The Instigator
TheFlyingPham
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Bob13
Pro (for)
Winning
6 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Bob13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 84461
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

TheFlyingPham

Con

R1. Acceptance,definition state your stance BOP will be on PRO.
R2. Rebuttle and any new arguments.
R3. Rebuttle and any new arguments.
R4. Rebuttles
R.5 conclusion

God - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
If you have a better definition or have one you prefer you may state so.

There is no God try to convince me otherwise.
Bob13

Pro

Definitions

God - the supernatural, transcendent, and eternal creator of the universe

supernatural- not having any physical form; immaterial

eternal- having no beginning and no end

transcendent- existing outside of the physical universe

I accept the burden of proof. Due to being busy the last few days, I will present my arguments in the next round. Just for fun, even though I have the full BoP, post some arguments against the existence of God and I can rebut those with my new arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
TheFlyingPham

Con

Sure since you are busy whatever.

"God is Almighty" "God is good, all the time; all the time, God is good" "Nothing is impossible with God"

3 quick quotes about this god you hear all the time.

Definitions
Almighty - omnipotent; or unlimited power
Good - noun that which is morally right;
synonyms:virtue, righteousness, goodness, morality, integrity, rectitude; More
2.
benefit or advantage to someone or something.
synonyms:benefit, advantage, profit, gain, interest, welfare, well-being; More
Impossible - not able to occur exist or be done

God is supposed to be a able to do anything and nothing is impossible with God correct?
God is good all the time correct? Yet evil continues to exist in this world, people starve, are slaves, get murdered/tortured and get bullied. Which means God doesn't stop these things even though he is supposed to be good all the time. So either he can't or won't, which means he's either not almighty or he not good all the time.
Bob13

Pro


Argument

P=Premise. C=Conclusion.

P1) The universe is expanding (growing). [1]

P2) A growth must have a starting point (beginning). [2]

C1) The universe had a beginning. (follows from P1 and P2)

P3) Nothing can happen unless it was caused by something else.

C2) The beginning of the universe had a cause, that cause had a cause, etc. (follows from C1 and P3)

C3) The universe did not have a beginning. (follows from P3 and C2)

C4) C1 and C3 contradict each other. (follows from C1 and C3)

P4) This argument is based on logic.

P5) C1 and C3 are part of this argument.

C5) The contradiction mentioned in P4 is a contradiction within logic. (follows from C4, P4, and P5)

P6) Logic cannot contradict itself.

C6) The contradiction can only be eliminated if the cause of the universe was not bound by the laws of logic. (follows from P3 and C2)

P7) The laws of logic apply to everything in the universe.

P8) The universe is everything with physical existence. [3]

C7) The cause of the universe exists outside of the universe. (follows from P6, C6, and P7)

C8) The cause of the universe has no physical existence. (follows from P8 and C7)

C9) The cause of the universe had no cause/beginning. (follows from C2 and C6)

P9) What has no beginning also has no end.

C10) The cause of the universe has no beginning or end. (follows from C9 and P9)

P10) “Transcendent” means “existing outside of the universe”.

P11) “Supernatural” means “having no physical existence”.

P12) “Eternal” means “having no beginning and no end”.

P13) If a transcendent, supernatural, and eternal creator (cause) of the universe exists, then God exists. (based on my definition of “God”)

C11) The cause of the universe is transcendent. (follows from C7 and P10)

C12) The cause of the universe is supernatural. (follows from C8 and P11)

C13) The cause of the universe is eternal. (follows from C10)

C14) The cause of the universe is transcendent, supernatural, and eternal. (follows from C11, C12, and C13)

C15) A cause/creator of the universe exists. (follows from C1)

C16) God exists. (follows from P13, C14, and C15)

[1] http://www.loc.gov...

[2] http://www.hawking.org.uk...

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Rebuttal

The existence of evil could be explained several ways:

1. God might not be good all the time. It is not part of my definition, so I will not be arguing for it.

2. God might not be able to do everything. That is also not part of my definition.

3. God might not know about human suffering.

Debate Round No. 2
TheFlyingPham

Con

For P3 you are basically saying there can be no effect without cause (cause and effect) however we know at the quantum physics level this is false so that trumps your other premises as well as conclusions since that is what your entire premise and conclusions is based upon. Also C8 you say the cause of the universe has no physical existence however that is just a guess you do not know for sure, nobody does therefore again your argument has become invalid.

As far as your rebuttals.
1. You can't just throwaway my definition because it is not yours, that is a definition I have seen over and over again in the bible claiming this god, you are merely cherry picking information.
2. Again you are cherry picking information as you disregard the definition I have set forth.
3. God as in the bible is supposed to be all knowing.

I clearly stated the definition of God as Christianity and other monotheistic religion. I will clarify the last one. Basically modern day religion God that is similar to Christianity in case anyone is confused.

You still have not proved God exist.
Bob13

Pro

"For P3 you are basically saying there can be no effect without cause (cause and effect) however we know at the quantum physics level this is false"

Your statement is true only if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum indeterminacy is true. Even if it is true, the absence of causality exists only on the subatomic level, which means that if subatomic particles formed an atom, that atom would be unable to create the universe because there would need to be a cause.

"Also C8 you say the cause of the universe has no physical existence however that is just a guess you do not know for sure"

I do know for sure. My argument states that: Everything with physical existence is part of the universe; the creator of the universe is not part of the universe; therefore, the creator of the universe has no physical existence.

"You can't just throwaway my definition because it is not yours"

Actually, I can. You said yourself that I could share a better definition if I had one.

"God as in the bible is supposed to be all knowing."

I don't believe in the same God that is in the Bible.

"I clearly stated the definition of God as Christianity and other monotheistic religion. I will clarify the last one. Basically modern day religion God that is similar to Christianity in case anyone is confused."

The traits used to describe my idea of God also describe the Christian God. It is similar.
Debate Round No. 3
TheFlyingPham

Con

I never claimed that some random atom can create the universe, my argument is that there are things that can happen without a cause.

And again for C8 you assume that everything with physical existence is part of the universe, you do not know if this is a fact or not. There can be things with physical existence that exist outside our universe, however you do not know this for a fact, as well as there may be things without a physical existence as well, because there is a physical and chemical existence.
http://www.iun.edu...

Because there are things that have chemical existence it disproves that there are things without physical existence that exist in our universe.

Lastly R1 was where you were supposed to set the definitions of you did not like the one given to you, and you failed to do so.
Bob13

Pro

"I never claimed that some random atom can create the universe, my argument is that there are things that can happen without a cause."

Since you admit that an atom cannot create the universe, you also admit that the universe is not an exception to the law of causality.

"there is a physical and chemical existence."

Perhaps I should give a clearer idea of what I mean by "physical". I am referring to objects, particles, waves, etc. and anything else that can be touched. Your source states that particles and waves have chemical, but not physical, existence. However, the definition of the word is "existing in a form that you can touch or see". [1] Particles and waves can be touched, so they have physical existence.

"R1 was where you were supposed to set the definitions of you did not like the one given to you, and you failed to do so."

Read round 1 again. My definitions are there.




Debate Round No. 4
TheFlyingPham

Con

Just because I do not claim some random atom can create the universe does not mean I admit that an atom cannot create the universe, as well as never admitting the universe is not an exception to the law of causality. I addressed that there are things in the universe that does not follow the cause and effect rule.Which brings me to my conclusion, I am not convinced there is a god which you were supposed to do. You failed to do so by trying to use your own and are not clear with your topic ideas. And because effects may happen without a cause, as the laws of causality only explains what is and not what was.
Bob13

Pro

Con has failed to effectively refute my argument because:


  • He attempted to use a theory to disprove a premise in my argument. Not only is his point unproven, but he clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about when he says that on the "quantum physics level" causality does not exist, even to the point where I had to explain the theory he was referring to before I could respond to his argument.

  • He used an explanation of the difference between physical and chemical properties to determine the definition of "physical" that can be disproven by a dictionary.


Because his rebuttals were insufficient and flawed, I have fulfilled the burden of proof and I win this debate.


Vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by NorthKoreaispureevil 11 months ago
NorthKoreaispureevil
Honestly, it really depends on your personal opinion, but I think he exists.
Posted by TheFlyingPham 11 months ago
TheFlyingPham
Done
Posted by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
Change it to 72 hours and 10k characters and I'll accept.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 11 months ago
Cooldudebro
TheFlyingPhamBob13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Conduct: Neither side showed any clear signs of disrespect. S/G: Pro was more organised. I could see his work clearly. There wasn't any grammatical errors on Pro's side of the debate. Sources: Pro had more sources and more reliable sources than Con. Winner: Pro's arguments were logical and well thought out. Con failed to adequately refute Pro and got his arguments refuted.