CreateDebate


Debate Info

43
40
Yes, God Exists No, God Does Not Exist
Debate Score:83
Arguments:79
Total Votes:96
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, God Exists (39)
 
 No, God Does Not Exist (32)

Debate Creator

Frankbbg(49) pic



Does God Exist?

The God debate is one of the most heated debates in life and on the internet. Many Theists and Atheists come to prove that God either does or does not exist and many people come close to getting it proved. However, there are always things that cannot be proved. There are things that anyone, even the die-hard atheists have to have faith in. It may not be a supreme being for them, but it is something. The Big Bang is a good example. Theists have to have a lot of faith. They believe that God created everything. They have to have faith that the universe is here because God spoke it into existence.

This debate is intended to be a friendly debate between believers (in God), and non-believers (in God). In this debate, believers have the burden of proving that God exists. Non-believers have that same burden to prove that God does not exist.

Yes, God Exists

Side Score: 43
VS.

No, God Does Not Exist

Side Score: 40

Of course He exists. Who else are people praying to ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists
Arnav123(1) Clarified
1 point

God is nothing but a positive energy which whoever came in some person and they were called as god. They were the people who enhance the power of mind( Chetan) and become a great almighty God.

Side: Yes, God Exists

That's nice ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists

Just look at the bible. It's huge!!! Why would people write such a big book if He didn't exist ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists

Look at all the people that have died in His name. Do you think they died for nothing ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists

Do you think all those priests and nuns gave up sex for nothing ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists

Do you want to lose your X-mas holiday? Because Him not existing is how you lose your X-mas holiday ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists
Jace(5078) Disputed
2 points

It's a stolen holiday in the first place. I'll just steal it again and make it my own. Jacemas Day.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist

Stranger things have happened ;)

Side: No, God Does Not Exist

Look at all the money people give to His representatives here on Earth. Do you think all those people are just throwing money away ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists

Look at all the people who speak in tongues. Do you think they're just spewing gibberish ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists

Look at the people that have risen from the dead. Do you think they are zombies ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists
Jace(5078) Disputed
1 point

Ahem. The politically correct term is 'living undead'.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist

I'm not politically correct ;)

Side: No, God Does Not Exist

Look at all the people who go to church. Do you think they are all just wasting time ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists

Look how close we are to the end of the world. Do you think it's all Trump's fault ;)

Side: Yes, God Exists
1 point

Non-believers have that same burden to prove that God does not exist.

No they actually don’t , as an Atheist I cannot say with certainty that a god does not exist but until evidence is provided to prove the affirmative claim my position is perfectly reasonable and the burden of proof still lies with the theist to prove his /her claim

Side: Yes, God Exists
1 point

If you believe God does not exist, please consider the following quote:

”Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

- C.S Lewis, "The Case for Christianity"

Side: Yes, God Exists
-1 points

There are inconsistencies that occur when atheists attempt to be rational. Rationality involves the use of laws of logic. Laws of logic prescribe the correct chain of reasoning between truth claims. For example, consider the argument: “If it is snowing outside, then it must be cold out. It is snowing. Therefore, it is cold out.” This argument is correct because it uses a law of logic called modus ponens. Laws of logic, like modus ponens, are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities. They are immaterial because you can’t touch them or stub your toe on one. They are universal and invariant because they apply in all places and at all times (modus ponens works just as well in Africa as it does in the United States, and just as well on Friday as it does on Monday). And they are abstract because they deal with concepts.

Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge. Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s thinking—they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself. The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God’s thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.

However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang? Why should there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply “molecules in motion”? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook—meaning they believe that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes. But laws of logic are not material! You cannot pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible!

No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic. The point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong. By using that which makes no sense given his worldview, the atheist is being horribly inconsistent. He is using God’s laws of logic, while denying the biblical God that makes such laws possible.

How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? The atheist cannot account for (1) the existence of laws of logic, (2) why they are immaterial, (3) why they are universal, (4) why they do not change with time, and (5) how human beings can possibly know about them or their properties. But of course, all these things make perfect sense in the Christian system. Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t prove anything at all!

Side: Yes, God Exists
AlofRI(3206) Clarified
1 point

I will agree with that. "Without him, we couldn't prove anything at all. That's exactly what you have proven ....... nothing at all.

Side: Yes, God Exists

I will agree with that. "Without him, we couldn't prove anything at all. That's exactly what you have proven ....... nothing at all.

There is kind of a general rule on Create Debate. How stupid somebody is can usually be discovered to be directly proportional to how long their posts are.

Side: Yes, God Exists
Frankbbg(49) Disputed
1 point

Ok, Consider this:

1. There must be a universal moral law or else—

a. Disagreements would make no sense.

b. All criticisms are meaningless (e.g., the Nazis are wrong)

c. Promise and treaty keeping are unnecessary.

d. We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law.

2. This moral law cannot be just herd instinct or herd mentality.

3. This moral law cannot be simply convention.

4. This moral law cannot be identified with the law of nature.

5. This moral law cannot be mere fancy.

6. Man is the key to understanding this moral law because:

a. He knows that moral oughts (prescriptions-what I ought to do)

cannot simply be derived from what morally is (descriptions-what

is done).

b. The source of this moral law must be more like man (mind) than

nature (matter). Moral laws come from minds, not matter.

c. The source of the moral law cannot merely be part of the

physical universe.

7. Therefore, there is an absolutely perfect power outside of mankind

which more like mind than anything we know:

a. It gives us moral commands.

b. It is very much interested in our behavior (in keeping the

commands it gives).

c. If it were not absolutely good, then all moral effort would be

futile in the long run.

d. This source of morality must be absolutely good (for the

standard for good cannot be less than good himself).

e. This kind of source for morality is God.

Side: Yes, God Exists
Jace(5078) Disputed
1 point

Within the study of logic it is generally agreed upon that logical axioms cannot be verified or falsified. This is because the grounds for proving or disproving the axiom would need to invoke that same axiom in proof of itself. Consequently, we have no basis from which to conclude that logical axioms are universal or invariant; your claims to this effect are not valid.

As we do not know that the axioms of logic are universal or invarient, it remains possible that they are in fact subjective and variable. This readily permits a material origin, which in turn permits an atheistic explanation for the existence of logical systems of thought.

Neither would the inability of atheists to explain logic be proof that your explanation is correct. If I cannot explain why the sun rises that does not prove that the sun revolves around the earth. Nor is it apparent that we need to be able to prove (or know) anything at all.

Furthermore, there are multiple systems of logic. You are drawing exclusively from one, namely contemporary symbolic logic. As you have explicitly mentioned the axiom of non-contradiction, I'll use it to demonstrate my point. Alternative systems of logic, such as the paraconsistic, reject the axiom of non-contradiction. As there is no way to verify or falsify the axiom of non-contradiction, neither system can be known to be more or less correct than the other. The consequence is not merely that some logics accept contradiction, but that there is contradiction at the metalogical level; this is inconsistent with the (alleged) essence of your god.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist
0 points

Within the study of logic it is generally agreed upon that logical axioms cannot be verified or falsified.

You are literally stupid.

An example of an obvious axiom is the principle of contradiction. It says that a statement and its opposite cannot both be true at the same time and place. The statement is based on physical laws and can easily be observed. An example is Newton's laws of motion.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Stop using words you don't understand the meaning of, you laughably dense nitwit.

Side: Yes, God Exists

Let's take a few steps back... What is a God? How do you know something is a God? How do you know it exists? Why only one and not many? When you ask these questions you NEVER get the same answers. Everyone has their own vague ideas about God, and that's reflected in the amount of sects Christians, Muslims, and Jews have. God seems like a reflection of themselves than something real.

At the core of the belief is Faith: believing without certainty. Many times I've argued about this... I get essentially the same contrived answer: "I know for certain that God exists because I don't know". Faith is paradoxical at best, it demands certainty of a belief without the assurance of verifying if it's true. Imagine if that's how we actually ran the world, if judges simply believed plaintiffs because they demanded faith.

I've never seen a good argument for god. They're all contrived machinations of logic and reason. Many times arguments that come from an emotional attachment to the belief itself. I blame the indoctrination that we all had as children. It stays there like a tick for the brain, sucking away the ability to see beyond the primitive morality that religion teaches.

Evidence is meaningless in the eyes of those who have closed their mind and live in a world of perfect certainty. It doesn't matter how many arguments you knock down, it only makes the religions more reassured of themselves. Believes that then they use to tell others how to live, even by force.

Give me actual evidence and I'll believe... aside from that there's nothing else to say.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist

Give me actual evidence and I'll believe... aside from that there's nothing else to say.

That was a really cracking post. I enjoyed reading it.

What I will add is that faith-based belief is by no means confined to religion. It just so happens that religion is the most obvious example of it. When you asked people to imagine if that is how we ran the world then it doesn't take much imagination. Immediately, I began thinking about ideology and political partisanship.

