
    Macrae
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 692 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    There is evidence for a creator. I've shown it here.
    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 Could you post your evidence for God right here; in this debate?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 692 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    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.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 692 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    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.

  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 177 Pts
    edited June 12
    @Erfisflat I was hoping for actual text rather than links, but alright. So how does a flat Earth prove a God? Can't everything be flat without a God?

    And if this planet is the only real one in existence, and nothing exists beyond our atmosphere, how does this necessitate a God? [If I'm remembering right, didn't Genesis mention God creating a universe, which would in turn assume there's an outer space/void which this planet is in?]
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 692 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat I was hoping for actual text rather than links, but alright. So how does a flat Earth prove a God? Can't everything be flat without a God?

    And if this planet is the only real one in existence, and nothing exists beyond our atmosphere, how does this necessitate a God? [If I'm remembering right, didn't Genesis mention God creating a universe, which would in turn assume there's an outer space/void which this planet is in?]
    So we have big bangism / evolution, which depends on the earth being a spinning ball. If we can eliminate the earth being a ball, we can eliminate big bangism. I'm not necessarily saying that the God of the Bible is true either, but there are two major theories for how we came about. If we are on the only place in existence and it isn't randomly spiraling through an infinite imaginary vacuum, what else is there? and no I don't believe the Bible mentions the universe.
    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.

  • Why can't evolution happen on a flat disk? All it is is any small change, which changes a species into a new form after hundreds of years. And couldn't a Big Bang happen without spheres? I'm not understanding how you're connecting Point A (flat earth) to Point B (therefore God). Here's a page regarding Evolution, both what it is, and why we Atheists believe it's truth: https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

    Here's a page regarding Genesis: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=GNT
    Here's Gensis's mentioning of the universe: "In the beginning, when God created the universe,[a] 2 the earth was formless and desolate."

    Genesis also points out stars and the Sun and Moon; "Then God commanded, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate day from night and to show the time when days, years, and religious festivals[c] begin; 15 they will shine in the sky to give light to the earth”—and it was done. 16 So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars. 17 He placed the lights in the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness."

    So if God himself states he made more than just the Earth, then a Theist wouldn't doubt His word. Unless, of course, God made NASA and told them "Hide my identity, and my creations. They must not know of the Sun and the Moon, nor thy stars. Thou must create a hologram of all. I shall destroy all my creations so that"... whatever He'd say. I'm not sure how that logically would do something of any note. Either God did make stars and there's nothing to hide, God didn't make stars and he's lying, God never existed and NASA's a fraud, or NASA isn't a fraud and God never existed.
  • Evolution debunks the crwation story in all religions. Fossils, homology, pseudogenes, vestigial features anad atavisms are just a few line sof evidence that prove evolution and that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes. If that did happen, then we definetly were not created in heaven out of mud and each other's ribs.
  • Evolution debunks the crwation story in all religions. Fossils, homology, pseudogenes, vestigial features anad atavisms are just a few line sof evidence that prove evolution and that we evolved from a common ancestor with apes. If that did happen, then we definetly were not created in heav
    Imbster
  • ImbsterImbster 93 Pts
    I believe there is no God because humans have thought of logical complexities against or better than God's logic described by the Bible. Humans can never be as great as a God. The standards would have to be lowered but if it were lowered then there would be no god. He certainly could've diverted Esther to a better way to becoming queen and don't give me free will argument the Biblical God destroyed Sodom and flooded the earth of course he'd have his OWN WILL to make someone queen. He could've thought that instead of letting evil, He could've guided his people to prevent many things and ultimately establish only two moral categories being morally good or amoral(neutral).

    Most importantly every teaching that has described him are ultimately speculations. God is good , God is omnipotent, God is all powerful. Humans claim they experience his goodness but that's the same with people who have pantheistically said that it's up to the universe, the universe has sustained us. Earth has been good to me. See? It's logically provable because I sustain myself with Earth's natural resources while for these theists their mental state and comfort is certainly sustained by a god/gods and they feel a greater feeling just generated by their minds. Clearly there's greater logic and thought to these other statements such as humans of the earth have also been good to me by directly sharing those natural resources in processed ways and humans also improve/sustain mental state and comfort by teaching and speaking of God always.

