The Instigator
Ariesx
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Pro (for)
Winning
12 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 3 votes the winner is...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 89236
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Ariesx

Con

Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2-Cases, Round 3-Rebuttals, Round 4-Defense
There are 10,000 characters, and there are 72 hours in this debate.
ssadi

Pro

I accept.


I, as Pro, will be arguing that God exists and Con will be arguing that God doesn't exist.



INTRODUCTION



Since Con as instigator didn’t provide any definition or didn’t set the rules etc., I will do instead.




Definitions



God:
(As we agreed under comments) the creator and the ruler of the universe.


Universe:
the totality of known (or supposed) objects and phenomena throughout space (i.e., space-time).[1]

Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.[2]


Logical Fallacy:
false reasoning; a reasoning that doesn’t logically prove a claimed conclusion.




Burden of Proof (BOP)



BOP is shared (as we agreed under comments).

"A fundamental principle of logic is that when one makes an assertion (whether it is a negative or a positive assertion) it is their sole responsibility to prove that the assertion is true." (An addition is made under parantheses which is compatible with the context of the source.)[3]


The resolution is a question: "Does God Exist?".

Con claims that "No, God doesn’t exist".

Pro claims that "Yes, God exists".

Since both "No, God doesn’t exist" and "Yes, God exists" are two different assertions,
then both Con and Pro have full BOPs to prove their claims. In other words, BOP is equally shared.


Therefore;


1.
Points for arguments will go to debater who provides more convincing arguments to prove their claim than the other debater.


2.
In case none provides sufficiently convincing arguments to prove their claim, then the one who provides more convincing rebuttals to other debater’s arguments wins the points for arguments.


3.
The arguments are tied otherwise.




Rules and Conditions



1. IMPORTANT!!
Follow the definitions.


2. IMPORTANT!!
Voters MUST vote for arguments according to BOP conditions as explained above.


3.
Use logically consistent arguments. Logically fallacious arguments are unacceptable.


4.
The following link will be considered as a reliable source for logical fallacies: http://www.toolkitforthinking.com....




I will look forward to Con’s arguments in round 2 and wish them best of luck.

Debate Round No. 1
Ariesx

Con

1. Burden of proof- Let's start with the obvious argument my opponent will have to address. Where is God? Why can't we see God? Why does he not reveal himself in the age of cameras? What does the Christian God have against gays? Alright, now I know what my opponent might say to counter these assertions, but I will leave my counter argument hear. If my opponent tries to claim that there is intelligent design, and the universe originated from a designer; who created the designer. Who created God? My opponent can say that God had no creator, but this would be false, because there is already a logic here that one must follow. The logic is that everything created must have a designer. Than the designer must have been created? The logic would have to stay consistent.

2. Representation- For an intelligent designer, he is quite pathetic at getting the message across that he himself is the all powerful God.
Clockwise from the North Pole, they are: Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Wicca and some other Neopagan religions, Zoroastrianism, and Druidism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org......
Christianity- 2 billion people
Islam- 1.2 billion people
Hinduism- 900 million people
Buddhism- 350 million people
Sikhism- 25 million people
Juche- 24 million people
Judaism- 14.6 million people
Baha'ism-7 million people
Jainism - 5 million people
Shintoism-4 million people
http://www.osmeb.com......
My opponent could say that this links to an intelligent designer. It doesn't. Many of these religions listed are polytheistic.
ssadi

Pro

I thank Con for posting their arguments in R2.


I. GOD EXISTS



1)
KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (KCA)



P1:
Everything that begins to exist necessarily has a cause.


P2:
The universe began to exist.


C:
The universe necessarily has a cause.



P1:


Nothing comes into existence from nothing without a cause. It is completely unreasonable & nonsense to claim otherwise.



