The Instigator
Jerry947
Pro (for)
The Contender
missbailey8
Con (against)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
missbailey8 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 342 times Debate No: 94151
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Jerry947

Pro

Thanks for agreeing to debate me! Lets get started.

Rules:

-Pro argues for God's existence using various arguments.

-Con argues that God does not exist. And yes, Con actually has to provide arguments of their own for the non-existence of God. For some reason people never understand this.

Rules...

Round 1:
-Pro gives definitions and sets up debate
-Con accepts the debate (acceptance only).

Round 2:
-Pro gives opening argument
-Con gives opening argument...no rebuttals.

Round 3:
-Pro responds to what Con argued
-Con responds to what Pro argued

Round 4:
-Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote.

Definitions:

God-the greatest conceivable being.

Exist-have objective reality or being.
missbailey8

Con

I accept this debate. Best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Jerry947

Pro

The Axiological Argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

Since this premise is generally not disputed, I will only give a quick defense of it. Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

a. Since we know what is absolutely wrong, there must be an absolute standard of rightness.

Murder is an action that all people (insane people are the exception) recognize as absolutely wrong. Taking the life of a human being unjustly is undeniably wrong and everybody knows it. That said, if we know what is wrong, we must have some idea of what is right. For example, if someone were to say that 2+2 were equal to five, we would know that they were wrong. But in order to know that, we would have to have some idea of what the right answer was.

b. If there wasn't a Moral Law, then we wouldn't make excuses for violating it.

We have all done something wrong at some point in our lives. It is interesting to note that we always try to make excuses for violating the moral law. But if there was no objective moral law, then we would not feel the need to apologize to people when we hurt them. For example, if I were to say some harsh words to a family member of mine, I might try to offer them excuses like "I was hungry."

However, if morality was subjective, and there was no right/wrong, we wouldn't feel the need to to say sorry whenever we did something "wrong". In fact, lets say that I owed a person money. I wouldn't have any moral reason to pay them back. The person I owed money to merely would have a different opinion of what morality was than me. And since there would be no objective moral standard, I would be perfectly justified in not paying him back.

But this is all ridiculous since we all are aware of the same objective moral law. And that is why we make excuses for violating it and that is the reason why we just know when someone wrongs us.

c. All people really do know that a standard of right/wrong exist.

Most people have an idea of what is right and wrong. Now some people might argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or a real right and wrong. But the people that argue this always go back on their claim a moment later (Lewis 6). The same people that say that morality is opinion based (or subjective) would still be irritated at people for treating them poorly. I can imagine that my opponent would be irritated if the voters gave me all the votes merely because they liked my username better than his. He would certainly feel wronged. But the thing is, if morality was subjective, no one should ever feel wronged. Why would someone feel wronged if morality was based on opinions?

Sometimes people try to argue that morality is created by societies. But we also understand that there are societies that have condoned evil practices when in fact people know that the society was wrong. For example, W. H. Auden, a famous 20th century poet, said that "there had to be a reason Hitler was utterly wrong." Auden said this famous quote after going to a theater that showed pictures of the Holocaust. These pictures sickened him and made him rethink his worldview. Before watching these pictures, Auden believed that it was up to the society to decide what was right and wrong. But during his time at the theater he realized that if societies decided what was right and wrong, and if morality is subjective, this would mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did. Well, at least according to that society. And who are we to tell them they are wrong if morality is purely subjective?

d. If there is no objective morality, there is no reason to be moral. If there was no objective standard of right/wrong, then all we would have is peoples opinions. Our opinion on morality would be like our opinion on what the best flavor of ice cream is. It just would not matter If we did something that people thought was wrong since there would be no objectively wrong things in the first place.

Some may argue that they are moral to benefit society. The problem with this response is that benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. The question "why be moral" and "Why benefit society" are almost the same question. Benefiting society is a moral thing to do...but we want to know why someone should be moral if there is no objective morality.

Another objection would be that morality is merely an instinct. The problem with this claim is that people have different instincts which would make morality subjective. And again, if morality is subjective, we could never tell people that they are doing something wrong. Another problem with this argument is that morality is usually that thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves.

3. Therefore, God exists.

The Ontological Argument:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

I am interested to see what premises my opponent attacks.

The Teleological Argument:

1. The universe is fine-tuned for life.

The world is so complex that there must be a creator. According to Roger Penrose of Oxford University, he has calculated that the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123). That number is inconceivable. The odds are so against a life permitting universe that it is like a criminal (representing the universe) is about to be executed by a firing squad (representing odds against life permitting universe) and then the members of the firing squad all miss. People claim that it happened by chance. Christians say that it is ludicrous to think it happened by chance. Why? Because something feels rigged. It is completely logical to believe that there is an intelligent designer especially since everything is so complex. On the other hand, it is crazy to call all of this simple chance.

See Links:
http://www.godandscience.org...
http://www.reasons.org...

2. Fine-tuning can potentially be explained by chance, necessity or design.

3. Not by chance or necessity.

First of all, the odds are so against a life permitting universe that no one can even argue for necessity. As for chance, the chances of our universe existing are so great that they outnumber the number of individual atoms that currently exist. But not only that, chance is not even an explanation. If a coin is tossed, it may have a 50% chance of showing heads but the cause of that happening is that a human flipped the coin. So the question is, what caused the universe to exist? I want to know why the odds were beat. Since chance and necessity are not good explanations...

4. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of design.

The Cosmological Argument:

a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

Pretty self-explanatory...

b. The universe began to exist.

Modern science supports that the universe had a beginning. For example, the second law of thermodynamics helps us figure out that the universe is running out of energy (hence heading towards a heat death). In an eternal universe, it would have run out of energy by now. So since this hasn't happened, we know that the Universe had a beginning. Also, there is the discovery of red-shift in 1929. Basically, this discovery showed us that the universe is expanding which means if you were to go back in time, the universe would shrink and shrink until you got no universe. William Lane Craig says it better, he states that "as one traces the expansion back in time, the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches a point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand."

c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

A Math Argument for God (by William Lane Craig):

1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.

The complexity of the mathematical structure of the physical world is something that doesn't have to exist.

2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.

Calling it a coincidence is not scientific.

3. Therefore, God exists.

I have just provided five arguments for the existence of God. I now await for my opponent to write up their post.
missbailey8

Con

For this debate, I’ll be using philosophical and scientific evidence that God isn’t real.

I. Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence
A. The Problem of Evil
II. Evolution vs. Creationism
A. Evolution in Animals

B. Evolution in Humans


Let’s get started!

***

I. Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence

Before I begin with this main argument on omnipotence and omnibenevolence, we must conclude whether or not the Christian God is either one. To answer this, we must get a definition for both.

Omnipotence - the quality of having unlimited or very great power. [1]

This one is quite simple to answer. As shown by several Bible passages, the Christian God is omnipotent. I’ll provide three examples to prove my point.

Job 11:7-11 – “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens above—what can you do? They are deeper than the depths below—what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. If he comes along and confines you in prison and convenes a court, who can oppose him? Surely he recognizes deceivers; and when he sees evil, does he not take note?”

Job 37:23 – “The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power; in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.”

Jeremiah 32:17 – “Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.”

In all three of these passages, the Christian God is shown with unlimited power, which fits the exact definition of omnipotence. Now let's look at omnibenevolence.

Omnibenevolence - All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'. [2]

This one is also quite easy to prove. We'll look at anither three Bible passages.

Psalm 145:17 - "The Lord is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works."

Romans 2:4 - "Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?"


Psalm 145:9 - "The LORD is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works."

So again, we can conclude that God is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent because of the previous Bible passages. Now we can proceed with the following points.


A. The Problem of Evil

Exactly what is the problem of evil, and how does it relate to this idea of omnipotence and omnibenevolence? The problem of evil states that, because God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, evil shouldn't logically exist.


"If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it. And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering. These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist claim that there exists a perfectly good God." [3]

To conclude:

P1: God is omnibenevolent, meaning that He's all good and loving.
P2: God is omnipotent, meaning He has unlimited power.
P3: The world we live in has evil in it.
C1: Therefore, God can do something about such evil, as He's all good and has unlimited power, assuming he exists. However, he doesn't.
C2: Therefore, God can't logically exist, as He doesn't do anything to combat all the evil in the world.

II. Evolution vs. Creationism

First, we must draw the line between these two rivaling concepts before I go into them: evolution and creationism. Here are the definitions of both.

Evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. [4]

Creationism - the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. [5]

In essence, these concepts obviously contradict each other. If we can prove that evolution exists, then we can automatically disprove creationism and the existence of God. So let's get started!

There's little surprise that evolution (also known as Darwinism or natural selection) is the most scientifically proven theory out of these two. In fact, we have evidence of evolution in not only animals, but also humans.

A. Evolution in Animals

Evolution in animals can mostly be seen in the process of natural selection, also known as "survival of the fittest". This is where the smartest, strongest, and overall best members of a certain species survive so that they can procreate. This makes for even stronger offspring in the future, which leads to the growth and survival of the species. [6] I'll use two famous examples of evolution in animals to prove my point further.

Darwin's Finches

This is perhaps the most well known case of evolution in animals, but I'll go into detail on this in order to provide context.

While in the Galapagos Islands in the early 1830s, Charles Darwin gathered data on several species of birds. He killed these birds to bring back to England and study. This is what they found.

"It was back in Europe when he enlisted in the help of John Gould, a celebrated ornithologist in England. Gould was surprised to see the differences in the beaks of the birds and identified the 14 different specimens as actual different species - 12 of which were brand new species. He had not seen these species anywhere else before and concluded they were unique to the Galapagos Islands. The other, similar, birds Darwin had brought back from the South American mainland were much more common, but different than the new Galapagos species....

"These birds, although nearly identical in all other ways to mainland finches, had different beaks. Their beaks had adapted to the type of food they ate in order to fill different niches on the Galapagos Islands. Their isolation on the islands over long periods of time made them undergo speciation
." [7]

In other words, we can conclude that evolution resulted in the changes in these birds to have different beaks and head shapes.

Early Whales

Another instance of natural selection involves whales and their early ancestors.

"Even though scientists could predict what early whales should look like, they lacked the fossil evidence to back up their claim. Creationists took this absence as proof that evolution didn't occur. They mocked the idea that there could have ever been such a thing as a walking whale. But since the early 1990s, that's exactly what scientists have been finding.

"The critical piece of evidence came in 1994, when paleontologists found the fossilized remains of Ambulocetus natans, an animal whose name literally means 'swimming-walking whale.' Its forelimbs had fingers and small hooves but its hind feet were enormous given its size. It was clearly adapted for swimming, but it was also capable of moving clumsily on land, much like a seal." [8]

This proves that this isn't an isolated incident of just the birds of Galapagos. In fact, evolution has occurred in many major animal species, whether it be mammals, birds, etc. [9]

B. Evolution in Humans

Even if we completely disregard the evolution of animals, we can't deny the obvious changes down through by humans. In fact, humans have existed for approximately 200,000 years [10] and we've gone through dozens of minor and major changes in those couple hundred thousand years. In our time on earth, we've gained and lost the need for many body parts. [11]

"Evolution occurs when there is change in the genetic material -- the chemical molecule, DNA -- which is inherited from the parents, and especially in the proportions of different genes in a population. Genes represent the segments of DNA that provide the chemical code for producing proteins. Information contained in the DNA can change by a process known as mutation. The way particular genes are expressed – that is, how they influence the body or behavior of an organism -- can also change. Genes affect how the body and behavior of an organism develop during its life, and this is why genetically inherited characteristics can influence the likelihood of an organism’s survival and reproduction." [12]

This goes directly against the story of Adam and Eve, in which God created them as fully developed humans who existed on a world that's only 6,000 years old, according to the Bible.

To conclude:
P1: Evolution and creationism are two conflicting views. Both can't be true at the same time.
P2: Evolution shows that humans and animals have existed and developed much longer than the Bible claims.
P3: In turn, creationism is eliminated as an option for human existence.
C1: Therefore, God can't exist.

Conclusion

In this debate, I proved with philosophy and science that God can't exist. I wish I could go on even longer in a Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham style debate, but unfortunately, we only have a 10,000 character length. Thank you. So long and goodnight!

Citations
[1]https://www.google.com...
[2]http://www.yourdictionary.com...
[3]http://www.iep.utm.edu...

[4]http://tinyurl.com...
[5]http://tinyurl.com...
[6]http://evolution.about.com...
[7]http://evolution.about.com...
[8]http://www.livescience.com...
[9]http://www.wired.com...
[10]http://www.universetoday.com...
[11]http://listverse.com...
[12]http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Jerry947

Pro

Alright, this round is for me to address my opponent's arguments. My opponent (just for reminder) can only rebut my arguments for round three. They cannot defend what they argued this round.

1. Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence Argument

a. My opponent starts off his case by using the Bible to show that the Christian God is Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent. That is great and all but this debate is not specifically about the Christian God so I don't see how this is at all relevant to the debate.

2. The Problem of Evil Argument

a. My opponent states that since God is omnipotent and benevolent, evil shouldn't logically exist. However, what does my opponent exactly mean by evil? According to the online dictionary, evil is "profoundly immoral and malevolent" (https://www.google.com...). It has also defined as "the departure from the way things ought to be." But this is odd since if they affirm that there is a such thing as evil then they also have to say that there is a such thing as good. Why? Well, that is because in order to know that something is evil, you must also have some idea of what is right.

For example, if someone told you that 1+1 is 4 you would tell them that they were wrong. But in order to know that they were wrong you would have to have some idea of what the answer is. The reason I bring this up is because my opponent is actually affirming the second premise of my moral argument in round one.

If they claim that there is a real good and bad then they affirm that there is a such thing as objective morality which only helps me out. However, if my opponent decides to deny that there is a real good and evil, then their argument about the problem of evil disappears since what is evil would merely be a matter of opinion (meaning no actual problem of evil).

b. Here is their argument in full and my responses to each premise:

P1: God is omnibenevolent, meaning that He's all good and loving.

Sure, I am okay with this premise.

P2: God is omnipotent, meaning He has unlimited power.

Yes, this is basically correct.

P3: The world we live in has evil in it.

Yes, this is also true. But you also affirm the second premise of my moral argument by admitting this.

C1: Therefore, God can do something about such evil, as He's all good and has unlimited power, assuming he exists. However, he doesn't.

And here is where the argument falls apart. My opponent has does nothing to show that the existence of God is improbable based off of that fact that evil exists. My opponent has the burden of proof here to show that the statements "God exists" and "evil exists" are logically inconsistent. There is no explicit contradiction between the statements and my opponent needs to do a lot more here with their argument. However, there could be a multitude of reasons as to why evil exists. A world in which humans have free will cannot be perfectly good. You can't make someone freely be perfect. Perhaps the purpose of our life is not to live in some perfect world and be God's pets. Perhaps our purpose is to know God and to be able to freely make decisions (which means a world in which there is evil).

Another problem with this premise is that it assumes that God does nothing to combat evil. For the Bible actually shows a multiple of examples of God combating evil...And since my opponent is allowed to use the Bible as a source to show that God is all-powerful and etc... I am sure that they won't mind me using the Bible as well to show examples of God combating evil. In Genesis 6, God wipes out all the evil humans on the earth, in the gospels, he comes to earth to die for humans in order to give them salvation, and etc...

But let us not forget that this debate is not about the Christian God. It is about a God in general that exists.

C2: Therefore, God can't logically exist, as He doesn't do anything to combat all the evil in the world.

Again, this premise has a huge assumption. It is really just a bare assertion since my opponent has not proved that God and evil cannot coexist. Nor have they proved that God does nothing to combat evil.

3. Evolution vs. Creationism

a. Why on earth is my opponent talking about evolution? Proving that evolution is true would not magically cause the the debate about God to go away. There are many theistic evolutionists out there and I seriously doubt this argument is going to help my opponent's case at all.

b. My opponent brings up Darwin's Finches. He rightly notes that the birds beaks and their head changed in size. However, my opponent fails to explain how this relates to the existence of God. And by the way, the finch never transformed into another creature. The finches remained finches and this example doesn't even remotely affect Intelligent Design. But to me, this is off topic.

c. My opponent brings up whales. By the way, the source they supply doesn't work. That said, what happened is that scientists or people find these animals fragments. And due to their biased ways, they always assume they have found something that proves the evolutionary theory. But it is hard for me to address my opponents claims since their quotes do not lead to a working web page. However, I do know that G.A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, has doubted whether creatures like Ambulocetus are even related to whales.

I will admit that it is obvious the animal used to walk because it had four legs, like all other mammals, and even wide claws on its feet and hooves on its hind legs. That said, I see no evidence that the creature swam in water. I have also seen no evidence that these creature were related to whales. I know that the National Geographic had pictures of these creatures and they added webbing in the front feet of the creature. But these additions do not accurately represent the fossils.

My opponent is free to provide working links, but I still however fail to see how this at all relates to the topic. For sure God could have used evolution if he had wanted to.

d. My opponent then brings up evolution in humans. He explains that humans have changed a lot in the past 200,000 years. I don't actually have a problem with an old earth but I have never believed that humans have existed that long. If interested, I had a debate on that topic: http://www.debate.org...

My opponent doesn't really mention any specific changes that humans went through. My opponent also says that these unnamed changes "goes directly against the story of Adam and Eve, in which God created them as fully developed humans who existed on a world that's only 6,000 years old, according to the Bible."

I mean, this is just not explained at all. Why couldn't God have created fully formed humans with the ability to change over time (DNA changes included)? And the Bible doesn't say that the earth is 6,000 years old so my opponent is wrong about that as well. Some people try to add up time that elapsed since the days of creation yet this doesn't actually work since we know that several of the genealogies skip generations and we also know that there could be a long period of time before the first day of creation. Or there could have been long periods of time in between the days of creation.

Nevertheless, this is all off topic since none of this affects the existence of God.

e. Here is there full argument and my responses to each premise:

P1: Evolution and creationism are two conflicting views. Both can't be true at the same time.

It really depends on the type of evolution you are referring to. The evolution seen in Darwin's finches does not show animals turning into different kinds of animals. That example would not conflict with creationism. However, the whale evolution would conflict with creationism if it could be shown that real transition fossils of the whales have been discovered. But, I think it is obvious that this has not happened. The part about human evolution didn't make much sense. My opponent never showed any major differences in humans over time.

And again, this wouldn't matter since this topic has nothing to do with the existence of God. It might have to do with the Christian God but this debate is not about any specific God.

P2: Evolution shows that humans and animals have existed and developed much longer than the Bible claims.

The Bible doesn't claim anything about the age of the earth. I agree that it does disagree with aspects of the evolutionary theory. Yet, this debate isn't about the Bible or the evolutionary theory. It is solely about the existence of a God.

P3: In turn, creationism is eliminated as an option for human existence.

I don't think you have shown this at all...but it really doesn't matter due to it being off topic.

C1: Therefore, God can't exist.

Showing that creationism is false does not mean that God doesn't exist. This argument is very fallacious.

Conclusion:

I have so far given five arguments for the existence of God. My opponent has in return given the argument of evil which ironically affirms the second premise of my moral argument. Or if they are to deny the existence of evil later on they will cripple their own argument. Then they tried to prove that the evolutionary theory is superior to the creationist model. That is great and all but is off topic. I responded to it anyway for the sake of conversation but my opponent has given no reason to show that God couldn't have used the evolutionary process in order to create life.

I thank my opponent for a good round and I look forward to the next one.
missbailey8

Con

The Axiological Argument

P1: If God does not exist, objective values do not exist.

I do concede to this premise. However, I find faults in my opponent's next statement.

P2: Objective moral values do exist.

In this, my opponent gives the example of murder, saying that almost everyone believes that it is wrong, so it must be objectively immoral. However, just because most people believe that murder is wrong doesn't mean that it's wrong by default. For example, let's pretend that every single person on Earth believed that murder is morally right. Does that mean that it's objectively right? What about if everyone believed that God exists? A general popular consensus doesn't serve as proof.

My opponent then brings up the Moral Law and says that if morality was subjective, then no one would feel the need to say sorry if they did something wrong. In my opinion, this isn't a matter of Moral Law but rather what is and isn't socially acceptable. Most people feel guilty if they believe they did something wrong and will apologize. Here's an example my opponent uses:

"In fact, let's say that I owed a person money. I wouldn't have any moral reason to pay them back. The person I owed money to merely would have a different opinion of what morality was than me. And since there would be no objective moral standard, I would be perfectly justified in not paying him back."

This doesn't have to do with objective moral standards, but rather what is the polite thing to do. It's a social norm to believe that you must pay the person back, due to the fact that society has that general consensus. However, you don't have an obligation to pay the person back due to society. Even those who believe morality is subjective (like myself) will feel guilty if they break a social norm. Ergo, morality is subjective.

C1: Therefore, God exists.

With my rebuttal above, we can conclude that The Axiological Argument doesn't automatically prove the existence of God.

The Ontological Argument

In this argument, my opponent states that it's possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world, so God exists. However, why opponent never explains why it's possible, but I'll skip that for now. Let me provide my own example.

P1: It's possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
P2: If it is possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in some possible world.
P3: If the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in the actual world, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
C1: Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Anyway, just because something can exist doesn't mean it does exist, even if we look past my first question. Still, I'd like to ask my opponent why it's possible for God or in my case, the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist.

The Teleological Argument

In this argument, my opponent basically says that the world is too complex to not be designed by a creator, or in this case, God. However, there’s a fantastic rebuttal provided by Daniel Hume for this:

Hume postulates as to whether or not this universe is actually complex. We have got nothing to compare it to. In the past people thought slide rules were complex, today in comparison to a modern computer they are very simple.” [1]

If we had anything to compare our universe to, then would it still be seen as complex or simple? Well, the problem is that we don’t know of any comparison, so we can’t automatically assume that Earth (or in that matter, the universe) is really that intricate.

My opponent also argues that there’s very little chance that a life permitting universe can exist, so it has to be designed. However, even though there’s very little chance, it’s still by all means possible. Think about it this way: you have a deck of cards going from one to ten million. You shuffle that pack of cards and draw a twelve. While there may be a low 1/10,000,000 chance, it’s still possible.

Another question for my opponent: why does a God reduce the chances of a life permitting universe? I’m just curious.

The Cosmological Argument

In this argument, my opponent argues that the universe has a cause of existence. However, you can’t just jump to the conclusion that God created the universe just because the universe has a cause of existence. I’d like to use this comic as an analogy.



Joking aside, I’d like to share this paragraph, to sum up my thoughts.

The reality is, we do not know how the universe got here. Atheists are often accused of arguing that something came from nothing, but we have no reason to believe the universe came from anything else at all. Perhaps the universe doesn't truly have an 'origin'. It may be, per Hawking's No Boundary proposal, that the universe simply is. Per some ideas in string theory, it may cycle infinitely in expansion and contraction. But we just don't know yet, and there are still some very big hurdles in physics to overcome before we'll even have a chance at knowing.” [2]

Conclusion

With the refutation of those four arguments, we can now safely conclude that God can’t be proven true. Thank you. I await my opponent’s defense. So long and goodnight!

Citations
[1]http://www.scandalon.co.uk...
[2]http://www.theaunicornist.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Jerry947

Pro

Here is the defense of my arguments:

1. The Axiological Argument

a. My opponent asserts that "However, just because most people believe that murder is wrong doesn't mean that it's wrong by default. For example, let's pretend that every single person on Earth believed that murder is morally right. Does that mean that it's objectively right?"

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I was merely providing several pieces of evidences that point to the existence of objective morality. Here were my pieces of evidence...

-Since people know what is absolutely wrong, there must be an absolute standard of rightness.
-If there wasn't a Moral Law, then people wouldn't make excuses for violating it.
-All people really do know that a standard of right/wrong exist.
-If there is no objective morality, there is no reason to be moral.

All four of these things show that there is an objective moral law. I never once said that the fact that everyone agrees on basic moral principles is the reason why objective morals exist. I did however say that since people know what is right and wrong, this points to the fact that there is this objective moral law that is written on their hearts. The fact that nearly all people recognize murder as being immoral points to the fact that there is an objective moral law in which all humans have to follow. I was NOT saying that the moral law is objective due to the fact that all humans agree on some basic moral principles.

b. My opponent then states that the moral law has nothing to do with apologizing when we do something wrong. Instead they claim that "this isn't a matter of Moral Law but rather what is and isn't socially acceptable. Most people feel guilty if they believe they did something wrong and will apologize."

The problem here is that people would not feel guilty is there was no real right and wrong. I mean, why would anyone feel sorry for violating a moral law that doesn't exist? But the fact that people do feel sorry for certain actions points to the fact that there is a real right and wrong.

c. Earlier I said that "The person I owed money to merely would have a different opinion of what morality was than me. And since there would be no objective moral standard, I would be perfectly justified in not paying him back."

In response to my money scenario my opponent says that "It's a social norm to believe that you must pay the person back, due to the fact that society has that general consensus. However, you don't have an obligation to pay the person back due to society."

Notice how my opponent affirms what I said? I said that people would be justified in not paying the person back and my opponent affirms that we have no real obligation to pay them back. My opponent asserts that we would pay the person back because it is the polite thing to do...yet if there is no moral law, then there is no objective definition of what is the polite thing to do. No one in a society would expect people to pay them back or do anything objectively moral. But since we do have laws about stealing, and because people are expected to behave in a certain standard, this again points to the existence of a real right and wrong.

2. The Ontological Argument

a. My opponent tries to refute my argument by replacing my "Maximally great being" with the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". The fact that they do this and the fact that they think this refutes my arguments shows a gross misunderstanding of my argument. Here is what they argue...

"It's possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists."

I guess.

"If it is possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in some possible world."

Okay...

"If the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world."

Flying Spaghetti Monsters are not all-powerful nor are they omnipresent. Therefore they could not exist in every possible world. If my opponent were to say that they were these things, then they would be merely taking away the attributes that make a Flying Spaghetti Monster a Flying Spaghetti Monster and they would ironically just be referring to God.

"If the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world."

No, they could not exist in every possible world. They sure don't exist in the world we live in now...

"If the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in the actual world, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
C1: Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists."

The whole argument has already falling apart. My opponent tried to prove the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster yet their argument fails as I have shown. Only a maximally great being could exist in all possible words.

b. My opponent then says that "just because something can exist doesn't mean it does exist, even if we look past my first question. Still, I'd like to ask my opponent why it's possible for God or in my case, the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist."

If it is possible for a God to exist in some possible world, then due to the beings omnipresence, we can in fact conclude that he would exist in all worlds. As for why it is possible for God to exist, I gave other arguments in this debate that can support that notion. And besides, if you reject that it is possible for God to exist means that you think it is impossible for God to exist. And I seriously doubt that my opponent can show that it is impossible for God to exist.

3. The Teleological Argument

a. My opponent first rejects that the universe is complex since we have nothing to compare it to. Well, the word complex means to be "consisting of many different and connected parts" (https://www.google.com...). Or it could also mean "so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with."

As I have shown with previous arguments, the universe is complex using the common definition of the word. I am not sure why you must compare an object to another in order to know that it is complex. Maybe you need to do that in order to know which object is more complex then the other...but that is different topic.

b. My opponent then says that "even though there"s very little chance, it"s still by all means possible. Think about it this way: you have a deck of cards going from one to ten million. You shuffle that pack of cards and draw a twelve. While there may be a low 1/10,000,000 chance, it"s still possible."

Again, chance would not be an explanation for why any card was picked. For even though there was a chance of a card being picked...what was the cause of the card being picked? My explanation is design and since necessity and chance are not good explanations, I think theism is more probable.

4. The Cosmological Argument

a. My opponent states that "you can"t just jump to the conclusion that God created the universe just because the universe has a cause of existence."

I am not doing this. I think God is the cause since the cause has to exist outside of the universe. Therefore the cause has to be outside of time (eternal), space-less, extremely powerful, complex, and etc...God is the only cause that has all of those traits and therefore God is the best explanation for why the universe began to exist.

b. My opponent then leaves a quote about the no boundary proposal. Here are two links that talk about the issue: http://www.reasonablefaith.org... and https://www.google.com...

Since they did not bother to argue the point, I am not going to discuss it much.

5. Conclusion

I have refuted my opponent's arguments and have defended my own. I had fun with this debate and I will look forward to how things will turn out.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Murdoc 4 months ago
Murdoc
It's your profile photo I was objecting to... Con's is clever and iconic rather than... I'd just consider a rework.
Posted by Murdoc 4 months ago
Murdoc
Sure, wth hell Jerry. shoot me over your god debate challenge.
Posted by Jerry947 4 months ago
Jerry947
Does that mean you want to debate on God as well?
Posted by Murdoc 4 months ago
Murdoc
Jesus H Christ. Assuming you're gender queer and a flat middle on the Keynesian scale. I'm not here to judge so long as you'll let me off the hook too. It's not easy for me to say this. Just leave it alone for a while.
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
Looks like a good debate. I will be sure to vote on this when it is over. Best of luck to both debaters.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.