    Are we going to believe in conclusive facts or specifically directly observable facts that people or materials speak about God and God doesn't and hasn't talked about himself for a long time. Because of religion we get VERY used to sticking with big and huge chunks of ideas which is dangerous to human logic levels. "God is good" A huge chunk of idea that can be further broke down actually into a statement that is still not wrong but specific which is "God is always good in any major religion's perspective but God does both good and bad things in any subjective perspective" Some minor religions are single positive wherein there is belief in a God but not the fact there good is all-good and most major religions believe in God's ultimate goodness.
    Isn't God supposedly beyond logic but why is he still bound by it through evolutionary human ideas?

    I believe the modern day God is a firm supporter now of free will since literally he hasn't concretely manifested himself nor that he ruined someone's free will since AD.
    Another common argument is how God is claimed to be benevolent but he is more concerned with the rapist's free will.
    If the human saves the girl, God is credited when actually free will.
    If the human does not save the girl, gets raped, and another witness saves the girl, the human will be trialled in court for not doing anything but God? Oh yeah God did something, he protected free will.
    If God saved the girl, everyone firmly believes, God is truly all good, free will dies, rapist gets judged, no major setback for God here actually so why isn't he doing it? Is he afraid the government will use his talents they discovered?

    Perhaps Russell's teapot is a good example showing that a logical speculation fortifies any labelled entity's existence. A teapot is basically in space that orbits and can never be seen with a telescope because it is very small.
  • I thought I'd get more attention with this one. Guess I overestimated the amount of people who wish to defend that a God exists.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 692 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @PowerPikachu21
    The interesting thing is that you haven't questioned the shape of the earth, but you think we're now a floating disk in an infinite vacuum. This is a realm. The stars are not trillions of miles away, the sun isn't billions away. They're in the firmament. They aren't other alien's suns. This proves creation. That's why they hide it.
    spandamImbster
    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.

  • spandamspandam 43 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    @PowerPikachu21
    The interesting thing is that you haven't questioned the shape of the earth, but you think we're now a floating disk in an infinite vacuum. This is a realm. The stars are not trillions of miles away, the sun isn't billions away. They're in the firmament. They aren't other alien's suns. This proves creation. That's why they hide it.
    @erfislfat , I agree with your argument which was well said.
    Erfisflat
  • Erfisflat said:
    @PowerPikachu21
    The interesting thing is that you haven't questioned the shape of the earth, but you think we're now a floating disk in an infinite vacuum. This is a realm. The stars are not trillions of miles away, the sun isn't billions away. They're in the firmament. They aren't other alien's suns. This proves creation. That's why they hide it.
    Why would I question the shape of the Earth? It's irrelevant to whether or not God exists. And I don't think I ever implied a finite or infinite universe, nor is the relevance to God clear.

    The Bible's Genesis is relevant to God, as it's said to be God's word on the origin of the universe. And you claim that "Stars are fake, therefore they're hiding God", which Genesis disagrees with, as it explicitly mentions God making stars. Now we're stuck with 4 options, which I'll examine closer. Either God does exist and stars are fake, God exists and stars are real, God doesn't exist and stars are fake, or God doesn't exist and stars are real. Let's see which one makes the most sense:

    God is real, stars are fake: This appears to be what Erfisflat is going for. But assuming this is true, then God's lying about making stars. If he lied, then should he really be called "God"? More like a fraud. Maybe he didn't make the universe after all? This all puts Genesis into question.

    God's real, stars are real: This definitely puts down Erfisflat's theory. Though stars existing doesn't disprove God, there's nothing that would prove God did make the stars. To assume that God made the stars presupposes God exists, which doesn't really prove anything. We'd need real evidence.

    God's fake, stars are fake: I bet you've heard this one a million times: So people from the stone age created virtual stars, hid the technology to do so all the way into 2017? You can't prove that's the truth. (And saying "They're so good at hiding the evidence" is just conceding you can't prove it.) And if hiding the fact that stars don't exist is supposed to accomplish hiding God, then God not existing in the first place would completely tarnish the supposed objective.

    God's fake, stars are real: This is what all Athiests agree on. If God never existed, then Genesis would be a mere story by man to explain how stars started existing. The Bible is to give people hope in life; something we could look forward to in the afterlife; Heaven. Anyways, I feel this is the most logically sound option out of the 4 I presented.

    I've logically processed the possibility of stars not existing with and without God, both are very sketchy. This cannot be a valid approach to proving a God exists. And is the Flat Earth also supposed to be NASA hiding God?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 692 PtsPremium Member
    edited June 15 Premium Member
    @PowerPikachu21 I never said stars are "fake", they're just not as were told.



    Compare them.
    PowerPikachu21
    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.

  • Either I'm really dumb, or your argument isn't making any sense, or even complete. (That is, if I'd even call it an "argument".) What is a star, and how does this prove a God? So what if stars vary in size and color? I'm not supposed to guess what you're thinking, you're supposed to explain it yourself.

    But what I think you're trying to say is this:

    P1: NASA forged stars to hide God.
    P2: All stars are different.
    C1: Stars are not giant balls of gas.
    C2: Therefore, God exists.

    This is a clear jumping of logic. So what if stars are different? Stars can look different colors because of temperature, chemical make-up, and can be different sizes: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/78-the-universe/stars-and-star-clusters/general-questions/353-are-all-stars-the-same-beginner

    And you have no evidence to support the fact that NASA's a fraud. And under your same logic, since everybody's different (race, skin color, size), maybe we aren't actually humans, and the Democrats are working for the Lizard Illuminati.
    Erfisflat
  • @Erfisflat Take all the time you need to construct your arguments. I'm patient enough.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 692 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Either I'm really dumb, or your argument isn't making any sense, or even complete. (That is, if I'd even call it an "argument".) What is a star, and how does this prove a God? So what if stars vary in size and color? I'm not supposed to guess what you're thinking, you're supposed to explain it yourself.

    But what I think you're trying to say is this:

    P1: NASA forged stars to hide God.
    P2: All stars are different.
    C1: Stars are not giant balls of gas.
    C2: Therefore, God exists.

    This is a clear jumping of logic. So what if stars are different? Stars can look different colors because of temperature, chemical make-up, and can be different sizes: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/78-the-universe/stars-and-star-clusters/general-questions/353-are-all-stars-the-same-beginner

    And you have no evidence to support the fact that NASA's a fraud. And under your same logic, since everybody's different (race, skin color, size), maybe we aren't actually humans, and the Democrats are working for the Lizard Illuminati.
    I'm not calling you dumb, but you clearly misunderstand one critical point. Nobody "forged" stars. Stars have been there since God put them in the firmament. Those CGI pictures that your institutions give you are just that. They're just points of light in the dome.
    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.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 692 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    As far as NASA goes, there is plenty of evidence that they lie. See the earth is flat and space is fake debates.
    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.

  • ImbsterImbster 93 Pts
    edited June 17


    @Erfisflat

    If the world is indeed flat and it is wrong that Alaska is approximately 55 miles away from mainland Russia then you are right.
    Now then the average time to get there by plane is 5 hours not because of the insane distance in a flat Earth but because that airport I have used as evidence is seemingly in the middle of Russia. 

    If the earth was truly flat, what could explain flights from Alaska to Russia in the shortest time possible, there would need to be curvature like a paper with half circles on the edges and the only way to form a circle is to connect the edges by curvature.

    The map in the 2nd picture may be already flat but that's because Google made an endless loop of flat map 1 putting them side by side I don't think that is the case also in real life for our Earth
  • @Erfisflat Could you do a recap of your arguments into a single post? I'd probably be better at following along then.
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