CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I am a Christians and will serve Jesus Christ for the rest of my entire life. I will always serve Go. My goal is to get to Heaven with many other brothers and sisters in Christ or are believers. I hope one day people shall seek God and accept Him before it is too late.
Yes I have an empirical reason that it the Bible because many of His followers and belivers wrote down what God told them to write down. Plus some of them in the New Testament time wrote it down as evidence. You have got to realize that back then there wasn't any TV, Internet, phones, or blogs so that everyone could see for themselves all around the world. That is why they wrote it down and put it in the Bible which the Bible stands for,
just a point about evidence - when most people talk about evidence they mean emperical evidence, not the kind of evidence that are personal accounts. Personal accounts can suggest truthes about an event but even in contemporary studies about events and the personal accounts about them, the personal accounts conflict with emperical data. The mind, as a function of sleep and in relation to assumptions, tends to distort an event in ways that conflict with what actually happened. This is why in legal disputes there is a limit to the significance any individuals account of the events can have (i.e. hear-say, conjecture, etc...). It is important, when speaking about your belief in god, that when you talk about evidence, you are talking about non-emperical evidence. It is important because, although people should be smart enough to know that 'evidence about god' is logically categorized as non-emperical, some people might take subjective account types of evidence as sufficient for belief. The reason why emperical evidence can never support belief in god is because god exists outside the realm of empericism (objective reality). There has never and will never be an emperically supported causal sequence attributed to god - This is why the statement that "all events and phenomena that we observe can be accounted for by materialism and naturalism" (paraphrasing Dawkins).
Sometimes it does. There are many verse that say that they saw Jesus. And it even says that there were 500 people who witnessed him. Let me give you the Bible verse or maybe I shouldn't because you are totally biased and even if I give it to you, you will not accept the evidence. So which is it do want to want me to give it to you or not?
You know what? What the hell. Sure. I will accept the bible of evidence (despite thousands of alarm bells in my head telling me this is a terrible idea).
Sure, the bible is one source of evidence. Sure. the bible is one source of evidence. the bible is one source of evidence. the bible is one source of evidence. the bible is one source of evidence.the bible is one source of evidence Sorry. I needed t do that a few times for it to stick in my head...
-
Ok. Now. One source is not enough to call something fact. Do you have another non-biblical source to back up all of the bible's claims?
Yes there is another nonbiblical source. Astronomy, biology, archaeology, and geology they prove the Bible is accurate and that it has no contradictions. I will give you some of the info later on. I have to go to my classes in school.
Here is a website that you should look at. This proves that Archaeology supports the Bible. Please go on the website and check it out. I checked out the video and it is dumb the Bible does not have any contradictions at all. It is God's Word and God's word is true because He does not lie also He is perfect and never sinned
If you believe the bible, the Earth is 6000 years old. Carbon-dating says 4.52 billion. They can;t both be right. Dinosaur fossils are older than 6000 years old. They can't both be right. Geology and Archeology or the bible?
I checked out the video and it is dumb
Why?
the Bible does not have any contradictions at all
ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME?!?!?!!? THAT VIDEO SHOWED AT LEAST 30!!!!!!!!
It is God's Word and God's word is true
How do you know?
because He does not lie also He is perfect and never sinned
Says who?
The bible?
That is question begging. I just wrote down on a piece of paper that I am perfect and omniscient. How do I know that? well look at this piece of paper. It says so.
Yes the Bible does say that God was perfect. Did you even look at website and read everything that it said because it has detailed information that is very useful. I have read all of it and I thought it was pretty interesting
You are not perfect. No one is perfect. Romans 3:23 says "All has sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That means everybody has sinned and even you have sinned. Ever since Adam has sinned we are descents of Adam and that is why we have clothes on is because of sin. Once Adam and Eve have sinned they wore clothes made of sheep. I admitt I sin sometimes too!
You are not all knowing because you have sinned and you only know a little bit of stuff. Also you are only a mortal like me who will die sometime during our lives
You are not perfect because it says in Romans 3:23 that All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. God is eternal and lives forever. You are only a mortal that is living on this earth for a period of time. You could die at any time and so can I. We don't know what is going to happen tomorrow. Tomorrow is a mist we don't know if there will be a tomorrow. God holds the keys to life and death. He can take anyone's life away and he can also heal people.
