The Instigator
Crazyguy760
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
stubs
Pro (for)
Winning
13 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 4 votes the winner is...
stubs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 930 times Debate No: 25374
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Crazyguy760

Con

Is there a God? I believe, personally, that God is a myth. If unicorns are not real, how does one know? No one has ever touched or seen one right? Then shouldn't it be the same with God? For rules, cite sources. Opinions are okay as long as it is a reasonable one. Thank you for taking the time, and good luck to my opponent. This is also my first debate, therefore I am learning the ropes.
stubs

Pro

First I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as well as thank my opponent for starting this debate. My opponent did not specify if first round was for acceptance or not so I will go ahead and make my argument first. In this debate I will bring up three main contentions.

My first argument is the basic kalam cosmological argument:
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

We notice that the two premises are not religious at all. The fact that the universe began to exist can be found in any astrophysics and cosmology text book. This premises can be shown true for a few reasons.

First: If the universe is infinite, then an infinite number of past events had to occur. This is obviously false because infinity is not an actual thing but rather just an idea. David Hilbert possibly the greatest mathematician of the 20th century said, "the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. it neither exist in nature nor provides a legitement basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." For example, what is infinity minus 10? Infinity plus 2? Mathematically you get self contradictory answers. Also Stephen Hawking (physicist) said, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." [1]

Since everything that begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist, we must look to see what the cause has to be. The cause would have to be an abstract object such as numbers or a personal mind. The personal mind would have to outside of space and time, immaterial, personal and powerful. It cannot be an abstract object because they cannot cause anything. The personal mind would have to be outside space and time and be immaterial in order to be logically coherent.

Anthony Kenny (agnostic philosopher): "A proponent of the big bang) theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that matter came from nothing and by nothing." [2]

We know this cannot be true because out of nothing, nothing comes.

My next argument is dealing with the fine tuning of the universe. I will give a few examples.

Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeros.

Davies also said that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100 life could never have developed. For comparison there is only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe.

Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winner, biologist): "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which had to have been satisfied to get it going." [3]

The ontological argument:

1: It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2: If it is possible that God exists, he exists in some possible world.
3: If God exists in some possible world, He exists in every possible world.
4: If God exists in every possible world, He exists in the actual world.
5: Therefore, God exists in the actual world
6: Therefore, God exists
7: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

When philosophers talk of possible worlds, they just mean the way the world might have been. A possible world is not a planet or universe. It is just a world description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world is to say that no matter which description is true, the entity will be included in that description. We can use unicorns as an example. Unicorns do not in fact exists, but there is some possible world in which unicorns exists. There are many mathematicians that think numbers exists in every possible world. That is to say they exists necessarily. God is the greatest conceivable being. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. What would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and he would exists in every logically possible world. Let's look at the implications of this. If Gods existence is even possible, then if follows that God must exist. If a maximally great being exists in any possible world, it exists in all of them. That's part of what it means to be maximally great. So if Gods existence is even possible, he exists in every possible world, including the actual world.

The atheist has to maintain that it is actually impossible for God to exist. The atheist has to say that the concept of God is not even possible in any possible world. Take for example a married bachelor. There is no possible world in which a married bachelor exists. My opponent would have to show that God is something like a married bachelor, not existing in any possible world. The problem is that God does not seem to be incoherent in that way. The idea that a being is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and exists in every possible world is coherent.

Please note that when I say, "the atheists has to maintain that it is actually impossible for God to exist" I am not changing the burden of proof. However, if Gods existence is even possible, it logically follows that God necessarily exists in the actual world.

Through these three arguments I have shown that it is highly probable that God exists. I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments.

[1] Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), 20.
[2] Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways (New York: Schocken, 1969), 66.
[3] Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Nature and Origin (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), 88.
Debate Round No. 1
Crazyguy760

Con

That didn't answer the question, the question was is there a God, not is there a cause for the universe. I, am not atheist my dear sir, I am simply curious. How could He exist? A supernatural being in the sky, that answers wants and needs asked by followers. Does that not sound illogical if not impossible? I believe my dear sir, science has the answer. Why not? Earth began 4.6 billion years ago, afterwards bacteria formed, binary fission, adaptation, evolution. Oxygen formed and simple organisms followed. Why would a supernatural being, apparently floating in space, have a reason for a planet.
stubs

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

"That didn't answer the question, the question was is there a God, not is there a cause for the universe."

I gave reasons for thinking this first cause had to be a personal mind out side of space and time, immaterial, and powerful. Sounds a lot like God to me and you did not challenge this argument I brought up.

"How could He exist? A supernatural being in the sky, that answers wants and needs asked by followers."

There is no logical contradiction in this.

"I believe my dear sir, science has the answer. Why not? Earth began 4.6 billion years ago, afterwards bacteria formed, binary fission, adaptation, evolution. Oxygen formed and simple organisms followed."

I believe science has a lot of great answers too. And actually the best scientific evidence we have shows the earth is probably about 13.7 billion years old. I have no problem accepting that and the fact evolution occurred.

In conclusion my opponent has not addressed a single one of my three arguments.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Crazyguy760

Con

Crazyguy760 forfeited this round.
stubs

Pro

I first would like to apologize for my glaring mistake of saying the earth is 13.7 billion years old. I meant to say the universe.

That being said I would like to extend all my arguments.

Thanks for taking the time to read and vote if you choose to do so.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
I feel like an idiot haha
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
Sorry for when I said the earth was 13.7 billion years old. I meant the universe haha. Totally my bad haha
Posted by Crazyguy760 4 years ago
Crazyguy760
The religion is Christianity. Deity is God.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
Which deity are we talking about here?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Crazyguy760stubsTied
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: Even if crazyguy continued with the debate, I think it was quite obvious who was going to win after the statement "you didn't answer the question".
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
Crazyguy760stubsTied
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: FF and arguments from the PRO side were much stronger and left conceded at the end.
Vote Placed by KuriouserNKuriouser 4 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
Crazyguy760stubsTied
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 said he was a Noob. It would have been courteous of Con to advise him on the structure of rounds and simply give acceptance in R1 instead of taking advantage of this and beginning with his own arguments. Nonetheless, it was within the rules. Pro gave reasonable arguments unaddressed by Con. Plus Con's forfeit.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Crazyguy760stubsTied
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: FF