The Instigator
AWSM0055
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Does God 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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,185 times Debate No: 87156
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (81)
Votes (2)

 

AWSM0055

Con

I challenge Jerry947 to a debate on whether God exists. This will be a more informal debate. BoP is on Jerry here to prove God exists. I think we all know who "God" is. No semantics. Begin.
Jerry947

Pro

I thank my opponent for this challenge. Before I begin...I will provide some definitions since none were provided.

God-The greatest being that can possibly be conceived. This means he is all powerful, moral, omnipresent, eternal, and etc...
Prove-To give evidence in attempt to show the truth of something. I will be in other words proving God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Truth-Whatever is is and whatever isn't isn't. Truth also makes statements about reality...
Universe-All space-time, matter, and energy, including the solar system, all stars and galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...).

The Cosmological argument:

a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

Defense: It is impossible for something to come from nothing. Therefore it is logical to say that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This premise is common sense.

b. The universe began to exist.

Defense: The second law of thermodynamics lets us know that the universe is running out of energy (hence heading towards a heat death). In an eternal universe, it would have run out of energy by now. So since this hasn't happened, we know that the Universe had a beginning (since it is not eternal). Also, there is the discovery of red-shift in 1929. Basically, this discovery showed us that the universe is expanding which means if you were to go back in time, the universe would shrink and shrink. William Lane Craig says it better, he states that "as one traces the expansion back in time, the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches a point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand." So basically, modern science supports that the Universe began to exist.

c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Defense: Since everything that begins to exist has a cause, and because the universe began to exist, the universe must have had a cause.

d. Since the cause of the Universe has to be....
Eternal-the cause of the universe led to the existence of time.
Omnipresent-the cause of the universe led to the existence of space.
Omnipotent-the cause of the universe led to the existence of everything.
Moral-the cause of the universe led to the existence of morality
Personal-William Lane Craig states that "the cause of the universe must be an ultramundane being which transcends space and time and is therefore either an unembodied mind or an abstract object; it cannot be the latter; hence, it must be the former, which is to say that this being is personal" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...).

Therefore, the cause of the Universe must be God since he is all of those things. Nothing else is all of those things that the cause is. So God is the best explanation for why the Universe exists.

The Truth Argument:

a. Truth is a statement that agrees with reality. Or in other words, truths make statements about what is real. For example, if I were to say that Obama is currently the President of the United States, I would be making a statement that agrees with reality.
b. Truth requires a mind. Sine truths are statements...and because statements are made by a mind, then it follows that truth requires a mind.
c. There are universal truths. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter who is aware of this fact.
d. Therefore it follows that there must be a universal mind (God).
Debate Round No. 1
AWSM0055

Con

I accept the definitions.

(BTW, slight correction there, the universe doesn't "run out" of energy, it runs out of usable energy. I know, a little picky, but whatever.)

I accept the cosmological argument, but it does not prove the God is necessarily the cause that caused the universe:

Eternal: Meh. I wouldn't concede that the cause is "eternal" (since that requires a concept of time to create time, which is begging the question). I can concede however that the cause is beyond the concept of time, since whatever created the Big Bang would have created time/space, and therefore beyond time and space. Seems reasonable enough.

Omnipresent: Not necessarily. "Omni present" means basically "everywhere", and for something to be "everywhere", there needs to be a concept of space. Whatever caused the universe may not have a concept of space at all.

Omnipotent: The creation of this universe doesn't necessarily imply omnipotence, since we don't know if the universe contains everything that can be possibly created.

Moral: The creation of the universe also led to the existence of sensory perception. Does that mean the cause is all sensory? Not necessarily. The effect's characteristics doesn't necessarily mean the cause had the same characteristics. Also, you will have to prove that morality can exist outside of physical matter, because as far as we know, morality is entirely dependent on a physical brain existing.

Personal: That is assuming the cause of the universe is a being at all. And besides, the argument is self defeating. If something is ultramundane, how do you know of it isn't an abstract object?

You also haven't proven that the universes cause is a being necessarily.

So all I've conceded thus far is that the universe had a cause, and the universe's cause is possibly beyond the concept of time.

Truth argument (I've never heard of this one before).

a. Truth is a statement that agrees with reality. Or in other words, truths make statements about what is real. For example, if I were to say that Obama is currently the President of the United States, I would be making a statement that agrees with reality.

