Login/Sign Up




Does God Exist
Religion

theatheist
May 05, 2009
22 votes
19 debaters
17
9
6
5
2
2
2
1
1


+ Add Argument

14
God Does Not Exist


ryvius
May 05, 2009
5 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: fieryplanet Show

If you believe in something, IT does not automatically make that belief a fact, or the truth. This is lacking epistemology.

There are atheistic religions: Buddhism, Raelism, Taoism, etc..

Note: Why another religious debate? Also, there are several positions on the belief system and agnostic statements such as there is probably no god. There should have been more than two slides/positions.


 
ryvius
May 06, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: teachme Show

"Now...science may have proven that all living things "die"...but, don't lose sight of science's Conservation of Energy Law, which states that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form."

Well, this is further evidence that no gods ever created any energy. So it must have always been there. Some people say ridiculous stuff like "energy cannot be destroyed, so the soul must survive after death". These people can't tell the difference between what energy really is, and the Hollywood / new age "energy" concept. Yeah, know how dead bodies get cold? Thermal energy is leaving the body. And decomposing meaning chemical energy leaves, etc..

 
theatheist
May 05, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Actually, Yoli, that was a stupid argument because we as humans know for a fact that we exist, because we are conscious living organisms. No one can know for a fact if something exists unless there is proof or at least evidence of it, the idea of God was only created by primitive man to explain the origin of the universe and life on earth. Yet modern science disproves many of the theological ideas, because primitive man didn't know enough about science to base their ideas of God on science.

 
ryvius
May 13, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

"I would define evidence simply as any information that would tend to lead a person toward a conclusion.

Evidences are not always proof. Courts will consider circumstantial evidence, and rarely does a case turn on one piece of evidence alone. Evidences may qualify as such even if there is contradictory evidence.

Evidences specifically for Christianity would include any information that would tend to lead someone toward any or all of what we might call a packaged set of conclusions"

Alright, I'll settle IT here instead.

Again, proof is a mathematical concept.

Unfortunately, that definition is completely SUBJECTIVE, and leads to completely idiotic things being defined as evidence.

According to that definition, the fact that a woman has a black cat as a pet is evidence that she is a witch, because it would lead some idiots to that conclusion.

Maybe in your past time it's been concluded like that over and over again, but I've endured til the end with these specific debates and it has been finished off with that person reminding me of their faith/religious belief. (Frankie demonstrated it recently)


 
ryvius
May 13, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

That's fine as long as you REALIZE your belief is just that. The same goes with everyone who keep repeating it's the truth, without evidence.

Yeah, I complain against atheists too who say they're absolutely certain there is or there are no gods.

 
objection
May 05, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: fieryplanet Show

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal?

In all honesty, you've given no evidence for your side of the argument.

I can believe in things all I want, but this does not make them exist.

I believe I can fly. If I jump off a building, will my belief make my "power of flight" exist? No, I'll simply crash into the ground.

Why we're having this argument is beyond me, as it'll go nowhere seeing as it's been had millions of times, and there are much more current, relevant topics to discuss.


 
theatheist
May 05, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Teachme, I'm happy to see that you've kept your mind open to the opposing side of the argument instead of automatically assumed your side was right. It's physically impossible for a God to exist, because science has proven that all living things die and the bible has stated the god is immortal and makes god seem a lot like a living person. It even stated the man was created in god's image which would mean god would be almost exactly like man, except immortal, all-knowing, and all-powerful, which is impossible. Also, if god created the universe, then what did he exist on before he did that? It is also impossible for a something to listen to prayers that are said miles-lightyears away, and to listen to every prayer said and judge every person that has died when someone could die every 5 seconds or so in the world. That's even assuming we are the only planet in the multi-trillion planet universe that has life. There are other things that could disprove god, but I think that's enough to answer your question. Your next question: some people might disagree that modern science has proven evolution, but it sure has discovered an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports it, and a lot of evidence of an earth that is more than 6,000 years old. There are many other things science has disproved about religion including the claim that there was only one language at one point on earth, and that a boat made by someone with only mere tools could hold 2 of every animal on earth. And that the carnivores didn't eat the other animals on that boat and that the boat could somehow hold dinosaurs such as the tyrannosaurus-rex or the bronchiosaurus. I could still make more points on both questions, but I think I've said enough to answer them.

 
ryvius
May 06, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: denverdannydee Show

Non-sequitur.

