The Instigator
SamBuck
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Atheism is a rational world view

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 51028
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

SamBuck

Pro

I will argue that it is more than possible for a universe without a god to exist, and also I will argue that a universe with a god is impossible. 1st round must be acceptance only, but other than that there are no rules.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

Not seeing how it can be "more than possible", which would be odds of greater than 50 percent in favor, that a universe can exist by chance, and not seeing how a limited human can assert that it is not possible for God to exist, I accept this challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
SamBuck

Pro

I believe that it is literally impossible for a god to exist. I have multiple reasons, but I do not want to ramble, so I will present you with 2 of them.

# 1: A universe emerging from nothing is a thousand times more likely to originate on its own rather than a higher power to originate from nothing. We must first recognize what the observable universe really is. It is a random assortment of matter and energy. That is all it is, and that is all it ever will be. Complexity starts to form when this matter and energy starts to form stars which make up the elements that we know today. A god is considered as an all powerful, all knowing, and all seeing being which is everywhere at once. (If this is not your view please let me know.) Now let me ask you this: what is more complex? An all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, being which is everywhere, which is so complex that it is literally beyond human comprehension, or a random assortment of matter and energy? Of course the god is more complex! So, rationally speaking, would it not be more likely for an unbelievably complex being with indescribable powers to emerge from nothing, or would it be more likely for a random assortment of matter and energy to be generated from nothingness? I'd personally thing that a random assortment of matter and energy originating would be more likely. This may not be 100% proof against a god, but it shows that in the beginning, mathematical odds are very much on the side of atheists.

#2: Even if a god was created by chance, how would he know to create the universe? The only thing in existence at this point would be god, and even though he would be omniscient, there is nothing in the universe. No things means no knowledge about these things. No knowledge about these things means no knowledge. Even though a god would be omniscient, there would be nothing to know in the universe at the given time, and god would have no idea what a universe was, and therefore could not comprehend making something he had no knowledge of.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

Pro said he would argue.... "and also I will argue that a universe with a god is impossible." If Pro cannot prove this point, he loses the debate.
In round 2, pro stated that his argument "may not be 100% proof against a god". By pro's own admission, he has not proven his statement "that a universe with a god is impossible".
Pro's closing statement in round 2 is quoted as " god would be omniscient, there would be nothing to know in the universe at the given time, and god would have no idea what a universe was, and therefore could not comprehend making something he had no knowledge of". Pro negates his own argument by attributing omnicience to God (all-knowing) and denying He would know how to create a universe.

Pro also asked "would it be more likely for a random assortment of matter and energy to be generated from nothingness?" Something cannot emerge out of nothing. Pro is arguing for something that is impossible without God making it happen. How can something be generated if there is nothing there to cause the generation?

Pro also stated "We must first recognize what the observable universe really is. It is a random assortment of matter and energy." Why must we recognize that the observable uninverse is a random assortment of matter and energy? Must we "rocognize" this so that we can deny that the universe is in order and is not chaotic? Is pro implying that our bodies are a random assortment of matter and energy since they are part of the known universe? Even though all of our bodies are formed from the same DNA, we must deny that the universe has order?

Pro is proving nothing and making assertions based on nothing more than faith....faith in the belief that nothing can be generated out of something by nothing. Pro is failing to prove that a universe without God is "more than possible", and has admitted that he has failed to prove that a universe with a god is impossible, even admitting so by his own statements.
Pro also has made assertions of mathematicl probablility without giving any numbers. If an atom has one hundred sub-atomic particles, they could be arranged in something like 1 to the 100th power of different combinations. Each atom is ordered in a specific way. It is not random. Pro must use some numbers if he is going to claim mathematical proof; and "more than possible' implies likelyhood which is mathematically expressed as better than 50/50 odds. Pro's arguments are unsubstantiated.
Debate Round No. 2
SamBuck

Pro

SamBuck forfeited this round.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

Sam, are you there? Are you ok?
Debate Round No. 3
SamBuck

Pro

SamBuck forfeited this round.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

I hope pro is ok
Debate Round No. 4
SamBuck

Pro

SamBuck forfeited this round.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

I hope Sam is ok.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Mike, how can you claim to be a Christian and then come here and in your vote say you agreed with the atheist from the start after he said "a universe with a god is impossible." If you agree with him on this point, you cannto be a Christian no matter what you say or call yourself. You are not a Christian anyways, because a real Christian is saved. The term "Christisan" had uncertain origins, and probably was coined by people who were not Christians and really did not know what it means to be one. You cannot be a Christian if you are not saved. You can pretend to be a Christian, or you can try to be a Christian and act like a Christian, but you are not a Christian if you have not been born again. You are not a Christian if you are not a child of God by second birth.
To be honest, you need to change your vote in some areas. You need to change the first item of the vote which awards no points saying you agreed with my opponent before the debate, or you need to change the point awarding item in which you said I had the beter argument. My opponent did make frame an argument, and if you agree with him that a universe with a god is impossible, then all of my arguements are invalid even if they are more logical than his. To he honest, you must give all of the points to my opponent because if you agreed with him before the debate, and you agreed with him after the debate, then you must say he had the better argument even though he forfieted rounds. And it would be nice if you would stop disgracing the name "Christian" by claiming to be one and then saying in your vote that you agree with an atheist who hates God and expresses that hatred by trying to negate God's existence.........silly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
SamBuckLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF