God does not exist. Prove me wrong. - Page 5 - 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.


Communities

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.

1235»


Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    There is a clear mathematical flaw! @john_C_87 ; Do you not get that you assigned random values and brought random operations to the table?
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    RS_master said:
    There is a clear mathematical flaw! @john_C_87 ; Do you not get that you assigned random values and brought random operations to the table?
    It seems that @John_C_87 has ignored your argument. Nevermind...
  • RS_master said:
    There is a clear mathematical flaw! @john_C_87 ; Do you not get that you assigned random values and brought random operations to the table?
    It seems that @John_C_87 has ignored your argument. Nevermind...

    https://www.livescience.com/32052-roman-numerals.html

    You are saying I assigned values and not found values already assigned to letters. A found a basic principle of mathematics in a numerical system and applied it to the values associated together by religions as having some importance.


    So, one I did not, in fact, chose the letters.

    So, two I did not, in fact, chose the combination of letters.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    RS_master said:
    There is a clear mathematical flaw! @john_C_87 ; Do you not get that you assigned random values and brought random operations to the table?
    It seems that @John_C_87 has ignored your argument. Nevermind...

    https://www.livescience.com/32052-roman-numerals.html

    You are saying I assigned values and not found values already assigned to letters. A found a basic principle of mathematics in a numerical system and applied it to the values associated together by religions as having some importance.


    So, one I did not, in fact, chose the letters.

    So, two I did not, in fact, chose the combination of letters.

    Associated together by religions?
    Sorry, what?
    It makes no sense to mix religions with maths, and come to an arbitrary conclusion.
  • @xiJ_dilphin_473

    Associated together by religions?
    Sorry, what?

    It makes no sense to mix religions with maths, and come to an arbitrary conclusion.

    What does not make any sense is taking all this effort to maintain the definition of three symbols as only letters under all conditions. After admitting an understanding that the symbols can be used in math.  The only arbitrary conclusion is yours as I am simply explaining different results by changing the basic understanding of symbols that are often taken for granted by the principle of spelling words.








  • SESMeTSESMeT 25 Pts   -  
    I also don't believe in God and have arguments against his existence.

    But I think that the "If God exists then who created God?" argument is an unsound one .... because one of the premises is that everything requires a cause when that isn't sound. A better premise would be that everything requires a cause except for the first cause or first mover. And God is a type of first cause or first mover so it makes no sense to ask what caused, moved, or, indeed, created him. 
    RS_master
    1. If Libertarian Free Will exists then we are the Ultimate Cause of Ourselves.
    2. But we're not the Ultimate Cause of Ourselves.
    3. Therefore, Libertarian Free Will does not exist.

    1. If Consciousness is real then illusionism is false.
    2. Consciousness is real.
    3. Therefore, illusionism is false.

    1. With regards to consciousness, either  (a) Radical emergence is true, (b) Dualism is true or (c) Panpsychism is true.
    3. (a) and (b) are false.
    4. Therefore, Panpsychism is true.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    SESMeT said:
    I also don't believe in God and have arguments against his existence.

    But I think that the "If God exists then who created God?" argument is an unsound one .... because one of the premises is that everything requires a cause when that isn't sound. A better premise would be that everything requires a cause except for the first cause or first mover. And God is a type of first cause or first mover so it makes no sense to ask what caused, moved, or, indeed, created him. 
    @SESMeT
    This makes no sense either. If everything is subject to an infinite regression; that is to say that something has to have caused it, why should God be immune to this regression? What makes God a first mover? You say that God is a type of first cause or first mover, but this is simply what the theologists who study the Bible would have you believe. There is no evidence.
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    Science can no more prove the elusive "God Particle" exists than it can prove or disprove the existence of God. 
    RS_master
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @marke There is actual scientific evidence for god not existing and there is none in favour of god.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -   edited July 30
    marke said:
    Science can no more prove the elusive "God Particle" exists than it can prove or disprove the existence of God. 
    @marke
     If you are speaking of the Higgs Boson, I proudly inform you that it was discovered on the 4th of July 2012 at a speed of approximately 120 GeV.
    RS_master
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    RS_master said:
    There is a clear mathematical flaw! @john_C_87 ; Do you not get that you assigned random values and brought random operations to the table?
    It seems that @John_C_87 has ignored your argument. Nevermind...

    https://www.livescience.com/32052-roman-numerals.html

    You are saying I assigned values and not found values already assigned to letters. A found a basic principle of mathematics in a numerical system and applied it to the values associated together by religions as having some importance.


    So, one I did not, in fact, chose the letters.

    So, two I did not, in fact, chose the combination of letters.
    G and O are not roman numerals.
    xlJ_dolphin_473Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    Failure to apprehend or comprehend God is not proof that God does not exist.
    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473RS_master
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    They think maybe they found what they were looking for, but are not positive they have.

    Yet, the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism remains among the least-understood phenomena in the Standard Model. Indeed, while scientists have dropped the “-like” suffix and have understood the Higgs boson remarkably since its discovery, they still do not know if what was observed is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model.

    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @marke If you cannot prove god then god does not exist. God will never exist until there is some scientific evidence. For something to exist, there must be scientific evidence that it exists. Examples: Scientific evidence that the sun exists is that we can see the sun and sunlight heats up Earth and there is much more evidence... Evidence that the moon exists is observation, tides, we actually went to the moon...  evidence for Earth not being flat is that there is a horizon, the earth is tilted and the moon has gravity, you can see certain stars from only certain points in Earth e.g North star is only visible from the northern hemisphere... 

    I believe aliens exist because the scientific evidence is the drake equation. Some people do not because they think that the drake equation is not enough evidence. 

    My conclusion: You need atleast 2 or 3 pieces of scientific evidence to know for sure that anything exists. If there are atleast evidences proving it and not proving it then the side with more evidence is more likely to be true. There is more than 3 pieces of scientific evidence disproving gods existance and 0 scientific evidence proving god.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    That is not true.  You do not have to be able to see a human soul before believing all human reasoning is done by the human soul or spirit, not by ignorant chemicals or electrical impulses.  Also, claiming God cannot possibly exist if you cannot see him is ridiculous.


  • DeeDee 3001 Pts   -  
    @marke

    That is not true.  You do not have to be able to see a human soul before believing all human reasoning is done by the human soul or spirit, not by ignorant chemicals or electrical impulses. 


    Prove a soul exists 

    Also, claiming God cannot possibly exist if you cannot see him is ridiculous.

    So you  believe in fairies as it’s ridiculous not to right ? That’s what you’re saying right ?
  • RS_master said:
    John_C_87 said:
    RS_master said:
    There is a clear mathematical flaw! @john_C_87 ; Do you not get that you assigned random values and brought random operations to the table?
    It seems that @John_C_87 has ignored your argument. Nevermind...

    https://www.livescience.com/32052-roman-numerals.html

    You are saying I assigned values and not found values already assigned to letters. A found a basic principle of mathematics in a numerical system and applied it to the values associated together by religions as having some importance.


    So, one I did not, in fact, chose the letters.

    So, two I did not, in fact, chose the combination of letters.
    G and O are not roman numerals.
    Correct, there are not common Roman Numerals taught to the Roman republic for the letters G and O. Yet! again, you support the principle of religion over truth in general as the numbers are to be popular to be seen as real? Shared belief, religion is public shared belief and not simply an observable reason to insure doubt with words alone like GOD. Diety must be only part of the more demanding public shared public belief systems? Hardly. The Roman numeral system as a principle within it that need not be proven to only be used with easy values as letters established the general accounting of the Roman empire. Also, keep in mind some records of great importance had been restricted from recordings in writing to be understood by slave and noble alike, conditions made specifically to control the use of those principles.

    A second reason for not documenting or talking to others about the axiom explained to me in the late 1960s when it was re-laid to me, placed down by speech in an open public lecture. Danger the main reason not to mention or openly talk about the idea of Axiom of GOD was given, as people insisting for many reasons, God should only be a religion and have proven themselves to be dangerous, reckless and ruthless in those pursuits. These types of people are not limited to being only the church follower in general. They include the highly educated people who profit greatly from the complex legislations written around the ideas of the religious sermon using mass appeal to the public. 

    Maybe it is the boundary of this forum never written down which has some clue as to what is taking place.  No GOD shall exist but only because religion by the representation of people has political powers, true and corrupt.
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Try proving your thoughts are a product of unlearned chemical or electrical forces and not a product of the abilities given by God to live forms which are not dependent on chance chemical reactions or ignorant electrical impulses.
  • DeeDee 3001 Pts   -   edited August 4
    @marke



    Try proving your thoughts are a product of unlearned chemical or electrical forces and not a product of the abilities given by God to live forms which are not dependent on chance chemical reactions or ignorant electrical impulses.


    I don’t have to prove anything Science has that sorted , ......whats ‘unlearned chemical forces ‘? What are ‘ ignorant electticsl impulses’? 

    Anything you don’t comprehend you just assert “godidit” it’s childish and pretty silly really 



    Godidit! is a catch phrase coined by critical thinkers to illustrate the theist notion that anything they don't understand, is obviously the result of God. The term is used as a general excuse for the unknown
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Humans either desire to do what is right or they desire to do things that are wrong in spite of the fact that when they do wrong they hurt others.  Those who hurt others by doing wrong and yet have pleasure in that wrong will not come to God in repentance seeking forgiveness for that sin, which is why they end up in hell.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Humans either desire to do what is right or they desire to do things that are wrong in spite of the fact that when they do wrong they hurt others.  Those who hurt others by doing wrong and yet have pleasure in that wrong will not come to God in repentance seeking forgiveness for that sin, which is why they end up in hell.
    Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Where do morals come from?
  • I don’t have to prove anything Science has that sorted,

    We need only prove one thing was/is in this instance God a description of personal religion or not? This the topic open for objective reasons held independent for our scrutiny with a lie. These types of actions are not fake news they are a public test. The rooms truthful title would have been something like My God does not exist, prove me wrong. It is not written this way why? The attention-getter then does not support civil litigation filed against the axiom of GOD already in place, civil litigation with a settlement awarding money as it had been associated to organized crime self-incriminates. In the ethics of any practice of law, it is job hazard in constitutional preservation it is malpractice until questions are separated by an impartial jury.
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    Like God, the secular godless big bang theory cannot be disproven.
    RS_master
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    marke said:
    @MayCaesar

    Like God, the secular godless big bang theory cannot be disproven.
    Are you saying god cannot be disproven? Have you even read my comments? @marke
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    Like God, the secular godless big bang theory cannot be disproven.

    Nobody has scientific instruments which could detect God if He were there or prove He is not there if He is real.

  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -   edited August 28
    Before the big bang, there was no time. No time for any god to create the universe. If there was a god, what purpose would he have? @marke
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    @RS_master ;
    My conclusion: You need atleast 2 or 3 pieces of scientific evidence to know for sure that anything exists. If there are atleast evidences proving it and not proving it then the side with more evidence is more likely to be true. There is more than 3 pieces of scientific evidence disproving gods existance and 0 scientific evidence proving god.
    How many different scientific proofs are needed to establish as a scientific fact that molecules, atoms, and atomic particles somehow just miraculously appeared out of nowhere from nothing with no help from anybody?

  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    I will give you a task to look up what quantum fluctuation is. In fact here are a few links to help you:
    http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm
    https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/quantum-fluctuations-may-kill-big-bang-evangelism/
    This is I would say enough evidence. More than the amount of evidence disproving it.
    @marke
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    This is I would say enough evidence. More than the amount of evidence disproving it.

    What does this science prove?  That matter and energy suddenly just appeared from nowhere with no help?  No, it certainly does not prove that.  Such speculation borders on the mythical.

  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @marke You should know what a quantum fluctuation is... Look it up. Your results may show that quantum fluctuations are where particles appear out of nothing from a vacuum. Feel free to read the links.marke said:
    This is I would say enough evidence. More than the amount of evidence disproving it.

    What does this science prove?  That matter and energy suddenly just appeared from nowhere with no help?  No, it certainly does not prove that.  Such speculation borders on the mythical.

    The big bang follows on from there.

    I struggle to believe that this science is mythical. 
  • markemarke 376 Pts   -  
    @RS_master

    I tried twice to answer your posts but my replies would not register, so I give up.
  • MeLesterMeLester 17 Pts   -  
    @RS_master     I’ll answer, no one created God, he invented creation.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    marke said:
    @RS_master

    That is not true.  You do not have to be able to see a human soul before believing all human reasoning is done by the human soul or spirit, not by ignorant chemicals or electrical impulses.  Also, claiming God cannot possibly exist if you cannot see him is ridiculous.
     There is no evidence for the soul existing, therefore I don’t believe it exists.
    It’s that simple.
    @marke
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -   edited September 17
    MeLester said:
    @RS_master     I’ll answer, no one created God, he invented creation.
    @MeLester I am sorry but that argument just does not make sense. 
    "No one created god"
    1. I fail to believe that. Give me some kind of beginning. The funny thing is that everything had a start. Even in some religions, they say that the universe started. They also say that life started. The one thing that religion cannot say about starting is where did god start i he existed?
    2.  God does not exist. Before the universe, there was no time for god to create the universe. Time and space started after the universe was created.

