Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

41
45
God's Existence God's Non-Existence
Debate Score:86
Arguments:83
Total Votes:95
Ended:05/09/13
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 God's Existence (39)
 
 God's Non-Existence (40)

Debate Creator

LizziexLaura(4277) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

We cannot prove God does or does not 100% exist?

We know that no matter what. Logically one cannot prove god does or does not exist. However one side must have more "logical" evidence. Which side has the most evidence? Do provide proof, logic, and reasoning. 

 

Do remain peaceful in this debate.

God's Existence

Side Score: 41
VS.

God's Non-Existence

Side Score: 45
Winning Side!
1 point

If one can imagine a maximally great being, then it is logically contradictory for one to claim that He does not exist in reality; for it is greater to be in reality and necessarily in every world, than to be merely contingent upon the world's variables. Therefore, if God is logically possible, then God exists, but if God is logically impossible, then God does not exist. God is logically possible: therefore, God exists.

Side: God's Existence
1 point

Also, a belief properly so called, applies to everything. That includes reason; for we cannot prove or disprove that reason is reasonable. Therefore, we have to start from a basis of presupposition for everything, which cannot be proven. For example, what makes reason reasonable? What makes one believe that reality is reality? Therefore, everything reverts to faith.

Side: God's Existence
-1 points

1) Everything exists.

2) It was created.

3) There exists a creator.

Side: God's Existence
Conro(767) Disputed
1 point

There's problems with both your second and third assertions. Existence hardly implies creation, and even if it did, a creator would not be necessitated.

Or, if you would like, we could attack the argument from a different angle.

Assuming there exists a creator, must there not also exist something to create the creator (after all, the first creator exists, and from there it follows your initial argument). And on and on the argument goes indefinitely.

There are much stronger arguments in favor of a creator; the existence theory is perhaps the most tenuous.

Side: God's Non-Existence
LizziexLaura(4277) Disputed Banned
1 point

Existence hardly implies creation, and even if it did, a creator would not be

How so? Doesn't the sheer fact that something exists imply that something created it?

Side: God's Existence
Warlin(1212) Disputed
1 point

Well I don't think everything exists. But maybe I'm crazy. Actually probably that. Also just because things exist doesn't mean they were created. And also, just because everything was created, doesn't mean there is a creator. And also again, just because there's a creator doesn't mean the creator is intelligent, let alone omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.

It's like. You see a guy on the street eating a banana and you go:

1) There is a guy eating a banana.

2) It was purchased.

3) There must be a banana stand nearby.

Seems logical enough, but what if the dude has a banana tree or something like that? Or hey, what if he got it from a supermarket and there -isn't- a banana stand nearby?

I know, I know, comparing gods to bananas. Still.

Supporting Evidence: This is a picture of an apple. (i41.tinypic.com)
Side: God's Non-Existence
LizziexLaura(4277) Disputed Banned
1 point

Also just because things exist doesn't mean they were created

Science can say otherwise.Things dont spawn by themselves.

And also again, just because there's a creator doesn't mean the creator is intelligent, let alone omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.

If you are not bound by space and time and created all of this then I would say that you must be eternal and omnipotent. It is the only way.

Side: God's Existence

1) A creator of all physical things must, by definition, be physical in some way.

2) This is a self-contradiction.

3) This creator doesn't exist.

Side: God's Non-Existence
LizziexLaura(4277) Disputed Banned
1 point

Not quite. In order to ensure free will the god, or shall we just use God, God must not be seen, you must have faith. If the creator doesn't exist then you have no us so that immediately is tossed out the window. A creator of all things knows all things and does not have to be physical.

Side: God's Existence
Akulakhan(2973) Disputed
1 point

"Creator" only implies that something was made for a reason. We humans were not.

Side: God's Non-Existence
2 points

"Is there a God?"

-"Yes"

"Why?"

-"............"

Side: God's Non-Existence
LizziexLaura(4277) Disputed Banned
1 point

-"God doesn't exist"

-"Prove it."

".........."

Side: God's Existence
Akulakhan(2973) Disputed
3 points

Okay. I will.

God doesn't exist.

To be god you have to be beyond space time and all of the finite reality. the only other things that meet this criteria are the things that don't exist. Therefore god is categorized under non-existence.

Side: God's Non-Existence
Nox0(1393) Disputed Banned
1 point

-"God doesn't exist"

-"Prove it."

".........."

-"You are not a child molester"

-"Prove it."

".........."

Side: God's Non-Existence

If a person breaks into your house, how can a cop prove that it was NOT a specific person?

One can only try to prove that someone was in your house. Because a non-presence doesn't leave fingerprints or anything else to give you clues.

This is how I feel about God. When christians ask me to prove his non-existence I laugh, because this is in my opinion a silly thing to say. Can you prove to me that Santa wasn't in my chimney last night?

If you believe Santa was in my chimney, then you are in the position to defend and explain why you believe, not the other way around because we are the opposition.

But you are right, no one can prove 100% that God isn't real, just like we can't prove that Santa, unicorns, neverland and other fairytales aren't real either.

Side: God's Non-Existence
LizziexLaura(4277) Disputed Banned
1 point

This is how I feel about God. When christians ask me to prove his non-existence I laugh, because this is in my opinion a silly thing to say. Can you prove to me that Santa wasn't in my chimney last night?

So then it isn't truly silly then because you can't really say he doesn't exist. This just gives christians a hand.

If you believe Santa was in my chimney, then you are in the position to defend and explain why you believe, not the other way around because we are the opposition

Actually it is the work of both people. You have to show proof for your claims that God doesn't exist. Christians have to show proof for their claims also.

Side: God's Existence
1 point

So then it isn't truly silly then because you can't really say he doesn't exist. This just gives christians a hand.

No it is of course not truly silly, I said in my opinion it is silly. Just because I think something is silly doesn't mean that it truly is silly - but I think it is :)

Side: God's Non-Existence
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

You can prove a negative. One such way is to derive an indirect proof, in which you assume something and derive a logical contradiction. Therefore, because you can prove a negative and this argument is based on the assumption that one cannot, then it is invalid.

Side: God's Existence
1 point

You can not prove a negative - the only way you can disprove a negative is by proving the positive.

I was on mars - prove to me that I weren't there. That is impossible :)

Side: God's Non-Existence
Nox0(1393) Banned
1 point

I don't see the point of disproving something that hasn't been proven in first place.

Side: God's Non-Existence
1 point

We can make an inductive argument for the non-existence of some God.

Every God that has been testable through science has been rejected- that would be any God that could physically interfere with the world; a God that can change weather, any God we can somehow communicate with through prayer, etc.

The inductive argument now is as follows: If all Gods that we have been able to test for have been rejected on scientific grounds, then we have inductive proof that ALL Gods that are testable will be rejected.

Now this doesn't mean that there isn't an untestable God somewhere beyond the boundaries of our universe (if such boundaries exist). It just means that any God that we have an actual reason to think about doesn't exist (inductively speaking anyway). I think this leaves theists with two options: 1) admitting that caring about a God is a waste of time, or if they think that it makes sense to care about a God, 2) admit that he is going against science, rationality and common sense.

Side: God's Non-Existence
LizziexLaura(4277) Disputed Banned
1 point

This isnt really about his personality or what the bible states. I just want to see arguments proving or disproving his existence. As in his literal existence.

Side: God's Existence
LizzieIsCunt(2) Disputed Banned
1 point

There is nothing to support gods existence. It's purely based on mythology and misunderstanding of things like rain, rainbow, thunder...

Asking for disprove is non-systematic, it makes no sense in principle.

Side: God's Non-Existence
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
1 point

I think I should have been more precise... I did bring an argument disproving a special kind of God. With my second argument I tried to ridicule the idea, that one should even care about any God that wasn't of the kind I disproved.

Side: God's Non-Existence