True or False

[StarCannon]

Prove this statement true or false:
God is real.

When the topic reaches... a 500 posts, I'll tally up all the arguments and determine which side argued the best.

Purpose: to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not god exists.

Clarification:
Definition: God as is defined by christianity, judaism, and islam. That is, omnipotent, almighty, capable of intervening in the world at will and bringing about any number of apocalypses at any time... etc. etc.

Some simple rules:

1) Quoting bible verse stating god is real won't count. We're looking for some real world examples. Citing miracles that happened within the past 20 years or so is perfectly acceptable.
2) Keep it objective. No SoF-esque trolling allowed. We're not assuming god is real or isn't real, we're trying to prove or disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
3) Taking references from the Koran or jewish books about the existence of god won't be accepted either. Again, it's up to the posters to prove or disprove god beyond a reasonable doubt.
4) Keep first hand experiance within the past 20 years or so.
5) Both sides may use science to their own advantage.

Okay? Now go!

 

[Lyle]

...

 

[Penumbra]

Before anything can be said as to the question of whether God is real or not, you have to first define what God is. People can't debate a topic if their definitions are not in alignment.

Do you mean God as an intelligent and self-contained force that created all of existence, some sort of impersonal energy that pervades and is all of existence, or something else?

 

[HisLittleHazelnut]

Something tells me that no matter what direction the debate goes, you'll make up your own mind anyway. There's absolutely no point debating someone who is so set in a particular issue that there's no room for anything else.

 

[E.C.]

Before anything can be said as to the question of whether God is real or not, you have to first define what God is. People can't debate a topic if their definitions are not in alignment.

Do you mean God as an intelligent and self-contained force that created all of existence, some sort of impersonal energy that pervades and is all of existence, or something else?

I'm with the having to define God for context here.

I say this because taking into account what Christ said about "He who has seen Me has seen the Father. You can't see the Father without seeing Me", or something to that effect, begs the questions: When did Christ reveal Himself to the Muslims? The Jews? The Druze? The Bahai? The Rastafari? The Mormons? The JWs? And so on and so forth.

Thus, that it why I have reservations on God which the Christian world worships, Allah which the Muslim world worships and Jehovah which the Jews worship all being the same entity. Because Christ did not reveal himself to the Muslims or the Jews. Or the Druze, Bahai, Rastafari, Mormons, etc etc.

 

[AtheianLibertarist]

You are trying to prove something that is un-prove able, and especially in 500 posts, on an online forum...... right....

Now if you want to have a discussion, the burden of proof doesn't lie with the side that says there is not a god. If you tell me there is a hundred dollars in your wallet, you have to show evidence and prove that there is. Otherwise my theory of magic fairies that eat thoughts, watch us from above and control the wind with their wings is a viable explanation for our existence.

 

[moerunamida]

Something tells me that no matter what direction the debate goes, you'll make up your own mind anyway. There's absolutely no point debating someone who is so set in a particular issue that there's no room for anything else.

Right. God is real to me, and I do not have to debate or prove my case to anyone else. If someone is genuinely interested in hearing about God, then by all means I will share my testimony. To try to win a debate such as this over how I can to my salvation is silly to me, and it is something that I will not participate in.

 

[Penumbra]

It seems that many people here are not too keen on the idea of discussing the existence of God.

This is something I've spent a good number of years pondering and am open to discussing the concept, but I sure wouldn't want to offend anyone who holds specific beliefs. Especially at a religious board, many people might find a discussion on whether God exists or not to be pretty sensitive.

I don't have a conclusion myself, though I could debate the question either way. For a while now I've been leaning towards the "maybe not" side of the question as to whether there is a god through the combination of personal experience and logical argumentation, but I haven't confirmed anything and I don't really think that the issue is able to be confirmed.

 

[70x7]

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20)

As much as I find this argument cliche, it does suite its purpose....the question of the watch.

We are barely getting a grasp of how complicated and how intrinsic the world is and to have it all happen by chance is undoubtably a mathmatical impossibility. In order to have existance to finely tuned in all of its glory shows signs of a designer. If you find a watch lying on the ground and see how it all works together as a functional device...one part depends on another in order to fully function, the idea of having dirt and erotion and water droplets all sequently occur to create the watch over time would sound ludacris. You would naturally conclude a watchmaker made the watch.
If such a simple device can be answered so unquestionably, then why do we doubt the "watchmaker" is something so enormously complicated as life and the universe?

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1)

 

[Penumbra]

Observing all that exists and questioning whether it is all more likely intelligently created or arbitrarily caused is often a good starting point for discussions on the existence of a creator. Inevitably they tend to be inconclusive, but what else is new?

There are a few pitfalls that need to be cautioned, though. The first is to assume that proving a creator god somehow proves a specific god. For example, both the Bible and the Koran have passages stating that existence itself should be a sign of their respective gods. But, the gods of Christianity and Islam are reasonably different- they are different in both nature and goals. If both of these books are telling us that we should see the signs around us and then believe in their respective competing gods, then we are still stuck at square one.

The second pitfall is to use an argument from sheer complexity. The watchmaker argument would be included here. A complex device made by humans requires a more complex being to make it- something like a human mind. If one is going to argue that the universe as we know it is very complex and therefore requires a more complex intelligent creator to design it, someone responding could quickly turn around and ask, “Then who made this complex creator?” The first person would probably say that this creator, despite being infinitely complex, has always existed, but of course the second person could say then the same thing could apply to the universe.

There are four options from a western perspective of God and the universe:
-A complex, intelligent entity came into being out of nothingness and then created a complex universe.
-A complex, intelligent entity has always existed and therefore was able to create a complex universe.
-A complex universe came into existence out of nothingness.
-A complex universe has always existed.

Each of the four options breaks or bends human comprehension and logic.

Ignoring the first cause problem, complexity can also arise out of simplicity, and this must be considered in such a discussion. Snowflakes, for example, are extremely complex and detailed, (and pretty! ) yet they are formed from relatively simple laws of physics. In fact, any crystalline structure is a good example of something complex and apparently designed arising out of very fundamental and basic laws.


If the nature of existence itself is going to be used as evidence of either atheism or God, then more specific examples should be used. Some of the ones I’ve heard and their respective counter-arguments:

For God:
-The physical constants that define the laws of physics are perfectly attuned towards life. (Counter-argument: There could be an infinite number of universes with arbitrary physical constants; only a small subset of which arrive at life. One could also point out that life as well can tell so far is pretty rare in the universe and therefore alludes to the concept that the universe is not particularly geared towards the preservation of life but a little of it manages to struggle by anyway. They could use as examples the many mass-extinctions we’ve had on Earth as examples of this.)
-The eyeball and the flagella are two examples of things that cannot be evolved because they have useless intermediate steps. (Counter-argument: Some theories have broken down step by step how each phase of the evolution could be useful.)

Against God:
-Some things are poorly “designed”, hinting towards the idea that they weren’t actually designed. The human spine is an often-cited example: a question-mark shape is an awful design for supporting weight, and that’s why so many people have back problems. (Counter-argument: Christians usually cite sin as the cause of why things don’t work in a more proper way. I’m not aware of a counter-argument from Judaism or Islam.)
-Most understandings of the universe show a very complex and chaotic place. All of it apparently exploded from a singular point, and stars are formed and die in catastrophic explosions that kill any life on their orbiting planets, asteroids fly around slamming into planets, most of space is barren, cold, and lifeless or intensely hot, powerful, and lifeless, and we are in a relatively obscure part of the universe that is not special in any way trying to make ends meet with what we have. (Counter-argument: I’m not aware of a particularly good one, though maybe someone here has one.)

There ends my wall-o-text.

 

[Justinph5]

Using examples is like a double edged sword. One person could claim a miracle, and another could claim it as an advancement in science. Like others have said, its what you already have your mind set on, so a debate isn't gonna be much help.

If you do want details, I'm sure there tons of websites already debating this if you search Google. Do the research yourself instead of trying to have people debate it (which has been going on for thousands of years) and trying come to a conclusion within 500 little posts.

Any other topics I'm sure people would be helpful, such as wanting to know more information about a subject. But asking for a conclusion from people by how well they can argue is more like a courthouse, and the winners aren't always right in there.

 

[Shabby]

God is

• omnipotent (all powerful, able to do anything)
• omniscient (all knowing)
• omnibenevolent (all-loving)

There is suffering in the world, which everybody can agree is a bad thing. For suffering to exist with a God that is all of those three qualities is logically inconsistent. It seems that either God is not all of those three things, or does not exist.

 

[RobinRedbreast]

Mod Hat On​

Thread closed permanently.

Please remember the following rule:​

MINISTRY IS A NO DEBATE AREA​

Thanks ​

Mod Hat Off​