frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





God exists

Debate Information

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. Live Poll

    Does God exist?

    31 votes
    1. He is always with us.
      35.48%
    2. There was never a God.
      41.94%
    3. Maybe there's a God, but we can't say for sure.
      22.58%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • raehuiwraehuiw 24 Pts   -  
    There is god, he created everything there is. There is no scientific explanation which proves that god is not real.
  • melanielustmelanielust 285 Pts   -  
    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
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    @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?
    MacraeHank
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Could you post your evidence for God right here; in this debate?
    EmeryPearson
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @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 1675 Pts   -  
    @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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    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.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    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.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 101 Pts   -  
    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 149 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.
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    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 1675 Pts   -  
    @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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • 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
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 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.
    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 1675 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    @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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    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
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Take all the time you need to construct your arguments. I'm patient enough.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -   edited June 2017


    @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
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Could you do a recap of your arguments into a single post? I'd probably be better at following along then.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    Imbster said:


    @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
    Map it out on mine

    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat Could you do a recap of your arguments into a single post? I'd probably be better at following along then.
    about stars?
    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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    Let's break this down.  Do we agree the universe began somewhere?  Big bang and creation.  Both have beginnings in which a universe came into existence.  Let's test both.  Let's look at the first law of Thermodynamics.  It states that matter can neither be created or destroyed.  This is a natural law that has been proven, so how did nature, acting on its own, create matter?  It's impossible for a natural universe to create matter with that law.  Unless you think that law is false, in which case I must question your scientific validity here.  

    What about creation?  Well it says God created it all.  Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."  Now normally this would mean that matter was created which should make this impossible, but God is not part of the natural world.  The laws of Thermodynamics apply to nature and our reality.  God is not a part of that and thus was able to create matter by not having to abide by natural laws.  Besides, He created nature, so why abide by your creation's laws?  

    Look at the law of cause and effect now.  It states that for every effect there is a definite cause, likewise for every cause there is a definite effect.  Obviously this means something must have caused the big bang to occur.  What would that be?  What would cause that?  And what before that?  You would go off into infinity which is an impossibility for our universe.  The big bang relies on this anyways.  That everything is expanding and is in entropy.  

    Creation does not have this problem.  The cause is God and the effect is the universe.  I know you will ask how God came to be.  He always has been there.  He is not natural and can be infinite.  Natural things and matter cannot be infinite, but anything outside of it can.  “The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28).  He also does not age or bend to the wills of time.  “I the Lord do not change” (Malachi 3:6).  

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

    There is more here you can dig through, but when you look at the problems with one side, it boggles my mind how you can believe it.  Now where is your evidence for God I hear you asking.

    Look at the earth.  It is perfectly placed at the right distance from the sun as to where it does not burn up or freeze.  All the other planets weren't so lucky, but you expect me to believe a little particle stopped here and then gathered more particles to make a planet?  The mathematical probability of that proves God's existence.  http://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/.  His answer is 10 to the power of 123 for the chances of the big bang happening.  

    Look at DNA.  We now know it holds the instructions on how to make a human body, basically.  Why?  DNA would almost be instructions for a creator to build off of.  Instructions or code set in us to tell the body how to continue the creator's work.  

    I could go on for hours more, but I think this is good enough for now.  
    anonymousdebater
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -   edited June 2017
    Accidentally posted twice.  Edited it to this.  Idk. 
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat About what stars are and how it proves a god. It's difficult to understand when it's all in pieces.
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    @SuperSith89 The question of "How did the universe come to be" is a large philosophical question that probably will never be answered. But Atheists commonly argue that quantum fluctuations made the universe. Random particles spark to cause a chain reaction that creates the universe. As for "something from nothing", perhaps the universe is infinite and loops; its end being a new beginning (at least Futurama did this). I might look for any evidence as well as building a foundation to support this argument.

    But you also bring up the Fine Tuning argument, which says because we're so unlikely to have Earth at the perfect criteria for life, that it must be God. But why must it be God that gave us the perfect criteria and not Lady Luck? I mean, maybe there was no God to fine tune everything. It's very satisfying to imagine that we just got lucky with our Solar System, as well. And couldn't DNA come naturally along with the first life?
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 170 Pts   -  
    I believe at death we will know the answer to how we got here.  If it turns out there is no heaven and you cease to exist, well.  But if it turns out it all is real, then who is at the disadvantage?

    Anyways, I've heard of that idea before.  But the problem is, particles are still matter and matter cannot create more matter.  Where did the particles come from?  The idea of the universe in a constant loop is interesting, but with the whole luck thing, what are the chances of that happening for an infinite amount of time?  It would end at some point and cease to exist due to the odds.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/why-atheists-refuse-to-consider-a-creator_b_1303613.html

    While the idea of the universe restarting itself is interesting, it relies on the idea of an infinite universe, which is impossible with the law of cause and effect.  The universe being tangible and made of physical properties has a beginning and end.  How could it restart?  What does it exist in?  If the universe exists in infinity, then isn't that the same as having God be that infinity?  Too many holes in it unless you have a creator that makes it and orders it to work on its own.  

    Look at the universe though.  It is beautiful and incredibly organized and laid out.  Everything seems to have order and follows laws.  How can nature set up natural laws?  A omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being that is outside the tangible universe must have set its laws and processes in place.  
    melanielustPowerPikachu21Imbsteranonymousdebater
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    I believe at death we will know the answer to how we got here.  If it turns out there is no heaven and you cease to exist, well.  But if it turns out it all is real, then who is at the disadvantage?