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

 
hottubwille
May 06, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: denverdannydee Show

Yes it's - Zoroastrianism. All modern religions pretty much trace their roots back to here. Virgin birth, resurection, heaven, hell, blah, blah, blah. All that stuff was cooked up waaaay before Jesus made the scene. If your going to buy into all this BS why not at least go back to the original? Why follow the Johnny Comelately religion when you could follow the dude they stole their act from?

 
ryvius
May 07, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

So you claim there is a reality behind us. Right, where's the evidence for all of that, and how do you determine the nature of that reality, and how do you determine it has something to do with some god, and which god in particular?

Okay, so you will agree that every possible god every described by mankind, and every variation not described, could be out of that box. Right? There's no evidence for it, but it's theoretically possible. There could also be mermaids there, or elves, or hybrids of those species.

Now, here's the question: How do we determine whether something is real or not?

 
hottubwille
May 08, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

I don't exist. And once again you find yourself talking to an imaginary being. I'm noticing a trend...

 
theatheist
May 08, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: yoli Show

We never said everything came from nothing, maybe it was like Steven Hawking's theory of everything came from a 'dot' which slowly, but eventually, expanded. Maybe it started with something else. But the idea of an extremely complex, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-perfect immortal being just popping up out of nowhere is ridiculous.

 
theatheist
May 09, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Actually none of those things are actually proof that god exists, not all of it is even true. Your references to the bible being historically accurate isn't entirely true, there was no evidence of Jewish slaves in Egypt, among many other things. There is also proof that there were many languages on earth at the time the bible said there was only one. There are also a lot of other things that historically contradicts the bible, such as carbon-dating revealing the earth to be at least 4.5 billion years old, when the bible claims it to be only 6,000. Even if some of the bible is historically accurate, then how do you know that that isn't because the humans who wrote the bible knew about history? And it is true that some of the 'prophecies' of the bible came true, but some of them didn't. People can make predictions and have them come true, it doesn't mean that god made them. So-called 'miracles' are only things that have a scientific explanation that either hasn't been found yet, or wasn't discovered as the reason for the event. It can also be an event that played out so well that it might cause some people to think a god did it, when the real explanation could be answered through proven science, not a 'God'

 
theatheist
May 09, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

I understand what you're saying, but there are still flaws in the 'evidence' that you showed. Just because predictions turned out to be true doesn't mean they were written by an all-knowing being. Many societies throughout history have used advanced methods of statistics to predict future events. About ten years ago a supercomputer was built to scan everything on the internet to predict future events, and it did that accurately. They might not have had supercomputers back then, but they could still use more basic methods of statistics to predict future events. My explanation of miracles was biased because it's true. Everything has a scientific explanation, you even said that there is a lot of science that we don't know. A lot of so-called miracles probably happened because of science that isn't known to humans yet. "You can't disprove God." I personally don't agree with this statement, but I can say that 'God' is very improbable. I do agree that myself and a lot of atheists would believe in god if that 'piece of conclusive evidence' comes along, but it's been 200,000 years since humans appeared on this planet so we probably would have found it if it exists already.

 
ryvius
May 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

You could make the same argument for any of the thousands of gods made up throughout history.

You're obviously not very good at evaluating evidence, if you think there is any that points to the existence of your particular god.

And absence of evidence is evidence of absence. How did you determine the monster under the bed does not exist?

 
ryvius
May 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Actual evidence would be objective. what you have is not and is subjective based on your definition.

And the claim that objectively examining reality leads to the conclusion that the christian god exists is ridiculous.

 
ryvius
May 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Ignore your subjective definition of evidence? Yes.

Again, we can take this to a one on one debate.

 
theatheist
May 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
There is no evidence that a god exists, or has ever existed, and it is physically impossible for a god to exist.

 
theatheist
May 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

God can mean different things to many people, but I guess it can be defined as anything that is the main idea of any faith-based religion

 
hottubwille
May 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: yoli Show

Really?

 
feefee123
May 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: yoli Show

we didn't pop up out of no where.

 
ryvius
May 07, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

I don't actually have a chemistry degree, so I can't explain this precisely, but it is kind of obvious that a skeleton has far less chemical energy than somebody who just died. Follow each type of energy over the course of decomposition, see where it goes. No mystery there. And the point still stands: Real energy is not the same as Hollywood energy.

And, convince for you mentioning that there really isn't proof for it. I hope this little fact goes widespread faster than the swine flu.

 
ryvius
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

No, it's not a concept backed by logic, philosophy, or critical thinking.

You can generate an infinite amount of concepts like that, with zero evidence for those. Evidence is how you tell if they're real or not.

 
hottubwille
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm

Have faith in me for god's sake.

 
ryvius
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Are you totally incapable of wrapping your head around the POSSIBILITY that pixies exist, in the same way the you suggests your god exists? How about the possibility that you're right and some god exists, but it's, Ahura Mazda and not the judeo-christian god?

 
obviouschild
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

This does not suggest there is a God or supernatural beings. Merely another plane of reality that we are not privy to. Any statements as to what inhabits that plane is mere speculation.

 
obviouschild
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: yoli Show

Nice God of the Gaps argument.

Essentially you just based your argument on ignorance. What we cannot explain is justification for God's existence. Essentially, you have reverted to Animism.

 
obviouschild
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

I'd like to see this too. The concept of God is hardly just Biblical. A deist or pantheist God is very different from the God of the Torah/Bible/Koran.

 
patti
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: yoli Show

You and I exist because we evolved the way we are.
There is no scientific evidence of God existing.

 
ryvius
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: yoli Show

Tell me where you got this idea from where "we came from nothing". And then, tell me why you directly go to the god of the gaps theory.

 
ryvius
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

You think you have evidence? By all means, present them, in fact, why waste time here? You should get the Nobel Prize or some kind of accolade for having evidence, or thinking you have evidence.

The problem with that little rambling you sketched is that the person who claimed God exists, didn't provide any evidence after making the claim, thus a baseless one.

I don't honor the evidence? Tell me what you think constitutes as evidence and we'll go on from there.



 
ryvius
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: yoli Show

Non-sequitir.

Here's a brief summary you can easily find over the internet:

Compared to other living organisms on Earth, humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, and they now inhabit almost every continent, with a total population of over 6.6 billion as of 2007.

Like most primates, humans are social by nature; however, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of cooperating and competing groups, ranging in scale from small families and partnerships to species-wide political, scientific and economic unions. Social interactions between humans have also established an extremely wide variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws which form the basis of human society. Humans also have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only known species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.

 
ryvius
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: yoli Show

We can only make explanations/theories of what could had happen, and the theory that is best supported in the science community is the abiogenesis theory.

 
ryvius
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Are you telling us you can't tell apart facts from misinformation/opinions/beliefs?

The New Testament, particularly Revelation, introduces a good/evil dualism akin to Zoroastrianism, which has become particularly common in Christian tradition.

 
hottubwille
May 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Then, my work is done here... :D

 
ryvius
May 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Bingo! ALL of those are refutable.

Okay, helpme, I would like to welcome you to a debate whether there is evidence or none of (Your) God's existence. You challenge or if I, state the day you want to inaugurate the debate.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Ok, but how does any of this even suggest the existence of a god?

 
obviouschild
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

I don't see how it adds to the discussion either. All he's arguing is essentially something else may exist out there that we don't know. How does that help or add?

 
obviouschild
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

1) Weak at best. All it suggests is the writers existed at the time or had knowledge of the circumstances. No support for a Deity

2) How does that provide evidence of God? All it does is prove that people wrote things down. Which isn't exactly news.

4) Merely because they were accurate in writing about things after they occurred does not equate to everything they wrote is true.

5) How do we know that the writings of the prophecies were written before and not after? Remember that many prophets in history were nothing more than scam artists who wrote their prophecies after the fact.

I'm not even going to bother with #6.

All your list does is show you believe because you want to believe. It does not provide any actual evidence for a supernatural being, much less the Biblical one.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Looking again, I get the impression that what you're offering aren't reasons but justifications. A reason is what causes you to believe when you start off not believing. A justification is what you use to explain why you already believe what you do. In other words, you seem to be starting with your conclusion, then working your way backwards in search of an excuse to accept it.

Do you actually have any reasons to offer us or are you merely justifying what you want to believe no matter what the facts tell us?

 
thoughtcriminal
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

If you can't prove God exists, then I politely accept your concession and move on. Thank you for your honesty. The only question this leaves me is why, given that there's no proof God exists, you nonetheless hold the belief. Sounds irrational to me.

 
theatheist
May 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

I have no intention of triggering up a whole new argument, but I do have a point to make. You CAN disprove god, if you disprove that it is physically impossible for a god to exist. And you can prove god by finding substantial evidence that a god exists. But the thing is, no evidence has been found in the 200,000 years of human existence on earth, and science is starting to point in the direction that it is physically impossible for a god to exist.

 
theatheist
May 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Maybe if you read the beginning of the argument, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. But here's the answer to your question: It's physically impossible for a God to exist, because science has proven that all living things die and the bible has stated the god is immortal and makes god seem a lot like a living person. It even stated the man was created in god's image which would mean god would be almost exactly like man, except immortal, all-knowing, and all-powerful, which is impossible. Also, if god created the universe, then what did he exist on before he did that? It is also impossible for a something to listen to prayers that are said miles-lightyears away, and to listen to every prayer said and judge every person that has died when someone could die every 5 seconds or so in the world. That's even assuming we are the only planet in the multi-trillion planet universe that has life. There are other things that could disprove god, but I think that's enough to answer your question.

 
theatheist
May 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

You are the ignorant one, you hypocrite. The thing is, you don't even have an argument, neither do any christians. Ignorance and hypocrisy seem to be the only things keeping religion alive today. Hopefully in the future people will realize how ridiculous religion actually is and we will move on and the world will be a much better place.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

When there is insufficient evidence to justify a rational belief in the existence of a thing, the only choice we have is to admit that it most likely doesn't exist. An argument from ignornace would be to claim it exists despite this resounding lack of evidence.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

There is no reason for us to try to actively disprove the existence of God, because there's been nothing convincing put forth as proof of his existence in the first place. There's as much evidence for God as for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, which is to say none, and it would be just as irrational to claim they exist despite this lack of evidence. It is the positive claim of existence that has the burden of proof. Nobody has to disprove the unproven; all we have to do is shrug and walk away.

I'm glad you admit you're irrational, but don't you dare try to tar me with your brush. It's not my fault that you hold your beliefs with reckless disregard for the truth.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

If there is no argument, you have conceded, since you have the burden of proof but refuse to shoulder it.

If there is sufficient evidence to justify a RATIONAL belief, then presenting it would constitute an argument. From the fact that you said you had no argument, I can only assume that you have no such evidence.

My belief is based on the fact that we need evidence to conclude something exists, while a lack of evidence is sufficient to require disbelief. Since there's no evidence, I have a rational obligation to disbelieve.

(This is my second rebuttal, which is intended to be less dismissive.)

 
thoughtcriminal
May 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

The truth matters, so I reserve the right to make as many arguments as I like. If you find them condescending, then prove me wrong by rising above the rallying call of "we're all irrational, so I choose theism".

Burden of proof is on the positive claim of existence.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

To believe that something exists when there is no evidence to support this belief is indeed irrational. You tried to reverse this by claiming that it's just as irrational to disbelieve due to lack of evidence, but I've refuted this already.

I don't remember calling anyone an idiot, but I certainly do refer to your belief as being held in reckless disregard for the evidence. I call them as I see them.

 
iverson
Jun 07, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: yoli Show

ha really??? is correct i think you should first distinguish in your own mind a definition of existence, then make another attempt at answering this question.

 
alwaysbackstage
Jul 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: fieryplanet Show

So, let me get this straight. In your grammar addled statement, you are saying God exists if you believe he does, correct? In other words, I can infer that if a sentient organism believes, with or without evidence, in some sort of entity it will actually exist, right? With this train of thought, I believe that a scantily clad lady is about to knock at my door and offer me one million dollars. ... Nope. No lady. Therefore, I can conclude that your hypothesis is incorrect. Its called the scientific method.

Furthermore, you are relying on the argument of sentimentality, making the rebuttal more like the plot of some Hallmark movie rather than a logical statement. For example, if I say that a giant hunk of moldy cheese is our God and that it exists based on the fact that I believe in it, there isn't quite the same ring to it.

In summary, we are talking about a common REALITY here. If you want to talk about thought's relation to matter, find the metaphysics section.



 
+ Add Argument

8
God Does Exist


jonjax71
May 05, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Before I comment or cast my vote, can someone preferably the creator of this debate, define hers or his view of "God", then I can intelligently comment and vote as this word's defintion and perception vary.

ATTN: Denver Danny if you chime in, for the sake of logic and intelligence, speak with your brain not with your heart

 
denverdannydee
May 05, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
The world exists, humans exist, there is a God

God is the Creator, the giver of life, the maintainer of order. God is like a triplex movie theatre, 3 screens in the same place

Man's ego has attempted to give God different names through false religions but there is only one.

 
frankiej4189
May 06, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Well technically living things decompose when the chemical and biological processes that preserve the cells stop working. "Chemical Energy" doesn't leave the body, the processes that create that Energy shut off so there is no more energy being created...technically.

Either way, there is no proof for God's existence (not directed at you ryvius). STOP TRYING TO FIND IT all you theists out there. Belief in God is about faith, not misconceptions about energy. Your faith is only made stronger when you acknowledge you'll never know the answer.

 
helpme
May 12, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

To start with, even though I did give a small number of evidences, that was not the purpose for that particular posting. I was answering Ryvius' question. He asked me what I thought constitutes as evidence. So, I gave my explaination of the meaning of evidence, then gave a few examples.

My point in the WHOLE matter is this. Evidences may lead to proof, but evidence is not necessarily proof of anything.

You guys are smelling blood and want to go in for the kill. It isn't needed. I've already said that I cannot prove that God exists. I can only offer evidence. You may or may not accept it or honor it, but that doesn't take away the evidence. You may offer evidence 'B' to refute evidence 'A', but that doesn't necessarily void evidence 'A'. You just look at all the evidence offered and determine if it is true and enough to offer proof.




 
teachme
May 05, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Ryvius posted..."Also, there are several positions on the belief system and agnostic statements such as there is probably no god."

...As well as, the agnostic points of view...that we are not in the position to find out...that there is no way we could ever know...or, more simply stated, in the first person..."I DON'T KNOW...if God exists, or doesn't exist!"

So, I agree with Ryvius, that there should have been more positions.


 
helpme
May 07, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
It's no secret that I am convinced that God exists. I know that there is no 100% proof that God exists. But there are many logical evidences that strongly suggest that there is a God.


I know the following is not proof for God but it adds to the discussion: (Googled and pasted)

French physicist and philosopher of science Bernard d'Espagnat has won the Templeton Prize this year (2009), amounting to $1.4 million, for his concept of a “hypercosmic God.”

D'Espagnat is a disciple of the outlook that states that there is a reality beyond us, which is veiled from view. If we are to believe Einstein's theory of relativity, then another reality exists, different from our own, all around us.

This other reality, which cannot be directly observed, can either be observable, non-observable, or veiled, and this year's Templeton Prize winner is a supporter of the third option.

“There must exist, beyond mere appearances ... a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments,” the scientists says.

This view is exactly the kind of attitude the John Templeton Foundation is looking for. The forum is dedicated to reconciling the viewpoints of science and religion in a single theory that would explain our reality and the one beyond.



Me again:

Scientists and those who follow it often view the universe as confined to a box. In that box is space, matter, energy and time, etc. Every thing they observe and test are presupposed to work within that box.

Suppose that there is actually something outside the box that works independent from the box but also interacts with the box. That something might not be confined by space, matter, energy, or time. It doesn't take long till see that a God is not beyond the realm of possibility.


 
helpme
May 07, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hottubwille Show

The real question is this. Is Zoro older than judaism? your confidence that Zoro is older is like me saying I have 100% proof that God exists. The opinions are all over the place.

This is a wobbley argument at best

 
frankiej4189
May 07, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Obviously there's no proof. Its a CONCEPT, not a fact. It is a concept backed up by logic and philosophy and crtical thinking. For the life of me, i dont understand why so many atheists are totally incapable of wrapping their heads around the POSSIBILITY that proposed concepts like these MAY be true. The problem i have with the atheist mentality is that most of them follow this ideology "If you can't see it, touch it, taste it, hear it, or smell it, it must not be real". The problem with this is that when you come across a "concept" like the one d'Espagnat is proposing, you automatically and instantly dismiss it by saying there's no proof. Its rather closed minded if you ask me.

 
thales
May 08, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hottubwille Show

That sentence made my head hurt....

 
helpme
May 08, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

How do we know something is real? Well, we can look at it directly or we can look at the evidence . That's where we disagree. I think there is evidence for God. You choose not to honor the evidence. So we are left with;

"God exists."
"No he doesn't"
"Yes he does."
"nope"
"yup"

I love you anyway :P



 
frankiej4189
May 08, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

To save myself some time, here's a bit from mine and Bill's great debate.

http://convinceme.net/debate/1542/Does-God-Exist-Debate-2-of-3.html

"A common rebuttal in God debates
are people saying, "Well i believe in Little Green
Martians that live behind my ear. THey're
invisible so you can't see them, only i can hear
them so you won't know if they make a sound. But
these Martians exist because i say so and you all
should believe in them too." Then comes my
favourite "Prove they don't exist!". Faith doesn't
allow for acceptance of anything and everything.
Faith is bound by the limitations of the
indiviudal. I personally have no reason to believe
in these little Green Martians because i
personally have had no experiences that would lead
me to believe that they do exist. I have no
reason, and have heard of no other reasons to
believe in them. That's not the case with
believing in God. Like i said in my first
argument, i've had personal religious experiences
that over the course of my short life, have led me
down a path towards believing in God. I feel in my
heart and soul that there is a God. I've heard the
teachings that other people have told me and i've
heard about some of their experiences as well.
True, i cannot prove the Martian doesn't exist
anymore than i can prove that God DOES exist, but
I/Me/Frankie lack the personal reasons to believe
in these Martians that i have to believe in God."


 
helpme
May 09, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

There is much debate in regards to the whether there is sufficient evidence to support a “notion of God”. Many atheists debunk Christian arguments in favor of a God… why do they do this? It seems to me that we will rarely, if ever, agree on whether "faith" is logical or irrational, and the evidence to support our faith in God - Simply because our definitions of evidence and logic are possible vastly different. How can you move forward if there is no common ground in the first place?

What is evidence to a Christian?

I would define evidence simply as any information that would tend to lead a person toward a conclusion.

Evidences are not always proof. Courts will consider circumstantial evidence, and rarely does a case turn on one piece of evidence alone. Evidences may qualify as such even if there is contradictory evidennce.

Evidences specifically for Christianity would include any information that would tend to lead someone toward any or all of what we might call a packaged set of conclusions, including ideas such as:

1) there is an infinite, personal creator God, that he has spoken through the Bible, that he has personally revealed himself through Jesus Christ.

2) that we humans were created for relationship with him, that we are being called from a state of alienation and rebellion from God, back into relationship with him through Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is the king of creation, and so on.

What kinds of information do theists have in mind when we speak of evidences for Christianity?

1) The historical, documentary testimony of the Bible

2) Historiographical and bibliographical indicators that the
biblical documents are what they present themselves to be

3) Prophecies made and fulfilled in history

4)The existence of the Christian church as an historical
movement

5) Changed lives of Christians

6)Miracles, signs, wonders, visions, etc., both historical and contemporary

7)The self-authenticating wisdom of Biblical teaching; its close fit with the realities of human experience

8)A long list of philosophical evidences

9)The internal testimony of God in one’s life”

Perhaps you could even add a few of your own, maybe you debate some of what is suggested?

I question then how an atheist would define evidence? I ask this because as I look around, it rarely seems that they would be satisfied with any presented evidence!

Does the lack of evidence therefore imply automatically that something is not true, does not exist?

Science has at least proven one thing for me - there is so much we DO NOT KNOW. We think we have most of the answers, we’ve seen the universe and mapped it out…that is UNTIL someone comes along and splits open an atom and discovers there’s more…or the telescope is developed and goes further into the depths of the unknown!

Perhaps one day someone will find that piece of conclusive evidence for God that the atheist is looking for. Even then, will that be enough for him? Maybe/maybe not but for me and many others, there is already enough evidence found to make faith logical.



 
helpme
May 09, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theatheist Show

Like I said before.... "as I look around, it rarely seems that they would be satisfied with any presented evidence!"

1) Slaves in Egypt:

There is evidence. It's in the Bible. Many less reliable ancient writings have been accepted by history academia. Only the Bible is put through a finer strainer than those writings.

2)Language;

It is false to say that there is proof. Evidence maybe, but not proof. The spoken word leaves no trace - it is therefore impossible for language historians to determine at what point in human history, languages were first uttered or how they developed. But we do have written evidence in the Bible along with the many similiar stories throughout the world. So your "proof" is only evidence just like my assertion is evidence, once again not proof.

Remember, evidence can still be evidence even if there is contradicting evidence.

3) Carbon dating;
I will not rehash the carbon dating problems, and there are problems. Would it matter to you anyway? I think not.

Oh and the Bible makes no claims of the age of the earth. It are those who trace the lineages back to come up with dates raging from 6-12 thousand years to those who think millions of years.

3) History:
Well said. I do in fact believe that the men who wrote the bible knew history, most lived it. That's evidence for it's accuracy.

4) prophecy:
There are no problems here. much of Biblical prophecy has come to pass. Those prophecies that didn't, are still prophecies aren't they?

"...it doesn't mean that god made them." The Bible is full of prophecy. But the difference between those and prophecies of men is detail. man's prophecies are vague at best. Biblical prophecy is wrought with detail, making it subject to increased scrutiny. There is a saying among Christians that "God is in the details."

5) miracles:
Your explaination is full bias. And remember this is evidence, not proof.

Conclusion:
You have proven the point I made in an earlier post.


I think there is evidence for God. You choose not to honor the evidence. So we are left with;

"God exists."
"No he doesn't"
"Yes he does."
"nope"
"yup"

and...

Perhaps one day someone will find that piece of conclusive evidence for God that the atheist is looking for. Even then, will that be enough for him? Maybe/maybe not but for me and many others, there is already enough evidence found to make faith logical.





 
helpme
May 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

There is no consession because there is no argument. Most understand that no one can prove that God exists just like most understand that it cannot be proven that he does not exist. The ONLY thing that either side can do is present what they consider evidence.

How do I hold to the belief? Simple. The evidence is sufficient enough to me that I believe in God's existence. Just as the atheist beleives there is no God, he holds that there is sufficient evidence to deny His existence.

So it seems, by your thoughts, that we are both irrational.
But, I'm ok with that label.



 
helpme
May 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Just so everyone is aware, I was challenged to a debate concerning evidences for the existence of God. I denied the challenge Based on three reasons.

1) In the two years that I have been on this site, I've only participated in 7 or 8 'battle' debates. Why? I have little interest in devoting the time to properly debate an issue. I like to pop in and out of the site for short periods of time.

2) The topic is too broad to debate in this venue. I would be more likely to accept if the debate were narrowed to a specific type of evidence or a particular evidence, or the concept of evidence.

3) The topic, as stated, will lead to no conclusion. This stuff has been debated over and over again and always ends up something like;

"it's true"
"No it isn't"
"yes it is"



 
frankiej4189
May 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theatheist Show

Yeah you keep saying that. Why, again, is it physically impossible for a God to exist?

 
fieryplanet
May 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
God exist if u believe that he does . There is many different kind of religions in this worls and each believes that theyr God do exist . It is your choise either you believe it or not . So if you choose to believe , then obviously it will exist for you .

 
yoli
May 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
if its impossible for god to exist than its impossible for me and you to exist


 
teachme
May 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theatheist Show

Theatheist...you've made some good points, and have me somewhat convinced...however, making statements like "...it is physically impossible for a god to exist," and "modern science disproves many of the theological ideas" requires some backing and specifics. ...So, please expound! :)

 
teachme
May 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theatheist Show

Theatheist...keep in mind, that just because I post a rebuttal to your argument, and my post shows on the opposite side...doesn't automatically mean that I have chosen or voted for a side.

I understand that you are new here, so you mustn't assume that someone has chosen a side, particularly when there are sides lacking, as in this debate.

Now...science may have proven that all living things "die"...but, don't lose sight of science's Conservation of Energy Law, which states that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form."

So we may have been "here" all along...including God (if there is a God), just in a different form...and we may leave here in a different "form" as well. ...Who's to say? I'm not choosing sides...just playing devil's advocate.

 
jonjax71
May 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hottubwille Show

Other than its monotheistic beliefs Zoraostrianism bases its other tenents, like virgin birth, resurrection, paradise, inferno et al to older belief systems of India and Egypt so it is far from being the "original" as you stated, Nevertheless it is a good retort

 
frankiej4189
May 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theatheist Show

"Physically impossible for a god to exist"

Well that's certainly a loaded statement.

 
helpme
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hottubwille Show

Ok went to that site. Big deal. I also found one site that says it is not the oldest and another site that says no one really knows if it is or isn't the oldest.

How can I have faith in you? I don't think you exist.

 
frankiej4189
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Thank you for proving my point to a "T"

 
yoli
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theatheist Show

Ok then why is it that we are smarter than animals WHY.
When it all comes down to it something started from nothing and i dont know what started that. I just cant believe nothing created nothing.



 
yoli
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: feefee123 Show

exactly so tell me where we came from then

 
yoli
May 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theatheist Show

sorry meant to say---- I just cant believe nothing created something

o and im very open minded right now so convince away`

 
helpme
May 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: obviouschild Show

That's why I added this sentence. Please pay attention.


"I know the following is not proof for God but it adds to the discussion"

 
helpme
May 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Yes I can. That Is why Posted what I did.

There is no conclusive fact that Zoro came first. But you stated as fact that it did. I was pointing out that the jury is out on this.

 
helpme
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: obviouschild Show

Isn't it obvious child? It adds to the discussion because the man is questioning if science is all there is. You may or may not agree with him, but it certainly adds to the discussion.

 
frankiej4189
May 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Fine by me. I think that all theists and atheists need to eat a piece of humble pie and admit to themselves and to others that their beliefs on the issue of God are just beliefs. No one knows anymore than anyone else.

 
frankiej4189
May 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theatheist Show

"Essentially you just based your argument on ignorance"

-ObviousChild

 
helpme
May 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

I say again, just because you ignore the evidence, does not mean it does not exist. It is there except you have turned a blind eye to it.

 
helpme
May 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

You seem to be agreeing with me. In my very first post I stated that there is no proof, only evidence. I have never said I have 'proof'. It is pretty obvious that I know evidence isn't always proof. but you keep coming back to that assumption about me.

I did state that I think the evidence is strong enough for ME to think that God exists.

You are free to feel differently based on the evidence or the lack thereof. There is nothing I nor anyone could say to shake your confidence in the atheistic bent. That can only be changed by examining the world around you without bias, searching your conscience and looking for truth that may have previously been overlooked.

Finally, if you think that everything that you believe true/proven is based on fact, or mathmatical concept then you are short sighted. We all live our lives with tons of faith whether religious or otherwise. We hardly make a move without some aspect of faith involved.

 
helpme
May 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

And so it goes . You don't agree with my position, so you resort to condescending speech.


"Nobody has to disprove the unproven; all we have to do is shrug and walk away. "

For someone who makes this claim, you sure are posting enough arguments. To what end? What is the motivation?

The truth is, I do not have the burden of proof any more or less than you. Maybe it's that way in formal debate, but this is hardly formal. This is only discussion.



 
helpme
May 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

What a twist of words sir. It was you who labeled me irrational. I simply replied that if by your standard I am irrational then you fit the bill as well. It is not my 'rally call'

I do not find your arguments condescending. I find the name calling and labels condescending. You can make an argument without resorting to Terms like 'idiots' and 'reckless'.
We should be able to disagree without being snarky.



 
uptowngirl
Jul 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theatheist Show

Before I try to prove God, I'd like to see you disprove Him:)

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

atheism christianity debate god islam religion Abortion atheism atheist athiesm athiest BBC belief Beliefs bible buddhism catholic catholicism Christ christian christianity christians Christmas church Creation creationism death debate enlightenment ethics evil Evolution faith god heaven Hell hinduism Islam islamic jesus jewish judaism logic love morality mosque muslim opression peace philosophy politics Pope religion Religon Salvation satan Science scientology sex sin society supernatural terrorism Theology Truth VanCam violence war world