God does not exist. Prove me wrong. - Page 4 - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is a globally leading online debate platform that is transforming the online debating experience. DebateIsland enables anyone to civilly debate online, casually or formally, with five fun debating formats: Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas. With DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use, online debate website, users can debate politics, debate science, debate technology, debate news, and just about anything else in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free while improving your debating skills with the help of Artifical Intelligence on DebateIsland.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

God does not exist. Prove me wrong.

124


Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 956 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Vaulk

    The author did not state that "God does not exist" is a statement they argue. They asked people to prove this statement wrong. The implication obviously being that "You cannot prove that god does not exist", the argument religious people often use to argue in favor of god's existence, is a fallacious reasoning.
    Exactly how is it fallacious reasoning, may I ask?
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 956 Pts   -  
    RickeyD said:
    @SkepticalOne ; There are no contradictions; the Bible is not a science book; the "Source" for all Scripture is God the Holy Spirit. If you reject the Scriptures and you reject the Subject of the Scriptures, Jesus Christ, you will die in sin and lose your soul in Hell. God the Father will NOT permit your unrepentant sin to enter His Kingdom subsequent to the death of your body (Revelation 21:27); therefore, if you reject Jesus as your Mediator for your sin, you have no hope!  You must be "born again."


    Where is your evidence from? The Bible! Where did I ask you not to get your evidence from? The Bible!  :# You are not debating. You are preaching. This is a debate website, not an online community of preachers.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3435 Pts   -  
    xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

    Exactly how is it fallacious reasoning, may I ask?
    Inability to prove that something does not exist does not imply that it exists. Claiming that it does is a logical error, and reasoning built around such claim is fallacious.

    The OP turned this around by asking to prove the opposite: that the statement "god does not exist" is wrong. As expected, nobody has managed to prove it wrong, yet that did not lead religious people in this thread to conclude that, hereby, god does not exist.

    We can see that many religious people use this fallacy selectively. They are okay with taking statements they like as truth based on inability to prove them wrong, but statement they do not like that also cannot be proven wrong they dismiss as false. Clearly they are not after logic here, but only after protecting their sacred beliefs.
    Vaulk
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar They are but do know that there religion is not proof. The only proof they have is from the creator of their religion thus the proof is not reliable.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 956 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

    Exactly how is it fallacious reasoning, may I ask?
    Inability to prove that something does not exist does not imply that it exists. Claiming that it does is a logical error, and reasoning built around such claim is fallacious.

    The OP turned this around by asking to prove the opposite: that the statement "god does not exist" is wrong. As expected, nobody has managed to prove it wrong, yet that did not lead religious people in this thread to conclude that, hereby, god does not exist.

    We can see that many religious people use this fallacy selectively. They are okay with taking statements they like as truth based on inability to prove them wrong, but statement they do not like that also cannot be proven wrong they dismiss as false. Clearly they are not after logic here, but only after protecting their sacred beliefs.
    I don't think it is fallacious. If you are incapable of proving something, it doesn't mean it's necessarily false, but it does imply it is false. Claims are only valid if they can be proved. If you make a claim in a debate but do not prove it, the judges will deduct points from you because you have no proof.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3435 Pts   -   edited February 18
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Not at all. If what you said was true, then there would be statements that are simultaneously true and false. For example, I can make two mutually contradicting statements: "god exists" and "god does not exist". However, since I cannot prove either, by your assertion the implication is that both of these statements are false. However, it is impossible: if the first statement is false, then the second statement is true - hence, the second statement is fundamentally true and false.

    Truth and falsehood do not depend on one's ability or inability to prove them; they are just there regardless of our understanding of them. I think what you are referring to is burden of proof, which is a slightly different thing: it states that when someone makes a claim, it is up to them to prove it right, rather than up to their opponent to prove it wrong. However, it does not have anything to do with whether the claim itself fundamentally is true or not.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 956 Pts   -   edited February 18
    MayCaesar said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Not at all. If what you said was true, then there would be statements that are simultaneously true and false. For example, I can make two mutually contradicting statements: "god exists" and "god does not exist". However, since I cannot prove either, by your assertion the implication is that both of these statements are false. However, it is impossible: if the first statement is false, then the second statement is true - hence, the second statement is fundamentally true and false.

    Truth and falsehood do not depend on one's ability or inability to prove them; they are just there regardless of our understanding of them. I think what you are referring to is burden of proof, which is a slightly different thing: it states that when someone makes a claim, it is up to them to prove it right, rather than up to their opponent to prove it wrong. However, it does not have anything to do with whether the claim itself fundamentally is true or not.
    I am not saying that truth or falsity depends on whether you can prove it or not. I am only saying that whether you can prove something or not is usually a good indicator of whether it is true or not. Let's say I announce that planet Kepler-62f is made of cheese. I am not necessarily incorrect... it could be made of cheese. But the fact that I cannot prove it probably means I am incorrect.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3435 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    I think this is too strong a claim. If you cannot prove something, then, I suppose, I could say that you do not understand that something deep enough to prove it - and that is fine, otherwise why would you be interested in a discussion in the first place? - but it is not an indication that your claim is wrong. It really depends on the claim.

    I can say that no human has ever been able to fly like a bird by using just their naked bodies. I cannot prove it, since, to do that, I would have to go through the entire history of every single human that has ever walked this planet, and that is obviously impossible - however, there is a very high chance that I am correct, based on what we know about human physiology.

    Being unable to prove something does not in any way mean that that something is highly uncertain or likely to be wrong. It in itself merely says something about the nature of the statement.
    xlJ_dolphin_473Vaulk
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    I think it's worth mentioning on behalf of @xlJ_dolphin_473 that "I think" the point he's trying to get across is that if you cannot prove your point...then you essentially have no proof of your claim and therefor your claim warrants no merit in regards to consideration.  

    @MayCaesar is making an excellent point that a lack of proof does not equate to being wrong in your claim.  But @xlJ_dolphin_473
    has an excellent point too and that is that, within the rational mind, if your claim warrants suspicion and you cannot prove your claim...your claim generally is disregarded as being worthy of consideration.  It's not the same as being wrong but for the sake of the argument you really can't tell the difference between someone reacting to you being wrong vs reacting to you being unable to prove your point.
    xlJ_dolphin_473MayCaesar
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 956 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    I think this is too strong a claim. If you cannot prove something, then, I suppose, I could say that you do not understand that something deep enough to prove it - and that is fine, otherwise why would you be interested in a discussion in the first place? - but it is not an indication that your claim is wrong. It really depends on the claim.

    I can say that no human has ever been able to fly like a bird by using just their naked bodies. I cannot prove it, since, to do that, I would have to go through the entire history of every single human that has ever walked this planet, and that is obviously impossible - however, there is a very high chance that I am correct, based on what we know about human physiology.

    Being unable to prove something does not in any way mean that that something is highly uncertain or likely to be wrong. It in itself merely says something about the nature of the statement.
    In that case, you do have proof: that human anatomy would not allow for such a thing. It is, however, not definitive proof. My Kepler-62f claim has no proof whatsoever, definitive or otherwise.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 956 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    @MayCaesar

    I think it's worth mentioning on behalf of @xlJ_dolphin_473 that "I think" the point he's trying to get across is that if you cannot prove your point...then you essentially have no proof of your claim and therefor your claim warrants no merit in regards to consideration.  

    @MayCaesar is making an excellent point that a lack of proof does not equate to being wrong in your claim.  But @xlJ_dolphin_473
    has an excellent point too and that is that, within the rational mind, if your claim warrants suspicion and you cannot prove your claim...your claim generally is disregarded as being worthy of consideration.  It's not the same as being wrong but for the sake of the argument you really can't tell the difference between someone reacting to you being wrong vs reacting to you being unable to prove your point.
    I couldn't have said it better myself.
  • JesusisGod777888JesusisGod777888 185 Pts   -  
    God exists and proving you wrong isnt hard.

    I'm really tired of the notion and the lack of intelligence involved in the process of asserting that God is effected by a ludacrous statement.

    1. Human existence is de Novo

    Human existence or existence can not be infinitely and perpetually dependant on a series of causes 
    As existence and human existence must
    result from an initial cause. There can not be an infinite series of causes for human existence as humans would never begin to exist without God having existed.

    God's existence is not de Novo therefore God's existence is natural. 

    Anyone well studied in epistemology and ontology can easily understand two things immediately.

    God exists and God is Jesus Christ.

    The ontological quality of being or Human existence is fundamentally impossible without a creator with creative force.

    Science was the result of the assertion of epistemologys assumed failure  

    Science can not be an empirical means of study because it can not evaluate the cause of human existence.

    Theory and religion have the exact same meaning

    Deep contemplation or thought associated with origin 

    Science is a religion.

    Someone can be fundamentally certain evolution is false because of initial invariability and simply because 
    nothing can not

    Nothing can not be
    Nothing never was
    Nothing ever is

    This idea that God existence is illogical is .

