Does God Exist?
Yes, God Exists
Side Score: 60
|
 |
No, God Does Not Exist
Side Score: 49
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
Of course there si The imagine friend of my son. Who else si he talking to? First off, you need to improve your grammar. Second, you're being disrespectful to others. You don't have to believe in God, but you do have to respect the fact that people can have their own beliefs. Side: Yes, God Exists
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
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
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
point
Yes God exists. I believe there is a God. I know one is up there. I always know God and Jesus are watching over me. That’s why I try to be a good person. I don’t accept prostitution, abortion, pedophilia, Zoophilia, homosexuality, transgenderism, or any other sin. But I also don’t believe in judging others either. I used to judge people, but I learned that it is not okay to judge other people. I learned that if I don’t like an idea of something, I won’t apply it to myself. Forcing your beliefs on others isn’t right either. Convincing people to turn over to religion is NOT forcing religion on other people. Most people convince others to turn over to religion. There is one up there. God created man and woman for the purpose of reproduction. God created Earth for humans, animals, insects, plants, arachnids, etc. to thrive. In conclusion, I believe in God for many reasons. To prove I am NOT forcing anyone religion, I will say you don’t have to believe me. Side: Yes, God Exists
1
point
The question is... Does God exist? There is an answer to every question, and the answer to this one is: Yes, God exists. First off, some people who have died have come back to life and said they saw a beautiful place. Religion is what helps people be... people! It helps people be good knowing that God and Jesus are watching over you. If you ask for forgiveness from Jesus, you will be forgiven, cured from sin, and will go to Heaven as long as you stay on your knees. Jesus Saves Side: Yes, God Exists
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
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. 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
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
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
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. This is not true. Your logic is meaningless unless the objective biblical God does exist. In order to follow a law of logic you have to presuppose that the laws of logic exist. Atheists must presuppose this. Therefore, in order to follow a law of logic atheists must be depending on God's existence—the very thing of which they are denying.
Additionally, there are objective rules of logic that are invariant. These objective rules are evident! They prove God's existence. The laws of noncontradiction or identity are evident. Admit it—you didn't think about those specific laws of logic when you saw a contradiction in someone's argument, did you? How did you know it was wrong? Well, obviously, by realizing that it is an either/or situation. Either a person's position is true or false. Either a statement is contradictory, or it is not. You knew it was wrong because you had to either apply the laws or not apply them. If the subject, A, is the same as the predicate, B, then necessarily the statement is false. Likewise, the statement either assumes a false premise—i.e. that it is snowing does not make it cold out or vice versa—or it is not contradictory at all. It is wrong to say that it is snowing and it is cold out. The world does not function that way. It's obvious to any objective observer. Atheistic thinking about this is stupid! Only a God who is all-wise could set up reality this way.
Some atheists attempt to combat the rationality of objective logic by claiming that logic is subjective, relative to the language in which we express our thoughts. But as previously mentioned, language cannot refute logic. Truth is truth. The person making the statement either makes a true claim, or he does not. Thus, for example, 1) the statement "My car is red" is either true or not true, and 2) the statement "My car is not red" is either true or not true. If your car is in fact, red, then the statement that your car is not red is false. You cannot say "My car is red, but my car is not red." That would be a lie!
Moral standards cannot exist without a basis. But humanists have never found a basis for morality! The top of the moral standard has to be absolute for it to be meaningful. However, atheists are always changing the parameters of their morality. What is right today is wrong tomorrow. Christian standards of morality do not fluctuate with their opinions about right and wrong. Christ is the standard, not man. The fact is, if God had not authored a moral standard in our conscience, we would all be barbarians. He would have no reason to prosecute sin. We would be incapable of recognizing it as such. 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. Logical axioms are not based on verification or falsification, but rather on consistency. If an axiom is not consistent, then it cannot be used in logical proofs. As our logic is based on consistent axioms, it follows that they must be universal and invariant. In order to explain the existence of logical systems of thought, we do not need to invoke a material origin or atheistic explanation. All that is necessary is that the axioms of logic are universal and invariant. As I have shown, these axioms are in fact consistent with Christian belief. Your argument also assumes that atheists cannot explain logic. However, this is not the case. There are many atheists who are experts in logic and can readily explain why it exists. 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. You argue that there are multiple systems of logic. This is true, but it does not disprove the validity of Christianity. Each system of logic has its own set of axioms, which may or may not be consistent. The fact that different systems of logic exist does not demonstrate that they are all equal in validity. Side: Yes, God Exists
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
|
2
points
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
1
point
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
1
point
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. I know that it seems that way, but take a look at examples that are not about God. You'll begin to see that it is not just God that people cannot agree on, but it is also the origin of life, the origin of the universe, and many other things. 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. Faith is paradoxical because faith is belief without certainty. I do not know what theory or religion you may subscribe to, but at the center of all of those is belief. Take the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory for example. Those are unproven beliefs centered on faith alone. If a young child had been taught the big bang and evolution process and asked you what makes it true, you couldn't tell them yay or nay because there is nothing that makes it fully true. The only thing you could tell that child is that you and many others believe it is true. I have 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. You haven't seen a good argument for God because you haven't looked. Theists have put forth many arguments, and atheists have put forth many arguments. Theists have put forth arguments that are based on faith, logic, and reasoning just like atheists have put forth arguments that are based on faith, logic, and reasoning. 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. You are correct; However, the same principle applies to atheists and others too. Give me actual evidence and I'll believe... aside from that there's nothing else to say. I haven't given any evidence for God, and you haven't given any evidence for atheism either. I call that neutral ground. I don't know what your definition of "actual evidence" is, but I have a hunch that whatever I have to offer will never fall into that category by your standards. Side: Yes, God Exists
1
point
Take the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory for example. Those are unproven beliefs centered on faith alone It isn't intelligent and/or intellectually honest to pretend that theories which require evidence to even be called "theories" are on equal ground with religious beliefs. To disregard the entire notion of there being varying levels of evidence to things and to simply call everything "faith" ruins the whole point of reason. You have faith in your own faith in God despite not even understanding that there is a difference between a belief and a theory. In order to have a belief, you have to believe it but you can choose not to believe in a theory or even a fact. Your problem is that you don't seek evidence and facts when choosing what to believe because retarded apologists brainwashed you to think that everything is faith which would render all beliefs pointless by default instead of rendering christianity true by default btw. Side: No, God Does Not Exist
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
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. That's because there isn't flimsy evidence. Most people don't know about it because many churches don't teach apologetics. Many Christians hope that the Atheists they are arguing against aren't too smart because they don't know how to defend the faith. Don't trick yourself into belief, demand at least a logical argument. Almost everyone has their own belief about how the universe came about. Whether it be Supernatural Creation or Naturalistic Evolution. No matter what it is, it's all based on belief. There are arguments and evidence to help support that belief, but unless one knows about the evidence or arguments and is ready to defend his/her faith (whatever it be, doesn't have to be Christianity necessarily), all you are going to hear is belief, belief, belief. Side: Yes, God Exists
1
point
There are arguments and evidence to help support that belief, but unless one knows about the evidence or arguments and is ready to defend his/her faith (whatever it be, doesn't have to be Christianity necessarily), all you are going to hear is belief, belief, belief. Yes, but this assertion is an ancient philosophical platitude derived from the subjectivity of the human experience. You are telling us nothing new or exciting. You are just stating the obvious. Nothing can ever be proven with certainty. 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
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
|
