frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

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





God does not exist. Prove me wrong.

124



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 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 1712 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 5965 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 400 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 1712 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 5965 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    @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 1712 Pts   -   edited February 2020
    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 5965 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 813 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 1712 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 1712 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.
  • 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
  • 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 5395 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 400 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 1712 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 400 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 400 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 2020
    @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 5965 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 1712 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 400 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 400 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?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch