Does God exist? (Opposite day)
Yeah, we've debated this before. But the twist is that you have to argue for the side you don't agree with, and try to be convincing.
Side Score: 16
Side Score: 13
God existing is just another theory, like the Big Bang. Some are persuaded by a theory and some choose to stay neutral. People talk about extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims? How about that something as simple as the sleep state, we humans still fall over ourselves trying to figure it all out, we know the stages, but not the mechanics or origin. The lack of evidence for our simplest issues is extraordinary intellect. God is the simple answer, assuming an inanimate nature makes it more complex.
The god theory has no evidence behind it, only the lack of completely proven evidence from the big bang theory. The big bang is the summation of science over hundreds of years by educated people. Theism is people taking old books/superstitions way too far. The god theory is completely reliant on science's inablility to completely prove the big bang theory (so far). The second we can finish proving the big bang, religion will become full mythology. For example. when you argue the atheist side of a religious argument, the theist ending answer every single time will be " you can't prove he doesn't exist" or "you just have to believe". The theories are different in that the big bang is only reliant on evidence, the god theory is reliant on lack of evidence. Very different
The god theory has no evidence behind it,
It has evidence that science is too underdeveloped to be able to test yet.
only the lack of completely proven evidence from the big bang theory.
This doesn't even make sense.
The big bang is the summation of science over hundreds of years by educated people.
Which is still a theory.
Theism is people taking old books/superstitions way too far.
How can you take the belief in a deity or lack thereof too far or not far enough?
The god theory is completely reliant on science's inablility to completely prove the big bang theory (so far).
The God Theory existed long before The Big Bang Theory, so how can it be completely reliant on something that existed after it did?
The second we can finish proving the big bang, religion will become full mythology.
People thought that when they proved the Earth was not flat. Turns out that religion can adapt to proven facts. And even more so, proving it does not mean people will accept it. For example, The Flat Earth Society.
For example. when you argue the atheist side of a religious argument, the theist ending answer every single time will be " you can't prove he doesn't exist" or "you just have to believe".
That has nothing to do with your argument previous to this statement.
The theories are different in that the big bang is only reliant on evidence, the god theory is reliant on lack of evidence. Very different
The Big Bang Theory is reliant on what we can prove right now. But The God Theory is reliant on our trust in God, our intuition, our ancestors, faith, a bond; it extends beyond what science is capable of right now.
The mere complexity of something is not proof of a god or gods. That is what is called the personal incredulity fallacy. The reference has been provided for clarifcation. Im of the persuasion that we cannot know everything about the universe through empirical data. Just admit you dont know, dude. Its okay.
Your reference. (yourlogicalfallacyis.com)
Argument for the existence of a Creator Entity:
If God, or some spiritual entity, did not exist, the mind as we know it, has a naturalistic origin. (all of its constituents exist in the material world or are emergent phenomena of the material world)
A naturally occurring mind can be artificially replicated by man (eventually).
As the mind's reality is a synthesized version of external reality created in the brain, it is conceivable that these artificial minds can be stored digitally and bound to a digital environment in a manner no different that our existence in our own Universe(the only limit is computational power).
Upon man's achieving the technology to do the aforementioned, the amount of artificial minds will out-populate naturally occurring minds.
Supposing the veracity of the aforementioned, the probability of being an unaware artificial mind in a digital simulation is far greater than being a natural mind.
Scientific naturalism implies the possibility of artificial minds and as such, implies that we live in a created reality that is fundamentally separated from its source.
So, both scientific naturalism and theistic belief imply effectively supernatural creation and something worth calling a deity.
Ill do it. There is no proof of the existance of a god or gods. Just because a book says something does not mean it is true. You cant use circular reasoning because that is not a logical argument. I believe because this book says so because a god or gods exist because this book says so. Uh, no. I leave you with Hitchens' Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
I agree with 4Real, (love the quote btw, and I understand it.) that there is no solid evidence. I really couldn't have said it better myself, but I think that nobody really knows for sure. There really could be a force controlling things in your life, but it doesn't mean that god exists. I believe that people are entitled to their own opinion, but they definitely should not cram it down people's throats, and from what I've read on this debate so far, no one has. Good job! Again, no one really has 100% evidence that he is real or fake, but I personally think he is something to explain everything. Thanks for reading.
I say there is no way to prove or disprove if there is or isn't a God. Human evidence and technology just aren't advanced enough to prove so. There is no way for human kind to know at this point. (Maybe there never will be) But as long as everyone is happy with their own opinion and beliefs, and aren't cramming them down anyone's throat then everyone should be happy! SplodieSloo's comment is basically all I could say as well! My personal opinion on whether there is or is not a God, is neutral. I honestly don't know and therefor I am not going to say "I believe in a God" nor "I do not believe in a God" I remain neutral on the subject of If there is or isn't a God
-Flat earth= proven wrong
- earth at center of univers= proven wrong
- age of the planet= proven wrong
- great flood= proven wrong
- evolution= proven correct
- 900 year old men= not possible
I can go on all day. The bible is the only evidence of a diety, yet is is wrong constantly. Just because I write a book with 999 false statements and 1 true statement, doesn't mean the book is true. It still gets filed in fiction.