The Instigator
jared_edington
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Pro (for)
Winning
6 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 1 vote the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 386 times Debate No: 70971
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

jared_edington

Con

My position is that it is wiser to not believe in God's existence than it is to believe in it. This come from a myriad of examples of logical reasoning, faulty holy scripture, contradictory experiences (between scripture and the real world). I claim that it is better for the human race, to continue forward under the assumption that God does not exist.
1Credo

Pro

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

Burden of Proof

There will be a shared burden of proof in this debate, with my opponent defending the view that "it is wiser to not believe in God's existence than it is to believe in it" and myself defending the view that it is at the very least as reasonable to believe in God's existence as it is to not believe in God's existence. I will present 3 arguments in the opening round in defense of my own position. I invite my opponent to present arguments of his own in attempt to justify his assertion that "it is wiser to not believe in God's existence than it is to believe in it".

Arguments for God

I will present 3 deductive logical arguments in favor of God's existence. If each premise of a given argument is more likely true than its negation, then it follows logically and necessarily that the conclusion is true. So, in order for one to reject the conclusion (God exists) one must knock down at least one of the premises. If, at the debate's conclusion, there are any arguments in which the premises remain standing, then the argument is sound and its conclusion follows necessarily.

i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1:I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.
Defense of P2:There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.
Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C1: Therefore, God exists.

Defense of P1:Here again, premise one is relatively uncontroversial. If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God.
Defense of P2:Each of us have a sense of morality which tells us that certain actions are objectively "good" or objectively "evil". For example, I can clearly recognize that altruism (self-sacrifice in order to further the well-being of others) is objectively good. I can also clearly recognize that raping and torturing a child is objectively evil. I have no more reason to doubt the reliability of these moral senses than I do to doubt the reliability of my physical senses. In other words, for any argument given in an attempt to show that our moral senses are not valid (and objective morality is therefore not valid), I can construct a parallel argument to show that our physical senses are not valid (and the physical world we experience through these senses is therefore not valid). In order for one to disagree with premise two, one must believe that an action like rape is just as "good" as an action like generosity, and that no objective distinction can be made between the nature of "goodness" of the two acts.

iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Defense of P1:In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.
Defense of P2-P6:I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.

Summary

I have presented three arguments in favor of God's existence. In order to win this debate, my opponent must refute each of these arguments (by knocking down at least one premise in each argument) and successfully put forward sound arguments in favor of his own position. Until my opponent is able to do this, we can conclude that it is at the very least as reasonable to believe in God's existence as it is to believe that God does not exist.

Thank you.

Sources

http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 1
jared_edington

Con

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I hope that we can have a good discussion today. I will try my best to refute your arguments. I will do so in the order that you listed them.

1.) Things CAN come into existence out of nothing. This is the phenomenon that physicists refer to as "Pair Production".(1)
A brief summary of Pair Production is as follows: a particle of matter and its antimatter counterpart can come into existence from no matter at all, just a photon.
The most common response to this piece of knowledge is that pure energy (a photon) isn't actually nothing. I must then ask, what, in the universe, do you define as "nothing"?
The most simple and most accurate definition of nothing that's ever been observed is empty space. But, even this simple definition of nothing contains energy. (2). Therefore, matter can spring into existence from empty space.
I would also like to point out that, if all things that begin to exist has a cause, then what caused God? He cannot be eternal and infinite, as you pointed out. So, what was God's beginning?
This is one premise "knocked down".

2.) The claim that we get our morals/morality from God is absolutely absurd. We must first establish which "god" we are speaking of. I will continue under the assumption that we are speaking of the Christian God (please correct me if I'm wrong).
If we were to look for morals laid out by the Christian God, where would we find them? This would, of course, be the Bible. But you cannot trust this faulty holy scripture, as it is full of self-contradictions, immoral teachings, and carries absolutely no weight to it's claim of supernatural origin/inspiration. I would be more than happy to point out some of these faulty mistakes, if my opponent so wishes, in a later turn.
I would also like to point out that real-life experiences contradict with the claim that we get our morals from God. This is to say, that an atheist, not believing in God, has a perfectly fine sense of morality. I would like to restate the late Christopher Hitchens' claim to all religious persons. Name one act, one moral act, that a religious person can do, that an atheist cannot do.
With this being said, I would like to ask a question. How exactly do you know that we get our morals from God?
This is another premise eliminated.

3.)The second premise of your third argument relies on another premise itself. It is based on the assumption that other possible worlds exist. Which you've yet to demonstrate. I should not, cannot, and will not (and encourage others not to either) assume any of the other premises of this argument to be true, until the preceding one is demonstrated. j

I would now like to give some arguments, in brief, for the case AGAINST God's existence. I shall list them below:

1.) Presuming that the God you're claiming to exist is omnipotent and omniscient, it is impossible for this God to exist. These two traits are mutually incompatible.
2.) God has yet to demonstrate his existence in any verifiable way.
3.) There are explanations for everything in the natural world that do not require the existence of God, to be true.
4.) The holy scripture associated with God is faulty and therefore untrustworthy.
5.) Science has contradicted many of what has been claimed to be caused by God.

I would now like to ask my opponent some questions:

1.) Do you believe in the Christian God?
2.) Do you believe in a 6-day creation, approximately 6,000 years ago?
3.) Do you believe God to possess any of the following qualities: omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence?
4.) Do you take the Bible as literal truth?

Thank you.
1Credo

Pro

Thanks, Con

Rebuttal

(1) "Things CAN come into existence out of nothing. This is the phenomenon that physicists refer to as "Pair Production"

As my opponent seems to acknowledge, pair production does not involve the coming into being of something from nothing. Rather, pair production requires energy (see sources), which is "something". My opponent then asks, "what, in the universe, do you define as "nothing"?" It seems to me that "nothing" is clearly not anything at all, but rather it is the absence of something. My opponent does not argue that matter can come into being from nothing (the absence of something) and so there is no conflict to be found here.

(1) "I would also like to point out that, if all things that begin to exist has a cause, then what caused God?"

God, if He exists, transcends space and time. This means that God is not constrained by time; for Him there is no "beginning" or "end". That is not to say that God has had an infinite past; it is to say that He has had no past at all as a result of His existing outside of time. This is in contrast to our universe, which is constrained by space and time and as such had a definitive beginning.

(2) "If we were to look for morals laid out by the Christian God, where would we find them?"

I'd say each of us is born with an innate sense of morality imprinted on our soul.

(2) "But you cannot trust this faulty holy scripture, as it is full of self-contradictions, immoral teachings, and carries absolutely no weight to it's claim of supernatural origin/inspiration."

I haven't claimed that the Bible is the source of morality, nor do I think this is the case. I disagree with my opponent's statement regarding the validity of the Bible, but as that is not the subject of our debate, I won't respond further on that point.

(2) "I would also like to point out that real-life experiences contradict with the claim that we get our morals from God. This is to say, that an atheist, not believing in God, has a perfectly fine sense of morality."

Once again, I have not claimed that atheists cannot be moral. I am not arguing that Christians are moral and atheists are not. I am arguing that God is the source of morality. As such, statements like "an atheist has a perfectly fine sense of morality" are irrelevant.

(2) "Name one act, one moral act, that a religious person can do, that an atheist cannot do."

Though I don't argue that atheists are inherently any more or less moral than theists are, I do think there are moral actions which a religious person can take that an atheist cannot. Such actions include prayer, baptism, reconciliation, tithing, and holy communion.

(2) "With this being said, I would like to ask a question. How exactly do you know that we get our morals from God?"

This conclusion follows logically and necessarily from the second argument I gave.

(3) "The second premise of your third argument relies on another premise itself. It is based on the assumption that other possible worlds exist."

This premise is not based on the assumption that other possible worlds exist. Rather, it entails that other possible worlds could have existed.