    God's existence is fundamentally logical.

    Unitary arguments of existence fail miserably in the evaluation of their logical IMPROBABILITY.

    Something can not be improbable and possible.

    If I have no red beads in a bag the statistical probability of pulling a red beads out of a bag are 0.

    Nothing can become from a null condition.

    Religion is false 
    Evolution is a religion therefore evolution is false

    This is just a basic understanding that Jesus Christ God exists.

    God exists and it is self-evident because of a dependancy to exist.

    What is wrong with you people? How do you not understand?

    None of you have ever studied ontology, or epistemology to understand that God's existence is a necessity and as a necessity because we exist God Jesus Christ must exist. This is not rocket science 

     


    xlJ_dolphin_473RS_master
  • JesusisGod777888JesusisGod777888 185 Pts   -  
    Existence is a fundamentally dependant condition unless you have always existed.

    Which is to say existence is the result of the Initial existence and cause of every existence that is the result of God's  Jesus Christs creation
  • DeeDee 3000 Pts   -  
    @JesusisGod777888

    **** God's existence is not de Novo therefore God's existence is natural

    Your whole argument is riddled with fallacies and to be frank utter nonsense , regards your god claim .....

    One type of fallacy is special pleading. Special pleading involves a person applying rules and standards to others while exempting him- or herself. In addition, with special pleading, the person does not provide a logical reason for why he/she should be exempt from the rules or standards.

  • MattGouldMattGould 52 Pts   -  
    @RS_master Let me start off by saying that I am not religious, I am an agnostic individual. So with that being said, I think it is incredibly wrong to say just because we can't prove God doesn't exist then it means that he doesn't exist. Because, from my point of view if you then come to that conclusion that he doesn't exist, then your doing the exact same thing that religious people do. Which is that you are making absolute claim without much evidence to support your conclusion. Essentially, if no one can prove that god does exist, then it is also impossible to prove he doesn't exist. So, to say he doesn't exist is a illogical conclusion to make.  
    "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking...is freedom."-Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "It is not strange...to mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore

    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand

    "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater


  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    MattGould said:
    @RS_master Let me start off by saying that I am not religious, I am an agnostic individual. So with that being said, I think it is incredibly wrong to say just because we can't prove God doesn't exist then it means that he doesn't exist. Because, from my point of view if you then come to that conclusion that he doesn't exist, then your doing the exact same thing that religious people do. Which is that you are making absolute claim without much evidence to support your conclusion. Essentially, if no one can prove that god does exist, then it is also impossible to prove he doesn't exist. So, to say he doesn't exist is a illogical conclusion to make.  
    @MattGould There is proof that god does not exist and there are many theories about god not existing.
    xlJ_dolphin_473MattGould
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 956 Pts   -  
    MattGould said:
    @RS_master Let me start off by saying that I am not religious, I am an agnostic individual. So with that being said, I think it is incredibly wrong to say just because we can't prove God doesn't exist then it means that he doesn't exist. Because, from my point of view if you then come to that conclusion that he doesn't exist, then your doing the exact same thing that religious people do. Which is that you are making absolute claim without much evidence to support your conclusion. Essentially, if no one can prove that god does exist, then it is also impossible to prove he doesn't exist. So, to say he doesn't exist is a illogical conclusion to make.  
    @MattGould
    There is plenty of proof that God does not exist. There is however no proof for God existing.
    MattGould
  • MenashiMenashi 17 Pts   -  
    Let me ask you a question then: who created the rules did nature? How do you exist if there is no God? You were born, but who made the rules of how you are born? There comes the theory of our first grandparent is Adam according to the 3 religions. Who made the rules of how your body works? Why don't we have the ability of shooting fire from our fingers? Why do we die? Where do we go after we die? How the hell is the sky and planets created? The rules of how earth goes and comes and the fact that human imagination can be controlled proves there is God. But it all comes to how far you oppose what I'm saying thus I can only retort with possible explanations in the most logical form.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @Menashi There are no rules for our birth or planets. If there were how come we are all different? How come each planet comes with different shapes and sizes? Evolution and the big bang explain nicely.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    Menashi said:
    Let me ask you a question then: who created the rules did nature? How do you exist if there is no God? You were born, but who made the rules of how you are born? There comes the theory of our first grandparent is Adam according to the 3 religions. Who made the rules of how your body works? Why don't we have the ability of shooting fire from our fingers? Why do we die? Where do we go after we die? How the hell is the sky and planets created? The rules of how earth goes and comes and the fact that human imagination can be controlled proves there is God. But it all comes to how far you oppose what I'm saying thus I can only retort with possible explanations in the most logical form.
    @Menashi Another thing is over time life became more complicated and right now we do not have the complexity to shoot fire. The big bang and evolution explains it all.
  • MenashiMenashi 17 Pts   -  
    @RS_master big bang theory is true and it took place, but are you trying to tell me that is is the thing that caused those complicated art around us that we are living in right now? Do you know how much time it will take? Who created the biology and chemistry of our body? Why does our heart beat not move through out our bodies and why does it have that size and why do we look like that? Evolution is definitely true, but it is the evolution that God has created. That's how we were created in the first place and that's how God created us that we evolved that way. What about insects and other animals? And why don't we have one eye? The big bang theory took place because God was creating the universe. 
    I never said you're wrong, but you are taking your explanations from the middle of the road not from the very beginning, is what I'm trying to say.
  • MattGouldMattGould 52 Pts   -   edited March 8
    @RS_master what proof? What theories? Again I am not religious, but I find it hard to believe that if it’s impossible to prove god exists, that it’s then possible to prove he doesn’t. It’s just simple logic.
    "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking...is freedom."-Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "It is not strange...to mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore

    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand

    "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3435 Pts   -  
    @Menashi

    Very complicated systems can arise over time from complete chaos. And there has been a lot of time. It is hard for a human to imagine the timescales we are talking about, because of how negligible our own lifetime is compared to them. 

    Think about it this way... Imagine someone watching a movie about the Universe, from the beginning to its end, at a highly accelerated speed: 10,000 years in the Universe correspond to just 1 second of the movie. 
    In this movie, your life is less than 10 ms long; no commonly used video format is sufficient to register that even in one frame, so your life will not even appear in the movie. This is how brief it is on this scale.
    Do you know how long this movie is going to take to watch completely? Two and a half years.

    On such insane timescales almost anything imaginable can happen somewhere in the Universe. There is absolutely no need to introduce god into the equation.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 956 Pts   -  
    Menashi said:
    @RS_master big bang theory is true and it took place, but are you trying to tell me that is is the thing that caused those complicated art around us that we are living in right now? Do you know how much time it will take? Who created the biology and chemistry of our body? Why does our heart beat not move through out our bodies and why does it have that size and why do we look like that? Evolution is definitely true, but it is the evolution that God has created. That's how we were created in the first place and that's how God created us that we evolved that way. What about insects and other animals? And why don't we have one eye? The big bang theory took place because God was creating the universe. 
    I never said you're wrong, but you are taking your explanations from the middle of the road not from the very beginning, is what I'm trying to say.
    I think evolution is responsible for the answers to most of your questions: We do not have one eye because we evolved to have two. Our body evolved from simple cells. Our heart does not move through our bodies because, at some point, that was an evolutionary disadvantage.
    RS_master
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    MattGould said:
    @RS_master what proof? What theories? Again I am not religious, but I find it hard to believe that if it’s impossible to prove god exists, that it’s then possible to prove he doesn’t. It’s just simple logic.
    @MattGould There is proof that god does not exist. There are lots of theories like big bang yet others cannot find proof for god. P
    As I mentioned in previous arguments, proof is evidence. Evidence is required for belief. Proof drives belief. The theories have proof whereas for god there is no proof. Only from the one who wrote the book which is not that trustworthy. As proof drives belief I would believe in the theory which has greater proof which are the big bang or some other non-religious sub-theories.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • @RS_master ;
    There's proof GOD, god, or God exists. You just mispronounce the numbers 400, 11, and 500 as letters in your interpretation. Funny that the issue is about prejudice yet not all discrimination is addressed.  
  • 姜子牙姜子牙 18 Pts   -  
    Human always needs a thing to explain their surroundings, just like science. The word "God" was created because they need to explain why they are here, it's like those Chinese old stories, we are created by our "God", or else what will explain where do they come from at that time? It's just related to where you grow up with. If I put you in a simulation when you firstborn you are taught that "the highness Butts" give you life, and we should serve him, everyone around you believe that and you are grown up with that, do you think you can possibly found out that there is no "the highness Butts"?@RS_master
    RealityManifestation
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @RS_master ;
    There's proof GOD, god, or God exists. You just mispronounce the numbers 400, 11, and 500 as letters in your interpretation. Funny that the issue is about prejudice yet not all discrimination is addressed.  
    @John_C_87 I already showed your logic is flawed. If I use T, U and G for example. T - (U+G) = x. First of all in algebra when terms are next to each other they are simply multiplied. Secondly, you cannot assign terms random numerical values. Finally, how does this flawed logic prove god?
  • Neopesdom said:
    @RS_master ;Since the age of 5 I was asking does god exist? They kept saying yes and who created science? I said Who created god? no reply.

