A Fact About God - 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.

A Fact About God

Debate Information

Real |Ri:L| actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

God does not actually exist as a thing or occurs in fact and is imagined or supposed, therefore. . . . . . . . . .

Fact: God is not real.
SmithPlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473RandomJeffreyBlankenshipSand
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • SmithSmith 22 Pts   -  
    Hello, Swolliw. Maybe you can clear up something for me. Is this a debate? Because you came with a presupposed fact that would by reason imply that 'God is not real". With the that presupposed fact I would agree that "God is not real", but my confusion lies whether you want to debate that presupposed fact. I think that your definition of real is legitimate but your definition or fact of God is not. God is a thing and, in fact, you admitted it. You did this by saying the very word God. Whether God is simply a word that you said or an actual being that omnipotent and all-powerful is a different debate. So you just proved that God is real. 
    Thorferrisaf1Starlord616Debater123
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Smith
    No, things don’t work like that. If I say the word ‘unicorn’, I’m not saying unicorns are real.
    JeffreyBlankenship
  • ThorThor 56 Pts   -   edited November 19
    @Smith

    Shhhhhhh!! Actually @Swolliw needs to satisfy himself by posting such. :D

    He doesn’t believe in god, but still he doubt himself so he regularly post god debates lol.

    Peace
    Starlord616
  • SmithSmith 22 Pts   -  
    xlJ_dolphin_473, It's not so much a fact that things don't 'work like that' its a fact that we have established a basis of debate. He hasn't given any room for debate he made a statement with no context. I am attempting to draw room for debate. By saying unicorn you are making a real assumption about what unicorns are. You have a made and the idea of unicorn and have established room for debate.

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Smith
    Smith said:
    xlJ_dolphin_473, It's not so much a fact that things don't 'work like that' its a fact that we have established a basis of debate. 
    The debate is that he is proposing the idea that God is not real, and if you choose to debate, you are opposing that idea, and saying that God is real. The argument that 'you said the word God therefore you just proved there is a god' is very weak, and contains no substance. The fact that you use a word to describe an entity has absolutely nothing to do with whether the entity exists or not.

    Suppose I were to create a debate as follows:

    'A fact about unicorns'


    Real: 
    actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

    God does not actually exist as a thing or occurs in fact and is imagined or supposed, therefore. . . . . . . . . .

    Fact: Unicorns are not real.

    By your logic, I would have admitted that unicorns are real, simply by using the word 'unicorns'. The only difference between this hypothetical situation and the current debate is the subject matter, God in this case and unicorns in my hypothetical case.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    If God is not real then why is it wrong to kill another human?
    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473JeffreyBlankenship
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    It ain't... We do it all the time with self-defense, wars, capital punishment, policies that lead to deaths, etc... What is arguably wrong is "indiscriminate" killings, not killing per se...
    SandDee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    If God is not real then why is it wrong to kill another human indiscriminately?

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    Sand said:

    If God is not real then why is it wrong to kill another human indiscriminately?
    Because indiscriminate killing is obviously detrimental to societal integrity, not because of a fictional entity...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ferrisaf1ferrisaf1 27 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen
    Because indiscriminate killing is obviously detrimental to societal integrity, not because of a fictional entity...

    While tangential to the debate at hand, I am curious to continue @Smith 's line of reasoning and see where it leads, so I'll ask you this:

    Why is detriment to societal integrity bad?
  • Starlord616Starlord616 209 Pts   -  
    Sand said:

    If God is not real then why is it wrong to kill another human indiscriminately?

    it's not 'wrong'. people just often choose not to do it
    xlJ_dolphin_473Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @ferrisaf1

    Oh, you really have to ask? You have not figure this out yet? 

    Well, ok then... A society that loses its integrity collapses, and is no longer a society...

    It's like asking why shooting yourself in the head with a shotgun is bad...  :smirk:
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • SmithSmith 22 Pts   -  
    Plaffelvohfen, would you be so kind as to define "societal integrity" for me? 
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Smith

    It encompasses a few things really... I'd say it's everything that allows for any society to exist, so for instance actual living people are obviously needed to have a society, an habitable environment (there's a reason no one ever colonized Antarctica), access to natural resources, etc... 

    Society is a system and all systems require certain conditions in order to exist for any period of time and all systems that cannot maintain those conditions will eventually collapse. That is societal integrity... It's not theoretical physics...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    Sand said:

    If God is not real then why is it wrong to kill another human indiscriminately?
    Because it increases total human suffering, which I think is a pretty good metric for whether something is right or wrong.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    We all benefit from a societal structure where we can coexist without killing each other, so if that structure collapses, we all suffer. This is how I would define social integrity.@Smith
    Plaffelvohfen
  • mickygmickyg 141 Pts   -  
    IF GOD IS REAL WHY DID HE MURDER THE FIRST BORN OF EGYPT@Sand
  • ferrisaf1ferrisaf1 27 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Why is it bad if a society collapses and is no longer a society? Why is human suffering bad? Why is it bad if I shoot myself in the head? I mean, what is really bad about that?

    If humans are clumps of animate matter, then human suffering has no intrinsic value to it. It would matter no more than cutting down a tree or smashing a rock. Any perceived suffering is really just electric and chemical signals moving around in the person's nervous system; it can all be defined in terms of physics, it has no intrinsic worth. 

    I really am having trouble seeing how an atheist can hold to right and wrong as actually existing. In the atheistic view, people just made morals up somewhere along the evolutionary timeline for sociological convenience. It's not that there's anything actually right or wrong with certain actions.
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    I believe your philosophy is backward.
    How was the first born of Egypt was murdered if it was not done by God?

  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    >>>>>Because it increases total human suffering, which I think is a pretty good metric for whether something is right or wrong. <<<<<

    Obviously, everyone hasn't chosen that course, so why would someone choose to increase human suffering for their advantage considered wrong?

  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    So you would not try to hinder someone who does choose to do it?
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    Why when someone chooses their personal advantage over Societal integrity bad?

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @ferrisaf1 @Sand

    Oh, if what you actually wanted was to debate "what is Morality", you should have said so directly and not wasted time... 

    Good, bad, right, wrong, all are "in themselves" completely irrelevant, futile and empty notions...

    As an absurdist I have nihilistic sympathies, so yeah, nothing intrinsically matters, I definitely agree with that... So go ahead, shoot and kill everyone you see (we'll see how long you last) or kill yourselves, I honestly don't care, I'm at peace with the fact that nothing "really" matters on a cosmological or metaphysical scale...

    But here's the thing, why should I care about those abstract scales in my everyday life? My existence can only be current and local anyway, so the only thing that can be said to possibly matter are here and now... That's my starting point...
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • ferrisaf1ferrisaf1 27 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen

    "...nothing intrinsically matters, I definitely agree with that... So go ahead, shoot and kill everyone you see (we'll see how long you last) or kill yourselves, I honestly don't care, I'm at peace with the fact that nothing "really" matters on a cosmological or metaphysical scale..."

    I think I'll just let your statement stand for itself. Thank you for your consistency - I think a lot of people wouldn't admit that.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -   edited November 20
    @ferrisaf1

    My pleasure, now that's settled we can move forward... 

    You wrote: 
    I really am having trouble seeing how an atheist can hold to right and wrong as actually existing. In the atheistic view, people just made morals up somewhere along the evolutionary timeline for sociological convenience.
    Your troubles probably comes from thinking erroneously that there is an "atheistic view" that goes beyond the single question of the existence of god... 

    These troubles may also find their source in the possibility that you are a proponent of the divine command theory, is that the case?
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Starlord616Starlord616 209 Pts   -  
    i would try to stop them but not because of any objective morality @Sand
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -   edited November 20

    >>>>>Good, bad, right, wrong, all are "in themselves" completely irrelevant, futile and empty notions... <<<<<
    From this point of view nothing is objectively true.
    Since this is the purest atheistic viewpoint.
    Also Science involves objective, logical, and repeatable experimental attempts to understand the principles and forces working in the natural universe.
    Would you say that science relates more in concept to creationists than atheists?
    If not why not?
    JeffreyBlankenship
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    Why would you try to stop them when you clearly view it as a subjective viewpoint?
    Do you feel there are some lines some people should not cross, regardless of their feelings?
    JeffreyBlankenship
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -   edited November 20
    @Smith
    You did this by saying the very word God. Whether God is simply a word that you said or an actual being that omnipotent and all-powerful is a different debate. So you just proved that God is real. 

    I think you have got your knickers in a twist, to put it mildly.
    Let's just leave the 1st grade semantics out of this shall we, if you dare and argue the point on its merits as stated.
    Mediocre try at best, but let's see how you go with submitting a viable argument.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @Thor
    He doesn’t believe in god, but still he doubt himself so he regularly post god debates lol.

    Not only do I not believe in God but there is no God.
    Your problem is that there is no God yet you believe in God.
    Now, do you want me to pull out the "D" word again, just as a reminder?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -   edited November 20
    @Sand If God is not real then why is it wrong to kill another 

    Because of this:
    Image result for lobster telephone
    JeffreyBlankenship
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    If God is not real then why is it wrong to kill another human indiscriminately?

    One supposes that you are taking the typical, arrogant and erroneous theist stance that because we have God we have morals.
    None of the comic books (bibles etc.) telling about God have the copyright on morals. Morals come from society standards and have nothing to do with God. In fact, if we were to adopt many the half-cocked, nonsensical morals as portrayed in the Bible, the world would be in utter chaos and would be a miserable place in which to live.

  • ThorThor 56 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Not only do I not believe in God but there is no God...
     Well every atheist says same thing lol :) .

    Your problem is that there is no God yet you believe in God...

    lol my life my way, you keep your opinion with yourself.

    Haha...oh dear Swolliw truth is always bitter better eat some chocolates after reading my answer. :p

    Peace
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 960 Pts   -  
    @ferrisaf1
    No, I'm not saying it's wrong to kill another human indiscriminately. I'm just saying it's a bad idea, and it destroys social integrity, from which we all benefit.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @Thor
    Not only do I not believe in God but there is no God...
     Well every atheist says same thing lol  .
    Wrong. Everyone, except theists says the same thing.

    Your problem is that there is no God yet you believe in God...
    lol my life my way, you keep your opinion with yourself.
    Okay then, it looks like we need a few more "D" word topics. Coming right up, stay tuned.


    Thor
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    Sand said:

    >>>>>Good, bad, right, wrong, all are "in themselves" completely irrelevant, futile and empty notions... <<<<<
    From this point of view nothing is objectively true.
    Incorrect... From this observation (that's what it is) nothing is objectively good or bad...

    Objective truths still exist without morality... 
    ZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • mickygmickyg 141 Pts   -  
    who sent the plagues halfy?@Sand
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -  

    >>>>>One supposes that you are taking the typical, arrogant and erroneous theist stance that because we have God we have morals. None of the comic books (bibles etc.) telling about God have the copyright on morals. Morals come from society standards and have nothing to do with God. In fact, if we were to adopt many the half-cocked, nonsensical morals as portrayed in the Bible, the world would be in utter chaos and would be a miserable place in which to live.<<<<<

    Could you really say the Bible has "nonsensical morals" if morals are truly subjective?
    The Bible's morals would be just "different" from the morals that you hold dear.

    You are telling me you disagree with Charles Darwin?

    Charles Darwin - "If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering."

    Do you disagree with Richard Dawkins?

    Richard Dawkins - "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

    These two paint morals as more a delusion since it goes contrary to self interest.
    So if God is not real would you then say that everything is more subjective than objective?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 271 Pts   -   edited November 20

    Would this be objectively true?

    Charles Darwin - "If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering."

    Would you say there is an injustice being done to make rules on a person's subjective viewpoint?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • mickygmickyg 141 Pts   -  
    TELL US WHAT the world would be like without god
    just for comparison sake halfy@Sand
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2025 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    Sand said:

    Would this be objectively true?

    Charles Darwin - "If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.". 
    I would say it is "probably" true in this case, since humans were not reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, we cannot observe it (and going through the process of making an experiment to confirm this would be impractical) but using logic and all we already know about biology and evolutionary mechanisms, there's a fair chance that it would be true... 
    Would you say there is an injustice being done to make rules on a person's subjective viewpoint
    Justice, being a mental construct, is also subjective so... I fail to see the relevance here... 
    Sand
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Alright, God is real and I don't know why you would say otherwise. It takes more faith to believe that this all happened by accident than to believe in God. Another fact is that there is more historical evidence about God and Jesus Christ than there is about ancient Roman culture. So do we still believe that the Roman Empire exists? Yes of course because I don't ignore facts. Christianity is not something completely by faith (a large majority is though). You can prove Christ and God to be legitimate by facts alone. If you have time I would research C.S. Lewis. In short he came to God because he found it legitimate through research. You can't call him uneducated either because the man was an oxford professor.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Swolliw Refer to above argument please.
  • mickygmickyg 141 Pts   -  

    When you read the bible ..did you notice ..as i did...that the gospels are anonymous??.....and why do they not appear in history until 160ad??
    SO JEFFY NAME ONE EYEWITNESS OF JESUS@JeffreyBlankenship


  • SwolliwSwolliw 712 Pts   -  
    @JeffreyBlankenship
    Yes of course because I don't ignore facts. Christianity is not something completely by faith

    You are deliberately conflating Christianity and God into one argument in order to (try to) give it validity. There is not one single piece of evidence whatsoever as to the existence of God; you talked of it but you did not dare cite one piece of evidence yourself....because there is none. As for C.S. Lewis; he wrote some very wonderful colorful fantasy stories so is it any wonder that he would believe the nonsense of religion? He may have been knowledgeable and intelligent however; delusion transcends intellectual boundaries.
    I challenge you to present one, just one piece of evidence that verifies the existence of God. 
    JeffreyBlankenship
  • Welp you know what the bible says. "Don't throw pearls at swine"
  • The reliable Gospel eyewitness accounts aren’t the only ancient description of Jesus. There are also non-Christian descriptions of Jesus from the late 1st to 5th Century. What do the non-Biblical accounts say about Jesus and how are we to assess them? It’s been my experience that two people can examine the same event (or even the same historical character) and disagree about what they have seen. Many years ago President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, and the entire event was captured on video tape. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses. The tapes were watched over and over again. Yet, in the midst of such a robust eyewitness record, people still argue to this day about what they saw and what actually happened. Was it a lone shooter or an elaborate conspiracy? Something very similar occurred when the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists. Most of us either saw the attack live on television or watched the video for months afterward. But the event is still interpreted in a variety of ways. Was this the act of international terrorists or an elaborate governmental conspiracy? Two well documented historical events with a rich set of evidences. In spite of this, both events have been interpreted in a variety of ways. It shouldn’t surprise us then to find the historical records of Jesus Christ might also experience the same type of scrutiny and diverse interpretation. Did Jesus truly live, minister, died and rise from the grave as the Gospels record or was it an elaborate conspiracy? One thing we know about the Kennedy assassination and the World Trade Center attack: regardless of interpretation, there were eyewitnesses to the events, and the events did truly occur. In a similar manner, the ancient evidence related to Jesus reveals there were eyewitnesses and He did exist in history. Is there any evidence for Jesus outside the Bible? Yes, and the ancient non-Christian interpretations (and critical commentaries) of the Gospel accounts serve to strengthen the core claims of the New Testament.

    @mickyg

  • mickygmickyg 141 Pts   -  
    THERE ARE no eyewitness accounts of jesus....IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING i would love to see it...........hint...
    NOT JOSEPHUS
    NOT TACITUS
    NOT PLINY
    SO WHAT YOU GOT? @JeffreyBlankenship
  • mickygmickyg 141 Pts   -  
    Don't throw pearls at swine....ya got an eyewitness of someone saying this?..@JeffreyBlankenship
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