You are also sinning everyday. Everybody sins everyday. Even I sin. You are sinning right now because you choose to be against God and not believe in Him and you have an opinion why you don't want to believe in Him.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
There is your verse on 500 people who witnessed Him rise from the grave.
Ah. So you chose to ignore every other criticism. The only question you answered here is to quote the Bible. Now that you've completed step 1, why don't you explain why I should take this quote to mean anything at all?
Empirical as in 'found in a test tube'? Not possible, but neither is there 'empirical evidence' that love exists; but you will get substantial resistance to the suggestion that love does not exist. Does experience count? If so, there is abundant evidence for both God and Love.
there is emperical evidence that love exists. There are many investigations into the biological nature and origins of love. There is a lot of data and knowledge about the specific chemicals that are involved, even down to the genetic sequences associated with monogomy in certain species.
I do agree with you that there is no emperical data that can exist to support the non existence or existence of god though. Logically and emperically it is impossibly to prove or disprove a negative
The statement 'If A then not B' is setting up the subject and predicate to be mutually exclusive and so it couldn't be a false dilemma assuming the premise is true.
I agree. But we would need good reason to assume that the premise is true. Of course, in this case, A and B are not well defined so we would have to add the assumption that these are mutually exclusive for the premise to be true.
Well, people often misuse validity. Validity only applies to deductive arguments, cogency means nearly the same thing for inductive arguments. A sound argument is an argument which is both valid and has all true premises.
Sometimes just having a valid argument isn't enough because if the premises are untrue, then it can still lead to a false conclusion. Consider the following:
All horses are purple
Danny owns a horse
Therefore Danny's horse is purple
This argument is valid, because if indeed all horses were purple it would follow that Danny's horse was purple as well, but as we all know horses aren't all purple. The premises are thus untrue. So this argument is valid but unsound. Now consider this argument:
All horses are mammals
Danny owns a Horse
Therefore Danny's horse is a mammal
This argument is both valid and sound. The conclusion follows from the premises and the premises are also true, so this is a sound argument. Hopefully this makes sense the way I explained it.
I took logic, i thought i expressed the distinction between validity and soundness correctly in the context of what i had written, I didnt know about cogency though. What you wrote did make sense, but it was unnecessary because i took logic.
what i was saying is that you cant prove a negative insofar as the actual world is concerned. on paper it can but the point is to get off the abstract theoretical and get down to empericism.
Once you define love, in such a way most people would agree with the definition, you can certainly find empirical evidence that it exists. It is precisely because experience counts that empiricism is so important.
You can measure volumetric pixels in people's brains to see what emotions they are experiencing, amongst numerous other tests.
God(as typically understood) and Love are two entirely different things, one is directly within nearly everyone's direct experience and can be measured though various tools, the other is postulated as an unfalsifiable cause of a host of other things.
"What has your God done for you that you couldn't have done for yourself?" -Jordan T. McQueen
You need to understand something: YOU ARE AN ATHEIST!
You don't believe in Zeus, Acuecucyoicihuati, Centeotl, Poseidon, or Brahma.
Why don't you believe in these perfectly legitimate religions? Why did you choose yours out of the MILLIONS to choose from?
I'll tell you why: because you're mommy and daddy told you to believe in your god, or you happened to have been at the right place at the right time and now you believe in your god. There is no logical reason to believe that your god is good and everyone else's god is illegitimate.
You need to understand something: YOU ARE AN ATHEIST
Nope I am not an atheist. I am a Christian that believes in Jesus Christ.
You don't believe in Zeus, Acuecucyoicihuati, Centeotl, Poseidon, or Brahma.Why don't you believe in these perfectly legitimate religions? Why did you choose yours out of the MILLIONS to choose from?
I don't believe in the other religions because those religions are man made. My religion is a prooven fact and there were eyewitnesses saw Jesus when He was alive and they say Him when He rose from dead. Also one one of the Ten Commandments say Do not worship any other God but me.
