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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
God most likely doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.
Give me some sort of factual, scientific evidence for the existence of God. Otherwise, the chances of him existing are the same chances for unicorns, elves, or leprechauns.
Get ready for a long parade of superstitious brainwashed people telling you in one way or another that God is real because they BELIEVE he's real. And really, that's all they've got.
I'm betting you've seen the documentary Zeitgeist? I do find the history of religion fascinating.
First of all, I'm not brainwashed. Second, yes, I do believe that God is real and that I know he exists. You may believe that he doesn't exist, but I believe that he does. But really no, it's not all we've got. If you look at nature, it is really complex, and filled with great design. Shouldn't it seem that there must've been some creator that made all this possible? You can look at the human body, and it's actually more complex than the machines we have, such as robots, and computers. And we know for a fact that computers didn't create themselves, they had a creator, which is us. Did you know that the Bible mentions dinosaurs? It does, in the book of Job. And the book was written thousands of years before the first dinosaur was discovered, where people then started to know about them. But speaking of dinosaurs, do you really think that a dinosaur fossil can stay intact after MILLIONS of years? And not only that, but there have been DNA and blood found in a T-Rex fossil. How could DNA last for that long? Also, there have been civilizations where people have drawn pictures of humans and dinosaurs together. How could they know what a dinosaur looks like if they were supposed to be extinct? So clearly humans and dinosaurs have lived side by side at one point. And how do you explain the fact that Earth is the only planet to sustain life? How do you explain the fact that the conditions on earth are the necessary things to help humans live? What were the chances of having a habitable planet for sustaining life?
If you look at nature, it is really complex, and filled with great design. Shouldn't it seem that there must've been some creator that made all this possible?
Well, if that were the case, why doesn't Mars have all of these amazing things, like nature and humans? If god created the universe, wouldn't he have put in a little time on the other planets? It's been proven that Mars has no life. Yes, you could perhaps argue that there were humans/lifeforms on Mars and something terrible wiped them out, but there isn't any/enough evidence to support those claims.
So clearly humans and dinosaurs have lived side by side at one point.
I disagree. According to fossil evidence, the earliest human fossils date back 6 million years ago, while the latest dinosaur fossils are 65 million years old. Then again, all of this depends on a few rocks in the sand, so maybe they did live together at some point late into the dinosaurs' lifetimes.
What were the chances of having a habitable planet for sustaining life?
If the earth wasn't hospitable, we wouldn't be here, right? I haven't researched enough into other planets, but I do know that we can't live on Mars because for some reason, we can't breathe anything but oxygen.
So what, why doesn't Mars have human life on it? But, god created the universe, so it's pretty much his decision. So why would he need to make planets more hospitable? He already made Earth, and the things living on Earth in his image. I'm not really seeing your point here.
I made the statement of saying that humans and dinosaurs lived together at one point, but you said you disagreed. But then you said that maybe they did live together at some point. So which is it then?
So how are you able to find the age of a fossil? How can you tell the age of a something like a fossil in the first place? I've heard that scientists do it, but I've never been told HOW it's done.
But referring to the statement I made about fossils, how are they able to be intact like that? How is that in millions of years, some parts of dinosaur skeletons like the skull, are preserved so well? Shouldn't it have disintegrated? Also, how was blood and DNA found in some fossils of dinosaurs? Even tissue was found in the bones, but shouldn't it have gone away since tissue, blood, and DNA can't last for that long? And this was found in a T-Rex, which supposedly died in the late Cretaceous period, about 65 million years ago.
Exactly, if the Earth didn't have what we needed for survival, then we wouldn't be here. So why is it that Earth is the only planet in our solar system that contains the necessary components for life?
So why is that we can only breath oxygen, and why is it that Earth is the only planet to contain oxygen?
So what, why doesn't Mars have human life on it? But, god created the universe, so it's pretty much his decision. So why would he need to make planets more hospitable?
So, I thought god loved all people. Wouldn't he want his creations to be able to prosper and thrive?
So which is it then?
But I didn't say they lived together. I'm saying dinosaurs died long before the first humans came around.
So how are you able to find the age of a fossil? How can you tell the age of a something like a fossil in the first place? I've heard that scientists do it, but I've never been told HOW it's done.
I don't particularly know myself, but I'll look into it.
How is that in millions of years, some parts of dinosaur skeletons like the skull, are preserved so well?
Before they're found, no one is preserving them. They get eroded just like any other rock, and that's why people usually don't find fossils in their backyards. But, when archaeologists discover them, they're preserved.
So why is that we can only breath oxygen
Humans take in both carbon dioxide AND oxygen, but we don't photosynthesize, so we can't use CO2. As to why Earth is the only planet to contain oxygen, we have plants and other planets don't. If they did, they'd have oxygen as well.
We are his creation, and he put us on Earth to prosper and thrive. That's what he wanted us to do. He wanted us to multiply, and prosper. And yes, God loves his people. But why ask if God would want us to thrive? We already are, and we already have.
First you said they didn't live together. Then you said that they may have lived together at one point. But how do you know that dinosaurs came before humans?
On that 4th question, I meant why are they preserved so well. I already know that no one is preserving them, because they've just been found by archaeologists and paleontologists. After they bring the fossils back to their lab, they study them. Then if they can, they make replicas, and add extra bones that weren't there, and they put the skeleton on display at a museum. You didn't really answer my question. All you've said is that no is preserving them, they get eroded, and when archaeologists find them, they're preserved. But I want to know why there have been discoveries where tissue and DNA have been found in fossils. How is that those things were preserved in dinosaur fossils, when they should've been destroyed?
Yes, I know we take in carbon dioxide and oxygen, and I also know that Earth has plants, and plants help us breath. But the question is WHY do we breath carbon dioxide and oxygen, and why not anything else? Also, how does it just so happen that plants and humans exist and have such a good symbiotic relationship? This seems to good to just be an accident, if you ask me.
I'm not a scientist, but I know that dinosaurs came before humans because of fossils. I don't know why they formed, or why humans can't breathe anything but oxygen.
Get ready for a long parade of superstitious brainwashed people telling you in one way or another that God is real because they BELIEVE he's real. And really, that's all they've got.
You are correct, Rusticus. However, the precise same criticism can be made of atheists (i.e. God isn't real because atheists believe he isn't real).
I am very careful not to conflate the damaging effects of religion with the possibility that the universe (or biological life) had a creator. The damaging effects of religion can be criticised because they are very demonstrable and real. The debate between creation versus accident is however one of pure speculation.
However, the precise same criticism can be made of atheists
Very true; however, when you take into account the amount of theists in the world versus the amount of evidence for a god existing versus the amount of atheists in the world versus the amount of evidence in favor of ideas that very directly contradict religion (the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis, etc.), you'll soon see that there is an overwhelming about of ignorance among believers. The chances of any specific god that has been proposed throughout humanity's history being the god is practically infinitesimal, compared to scientific research and the plain abundance of them. They're all shots-in-the-dark and were useful for explaining what we didn't know before science started actually answering those questions; and it seems theists are being backed into a corner of ignorance as science continues to disprove aspects of religion while at the same time theists are grasping to alter their interpretations of religious texts from literal to figurative.
"No no no, the bible didn't really mean there was a flood, or that stars really fall from the sky, or the snake really talked, it was figurative".
I don't agree that the debate between creation vs accident is pure speculation because there's far more evidence for an accident than there is of a God creating everything.
If you make the claim that God created the universe, the burden of proof is on you to prove it rather than the burden of proof being placed on me to prove it wasn't.
I sometimes agree with you Q, but not here. Atheists believe god IS NOT REAL, because we see NO proof. Show us proof and we would be really stupid to NOT believe. Some would say we are Atheists because we are NOT stupid. (I can see the smoke rising from Now-a-Saint, FromWithin, Bronto and a few others ;-))
That said, I do agree with the "damaging effects" of "you MUST" religions! Find me some factual proof and I'll let "god" blow in my ear.
You have no reliable method to determine the mathematical probability of a creator and subsequently no reliable method to determine what is "most likely".
This is me proving you wrong. Smell it. Taste it. Bathe in it.
Simple logical reasoning can show how little the probably of a divine creator existing actually is. The fact that there are hundreds of proposed gods throughout history makes the one you may believe in specifically insignificant. Whatever religious beliefs you hold are most likely what you believe only because you were raised to believe it; as is the case with roughly 80% of religious believers. Also, speculating that I don't have a definite method of determining the probability, to a certain significant figure of a percentage, of a god existing doesn't change the fact that the likelihood is still very small. If you want to refute that, go grab me some evidence of a god existing.
Simple logical reasoning can show how little the probably of a divine creator existing actually is. The fact that there are hundreds of proposed gods throughout history makes the one you may believe in specifically insignificant.
This clearly is the complete opposite of "logical reasoning". "Insignificant" is a nonsense word you threw in there so you do not have to admit that all of these gods are equally probable. Since they are all equally probable, you are now saying you do not believe in any of them, rather than the one God you began your post claiming to not believe in, and hence the odds of you being correct have just plummeted.
"Insignificant" is a nonsense word you threw in there so you do not have to admit that all of these gods are equally probable"
That's my point. Every single god that has been proposed has an equal chance of being real(comparatively), which drastically reduces the overall chances that a single one of them really does exist.
Since you clearly have failed to do any sort of research on religion, I'll enlighten you a tad.
There are roughly 4,200 estimated religious groups in the world; few of these are monotheistic, in fact. There are records for 309 Hindu deities; ancient Hittites claimed to have around 1000 deities collectively. Taking the average yields 440 deities per religion; giving an estimated total deity number of 1,848,000.
Yikes. I reject every one of them; and a Christian, for example, rejects all but 1 of them. That alone only gives a 0.000054% difference between our positions.
Since they are all equally probably, you are now saying you do not believe in any of them...hence the odds of you being correct have just plummeted
Uh, no. You're assuming that the "equally probably" thing between all deities assumes that there is a 100% chance one of them is right; which is by no means the case. In fact, fundamental mathematical principles tell us that there's statistically a lower chance for only a single deity to exist than some combination of deities throughout every religion that's existed. Keep in mind, though, that doesn't mean there's a high chance this is the case. All of these "percentages" we'd be working with very, very, very small percentages. There's literally no reason to believe in any god that's been proposed other than it's been indoctrinated into you since childhood.
So let me just clarify this a second. Your "point" was to raise the probability that you are wrong by expanding the concept of one God into the concept of many gods? Somehow I sincerely doubt that was your point, buddy.
Every single god that has been proposed has an equal chance of being real(comparatively), which drastically reduces the overall chances that a single one of them really does exist.
Completely false and stupid. You have increased the chances that a god or god exists by introducing more possibilities than there were previously. Thor or Odin do not "reduce" the chances that the Abrahamic God is real because these are two different questions. You now have three gods to debunk instead of only one. Do you understand that three is bigger than one?
You have increased the chances that a god or gods exist by introducing more possibilties
I don't think you quite grasp the concept. Normally, you'd be right; but in this case, the different possibilities usually don't coexist. It should be assumed only one can be "true" if any, all to fit the same role of being the deity of our Universe.
Allow me to give a different example, as this seems difficult for you to understand.
Say you wake up one day and see one of your front windows was broken. You have no cameras, so can't see directly who did it. You look around your window and find some black and white hairs, and it smells terribly. Obviously it seems like a skunk was startled and ran into the window, you ask around the neighborhood anyways. Your neighbor across the street says they saw a kid throw a rock at the window and broke it. Still a little iffy since you clearly saw evidence pointing to a skunk causing the damage, you ask your neighbor to the left of you and they say they saw the mailman kick your window and run off while on his route. A bit puzzled, you go and ask your neighbor to your right and they tell you they saw your neighbor across the street hit your window with a rock thrown from their lawnmower while mowing their lawn.
Tell me, what do you believe happened? and Do the increasing number of very different explanations for the same event add to the likelihood that one of them occurred rather than what there is evidence to believe?
I tried to make it as easy as possible to comprehend for you, as you seem to specialize in insulting rather than thinking. Proposing very different explanations to the same event(all the gods that have been believed in over humanity's span on Earth) does not add to the probability that one is true despite the lack of evidence for one existing and the abubdance of evidence existing that disproves most of those deities (Zeus doesn't control lightning, nor Poseidon the oceans, The Big Bang and other theories on the origin of the universe, etc.)
I tried to make it as easy as possible to comprehend for you, as you seem to specialize in insulting rather than thinking.
You're right , he lacks the intelligence to comprehend counters to his increasingly weak arguments and resorts to insult instead of honourably accepting his beating , he's a very sore loser
To say that a god "exists " yet fulfills none of the criteria of existent things is a claim not one believer can back up ,a god is claimed to be a " supernatural " being , since time began not one shred of evidence had been put forward to prove the existence of any god out of the 1000's put forward
But I didn't claim to. I said quite the opposite. In fact, it was the entire reasoning I used to debunk the OP's premise.
I didn't say you claimed to.
Then why does the OP read, "God most likely doesn't exist. Prove me wrong", instead of, "Prove to me that God exists"???
Okay, fair. But if he just wants you to prove his wording wrong, why doesn't the OP say "God most likely doesn't exist. Prove that I wrote this incorrectly"?