Arguments Against God

1.) Presuming that the God you're claiming to exist is omnipotent and omniscient, it is impossible for this God to exist. These two traits are mutually incompatible.

This is an unjustified assertion. When claiming something is incoherent, you take the burden of proof on yourself to show that your claim is true. No support for this assertion is provided, and as such we have no reason to think that there is an incompatibility between omnipotence and omniscience.

2.) God has yet to demonstrate his existence in any verifiable way.

Even if it were the case that God has yet to demonstrate his existence in any verifiable way, it would not lead to the conclusion that God does not therefore exist. What reason is there to think that if God did exist, He would need to demonstrate His existence to us?

I do think, however, that God has demonstrated his existence in verifiable ways, such as the creation of our universe out of nothing, the existence of objective moral values, etc.

3.) There are explanations for everything in the natural world that do not require the existence of God, to be true.

This is trivially false. The natural world cannot explain:
-the origin of our universe from nothing
-the existence of objective moral values
-the fine-tuning of our universe for intelligent life
-why anything at all exists rather than nothing
-the applicability of mathematics to the natural world
-the existence of the human soul
-the incompatibility of naturalism and evolution
-the altruistic behavior of human beings

4.) The holy scripture associated with God is faulty and therefore untrustworthy.

Here again is an unjustified assertion. Even if it were true that every holy scripture associated with a god (The Bible, The Quran, The Torah, etc.) were faulty, it would not follow that God does not therefore exist. It's entirely possible that God exists but that there is no holy scripture associated with the true God.

I do believe, however, that there is one holy scripture (The Bible) which is not faulty.

5.) Science has contradicted many of what has been claimed to be caused by God.

Once again, my opponent makes an unjustified assertion. He provides no support for his claim and as such there is no reason for us to believe that science has contradicted many of what has been claimed to be caused by God.

Questions

1.) Do you believe in the Christian God?

Yes.

2.) Do you believe in a 6-day creation, approximately 6,000 years ago?

No. I believe that God created the universe by means of the Big Bang and that God created human beings by means of the process of evolution.

3.) Do you believe God to possess any of the following qualities: omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence?

Yes, although I don't believe God is omnipresent in the sense that He is physically everywhere at once, but rather that He is spiritually everywhere at once.

4.) Do you take the Bible as literal truth?

Certainly not all of it. I don't know of anything from the Old Testament that I take to be literally true (other than perhaps the actual existence of certain individuals). I take the majority of the New Testament to be literally true (with the exception of parables, visions, etc.)

Summary


In the opening round, I presented 3 arguments in favor of God's existence:

i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C1: Therefore, God exists.

iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

In response to the first argument, my opponent argued that there are things which can come into existence from nothing (i.e. pair production). I pointed out that pair production does not involve the coming into existence of something from nothing, as energy (something) is required for pair production. As such, both premises of the first argument remain standing and its conclusion remains sound.

In response to the second argument, my opponent argued that morality cannot have come from God because the Bible is faulty and because atheists are just as moral as theists. I pointed out that the Bible does not need to be the source of morality and as such the reliability of the Bible is irrelevant with regard to this debate. I also pointed out that I agree that atheists can be just as moral as theists can, and that this view does not conflict in any way with the view that God is the source of objective moral values. As such, both premises of the second argument remain standing and its conclusion remains sound.

My opponent did not object to my third argument except to demonstrate a misunderstanding of what a "possible world" entails, which I addressed in my response. As such, each premise of the third argument remains standing and its conclusion remains sound.

I addressed each of my opponent's arguments against God. These arguments were mere assertions that my opponent provided no warrant for. Until my opponent is able to justify the claims made in his arguments, they ought not be considered.

For now, then, we are left with 3 sound arguments in favor of God's existence and 0 sound arguments against God's existence. As such, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that God exists.

Thank you.

Sources

http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 2
jared_edington

Con

I thank you for responding. I should apologize, I didnt make it clear that the claims I made against God were a brief summation of things I planned to dig into later. I will do so at the end of this response.

1.) I would like to start the clarification of my rebuttal to your first point by pointing out that I was looking for an example of nothing in the real world. You could say that nothing is "the absence of something". But show me an example of your definition of "nothing" in the real world.
2.) You say that your reasoning for believing that without God, objective morality wouldn't exist is, that it follows logically from your second argument. My question for you is, how do you know that without God objective morality and morals couldn't exist?
As you pointed out, claims shouldn't be made without proof or evidence. Please apply this line of logic to your own argument.

This is all I have to say about your responses to my rebuttals. I would now like to explain my claims against God's existence.

1.) Omnipotence and Omniscience are mutually incompatible. This is obvious when you ask yourself the following question: "Can an omnipitent God change his omniscient mind?". This is to say, if God knows that he will have cereal for breakfast, does he have the power to change his mind about it?
Either he does, which means he never actually knew what he would have for breakfast in the first place, or he doesn't have the power to change his mind, which means he's not omnipotent.
2.) As for my claim about God's lack of demonstration of his existence, you responded, "What reason is there to think that if God did exist, He would need to demonstrate His existence to us?". I didn't claim that God would NEED to give evidence for his existence, but it's not wise, its actually foolish, to continue under the assumption that he does exist, when he's yet to demonstrate his existence.
3.) I shall respond to your rebuttals to my third argument in the order you presented them:
-"the origin of our universe from nothing" While we do not have a perfect solution to this problem yet, I've already demonstrated that it IS possible for matter to come into existence out of nothing. Even if it were the case that we had absolutely no clue about the origin of the universe, it does NO good to claim that since we don't know, it must be God. This is referred to as the "God of the Gaps" argument, and I'm sure you will not fall for it.
-"the existence of objective moral values" Once again, I've already demonstrated that God is not necessary to have a set of morals and a sense of objective morality. We get our sense of objective morality from a mutual understanding of pain. If I know that I hurt when I get stabbed in the arm, then it logically follows that it inflicts pain on others to stab them in the arm. This is basic empathy and a better origin/inspiration for morality than doing kind acts in hope for a heavenly reward or to avoid hell.
-"the fine-tuning of our universe for intelligent life" This is an odd claim, since most of the universe is deadly to us. We cannot even escape the atmosphere of our small blue pebble without dying within seconds. And, I must ask, how do you know that if the laws of physics were different that another form of intelligent life might not arise?
-"why anything at all exists rather than nothing" I must ask, what is the sense of "why" that you are speaking of here? Why in the sense of purpose? Or "why" in the sense of cause?
-"the applicability of mathematics to the natural world" This is an astonishing thing. It is truly amazing that a simple form of reasoning applies to observable phenomena in the universe. But I must ask, how does this require the existence of God?
-"the existence of the human soul" You've yet to demonstrate that the human soul exists. You've made the claim that it does, please acknowledge the burden of proof now laid upon you.
-"the incompatability of naturalism and evolution" Once again, please demonstrate how these two are incompatible. And why they require the existence of God.
-"the altruistic behavior of humans" As I've already demonstrated, empathy accounts for this. How does this require the existence of God?
4.) Your rebuttal here is a sound one, and I do not disagree with you on this point. I would, however like to ask exactly why you believe the bible to be rightly associated with God, and why you don't consider it to be faulty.
5.) Science has contradicted many of what has been claimed to be caused by God. Some things that are claimed to have been caused by God are: a young earth, intelligent design, and intelligent creation of universe. I've already mentioned the creation of the universe, and I will now address the claims of a young earth and evolution
As far as the young earth claim, I know that you don't claim it as truth, but other religious people do, so I will address it. A young earth is in direct contradiction with everything we know of geology. There is no way that the Grand Canyon, and other great geological phenomenon are possible within 6,000-10,000 years.
As far as evolution, it is claimed (although not by you), that God created humans. Charles Darwin did us a great favor when he found the means by which humans came to exist. This is by means of natural selection and can be read about extensively online.

Questions:

- You believe that God possesses the following qualities: omnipresent (spiritually), omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. This is simply impossible. I've already demonstrated that omniscient and omnipotence are incompatible, but so are omnipotence and omnipresence. This is because God can either have the power to take himself (spiritually) out of the situation (not omnipresent), or he can't (not omnipotent). God can also not be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, this is because God can either have the power to hate (not omnibenevolent), or he can't (not omnipotent).
1Credo

Pro

Thanks, Con.

Rebuttal

(1) "I was looking for an example of nothing in the real world. You could say that nothing is "the absence of something". But show me an example of your definition of "nothing" in the real world."

There is not "nothing" in the real world, unless you use it as a quantity. So, the number of Santa's elves at the North Pole amounts to nothing, because there are no elves at the North Pole. Nothing is the absence of something, so by its very nature there cannot be an example of "nothing".

(2) "My question for you is, how do you know that without God objective morality and morals couldn't exist?"

My answer would be that without God, there is nothing that can serve as the foundation (or source) of objective morality. In other words, there can't be moral law (objective morality) without a moral law-giver (God).

(2) "As you pointed out, claims shouldn't be made without proof or evidence. Please apply this line of logic to your own argument."

I provided justification for this premise in the opening round of the debate (when I presented the arguments). I stated: "If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God."

Arguments Against God

"Omnipotence and Omniscience are mutually incompatible. This is obvious when you ask yourself the following question: "Can an omnipotent God change his omniscient mind?"

No, I don't see any reason to think that these are incompatible. Omnipotence entails the ability to do anything that is logically possible. It does not entail the ability to actualize incoherences. So, for example, an omnipotent being cannot create a square circle, or a married bachelor, because there is no such thing as a "square circle" or a "married bachelor". (Earlier, you asked for an example of nothing in the real world, I suppose incoherences might fit the bill). Square circles and married bachelors are just that- nothing. In the very same way, the concept of an omnipotent God changes His omniscient mind is incoherent (it is "nothing") so there is no conflict here.

"but it's not wise, its actually foolish, to continue under the assumption that he does exist, when he's yet to demonstrate his existence."

Again, I would argue that His existence can be easily demonstrated through the origin of the universe, the source of objective morality, etc.

"I've already demonstrated that it IS possible for matter to come into existence out of nothing"

No, you haven't come anywhere close to demonstrating this. You attempted to use pair production as an example of something coming from nothing, but even you yourself admitted that pair production requires energy (which is clearly not "nothing").

"Even if it were the case that we had absolutely no clue about the origin of the universe, it does NO good to claim that since we don't know, it must be God."

I'd say God is the only viable candidate. If we think about it, the cause of the universe must be timeless and spaceless (as it creates time and space), immaterial (it can't be material and spaceless), powerful (to bring about a universe), etc. What sorts of candidates are there? I've heard of only two: an abstract object (a number or a shape) and an unembodied mind (God). As abstract objects don't stand in causal relations (triangles cannot cause anything, much less universes), the only candidate remaining is God. this is not a "God of the gaps" argument; the conclusion that God is the cause of our universe can be arrived at (quite simply) through deductive logical reasoning, as demonstrated by my first argument.

"Once again, I've already demonstrated that God is not necessary to have a set of morals and a sense of objective morality."

This was never demonstrated (I don't even recall you attempting to demonstrate this).

"We get our sense of objective morality from a mutual understanding of pain. If I know that I hurt when I get stabbed in the arm, then it logically follows that it inflicts pain on others to stab them in the arm."

This explanation for objective morality in the absence of God fails for several reasons:
-There are some individuals (i.e. psychopaths) who enjoy pain, and who enjoy inflicting pain upon others. So, there is no "mutual" understanding of pain.
-There are some instances where pain is a good thing (i.e. self-sacrifice).
-Pain doesn't tell us whether or not moral actions which do not involve physical feeling (pain) are right or wrong (i.e. lying about someone without them finding out, murdering someone painlessly, etc.)

"And, I must ask, how do you know that if the laws of physics were different that another form of intelligent life might not arise?"

The constants and arbitrary quantities of our universe are so finely tuned that if any of them were altered by less than a micrometer, the entire universe would be destroyed and life could not exist. Examples include the amount of entropy in the universe and the balance of matter vs anti-matter. Roger Penrose (Oxford) estimates the odds of our universe permitting life to be 1x10^10^123. It's not just a matter of whether intelligent life might arise from a universe, but it is a matter of a universe like ours existing at all.

"I must ask, what is the sense of "why" that you are speaking of here? Why in the sense of purpose? Or "why" in the sense of cause?"

Both, I suppose.

"This is an astonishing thing. It is truly amazing that a simple form of reasoning applies to observable phenomena in the universe. But I must ask, how does this require the existence of God?"

I never argued that this required the existence of God; I only argued that there was not a scientific explanation for it.

"You've yet to demonstrate that the human soul exists."

I don't have the character space to provide arguments for the human soul and the incompatibility of naturalism and evolution. However, I will provide links to sources where the arguments are adequately explained, and I'd be happy to discuss these subjects further in the comments section or through a private message.

https://www.youtube.com...

"please demonstrate how these two are incompatible"

https://www.youtube.com...

"Your rebuttal here is a sound one, and I do not disagree with you on this point. I would, however like to ask exactly why you believe the bible to be rightly associated with God, and why you don't consider it to be faulty."

I believe the Bible, if interpreted correctly, is not "faulty". I suppose I use deductive reasoning to arrive at this conclusion. I think it's quite clear that some sort of God exists. Of all the world's religions, only the monotheisms (on my view, and on the view of many others) are possibly true due to the God's nature (if he exists). Of the monotheisms, I think there are gaps in Islam and Judaism, and I can't seem to find a gap in Christianity (that's to say Christianity in the way I interpret it, I certainly see gaps in fundamentalist Christianity).

"As far as the young earth claim, I know that you don't claim it as truth, but other religious people do, so I will address it."

I agree that creationism is false and evolution is true. I don't think creationism presents a conflict between Christianity and science because I don't think creationism is true.

"You believe that God possesses the following qualities: omnipresent (spiritually), omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. This is simply impossible. I've already demonstrated that omniscient and omnipotence are incompatible, but so are omnipotence and omnipresence. This is because God can either have the power to take himself (spiritually) out of the situation (not omnipresent), or he can't (not omnipotent). God can also not be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, this is because God can either have the power to hate (not omnibenevolent), or he can't (not omnipotent)."

I've already addressed the superficial issue between omnipotence and omniscience (see above). As for omnipotence and omnipresence & omnipotence and omnibenevolence, my answer would be the same. Your example is that of an incoherence, and omnipotent entities cannot actualize incoherences.

Summary

I presented 3 arguments in favor of God's existence in the opening round. Each of these arguments remain standing. My opponent has thus far failed to provide comparably sound arguments in favor of his position. For now, then, we can reasonably conclude that God exists.

Thank you.

Sources
http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 3
jared_edington

Con

jared_edington forfeited this round.
1Credo

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited his final round, I have nothing to add. I would, however, like to note that my opponent has failed to refute any of the 3 arguments I presented at the beginning of the debate. Moreover, no sound arguments have been presented against God. As such, we can reasonably conclude that God exists.

I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I enjoyed our discussion and wish him the best of luck on future debates.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 1Credo 1 year ago
1Credo
@jared_edington

No worries
Posted by jared_edington 1 year ago
jared_edington
I'm sorry, I forgot to cite my sources, I will do so in my next turn. @1Credo
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
@Credo
You may be interested in the following debate I am hosting:
http://www.debate.org...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
jared_edington1CredoTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro. Con dropped Pro's third argument for the existence of God and agreed with Pro's argumentation in round three, so arguments to Pro Only Pro had sources.