  • JungaDunoJungaJungaDunoJunga 34 Pts   -  
    Define Exist.  @RS_master

    God exist, because it was created by people. Most reference in literature, and history is to God itself.  If God does not exist, nothing does.
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    @JungaDunoJunga Hold on a second, you have missed something. How did you get to the conclusion that, "If god does not exist then nothing doesWhere are the reasons? You just avoided logic because you don't have something lociacal. Please give me an answer with logical explanations.
    Thanks

  • JungaDunoJungaJungaDunoJunga 34 Pts   -  
    The logic is very clear. How do you define exist? It's a philisophical question.
    I gave you an example of exist, "because it was created by people". Another example of exist, "Most reference in literature, and history is to God itself."
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    The logic is very clear. How do you define exist? It's a philisophical question.
    I gave you an example of exist, "because it was created by people". Another example of exist, "Most reference in literature, and history is to God itself."
    @JungaDunoJunga I wonder why you think that that logic is clear... Are you saying literature is true? Are you saying fiction is true? Are you saying that we are invaded by aliens?
  • JungaDunoJungaJungaDunoJunga 34 Pts   -  
    Since you lack defintion of existence. I came up, with a form of definition. If we agree to define existence in such terms, my argument is very logical.

    "Are you saying literature is true? Are you saying fiction is true? Are you saying that we are invaded by aliens?"
    Your argument does not follow, slippery slope. I did't make such assertions, I simply attributed references to existance of cultural norms, not the physical norms. 
  • RS_masterRS_master 384 Pts   -  
    Since you lack defintion of existence. I came up, with a form of definition. If we agree to define existence in such terms, my argument is very logical.

    "Are you saying literature is true? Are you saying fiction is true? Are you saying that we are invaded by aliens?"
    Your argument does not follow, slippery slope. I did't make such assertions, I simply attributed references to existance of cultural norms, not the physical norms. 
    @JungaDunoJunga Just because something is in literature, it does not exist. "References to existences," are not always correct (especially from a reference which defies science).
  • I've already proven Jesus is God, so this debate's been over a long time ago. 
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    I've already proven Jesus is God, so this debate's been over a long time ago. 
    Are you saying that God has been proven? Have you even read my and @RS_master's comments?
  • JungaDunoJungaJungaDunoJunga 34 Pts   -  
    @JesusistheonlyGod777

    What about other religions that claim Jesus is not?
    What about the fact that Jesus was a Jew, trained to be a Rabbi? (Was also attributed by the romans to be King of the Jews)

    Also Jesus is god is not even agreed-upon definition by Christians.  Is Jesus a God? Son of God? How can be both? 
    Why do different Sects de-emphasise Jesus in favor of Mary? Or de-emphasise Jesus as a person, and look at Jesus from Spiritual perspective.  

    There are too many definitions, not everyone can agree upon. Also know as Cherry Picking, Pick the defintion you like the most, and go with it.
    JesusistheonlyGod777
  • I don't care about religions. I've already posted that religions source etymology is threskia: opnokia; from greek theurgy, from greek goetia.

    as a genetive source etymology, the genetive meaning and definition of religion is sorcery.

    greek papyrus: historilogical records written by practitioners of heka, egypts religion:

    "The pantheon consists of the demons of the underworld, and satan" pg. 1, f#@# egypt.

    it goes on to say the ankh is a symbol associated with the underworld, used to summon satan.

    the veda's and the upanishads state that the nava graha: pali sanskrit for demon are the entirety of the religious pantheon therefore because they state they are demons it's obvious they are f@ggots like the rest of those who practice imaginary sorcery.

    infernal satanic quran states the demon allah is the star serius and based on the semetic root, or the adjad, the semetic system of writing allah translates to satan from arabic in Hebrew, arawhores parent language.

    all other religions depict satan, the pentagram and the number 666, all of you are going to hell.

    satanic literature makes it obvious, and states:

    make sure to lie about the History surrounding Jesus Christ the God of
    Heaven.

    make sure to send people to hell, and make sure to lie about religion.

    so f
    U
    C
    K
    what people say, you all lie through your teeth and are going to eternal damnation with that pos satan. 
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @JesusistheonlyGod777
    Sorry, but that is irrelevant. This is a debate about whether God exists or not.
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