    Anyways, I've heard of that idea before.  But the problem is, particles are still matter and matter cannot create more matter.  Where did the particles come from?  The idea of the universe in a constant loop is interesting, but with the whole luck thing, what are the chances of that happening for an infinite amount of time?  It would end at some point and cease to exist due to the odds.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/why-atheists-refuse-to-consider-a-creator_b_1303613.html

    While the idea of the universe restarting itself is interesting, it relies on the idea of an infinite universe, which is impossible with the law of cause and effect.  The universe being tangible and made of physical properties has a beginning and end.  How could it restart?  What does it exist in?  If the universe exists in infinity, then isn't that the same as having God be that infinity?  Too many holes in it unless you have a creator that makes it and orders it to work on its own.  

    Look at the universe though.  It is beautiful and incredibly organized and laid out.  Everything seems to have order and follows laws.  How can nature set up natural laws?  A omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being that is outside the tangible universe must have set its laws and processes in place.  

    So where did the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being come from.
    Your still relying on a magical event.
    Something from nothing.
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    For those answering, "there was never a god", be careful. The burden of proof is on you to justify that claim. I would consider myself an agnostic atheist - meaning I do not believe there is a god, but I can't know for sure.
    pnita
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
    @Sylynn perhaps you are gnostic
    anonymousdebater
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Imbster - No, If I do not know if there is a god, by definition that makes me agnostic.
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
    @Sylynn haha good you know there is such thing as gnostic
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Imbster - Just like you can't have atheism without theism, you also can't have agnostics without gnostics.
    Imbster
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
     Well I agree with Sylynn: Maybe there is a God, maybe not. But you'd think God would reveal himself by now. [And the Burden of Proof is usually on the one claiming existence.]
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @PowerPikachu21 - My thoughts exactly. If this god were truly interested in everyone coming to know him, I see no reason why he wouldn't make himself known to everyone. The idea of faith being required is ridiculous. Faith is nothing but belief in something for which there is no good reason to believe. No one has been able to provide a valid reason for this god to continue his game of hide and seek.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    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 personally do not like to get mixed up in conspiracy theories very much, but I'm going to have to say that you probably don't have any evidence that NASA is not a fraud.  In the same way, I would guess that you do not have any evidence that evolution is true either. What you probably have is a great deal of faith.  What the faith is based on, I really have no idea.  I'm not saying NASA is fake, but quite honestly, I wouldn't know.  How would I know?
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 213 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason The only way to show that a company isn't a fraud is to join the company, though then he'd say you are lying. But I'm not defending NASA or anything of the sort in this debate, this debate is just about whether God exists or not, so NASA's irrelevant anyways. The post you're quoting is just me talking about how ludicrous @Erfisflat's argument is (which doesn't connect dots). Though he gave up now, so that's done.
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    If their is no reason to believe god exists and their is no prof he does not exist then I don't bother with him. Lingering over a question I can't answer is not something I would normal bother with. Until I see convincing evidence that god does or does not exist, I won't bother with him. 
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    @nope there may be no proof god does not exist but there is lots of proof supporting theories with no god. God does not have that proof. Proof is evidence. Evidence forms belief. Proof drives belief.
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    RS_master God is a vague term. Because the prompt did not define god for this debate I assume we are speaking about god generally.  If we are speaking about god in general the most common similarity I see between how people define god is that it is the creator and or ruler of the universe. This definition does not contain enough information to determination any real consequence we would be able to observe if it where real. There for the lack of any evidence for god cannot be taken as evidence it doesn't exist. No current theory supported by evidence contradict this most vague definition. With no evidence supporting or contradicting gods exists there is no point in disusing gods existence. However some who believe in a god have more details in there definition which can be debated about through the use of evidence.
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    @Nope for any form of god there is no proof.
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    RS_master And only some definitions for god are contradicted by evidence. Some are not and can there for neither be proven or disproven and are there for irrelevant to me.
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    @Nope Theories excluding god have lots of proof whereas any form of god have no proof supporting them
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    I find the inherent logical contradiction in the concept of god as it is usually presented.

    First, consider this question: what does it mean for something to exist? Some philosophers believe that anything human mind has ever conceived of exists as a concept, and that existence is just as real as something material. However, we all understand what we mean when we say that, for example, minotaurs do not exist: we mean that they do not exist as physical entities in this Universe.
    In essence, for something tangible to exist, it must be a part of our Universe, or, equivalently, the nature.

    Now, the god is allegedly a supernatural being. See the problem here? The god cannot be a part of nature by definition of the word "supernatural", hence it cannot exist in principle. If it does exist and directly affects our Universe, then it must be a part of the "extended Universe" which is the true Universe, with what we currently define as the Universe being merely a subset of it.

    A supernatural being cannot exist in reality. A natural being can, but that is not what god traditionally is believed to be. If something natural that has created our observable Universe exists, then it is the creator, but not a god. If we live in a simulation, for example, then the beings running this simulation are not gods; they are a part of nature, and our simulated world is just running on their computer server - they are not supernatural beings, just like we are not supernatural beings when we play an RPG video game on our computers.

    As such, I have to conclude that god does not exist and cannot exist, unlike the traditional atheist stance that there is just no evidence suggesting that god exists, but it can, in theory, exist.

    Now, if you are asking about the existence of a creator of the observable Universe, or of some being we can never directly interact with, but that can induce changes in our Universe consciously - then that being can, in principle, exist. It would not be a god, but something else, though.
    Sand
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch