CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
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.
Credit cards do not represent money; they represent credit. Your ignorance of basic finance aside, your current line of inquiry is flawed. You are attempting to argue that because a physical object exists (the credit card) and its concept also exists (the credit), that therefore the concept of God means that God must exist. The latter conclusion does not at all follow from the former observation; you have demonstrated only that concepts can be actualized realities, not they must be.
And my point, again, is that God existing conceptually is not the same as God actually existing. The idea of God and the actuality of God are not interchangeable.
Then it is semantics you're arguing. If the debate asked does god exist physically you'd be convincing me since we have no proof that he does and probably won't but all it asks is what it does. he exists in concept that is fact.
The question is if God exists, not if the idea of God exists. At any rate, the distinction has been made which renders this back and forth pointless. I am done here.
If God came to you in a dream, would you accept Him? Or would you dismiss Him as the product of too much cold pizza before bed? What if He appeared to you not in a dream, but in everyday life? Would you believe him? Or would you instead stop taking the allergy pills you took that day, thinking they may be hallucinogens.
See, if we go in presupposing things, such as that God does not exist, we automatically dismiss facts or such that are in are face and only accept the ones that benefit us.
Maybe they're good questions to you. I feel I know the answers to every single one of them, but... You probably would not like my answers and think I was wrong.
Debating religion with Srom is little more than a good workout for your finger muscles. I would not expect anything approaching an actual debate with credible evidence from him.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
The Earth did not exist 6 billion years ago, let alone anything remotely resembling homo sapiens that could have any bearing whatsoever upon this discussion. A species pre-dating homo-sapiens also would not have evolved concurrently with chimpanzees, so even if that was your intent you were factually incorrect.
Even if you had a functional conception of the evolution of homo sapiens your point would remain invalid and irrelevant, per the argument I presented which you have not refuted.
Further, you have dropped your argument about the Holocaust and my counter-argument. You lose that point as well.
Effectively, you have no argument. I think we are done here.
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.
Why do you assume that your logic automatically trumps God's? See, there's your problem. You can't face the fact that you don't know everything. See, without Satan, would we know the difference between good and evil? Without the evil, we'd all just be blind followers. God wants us to come to Him not just blindly. We all have a choice. And without evil, would there be a choice?
Also, God states exactly why there are so many gods from different religions in the Bible. Satan wants to lead us away from God. And again, CHOICE.
So, here's a question for you. If "science" proves everything, as I'm sure you think, why is there only one possibility for the creation of it - an uncaused cause?
Why is there still Carbon-14 in fossils if the Earth is four billion years old? The carbon-14 becomes untraceable after so many years, with a half-life of about 5,000 years.
How can we think logically?
How can we be sentient?
Why would evolution have to exist when mutations do not create good things? Sure, maybe mutations add information, but they do not normally help. In my opinion, it's more adaptation. Not evolution.
Also, while we're still on Biology, how would DNA code for how the cells arrange themselves? Seems to me that's a little impossible, and if a mutation changed how an organism arranged itself, it would just become cancerous.
/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.
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.
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.
It is quite easy to show people have different accounts of the same thing. It is called subjective reality ...
Your statement about "science" dismissing certain witnesses in the court of law is very true. However, in your statement, you say it is quite easy to show people have different accounts of the same thing(subjective reality). However, you hasten not to prove that the witnesses of the bible see different things.
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 ...
Now, here we remain at a standoff. Why is my argument less probable? You're relying on people who have not been here long. You trust their words and believe what they say to be completely proven. However, one cannot know for sure that these people experience the right things(subjective reality). You know not if they were to test their hypothesis correctly. And, as you stated before, it is quite easy to show people have different accounts of the same thing.
Is it more likely these events have a fully explainable answer within the natural laws of nature than the supernatural. ...
Again, this could be because you are experiencing reality in the wrong way. After all, it is subjective, now isn't it?
However, you hasten not to prove that the witnesses of the bible see different things.
...neither do you!lol if you want to make a positive claim that they are give it a try. I have no reason to believe them. We cannot test these people for their credibility and their claims are far fetched and in desperate need of warranting. Further more if I fail to prove anyone wrong it doesn't mean they are correct, they need to show they are correct for them to be correct....You are not trying to shift the onus on me are you:P
But my point was using your measure to show that science is given greater weight than personal experience.
Why is my argument less probable?
It relies on something that cannot be proven, the assumptions your arguments foundation is on turtles up faster than the assumptions that science is built on.
I choose science as the foundation is stronger. It does not need something supernatural to explain it. That brings up a whole host of other assumptions needed to hold itself up.
You have chosen something that cannot be tested. Your argument uses the supernatural, and as far as we can tell there is no scientific tangible evidence of the supernatural. Once there is tangible evidence it has always been found to be natural, not supernatural that is the cause.
You trust their words and believe what they say to be completely proven. However, one cannot know for sure that these people experience the right things(subjective reality). You know not if they were to test their hypothesis correctly
Here you misunderstand science. "Completely proven" is not in science. Science describes our natural world as we can experience it, through measurable and repeatable tests. We test hypotheses all the time, that's how we know what works and what doesn't, if something better comes along it replaces the old. Science is testable, that is how we know that certain hypothesis are strong. Science is what is "good enough for now" and not "completely proven".
I feel this really deserves a good response. There is a way for it to be tested. Ever heard of prayer? I pray all the time, and all the time my prayers are answered.
Once there is tangible evidence it has always been found to be natural, not supernatural that is the cause.
And here's where subjective reality comes into play. You see, people test things based on presuppositions and how they interpret reality. So, if we receive a satisfactory answer, then we leave it be until it is disproven. No one knows if there's better evidence.
Here you misunderstand science.
And yet, I believe I do not. I was talking of the normal atheist's interpretation of science. I am glad you think science is what is "good enough for now," 'cause that's all it is. Good enough for one's presuppositions to be proven.
I feel this really deserves a good response. There is a way for it to be tested. Ever heard of prayer? I pray all the time, and all the time my prayers are answered.
It can only be supported with post hoc reasoning. There is no way to show a deity has done the work. Only that a person asked for something and it did or didn't happen. And we know if it didn't happen many believers say it just wasn't meant to be. You can't claim both sides of the coin you know!
But here is a write up of a peer reviewed study of prayer at a hospital. They found no statistical difference in the recovery between those that were prayed for and those that were not.
So, if we receive a satisfactory answer, then we leave it be until it is disproven. No one knows if there's better evidence.
This doesn't mean we don't look for better evidence. if that were true we wouldn't be using radio waves, microwaves or things like infrared. We always look for better evidence.
We test things based on being repeatable and measurable.
I was talking of the normal atheist's interpretation of science.
It can only be supported with post hoc reasoning. ...
Meh. Yeah. But, how do we determine anything else? Evidence from what just happened. Evidence from the past.
There is no way to show a deity has done the work.
And how would there be a way to prove something about something that doesn't work within the boundaries of physics and time? See, the only way the universe could exist is if it were caused by an uncaused cause that works outside of the boundaries of time and space. So, at the end... All we have is what we can test, and even then, all of that is almost untrustworthy due to subjective reality.
This doesn't mean we don't look for better evidence.
Well, no... Ya' know, unless it benefits our theory not to.
I think you misunderstand the basic atheist.
Well, everything's relative. The normal atheist I encounter spouts claims of "science" proving everything, constantly telling me of how I'm wrong, ignorant, and mean.
But, how do we determine anything else? Evidence from what just happened. Evidence from the past.
Not all evidence is equal. Not all reasoning based on epistemology is post hoc reasoning. Correlation can be shown by eliminating other factors by having control groups and limiting environment. Then we have numbers that show how likely something is to affect something else. There is strong or weak correlations that can point to something being a cause. That is the strength of the study I linked on praying versus examples of praying working on single sample or personal evidence.
the only way the universe could exist is if it were caused by an uncaused cause that works outside of the boundaries of time and space
This comes up often. This is where it turtles down as well. How can a deity exist without a cause? People often say that it existed always, it is the big turtle, if this can be accepted why not say the universe has always existed? If matter cannot be created or destroyed then all we see is rearranging of matter, no real beginnings or ends. Science doesn't have all the answers but it doesn't make guesses and say they are immutable truths either. Science doesn't know what happened before the big bang but many cosmologists have some hypotheses that rely on the natural world. Some of these ideas are strong enough to be competing theories.
Ya' know, unless it benefits our theory not to.
You do not seem to have a high opinion of science. Science has corrected itself when it is wrong all throughout history, this itself seems to show your opinion on this portion of it is unfounded. Science changes its belief based on observations. Religion on the other hand often rejects observation so belief can be preserved.
Evolution is an example of this, or how about Galileo and his imprisonment by the church? If anyone is ignoring evidence in the long run unless it benefits their beliefs it isn't science.
All we have is what we can test, and even then, all of that is almost untrustworthy due to subjective reality.
Except for the fact that these things are testable and repeatable, this helps limit the subjectivity. Nothing can be viewed completely objective, we can only be more objective about it. Hardly untrustworthy if people across generations or world views can test and measure the same tangible things and come to the similar conclusions.
If nothing is trustworthy to the point where even testing something why should a society even bother to have schools how would we even build bridges? We have to take some subjectivity to where it is reasonable. Science tries to be less subjective about the natural world. Science has millions of eyes over generations asking questions, science has time on its' side.
For me science and religion answer different things. Of course they are at odds sometimes. I am just going to side with something that is based on things we can reason on and measure than to be told it is correct by something that cannot be proven/measured/tested.
Science says some thing is. Morality says one thing is better than another. Religion and philosophy say things are moral.
Here is an example of science being flexible and willing to change its position when new observations show old ones to not quite work.
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
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.