I'll tell you why: because you're mommy and daddy told you to believe in your god, or you happened to have been at the right place at the right time and now you believe in your god. There is no logical reason to believe that your god is good and everyone else's god is illegitimate.
Well my mom and dad said that I had a choice to believe in Jesus or not. I choose to follow Jesus because it was the right thing to do.
I'm a muslim and i proud of to be Muslim. I was born and I will die of being Muslim.This is the best religion for me and Ibelieve that the God is exist and He answers to our prayers and helps us when we need it.
Although I'd love to be a Gnostic atheist, the initial burden of proof required to be one dictates that I must be an agnostic atheist. Seeing as one of my favourite arguments against theists is to call them out on the burden of proof, I couldn't possibly contradict myself in such a manner.
Maybe one day we will have the knowledge to debunk God's existence, then I could quite happily claim to be a Gnostic atheist. But even then, the theists wouldn't give up that easily. Certain debaters (not naming names here, but you can probably take a guess) on this site have a bad habit of picking and choosing which evidence is valid and which is not. So even in the face of irrefutable evidence, theists would still find some way to worm themselves out of it.
Do you actually think that something came from nothing?
What is so repulsive about a person who believes in God? What dontcha like?
You said you would "happily" love to do this….why the repulsion?
And why can't you name posters here when you are talking about an issue that they are debating? Are you afraid of hurting someones feelings? I doubt that…so why?
I am inviting you to name me by name next time you do this. Why would you care anyway about hurting someone who is a believer? LOL
Come on put it out there so they specifically can answer your claims. If they are as proud to be a Christian as I am…they won't care and would be happy to address your attack on their position.
You expect me to answer that? Hell I don't know! I'm not smart enough to figure that out. But I can counter your argument. If you're going to use the cosmological argument, then what caused God? If he needed one, then what caused that, and so on ad infinitum. If he is exempt from a cause, then why is he exempt?
Do you actually think that something came from nothing?
Although "nothing" is misleading, I do. Quantum fluctuations explain this. But I know you're arguing from the classical theistic position. So, as you know, the laws of physics are only applicable in our universe. But the singularity of which the universe originated from was outside the universe, thus it can defy the laws of physics. So on a scale larger than macroscopic, it's possible.
What is so repulsive about a person who believes in God? What dontcha like?
Nothing. There's nothing wrong with theists, and I'm not sure why you think this.
And why can't you name posters here when you are talking about an issue that they are debating? Are you afraid of hurting someones feelings? I doubt that…so why?
Actually, I wasn't hinting at one particular person. I just like to scroll through debates, and find some arguments without substance. Again, no person in particular. I only said that to remain professional; it detracts from the main point if I start calling names out left right and centre.
I am inviting you to name me by name next time you do this.
See above. Besides, I've never debated with you before. How could I be calling you out?
If they are as proud to be a Christian as I am…they won't care and would be happy to address your attack on their position.
I wasn't attacking their position. I was merely stating my own.
Don't feel bad because scientists can't even tackle that question.
I believe God is eternal that He was the first Cause.
Scientists can prove however that the earth we are on is not eternal…that we did have a beginning. So what was it? What created life as we know it to be? An explosion? Big Bang?
I believe only an intelligent designer could have done all this what we know.
Entropy states that the universe tends to move from a state of order to disorder. There is not mechanism of physics that would organize initial life cells and entropy implies the opposite. Evolution requires inconceivable random development of order from chaos. What it implies is that from this chaos…the most complexed things like the human body…particularly the egg, the eye…is the end product of an entropy law that is accepted as fact. Takes faith to believe that. I place my faith in something else….an intelligent designer who with purpose in mind created all of creation.
Evolution provides no answer for anything. I read the other day that scientists know that our sun is burning out. If there was infinite time, our sun and all other stars would have burned out already.
Science does not agree with you….something can't come from nothing.
I do not think it is bad at all if you name people who make comments. Everything we post our name is tacked on. What your doing is like accusing someone with no evidence. Please use mine if you have a comment about one of my posts whether you agree or disagree.
I believe God is eternal that He was the first Cause.
Ok, go aseity! But a proposition may not apply to real life. Case and point.
