Does God Exist?
Yes
Side Score: 43
|
 |
No
Side Score: 45
|
|
|
|
|
5
points
Hi, for anyone out there who thinks that God cannot be proved and therefore doesn't exist, then unfortunately you run into the problem that NOTHING can be proved. This is outlined in the problem of knowledge which has troubled philosophers for many years, like Rene Decartes who wanted to prove that there was at least some knowledge that can be had, and that is of our own personal existence, but that is all. So do not try to dispel the existence of God by lack of proof of evidence, because you yourself cannot prove anything, not that your parents love you; nor that the wall behind you exists when you are not looking; nor that you didn't wake up only yesterday for the first time with all of the knowledge and memories that you think you have being just implanted by an evil scientist. So for me it boils down to Pascal's wager, that we can go through a life of no faith, and if there's not a God then we lived a life without profound purpose but perhaps one of hedonistic pleasure and enjoyment. But if there is a God, you face no redemption, perhaps even some form of eternal hell. And similar effects if you do believe in God just vise versa. That is my primary argument without God without talking about any theodicies etc. Side: Yes
2
points
People don't function by what they can prove to a level of absolute certainty. People operate on what they have reason to believe. There is nothing in our experience that indicates walls disappear. There is no reason to believe any of the various fanciful "brain in a vat" scenarios. There is no reason to believe in a magic fire that never ends in which I am doomed to suffer unending torment. If you truly operate on Pascal's wager, then you fall victim to whomever can come up with the scariest fairy tale. You better believe it just in case. Side: No
0
points
Well said. I personally do not have a faith in God but wanted to put this point on here. I do however have a vague belief in something, as I believe that there must be an uncaused cause which triggered the creation of everything. I would be interested in hearing other people's perspectives on the creation of everything from nothing. Side: No
2
points
Nothing can be truly proved, but it can be proved within a reasonable doubt- there's always going to a slim possibility that "x" is wrong, but that's not relevant to the case. As for Pascal's wager, you're assuming that if there is a God, that he must be malevolent in that he provides eternal suffering for those who don't believe in him and eternal paradise for those who do. Side: Yes
False. Things can be proved. It can be proved that the Earth is older than the bible allows. It can be proved that water does not magically turn into wine. It can be proved that the wall in front of me does not disappear when I turn my back on it. To postulate otherwise for the sake of legitimising the belief in magical fairies is ludicrous. There is no evidence God exists. There is abundant evidence that everything you and I see and hear, does. Side: No
2
points
That's the thing Sean, you simply can't prove those things. We can take them to the extreme and say that you're just a brain in a vat and all of these experiences are simulated, you cannot say that this isn't true because there is no way of knowing. In the same way how do you know water cannot turn into wine, because someone told you that this would break the laws of thermodynamics? Well what if those are wrong and you have been hypnotised to believe them; therefore, when we apply this 'rigorous scrutiny' as Decartes called it, nothing can be proved to certainty, hence the problem of knowledge. I wasn't using this to say that God is proven, but there are simple facts like the creation of the universe, what could have started it? Complex life, how did we go from nothing to an eye or even more, a complex brain? you say evolution, I agree, but how can you jump from no eyes to an eye when evolution requires there to be a stage in the middle, but this stage would be that of a half complete eye that would provide no evolutionary advantage. I digress, but there are points to be addressed here Side: No
I cannot be proved that the Earth is older than what the Bible allows, you have to believe in things you cannot prove regarding the past. You were not there. You do not know that the conditions then were the same as they are now. You are trying to legitimize your belief in two scientific impossibilities. 1) that life emerged by chance and accident from non-living matter, something completely contrary to what science observes in nature that living things always and only come from living things and 2) you believe that inteligence/consciousness is caused by mindless matter, another scientific impossibility. You want to believe these things only because you want to be ruled by your own lusts and not by God, so you ascribe to nature the supernatural power of causing life to appear. Your brainwashed in the religion of naturalism, believing that what you believe is fact when you believe in nonsense, call "science" you god, worship nature as the supernatural thing which caused you to be a temporary apparition of consciosness caused by chemical fizzes Your belief system is worthless, good for nothing, a complete waste of time unnecessary for any scientific application or endeavor. In your belief system you degrade yourself into nothing but a pile of wet dust which is not worth your salt. Side: Yes
1
point
Hi, for anyone out there who thinks that God cannot be proved and therefore doesn't exist, then unfortunately you run into the problem that NOTHING can be proved. I guess that depends on your definition of proof. Regardless, even if that were true, there is something god doesn't have and that is evidence. This is outlined in the problem of knowledge which has troubled philosophers for many years, like Rene Decartes who wanted to prove that there was at least some knowledge that can be had, and that is of our own personal existence, but that is all. I am not sure if Rene Decartes actually argued that our own existence is the only thing we can know, or if our own existence is the only thing we can be absolutely certain about. If the former then I beg to differ, if the latter then I completely agree. Regardless I am sure there are many well known philosophers in history who would disagree with him. So do not try to dispel the existence of God by lack of proof of evidence,... Wait, wait, wait... are you talking about proof, or evidence? They aren't necessarily the same thing. because you yourself cannot prove anything, not that your parents love you; nor that the wall behind you exists when you are not looking; nor that you didn't wake up only yesterday for the first time with all of the knowledge and memories that you think you have being just implanted by an evil scientist. At least we have good reasons to think these things, like evidence, just because we can be wrong about anything doesn't mean we don't have good reasoning and evidence for our beliefs. Yeah maybe reality as I know it doesn't exist, that's a hypothetical possibility, it's also possible that reality as I know it does exist. I acknowledge the fact that I can be wrong about just about anything, it's the very core of my philosophy of scepticism that predisposes me to not believe in god. I want my belief system to be as efficient as possible, by basing all my beliefs in life on the best reasoning as I can. There is many good reasons to think the computer in front of me is real, maybe it is not, but there's more reason to believe the computer is real than an illusion. What reason do you have to think your god is real? So for me it boils down to Pascal's wager, that we can go through a life of no faith, and if there's not a God then we lived a life without profound purpose but perhaps one of hedonistic pleasure and enjoyment. But then if god is real how will you go to heaven with your hedonistic, pleasurable, and enjoyable lifestyle? But if there is a God, you face no redemption, perhaps even some form of eternal hell. You do realize that in order for that to convince me to believe in your belief system that I would have to believe several specific premises of your belief system in the first place? For example god's existence, and hell, and that god punishes people for being unconvinced of his existence. God's existence, I don't believe because I don't have a good reason to believe that gods exist. Hell, which does not exist in the old testament nor the hebrew bible and a very modern concept actually. The fact that you can't find Hell mentioned throughout the old testament makes it seem made up. Logically, the idea of hell as a form of punishment is something that one would think a god would find primitive and cosmically cruel. Infinite pain for infinite time? What does that achieve? What does that accomplish? Why not just wipe them from existence? That would accomplish the same thing without infinitely to the infininth power (literally) less suffering. Oh and Don't get me started on the problem of evil. Then after all that I would have to take seriously the notion that god really cares about how convinced of his existence I am. Do you realize how egotistical it would be to punish people for not being convinced your real? First of all who does that wrong? god? if so how? Secondly, philosophers have argued for centuries that our beliefs are not entirely within our control. Either someone is convinced god exists or they aren't, it's a compulsion, not a choice, and to punish someone for that is essentially treating nonbelief as a thought crime except you are even punished for not thinking there is a god. So not only is not being convinced by god a victimless crime that wrongs nobody, it's immoral to punish someone for things outside of their control. IF god is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then why would he want to punish people for things outside of their control? And similar effects if you do believe in God just vise versa. That is my primary argument without God without talking about any theodicies etc. Are you acknowledging this argument can apply to other religions against you? That's refreshing. So do you not see that it is like a huge game of cups and balls and telling everyone who loses that because they lost they are bad people and deserve to be punished and the people who won are inherently better people because of it. That sound like a realistic god concept to you? Side: No
Hi, for anyone out there who thinks that God cannot be proved and therefore doesn't exist, then unfortunately you run into the problem that NOTHING can be proved. I'm not sure who is making that claim, but if someone is, it's quite a dangerous claim. Most atheists (not all) take the stance that unless you can prove your God, it is not reasonable to believe he exists. Though close, those statements have two distinct meanings. So for me it boils down to Pascal's wager Pascal's wager is a terrible idea. First, your assuming only two outcomes. Yes, under the premise, if the Christian is right and the atheist is wrong, the Christian wins. If the Christian is wrong and the atheist is right, it doesn't matter therefore the Christian still wins. But what if the Muslim is correct? What if any other religion is right? Secondly, from what I had read in Bible, entrance to heaven would involve real faith and real belief, not simply because you want to hedge your bets. Side: No
God created man to reason. The Human is the reasoning animal. It is what sets us apart. Faith demands that we suspend our reason. Faith demands that we operate in a manner that is counter to Gods purpose for man. Faith is blasphemous. Thus God exists, but you ought not believe it. Not until you have cause. God loves atheists. Side: Yes
Hahahaha..............pardon me for reading your stuff as you drew me in with "God created man to reason" which has some half truth in it, so I read your whole post. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If a person writes you a check and you trust in the character of that person that the check is good, you act in faith by accepting the check and it is the evidence of money you have not seen yet believing in the promise of the check you hold on to it as the substance of the money you hope is added to your account when the check clears the bank. Stupidity requires you to suspend your reason and accept checks from people who are known to write bad checks. Your faith is in stupidity, believing lies people have told you about reality and you'rer on your way to cash your bad check at the bank of death and then you reap the consequences of your actions. Your thinking is so twisted it's difficult to follow. God did not create man to reason, God gave man powers of reason like His own for Himself to enjoy, magnifying the honor of His glory by creating beings like Himself. God created man to enjoy, He did not create man so He would have people to argue with. You abuse the power of reason God gave you by insisting God is not worthy of you. You are blasphemous, your whole life in your attitude is a blasphemy, you are against God and proud of yourself and if that's the way you want to be you will be that way in the only place suited for you which is the fire of Hell which will consume your arguments against God and they will not be heard by the living, no sound rising from the fire but the smoke of your torments will rise forever.....if you insist on being as you are against God, God will make sure you get what you want and give you that fiery reality sealing your animosity against God forever. Side: Yes
0
points
All animals share traits to greater and lesser extents. Would you argue that the cheetahs speed is not unique because lots of animals can run? Reason is what we have in abundance. We are so far ahead of the next most reasoning creature that it cannot be calculated, as evidenced by the technology with which you doubt it. Side: Yes
2
points
YEP, TAKE A PEAK ATHEISTS. UNLESS PROOF IS NOT WHAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE AFTER....... Side: Yes
The following is from a Time Magazine article and I think you know Time is pro-atheism and pro-evolution. Notice it implies the universe is fine tailored for "the emergence" of life. It is not possible for living things to emerge by chance or accident from non-living matter. The universe is fine tuned to support life on Earth, and life could only have originated from the living God. There is no other logical conclusion. You do not have to agree with this, but to spend your life developing scenarios in which you can believe in the impossible is a waste of time.. From Time Magazine: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries. But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe: Why is our universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life? This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, the more the universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex. To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature. And the situation becomes much more daunting as we expand our view to the entire cosmos. The Bible says people who talk like this are "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". The more natural reality is studied scientifically, the more complicated it is found to be and the more it indicates the impossibility of happening by chance or accident....yet these pseudo-scientists spend their lives trying to disprove what is obvious in nature, the reality as we know it is impossible if God did not order it, that it was designed by God and life is a gift of God......and they actually get people to pay them for doing it. The big bang and evolution are ideas void of logic and degrading to humanity....more than worthless, they consume and waste huge quantities of time and money while giving people excuses for their immoralities.......which is the only reason these anti-God fake sciences are promoted....because they want their immoralities to be excused so they feel they are justified by their own existence and they hope in death to get them out of reality so they won't have to answer for the evil things they have said, done, and imagined as they abused the time God gave them.........and then they find Jesus is on the throne of God and He who gave His blood for them as a covering for their sins if they would have believed on and trusted in Him will be their Judge while the soles of their feet are caked with the blood of Christ which they trampled under their feet and they will know the wrath of God as they preferred it over His love. Side: Yes
2
points
2
points
For the sake of brevity, I will link to my logical proof of God's existence, using nothing but formal logic and Scientific Laws, rather than rewrite it: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Side: Yes
2
points
Yes, the existence of god and objective truth can be proven via the formal sciences such as logic and mathematics. Which are superior to the natural sciences such as physics, since they are objective unchanging truths, unlike the flimsy empirical sciences which are subject to the flaws of perception and are constantly changing. For that matter, Einstein's theories of relativity prove that all truth in existence, including moral truth is objective regardless of perspective. Since while a train may appear to be moving faster or slower from the perspective of a passenger, or someone viewing it from the outside, if the objective speed is measured it is always the same. This of course proves the moral relativism is anti-science and contradicts the laws of physics, since that would be like saying that whether the earth is flat or round 'depends' on your perspective (e.x. if viewing it from the ground it is flat, but if viewing it from space it is round), and that both views should therefore be taught in schools as 'equally valid'. Side: Yes
If god was not really whom created the start of the human race. Do you believe in evolution, That us very intelligent creatures once were a no legged swimming animal once a long time ago. I don't see how a human can even think that the main thing that we came from were monkeys. These creatures are intelligent so we can not possibly have evolved form them.People that see god as fake probably have no idea what their going to see later on. Most people don't have a story or something to tell about Jesus. But I can tell you now after falling dead and coming to the light and seeing a man say its not your time and time for you to go back then to be told that you died. Your heart stopped and you died by your own mother. Its scary. Its mortifying to know your mother was there to watch you die. But then to see you come back. This has happened twice to my sister now. I have physical proof living in the bedroom right next to me and all of her glory. Side: Yes
|
2
points
The answer is no. It cannot even be theorized. If you take any scientific theory and apply it, it's equations and experiments are based on proven things. Doing so either proves or disproves the theory. A good example of this is theoretical physics, which takes the elements and the anatomy of matter and applies that to a theory of a particle that creates other particles. That theory is one being tested today in Europe. Now apply that to the existence of god. There are no equations you can implement, no real world basis, no similar or previous elements or evidence, just a book. A book which anyone could have written while under the influence, suffering from mental illness, following an older religion that may or may not be written under the same circumstances. It's all very foggy, elusive and lacks any real evidence. Side: No
1
point
Really? you're saying something isn't real as you don't have proof. You don't have proof of ANYTHING in your life, you could be a brain in simulation, and you cannot prove that you aren't. You can't prove that the wall behind you doesn't disappear when you look away, so don't try and use proof as your way of dispelling God. Though I don't follow any religion, the premise behind for example the Bible is that the person writing it was being instructed by God, and since it is the book of an omnipotent being, I think they would say that God made sure that there were no mistakes so that argument doesn't work against a theist. If you really need equations to believe in everything, even though you cannot apply your empirical science ---( which itself is constantly proven wrong and changes as new information comes forth, so trusting in it may be the most stupid place to put your faith of all unless you plan on changing most of it every 50 years )--- to ultimate questions in your own life. Like do you believe that your mother loves you? the answer is likely yes, okay, prove it. Side: No
God wouldnt exist if people didnt make up and there for there is no way to test for "god" the only reason people believe is because they are told he exists at a very young impressionable age if you no one ever told god existed we wouldnt be havung this debate right now. God is an outdated way of explaining the world the used to not understand. Now we have science we can explain the things that happen around us there for god is ancient and outdated. Side: No
There is not one shred of evidence that a god exists , believers claim to have a relationship with a spiritual entity that cannot be seen , heard or touched and thus fulfills none of the criteria of existent things, yet exists ? If believers were not exposed to religious belief or the idea of a creator god until reaching a mature age ( 16 -18 ) and were presented with a Bible or Quran and told to read them and give a considered opinion , most would think both books to be the ramblings of a drug addled lunatic and dismiss them for the childish nonsense they are . The majority of people believe because they never had any choice that's how the ghastly practice of indoctrination works ; take young pliable and force feed them garbage day in day out and you end up with your modern believer Side: No
You say .. the lapse of time and its effects on an individual are not relevant ... but they are as it's not the same person 100 per cent making the claim . You're not 100 per cent experiencing as in 'I ' because the 'I ' you speak of is illusory .. and that 99 .9 per cent certain I moved the above post to the new debate. I responded here because it is difficult to find above post in the bottom of the thread. Which is why I put it in the new debate. Side: Yes
0
points
0
points
Okay your point of proof, well read my argument on the other side and you will realise that there is no evidence for anything that puts it in complete certainty. Yes i agree, 99% of believers have theistic beliefs due to their upbringing, but there are ultimate questions which need the exist of something to satisfy them, like what created the universe from nothing? How is it that the universe is so ridiculously fine tuned to the point where the chance of the universe being like it is where abiogenesis is able to happen is neigh infinitesimal (google some stats concerning the fine-tuning argument and you will really be astonished.) Side: No
