Instigator / Pro
21
1499
rating
13
debates
57.69%
won
Topic
#5568
It is more likely that no god* exists rather than any form of god existing.
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
12
1489
rating
25
debates
64.0%
won
Description
*God: a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe.
Please note that neither side has to prove that god is real or not, you just have to make a case that your side is more probable than the other.
Round 1
Introduction
My strategy for this debate is going to be just throwing out every good argument there is for atheism and hoping at least one of them convinces the voters. That said, I apologize if this gets to be a little long, but I create this debate with the express purpose of it being very in depth, so I think the time limit and character limit will support that. One final thing before I begin, I acknowledge that the primary burden of proof rests with me. I must have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely God does not exist, and Con must either have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely that God does exist, or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side. With that, here we go.
The Problem of Evil
This is one of my favorite arguments for atheism. At its most basic form, it goes something like this:
Premise 1: God is all loving (this is provided in my description of God, so by agreeing to this debate, you agreed to this premise)
Premise 2: The World has Evil in it
Premise 3: An all loving God would not create a world with evil
Conclusion: An all loving God cannot exist.
That by itself is probably the most common argument against god's existence, but what makes it my favorite is all the little other arguments that branch off from it. For example, there is the problem of animal evil. God could have created all animals so that they were photosynthetic (they get their energy from the sun), but God made it specifically so that many animals must eat other animals to survive. Why would an all loving God create a world where you must commit evil to others to survive?
Many challenges to this argument say that it must be a part of his cosmic design. There must be some reason. Sometimes, the reason provided is that without some evil, you cannot have certain types of good. Eg. Without fear you can't have bravery, without challenges you can't have accomplishment etc. But if I was brave enough to save someone from a burning building, it still would have been better for there to be no fire. There would have been no property damage, so damage to me and the victims bodies, and the loved ones would have been spared the horror of seeing their family member stuck in a burning building. So, I ask you, does it make more sense that an all loving God created a world with Evil just so there could be some other kinds of good, or would he have just have created a world where there is no Evil, and you always feel positive emotions? I feel that it makes more sense to just have a perfect world.
Additionally, If he was God, then why couldn’t he have made it so we feel emotions like accomplishment, and bravery regardless of actually having done anything. Emotions are emotions, and if God is truly all powerful (within possibility), then it would make more sense to have a world where we feel these emotions constantly. I know I would prefer a world like that.
And again, there is the problem of Animal suffering. Why would God make it so that some animals have to eat others to survive? I see no good coming out of this?
Because of this, I feel that it is more likely that the universe is simply indifferent to our suffering, and there is no all loving being trying to maximize our happiness.
Non-resistant Non-Believers/ Divine Hiddenness
This one is pretty simple. Why would an all loving God knowingly not reveal himself to people who are willing? A non-resistant non-believer is someone who wants to believe in God and is open to believing in God, but still has not had God reveal himself to them, and so does not believe. A perfectly loving God wouldn’t want someone like this to suffer. If a person actively wants to believe in God, and actively wants to have a personal relationship with God, then why would an all loving God deny this to them?
Theists often respond to this one by saying that God must be acting in the best interests of the person, and they don't know it, but that brings us back to my use of the word "likely" in the title.
It seems most probable (to me at least) that in order to be perfectly loving, god would want to have a personal relationship with all of his creation, especially if that creation desired one. It is possible that he is acting in some mysterious way, but I think that scenario seems to be a bit too complicated. As Occam's Razor says, the simplest explanation is often the correct one.
Religious displacement
This is another relatively simple one, but it is also a very powerful one, at least I think so. Basically, If God is all loving, and loves every one of his creations equally, then why are you more likely to have a divine visit if you live in a different country. For example, Thailand is about 92% Atheist. On the other end, India has a 99% rate of people saying that they are religious when polled.
If a god existed, you would expect to find that he has revealed himself to people indiscriminately of nationality, but clearly that is not true.
Another addition to this puzzle is the variety of religions around the world. If there was an all loving god, it would make sense for him to reveal himself equally to people regardless of race and location. If that were true, you would expect all major religions to arrive at roughly the same idea. They might get some minor things different, but as we see today, to there are so many different religions with so many different beliefs. I find it hard to believe that a perfectly all loving god would allow this.
Divine Hiddenness (again, but different)
This one actually is different from my second point, but I just couldn’t think of anything better to call it.
I don’t think my opponent will object to the fact that region can cause conflict, specifically over which one is the correct one. While it is true that region only directly caused around 7% of wars, it is still a major problem that it caused any wars. And besides that even, religion one of the biggest dividing factors between us humans. If a war wasn’t directly caused by religion, then there is a good chance that the opposing sides had different majority faith systems, and this can be used by demagogues to whip the population into a frenzy of hatred.
With all of this in mind, God is clearly causing much harm by not revealing himself directly to all of us. If god were to appear before a massive gathering of us, and state clearly what religion is correct (if any), it would stop all the religious fighting. By not intervening, God is passively letting all this violence go on, and thus cannot be perfectly good.
Again, this isn’t a direct proof of anything. God may have his reasons for being so hidden, but it seems most likely that the universe is simply indifferent to our problems.
Conclusion
Those are some of the best arguments for atheism out there. There are some others, but I chose not to include them because they either weren’t that good, or I was too lazy. Sure, it is still a possibility that god can exist, but I believe that these arguments demonstrate that it is at least improbable.
Thank you, I yield the floor.
Argument for the existence of god:
Let's start in the very present, with you, the reader. You, are reading these words with your brain, capable of (what we consider) intelligent thought. Well, how did that happen? Now let's go back to the very beginning. The big bang.
Now, let me ask you some questions. Where did that initial atom come from? And if there is no god, why and how did it suddenly expand into a universe.
Not just a mess of scattered elements. A universe with rules, life, and probably most impressively, human intellect.
How could a random atom that was just kind of existing, one day independently create such an organized universe.
How did DNA evolve in such a way it created conscious thought? DNA is like a language, and you need a writer for that.
Rebuttals:
The Problem of Evil
Counter point one:
This counter point is also a reason for the existence of god, but I thought it would be better to organize it this way.
I'm not going to try to rewrite something that has already been written better, so below is a quote from Greg Koukl, speaker and author.
"If there is no God, then there is no transcendent moral lawmaker. If no lawmaker, then no universal moral laws we’re all obligated to obey. If no moral laws, then no broken laws. If no broken laws, then no problem of evil. Simply put, then, if there is no God, there can be no evil (or good, for that matter)."
This means, if I can prove that god is more likely to exist than is to not, whether or not he is "good" doesn't need to be proved, as he, being god, is inherently good, as he gets to set the rules of what defines good and evil.
We can all agree that evil is, well, evil, and that it's present on the earth. That leads me to my second counter point.
Counter point two:
Why would god allow evil in the first place?
Without experiencing true pain and suffering, it is impossible to comprehend true good.
You mentions an example, if there is a fire, and you save someone from it, it would of just been better for there to have been no fire. You say that it makes more sense to make a perfect world.
I disagree. After that event, you will never take that person for granted. You'll realize how lucky you are to have good health. Your loved ones will understand how blessed they are to have you.
Counter point three:
The possibility of an afterlife.
Let's assume god exists. Then there is a very valid chance there is an afterlife. That would mean suffering and hardship on earth are required as a judgment of sorts, or so one could appreciate the after life to the fullest. It makes sense that a good god would provide an after life, and would give his creations a chance to prove themselves on earth, or experience true suffering. For that to be possible, there would need to be hardship,
Why doesn't god reveal themself?
Obviously, god revealing himself would unify the world and prevent pain. However, the disagreement here looks like it's shaping up to be about whether or not god would make a perfect world or, for a multitude of potential reasons, create one with suffering.
Conclusion:
A universe creating itself is not logical.
An all omnipotent being is inherently good, as they are the creator of what is good and evil.
Round 2
Rebuttals
Now, let me ask you some questions. Where did that initial atom come from? And if there is no god, why and how did it suddenly expand into a universe.Not just a mess of scattered elements. A universe with rules, life, and probably most impressively, human intellect.How could a random atom that was just kind of existing, one day independently create such an organized universe.How did DNA evolve in such a way it created conscious thought? DNA is like a language, and you need a writer for that.
Honestly, we don't know, but just because we don't doesn't mean that it must have been some sort of God. The universe didn't necessarily have to create itself. It could be an infinite loop of big bangs and big squishes. There could have been some other creator, or no creator, and it just exists and will always exist. The point is, just because we don't know is no reason to assume it must have been God. The universe could have been created from anything, or nothing, or have never been created. The odds that is was a God of some sort are initially higher than some other possibilities, but then you take a look at the problem of Evil and some of my other arguments and that chance diminishes very quickly. The problem with this argument, is that we just don't have enough information about how our world began to even begin making semi-accurate hypothesis about it, and so it's not completely irrational to think something happened that seems near impossible now.
Rebuttals (to the rebuttals)
"If there is no God, then there is no transcendent moral lawmaker. If no lawmaker, then no universal moral laws we’re all obligated to obey. If no moral laws, then no broken laws. If no broken laws, then no problem of evil. Simply put, then, if there is no God, there can be no evil (or good, for that matter)."
This one kinda falls apart when you look at it. Your point is that without god, there can be no universal moral laws, so no evil, so no problem of evil. But the problem of evil deals with why there would be bad in a world with god, not a world without God. The problem of evil says that god cannot exist because if he did, then there should be no evil. All you're saying is that if God doesn't exist then there is no universal right or wrong, which doesn't really apply to this. Did that make sense? I hope so.
Why would god allow evil in the first place?Without experiencing true pain and suffering, it is impossible to comprehend true good.You mentions an example, if there is a fire, and you save someone from it, it would of just been better for there to have been no fire. You say that it makes more sense to make a perfect world.I disagree. After that event, you will never take that person for granted. You'll realize how lucky you are to have good health. Your loved ones will understand how blessed they are to have you.
Okay, maybe the fire example wasn't the best one, but there are many others. If I gave you an ice cream cone of your favorite flavor, would you be happy? Presuming nothing horrible was happening at the time, yes, that Ice Cream cone would give you some joy. You are right that there are kinds of joy which can only be experienced through hardship, but there are also joys that just come naturally. God could have created a world with only these joys, no? But maybe a world with the other kinds of joy is more desirable.
We'll that brings me to my next point. If God created all of humanity, then he also created our brains, and by extension, our preferences of what makes us happy. So in that case, if he was truly all loving, he could have created a world where our brains are in a total state of bliss, no matter what happens. Think about that for a second. A world with no death, and no pain, basically heaven on earth. Why could the world not be like this? God could have created brains that create the electrical pulses to trigger the kinds of joys that only come with trial and tribulation. If we are all loved truly, then we would all just live in heaven constantly.
Let's assume god exists. Then there is a very valid chance there is an afterlife.
Is there though? I feel like our brains have been so hard wired by modern religion to think that God and the Afterlife just go together, but I can't see much reason why there can't be one, but not the other.
That would mean suffering and hardship on earth are required as a judgment of sorts, or so one could appreciate the after life to the fullest. It makes sense that a good god would provide an after life, and would give his creations a chance to prove themselves on earth, or experience true suffering. For that to be possible, there would need to be hardship,
This goes back to my second point in the last rebuttal. If God loves us all equally, then there should be no need for a test to get into the afterlife. We should all just be there already, maximizing our pleasure. What good is it to make other people feel happy if everyone can just always feel happy constantly? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Conclusion
You spent most of your time arguing against the problem of evil, but it still remains that if God is all powerful and all loving, then he has the power to manipulate our emotions so that we always feel positively, AKA just making the world heaven.
I also noticed that you skipped over some of my other points, like non-resistant non-believers and religions displacement, so I recommend that you use part of your next two arguments to address those.
Thank you, I yield the floor.
Quick Note
I also noticed that you skipped over some of my other points, like non-resistant non-believers and religions displacement, so I recommend that you use part of your next two arguments to address those.
For the reasons you stated, I agree it is extremely unlikely that a god would communicate with humans.
The Question of a Good God
If a god existed, it is completely logical that they would have a reason for pain, being the most logical being in existence. Our conception of the world would be incapable of perceiving the reasoning and the ways of an omnipotent god. Your argument of pain on earth is still valid, but is not conclusive evidence that god does not exist.
Basically, if I present logic that proves god is likely to exist, there is a high chance that god would have a reason for pain.
Why a Greater Power is Likely
The universe didn't necessarily have to create itself. It could be an infinite loop of big bangs and big squishes There could have been some other creator, or no creator, and it just exists and will always exist. The point is, just because we don't know is no reason to assume it must have been God. The universe could have been created from anything, or nothing, or have never been created. The odds that is was a God of some sort are initially higher than some other possibilities, but then you take a look at the problem of Evil and some of my other arguments and that chance diminishes very quickly. The problem with this argument, is that we just don't have enough information about how our world began to even begin making semi-accurate hypothesis about it, and so it's not completely irrational to think something happened that seems near impossible now.
The two examples you provided were "some other creator" and that the universe could just be an endless cycle of beginnings and ends.
First off, "some other creator" would by definition be god, wouldn't they?
Your other one makes a lot more sense. That the universe just exists and always will exist.
Rebuttals to the cyclic theory:
1. It still doesn't explain how things like perfectly organized DNA came to be.
2. On a similar note, it still doesn't explain how the big bang happened, or why. There needs to be some sort of out side force, because logically something cannot exist if it is not created.
All of the other possibilities do not make sense logically or scientifically. It makes more sense that there was some sort of intervention from a being that isn't of this universe, or what I think to be more likely, is pantheistic.
Round 3
For the reasons you stated, I agree it is extremely unlikely that a god would communicate with humans.
I don't remember saying this, can you say where I did?
If a god existed, it is completely logical that they would have a reason for pain, being the most logical being in existence. Our conception of the world would be incapable of perceiving the reasoning and the ways of an omnipotent god. Your argument of pain on earth is still valid, but is not conclusive evidence that god does not exist.
Well yeah, but that's why I made included the word "likely" in the title. I can't definitely prove anything, but I don't have to. I just have to demonstrate that it is more likely that no God exists.
The fact is, we are semi-logical beings too, so we should at least take a look at God's supposed work and use our own powers of reason to determine if this is really the perfect world. The way it seems to me is that it's much more likely that God would have created a world without suffering, instead of this one. Obviously we are not theoretically even close to God is logical ability, but we at least have a decent amount, and so when using it we see that God seems unrealistic. It's Occam's Razor again, the simplest explanation is often the correct one.
The two examples you provided were "some other creator" and that the universe could just be an endless cycle of beginnings and ends.First off, "some other creator" would by definition be god, wouldn't they?
Not necessarily. I shouldn't have used the word, "creator" seeing as that implies the existence of a being, "Creation Event" would have been much better. In that case, my argument is that the universe could have been created by almost any other means than a god. Just because the Universe apparently needs a creator, (which it might not), that doesn't mean that the creator must be god. It could be infinite, it could have created itself, or it could have just popped into existence.
That last one sounds ridiculous when it comes to classical physics, but in quantum physics, everything works on a probability basis, so sometimes completely random things can happen when it comes to energy fluctuations. The point is, we thought this was impossible according to our laws of physics, but then we observed it happening. We keep discovering new things that are thought to be impossible, so it wouldn't surprise me if the universe just created itself. Based on our current understanding of physics, that's highly unlikely, but there is just so much that we don't know.
Rebuttals to the cyclic theory:1. It still doesn't explain how things like perfectly organized DNA came to be.
This seems pretty simple to me. If the universe is infinite then there is an infinite amount of time for things to happen and so everything that is possible must happen. If that is true, then it's not a miracle at all, it's supposed to happen.
2. On a similar note, it still doesn't explain how the big bang happened, or why. There needs to be some sort of out side force, because logically something cannot exist if it is not created.
Sure, by our current understanding, that can't happen, but like I said before, we just keep learning new things that change how we interact with the world around us. We will almost certainly never find out what created the universe, but it could be anything really, even nothing.
Conclusion
There are many ways that the universe could have come about, but that doesn't mean that God is the most likely explanation
Thank you, I yield the floor.
I should have asked to add "with the information available to us," but that's not what's in the debate description.
Even before my opponent brought that up, I was definitely fighting an uphill battle. Moozer is an exceptional debater.
I'm going to have to concede this debate. Thank you to Pro for this great discussion.
Round 4
Thank you for this debate Con. I had a lot of fun, and I hope you did as well. Thanks for accepting and giving me a challenge!
Why do people wish they could live longer instead of be born earlier?
@Best.Korea, thks, will check bones standard- would you please share the debate link.
In my opinion humans born of humans, I see humans do horrible things in the world and instead of taking responsibilities for their actions people blame it on God.
In a world of cause and effects, action and consequences as natures rule, humans suffer the effects and consequences of their own doing and it would be nice if humans took responsibility and correct our errors instead of blame it on god or use god to further act destructively.
This one seems like a debate you would like?
I dont want to argue for all good God.
Bones has pretty much set a standard on this site debating that all good God cannot create a horrible world.
Its not an argument that can be beaten unless we move the debate to assuming that all humans would be worse off if God didnt create them, which is not something I want to even give attention to.
@WyIted
I disagree and state that God exist in the contest and definition of other languages that have one name for essence of life but not in English.
That's half of debates. Just agreeing to definitions to even figure out if you even disagree.
In three points I argue English word god does not refer to "a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe."
definition of work God/god: find English word "god" confusing as it is the only language that used a vague word to refer to the great spirit essence of life. All other languages have only one word for the Almighty God e.g. Yahweh, Allah, Ngai, Mungu, Dios, Gud, Dieu, Deus, Gott etc.
English god has resulted to so many battles in history and many people suffer under the name of god and the book of Joshua shows a bloody time while the roman empire and European colonization of other parts of the world in the name of god brings questions to which god is this that goes contrary to the innate great spirit.
English god is purchased and external contrary to internal innate knowing of breathe in us, through us and with us in all things the essence of life which is identified as one word in different languages for purpose of worship. The essence of life is known as the great spirit, or holy spirit or the universe. As it stands remains nameless as this can only be personally experienced freely and not transferred or purchased.
Conclusion:
We need to redefine the word god in English for it does not refer to a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe. The god out there does not exist however the essence of life exist everywhere in all things.
I put an asterisk on god and clarified what I meant in the description. My three big requirements are that the god your arguing for must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
It's weird that you say non existence is more likely than existence of ANY FORM OF GOD, but the force your opponent to only argue in favor of the triomni god