    In christianity we live by faith, not by proof. 

    Now faith is [the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

    "For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see?"  (Romans 8:24)

    hope
    ἐλπίδι (elpidi)
    Noun - Dative Feminine Singular
    Strong's Greek 1680:  Hope, expectation, trust, confidence. From a primary elpo; expectation or confidence.

    God is not looking to prove Himself to you. Can you think of a reason why that would be the case?

    The claim "God is not looking to prove Himself to you. Can you think of a reason why that would be the case?" is not a fair argument. To prove the existence of God, a form of consciousness must experience it is some sense, or else it is not reasonable to assume it's reality. Without reasoning, we can not simply make a claim about reality, if that were the case anything could be or mean anything. one of the most criticized Philosophies of all time was solipsism.

    From Wikipedia: "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind."

    This philosophy is very similar to your claim as it is essentially a postulation based on something that does not correlate to reality, therefore it is neither provable nor improvable, so it should simply be regarded as irrational.

    It is both an impossible and unfair argument.

    I do not strictly believe the idea of God itself is impossible, but it must be proven in a better fashion.
  • RS_master said:
    John_C_87 said:
    @RS_master ;
    There's proof GOD, god, or God exists. You just mispronounce the numbers 400, 11, and 500 as letters in your interpretation. Funny that the issue is about prejudice yet not all discrimination is addressed.  
    @John_C_87 I already showed your logic is flawed. If I use T, U and G for example. T - (U+G) = x. First of all in algebra when terms are next to each other they are simply multiplied. Secondly, you cannot assign terms random numerical values. Finally, how does this flawed logic prove god?

    First, you are trying to show the evidence is flawed, not logic to the evidence. In this case, GOD is not religious. It is nothing more than a translation to the number like done in algebra to the number eighty-nine. We are solving G, O, and D for value eighty-nine in the sense of algebra.  You either want, and can, or want and can't, won’t be equal to can't understand the evidence by grievance asked for. Refusing to understand logic is not the same as there is no logic to understand.

    Second, the assignment of terms is not relevant to the evidence. How this evidence proves in value of God is by use of exposing a human prejudice created by instruction in the process of growing and learning. Instructed now that God is not only what is just said a reasonable person must believe God is not always what is told. God has never been only what we had been instructed it may be, this is a cause for the warnings of false interpretation. 

    A person can be conflicted in accepting how something so simple as a number as axiom can be considered a source of power is not the obstacle to learning the evidence placed before us. Hear what it is, then it is you who will be made to appear prejudice when not openly admit as a witness you cannot always tell the difference between the letters G O D, and the numbers G O D unless they are translated in a use some way.

    Can you tell them apart right now? GOD/ and /GOD.

    I can’t, and I wrote them down for both of us. You could guess? but you need to do more as the witness under this condition, a witness must be capable to instruct others to do the same. The problem to reason is made clear when you said If I use different letters as an example. You are saying a translation must be made by you to become a credible witness. GOD/ and / TUG as eighty-nine make me look more credible as a witness.

    Yes, the use of law stripped the religious God from even an Executive officer as President, but the united state of the constitutional separation simply set it aside until a service vowed to had been oath to President was fulfilled.
  • @姜子牙

    I completely agree. The issue we are facing is the fact that many are not debating to find a solution, but already have a preset solution as they were taught these things very early as a child. True philosophers should question everything they have been taught, even if that means arriving at a conclusion that isn't always comforting or corresponding to the exact cultural and religious beliefs they had. I'm not necessarily putting down the entire idea of god, I do believe in some form god is possible, but it must be proven.
  • @TKDB

     TKDB said:
    Being that this is the internet, you're going to get two types of answers;

    The anti religious point of view answer.

    And the religious point of view answer.

    Religion based questions, are just as popular as the political based questions are.

    God exists, Jesus exists, the Bible exists, and the religious buildings exists.

    And millions of people around the globe, go to a mass, or a religious service weekly, of all ages.

    I view the question, from the existence of those happenings.

    Because unless an anti religious person has a time machine, and can go back to the time when Jesus walked the face of this earth, and can say conclusively with their own eyes, that they didn't see him, with the help of that time machine?

    Then the religious answer, is just as good, as the, anti religious answer is.

