CreateDebate


Debate Info

28
37
Yes! No!
Debate Score:65
Arguments:59
Total Votes:72
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes! (25)
 
 No! (26)

Debate Creator

Client444(61) pic



Does God exist?

Not just God, as in the Christian God, but a god in general. It is fine for a debater to base his argument on his/her religion.

Yes!

Side Score: 28
VS.

No!

Side Score: 37
2 points

This question has been dumb, since the dawn of time and forever will be.

Amen.

Side: Yes!
1 point

If we believe in credit, the idea of money, existing in place of actual money we don't yet have, then sure we can say God exists. Whether it's a physical entity or not, the idea certainly exists.

Side: Yes!
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Quoting the remade Miracle on 34th street doesn't count as a valid argument.

Side: No!
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

I've never heard of Miracle on 34th street before today. For the purpose of arguing a point that either side has no proof on, an abstract idea like the one I offered is valid.

Side: Yes!
Jace(5050) Disputed
1 point

You argument does not prove that God exists, but that the concept of God exists; those are two are entirely different conclusions.

Side: No!
DrawFour(2662) Disputed
1 point

What proof do we have that the money we spend on credit cards exists?

Side: Yes!
1 point

Yes, God does exist.

Side: Yes!
pakicetus(1455) Clarified
1 point

Proof ?

Side: Yes!
Srom(12204) Disputed
1 point

I do not think I can do that, because of your presuppositions.

Side: No!
3 points

There is no objective basis for the belief in any god. All purported evidence proves to be self-referential, misrepresentative, and/or baseless conjecture. God is inevitably a projection of the human ego - the desire for significance, meaning, and immortality satiated by a comforting but altogether unsubstantiated belief. Even in the most abstract and irreligious sense, god as a concept is a coping mechanism for those too incapable or unwilling to confront the unknown. God is the easy substitute for the actual answers we are presently lacking, and an emotional consolation against the knowledge we currently possess.

Side: No!

Now if only theists could understand what you just said...

Side: No!
Jace(5050) Clarified
1 point

Ah, but if they did then they would not be theists. ;)

Side: Yes!
Client444(61) Disputed
1 point

There is no objective basis for the belief in any god.

How do you figure? Have you existed forever? Are you omniscient? Why could there not be? I'd say that eye witness accounts are much, much more reliable than people who weren't actually there trying to put the pieces together without substantiated evidence.

All purported evidence proves to be self-referential, misrepresentative, and/or baseless conjecture.

Except... They're not. Eye witnesses. Why do you believe some guy you don't know who wasn't there over people who were? At the end, you're putting your faith in someone's word. Someone who WASN'T THERE with PRESUPPOSITIONS that God does not exist.

God is inevitably a projection of the human ego - the desire for significance, meaning, and immortality satiated by a comforting but altogether unsubstantiated belief.

Is it?

Even in the most abstract and irreligious sense, god as a concept is a coping mechanism for those too incapable or unwilling to confront the unknown.

How do you know that? Are you omniscient?

God is the easy substitute for the actual answers we are presently lacking, and an emotional consolation against the knowledge we currently possess.

No. God is obviously not. Easy is just believing something because one person says it's so, like most of us do with science. Now, religion. Religion is believing in something because an omniscient and omnipotent being said so. At least, Christianity is this. I'll probably get an "Why is your religion right?" over this.

Side: Yes!
Jace(5050) Disputed
1 point

How do you figure? Have you existed forever? Are you omniscient? Why could there not be? I'd say that eye witness accounts are much, much more reliable than people who weren't actually there trying to put the pieces together without substantiated evidence.

Obviously, no, I haven't existed forever and am not omniscient. Neither of those is required to observe that there is no objective evidence that god exists. Someone claiming to have seen something when that claim has zero substantiation and has never been verified is not objective proof.

Except... They're not. Eye witnesses. Why do you believe some guy you don't know who wasn't there over people who were? At the end, you're putting your faith in someone's word. Someone who WASN'T THERE with PRESUPPOSITIONS that God does not exist.

