Does God exist please don't take up this argument if you may find it offensive
Debate Rounds (5)
1) God was a fictinal character created by rulers in the hope that he could scare his people into submission and then from there it spread.
2) God is said to have created everything from nothing "in the begging there was nothing" (genesis the bible) Einstein's own theory its self makes the point that something cant com from nothing thus implying that the universe has always exited in some form of mass and that time is unequivocal to are minds as infinite
3) how come their is so much suffering now and their is so much suffering in the world and that nothing special has happened for thousands of years I know you will argue freedom of mind but he is supposed to be are shepherd and if I may say so myself he's doing a pretty bad job of it
4) My final point would be how come their are so many different religions six of the major ones must be wrong what good has religion bought any way war,fear,scandal loss of money corruption all which at some point in the past have been caused by religion
I offer two logical arguments for the existence of God.
God is necessarily defined as a maximally great being.
The first argument is the Ontological Argument. As follows:
1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2.A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3.It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4.Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5.Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
The second argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. As formulated by Dr. Craig:
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Now, my opponent claims that according to science, the Universe has no cause. Therefore, the cause that we are discussing necessarily must be God because there is no alternative explanation for the Universe's cause.
Let's examine the flaws in his case.
His first argument is that God was created to scare people into submission. This is flawed on two grounds. First, God was not created by humans, as he assumes in his argument. Please see the two logical arguments that I presented for God's existence in order to prove this true. Second, this is an example of a bare assertion fallacy; it is entirely unwarranted and unproven. He is just assuming this to be true.
He next says that the Universe has always existed and that something doesn't come from nothing. The Universe has not always existed; even scientists have determined that it has an age. Since the Universe has an age, then logically there was a period before the Universe existed. Next, turn the fact that something cannot come from nothing, since that proves that an external creator has to exist: the universe has to have a cause because it literally cannot have come from nothing according to the Kalam argument.
He then discusses the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil does not disprove the existence of God; rather, it disproves the existence of a God who interferes in our lives. Unless he proves that it is impossible for a God who does not constantly interfere in our lives to exist, he cannot use this to disprove God.
Finally, he argues that religion is corrupt. Religion is a man-made institution that was created as an attempt to define God's will. There is no inherent proof that it IS God's will. Men are corrupt and thus their institutions are corrupt. He needs to prove that God created the corrupt religions. and he has not done this.
Next he says that I don't define maximal greatness and that he is maximally great if he is healthy and fit. I think that "maximally great" is self-evident. A being is maximally great if it is omnipotent within the realm of logic. Maximally great beings excel in all fields. His definition is flawed because there is always someone who is going to be better than him on x ground, so he can never be maximally great.
Extend the rest of the Ontological argument because it was cleanly conceded.
Extend the entire Kalam Cosmological Argument because it was conceded.
These prove that God exists.
He says that God was created as a product of human imagination. He doesn't have any proof for this statement, and my logical arguments for God's existence prove otherwise.
He then says that I concede that religion is man-made and am arguing against myself. That's inherently false. Religion does not define God's existence; it merely attempts to define God's will. Just because religion is man-made does not mean God is man-made. That's a nonsequitor logical fallacy.
Now, extend the arguments about the universe's age, the turn on the idea that something cannot come from nothing, and the attack on the problem of evil.
BINGE forfeited this round.
BINGE forfeited this round.
royalpaladin forfeited this round.
BINGE forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: FF. And, looked like a noob snipe before I even saw that he FF the whole debate almost.... In short, full points to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.