    Ok, to begin my argument I would like to address your claim about Jesus. Jesus does not represent the whole spectrum of religion, so by going back in time and seeing Jesus, I would not be assisting in the favor of the religious point of view, just simply the Christian one. Second I would like to address the fact that I do believe Jesus could have existed, but that still does not prove that God is real, it simply proves that Jesus was alive, how do we know he was a God at all. I would also like to mention that simply because many individuals do something does not mean its true or "good".
  • tobythetonetobythetone 20 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    The simplest response I can think of for your question is that without doubt evil is real and only present in humans.
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 94 Pts   -  
    @RealityManifestation

    >>To prove the existence of God, a form of consciousness must experience it is some sense, or else it is not reasonable to assume it's reality.

      Philosophically speaking there can be no such thing as absolute proof. Our senses can be deceived or manipulated. How do we know what we perceive is true reality or an illusion, we are not all knowing. Millions saw David Copperfield walk through the great wall of China or make things vanish before their eyes and while on camera. How can we trust what is being presented to us as being real or true. To some people only what they perceive as tangible or measurable is real. Others believe that there is an ultimate spiritual reality and what those in physical form perceive is the construct. If a figure bathed in a great white light came to someone and claimed to be God, what would make them think that it might be not be some other supernatural being or highly advanced alien or maybe just some man made deception. All this situation would tell someone is that there is something going on beyond their present understanding.

    Scientific Proof Is A Myth
    You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

    Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#42fbdbed2fb1

    The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception. - Albert Einstein

    Truth, Sir, is a cow, that will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull. - Quoted in  James Boswell  The Life of Samuel Johnson
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 956 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom
    Yes, it is indeed impossible to prove everything to 100%. But even if you only have 95% proof, it is still proof. Just not definitive proof. The proof on the side of theists is 0%, and it does not matter that the Big Bang theory does not have 100%, when it is vastly better than the theistic alternative. I rest my case.
  • RealityManifestationRealityManifestation 27 Pts   -   edited April 8
    @Neopesdom

    >>To some people only what they perceive as tangible or measurable is real. Others believe that there is an ultimate spiritual reality and what those in physical form perceive is the construct. If a figure bathed in a great white light came to someone and claimed to be God, what would make them think that it might be not be some other supernatural being or highly advanced alien or maybe just some man made deception.

    The issue with your argument is as such. You can't simply arrive at the conclusion that reality itself in any sense is improbable because everybody experiences different observations on what constructs reality. You explained how scientific proof was not a constant, it is everchanging and evolves over time to disprove and prove certain things we as humans believed our universe functioned with. The issue is the conclusion you arrived at essentially rendered the universe inconsistent and unknowable, but I have a much more realistic proposition.

    If we take a look at people, many have opposing beliefs on religion or spirituality, but all people at some level feel the materialistic world with their senses. To assume reality is comprised of a spiritual or religious entity is an unfair argument as it does not correlate to reality directly. One can not simply create an artificial cause and then expect it the materialistic world to be its effect, there is no correlation. On the other hand scientific evidence does not derive from a chosen human belief, it derives from our impartial human observations that describe our universe, and statistically, our mathematical and scientific propositions about our future directly correspond to our materialistic reality. A good example of this would be the prediction of the abundance of black hole's in 1974, a true photograph of a black was not seen until 2019. We as humans use our current senses to describe our future ones we may experience in this universe, and it functions. To quote Albert Einstein, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." This meaning that even if the universe was nothing but an illusion, it still must abide to Physical rules and boundaries.

    I suppose scientific proof may not be a myth after all.
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 94 Pts   -  
    @RealityManifestation

    >>
    If we take a look at people, many have opposing beliefs on religion or spirituality, but all people at some level feel the materialistic world with their senses. To assume reality is comprised of a spiritual or religious entity is an unfair argument as it does not correlate to reality directly. 

      In reality, without a designer, science is unable to explain the most fundamental questions on how life started and why. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the atheistic worldview. There is no theist vs science division, it is an illusion created by desperate materialists attempting to validate a weak position due to a lack of materialistic evidence. Many scientists are indeed creationists and are this because of what they have observed from "reality". In nature we do not observe things coming from nothing, things have a cause and effect. That which moves and that which causes it to move. Am I to assume reality just randomly came into being? That goes against everything that science teaches. In fact there is so little evidence to support the random chance conclusion that some have had to come up with things like directed panspermia.

    Directed panspermia is the deliberate transport of microorganisms in space to be used as introduced species on lifeless but habitable astronomical objects. Historically, Shklovskii and Sagan and Crick and Orgel hypothesized that life on the Earth may have been seeded deliberately by other civilizations. 

    I don't know about you, but replacing one designer with another and claiming unfair argument is completely disingenuous, but this is exactly what is commonly put forth by leading atheists, that then go on to treat themselves as they are beyond reproach. 

    "The fact remains, however, that in published books and journals today, many detailed and sophisticated discussions of factual data exit for both sides of the age issue. Some seek to establish great age, whereas others show the earth , comets, and moon to be less than 10,000 years in age. The interpretation of these observed data hinges solidly on the concepts of truth led by investigators, not the facts themselves. Faith commitments to either human reason or Biblical revelation influence what hypotheses are considered and how data is accepted or rejected. This author sees the evidence for a young earth as overwhelmingly compelling, but many have such faith in particular arguments for great age that young-earth evidence is dismissed as erroneous." - Jeremy I. Walter B.S., M.S., Ph.D

    >>I suppose scientific proof may not be a myth after all.

    Suppositions aside, the problem is not "scientific proof", but the mythological conclusions that are drawn from the data.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • @Neopesdom ;

    All this situation would tell someone is that there is something going on beyond their present understanding.

    That is not all and the situation tells us more. Somethings are not just beyond our present understanding, we have an ability to refuse to understand as well.

  • RealityManifestationRealityManifestation 27 Pts   -   edited April 14



  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    The simplest response I can think of for your question is that without doubt evil is real and only present in humans.
    @tobythetone First of all that is irrelevant to this topic. If evil exists then how does that prove god? By nature some humans are evil and have the wrong mindset/attitude. That is true ✔ but I will repeat that it is irrelevant.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    RS_master said:
    John_C_87 said:
    @RS_master ;
    There's proof GOD, god, or God exists. You just mispronounce the numbers 400, 11, and 500 as letters in your interpretation. Funny that the issue is about prejudice yet not all discrimination is addressed.  
    @John_C_87 I already showed your logic is flawed. If I use T, U and G for example. T - (U+G) = x. First of all in algebra when terms are next to each other they are simply multiplied. Secondly, you cannot assign terms random numerical values. Finally, how does this flawed logic prove god?

    First, you are trying to show the evidence is flawed, not logic to the evidence. In this case, GOD is not religious. It is nothing more than a translation to the number like done in algebra to the number eighty-nine. We are solving G, O, and D for value eighty-nine in the sense of algebra.  You either want, and can, or want and can't, won’t be equal to can't understand the evidence by grievance asked for. Refusing to understand logic is not the same as there is no logic to understand.

    Second, the assignment of terms is not relevant to the evidence. How this evidence proves in value of God is by use of exposing a human prejudice created by instruction in the process of growing and learning. Instructed now that God is not only what is just said a reasonable person must believe God is not always what is told. God has never been only what we had been instructed it may be, this is a cause for the warnings of false interpretation. 

    A person can be conflicted in accepting how something so simple as a number as axiom can be considered a source of power is not the obstacle to learning the evidence placed before us. Hear what it is, then it is you who will be made to appear prejudice when not openly admit as a witness you cannot always tell the difference between the letters G O D, and the numbers G O D unless they are translated in a use some way.

    Can you tell them apart right now? GOD/ and /GOD.

    I can’t, and I wrote them down for both of us. You could guess? but you need to do more as the witness under this condition, a witness must be capable to instruct others to do the same. The problem to reason is made clear when you said If I use different letters as an example. You are saying a translation must be made by you to become a credible witness. GOD/ and / TUG as eighty-nine make me look more credible as a witness.

    Yes, the use of law stripped the religious God from even an Executive officer as President, but the united state of the constitutional separation simply set it aside until a service vowed to had been oath to President was fulfilled.
    @John_C_87 We are in this same circle. How do you get 89? The mathematics in itself is flawed. New signs are coming and letters are transforming into numbers. That is fallacious and incorrect.
  • @RS_master ;

    It is a product of a much larger result in an old theorem that has no zero, a theorem can be used as an axiom. A theorem has rules and is not self-evident, your question is misleading as the number eighty-nine is not the point to the ability to witness a difference between a word GOD, or a number GOD? All we need know, you and I, eighty-nine is a real number and has real purposes, eighty-nine can be written with letters and not with numbers if we so chose. It is self-evident they are impossible to tell apart, GOD & GOD, as the same letters are used in the same order and it is the underlaid way which is changed by rule? The rule does not need to be prejudice and in this case, is not prejudice.

