The Instigator
DesertRooster
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ThreePointOneFour
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

A Super-Natural Power (God) Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ThreePointOneFour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 895 times Debate No: 61130
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

DesertRooster

Pro

I will be supporting the case that a Super-Natural force (God) exists.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Argument
Round 3: Rebuttal/ Argument
Round 4: Closing statements
ThreePointOneFour

Con

I accept. I look forward to Pro's opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
DesertRooster

Pro

I would like to thank Con for accepting, and good luck.

First lets define some terms:
Science-(Latin origin, meaning) Knowledge, or "to know"
Scientific Laws- are statements that describe, predict, and explain why things in nature behave as they do. (Facts)
Scientific Theory- Basically an idea to explain a certain topic. (Idea)
And we must understand one thing, if a theory goes against the scientific laws of nature, then the theory is not correct and should be discarded.

How do we know a Super-Natural force (God) exists? We can answer this question with another question. What caused the Universe? If there is a way to show that the universe is here because of God, then that obviously proves He is real.

So what caused the Universe? There are only three possible answers to this question. (1) The universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist. (2) The universe created itself out of nothing. (3) A Super-Natural Power (God) created the Universe.

Is the Universe eternal?
Second Law of Thermodynamics- states that entropy( unavailable energy) in an isolated system will always increase. The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that the energy in the universe is constantly moving from a usable state to an unusable state, and cannot be converted back. The Second Law points to: (1) a beginning when, for the
first time, the Universe was in a state where all energy was available for use;
and (2) an end in the future when no more energy will be available. Compare the universe to your phone as soon as you take the charger out. Your phone is running out of battery (energy, in the sense of the universe) and eventually your phone will completely run out of battery. Same thing applies to the universe the universe is running out of available energy so it can not be eternal. There had to be a point in time in which the universe was created with maximum available energy and minimum entropy.

Did the Universe create itself out of Nothing?
Nothing- no thing, the absence of everything.
Some say that in quantum physics, sub-atomic particle come into being out of nothing. This statement is false because the "nothing" they are talking about isn't truly no-thing. Their "nothing" is a vacuum in-which energy is present, (and we know the energy is not eternal and must have a beginning due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The true meaning of nothing isn't just empty space, but the absence of space itself. The suggestion that something can come from nothing, of course, is in clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature. As astronomer Robert Jastrow put it, "The creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science "the principle of the conservation of matter and energy"which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

Since the universe/matter is not eternal and had a beginning, and it could not have created itself out of nothing, the only explanation is that a Super-Natural Power created it.

https://www.youtube.com...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
http://www.personal.psu.edu...
ThreePointOneFour

Con

I would like to thank Pro for the opportunity to rebut the case that a Super-Natural force (God) exists.
Following the rules for this debate requires me to make an opening argument, therefore, I shall begin.

First I am OK with Pro"s definitions for Science, Scientific Laws and Scientific Theory. However I am very curious as to why Pro chose to define words that would presumably have had little contention in this forum while ignoring the elephant in the room. Also I don"t understand what it is that Pro is introducing as a "Supernatural Force (God)" is supposed to be. He will need to clarify that. In the meanwhile and for the sake of clarity lets break it down just a little and define supernatural first.

Supernatural: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Next, we need a definition of God. Actually, God has as many definitions as there are seats in the pews. Let"s go with the traditional god of the Christian bible; Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, etc,.

Then finally the term, exists. "Exist" in this debate appears to pertain to a being and nowhere do I find it applied to a force. This needs explanation from Pro.
It is tremendously important to realize that no amount of argument or reasoning alone can bring a claim of something"s existence into reality.

It will be a tall order to produce convincing evidence for the supernatural. Since the beginning of time no supernatural evidence of any kind has ever been substantiated. This would include ESP, evidence of the paranormal, witchcraft, or even homeopathy.

We live in what I believe to be the most wonderful time of the history of the universe. Science has opened the door to the most complete understanding of our place in the universe. We, the cooled down entropic remains of 13.7 billion years of matter are here contemplating our place and origins. We have the ability to learn the laws of nature, develop and use the tools of science and logic. We have designed instruments and tools that would appear to be magical to someone living only a hundred years ago. And after emancipating ourselves of the superstitious beliefs of our past ignorance we can now begin to flourish and thrive.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
DesertRooster

Pro

I chose to define science, scientific laws, and theories, because some say; science and religion are incompatible. But they are compatible because science just means "knowledge." Sorry for the confusion and for not defining some other terms.

Supernatural=God
Supernatural- supreme being, above nature, creator, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Exist- Is real, part of reality (not necessarily the physical world though)

What I mean by God existing is; He is not part of our natural world, but he is "above" our world because He is supernatural. God is not physical, you cant touch him in the natural world, because well He is supernatural.

And we know He exist because of His creation. "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 people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
I know God exist, not because I have seen Him face to face, but because I have seen the universe and the only possible way for the universe to be here is because of God. (see previous argument)
ThreePointOneFour

Con

I would like to thank Pro for his timely response and for the fairly straight forward definitions. It is quite clear that we are debating the existence of the Christian God of the bible since Pro has quoted Romans 1:20 along with his definitions.

I think we can move forward and direct our attention to his opening argument. In order to win this debate Pro has the burden of proof to show that “A Super-Natural Power (God) Exists”. This means that Pro is obligated to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position: there is insufficient evidence that a super-natural (god) exists, to his position that she, in fact, does exist.
Let’s examine the first claim.
Pro: How do we know a Super-Natural force (God) exists? We can answer this question with another question. What caused the universe? If there is a way to show that the universe is here because of God, then that obviously proves He is real.

There are a couple of problems here. How do you solve a mystery? Pro’s solution is to introduce another mystery, the origin of the universe. This is also a fine example of a tautology. If I can show that Professor Plum did it with a wrench then I know Professor Plum did it. A tautology is an illogical way to argue because does not bring any new information into the discussion. Rather, it is an argument for what has already been stated, and has not been backed it up with something else.
Pro has amended his original god claim and obligatory burden to also having to provide convincing evidence that the universe was the “caused” handiwork of his god.

Pro claims that there are only three ways the universe was “caused” and it was caused it was by the god he has so generously defined. When stated properly it is better known as the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Classically this argument is a poor argument from the git-go, and if it were really true we would not be here debating god’s existence.
Unfortunately, Pro has made a tremendous mistake and I think I just heard William Lane Craig weeping. The difference between Pro’s attempt at the argument and Craig’s is that Craig’s argument “does not, in itself, produce the Christian God” that Pro is arguing for. You can read it for yourself at the Christian website- http://carm.org....

Before moving on we need to address another problem created by Pro’s claim:

So what caused the Universe? There are only three possible answers to this question. (1) The universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist. (2) The universe created itself out of nothing. (3) A Super-Natural Power (God) created the Universe.

This statement is false is a couple of ways. The first way Pro claims the universe was “caused” is not a cause at all. Pro writes: “(1) The universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist.” This is not a “cause” but a state of affairs. That leaves Pro with only two ways the universe was caused. Fortunately the world of science and cosmology doesn’t leave us empty handed in the realm providing good models that explain the naturalistic origins for the universe. For example consider:

“Quasi-Steady State Cosmology”
“Quantum Eternity Theorem”
“Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal”
“Spontaneous Inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time”
“Hartle –Hawkin Model”
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...
http://rationalwiki.org...
http://arxiv.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

There are many models that have been overlooked by Pro and therefore his claim to only three possible causes for the existence of the universe fails.

The argument also fails on behalf of special pleading. Pro offers no explanation for what caused the First Cause nor can he without special pleading which is an illogical argument.

Next Pro attempts to use an argument from CARM and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as leverage for his argument.
Is the Universe eternal?

Second Law of Thermodynamics- states that entropy( unavailable energy) in an isolated system will always increase.
The main problem with his whole argument is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the universe in its entirety. The Law applies only to closed systems and the universe is not a closed system. This position has not been challenged in the scientific community, let alone refuted and therefore should be rejected.
Debate Round No. 3
DesertRooster

Pro

I will start with this statement. "The main problem with his whole argument is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the universe in its entirety. The Law applies only to closed systems and the universe is not a closed system." We know this law applies to the universe because the universe is "running down" or "wearing out", things are getting more disorderly.

I stand behind this argument because we know the universe had a beginning, so what caused the beginning? Since matter/energy is not eternal (due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics) it must have a beginning from nothing. And the universe could not have created itself from nothing (First Law of Thermodynamics).

There are many other reasons how we know there is a God, some arguments are more simply than debating about the origin of the universe because scientist will make trillions of theories trying to explain our universe.

At the end of the day it does take faith to know there is a God, but "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 people are without excuse." Romans 1:20

Thank you for the debate, I enjoyed it. God Bless.
ThreePointOneFour

Con


I sincerely would like to thank DesertRooster for a well mannered debate and one that didn’t bog down in semantics like so many in the religion category do. For that I am grateful. In debates like these I usually am rewarded with a clearer understanding of the religious debater's position as well as my own. In this discourse I always try to remain open minded and research my opponent’s claims. An atheistic view is one that can be persuaded provided there is given sound reasoning and evidence. I sincerely hope that DesertRooster was as open as I was to discovering any previously held unjustified or false beliefs and is able to reexamine and discard them in favor of a more solid position.


The debate was for resolution of whether a super-natural power (God) exists. We quickly determined we were debating the existence of the Christian God as found in the Bible.


The universe had a beginning therefore the only explanation is the Christian God:


DesertRooster’s argument appeared to me to be a cookie cutter version of the Cosmological Argument and extended it as evidence for the existence of God. He began with the 2nd premise of the classical argument but overlooked many other modern cosmological models of the universe that describe the universe. They are superior to the classic cosmological argument and they have powerful predictive capabilities his argument doesn’t.



The argument failed because DesertRooster appeals to a false Trilemma.


The argument also fails on behalf of special pleading. DesertRooster offers no explanation for what caused the First Cause nor can he without special pleading which is an illogical argument.



The universe is not eternal therefore the only explanation for it is the Christian God:


He then tried to show the universe is not eternal by appealing to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The idea is that this proves the universe had a beginning and therefore the Christian God (with every attribute the bible contains about her) exists. This is a non sequitur in which the conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. We really don’t know that the universe had a beginning. I provided several models and their links that show there are good mathematical models that do not require the universe to have a beginning. There are now good reasons for science to seriously consider the multi-verse. This was completely absent from DesertRooster’s argument.



The argument failed because thermodynamics does not apply to the universe in its entirety. The Law applies only to closed systems and the universe is not a closed system. This position has not been challenged in the scientific community, let alone refuted and therefore should be rejected.



Thank you DesertRooster for this debate and please vote for Con, ThreePointOneFour.


Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Let's see if I can straighten some things out:

"Luck" doesn't exist.
Nothing is, or could be, "supernatural" .
There's nothing "supernatural" about what you call "God" .
As far as I'm aware, the existence of "God" , "the supernatural" , etc. cannot be proved.
As I understand it, "God" isn't considered a "Force" but a Being.
Albert Einstein apparently stated that the universe is finite but unbounded.
It had no beginning & will have no ending.
It's not eternal, in that sense, but it has no limits.
(You might want to study Quantum Physics. )
As I understand it, Entropy automatically increases in the physical universe,
but Life is anti-entropic.
There won't be any universal heat-death.
There was never a time when all the energy in the universe was available,
& there'll never be a time when none of the energy will be available.
As L. Ron Hubbard pointed out some time ago, Absolutes have to be considered
logically unobtainable.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
I mean the God of the bible.The old testament.In fact I believe that islam uses that also.Jesus is just a fulfillment of that testament. He was first mentioned in the garden of Eden. God told the devil he would send one and put his heel on his head.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Since Christianity is the first religion, started in the garden of eden,And it has fulfilled all promises from that point on it would take a super( above) natural being to bring that to fulfillment. Since man himself is a fickle as you can get.We are all over the map on how to run things effectively.the best run societies are those who adhere in principle to the bible text in the new covenant.
Posted by Eca 3 years ago
Eca
whether or not a God exists is of course a debate, however, it would be nice to know if you mean God (Christianity), God (Judaism), Allah(Islam), or non of the above.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
DesertRoosterThreePointOneFourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BoP, and made the Cosmological argument his one big argument. Con pointed out flaws sufficient that Pro did not fulfill his BoP, noting the false trilemma and lack of support for some of Pro's contentions. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.