The Instigator
Sunfire315
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does God Exist?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 658 times Debate No: 81429
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (0)

 

Sunfire315

Pro

I will argue that God exists.
Rules:
No arguments are allowed in acceptance round.
No profanity/insults

Definitions:
God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Nothing: Absence of anything. Not anything
PowerPikachu21

Con

I will accept this debate. I will be arguing that God does not exist.

NOTE: Yes, I believe in God, however, this will have nothing to do in this debate. It is solely on Pro to prove a God really exists.
Debate Round No. 1
Sunfire315

Pro

Sunfire315 forfeited this round.
PowerPikachu21

Con

And now for scientific explanations for the creation of the world.

1. Abiogenesis (The creation of early life)

Abiogenesis is, according to Wikipedia, "the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds."

"The study of abiogenesis involves three main types of considerations: the geophysical, the chemical, and the biological, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three. Many approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. It is generally accepted that current life on Earth descended from an RNA world, although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed. The Miller""Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, basic chemicals of life, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds in conditions intended to be similar to early Earth." - Wikipedia

2. Core Accretion (How planet Earth came to be)

Earth formed via core accretion.

First, asteroids began colliding, with one another, forming the core, which started to form the mantle later. Next, comets began to crash into Earth, forming it's water. Volcanoes erupted, whose lava cooled upon impact with the water, eventually forming Earth's early crust (Pangea).

Sources:

Abiogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Core Accretion: http://www.space.com...

If Pro is able to disprove these 2 points I've made, I will concede... Only if he's successful, that is. *Holds up a handbook of common fallacies Creationists use*

Or perhaps he has a photograph of God? The resolution is, of course "Does God exist". I have no direct proof that there is no God, but I don't think Pro has decisive evidence there is a God either.

I wish thee opponent thy luck of Arceus!
Debate Round No. 2
Sunfire315

Pro

Your objections to God are largely fallacious. These are at best objections to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, which-- while certainly being an important issue-- is not the subject of the debate. The Christian God could still exist, and yet the writers could have not been perfect in what they wrote, (even then, the texts can still be inspired, and yet imperfect.)

My first argument for God's existence will be the Kalam cosmological argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Now the first premise is an a priori assumption. For the idea of something popping into being out of its own utter nonbeing, utterly uncaused, is utterly absurd. Nothing has no properties, it is "not anything", and thus cannot have the capability to bring matter into existence. for if "nothing" could generate matter, it would have "something", i.e the ability to bring matter into existence, and thus not be nothing, but be "something". Now, at this point, many people would object, saying that the quantum vacuum brings particles into being all of the time. First of all, these fluctuations are extremely short lived, disappearing into the roiling sea of space almost as soon as they were formed. secondly, this "vacuum", is not "nothing" as we would consider it. The "quantum vacuum" is the merely lowest energy state, the primordial energy still present in space when you take everything else away. If anything, these quantum fluctuations merely makes us reconsider taking empty space to be nothing. This quantum vacuum cannot be the eternal, timeless cause, because it would still raise the problem of an infinite regress: why didn't the universe fluctuate into being a hundred years earlier? Why not a million years earlier?

.2. The universe began to exist:
Practically any sufficient model of the universe requires a beginning to it. As I do not have the time to debunk each one here and now, you can present the "objecting" model after this, and I will deal with it then
This is required by the standard big bang model, and even on a multiverse theory, the beginning of the universe is required due to the Borde Goethe Vilenkin theorem. And 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."

- Alexander Vilenkin
Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause:
Now the cause of the universe, having existed causally prior to the universe, (space time and its contents), must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Also, anything which can cause the entirety of space and time, and all energy in the universe, must be astonishingly powerful. This cause is plausibly personal. For a timeless impersonal cause, would have its effect as a necessary side effect of its nature. Like water being frozen when the cause, the air being below 0 degrees, exists. as long as the cause exists, so does the effect. Now if this cause were impersonal, it would be impossible for this cause to be temporal, as it would have no sudden ability to change itself, as timelessness implies changelessness. Only free will, can cause something without a causal antecedent, and thus initiate an effect from a timeless state.

A timeless, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful, and personal being is a pretty good description of God.
PowerPikachu21

Con

To briefly sum up my opponent's argument: Everything has a cause for existence, therefore God created the Universe. "Nothing" is purely, "nothing". Nothing can bring something into existence, or else it would be "something". The question now is: "Where did God come from"?

I doubt God could just *pop* out of nowhere. In fact, "nothing" is not capable of creating anything if it were to still be "nothing". So where did God come from? Let's assume God did come from "something"; what is this "something", and where did THAT come from? It's an infinite loop of "Where did it come from?".

Let's assume God always *existed*. It would be reasonable to think a Universe could just *exist* as well, without a (known) source. What does Pro have to say about this? (PS, I knew my opponent's flaw beforehand, so no one should think that I'm using rnd to my advantage.)
Debate Round No. 3
Sunfire315

Pro

You have set up a straw man. The argument says that whatever begins to exist has a cause, not that whatever exists has a cause. God did not begin to exist.
It *may* be possible that the universe existed forever,(though logically absurd), but it wouldn't be possible scientifically. if the past were infinite, then according to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics we should have ran out of usable energy already. If the level of usable energy in a system decreases over time,(2nd law), and no new energy can be just created spontaneously, (1st law), then if the universe had existed infinitely we would have already ran out of usable energy. Also, if you didn't catch my source:
"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."

- Alexander Vilenkin
Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.

the argument still stands.
PowerPikachu21

Con

Pro and rnd have shown why the Universe could have infinitely existed. However, there's a bigger problem that was overlooked: Where did the universe come from?

Rebuttal 1: Where did the Universe originate from?

P1: If matter cannot be created, then God couldn't have made the world
P2: Matter cannot be created
C1: God couldn't have made the world

According to the Law of Conservation of Matter, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. If a God truly made the world, then the matter which makes up the world must have come from somewhere. Ergo, the Universe has always existed.

My opponent describes God as "A timeless, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful, and personal being".

"Immaterial" means 'spiritual'; 'not physical'. If God was a spirit/not physical, then he couldn't have even touched a Universe, let alone move it in such convenient places, no less.

"Spaceless" means 'not occupying space' or 'no limits'. "Not occupying space" would mean God can't move objects. "No limits" means "all powerful", which I will counter shortly.

If God really was "powerful", then why aren't theists being granted their wishes from God? That is to say, if God actually existed.

Argument: Explanation for existence without a God

P1: If God didn't make the world, then the world always existed.
P2: God wasn't able to make the world
C1: The Universe must've always existed

P3: If the Universe always existed, there'd have to be infinite time
P4: The Universe always existed
C2: There must be infinite time.

Above is a problem with my premise, as shown below:

P1: If we exist, then time isn't infinite
P2: We do exist
C1: Time can't be infinite

I can resolve this issue:

P1: The Universe has always existed, because God can't create the world
P2: Time must be infinite, because the Universe has always existed, ergo time existed as well
P3: We exist
Conclusion: Time must go in a loop, where the end is the new beginning

My final conclusion is that time must be going in a loop. If God wasn't able to make the world (which is what my entire argument hinges on), then time always repeats itself.

I will concede if Pro proves the following that God is able to just *poof* non-matter into rocks, plasma, metal, etc. (Pro can't just say "he can")

And with that, let's hear what Pro has to say.
Debate Round No. 4
Sunfire315

Pro

All of my opponents objections to the 2nd premise are demonstrably fallacious.

first rebuttal:
P1: If matter cannot be created, then God couldn't have made the world"
P2: Matter cannot be created

Just because we the universe can't generate matter and energy on its own, doesn't mean God can't.
The sudden appearance of matter and energy violates the laws of nature? Exactly my point! the sudden appearance of energy and matter would be nothing less than miraculous! If there is a God, then it would be entirely plausible to think that He would be capable of interceding in His universe to accomplish an effect which would be beyond the limits of the natural principles He created.

If God is omnipotent, then your objections to his immateriality and spacelessness are moot. So ultimately only your objection to God's omnipotence matters.
rebuttal to the rebuttal:
We aren't being granted our wishes, because as humans, we are not God's little pets! Just because I pray to get a million dollars, doesn't mean God is obliged to give us everything we want! Believe it or not, I prayed for pyrokinesis as a little kid. Had God said, "sure, why not", I would probably be dead now. And yes, sometimes we feel as if we are completely justified in asking for some things: But God isn't here to glorify us, we are here to glorify Him. Sometimes what we want, isnt what we need.r />
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...


PowerPikachu21

Con

PowerPikachu21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by OnlineMissionary197 1 year ago
OnlineMissionary197
Hey, who said the comment section could not help out? Good battle you too. I'm excited about the out come this debate has come to. Great Job!
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
Pro, I thought your response in Round 4 did a good job succinctly addressing Con's arguments. By the way, I see you have referenced a resource I have often visited and enjoy (Reasonable Faith). I particularly enjoy William Lane Craig's extensive study regarding the nature of time and God's relationship to it.
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
Con, well done in Round 4. I appreciated your deductive arguments. I have thoughts regarding them but will withhold sharing until Pro posts his responses.
Posted by Sunfire315 1 year ago
Sunfire315
The irony is RND is incredible at this stuff! probably better than both of us in some ways!
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
My apologies if I am overstepping the policy for commenting on debates. I am new to this website and have a passion for refining logical arguments (on either side of an issue) as well as this particular topic.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
Someone tell me: Is rnd being a little too nice? I mean, he's doing the rebuttal for me. Of course he refutes my arguments as well, but we (me and Pro) could just copy/paste his comments. (Like Pro seems to have done in Round 4. It's not EXACTLY what rnd said, but the same point.)
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
P1: If time has always existed, then it would extend infinitely into the past.
P2: If time extends infinitely into the past, then there would be an infinite number of events that need to be traversed prior to now.
P3: If an infinite number of events need to be traversed prior to now, then now would not yet have arrived.
P4: Now has arrived.
C1: Therefore, a finite number of events have been traversed prior to now.
C2: Therefore time does not extend infinitely into the past.
C3: Therefore time had a beginning.
Posted by Sunfire315 1 year ago
Sunfire315
I said *may* be possible, because i didnt have enough time left to make the philosophical argument.
The idea of an infinite past is utterly absurd, as time is formed by adding events, you cannot count to infinity. but if you throw logic out the window, it could be possible. I said *may* because that
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
Pro,
What did you mean when you wrote: "It *may* be possible that the universe existed forever"?
I ask this because it seems to contradict your following statements that it is logically and scientifically not possible that the universe existed forever.

Also, perhaps you might want to clarify your point that new energy cannot be just created spontaneously. I say this because in the earlier round you argued that the universe (time, space, matter, and energy) was created from nothing and this could be taken as a contradiction.
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
Con, will all due respect, you have misrepresented Pro's premise. Your opponent premised that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause". He is only attributing a cause to that which begins to exist. However, some things do not begin to exist but simply exist out of necessity of their own nature. Examples of this would be things like numbers and laws of logic.

You rephrased his premise to say that "Everything has a cause for existence". Your premise would include things that exist which did not have a beginning and therefore is a false premise. Do you see the difference here?

It is logically impossible for there to be an infinite regress of causes, and so an uncaused first cause needs to exist in order to bring the chain of causes that we observe today into existence. This uncaused first cause must have always existed out of necessity and so had no beginning and therefore no cause.

As for your question regarding the possibility that the universe itself might be that uncaused first cause, did you not read the scientific study that Pro referenced in his 2nd premise?
No votes have been placed for this debate.