You used an interesting analogy about a judge simply believing the plaintiff's story. If we look at the role of a judge in society it is essentially to make judgements in accordance with a written code of law. But the law itself might be based in faith. For example, the idea that it is morally wrong to possess or consume drugs. Another might be that a child (by default at least) belongs with the mother and not the father if there is a separation. The close connection between religion and law can be seen every time a witness has to swear by the Bible before giving evidence. The legal system is loaded with faith-based beliefs. They are more difficult to find, but they are there. Indeed, science also has fallen into this trap. For over half a century scientists looking into the origins of life simply assumed it had started on Earth. There is no physical evidence of that, mind. They just assumed it.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist
2 points

I always wonder why people hold onto such a belief with such flimsy evidence. When I was religious it was due to indoctrination and it just being part of my life. When I would make arguments to bolster my point I would always, in a sense, hope the other person wasn't too smart. It almost felt as if I was content with winning the argument and in a way doing so for God. But now with the internet and the ability to weigh out the arguments on both sides it seems pretty simple to learn how to do logic. Don't trick yourself into belief, demand at least a logical argument.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist
1 point

A tremendously superior intelligence may exist but not in the form as depicted by the mumbo jumbo of the various man-made Gods.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist
Frankbbg(49) Disputed
1 point

Ok, anyone can say stuff like "God does not exist" but can you disprove the existence of God? What you just said is an unjustified assertion.

Side: Yes, God Exists
1 point

Ok, anyone can say stuff like "God does not exist" but can you disprove the existence of God? What you just said is an unjustified assertion

Nobody needs to disprove God because the burden of proof always rests with the accuser. If you believe something exists (different from accepting the possibility it exists) without evidence it exists then that is what we call irrational.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist
1 point

We cannot know what we know. We can only belief with varying degrees of conviction. I view divinity as I view unicorns; neither has given me subjective cause to believe in them, so I disbelieve in them when asked and otherwise think of them so little that I can hardly be said to have any belief towards them at all.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist
1 point

We cannot know what we know. We can only belief with varying degrees of conviction.

Belief is a noun. You're looking for a verb.

Your drunken platitudes are fairly boring to read.

Side: Yes, God Exists
Jace(5078) Disputed
1 point

I do not write to satisfy your classist pedantry, nor to amuse you. These are your problems and I do not take them upon myself for your sake.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist
Jace(5078) Disputed
1 point

Your drunken platitudes are fairly boring to read.

How would you know?

Side: No, God Does Not Exist
0 points

I do not believe in any god.

I can't prove that a god doesn't exist any more than anyone else can prove one does exist. Even if we were to prove that a god or gods exist, it would likely be impossible to conclusively determine that it would be the ultraspecific god or gods of any particular religion. That said, this is not the question we should be asking.

Let's step back. The important question is not whether god exists, the important question is why do people believe in a god and what are they doing with that faith. In other words,we should look at spirituality and religion as a tool. Like any tool it can be used to positive or destructive ends, and like any tool it can be replaced with one that will also do the job if you don't have that specific tool at your disposal.

Take the convict. The addict. Someone suffering an existential crisis. If they are able to use the tool of religion to turn their life around, does it really matter if their god exists? Of course not. Do they need the specific fix of religion? Again, of course not. They may need a change in lifestyle, a change in perspective, and some people use exercise or meditation or a career change or whatever to facilitate that change. However, that's an example of people using the tool of religion to bring about a net positive change in themselves. Who are we to judge them for that?

On the flip side, plenty of people use religion as an excuse to protest soldier's funerals. People use it as an excuse for murder. People use it as an excuse to abuse their kids. Typically that's a symptom of a deeper problem. Westboro Baptist Church is filled with emotional retards who are desperate to establish a sense of inherent moral superiority, if only in their own minds. Jihadists are usually looking for a fight with some goddamn body, and wouldn't you know it, the US is a convenient enemy and religion is a convenient excuse. But we can't blame the means by which they came to that end any more than we can blame Home Depot for selling a hammer to a guy who uses it to kill his family instead of build a house. The fucked up fact of life is that you can't save everybody, and you definitely can't save someone who doesn't want to be saved. And for someone intent on bringing about a positive as well as negative outcome on their society, the "how" of the matter is almost always superficial.

Side: No, God Does Not Exist
HappyCat(35) Disputed
1 point

Like any tool it can be used to positive or destructive ends, and like any tool it can be replaced with one that will also do the job if you don't have that specific tool at your disposal.

Well, many a leftist scrapped god or god religions and replaced it with a religion that says you can't leave your house unless they say, you were born racist, and child sex changes are normal. Might it just be better if they believed in a man hanging from a cross rather than that you can self identify as a damn tuna fish sandwich and burn down your own cities? Food for thought Devil. Food for thought.

Side: Yes, God Exists