CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
13
Argument for Existence Argument Against Existence
Debate Score:25
Arguments:39
Total Votes:27
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Argument for Existence (10)
 
 Argument Against Existence (12)

Debate Creator

KaratOlive(22) pic



Arguments for and Against the Existence of a Deity/God

Please don't react emotionally or tell anyone they are going to hell. It doesn't matter if said deity is monotheistic or polytheistic. Please avoid common logical fallacies.

Argument for Existence

Side Score: 12
VS.

Argument Against Existence

Side Score: 13
1 point

A male deity is a god, while a female deity is a goddess and they exist because people need to have faith in their existence.

People cannot agree on an explanation as to why we are here so God is the creation of people's need to create God within the hierarchical system we call religion through the need to seek more comprehensive answers to the problems we face than is provided by everyday beliefs.

If we knew why we were here we would not have invented God.

Side: Argument for Existence
Jace(5188) Clarified
1 point

This seems more an argument for the existence of the idea of god, rather than of god itself.

As it is, I hold a somewhat divergent though not entirely dissimilar perspective on the matter as yourself. I think the genesis of faith and gods developed as an attempt to reconcile our survival instinct with the rise of our conscious perception that rendered us aware of our own mortality. I think religion emerged as a social mechanism that capitalizes upon that vulnerability to bend the will of the group toward a common interest (not necessarily there own).

Side: Argument for Existence
flewk(1192) Disputed
1 point

While modern religious groups may seem to have a great deal of influence, I do not think that would be the case for early humans. Any new idea regarding deities would be viewed with skepticism as it would be entirely new concept. The amount of influence seen today would be impossible without an established following/acceptance.

Side: Argument Against Existence
toaquhay(1) Disputed
1 point

"A male deity is a god, while a female deity is a goddess and they exist because people need to have faith in their existence. "

Could you clarify who you mean by their? A god/goddess exists because people need to have faith in a god/goddess's existence? If that is the case, and I am not sure if that is what you mean, how does that prove the existence of a god or goddess?

"People cannot agree on an explanation as to why we are here so God is the creation of people's need to create God within the hierarchical system we call religion through the need to seek more comprehensive answers to the problems we face than is provided by everyday beliefs."

Would this not basically boil down to a god of the gaps argument? Also, if you grant that our existence is complicated with no known answer, how does that benefit us to explain something complicated with something even more complicated?

Side: Argument Against Existence
1 point

Since there is no specified deity for this debate, I will define deity as something that is capable of creating a planet and populating it with life or at least the inception of life.

I would postulate that at one point in the last 13.7 billion years, there was a civilization capable of such a feat.

If you wanted to go for lesser supernatural abilities, then someone who is using a flamethrower could be a deity.

Side: Argument for Existence
1 point

There is absolutely no objective evidence of the existence of a deity/God. All attempts to persuade others of the existence of a deity/God become ultimately self-referential assertions of belief.

This lack of evidence taken in conjunction with research identifying religiousity as a genetic disposition indicates that a deity/God is more probably non-existent than otherwise.

Side: Argument Against Existence
Amarel(5563) Clarified
2 points

Is there any objective evidence for the existence of conscious experience? Is the research that found a genetic disposition or religiousity repeated across more than one study? I only ask the second one because researches are incentivized to publish quickly.

Side: Argument for Existence
Jace(5188) Clarified
2 points

I do not believe there is absolute objective evidence for anything, but rather that some sources are more probably objective than others and that we may construct informed opinions that are more probably correct than others from that basis.

That said, I also do not believe in the "conscious" self as it is commonly presented. Nor do I think it is especially pertinent to this matter, unless you mean to suggest that our perception itself is unreliable so we cannot reach any conclusions (in which case, I refer you above).

While genetics research itself is fairly young, and research on the religious disposition does remain admittedly limited it comes on the heals of a far more substantial body of work in other fields (e.g. neurology, neuropsychology, neurochemistry, etc.) that establish religion as a developed phenomenon that is "moderately to highly heritable" (ref, see esp. preface summary of findings).

I would not claim that genetic heritability is a certainty, but I would suggest that what evidence we have available favors the non-probability of the existence of a deity/god substantially more than the opposite.

Side: Argument for Existence

Not only is there no evidence for God but he can be disproved. There are many omnipotence paradoxes which shows that God would be impossible e.g. the one about whether God would be able or not to create rock so heavy that even he cannot lift.

Side: Argument Against Existence
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
2 points

Ok seriously, none of those paradoxes are actual paradoxes. They are founded on shaky assumptions regarding omniscience/omnipotence, or just faulty logic.

Regarding the rock example: An omnipotent being would have zero limitations regarding what mass of a rock he or she could create OR what mass of a rock he or she could move. The inability to create a rock so heavy that he or she cannot move it is not in fact an inability, it is the absence of a limitation on how much mass can be moved. And that's not even getting into the more clever responses that look at the definition of lift.

Side: Argument for Existence
1 point

It is an inability as it something they can't do. It is an inability which arises from a lack of limitations.

Side: Argument for Existence
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

An all powerful God, has no limit to what he/she can do. In essence this means that God could change reality in any way he/she may wish to. This precludes the possibility of the paradox of the rock, as well as any other we can imagine.

Side: Argument for Existence
2 points

If they could change use their power to create limitations of their power then they would no longer be omnipotent and therefore not fit the definition of God.

Side: Argument for Existence
1 point

It is impossible for a god to exist.

God is considered to be the most highly-developed being in existence, highly surpassing humans.

Development cannot happen unless it's gradual.

Development is tirggered as a reaction to outside stimuli.

If we consider that at the beginning, there was nothing, that would put a god entity candidate in the same position as every other living being, reacting to the same set of stimuli.

Ergo, a god candidate would be no more or less developed than any other creature at a given point of time.

Ergo, he wouldn't be a god.

Side: Argument Against Existence
0 points

Whilst the the argument for the existence of an all powerful higher intelligence is more believable the the big bang ''theory'', I do not believe in the supernatural mumbo jumbo scriptures of the mainstream religions and their gods. I also feel that anyone who believes in any part of the backward superstition teachings of these ancient codes should automatically be eliminated from running for public office. As large sections of the scriptures, of all faiths, are disproved, so the elaborate imaginations of the respective clergy invent new explanations for the absurdity of their inclusion in these ancient books. The theologians keep moving the goal posts in a pitiful attempt to make their religions appear more compatible with scientific findings. A virgin birth, Noah's ark, with two of every animal in existence aboard, the parting of the waters and all that jazz;- 'tell it to the Marines''.

Side: Argument Against Existence
1 point

First of all there is too much evidence for the Big Bang for it to be denied, also if you don;t believe in mainstream religion then why do you have the Islamic crescent and star for your profile picture?

Side: Argument Against Existence