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.
Are You Ready To Accept The Existence Of God Provided Sufficient Proofs?
This is series of questions. And it is question No. 1. This is for atheists only.
What would constitute sufficient evidence for the existence of God?
Please vote “yes” if you are ready to confess the existence of God (if you don’t believe now) and vote “no” if you are not ready to confess the existence of God even with sufficient proofs.
Can you please explain (as you heard or read or from your own understanding) how did the Universe come into existence? Did the Universe created of its own? Did something appeared out of nothing? Please answer this and I'll explain/ask you more.
I don't really think about the creation of the universe too much. So I haven't read much into it.
I've thought about that there was a creator of some sort that created the universe and everything, but I don't believe that the creator still plays a role in our lives at all. I guess the best way to explain it is that the creator became the creation, or the universe.
But, as I said, I haven't thought about it too hard, this is just something I've mildly contemplated before.
No, the Creator can not be the creation itself although the glory of His creation is found there.
The problem with many people is that, the Creator can not be God of the Bible. Okay, I don't want to go to Bible. I just say, there is a Creator and it may be X or Y or Z. My main point (here) is there is a Creator of the Universe Who doesn't have a beginning, nor will be His ending. I do not argue or force to accept anyone that, it is God of the Bible. You can say it is Allaha (if you are a Muslim), it is Buddha (if you are a Buddhist), you can say it is YHWH (if you are a Jew) or you can say it is Jesus (if you are a Christian). But there is a Creator as I stated above.
You said that, the Creator doesn't play role right now. It is a deep subject if I want to discuss from the Bible. The Bible says that, though He doesn't control (directly) somethings (not ALL) nothing happens without His knowledge. I already said that, He is out of the dimension of time and space. So, we can not imagine the so-called complicated things about God; just know, He is there. Please ask me one by one (in order to know; not to argue) so that, I can explain as far as my understanding. Thanks.
And I don't believe in a God who has any role in us at all. I also don't believe that if there is a God who would decide that we suffer for all eternity if we don't believe in them. That egotistical, and honestly, if there is a conscious creator, too immature to believe. Which is why I don't believe in heaven or hell either.
God has role in us, but in many cases, He doesn't interfere; He doesn't interfere in choosing or rejecting Him. You are getting angry with God. But the Bible states that, though God is merciful, He is also God of justice. Though God can forgive our sins (when we have faith in Him and confess) because of His mercy, He is also God of justice who can not allow an unrepentant sinner to inherit heaven. A real justice will not hesitate to hear the capital punishment of his/her son if the son is worthy to get. Therefore, God wouldn't allow an unrepentant sinner to heaven and send him to hell; because if He doesn't send the unrepentant sinner to hell, He is not God, as God has many attributes and justice is one among them. Lastly, the existence of hell and heaven has nothing to do with the beliefs of atheists like you. I am sure, you are not more intelligent than Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler etc. are.
You say things with such certainty, I applaud you for having so much faith, but I am not a Christian and therefore need proof before I can accept you saying things like your first sentence.
I am not angry at God, especially one that I don't even believe in.
And someone can be a good person, and not even sin, but if they don't believe in God they go to hell. I find that completely ridiculous.
Lastly, the existence of hell and heaven has nothing to do with the beliefs of atheists like you. I am sure, you are not more intelligent than Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler etc. are.
I've told you before, I am not an atheist. And what does intelligence have to do with someone's religious beliefs? There are many intelligent atheists, just as there are many intelligent theists.
Without having the existence of the Creator, it is not possible to have such a world. The creation itself is the proof of the existence of God. You say, you are not an atheist; in the same time do not believe the existence of God. How it comes?
If you want proof, I will answer questions and answer it; automatically you will have the proof.
First I ask you two questions. Please answer.
(1) Do you believe your mom is (if alive)/was (if dead) loving you dad; no man is in her heart? If yes, how did you come to know and if no, how did you come to know about it?
(2) What's your opinion about the Universe? It has only two possibilities. (a) Someone created it (b) It created by its own.
Please answer both the question and gradually I'll be asking you some more question, so that you will have the proof. Because, the proof is not so short like (a+b)2 that I would explain in a sentence.
So, to get proof, please keep on answering me. Thanks
If you want proof, I will answer questions and answer it; automatically you will have the proof.
First I ask you two questions. Please answer.
I'm curious, so I'll bite:
(1) Do you believe your mom is (if alive)/was (if dead) loving you dad; no man is in her heart? If yes, how did you come to know and if no, how did you come to know about it?
Yes. I came to know by observing my mother and my father, and evaluating their actions and behavior with one another.
(2) What's your opinion about the Universe? It has only two possibilities. (a) Someone created it (b) It created by its own.
I reject the question, because it tries to limit my answer to one of two responses, both of which you have predetermined, and I don't agree with either of them. It would be like me asking, "what's you're all-time, absolute favorite color, pink or purple?" What if you're favorite color isn't one of the two answers I provided? How are you supposed to answer the question? You cant. How do you know the universe can only be explained by the two explanations you provided? For all you know there's some other universe that creates universes.
I find it hard to believe so early in this formula to establish "proof" you made such an elementary fallacy. More precisely, it makes it hard to believe this formula will establish proof.
Check out the website called "In Six Days" for scientists' articles detailing why they believe in God. The articles are from medical research scientists, biologists, physicists, geophysicists, etc. They are quite interesting, and a gold mine of scientific "proof" that God really did create the universe, and does indeed exist.
I am not going to buy a book and read the whole thing just so I can dispute your small reply.
If you want to argue proof, do it for yourself to keep this as an easy back-and-forth.
Start with what you feel as being 'proof' and we'll continue from there.
But don't waste my time by telling me that there is proof just because I am not willing to go off and read an entire book to stay on board with this discussion (which from my impressions of what I've read through so far are positively ridiculous and don't even adhere to the scientific method in what's being described).
Yes, given conclusive proof, I'd accept anything - absolutely without limit. I see no reason to reject anything at all that can be proven to me.
However, what I don't think you realise is that if God were proven, assuming you mean the Bible Gods (one of thousands of gods man has written stories about) I'd probably worship the Devil in a display of rebellion against the tyrannic and incompetent nature of his ruling. I'd rather burn in Hell than kiss the bastard's feet.
Irrelevant, as it'll never be proven, but I just thought I should add that.
Don't worry, you won't burn in hell, since the Bible does not teach such unjust punishment from God. You will just remain dead when you die. Satan is the great rebel, and many people follow him with your attitude. If he couldn't have his own way, he chooses to die.
But you don't realize is that God would not accept your "acceptance" just because it was proven. Satan also knows God exists, and yet has chosen to rebel. You have to accept God from your heart, and obviously, that is not in you to do so.
I have read the Bible, more than most Christians I've ever met have. It's the number one cause for my atheism - I can clearly see why it is to be ignored.
Where did the Universe come from? I don't know. But for me, "I don't know" doesn't lead to > "Therefore it must have been this explanation, and nothing else, which is ridiculous."
The main reason I've chosen to be an atheist is that science and logic are more plausible than merely a book written ages ago. The former I've seen with my own eyes, confirmed with countless experiments, yet the latter, I myself could write my own version given the time.
I am sure, it is one of the defeated atheists, may be Cuaroc now in different name. OK, proof that, the Universe created by its own. You might say, it created by the BigBang. So, let me ask you "What was there before the BigBang?" If your answer would be "no", then how could it be possible to happen something out of nothing? Please explain/prove the existence of the Universe i.e. how it began?
