The Instigator
A-ThiestSocialist
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
31 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,867 times Debate No: 4988
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (12)

 

A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

I would first like to clarify exactly what my standard for this debate is, and provide some background for this discussion.

1st Observation: I am arguing for theism, that is to say a rational God does exist. But further I can and will only argue for the Christian God, as I am familiar with such, and will not defend other forms of religion.

2nd Observation: The affirmative does not necessarily have the burden of proof, since a negative absolute is able to be proven in this debate by an analysis of the arguments current and prior.

3rd Observation: Presuppositions must be taken into account when weighing this round, that is to say someone who is a prior atheist will not be as easily persuaded as a Christian. Also, we have to take into account what each respective world view allows, and which each one can allow for.

4th Observation: All arguments must have a philosophical or empirical nature for this debate. We are arguing the ideas themselves, not just our beliefs, or who believes them.

Next I'd like to get to my 3 arguments for the existence of God:
1. The argument from abstract absolutes
2. The transcendental argument for the existence of God
3. The argument from moral foundation

I. The argument from abstract absolutes.
The existence of abstract absolutes proves God's existence. An abstract absolute is a concept that is not absolutely seen, but exists and is accepted. An example of this would be newton's laws of physics, or the law of non contradiction. (A statement cannot be true and false simultaneously) They are not dependent upon man, and man did not create them, man simply discovered them. The following proof explains:

1. Abstract absolutes exist.
2. Abstract absolutes would still exist if man kind were to disappear.
3. Abstract absolutes existed before man.
4. Abstract absolutes can not have been created by man.
5. Something besides man must have created abstract absolutes.
6. The atheist world view of matter in motion cannot account for these absolutes.
7. The only tangible cause of this is God.

Therefore, God exists.

II. The transcendental argument for the existence of God.
Although these two arguments are similar, they are not exactly the same.
The general premise of us even having this discussion, presupposes God's existence. By even arguing this, one is engaging in the laws of logic and argumentation, and the only world view that can account for this is the Christian one. Furthermore, this is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Without God, it is impossible to prove anything at all whatsoever.

1. To prove or disprove God's existence requires logic.
2. Logic is perfect and absolute.
3. Logic is not conventional.
4. Logic presupposes God.
5. Arguing God's existence proves God's existence.

Therefore, God exists.

III. The argument from moral foundation.
An atheist has no moral backing to prove something is right or wrong. In a world that is matter in motion, a high five is as wrong as theft. The world view of atheism can not account for a differential between right and wrong. The only plausible explanation of something right or perfect would be God, since what is right is a reflection of God's character. The existence of these morals and absolute morals thus further reflect this.

1. Morals exist.
2. Morals are not conventional.
3. Absolute morals exist.
4. The existence of absolute morals does not comply with the atheist world view of matter in motion.
5. Only the theistic world view can account for absolute morals.

Therefore God exists.

Thus through these arguments the only logical conclusion is that God exists.

I reserve the right to add in additional and necessary arguments in round 2.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
2nd Observation: The affirmative does not necessarily have the burden of proof, since a negative absolute is able to be proven in this debate by an analysis of the arguments current and prior."

Just because I CAN prove a negative absolute does not mean I have the BURDEN to. I may do it anyway, but the burden of proof is always on the affirmative (For example, see another debate I am embroiled in on the same topic at this time, in which I am the affirmative (Not the same resolution mind, then I would be contradicting myself, just the same topic. :D)
"
1. Abstract absolutes exist.
2. Abstract absolutes would still exist if man kind were to disappear.
3. Abstract absolutes existed before man.
4. Abstract absolutes can not have been created by man.
5. Something besides man must have created abstract absolutes.
6. The atheist world view of matter in motion cannot account for these absolutes.
7. The only tangible cause of this is God."

A few problems with this. First one is 5. The existence of a thing does not presuppose something created it, it can easily have always existed. Second problem, 6. The atheist world view of "matter in motion" in fact sets up the only basis abstractions have. Abstractions only exist in terms of the concretes that comprise them. They have no existence independent" of this. Third problem, 7. It is not explained how God is a tangible cause of this, also, it is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance.

"
1. To prove or disprove God's existence requires logic.
2. Logic is perfect and absolute.
3. Logic is not conventional.
4. Logic presupposes God.
5. Arguing God's existence proves God's existence."

Problems: 3. It is not explained what "conventional" means. 4. No, it does not. Nothing about there being absolute rules about identity presupposes God, and it is not demonstrated how it does.

"
1. Morals exist.
2. Morals are not conventional.
3. Absolute morals exist.
4. The existence of absolute morals does not comply with the atheist world view of matter in motion.
5. Only the theistic world view can account for absolute morals."

False. In order to argue about morals, you have to understand morals. Morals are a code of how to go about living, determined by the nature of Man and the nature of the universe. They are absolute rules as they are rules that if broken will result in increased chance of death. Those not concerned with life need no rules, death is easy and occurs by default when no one does anything to continue their life. The atheist world view accounts fully for this, though I don't know why you keep talking about "Matter in motion," are you claiming that matter does NOT move under the theistic worldview? And again, "Conventional" is not defined.

"
I reserve the right to add in additional and necessary arguments in round 2."

I don't know how formal you think this is going to be, but as far as I'm concerned anyone can add any arguments they want at any time, including after the conclusion of all rounds.

You've already stated that the Christian God (the God of the Bible I presume that is) is what you are arguing for, so my evidence of his nonexistence is simple enough :

An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.

1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.)
3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
4. O (Assumption of the existence of God)
5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).
Debate Round No. 1
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

A-ThiestSocialist forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I'm afraid I haven't much to say. How unusual. Such is the power of the Almighty... The Almighty Forfeit God that is. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Debate Round No. 2
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

A-ThiestSocialist forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"Another Kentucky Fried Forfeit, eh?"

It would appear so...

Does the almighty eat chicken, or does he pay dues to PETA?
Debate Round No. 3
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

A-ThiestSocialist forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I've run out of cheesy forfeit jokes for the moment. Wah. Too many forfeits you know. Now what shall I do?
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
oops that was the second page of the acticle.

this is frist.
http://www.sciam.com...
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
how funny the latest issue of SciAm is on Free will

http://www.sciam.com...
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
i'm really itching too lol.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
oops above comment was hastily written, should read "Complete randomness results in much more people dying, acting randomly is no way to live.
"
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"What is left is complete randomness, chance."

complete randomness results in chance.

And I thought you didn't want to debate this?
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"1a. even if it wasnt u've still over looked a huge part of evolution; Memetics. Arguing is evolutionarily adaptive trait through memetics"

gasp.

STAND ALONE COMPLEXXXXXX
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
"environmental causes do not account for the widespread nature of argument. It's not been an adaptive trait for most of evolutionary history either, so genetics is out. Free will is what is left."

1. Arguing is, in fact, an evolutionarily genetic adaptive trait.

1a. even if it wasnt u've still over looked a huge part of evolution; Memetics. Arguing is evolutionarily adaptive trait through memetics

2. Environmental causes do account for the widespread nature of argument.

3. You've made a jump in logic by concluding that "freewill is what is left." Even if we assume that neither nature nor nurture can account for something freewill is NOT what is left. What is left is complete randomness, chance.

if something has no cause then it occurred by chance, not freewill
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
one can still say that "X should be" its just a rather irrelevent statement to make.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
why does every debate assume free will? i beg to differ. I'm well aware of the fact that i dont have free will and i am still deterministically bound to debate.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
By the way I think I already know your position Zerosmelt (at least in a binary sense), unless you lied in your profile :d
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
A-ThiestSocialistRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
A-ThiestSocialistRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by xeberus 8 years ago
xeberus
A-ThiestSocialistRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
A-ThiestSocialistRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
A-ThiestSocialistRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by grecherme 8 years ago
grecherme
A-ThiestSocialistRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by fesoj 8 years ago
fesoj
A-ThiestSocialistRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
A-ThiestSocialistRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Insanebunny 8 years ago
Insanebunny
A-ThiestSocialistRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
A-ThiestSocialistRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03