The Instigator
Sunfire315
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
BasedCereal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Sunfire315
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 459 times Debate No: 80518
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Sunfire315

Pro

My Argument is that it is more plausibly true than false that God exists.
BasedCereal

Con

I'd like to claim the opposite, stating that there is no proof leaning toward the affirmative or negative of a God's existence.

There are only tales of an omnipotent being's existence, and every culture has their own story. However, the same applies to mythological creatures, as well. Neither are ever verified, and both tend to be revealed as an explanation for something we could not yet understand.

Therefore, I'd like to take the stance of a godless existence.
Debate Round No. 1
Sunfire315

Pro

There are quite a few good arguments for God's existence. By God, I mean an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Personal , spaceless, timeless, immaterial, Omnibenevolent, being.
The first I will present is the Kalam cosmological argument.

Premise 1:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause(Of its existence).
Things cannot pop into existence utterly uncaused out of complete nothing. If things could, we should expect to see it all the time. (Note: before you say the 'quantum vacuum can generate particles, and it is nothing' it is not . That would be to mistake the definition of nothing. Nothing, properly defined, is NOT ANYTHING. no time, no space, no matter, NOTHING. it has no properties whatsoever.

Premise 2:
The universe began to exist.
this premise is supported by the modern big bang model. Even if there were a multiverse, it would have to have a finite beginning according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. To quote Alexander Vilenkin:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Conclusion: the universe has a cause.
so what? the universe has a cause.

Properties of this cause:
I am quoting William Lane Craig, from the Blackwell companion to Natural Theology.

1.A first state of the material world cannot have a material explanation and must originate ex nihilo in being without material cause, because no natural explanation can be causally prior to the very existence of the natural world (space-time and its contents). It follows necessarily that the cause is outside of space and time, immaterial, and enormously powerful, in bringing the entirety of material reality into existence.

2.Even if positing a plurality of causes prior to the origin of the universe, the causal chain must terminate in a cause which is absolutely first and uncaused, otherwise an infinite regress of causes would arise. (It is important to know the distinction between an Actual Infinity, and a Potential Infinite. A potential infinite is where infinity is merely an ideal limit, which is never reached. An actual infinity is a complete infinite set. )

3.Occam's Razor maintains that unicity(only one) of the First Cause should be assumed unless there are specific reasons to believe that there is more than one causeless cause.

4.Agent causation, volitional action, is the only ontological condition in which an effect can arise in the absence of prior determining conditions. Therefore, only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause.

5.Abstract objects, the only other ontological category known to have the properties of being uncaused, spaceless, timeless and immaterial, do not sit in causal relationships, nor can they exercise volitional causal power.

How about that?
So the cause of the universe has to be a:
personal,
unimaginably powerful
timeless: (at least prior to creation),
spaceless,
and immaterial,
being

kind of like God.
Pretty crazy Huh.
BasedCereal

Con

There is a problem with religious argumentation in the sense that they don't completely involve fact.
If you set up enough premises, and twist meanings, you can make anything seem plausible.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know what happened before the big bang, or if there was nothing or anything before, either. To immediately assume "God" is jumping the gun, wouldn't you say? It is possible that the universe has always existed. Simple logic such as cause and effect get much more difficult when we go to a time span of 15 billion+ years and get into quantum theory.

If you say God created the universe, answer this: who created God?
Debate Round No. 2
Sunfire315

Pro

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a deductive argument, in the form Modus Ponens. It obeys the rules of Logic, so if its premises are true, the conclusion follows If the universe began to exist, and everything which begins to exist has a cause, it follows NECESSARILY that the universe; having begun to exist, has to have a cause. And I have provided the properties of said cause.
Please read this again. You will find I am not "Jumping the Gun", so to speak.

1.A first state of the material world cannot have a material explanation and must originate ex nihilo in being without material cause, because no natural explanation can be causally prior to the very existence of the natural world (space-time and its contents). It follows necessarily that the cause is outside of space and time, immaterial, and enormously powerful, in bringing the entirety of material reality into existence.

2.Even if positing a plurality of causes prior to the origin of the universe, the causal chain must terminate in a cause which is absolutely first and uncaused, otherwise an infinite regress of causes would arise. (It is important to know the distinction between an Actual Infinity, and a Potential Infinite. A potential infinite is where infinity serves as merely an ideal limit, which is never reached. An actual infinity is a complete infinite set. God's being infinitely powerful Does not constitute an actual infinite number of things.)

3.Occam's Razor maintains that unicity(only one) of the First Cause should be assumed unless there are specific reasons to believe that there is more than one causeless cause.

4.Agent causation, volitional action, is the only ontological condition in which an effect can arise in the absence of prior determining conditions. Therefore, only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause.

5.Abstract objects, the only other ontological category known to have the properties of being uncaused, spaceless, timeless and immaterial, do not sit in causal relationships, nor can they exercise volitional causal power.

These traits of I have outlined are all properties of the cause.

"It is possible that the universe has always existed. Simple logic such as cause and effect get much more difficult when we go to a time span of 15 billion years and get into quantum theory. "

Regardless of how difficult causality is to look at on small or large levels, they still stand. The indeterminacy on the quantum level is merely a mathematical fiction, used due to our inability to measure them with absolute certainty.

also, it is metaphysically absurd that the universe is eternal:
1. the series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another.
2. a collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite. You can't count to infinity
3. therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.

you also launched the objection:
Who created God?

The first premise states that whatever BEGINS to exist has to have a cause. God did not "begin to exist", but the universe did. he not. The first premise is "whatever exists has a cause". That Is to say, things cannot pop into being out of complete nothingness. God did not begin to exist at some point in the past, unlike the universe. He was timeless prior to creation and temporal subsequent to it, (it does not raise the problem of an infinite regress.) The universe, however, did begin to exist.
BasedCereal

Con

BasedCereal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Voters are allowed to award conduct on the basis of a forfeit. The voter is not required to award any points they do not wish to allocate.
************************************************************************
Posted by BasedCereal 1 year ago
BasedCereal
To V5RED, I don't know the pro arguer, but after I made my account I saw his post and figured I'd give it a shot.

To Lord_Of_The_Flames, I wouldn't say it proves the nonexistence of god, but I would say that it's more logical to assume its nonexistence (being that we originally never thought or knew of a god until some people proposed its existence. The burden of proof is on those who assert god's existence and they have yet to do so, even thousands of years after the fact. That said, we should logically return to the nonbelief stance.)
To give context for my views, I guess I'd say I'm an agnostic atheist.
Posted by Lord_Of_The_Flames 1 year ago
Lord_Of_The_Flames
The Lack of logical and scientific evidence proves that god cannot exist.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
I noticed pro and con both joined this site 2 hours ago. Do you know each other?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Sunfire315BasedCerealTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.