Yes, everything needs a creator. But without doubt, God is an exception. If He will be in the dimension of time and space, then He is not God, but like a limited human being. Therefore, we can not imagine about God, as He is outside of the dimension of time and space, where we are limited with time and space. Is it possible to keep the whole water of ocean into a teaspoon? Imagining God is far more than that. It is impossible to think about the infinite God in our finite mind. So, God never created. He has no beginning; nor he has an end.
I think it's really funny that theists can sit around explaining the inner workings of the mind of god all day, right up until you point out some aspect of god that's logically inconsistent or contradictory, and then all a sudden god becomes some incomprehensible being who works in mysterious ways.
So that's fine. I can ignore the logical contradictions of the concept of god in favor of pointing our the logical contradiction in you're explanation of him. You're entire defense of god is based upon your thoughts about god and the conclusions you made based on those thoughts. From those thoughts you concluded that god is a being we cannot think about and cannot comprehend. So you comprehended the nature of god (you have to understand something in order to explain it, no?) and from that understanding you concluded that it is impossible to understand god. And then you tell people based on your thoughts about god that their thoughts cannot comprehend god.
So basically you can either speak about god or you can't. If you can understand god well enough to tell us what he wants and thinks and feels and how he deals with problems, we can understand god well enough to tell you he's a logically impossible mythical tyrant. If you're god really is so incomprehensible, that's fine, but then you need to shut the fuck up about him because you don't understand him, either.
The evidence would have to be incredibly strong. I mean, there is evidence of people being abducted by extra-terrestrials; yet, a majority of the population scoffs at the idea.
There are mountains of geological, biological, and cosmological scientific evidence suggesting the Earth to be billions of years old; yet, there are plenty of people who believe it to be only a few thousand years of age.
I would need a little more than a few "How else do you explain this?" quandaries to convince me, unfortunately.
I would need to see some sort of observable, quantifiable, scientifically valid evidence, the likes of which would surely send shock waves through the scientific community. The kind that usually sees the discoverers awarded with a Nobel Prize.
The kind of philosophic arguments and logical proofs typically offered up as evidence are fun to debate over and all that; but, ultimately, they are not convincing enough. Most of the time they are based on premises and presuppositions that are far too speculative, and not nearly understood well enough to serve as solid foundations of convincing proofs.
So, hard evidence (testable, verifiable)... not soft evidence (philosophical argument) is, I think, what I would require.
...so you want to say that the Universe is created of its own? If the Universe created of its own and science approves it, then I must praise the scientist that, they believe in existence of things out of nothing, as in the case of the Universe.
I said no such thing. But, I'll play along anyway.
The first thing we need to square away is what, exactly, you mean by "nothing." I'm going to assume you mean something along the lines of the absence of matter or energy of any kind; and maybe even the absence of empty space itself.
What if I argued that nothingness, in this sense, doesn't exist. That the universe didn't "come from nothing," because there is no such thing as nothing. What if there was always empty space, in which matter and energy could come into existence. And what if, in this empty space, there was a quantum foam or quantum field of some sort which also always existed (and still exists today). A field of virtual particles constantly popping in and out of existence.
The universe could be the result of random fluctuations in this eternally existing quantum field.
The point I was trying to make is that we don't know enough about such things to say with any certainty that the universe could be created in this manner. We also don't know enough to say with any certainty that it could not.
A conclusion can be logically valid, and still be false, if any of the premises are inaccurate. The variables regarding the creation of the universe are not known with any certainty, and so, using them as a foundational premise in an argument either for or against God means you can come to a logically valid conclusion and still be incorrect.
Such arguments aren't good enough evidence for me.
I would require hard data. Testable, measurable, scientifically verifiable evidence.
in this empty space, there was a quantum foam or quantum field of some sort which also always existed (and still exists today). A field of virtual particles constantly popping in
So, how a field of virtual particles came to exist?
The variables regarding the creation of the universe are not known with any certainty, and so, using them as a foundational premise in an argument either for or against God means you can come to a logically valid conclusion and still be incorrect.
That's why said : "No one should deny the existence of God if the one is unable to prove the non-existence of God." Are you ready to prove that there is no God? If you are not able, why you say that, there is no God?
So, how a field of virtual particles came to exist?
Given these particles appear to pop in and out of existence even in the absence of matter and energy, it's possible they have been doing so forever.
That's why said : "No one should deny the existence of God if the one is unable to prove the non-existence of God." Are you ready to prove that there is no God? If you are not able, why you say that, there is no God?
I think I agree with you here, in a sense. If you make the assertion that absolutely no god(s) exists, then you probably should be able to offer proof. Likewise, if you assert that a god(s) absolutely does exist, then you should also be able to offer proof.
I think there is a difference, however, between the following statements:
1.) I don't believe a god(s) exists.
2.) I believe no god(s) exists.
It's not so much I'm asserting there is no god; it's just that I'm not convinced there is. Sure, there's no slam-dunk super-proof that God doesn't exist; but I think there's enough evidence to at least justify a reasonable doubt.
And that's really all I'm advertising... a reasonable doubt.
You are either mentally insane or a very nasty troll.
I don't know why you are on this website, but it upsets me and I wish you would leave. I am not angry, I just think you are a very negative part of this site, showcasing all the worst qualities a debater can have.
I do not want to convert people. I just convince what the truth is. Conversion is with the individual I am convincing.
Second thing is I am going to present here one hard truth. You may or may not agree with me. But that is true. And the truth is - Catholics ignore the last words of our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 28 last parts). So, it is a real Christian who would reach the Gospel to people unreached. So, people should hear the Gospel at least once. But Catholics are more concerned about social services. Yes, without charity, there is no Christianity. I know it. But without the Gospel also there is no meaning of Christianity.
So, those don't convince people (here non-Christians and atheists) about the Gospel will be responsible for his failure. Will not Jesus ask that day "Did you ever convince people, especially the atheists the truth?" So, be careful, otherwise, you will be disqualified for the Kingdom of God.
I do not want to convert people. I just convince what the truth is. Conversion is with the individual I am convincing.
Try as you might, you are not going to be able to convince someone to convert (which is what you are describing no matter how you protest it) so long as you do so in this manner. Sure, tell people about he gospel, but afterwards leave them alone. Let make up their own mind.
The point it though that there is a time and a place. Trying to preach on a debate website is neither, because religions (along with atheism as well), are often based on more personal, emotional decisions. Debates require more solid facts to work. Otherwise it just turns in to a he said, she said issue where both sides come out looking stupid.
I am not saying you shouldn't spread the Gospel, just that this is not the way to do it.
Jesus prayed for those who would "put faith" in him and his Father in our times, through the written word of his first century followers. (John 17:20) But sadly, most religions today do not believe the Bible is the true and inspired word of God. They roll right over against it, supporting evolution and other ungodly beliefs, to their own shame and abasement.
The precedent was set early on: stick to your beliefs to the death.
"The one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved."--Jesus
Oh, you are the same Cuaroc whom I defeated in all my previous posts? So, why did you call me coward? It is first time I heard a defeated man charging the winner with the word coward. Why are you so furious? It is not that, you will lose to me all the time. Be patient and see that, some day you may also win over me. Though it is impossible to win over me in the topics of Bible or God, I hope, you can win over me in other topics like politics, society etc. Why so disappointed and keeping on using useless words? The Bible says that education is started from home first. So, it seems that, you are brought up in that kind of family. Anyhow, CreateDebate is a platform for you. There are many gentle people here. You have many things to learn from them.
If intelligence is a persons ability to solve problems and understand reality based on observed information, then you are not intelligent. You refuse to accept a theory even if it has proof? Why do you accept the theories or ideas you do? Because that information is convincing. Shunning an idea even with proofs is pretty much saying that you know for a fact that you are right. Im sorry to tell you but that is impossible. Youre a fucking retard.