P2:


1.
It is well-known that the Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe has a beginning.


2.
The laws of thermodynamics suggest that the universe has a beginning.


According to laws of thermodynamics, heat always transfers from hotter regions towards cooler regions until all regions have the same temperature. Since there are regions that are cooler than other regions, like stars & galaxies, then the universe didn’t exist for sufficient time for all regions to have the same temperature. Therefore, the universe has a beginning.[1]



C:


Since P1 & P2 are true, then it necessary follows that the universe has a cause.




2)
FINE TUNING & DESIGN ARGUMENT



P1:
Precise compatibilities between two things imply a common design.


P2:
A design requires a common intelligent designer.


P3:
Millions of things/events in the universe are precisely compatible with each other (directly or indirectly).


C:
There necessarily exists a common intelligent designer (follows from 1, 2, & 3).



P1:


E.g., precise compatibilities of each part of a mechanical watch imply that they are designed as such. It is impossible that those parts were arbitrarily & coincidentally made due to insignificant probability of such an event. Even if each part was DESIGNED by a different individual that was unaware of what others were doing, it would still be impossible that those parts were compatible with each other to make a working watch. Therefore, precise compatibilities of different things with each other imply a common design.



P2:


Nothing
designed, e.g., parts of a mechanical watch, can be without a common intelligent designer. By causality principle nothing can be without a cause. & nothing that has precise compatibilities with some other things (i.e., designed) can be the result of blind coincidences, chances or chaos. Is it at all possible that tens, hundreds, or even millions of precise compatibilities were the result of blind coincidences, chances or chaos? How?



P3:


Everything in the universe, including the laws & constants, esp. cosmological constant, are finely tuned & are very compatible with each other to make the current universe & life possible to exist. If they were slightly different, then it wouldn’t be possible for the current universe & life to exist. Everything being so compatible with each other from among billions of other possibilities each with comparable probabilities imply that they are not the result of coincidences or chances.


For example, imagine only some events after sun’s formation:


-formation of Earth,


-Earth having a particular magnetic field,


-Earth’s distance from the sun,


-its mass & orbit & orbital speed,


-Earth’s rotational speed & inclination of its rotational axis,


-formation of the moon,


-formation of atmosphere,


-etc.


All of these could be completely differently. But if ANY of them was slightly different, then there wouldn’t be these many life-forms on Earth.


Even the living things are precisely compatible & dependent on each other (directly or indirectly). For example, the existence of almost all living things has precise dependencies on atmospheric properties. The current atmospheric properties have precise dependencies on phytoplanktons’ characteristics, abundance etc.[2][3] So, almost all living things’ existence indirectly depends on phytoplanktons…


Is it possible that all of these precise compatibilities of these events & beings were the results of blind coincidences, chances & chaos? One has to “turn-off” his/her mind & logic to be able to accept such a claim.


Billions of such things/events are already examined & precise compatibilities are observed such as those mentioned above.



C:


Since P1, P2 & P3 are shown to be true then, by deduction, it follows that there necessarily exists a common intelligent designer. We call this common intelligent designer as God.




II.
GOD (from DESIGN & KCA above) IS;



1)
UNCAUSED



Think about beginning (to exist) of the universe. There necessarily exists a cause (C1) for its beginning. There necessarily exists another cause (C2) for C1. … There necessarily exists another cause (Ci) for C(i-1). There are only two options (it is either finite (a) or infinite (b)) for this chain of causes:


a) This chain stops in Ci if and only if (iff) Ci doesn’t need another cause to exist, i.e., iff Ci is uncaused.


b) Otherwise this chain goes to (actual) infinity.


If we show that option b is impossible, then option a is necessarily true.

Let's assume that option b is the case. This means that there is a chain of total of infinite causes (Inf.(T)) before our universe begins, i.e., it goes "back" forever & never reaches a beginning point.

Since infinity = infinity/2 + infinity/2 & infinity/2 = infinity, then imagine a point that separates the chain of causes of our universe into two parts where there are infinite number of causes between this point & our universe (Inf. (1)) & the rest of infinite number of causes before this point (Inf.(2)). So, we have

Inf. (T) = Inf. (1) + Inf. (2).


There are still infinitely many causes prior to this point & infinitely many causes after this point until the beginning of our universe.

Since such an imaginary point exists on the chain of infinitely many causes of our universe, then our universe waited for infinitely many causes to happen before it began to exist.

What does "waiting for infinitely many causes to happen" mean?

It literally means
"waiting forever" which literally means "not stopping waiting forever" which literally means "NEVER stopping waiting".. This literally implies that in such a case "our universe waited forever before beginning to exist" which implies "our universe NEVER stopped waiting before it began to exist" which literally means "our universe is still waiting before beginning to exist" which literally means "our universe has not began to exist yet" which literally means "our universe doesn’t exist yet".

This (i.e., option b above) is a clear contradiction to reality...
since our universe DOES exist.


Therefore, option b is not the case!!!


=> Since option b is impossible, then option a must be true.


Since option a is true, then there necessarily exists a cause Ci which has no beginning / is uncaused.


1.
Since the universe has a beginning, then it necessarily has a cause.

2.
If the cause of our universe began to exist, then it necessarily has another cause. Similarly, that cause has another cause etc..

3.
Since the chain of causes in (2) cannot go to infinity as shown above, then there is necessarily a beginning of those causes, i.e., there necessarily exists an initial cause (Ci) which hasn't began to exist, i.e., doesn't have a beginning, i.e., always existed, i.e., is eternal, i.e., is uncaused (i.e., Ci in option a).


We call/name/define this uncaused initial cause as God. If one asks what caused God to exist, then the answer is that He is necessarily UCAUSED, as demonstrated above.



Further clarification



Imagine a moving train with 80 wagons.


- Since 80th wagon is moving, then what is pulling it (pulling is the type of cause in this case)?


- 79th wagon!


- What about 79th wagon?


- 78th wagon!



- What about 1st wagon?


- Locomotive!


- What is pulling the locomotive?


- What?! The locomotive doesn’t need to be pulled by something else in order to move. It is able to move without being pulled (unlike other wagons it has an engine).


If there are moving wagons (i.e., a train), then there necessarily exists something that, unlike other wagons, doesn’t need ANYTHING ELSE to pull it & it has the ability to move itself & all other wagons, i.e., locomotive. It is so, because infinite number of moving wagons, each of which requires something else to pull it, is physically impossible & logically absurd.


Similarly, for an existing universe (including all causes until the initial cause), where everything in it has a beginning, there necessarily exists an uncaused initial cause that has the ability to create something from nothing. We call this uncaused initial cause as the Creator of the universe or the God.




2)
SUPERNATURAL, INVISIBLE, & THE SUPREME BEING


i)
Since He "existed before” & is above space-time universe (i.e., nature), then He is supernatural.


ii)
We humans can only see matter & energy (i.e., light). Since God is the creator of matter & energy, then it is nonsensical to think that He is also made up of matter & energy. Since He is not made up of matter & energy, then He is invisible to us.


iii)
Since God is the Creator & the Ruler of the universe (i.e., everything known), then by definition He is the Supreme Being.[4]



Note

1) & 2) above are added due to Con putting “obvious” words in my mouth in R2.




3)
THE CREATOR



Since He is the cause of the universe’s coming into existence, then He is the Creator of the universe, by definition.[5]




4)
THE RULER



There are laws in the universe (laws of nature/physics) that everything obeys them, i.e., they are ruling the universe. These laws are created within the universe & are a part of it. Since they are a part of the universe, then they must be created by the same cause we deduced from Design & KCA. Then, we conclude that this cause is constantly ruling the universe through these laws of the universe.


Therefore, consequently, God is the Ruler of the universe.




CONCLUSION


Rebuttals to Con’s cases in R2 will be provided in R3, as per conditions set.


I look forward to Con’s rebuttals (only) & wish them best of luck!

Debate Round No. 2
Ariesx

Con

Ariesx forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

I was hoping that Con will provide some good rebuttals making this debate more interesting.. but unfortunately I was disappointed by their forfeiture.. I hope they will come back in last round to defend their arguments.




INTRODUCTION



The resolution was a question and BoP was equally shared, which means that Con had to prove that God doesn’t exist and the only round they had to provide evidence to meet their BoP was R2.. They provided two arguments, namely “1. Burden of proof” and “2. Representation”. When you read them you realize that none of them can show in any way that there is no God.. Let’s start now with Con’s first argument.




REBUTTALS




1. Burden of proof



Con starts as follows:


“Let's start with the obvious argument my opponent will have to address.[1] Where is God?[2] Why can't we see God?[3] Why does he not reveal himself in the age of cameras?[4] What does the Christian God have against gays?[5] Alright, now I know what my opponent might say to counter these assertions, but I will leave my counter argument hear.[6]



First of all, none of these show that God doesn’t exist. Let’s now go a little into details.. And please keep in mind that the resolution is about God defined as being the creator and the ruler of the universe and then think about Con’s arguments to see if they are related to this definition of God..



[1]:
And what is it?


I think they mean that no matter what argument I provide I will have to answer the questions they presented.. Let them correct me if I am wrong..


[2]:
I demonstrated that God is the creator of space-time universe. That means that it is nonsensical to ask “where” God is when He is the creator of space since there is no reason to think that God is bound to space He himself has created.. Since God is not bound to space, then the question of “where” is nonsensical.


[3]:
Maybe because we are not able to see Him.. OR maybe He doesn’t yet want us to see Him.. By the way, is there a rule that anything that exists needs to be seen by humans? What about 95% of the universe (dark matter + dark energy)?


[4]:
He doesn’t have to.. as many other things haven’t yet revealed themselves in the age of cameras and continue to exist (e.g., dark matter and dark energy).


[5]:
It would be better if Con asked a Christian.. And it is still unclear to me what this have to do with existence/non-existence of God as defined..


[6]:
So it was a counter argument? But we were not supposed to provide counter arguments in round 2, according to structure Con provided in round 1..



Con continues as follows:


If my opponent tries to claim that there is intelligent design, and the universe originated from a designer; who created the designer. Who created God?[1] My opponent can say that God had no creator, but this would be false, because there is already a logic here that one must follow.[2] The logic is that everything created must have a designer.[3] Than the designer must have been created?[4] The logic would have to stay consistent.[5]



[1]:
He is uncreated, as I demonstrated in round 2 under II.1: Uncaused.


[2]:
The logic I followed was deduction and a deductive answer is true as far as the premises are true and the rules are clearly followed.. no matter how strange it seems..


[3]:
The logic is that everything created (i.e., began to exist) must have a creator, not necessarily a designer. However, as I demonstrated in previous round, God is uncreated creator. If the thing that is created is designed, then it must have a designer.


[4]:
I think Con is a little confused here (refer to number 3 above)..


[5]:
I agree.


Here Con’s first so-called argument ends. Let’s now analyze their second argument.




2. Representation



We agreed under comments that for the sake of discussion we will only argue for/against God who is the creator and the ruler of the universe.. nothing else.. But anyways..


Con wrote:


“For an intelligent designer, he is quite pathetic at getting the message across that he himself is the all powerful God.”


Considering the definition provided, the God that we are discussing can be either a theistic God or a deistic God, but (as we agreed under comments) whether He is a theistic or a deistic God is out of our discussion.. Therefore, if this God was a deistic God, then Con’s second argument is completely pointless. In order to be able to discuss Con’s argument we have first to discuss if this God is a theistic God or a deistic God.. I didn’t make any claim about either case (as we agreed under comments that we won’t)..


After listing some religions and how many people affiliates to each of them, Con wrote:


“My opponent could say that this links to an intelligent designer. It doesn't. Many of these religions listed are polytheistic.”


But I won’t say that, instead I will say that this topic links to something out of the scope of our discussion.




CONCLUSION



As you can see, none of Con’s arguments can show that God, defined as the creator and the ruler of the universe, doesn’t exist, hence none of Con’s arguments meets their BoP. They look more like counter arguments to some other arguments which were not yet provided.


I would like to remind them that they can only defend their arguments they provided in round 2.. no new arguments or rebuttals are allowed.


I wish Con best of luck in round 4.

Debate Round No. 3
Ariesx

Con

Ariesx forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

I really wanted to thank my opponent for a very good debate, but unfortunately the only person was myself in this debate.. But anyways, at least they posted their cases...


This round is for defense and since my opponent didn't provide any rebuttal I EXTEND everything I provided..


I would like to thank voters for taking their precious times and putting a vote in advance.



VOTE PRO!
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ssadi 7 months ago
ssadi
@Burls

Now you can if you wish.. :)
It wouldn't be ethical if you did before I posted my rebuttals..

Sincerely
Posted by Burls 7 months ago
Burls
If I may I shall formulate a rebuttal here, just for kicks.
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
ssadi
In other words, my position is only that "God, the creator and the ruler of the universe, exists."
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
ssadi
Yes, my position is solely that "God exists", who is "the creator and the ruler of the universe"..
Posted by Ariesx 8 months ago
Ariesx
This will be the last comment just to make sure I know what you are talking about. You are just defending this definition: God is the creator and ruler of the universe.
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
ssadi
To be clear, no I am not SPECIFICALLY taking the deist position. Let me explain..

According to deistic point of view religion is not from God, there is no heaven or hell etc. contrary to theistic point of view.

We will discuss whether our universe has a creator and ruler or not. Whether this creator and ruler is a deistic God or a theistic God is not included..

To make a mathematical analogy..., if we were discussing whether 10 was greater than 1 or not, deist would say that yes it is greater than 1, but not than 2, 3,.. or 9. Theist also would say yes it is greater than 1, but is also greater than 2, 3,... and 9. According to this example, our discussion will not include whether 10 is greater than 2, 3,... or 9 (neither deistic nor theistic), but only 1..

This point is important, because, for example, a deist would say religion is false etc. to which I disagree. A theist would say otherwise to which deists would disagree. We will just exclude that discussion..

I hope I made my point clear.. :)
Posted by Ariesx 8 months ago
Ariesx
In other words, you are specifically taking the deist(belief in an intelligent designer). Your definition of God is The creator and ruler of the universe. Yes, I accept those terms.
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
ssadi
And since the resolution is a question, "Does God Exist?", whose answer is wither yes or no.. So, we expect the BOP (burden of proof) to be shared..

Pro: Argues that God exists!
Con: Argues that God doesn't exist!

God: The Creator and The Ruler of the universe!
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
ssadi
This is not a debate on religion and religious subjects.. Discussion of religion and religious issues/subjects requires true understanding of God etc. etc.. This debate is solely on whether God, as defined below, exists or not..

God: The Creator and The Ruler of the universe!
Posted by Ariesx 8 months ago
Ariesx
What do you mean by BOP. Also, are you arguing from the perspective of a Muslim? Will you include Islamic evidence to support the existence of God.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by CAHAL101 7 months ago
CAHAL101
AriesxssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: con did put some effort into making it a debate but my votes go to pro because he gave really good arguments and gave examples why. My votes go to PRO!!!
Vote Placed by johnlubba 7 months ago
johnlubba
AriesxssadiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not rebuttal Pro.s arguments concerning the fine tuning or the KCA, Etc Etc and Forfeited his last two ROUNDS, Pro wins arguments and conduct.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
AriesxssadiTied
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: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.