"The flying Spaghetti monster exists. Thus it must exist necessarily."
But the proposition is not synonymous with reality. In other words, the flying spaghetti monster exists necessarily, BUT, not in reality. It is confusing, but one must differentiate between reality and imagination for an argument to hold.
What created life as we know it to be? An explosion? Big Bang?
The Big Bang theory does not suggest that the Big Bang created life. It is merely a suggestion of how the universe "began", assuming it has a finite existence.
Entropy states that the universe tends to move from a state of order to disorder. There is not mechanism of physics that would organize initial life cells and entropy implies the opposite.
This is a particularly baffling part of physics. But we can sort of explain it. The way cells were assembled to make complex structures such as galaxies, was due to local activity like solar heating. Back on Earth, life develops from a primordial soup, again, this is possible through local activity. Then we evolved. Life somewhat explained using the laws of physics.
Evolution requires inconceivable random development of order from chaos.
Not true. The development is not random, it comes through the elimination of inferior genes to leave only the superior ones useful for survival. Evolution in a nutshell.
Takes faith to believe that.
No it doesn't. Evolution is a fact. You can actually watch it happening. It's the theory that is disputed.
Evolution provides no answer for anything.
Yes it does. It gives us many, many, many answers which I'm far too lazy to explain. The key is that evolution explains why there is sophisticated, multi-celled organisms.
If there was infinite time, our sun and all other stars would have burned out already.
Firstly, I don't believe in an infinite universe. Steady State theory seems nonsensical since the discovery of CMB. But if it were true, then you should note that a tiny amount of baryonic matter is created to stop the universe achieving maximum entropy (this also includes roughly 5 times as much dark matter to account for expansion). Thus the stars would not burn out, in theory.
Science does not agree with you….something can't come from nothing.
Science is not a person, it has no unanimous opinion. Again, look up the quantum vacuum and quantum fluctuations and you will see how it is possible for matter to be seemingly spontaneously created. And as I said, the laws of physics need not apply outside our universe.
Also, keep in mind that the laws of physics may not have to be obeyed. They are simply an explanation for what we have observed in our universe. After all, rules are made to be broken.
Right off the bat you ask how did something come from nothing. How can that statement not seem hypocritical. Where did God come from? How does the Universe being created by a singularity make less sense than the existence of a magical being? There is no particular evidence that there is a God. The bible was written by Man. There is no anomaly that can only be explained by the existence of God.
I am an atheist. But it is important to understand that non-religious doesnt mean atheist. There are plenty of non-religious theists. Religion is about organizations, and it is also important to understand that not all religions are theistic. Taoism and Buddhism have no diety, and although they have some supernatural notions and "compensators," they are about philosophical principles and relatively naturalistic world views
In the traditional sense of the term "religious", I am not. I believe established religion degrades any chance of true religion, and that the constant attempts to establish a theocracy is evidence of this. Religion is a personal matter, not a social one. In another sense of the word however, I am "religious". I like pantheism, discordianism, modern day satanism, cathul, the church of the subgenius, the FSM, etc. I also like eastern religions like Buddhism, Shinto, etc. I'm interested in Hindu religions as well, although I tend to not like them too much, finding them to be a interesting synthesis of east and west.
In the typical sense, religion requires belief in what can not be known. It postulates that there exists something outside of normal, repeatable experience and attempts to impose such transcendental "truths" on others who have not had those same experiences. I find such attempts barbaric and an insult and assault on the human spirit.
You are very judgmental. And you are in the minority just so you know. Since the beginning of time people have had a God belief. They believe in things that can't be explained even by science. What is the first cause casper?
What started it all? Since you seem so sure people who believe in God don't know…you really are saying that you know. So what is it?
You said we can't know…then you turn around and tell people that they are wrong. LOL
The ability to distinguish is essential. Its funny, on facebook groups I've known for being too open minded by many.
The belief in god, as you likely understand the term, requires a type of consciousness that primitive people wouldn't of had. Sure, they had religions and their own version of "god(s)", but that god was dramatically different in numerous ways from the Abrahamic God. That god depends on various socially constructed ideology that ultimately come from agricultural and post agricultural societies. A primitive mind is more likely to believe in multiple gods than in one, due to a lack of large scale social homogeneity and intra-tribe trading, amongst other things.
