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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.
We cannot prove God does or does not 100% exist?
We know that no matter what. Logically one cannot prove god does or does not exist. However one side must have more "logical" evidence. Which side has the most evidence? Do provide proof, logic, and reasoning.
If one can imagine a maximally great being, then it is logically contradictory for one to claim that He does not exist in reality; for it is greater to be in reality and necessarily in every world, than to be merely contingent upon the world's variables. Therefore, if God is logically possible, then God exists, but if God is logically impossible, then God does not exist. God is logically possible: therefore, God exists.
Also, a belief properly so called, applies to everything. That includes reason; for we cannot prove or disprove that reason is reasonable. Therefore, we have to start from a basis of presupposition for everything, which cannot be proven. For example, what makes reason reasonable? What makes one believe that reality is reality? Therefore, everything reverts to faith.
There's problems with both your second and third assertions. Existence hardly implies creation, and even if it did, a creator would not be necessitated.
Or, if you would like, we could attack the argument from a different angle.
Assuming there exists a creator, must there not also exist something to create the creator (after all, the first creator exists, and from there it follows your initial argument). And on and on the argument goes indefinitely.
There are much stronger arguments in favor of a creator; the existence theory is perhaps the most tenuous.
Not necessarily. Why could something not exist perpetually and eternally? I see no reason not to believe this is the case, and in fact, if one does not accept the fact that something could exist eternally and perpetually, then one cannot believe in a God (who would, by definition, have to exist eternally and perpetually). Either you accept that things may exist without a creator (the only argument that would, in fact, allow for an omniscient, omnipresent deity), or you require the need for a creator (but then who created the creator?). And clearly we may reject the latter, so we are left with the former argument; and really, if something may exist without a creator, then why invoke a creator at all?
Not necessarily. Why could something not exist perpetually and eternally? I see no reason not to believe this is the case, and in fact, if one does not accept the fact that something could exist eternally and perpetually, then one cannot believe in a God (who would, by definition, have to exist eternally and perpetually). Either you accept that things may exist without a creator (the only argument that would, in fact, allow for an omniscient, omnipresent deity), or you require the need for a creator (but then who created the creator?). And clearly we may reject the latter, so we are left with the former argument; and really, if something may exist without a creator, then why invoke a creator at all?
This almost had me but I began to think. God is said to be eternal. Logically this is the only explanation. Science proves that you can't create something out of nothing which implies a creator. The creator must be eternal because if it wasn't it wound be bound by time making it not a God. God is said to be eternal. How do you create something that is eternal?
Well I don't think everything exists. But maybe I'm crazy. Actually probably that. Also just because things exist doesn't mean they were created. And also, just because everything was created, doesn't mean there is a creator. And also again, just because there's a creator doesn't mean the creator is intelligent, let alone omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.
It's like. You see a guy on the street eating a banana and you go:
1) There is a guy eating a banana.
2) It was purchased.
3) There must be a banana stand nearby.
Seems logical enough, but what if the dude has a banana tree or something like that? Or hey, what if he got it from a supermarket and there -isn't- a banana stand nearby?
Not quite. In order to ensure free will the god, or shall we just use God, God must not be seen, you must have faith. If the creator doesn't exist then you have no us so that immediately is tossed out the window. A creator of all things knows all things and does not have to be physical.
Think about it, why would you ever make something for no reason? In fact we have a term for that which we "make for no reason", accidents. We could wish to be as much at best.
Think about it, why would you ever make something for no reason? In fact we have a term for that which we "make for no reason", accidents. We could wish to be as much at best.
How does that disprove God though or the idea or a creator?
To be god you have to be beyond space time and all of the finite reality. the only other things that meet this criteria are the things that don't exist. Therefore god is categorized under non-existence.
To be god you have to be beyond space time and all of the finite reality. the only other things that meet this criteria are the things that don't exist. Therefore god is categorized under non-existence.
Not quite. Something must have created space and time correct? Thus forth this being cannot be limited by time or space. Something created it. Something started time.
No, nothing had to have created space and time. What you understand about creating and existing is limited to that which you have experienced within this existence and therefor you (or I) could never understand what it means for something NOT to be made by something else.
No, nothing had to have created space and time. What you understand about creating and existing is limited to that which you have experienced within this existence and therefor you (or I) could never understand what it means for something NOT to be made by something else
Let's dissect this one by one.
No, nothing had to have created space and time.
Then space and time can't exist. It can't just be there. Something started the clock. Science even proves that there is a beginning and an end.
What you understand about creating and existing is limited to that which you have experienced within this existence and therefor you (or I) could never understand what it means for something NOT to be made by something else.
Let's take this one step further shall we?
you (or I) could never understand what it means for something NOT to be made by something else
Yet science and simple logic proves that you can't create something out of nothing. This forth even science proves that we can understand a little bit about it.
If space and time did not exist, which is categorized as the universe and all physical things, then logic and numbers would still exist; for if it did not exist, then the universe would be in a state of non-existence, but because logic would not be true, also in a state of existence (i.e. 1=2). Logic and numbers exist; therefore, under your premises, you have no logic, because they do not exist, because things that are beyond space and time do not exist: therefore, your argument is necessarily illogical.
Your small creatard's brain cannot get it, am I right? You cannot ask for "disprove" for something that have to not been proven in existence in first place.
If a person breaks into your house, how can a cop prove that it was NOT a specific person?
One can only try to prove that someone was in your house. Because a non-presence doesn't leave fingerprints or anything else to give you clues.
This is how I feel about God. When christians ask me to prove his non-existence I laugh, because this is in my opinion a silly thing to say. Can you prove to me that Santa wasn't in my chimney last night?
If you believe Santa was in my chimney, then you are in the position to defend and explain why you believe, not the other way around because we are the opposition.
But you are right, no one can prove 100% that God isn't real, just like we can't prove that Santa, unicorns, neverland and other fairytales aren't real either.
This is how I feel about God. When christians ask me to prove his non-existence I laugh, because this is in my opinion a silly thing to say. Can you prove to me that Santa wasn't in my chimney last night?
So then it isn't truly silly then because you can't really say he doesn't exist. This just gives christians a hand.
If you believe Santa was in my chimney, then you are in the position to defend and explain why you believe, not the other way around because we are the opposition
Actually it is the work of both people. You have to show proof for your claims that God doesn't exist. Christians have to show proof for their claims also.
So then it isn't truly silly then because you can't really say he doesn't exist. This just gives christians a hand.
No it is of course not truly silly, I said in my opinion it is silly. Just because I think something is silly doesn't mean that it truly is silly - but I think it is :)
You can prove a negative. One such way is to derive an indirect proof, in which you assume something and derive a logical contradiction. Therefore, because you can prove a negative and this argument is based on the assumption that one cannot, then it is invalid.
Not at all. First all we have to do is use science. Science shows up that something cannot come up out of nothing. If it cannot something must create it. This things that created it must be eternal because this being must be able to exist outside or space and time and if it is affected by time it cannot be the creator because it came before time. This means that creation starting with the big bang must have an eternal creator which would be God.
First all we have to do is use science. Science shows up that something cannot come up out of nothing.
WRONG - Casimir Effect
If it cannot something must create it.
WRONG - no support for it.
This things that created it must be eternal because this being must be able to exist outside or space and time and if it is affected by time it cannot be the creator because it came before time.
WRONG - none of what you said before showed up as a true, so this is backed up by nonsense.
This means that creation starting with the big bang must have an eternal creator which would be God.
WRONG - the idea of gods came from stone age mythology and you are trying to connect it to broken nonsense
Dude, I don't give a fuck who you are but if we ever meet you are fucking dead. I don't like being impersonated but definitely not being impersonated as an impersonator. I am far more efficient than you at pretending to be Lizzie.
Dude, I don't give a fuck who you are but if we ever meet you are fucking dead. I don't like being impersonated but definitely not being impersonated as an impersonator. I am far more efficient than you at pretending to be Lizzie.
Leave Lizzie alone you fucktard.
said by retard who spends whole days by creating fake accounts and annoy people :D :D
God isnt a material being and if this effect works explain how it does if absolutely nothing exists? Logic. Use logic. But if you want to resort to name calling then dont post anything.
I'm rude because you looks like you are trolling. It appears to me that you refuse to think and keep repeating illogical "argument" over and over again.
That breaks your own logic. Everything need a creator but god does not. So obviously not everything needs a creator so there may not bee need for the ultimate wizard. We know that in Casimir's effect particles can appear from nowhere, which is another proof that not everything needs a creator.
We can make an inductive argument for the non-existence of some God.
Every God that has been testable through science has been rejected- that would be any God that could physically interfere with the world; a God that can change weather, any God we can somehow communicate with through prayer, etc.
The inductive argument now is as follows: If all Gods that we have been able to test for have been rejected on scientific grounds, then we have inductive proof that ALL Gods that are testable will be rejected.
Now this doesn't mean that there isn't an untestable God somewhere beyond the boundaries of our universe (if such boundaries exist). It just means that any God that we have an actual reason to think about doesn't exist (inductively speaking anyway). I think this leaves theists with two options: 1) admitting that caring about a God is a waste of time, or if they think that it makes sense to care about a God, 2) admit that he is going against science, rationality and common sense.
This isnt really about his personality or what the bible states. I just want to see arguments proving or disproving his existence. As in his literal existence.
I think I should have been more precise... I did bring an argument disproving a special kind of God. With my second argument I tried to ridicule the idea, that one should even care about any God that wasn't of the kind I disproved.