The odds of matter existing in the form it exists is more than nigh to infinitesimal, it is considered an impossibility when the number of possible combinations of how sub-atomic and atomic things are arrange is in something like 10 to the 300th power. I don't know the exact numbers, I have read them several times in physics journals as I get a kick out of watching so many "scientists" who cannot accept the reality that the universe and living things cannot be explained rationally apart from being created by God. They's say things showing their beliefs are scientifically absurd and mathematically impossible, then they'll turn right around and say "but we still believe it all happened by chance and accident and not by the will of God". Abiogenisis is a scientific impossibility. All that is ever seen in nature is that living things come from living things, inheriting their characteristics from their parent or parents. And your "99 % of believers have theistic beliefs due to their upbringing" is rubbish. That kind of remark is just a fluffy lie fools toss around as in insult while they flatter themselves into thinking they are smarter than God. They can look at the stats of the fine tuning argument and be completely unimpressed, the same as the atheistic pseudo-scientists who at least have the brains to point out that the odds of matter and life existing as they are now is a mathematical impossibility yet they still insist it all happened by accident and chance.....with absolutely no logical explanation of how that could even be possible. They simply cannot allow themselves to consider the obvious, that God created the heavens and the Earth and everything that is in them because that would mean He rules over them and they hate that idea. Side: Yes
Hi Fabian , yes you're talking 100 per cent proof and that's true but we as humans do not demand 100 per cent proof for anything do we ? We cannot function this way , yet why always is the exception of the religious that they are allowed the luxury of saying they believe totally and this is always taken at face value? The difference though in the god claim no one can present ANY proof for a god claim and if they can why not demonstrate it to the world ? If one allows for the god claim why not also the other thousands od of weekly supernatural claims from all around the world ? Yet not one shred of evidence to back them up . Yes some questions we want satisfied but why not say you don't know yet ? Instead the easy and indeed intellectually lazy answer is godidit as it fits all sizes . How do you know something cannnot come from nothing how do you prove this ? I have studied the fine tuning argument and no I'm not astonished as I've seen William Lane Craig taken apart several times when he argues for a fine tuned universe . Read this snippet and read the various arguments online that demolish this argument .... To come back to the general argument, there is one gigantic objection, the kind of thing that does not seem obvious but seems that way after you understand it. That objection is simply that fine-tuning is not an argument for design, but rather an argument against design! The idea of an extreme fine-tuning beyond which the target cannot exist is indicative of a precarious natural system, not of intelligent planning. To understand this, an analogy may be useful. Suppose that our breathing was dependent on a specific level of oxygen in the atmosphere, and that any other level would cause suffocation. That would certainly count as “fine-tuning” in the sense given by the argument. The atmospheric composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life, and this would therefore demand “explanation”. But even if that was true, how would this fine-tuning justify design explanations? A designer would not make it so that humans would constantly face the danger of suffocation! An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, to ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. Such is the case with humans, who can breathe in atmospheres thin or rich in oxygen. The precarity of a system’s functioning is not evidence of design, but rather of natural law.
III. Another objection to the fine-tuning argument is that we should not be surprised or befuddled that the universe is adapted to our needs, since we evolved within the universe and its parameters. Evolution tends towards adaptation of life to its environment. Therefore, we should no more be surprised of how well the universe fits us, than we should be surprised of how well a baked cookie fits its mold. This argument is also called the WAP. Side: Yes
Ho-Hum.............. I have been waiting almost 80 years, expecting to see some evidence. Maybe it's because I'm not prone to "voices in my head". Too fixated on facts ...( not the "alternative" kind). Maybe I had an exceptional Science teacher? I dunno ..... STILL waiting! Somehow, maybe, NowaSaint could change my mind .... if he could come up with anything but one of those .... alternatives ..., SHIT, I guess my "God given" curiosity will make things hot for me! Maybe then I'll "feel the love". ;-) Side: No
2
points
Does God Exist? Which God? Your arbitrary statistic claiming 84% of the world believe in a transient being must account for those that believe in different gods. With over 84% of the world believing in a transient being I'd like to see your source for this information as I find it highly unlikely. Maybe some of that 84% are deists, but that does not involve an actual "being". That said, I don't see this as being a binary question. I can only say I don't know, but I have not found it reasonable to believe in God or a god. Chance or creation? Without sufficient evidence for a god, and given my two options, I'd say chance. I don't particularly like that term because many would somehow relate that term to purpose or intent. I know religious people don't see it this way, and it can be hard to accept, but when someone asks, "Why are we here?" There really is no divine reason or purpose. Side: No
|
