The Instigator
BINGE
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Does God exist please don't take up this argument if you may find it offensive

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 938 times Debate No: 24401
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

BINGE

Con

First of all let me put across some basic arguments
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
royalpaladin

Pro

My opponent has an inherent burden of proof in this debate as the instigator. He must show that God does not exist, and none of the arguments that he provided do that.
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.
Debate Round No. 1
BINGE

Con

Firstly by saying I intrinsically have to disprove the existence of god the same can be said about your harsh and unproductive comments that serve to do nothing more then waste our precious lives. Have you ever heard of the phrase cow logic, if so it ,in my opinion can be perfectly applied to your argument you don't explain what you believe a being of maximal greatness is so if I am perfectly fit and health am I a being of maximum greatness after this 'flawed argument' of yours you go onto comment on ideas of his creation this is only theory and of course depends on point of view you say God was not created by humans but of course you would what I am saying and what you fail to grasp is that God was created as a product of humans own properties to be creative and imaginative such as humans of as thousands of years ago inferior minds couldn't explain most things they see and so they look for an easy answer in the form of god you then say Religion is a man-made institution this argues against yourself and what you once again fail to the same fault as not grasping that what i was implying was that the belief of God gas done no good anyway and let me say that you sir as a contester have an inherent burden of proof to disprove you don't do this and so the remark is frivolous at best.
royalpaladin

Pro

He first says that my claim that he has to disprove the existence of God is harsh and unproductive and a waste of his life. The problem is that he took this debate and is the instigator. He is making an assertive claim, namely that God does not exist, and is failing to provide proper evidence. He is not fulfilling his burden.

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.

Thanks ;)
Debate Round No. 2
BINGE

Con

BINGE forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Pro

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
BINGE

Con

BINGE forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Pro

royalpaladin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
BINGE

Con

BINGE forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Pro

Extend everything :)
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
BINGEroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
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.