The Instigator
SarcasticMethod
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
UtherPenguin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Does God, as defined here, 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 1 vote the winner is...
SarcasticMethod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 84216
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

SarcasticMethod

Con

Does God, an almighty and all-good being that made the world, and judges people, exist?

I am taking CON. Burden of proof lies on PRO.
First round is for definitions and opening statements.

God: an almighty and all-good being that made the world, and judges people.
Almighty: Within the laws of logic, can do anything.
All-good: Acts with untainted goodness.
World: Everything.

Though I do not hold the burden of proof, I can provide a logical argument for the impossibility of this God - the classic argument from evil.

P1: The world contains evil - that is, the opposite of good.
P2: If God existed, he would be able to stop all evil (see definition - almighty)
P3: If God existed, he would be obliged to stop all evil (see definition - all-good)
C1: If God existed, evil would not exist (from P2 and P3)
C2: God does not exist (from P1 and C1)
UtherPenguin

Pro

I accept all the terms and rules (assuming the first round is for acceptance), my arguments will come in the second round.
Debate Round No. 1
SarcasticMethod

Con

I'm sorry, UtherPenguin, but I didn't ever say that. I don't feel you should be penalized for it, but as I have already presented my case, i have nothing more to say in this round.

Good luck!
UtherPenguin

Pro

Apologies, but I must pass this round due to outside time constraints. I will post my arguments shortly after this round
Apologies once more for being a nuisance to Con.
Debate Round No. 2
SarcasticMethod

Con

Thank you for having told me.
UtherPenguin

Pro

Apologies to Con for my absence in the previous round. In
this round, I will do my argument.

My argrument is in 3 premises:

1. Every effect needs a cause

2. The Universe had a beginning, therefore cause.

3. This cause must be beyond the universe or universal law.

Therefore God exists. In the following argument, I will
elaborate and prove each of my three premises alongside my conclusion.

Premise 1: Every effect needs a cause.

The law of cause and effect states that for each effect or
occurrence, a cause is required[1]. This
is a basic element to understanding physics, it is incorporated into Newton’s
Third Law “every reaction has an equal and opposition reaction” [2].

For example, a rock would not simply jump in the air. A
cause is required, an action or force must have moved the rock to the air, for
example someone may have thrown the rock in the air or the ground may have
erupted, hence causing the rock to fly into the air.

Sources:

1. http://blog.iqmatrix.com...

2. http://www.physicsclassroom.com...

Premise 2: The Universe had a begiging, therefore a
cause was caused.

To build on my previous premise, everything with a beginning
also needs a cause. Human life, from example, does not spawn out of nothing, as
this would not only contradict the law of cause and effect but would also
contradict the law of conservation of mass. In which “matter cannot be created
nor destroyed” [1]. Therefore, something cannot spawn from nothing.

The universe also has an age at roughly 13 billion years old
[2]. Age implies athe existence of a beginning. Said beginning would therefore
require a cause. Just like how jhuman life has a beginning, and therefore a
cause, a similar thing would apply to the Universe, with the existence of a beginning
and therefore a cause.

Sources:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org...

2. http://www.slate.com...

Premise 3: This cause must be beyond the universe, an “unmoved
mover”

Cause and effect can be compared to a series of gears. One
gear cannot move without the existence of another gear to move it, that other
gear must also be moved by a different gear to function. This chain of gears
however cannot perpetuate forever. An initial gear cannot be what caused the
other gears to move because nature of the gears required it to have been
preceded by a previous gear. In other words, an “unmoved mover” [3]

Similarly, the Universe (as proven in the previous premises)
must also have an initial cause. This
initial must be beyond the logic of the universe itself. [2] Therefore this
cause must be:

-
Spaceless

-
Ageless

-
and unimaginably powerful.

The Big Bang alone cannot sufficiently
act as such a cause. Since Big Bang was not the creation of matter, but rather
the expansion of it [1]. Since it is restricted by space and age (as it has a beginning),
this means that it has failed the first two requirements of the initial cause.

In almost all three of the Abrahamic
religions, God is described to be: All powerful, eternal and without need of a
body.

Therefore, the existence of the universe
requires the existence of God. On to you Con ;)

Source:

1. http://www.space.com...

2. https://www.youtube.com...

3. http://www.patheos.com...

Debate Round No. 3
SarcasticMethod

Con

I would first like to mention that you have not addressed my earlier argument.

I will now take down the cosmological argument premise-by-premise.

Premise 1: Every effect has a cause.
This is known as the 'law' of cause and effect. Many people think that, because it is a law, it must always be followed. Not so - it is what is known as a descriptive law: http://lesswrong.com... http://blog.cauvin.org... . A descriptive law is a kind of description of the way things act, used as a predictive tool by scientists and philosophers to make educated guesses about the future. Descriptive laws are not like prescriptive laws (such as criminal laws), because prescriptive laws tell people what to do, and descriptive laws describe how things work. Example: the Law of Universal Gravitation: http://www.physicsclassroom.com.... This law does not tell the universe what to do. Rather, it describes how we observe the universe to work. Descriptive laws can fail when we find exceptions: for example, the laws of Newton were partly overturned (even though they remain useful) by Einstein's General Relativity: http://m.space.com... .

The law of cause and effect is like this. We observe the universe and see causes producing effects all the time, so we assume that all effects have causes. This is not always true, because at the quantum level, things can actually happen for no reason at all. So, Premise 1 is false.

Premise 2: The Universe had a beginning, therefore it was caused.
This premise only works if Premise 1 is true, and Premise 1 is false, so Premise 2 is also false.

Premise 3: The cause of the universe must have been beyond the universe.
Well, yes, but that doesn't lead to God. The definition of God I gave was:
An almighty and all-good being that made the world, and judges people.
Your definition was:
Spaceless, ageless, very powerful.
These don't match up. God might be very powerful, but ultimately limited. He might be amoral, or evil, or even completely apathetic about humans. That means that it isn't the definition we agreed on.
UtherPenguin

Pro

In this round I will address my opponents opening argument,
alongside my opponents rebuttals.

R1: Problem of Evil

Con here has based his opening argument on the “Problem of
Evil”. An argument which states that since God is almighty and all-good, evil
therefore mustn’t exist. Problem with this premise is that it takes the assumption
that to be all-good, evil must not exist.

Since evil is committed by humans, and humans are given free
will, it is the human’s choice and hence the human’s fault to commit evil. To
give humanity the choice to commit evil or not is not inherently evil, but
rather it is the human’s fault for committing evil if they are the ones given
free will. God is all-good in the fact that he gives humanity the choice to act
upon good or evil and then judges their actions afterwards.

R2: “The law of cause and effect is like
this. We observe the universe and see causes producing effects all the time, so
we assume that all effects have causes. This is not always true, because at the
quantum level, things can actually happen for no reason at all. So, Premise 1
is false.”

By acknowledge that cause and effect exists, even as a
descriptive law, Premise 1 therefore cannot be false. Since the purpose of
Premise 1 was to establish the existence of cause and effect.

As seen in the beginning of Con’s rebuttal, he recognizes
cause and effect as suck a law:

“This is known as the 'law' of cause and effect. Many
people think that, because it is a law, it must always be followed. Not so - it
is what is known as a descriptive law: [source]”

Therefore, it is contradictory for Con to assert that
Premise 1 was false yet still argue that cause and effect is a physical law as
well.

R3: “This premise only works if Premise 1
is true, and Premise 1 is false, so Premise 2 is also false.”

See “R2”.

R4: “These don't match up. God might be
very powerful, but ultimately limited. He might be amoral, or evil, or even
completely apathetic about humans. That means that it isn't the definition we
agreed on.”

In the definitions stated God was described as “almighty”,
as seen below:

“God: an almighty and all-good being that made the world,
and judges people.”

In the characteristics I gave concerning God, I stated that
he must be “unimaginably powerful”, which in turn fits in the definition when
God is stated as all mighty. None of the characteristics given in my final
premise contradict the definition agreed upon, they just add to it, but no contradictions
made. As I had not asserted God to be amoral or apathetic. I had only asserted
that God be “Ageless, timeless and unimaginably powerful”.

Debate Round No. 4
SarcasticMethod

Con

"God is all-good in the fact that he gives humanity the choice to act upon good or evil and then judges their actions afterwards."
Well, look at it from this perspective. A parent tells their child not to eat an ice cream, and leaves the child alone in the room with the ice cream. The child eats the ice cream, the parent returns and punishes the child. Who was at fault? Well, although you might say the child was at fault (I don't disagree), I would say that the parent is mostly at fault. By leaving the child alone and allowing it to do wrong, the parent is obviously doing the wrong thing. This is my analogy with God.

"By acknowledge [sic] that cause and effect exists, even as a descriptive law, Premise 1 therefore cannot be false."
That's not the point. When I say that cause and effect is a descriptive law, I'm also saying that it might not always be true, and is certainly not absolute. This means that the universe may simply not have a cause, so Premise 1 is not certainly true.

"...he must be "unimaginably powerful", which in turn fits in the definition when God is stated as all mighty [sic]."
Not at all. I defined almighty as: within the laws of logic, [God] can do anything. Unimaginably powerful is not the same. It could be the case that the human capacity for imagining power is much smaller than the limits of power itself.

"I had not asserted God to be amoral or apathetic. I had only asserted that God be "Ageless, timeless and unimaginably powerful"."
Well, by accpeting this debate, you implicitly agreed to my definition of God, which includes perfect goodness and the judgement of humans. If you cannot prove a God that has those traits, you haven't upheld your burden.
UtherPenguin

Pro

R1:” Well, look at it from this perspective. A parent tells their child not to eat an ice cream, and leaves the child alone in the room with the ice cream. The child eats the ice cream, the parent returns and punishes the child. Who was at fault? Well, although you might say the child was at fault (I don't disagree), I would say that the parent is mostly at fault. By leaving the child alone and allowing it to do wrong, the parent is obviously doing the wrong thing. This is my analogy with God.

As seen in the definition, the debate has defined God not only as all-mighty but one that “judges people”. If the child disobeys an explicit order, and was given the choice not to, then why would the parent not punish the child? If the mother is acting upon the good intention of punishing the child from doing so again, than why would the parent be at fault? It was the child’s choice to disobey the mother, and the child’s choice to obey the mother (and hence, easily avoid punishment).This would also fit will with the quality of God that involves “judging people”.

R2:”Which in turn fits in the definition when God is stated as all mighty [sic]."
Not at all. I defined almighty as: within the laws of logic, [God] can do anything. Unimaginably powerful is not the same. It could be the case that the human capacity for imagining power is much smaller than the limits of power itself.”

However, powerful beyond the capabilities of human imagination does not necessarily mean that said power must be beyond the laws of logic. And as shown in the argument, I had already shown how said power could be logical to exist.

R3: “That's not the point. When I say that cause and effect is a descriptive law, I'm also saying that it might not always be true, and is certainly not absolute. This means that the universe may simply not have a cause, so Premise 1 is not certainly true.

Whether or not cause and effect is a descriptive law, it fails to disprove that the universe needs a cause. You only provided the possibility of that not being the case but still asserted premise one of being certainly false. Sufficient proof against the universe requiring a cause has not been sufficiently provided.

R4: “Well, by accpeting this debate, you implicitly agreed to my definition of God, which includes perfect goodness and the judgement of humans. If you cannot prove a God that has those traits, you haven't upheld your burden.

None of the attributes I had given to God had contradicted the terms of the debate. My previous rebuttals had shown how it would be possible for an all-good all powerful God to exist, hence I had fit the terms and the burden of proof.

Thanks to Con for this debate. Vote Pro

Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 1 year ago
skipsaweirdo
Cons arguments are nothing more than assumptions that humans possess the necessary wisdom to know what is good or evil to God. He/we doesn't/can't know. He's projecting human wisdom onto God then attacking that God....basic straw man.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 1 year ago
skipsaweirdo
To Matt on his "the only evidence" claim. Or people knowing in their heart... Prove it....I'm assuming you have evidence of everything every person on this planet has experienced to make such a bold all knowing statement. Please list all the people and their experiences. As I'm sure this will take a while because you are going to need to investigate at the very least 2 billion adults, I'm more than patient so your argument will actually be something other than a nonsensical attempt at gaining favor from people who already think like you, which isn't very logical.
To Matt on multiple interpretations...prove that isn't the purpose why God inspired the Bible, or any other works. You're essentially claiming to know what the motivation of God was and what purpose God has for the Bible or other religious works....prove it, oh yeah, you can't know the motivation of God...that's a "strike this argument" as completely meaningless.
On the Muslim comment.....The argument of "true" religion does not therefore become more valid simply because "PEOPLE" claim there has to be one. Ad populum fallacy. And you not addressing that and attempting an argument by accepting the fallacious reasoning makes it even less appropriate to do so.
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
You're right, sorry. I just joined the site today and am unfamiliar with the protocol but I will learn :)
Posted by SarcasticMethod 1 year ago
SarcasticMethod
I agree matt, but if you want to dispute belief in God, you should start a debate like I have.
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
The only "evidence" that God exists is in the form of an old book and believer's "knowing in their heart" that it is true. In North America, there are intelligent, devoted Christians that use that argument as to why their book is true. In other parts of the world, there are equally intelligent and devoted Muslims that use the exact same argument/evidence that their book is true.
So, multiple groups use the exact same reasoning and evidence that their book is true even though they have incompatible beliefs therefore the consequence is that the evidence is utterly insufficient.
I would love to hear any logical argument that disputes my point.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Only through arrogance and ignorance can a person claim to know what god is and then define god to fit that knowledge.
Posted by SarcasticMethod 1 year ago
SarcasticMethod
Well, Eve ate a fruit and created evil. So? God made Eve curious. God made the fruit, made it easily accessible and tempting. God also made a deceiving snake. So, not only could God have stopped that evil from existing, he actually mostly caused it.

Also, God chose to create Hell. He could have chosen otherwise.
Posted by AngryBlogger 1 year ago
AngryBlogger
Also, as for Con's questions, there is better ways of asking those same exact questions using some history, again, I'm just saving my arguments hopefully against one of these religious nuts to debate with.
Posted by AngryBlogger 1 year ago
AngryBlogger
@RNG

I do not feel that it is Satan that prevents god from stopping evil, given if god exist.

I would love to explain why, but again, I rather save my arguments against a god for a future debate with someone who claims there is a god.
Posted by RNG_REKT 1 year ago
RNG_REKT
You know, it wasn't just Eve who brought evil into the world. If he could, God would stop all evil, but Satan prevents him from doing so.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
SarcasticMethodUtherPenguinTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD @ http://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/80060/