There are people who claim to be eye witnesses, for virtually every religion that has ever existed. Why do you believe some of them and not others? I am not an atheist because someone else said it is correct; I am an atheist because I do not believe in anything for which there is no objective probable truth. Atheism is the rejection of the presupposition that God exists; it is the absence of presumption.

Is it?

Yes.

How do you know that? Are you omniscient?

I derive it as a probabilistically true conclusion, on the basis of my independent reasoning informed by controlled, peer-reviewed research. Pardon me for seeing this as more legitimate than a single book full of internal contradictions written by a handful of old white men that claimed God spoke to them (but which cannot be externally verified at all).

A simple breakdown for you, though: There is absolutely no objective evidence that our lives have cosmic significance or meaning, or that there is life after death. These are absolute facts (you disagree, give me any proof), and for many people they are uncomfortable. Without exception, and certainly with Christianity, religion has always functioned to reassure people that their lives have cosmic meaning and that they are immortal. I would cite research... but clearly you prefer your story book, so what is the point? You won't read it; you'll just say it's wrong because its science.

No. God is obviously not. Easy is just believing something because one person says it's so, like most of us do with science. Now, religion. Religion is believing in something because an omniscient and omnipotent being said so. At least, Christianity is this. I'll probably get an "Why is your religion right?" over this.

Science is not more informed than religion because someone says it's right; it is preferable because it is subjected to standards of regulation and verification which religion never is. Religion is not believing in something because a deity told you it's true; religion is believing in something because a few people told you that that deity told them it's true. Unless you're claiming that God speaks directly to you?

And yes, absolutely you are going to get the "why is your religion right?" question. When your claim is based entirely upon the notion of "eye witnesses" which every other religion has too, then yeah, you have to give a reason to prefer yours.

Side: No!

I have no reason to so no.

Side: No!
Client444(61) Disputed
1 point

Okay, so the question was "Does God exist?" You responded with "I have no reason to so no." This implies that you are God, not that you have no reason to believe in God.

Also, what reason do you have to believe anything else? How do you know that what scientists(which I'm sure you believe) say is true? It's silly to trust some person who was not there over a large group of people who were there. In a courtroom, what is the most viable evidence? Eye-witnesses, of course!

Side: Yes!
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

Okay, so the question was "Does God exist?" You responded with "I have no reason to so no." This implies that you are God, not that you have no reason to believe in God.

Erosion of Definition fallacy. His intent was obvious.

How do you know that what scientists(which I'm sure you believe) say is true?

They have been proven reliable in the past, have been responsible for many advancements in knowledge, technology, and medicine.

Also, their claims are testable. In fact, in order for them to be published, they have to be tested by other scientists, who may or may not agree with their position.

It's silly to trust some person who was not there over a large group of people who were there.

Wether those people were there or not is questionable, and their testimony is somewhat suspicious.

Also, there are millions of claims that you do not believe, even if they were documented by people who claim they were there.

In a courtroom, what is the most viable evidence? Eye-witnesses, of course!

True, but a eyewitness is not the ultimate factor to determine what happened. The eyewitness could claim that a giant flying pig committed the crime, and since it's the eyewitness saying it, it must be true.

Also, when the eyewitness's testimony is contradicted by the facts, what do you think the courtroom will trust?

Side: No!

No. Go back 6 million years ago, when the first humans emerged with Chimps. Did,they believe in God,No!! But a few million years later we do?? Isn't that weird.

Piaf God is so real, why did he allow the Holocuast. The genocide if innocent millions.

Side: No!
Jace(5050) Disputed
2 points

No. Go back 6 million years ago, when the first humans emerged with Chimps. Did,they believe in God,No!! But a few million years later we do?? Isn't that weird.

The oldest known remains for the species Homo sapiens is only 200,000 years old, and the overall genus Homo is roughly 2.5 million years old. That inaccuracy aside, "[a]rchaeological evidence suggests that religious beliefs have existed since the first human communities" (Merriam-Webster Concise Encyclopdia). Moreover, deconstructing religious iterations of God does not inherently defeat the possibility of the abstract god.

Piaf God is so real, why did he allow the Holocuast. The genocide if innocent millions.

This assumes a lot of attributes about god - involvement, investment, benevolence, compassion - which do not necessarily have to be true for god to exist.

To be entirely clear, I verily disbelieve in the existence of both God and god. I merely think you advance a poor argument in defense of that stance.

Side: No!
0 points

I'm talking about Proto Humans. The first Humans that evolved fro. The same Ape that chimps did.

Side: Yes!
Client444(61) Disputed
1 point

No. Go back 6 million years ago ...

Oh yeah! I forgot that you lived back then... Okay, but all joking aside, we can't really know. However, if the Bible is correct, then they did believe in God. You know, 'cause He directly spoke to them.

Side: Yes!
Client444(61) Clarified
1 point

Piaf God is so real, why did he allow the Holocuast. ...

Well, I assume He really probably didn't want it. It would be Hitler and Satan who would want the Holocaust. Not God.

Side: Yes!
1 point

/sarcasm I am sure this is the debate to prove this idea one way or another!! I mean this hasn't played out before on this site or history yet has it?.... has it? I guess it is a possibility this idea has been discussed on the internet at least once before.

Errr. I will just post on this side. /end sarcasm

I have not been shown valid reason or proof to believe in any deity, therefore I do not believe in any deity.

Side: No!
Client444(61) Disputed
1 point

Proof: "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

Evidence: "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Eyewitness: "A person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it."

Now, in the courtroom, eyewitnesses are probably the most viable evidence(proof), especially if there are 40 witnesses all saying the same thing. Now, would it be a sane argument to dismiss 40 eyewitnesses, giving 66 accounts(the Bible) as inaccurate and invalid because the people in your lifetime who believe they know science say they have evidence against them? It seems that they could not have been there, unless someone discovered how to travel through time and just forgot to tell me.

Side: Yes!
J-Roc77(70) Disputed
1 point

in the courtroom, eyewitnesses are probably the most viable evidence(proof)

It is quite easy to show people have different accounts of the same thing. It is called subjective reality. In fact, people test the credibility of witnesses in the court of law. They test their credibility against science and other witnesses. In fact many eyewitness accounts have been dismissed by science in the court of law, DNA for instance has done this. Science is more viable in the court of law despite your claim otherwise.

would it be a sane argument to dismiss 40 eyewitnesses, giving 66 accounts(the Bible)

It would if those accounts were far fetched or otherwise shown to be inaccurate through testable methods as noted above. Your account of not being able to test these people versus science works both ways, we cannot test these people for their own ability to understand their own natural world. For all we know these people do not have the background knowledge to lend credence to their claims and as such this would make a terrible witness in the courts of law. You seem to be taking their word for it on faith.

You are taking a side that has a much lower probability of being true over a side that has a more likely outcome. You are choosing the unrepeatable, untestable and unobservable of the supposed supernatural over the testable and repeatable and observable solutions of the natural world.

Is it more likely these events have a fully explainable answer within the natural laws of nature than the supernatural. The supernatural requires a host of other assumptions that ends up being turtles all the way down at a much faster rate than the assumptions science is built on. Your stance fails Occams razor at blinding speed by comparison.

Side: No!
1 point

There is not a God in the sense of a all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. God can't be all three if he allowed the holocaust, deadly storms, war, famine and diseases that has killed hundred of millions of innocent people and this god did not stop it than that proves that there is not a God that has all three characteristics.

Gods were created through out history to explain the unexplainable, look at the Greek/Roman Myths

Side: No!
1 point

This is slightly vague to be honest as what do you mean by a god? A creator god? A involved or deist god? At any rate if history has proved anything it is that science is up to the task of explaining the universe and its contents, thought not everything, yet... Once it was all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve now evolution explains who we are descendent from. Once it was "let there be light" and all that other stuff to explain how there is a universe and now we have the Big Bang theory to explain the universe. God and gods were a human created fairy tale to entertain and satisfy our need for knowledge and the understanding of things that the ancients couldn't possibly begin to explain properly and in-detail without the equipment and education we now have today. And the fact there is so many religions just goes to show that even amongst the gods there is no agreement just like humans which shows they are no different from us except we craft them to be. Man created god in his/her image.

Side: No!