What started it all is irrelevant, and unknowable. Rationality has it's limits. That doesn't mean though that irrationality should be endorsed, intellectual suicide is perhaps the most...sad thing.
Along with other things, I studied some philosophy and different religions/theology in college, and I tend to agree a lot with the philosophy of Buddhism. Though I rarely practice much anymore, and I'm not bound by any religion or philosophy including Buddhism, in my opinion, the bible is probably the best 'fiction' book ever written.
Even if you read up on a Buddhists view on Christianity, they have some very good points that cannot be argued.
But the bottom line is: There never has been ANY proof whats-so-ever that God exists or even that Jesus existed. That is FACT!
Especially taking into consideration how advanced science has gotten, especially with Quantum Theory...there is just no proof.
I agree with the Buddhist philosophy that there is no God or deity of any kind, that it is:
'No birth, no death, only continuation' or
'No beginning, no end, only continuation'.
You have to think in terms of the infinite. And everything is infinite from the universe going on and on as well as quantum, even the smallest of the smallest, it can always be divided more and more and more...infinite number of times.
I am an atheist. I have tried analysis, blind faith but there's is no God at least none that we can comprehend and if we cannot comprehend "it" and "it" doesn't give a toss about us then what is the purpose of faith(the basis of all religions).
The quote that really encapulates what I "think" :
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able, nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
I dont know how i can describe myself.I dont believe in GOD or HEAVEN or Jesus and etc.I want to show you my point of view about religion.For me religion it is a tool witch someone use to manipulate people who had a problems or just want to find support. Religion is a fake. Fake becouse every religion assures us GOD is a majestic person or figure who is a judge for each of us. How someone can judge all millionse of people.-Impossible. Next every religion told that BIble came from HEAVEN.-no need to explain you that it is impossible. I can show you many impossible details in religion theory, but i want to say that i am not a atheist becouse in trouble i will remember GOD and will believe in GOD.Actually i dont believe in God , for me more important believe in myself in my succes and in my сhanges. BUt anyway i think Person shoud believe in something.IT IS NECESSARY!
Really? stfu, I can't stand people like you, mind your own effing business. You have no right to tell someone whether their views are "consistent" or not. Go suck a giant toe.
Consistency is a factor that can often be easily determined, and people do have the right to express themselves. Although, people can and have been notoriously bad at determining if something or someone is consistent at timese.The writing of the original poster could be much better, but my guess is that he isn't a native speaker of English. that is likely where churchmouse is interpreting the inconsistency. From what I can tell he sees religion as a crutch, one that he might use in times of need but one he would rather not.
Agnostic Atheist because thus far there hasn't been presented any objective evidence for any 'God', though i fail to see how something 'immaterial' could be the source of physical evidence or any physical interaction of any kind.
there are lots of things that exist though we cannot see them. so we should refrain from suggesting that 'seeing is believing'. though there is no good reason to believe in things that do not manifest in physical reality, because we cannot observe anything that indicates their existence, effects, or influence. air is indeed invisible.
Atheist, born and raised. All of my immediate family are agnostic atheists - ie we know we cant prove the non-existence of god (intellectual impossibility) but believe there is no god because of the perspectives of science and reason.
I'm an agnostic atheist, purely due to the lack of proof either side is able to present. I don't buy the whole blind faith argument the religious sell. Nor can science explicitly state there is no god. I fall into the category of pragmatic atheism.
Also, I believe the internet has a disproportional amount of atheists. Statistics put the percent of Christians (in the US) at 77% (or about 230 Million). Abrahamic religions cover around 4 billion people worldwide (about 2/3 (or 66%) of the World population). Where atheism covers a mere 120 million people worldwide (a tiny 1/50th (or 2%) of the World population).
I am not religious. The only thing I believe in is myself, not hopeing that some greater power will intervene for me. No religious figures helped me in my worst time of need, when I was meer child. I got through by personal power alone. I also find the concept of any God hard to wrap my head around.