    We are not trapped in a circle, we are going forward and backward over the same area of misunderstanding and understanding. It needs to be repeated due to a complexity that exists in theorem overshadowing the self-evident reasoning in truth by equal representation.

    There is no fallacy there is only a guess. Which is a word (a) GOD or ( b) GOD?
    RS_master
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @RS_master ;

    It is a product of a much larger result in an old theorem that has no zero, a theorem can be used as an axiom. A theorem has rules and is not self-evident, your question is misleading as the number eighty-nine is not the point to the ability to witness a difference between a word GOD, or a number GOD? All we need know, you and I, eighty-nine is a real number and has real purposes, eighty-nine can be written with letters and not with numbers if we so chose. It is self-evident they are impossible to tell apart, GOD & GOD, as the same letters are used in the same order and it is the underlaid way which is changed by rule? The rule does not need to be prejudice and in this case, is not prejudice.

    We are not trapped in a circle, we are going forward and backward over the same area of misunderstanding and understanding. It needs to be repeated due to a complexity that exists in theorem overshadowing the self-evident reasoning in truth by equal representation.

    There is no fallacy there is only a guess. Which is a word (a) GOD or ( b) GOD?
    It is a guess with some algebraic principals wrong. 
    1. If you want it to be like that you would do G - (O+D) and you said GOD.
        Even if statement 2 was not there GOD would equate to 400 x 11 x 500 or 2,200,000 and not 89.
    2. You cannot assign G = 500, O = 400 and D = 11. Where are they from? What if G was 302
    3. Assuming 1 and 2 wasn't there how does 89 proof god?
    4. Assuming 1 and 2 were not there how does an equation with letters G, O and D prove god? 
  • @RS_master ;
    It is a guess....It will always be a guess.
    It is a fixed equation outside the scope of instructed algebra.

    302 is not part of a theorem without zero. It is a product of other values inside the theorem only. How does it prove GOD? You're asking the wrong question because this demonstrates the existence of tangible. 
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 Lets choose 312 instead of 302. You admitted it was a guess. You are not proving. You said I am asking the wrong question by asking how does this prove god. Doesn`t that mean that all your arguments on this forum were irrelavent?
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • Okay, your choice is (a) this will be the one that plagiarized the GOD (b) by changing the numbers to 312. What are you proving by tampering with evidence? Are you trying to prove Authority?

    Let's save time and just choose not to learn then there is no shared belief and the idea of no GOD is then a religion. We are changing the nature of the evidence, not the point we will still need to guess what exists and what does not. There is no admission of a guess if you are to be a Christian, or Jewish and choose to change GOD to what suits the shared belief you hold. It is the liberty you take on what was existing. You pick (a). You pick (b). You have already said GOD does not exist.

    There I was, just counting along with a theorem that has no zero, when I reached # 89 ( GOD), and because you feel writing eight numbers, as three letters, to create two numbers with only two letters is a waste of time. You decide that three numbers and three letters are simply better. Is your religion now born? The overall work of the theorem is to be sacrificed not for improvement, not for progress, but to suit a religion as a state of publicly shared belief. All that was admitted by me is that you are not a judge to the substance of a theorem without a zero. You are not making your choice (a) or (b). Instead, you must resolve your self to make my choice.

  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 I am not proving authority. I am finding flaws in your arguments.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -   edited April 18
    @John_C_87 The idea of no god is a religion but with actual scientific proof and evidence unlike the ones with god. In fact the ones with god have scientific evidence against them.
  • It is a belief of scientific alienation removing or tampering with proof to try and stop a representation. There is no flaw as I still cannot see a difference between GOD and GOD, yes you are changing the number of results and still have no way to describe them as not GOD as they remain letters. The issue of changes to evidence is just now also a question of harm due to the change of value. An added burden is on the person making a changer to stop a link to the number as a process of theorem principle creating a series of numbers with no zero. Explain why there is a need for any change as you still do not now say (a) was not your answer. I have no doubt I still know the theorem that you do not.

    Using science to narrow representation is not proving a lack of evidence. I did not make the numbers up, I simply located and take numbers from an investigation of history. There is an instruction that can be given to others establishing this fact. My work is not to preserve religion by sharing a belief, there is only evidence, fact, and truth. You are committing the very thing you accuse me of and that is all. Saying I must be doing the same as you. The numbers as value are not important in substantiating wrong it is the inability to witness, see, then translate a difference in a line-up. (a) GOD, GOD (b) one is your number the other religion.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2020 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch