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.
Christians say no, I say absolutely. I believe Christians say no, because they fear logic will lead us away, and they will lose control since we don't fear their Hell.
I feel God definitely would want us to question his existence, because without questioning it, anyone could claim to be God. In fact, if God does exist, the one Christians worship, is a false one. Because so much of what they say he says, does not follow logic, or the laws of science. The real God is some modest guy with very limited powers, and and even more limited knowledge and he was probably killed by the first person he tried to convince. That person then went on to spread the rumours of the God... the one they invented.
This however is just a conspiracy theory, I admit that.
Christians say no, I say absolutely. I believe Christians say no, because they fear logic will lead us away, and they will lose control since we don't fear their Hell.
Christiams say no? As a Christian I can most certainly say that we do not always say no. The answer varies from branch to branch. From my experience we use rely on rational thoughts. We question things quite often.
To answer the question specifically I would say yes. God wants us to believe in him based on trust and faith, not proof. This naturally makes a person question his actual existence.
Logic will lead us away? And we'll lose control because you don't "fear" hell? I'm not entirely sure where you came up with this, but if you could explain this a bit more that would be helpful.
In fact, if God does exist, the one Christians worship, is a false one. Because so much of what they say he says, does not follow logic, or the laws of science.
Not following. A god that can do everything and created everything should be above all he has created, which would include logic. God would normally be above logic meaning he isn't bound by human logic or any logic for that matter. The same follows for science, but then again how do you know he doesn't follow science?
The real God is some modest guy with very limited powers, and and even more limited knowledge and he was probably killed by the first person he tried to convince. That person then went on to spread the rumours of the God... the one they invented.
This however is just a conspiracy theory, I admit that.
Okay. I don't follow this either, but maybe that's just me.
The argument we are having in the other debate topic more correctly belongs in this topic. If it's all the same to you, we can drop it there and pick it up here. This debate is essentially my position in the other one.
Yes. God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. At the same time he can lift it. He could make a rock greater than he and still be greater. He is a God that can do everything. God doesn't subscribe to the laws of logic we hold. He transcends that.
Yes and no. He can create anything. Let's say he can lift a rock of infinite pounds. Does a rock like that exist? No. Then it isn't an actual thing. Doesn't constitute as "everything". It's nothing. That what your question is, but to play along I would say yes and no.
Could you show me the scripture? Or rather... don't. I've argued with your type before, and everything comes down to 'interpretation' right? Some things are literal, some things are metaphorical, but which is which all comes down to what you the individual 'true' Christian prefers or decides.
Deuteronomy 6:16 - "Do not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah."
That's the verse you are talking about. Questioning God's existence isn't testing his power. I like how you wish to slither out of this, but that's no fun now is it?
No it's not. If God created everything then he is naturally above all. Science can't even explain everything, but God knows everything and he isn't above a form of study? What kind of sense does that make? That's not a cop out at all. People who say it a cop out just don't have an adequate response to it.
It literally is. That means there is no argument. If you can always just say "well god is beyond science" then how do you even question him? What's there to question if he's beyond logic.
As a personal question, how does anyone just believe even though things work a certain way, and they always have from as far back as we've seen, and continue to for as long as we're still here, that one day it just didn't work that way because some individual made it differently. That's ridiculous and it's the reason atheists try to keep fundamentalism out of Schools.
It literally isn't. You just can't form an argument against it and hate to be wrong. You know that by that logic my statement is true. If you are the creator of all things then you are above all things. Science is below God.
If you can always just say "well god is beyond science" then how do you even question him? What's there to question if he's beyond logic.
Science isn't the study of logic. Hope you know that much. Anyways there is nothing left. That doesn't count as a cop out.
The definition of a cop out is a poor excuse for not doing something.
An example of a cop-out is when your boyfriend asks you on a date and you say you have to wash your hair. - Yourdictionary.com
There you go. I haven't used a cop out, but thanks for trying to make it seem like it was one.
As a personal question, how does anyone just believe even though things work a certain way, and they always have from as far back as we've seen, and continue to for as long as we're still here, that one day it just didn't work that way because some individual made it differently.
Woah! You gotta shorten that. Make this question more..clear.
How you explain God, but no one being able to prove him, makes him exactly what you described to be a cop out. "Well he's just beyond science" is a piss poor excuse. I mean according to that logic, almost every religion's God is the real one, but that wouldn't follow since The bible specifically states God is the only real one and the others are fake.
I'll write a book, throw in some 'prophecies' make up some outlandish stories, and say my imaginary friend created the universe and science not God, and according to your logic, since I said my imaginary friend is above science, I'm right.
How you explain God, but no one being able to prove him, makes him exactly what you described to be a cop out. "Well he's just beyond science" is a piss poor excuse.
When did I ever argue for his existence? You are getting ahead of yourself. You are too eager to win this thing. I never tried to prove him. My statement doesn't measure that. My statement addresses what God is above not why he exists.
What? I never agree to anything. Why do you just to conclusions so fast? I'm a Christian. I believe he exists. I just never stated any arguments in support for his existence. I'm just answering the questions given to me by other people.
An assumption is how I move the debate along when the other users take too long to make their point. You haven't made your defining point before we started so I assumed you believed he existed. You then stated that you didn't necessarily believe he existed, so in making another non-point I assumed you believed he did not exist.
Make up your mind, get a point and argue from there, then you wont have to worry about me assuming.
Make up your mind, get a point and argue from there, then you wont have to worry about me assuming.
Now your just stalling. You should now. I believe God exists. I haven't claimed anything for you to be arguing about his existence. That's what I'm saying. Sheesh. I already made my point, you can either say it's valid or it's not and move on.
My origianl point, defeated your point, you then went on to say how do I know you believe in him basically.
My whole point being, that simply saying "God is above logic/science/whatever" is a cop out, since then that leaves him untestable, and basically makes him a non answer.
No, it didn't. You kept rembling. You seem to do this often. I explained what a cop out is, my answer isn't a cop out. It's telling you that God is above everything. Has nothing to do with his existence or the questioning of his existence. I never made a claim that he existed, you just jumped the gun. That's all you have been doing. You just came at me saying some stuff that wasn't true, like that's unfair or that's a cop out. God being above all doesn't even relate to the poopy question.
Okay so God could create a pyramid in the shape of cube is what you're saying, because he is just above logic?
Yet if we can't prove that he can do this, and you're simply saying he can because he is above logic, then we are left unable to ask any questions because it will always boil down to "God is above...." that is a cop out.
Let me try an example you might recognize as being similar.
I'm asked about my knowledge on a subject, I say I don't have to answer it because I know all, they ask me how I know I say because I know all. That would be an incredible fallacy of circular logic... and a cop out. Even if they couldn't prove that I don't actually know all, the fact that i used a circular logical fallacy to trap their questions with an automatic answer is a cop out, which ultimately acts as the proof that I don't know all, and probably know nothing. Taking this example and relating it directly to your cop out with God being above logic, shows that maybe God isn't above logic maybe he doesn't exist. Do you see now?
Okay so God could create a pyramid in the shape of cube is what you're saying, because he is just above logic?
If he truly wants to then probably, otherwise that depends on how you define his powers.
Yet if we can't prove that he can do this, and you're simply saying he can because he is above logic, then we are left unable to ask any questions because it will always boil down to "God is above...." that is a cop out.
Nope, you just can't get past it. A cop out is to misdirect responsibility. This isn't dealing with responsibility, just a mere notion that God is above all. You don't have to accept the answer, but asking me can God do something and me saying "he can do all because he is above all" isn't a cop out and it doesn't prove existence, which is why i am confused as to why you keep acting like it is.
I'm asked about my knowledge on a subject, I say I don't have to answer it because I know all, they ask me how I know I say because I know all.
Then you can just tell them. My situation is completely different. All I said was God is above all and apparently this serves as 100% evidence for his existence. I'm not sure you are understanding me anymore. If your going to ask me if he can do something and I tell you he can do everything then that's the end. Doesn't mean he exists. I can't force God to demonstrate anything to you so you can either accept the answer or move on.
Even if they couldn't prove that I don't actually know all, the fact that i used a circular logical fallacy to trap their questions with an automatic answer is a cop out, which ultimately acts as the proof that I don't know all, and probably know nothing. Taking this example and relating it directly to your cop out with God being above logic, shows that maybe God isn't above logic maybe he doesn't exist. Do you see now?
You are a human though, you can actually prove these things. I can't make God come down and do stuff just to show you his power.
What that first question was, was not an issue of omnipotence, it was an issue of logic. God can't defy logic, because logic is what humans use to understand things. The reason god can't make a pyramid in the shape of a cube, is because we would not call it a pyramid, we'd call it a cube.
You are misdirecting responsibility by saying God is above all. Thanks for providing the definition by the way. It is your responsibility to prove how God is so above it all (since obviously he won't) yet you don't prove it, you simply say it, and when faced with any opposition say "he is above all" that is by your definition, a cop out.
Well here's the problem with accepting the answer and moving on. You can do the same when i say "God does not exist" see how that works? The only difference is, for all you're claiming God to be, and God to be able to do, I can claim that he can't and at the end of the day, only one of us will have something to show for it. I say God does not exist because he can not make an iphone 6 appear right here in front of me, I'm right because he still hasn't.
What you said in the end, is the reason I will not believe he exists. No one can demonstrate his power for me, it's all he said she said, and stories.
Like the laws of nature. We've never seen them change, but according to you, God can change them at will, because he exists beyond them. Yet we've never seen them change, so why believe that they can be changed?
Why not? A space laser that we know has the power to vaporize a city is placed in space and is never fired. So now I just assume that the space laser cannot do what it's supposed to do?
God created everything is that not enough? I don't have to see it happening. I don't need to know how either. He did it. He is still there. He could do it again. Probably does it all the time idk.
now I just assume that the space laser cannot do what it's supposed to do
Do you know what God is/was "supposed" to do?
What if someone told you such laser existed, but no one in the world could find even the slightest evidence that it was there besides someone telling you so - would you still believe it?
What if someone that was part of a culture that believed lots of stupid things which you don't believe wrote down thousands of years ago that such laser existed, then other people translated what was written a few dozen times and then someone handed you the translation + no one in the world could find even the slightest evidence that it was there except that it was written down thousands of years ago - would you still believe it?
God created everything is that not enough?
For children maybe - for debate, no.
He did it.
If you can just claim that he did - can't I just claim that he didn't?
What if someone told you such laser existed, but no one in the world could find even the slightest evidence that it was there besides someone telling you so - would you still believe it?
What if someone that was part of a culture that believed lots of stupid things which you don't believe wrote down thousands of years ago that such laser existed, then other people translated what was written a few dozen times and then someone handed you the translation + no one in the world could find even the slightest evidence that it was there except that it was written down thousands of years ago - would you still believe it?
I don't see why he wouldn't he does the exact same thing with god.
Woah! I'm not a he I'm a she get that right. And second I have a religion to stick to so of course my answer will be yes. It's just mockery. Nothing I do here on this site will actually change much of my life.
Nope, I just know his plans and what he has told us. Maybe he has a hidden agenda.
What if someone told you such laser existed, but no one in the world could find even the slightest evidence that it was there besides someone telling you so - would you still believe it?
Yes.
What if someone that was part of a culture that believed lots of stupid things which you don't believe wrote down thousands of years ago that such laser existed, then other people translated what was written a few dozen times and then someone handed you the translation + no one in the world could find even the slightest evidence that it was there except that it was written down thousands of years ago - would you still believe it?
Yes.
For children maybe - for debate, no.
For everything, that's enough.
f you can just claim that he did - can't I just claim that he didn't?
Sure, if you wanna. It'll be more interesting then the state of this convo. I want something..spicy!
Or maybe he is hidden to the point of non-existence. Or maybe he exists, but has no agenda for humans, or a bad agenda... If God is bad, would you care?
Yes.
Then your not just religious, your extremely gullible. I have some ocean-front property in Arizona that you might be interested in...
I want something..spicy!
What you want is a fairy-tale (or maybe some Thai food), but what you obviously don't want is a debate.
Or maybe he is hidden to the point of non-existence. Or maybe he exists, but has no agenda for humans, or a bad agenda... If God is bad, would you care?
Not really, if I get what h said in the bible I would be fine.
Then your not just religious, your extremely gullible. I have some ocean-front property in Arizona that you might be interested in...
I'd buy it, but I'm broke.
What you want is a fairy-tale (or maybe some Thai food), but what you obviously don't want is a debate.
I am seeking a super intellectual debate, like one that makes you think for a few days. I haven't sensed this coming from you.
If God is bad, then isn't it possible that "what h said in the bible" is a lie?
Yeap.
Maybe now we know why...
But you don't. I have a job. I just spend my money quite often with friends.
Yeah - obviously...
You just love mocking people don't you? I don't see the point in doing that. Do you seek virtual gratification to satisfy the lack of real world gratification?
God didn't lie. They most definitely died. The bible was talking about spiritual death and how the separation of their spirit and God's spirit will become dead and it did. God didn't lie. So moral of the story is that you have said nothing to me and you aren't the first one to try and use that.
One problem there. We know the space laser exists, because we can see it. We can also fire the laser if we want. So if someone says "the laser actually does work" it wouldn't be an unfounded claim like saying "god can change the laws of nature" because unlike God, we can just test the laser and see for our own eyes if it actually works, or if it's just someone talking about nothing.
God created everything is not enough. humanity wants to know how we know. The only 'evidence' isn't evidence it's a book of potential fairy tales.
The idk part is the most sense you've made since we begun this debate. Your claims are unfounded, and use circular logic to work, idk is admittance that at the end of the day all your surety that God definitely created the universe, and or definitely changed the laws of nature to make water flow in a circular motion around the grand canon, is just unknown conjecture.
One problem there. We know the space laser exists, because we can see it.
And I have felt the presence of God.
. We can also fire the laser if we want. So if someone says "the laser actually does work" it wouldn't be an unfounded claim like saying "god can change the laws of nature" because unlike God, we can just test the laser and see for our own eyes if it actually works, or if it's just someone talking about nothing.
And? Is the universe itself not a big changing ball of matter? Stuff changes all the time. What if that's God? We would never know.
God created everything is not enough. humanity wants to know how we know. The only 'evidence' isn't evidence it's a book of potential fairy tales
Call my book what you want. Still hold truth to me.
The idk part is the most sense you've made since we begun this debate. Your claims are unfounded, and use circular logic to work, idk is admittance that at the end of the day all your surety that God definitely created the universe, and or definitely changed the laws of nature to make water flow in a circular motion around the grand canon, is just unknown conjecture.
That's definitely not admittance. It's me saying I have no idea. I don't have that info. I speak from my experience. Not these weird rules and such. Most people just don't accept our claims because our religion isn't evidence based. That breaks the rules God set forth himself, so asking for evidence is silly. It's...poopy! I can only give you what I've learned in church and bible school. Not much else.
And how pray tell do you know that alleged presense, that you claim to have felt but can't prove to me you actually felt, was God? The fact that you won't have an answer, aside, I don't have to use anything subjective to prove the laser. I can point to it in the sky, or show people the blue prints, or hell if I'm connected enough, I can just call up the people and be like "hey,fire the laser at these coordinates".
What changes? The laws of nature that we can constantly test, retest, and test some more don't change. They haven't for as long as we've been testing them. Speaking specifically of physics, the laws God would have to actually change to perform any of his miracles, when has physics ever changed? Note I'm talking about the properties of our universe, not out understanding of it.
I'm calling your book a book of stories, and that's exactly what it is, you can not even dispute that. I ask, why or how is that book of stories supposed to be evidence.
For the last part, this admittance, you claim not to be admittance. It's now become denial, and it's pretty clear too. You even go so far as to say and I quote you,
"Most people just don't accept our claims because our religion isn't evidence based. That breaks the rules God set forth himself, so asking for evidence is silly." If asking for evidence is against the rules, then questioning him is against the rules. Not technically, but generally. You can technically ask god anything, but he doesn't have to answer it, or can give you a false answer, or a non-answer/question in return. That makes question him worthless. Proving my initial point, the side I argued for, God does not want you to question him, because if you searched and got evidence you'd be persuaded away from his silliness.
I don't know for sure. Good question. I was just always taught that the feeling was God, so I believed it. I only feel it in worship or prayer so to me I think it's God.
What changes? Anything really. I'm only putting up what if's so I can't directly tackle your question here. I like this now. Now you have me interested! Hmm, I'd have to ask my church this to so hold me to this question as well so I can come back and tell you their answer. Then you can refute or agree with it.
Questioning his existence isn't breaking those rules. You can question all you want. What I'm saying is that God isn't an evidence based God. He is a faith God. You can question many things about God. Will you find your answers? Maybe. I just don't see how that counts as admittance. I don't remember admitting anything to you. I'm pretty lost, so you can break this down for me. This is my sucky deducing skills probably.
Not insulting you, or saying anything is wrong with your faith, but what you described, being taught that that feeling is God, is indoctrination in case you didn't know. Just to reiterate, I don't believe anything is wrong inherently with indoctrination, hell when my children are born, I'll indoctrinate them to believe good people are rewarded, bad people are punished, and I'll indoctrinate them with my ideas of good and bad, which will basically be along the lines of the law already in place.
God being faith based, I'm absolutely aware, it's one of the reasons I consider religious to non religious debating pointless. However to say God does want you to question him, but to also say the answers you get should be taken with faith, is basically amounting to not questioning at all. Here's an example. You question whether God is real or not. A non believer, who's not using faith examines the facts and current state of the situation most come to the conclusion through logic and reasoning that he must not exist, and they call it a wrap after that. The inverse being a believer who asks if he exists or not, they take it on faith that he does, and that's the end of the discussion right there, so it brings me back to why ask in the first place.
Note all of what I've been saying is just supporting the side that God, if he's real or not, does not want you questioning him nothing at all to do if you should believe or not, that's all you. If you do question him, and you really search for answers, more often than not (at least for all of the ex-Christians to atheists I know) you come to the conclusion that maybe God isn't real.
I'm just going to tell you straight up, I'm 99.99999% positive that she is a hardcore believer of Christianity. I don't think logic will break that shell. You have a better chance of becoming a billionare.
The thing here is that this is a debate site, and we are sort of prompted to respond to posts we agree or disagree with or maybe even wish to clarify. You are going to run into some rude people and straight forward. It's to be expected. From reading your long feud with DrawFour I can tell you lack experience in debating, but that's fine. Nobody here will dog you for it, we will only help you by arguing with you so you can see how to properly debate. May sound harsh, but it's really hands on experience.
Okay, well you guys can show me the ropes then. How's that? You, drawfour and other people can show me how to debate "properly". Sounds like fun! I'm in.
I wouldn't say that they are strict rules for every debate, since some debates are merely asking for opinions, but they are good information and will help make better arguments and see/express the weakness in other people's arguments.
Yes - definitely. Hopefully it will set a good example for others at the same time.
For instance, if someone is attacking you personally instead of your argument, instead of trying to prove you are not what they claim, etc. - all you have to say is "ad hominem"
I'm rather shocked that you would ask that knowing your experience in debating, but if I must inform you of the proper techniques then sure.
First off the easiest and most used way of debating is what I term "proper" and that is having a claim back up with several warrants and some evidence. Then while addressing the opposing sides argument deducting their "supposed" flaws or fallacious content and demonstrating how their systematics do not work and how yours do. This is what I see most often and this is what I deem as properly debating. Do not take this as an official guide.
EDIT: Sorry I'm not trying to dispute you. I merely clicked the dispute option out of habit.
What you described is what is technically called "logos" debating. A form of debate where you attempt to persuade, utilizing logic, facts, and solid indisputable numbers. However to call that "proper" debating, leaves out the potential for more "pathos" inclined debaters to even say a word. "pathos" being a form of debate where you persuade your opponent with emotional appeals, and use generalized human reactions to get others to think as you.
Granted a logical appeal is harder to dispute, most likely due to that it's more popular, but it doesn't really discredit an emotional one.
Actually my model provides room for emotional appeals. The warrant can completely be emotional. I gave a standard model for debating that makes it easier to tie in the reasoning of the person using it.
HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 52VERSES 35-36(Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
THIS EXTENDED ARGUMENT SHOULD BE DEDUCTIVE AND SOUND
premise 1( Since The second law of logic states that two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time.) premise2(and the statement "absolute nothingness is the absence of all things" ,and the statement "absolute nothingness exists"are contradictory CONCLUSION A: Then These two statements cannot exist at the same time,CONCLUSION B:(( [[[and knowing that absolute nothingness always was and always will be the absence of all things and is a fact]]] we can also conclude that absolute nothing cannot come to exist because it would instantly be invalid due to the second law of contradiction.CONCLUSION 3: something cannot come from nothing becasue nothing never existed CONCLUSION4: something must have always existed. CONCLUSION 5:since observable evidence of the universe states the universe is finite had a beginning we can conlude that the something that always existed is not the universe CONLUSION 6:The thing that always existed caused the universe to come to existence(created it)CONCLUSION 7:language is evidence of intelligence and DNA contains language therefore this CREATOR IS HIGHLY POWERFUL AND HIGHLY INTELLIGENT!!!!!
"We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo... have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world."
Funny. Christians haven't changed so much apart from now they lack the power to punish people that use logic.
It's difficult to genuinely pursue the question of God's existence with diligence and intellectual honesty if you are convinced you'll face harsh and severe penalties (in both this life, and the next) for coming to the conclusion that God does not exist.
