The Instigator
turnerjb04
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheShadowCupcake
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does God Exist?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 523 times Debate No: 46179
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

turnerjb04

Pro

I would like to present the case that God exists and can be known to exist through logic and reason. I will be presenting a number of arguments for God's existence in this debate and wish to show that there are much better arguments for than against the existence of God, but first I wish to present my first argument which is known as the kalam cosmological argument for God's existence and will then the leave the challenge open to people to refute my argument and present some other cases for denying that God exists.

The Kalam cosmological argument is a deductive argument where if the first two premises are true the conclusion necessarily follows, the argument goes like this:

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2.The universe began to exist

3.Therefore the universe has a cause

Now let us analyse and examine whether these premises are true starting with the first premise, everything begins to exist has a cause, is this the case?

Premise One
Now to me it seems very rational to believe the first premise and illogical if you deny it, for if you deny it then you are saying that things can just pop into being without a cause. This kind of thinking is worst than believing in the magic of a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat because at least in this case we have a hat and a magician, denying the first premise then means that for you it isn"t illogical to think rabbits can put into existence, thus making it more of stretch than believing in magic. From nothing, nothing comes, you cannot get something from nothing and how can you get something when there isn"t anything? Looking at it from a mathematical perspective 0 + 0 + 0" will never give you one. Also if it is the case that things can just come into being from nothing then why don"t we see this happening all the time? Why can"t computers. horses, bread and milk pop into the middle of your living room? Thus, It is safe to say that scientific evidence, personal experience and logic confirm the first premise.
Now let us evaluate the second premise and see whether this is true, did the universe begin to exist?

Premise Two
Atheists have typically said that the universe has always existed and is eternal trying to avoid the need to bring God into the equation, "The universe is just there. And that"s all." (Bertrand Russell). First let us consider the second law of thermodynamics, this informs us that the universe is running out of usable energy, and that"s the point, for if the universe had been here forever then it would have run out of usable energy by now, the second law therefore points us towards a universe that had a definite beginning. This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries. In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe. Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lema"tre, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding. Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the redshift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery almost beyond comprehension. However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe" So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time. More recently, three leading cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning." This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing. This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." (Alexander Vilenkin).

Premise two can also be confirmed to be true from coming to some rational conclusions on the idea of infinite in the real world. If the universe was always there and eternal then this means that it is also infinite, but the question is can you have an actual infinite in the real world, do they exist. Admittedly of course infinites do exist in the realm of mathematics, but this isn"t physical reality what I am referring to is whether you can have a quantifiable infinite in the real world. I would argue that it is absurd to believe you can and that it gets you into real logical problems, for example; if I had an infinite amount of balls in this room and I took five away how many would I have left? Some may say well you have an infinite amount still left or you have infinity minus five, but this is absurd because in reality if I take five balls away I should have literally five less than before if not then it makes no sense and thus leads to absurdities. Rather infinite is never actualised, but it can be a potential. For example; If I had four bananas and added one to it I have five and then add 100 to it I have 105 then add 1 billion then 1 trillion and so on the number would always be going higher and it would be heading towards infinity, but still always be finite because you can always add one more banana even if you have a massive number it can never reach infinity, so it makes no sense to think that this can exist in the real world which means that the universe can not be eternal or infinite, but must have had a definite beginning in the finite past. As philosopher David Hilbert asserted; "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought...the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." Consequently we can confirm the truth of premise two.

Premise Three
Due to the fact that the first two premises are true then the third necessarily follows that the universe has a cause, but what could this cause be what makes sense of this cause?

The Cause of the universe
From conceptual analysis of this cause we come to some startling conclusions:

1. This cause must be One - Based on the philosophical principle of occam"s razor, which posits that we don"t multiply entities beyond necessity and that the simplest, yet most comprehensive explanation, answering the most questions is the best explanation. Thus we conclude that this cause must be One.

2. This cause must be uncaused/eternal - This is because of the absurdity of the infinite regress of events that it would lead to if it wasn"t uncaused.

3. This cause must be Powerful - This is because this cause created the whole universe and all that is around us from the planets, to galaxies and so on.

4. This cause must be all-knowing - This is because this cause created the universe with physical laws and a lawgiver implies knowledge or an intelligence.

5. This cause must be transcendent - This means that the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. This is obvious as the creator of something is not going to be a part of what it creates.

6. This cause must be immaterial - This is clear because since the cause exists apart from the universe it must be non-physical or immaterial. Also a cause is not going to be like its creation/effect, for if you create a house you are not going to be a part of it you can"t become a brick, rather you are outside of it. The cause/creator of matter is not going to be made up of matter.

7. This cause must have a will and therefore be personal - This is a significant conclusion to come to, but how else can an eternal cause bring into existence the finite universe without choosing to bring it into existence, choice indicates a will and a will indicates a personality.

Consequently we have concluded the traditional view on God. That a transcendental, immaterial and uncaused being exists just using conceptual analysis, logical and reason. So we can say that in fact is is quite reasonable to believe that God exists.
TheShadowCupcake

Con


Before rebutting my opponent's argument, I would first like to present my own in order to ensure that my opponent will have something to rebut in the following round.

My argument for the creation of the universe will be that the universe was initiated entirely from nothingness and not God. This seems contradictory, which, surprisingly, is fortunate once you recognize the context as a site in which one must explain an idea logically, even if it may appear self-defeating at first, and also in a way that most would understand.

By the end for this debate, I hope to convince readers that my side will have more supporting evidence, as well as being the more logical choice between the two. I hope something is learned here. Learning is nice fun.

The Cosmos's Crazy (and Credible) Commencement

Before we deduce anything (or rather,
nothing) regarding the beginning of the universe, let's lay out what we know.

The Beginning

Near the beginning, the universe started to expand at an alarming rate. At the
very beginning, the initial state of the universe, it was likely an infinitesimally dense universe.

Now, the argument's just started, and you already have a question. I have the luxury of knowing what you're likely thinking due to being able to read minds in the future (only on Wednesdays that start with an F).

"Cupcake, if the universe was infinitely dense, how would the universe expand? Wouldn't time be frozen just like how a black hole, if infinitely dense, would make time stand still for everyone inside?"

Well, like with all time dilation, this is relative. As the contents of the universe would see no difference, time would not be at a stand-still, especially considering that time was created with the universe.

Time

How does time work? Simultaneously. The idea that two people can observe two different times works as an argument for certainty of all time, which makes the arrow of time (which direction time goes) seems arbitrary. In other, simpler, words, time can go backwards or forwards. Most people see cause-and-effect like this: "I dropped the ball. Because of this, the ball hit the ground." However, cause-and-effect can just as effectively be seen backwards. "The ball hit the ground. Because of this, I dropped the ball."

These two supporting each other makes for circular logic. Something must be capable of holding these up, this something being the need for these things to hold together. To understand this, imagine a bunch of energy, a type of energy that powers a magnet. This magnet is attached to a stick above a metallic energizer, energizing the magnet in order to propel both in a singular direction through the cluster of energy. This cluster of energy charges the energizer as the magnet pulls them through it. The movement of this magnet, along with this energizer, is fast enough to scramble the surrounding matter to make energy, which makes the cluster. This structure is a loop, everything here is dependent on something else within the structure. However, it exists because that is the only way it can exist with those circumstances, so once it exists, it exists in that way.

I hope this is understandable. If not, I hope someone comments for me to explain further. It is an important concept that I will use in the rest of my debate.

Fate

Our universe is accelerating faster and faster. It will do this forever.

Shape

It has no curvature (flat).


Pondering the Paradoxical Precedent of Panexistence



So, what came before the beginning in order to start up the universe?



Nothing. How did that infinitesimally compact space of energy come to be created and expanded, then, my mind reading tells me you're asking. Well, it's likely that, as thought up by Edward Tryon in 1973, the universe has a net energy of exactly and precisely 0. Think of this on a smaller scale.



You are holding a ball. It is not moving. It has no kinetic energy, correct? Drop it. It is now moving. Why? Because of gravity. Conservation of energy says that gravity must be, then, negative energy. It takes energy to keep things apart, positive energy.



Remember what I said about the beginning? The whole universe expanding? Pulling everything apart? Yeah. Cancels out.



Now, this means that things must be always pulled apart just as they are pulled together. If the universe has a curvature and looks like a sphere (the closest word we'd have to such a shape), the universe would loop back around since the negative energy would reach around. Since the universe has been proven to be flat, this means that the universe must have no energy.



As such, my facts come together to allow us to logically deduce that the universe can come from nothing, a void of time, space, and energy as energy comes to 0 in our universe as well.



In the next round, I will address my opponent's points and form counterarguments for them.

Debate Round No. 1
turnerjb04

Pro

turnerjb04 forfeited this round.
TheShadowCupcake

Con

TheShadowCupcake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
turnerjb04

Pro

turnerjb04 forfeited this round.
TheShadowCupcake

Con

TheShadowCupcake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
turnerjb04

Pro

turnerjb04 forfeited this round.
TheShadowCupcake

Con

TheShadowCupcake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
turnerjb04

Pro

turnerjb04 forfeited this round.
TheShadowCupcake

Con

TheShadowCupcake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
it's not letting me post my argument for some reason atm
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
Good, good
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 2 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
Just so you know the same thing won't happen again, I'm at school right now and it ends in a little over 6 hours, I have an off period, and I already started on my argument yesterday. It should most definitely be posted by today. :)
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
Shadow Cupcake please accept the challenge or I wanna find some one else to debate with
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 2 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
Not to worry! 4 rounds remain!
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 2 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
I sincerely apologize for my inability to respond. I had an audition to get to and it took longer than I anticipated.

On the good side of things, immediate casting! I got a lead! Bad side and a good side to everything! That is, if "good" and "bad" were real things and not things we made up as humans.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 2 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
You know, it's worth mentioning that people who come off as Atheist are typically less trusted, even by Atheists. A bunch of random people were sampled and surveyed for their religious beliefs, then given hypothetical scenarios. "Someone cuts someone else off on the road. Which of the following would this person most likely be? Christian, Atheist..." and a couple of other choices. Atheist always won by a landslide.

So, while I may or may not be Atheist, the side that I've taken will give me a disadvantage. I'm not complaining or anything, fighting an uphill battle makes things enticing. However, I thought the study was interesting enough to mention. :)
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 2 years ago
TheShadowCupcake
This is exciting, though I wish you picked a less clich" title. I've always wanted to get into this type of argument, though I never cared which side (if I had taken your side instead, however, I don't believe I would have made the same argument).
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
This is not the only argument I will give by the way, but I think it would be good for us to have this discussion even if you're playing the middle man and make a sincere approach towards seeking the truth
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
I may accept this and play devil's advocate. I'm pretty familiar with this argument.
No votes have been placed for this debate.