Ok, so this premise basically defines "truth" as: "A statement that agrees with reality", is that correct?

b. Truth requires a mind. Sine truths are statements...and because statements are made by a mind, then it follows that truth requires a mind.

Sure, providing the definition in premise a.

c. There are universal truths. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter who is aware of this fact.

What is a universal truth? So a "truth" is statement that agrees with reality, so I what is a "universal truth"? A statement that agrees with all reality? But that is no different to just "truth". Or is it "an all truth that agrees with reality"? But that makes no sense either. How can something be more truer that true?

d. Therefore it follows that there must be a universal mind (God).

You haven't defined what a universal truth is. How is a universal truth different from just truth? You argument can be broken down as follows:

Truth is a statement that agrees with reality.
To tell a truth, you need a mind.
There are truths.
Therefore, a mind exists. God exists.

This isn't meant to be a straw man, but this is basically what you argument is, given you haven't defined what a universal truth is. I can only assume a universal truth is a truth that applies to all reality, which is really no different from a truth.

This is highly non-sequitur from what I can tell. Again, what is a universal truth?
Jerry947

Pro

For this round I will quote my opponent and then respond to what he wrote.

"(BTW, slight correction there, the universe doesn't "run out" of energy, it runs out of usable energy. I know, a little picky, but whatever.)"

That is what I was trying to say. I guess I could have worded things differently.

"Meh. I wouldn't concede that the cause is "eternal" (since that requires a concept of time to create time, which is begging the question)."

My opponent agrees that the cause of the universe is above the concepts of space/time. But this would in fact make the cause eternal since the cause would never have had a beginning or a end since time is a concept caused by the causer. Eternity does not require a concept of time since it never started to exist and it will never stop existing. In other words, beings that are above time are not required to be under time if that makes sense.

"Not necessarily. "Omni present" means basically "everywhere", and for something to be "everywhere", there needs to be a concept of space."

But the cause created space itself. A cause like that would also go beyond the concept of space like you have already agreed.

"The creation of this universe doesn't necessarily imply omnipotence, since we don't know if the universe contains everything that can be possibly created."

Well, this depends on the definition of omnipotence. When I say that God is omnipotent, I mean that he is all ruling and the most powerful being that exists. I think my opponent would agree that the cosmological argument shows that the cause of the universe is both of these things.

"The creation of the universe also led to the existence of sensory perception. Does that mean the cause is all sensory? "

This shows that God is creative and that he can see everything, hear everything, know the taste of everything and etc...the creation of a creator represents some of the characteristics the creator has. Same thing with morality.

"Also, you will have to prove that morality can exist outside of physical matter, because as far as we know, morality is entirely dependent on a physical brain existing."

I don't have to prove that. All I have to do is show that the cause of physical matter and the cause of morality is both all powerful and moral. And I have done this. Although...it really isn't that hard to show that human nature goes beyond the physical. A person who is in a coma is still human even though they are unconscious.

"That is assuming the cause of the universe is a being at all. And besides, the argument is self defeating. If something is ultramundane, how do you know of it isn't an abstract object?"

If the cause is intelligent, creative, and rational...the cause is personal. As for abstract objects, William Lane Craig states that "the cause of the universe cannot be an abstract object because abstract objects do not stand in causal relations to effects. The causal impotence of abstract objects is definitional for being abstract. So no abstract object can be the cause of the universe" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...).

"You also haven't proven that the universes cause is a being necessarily."

I have shown you that the cause would be eternal since it would go beyond space and time. This would mean that the cause has always existed. So in other words, you could say that the cause exists necessarily.

"Ok, so this premise basically defines "truth" as: "A statement that agrees with reality", is that correct?"

Yes.

"What is a universal truth?"

An example of a universal truth is "1+1=2." That is a truth statement that correctly represents reality. In other words, universal truths are statements about reality that would still exist no matter which humans were aware of them.

For example, the truth statement that my favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate is not a universal truth since the statement is dependent on my preferences. But universal truth statements are not dependent on humans preferences.

"How can something be more truer that true?"

I explained this already but I will do it a second time just in case I didn't word things perfectly. It is not that I am saying that things can be more true. I am just explaining that there are some truths that depend on people (like their favorite ice cream flavor) and then there are truths that are not dependent on humans (like 1+1=2). These truths are called universal truths.

"Truth is a statement that agrees with reality.
To tell a truth, you need a mind.
There are truths.
Therefore, a mind exists. God exists."

That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that truths are statements that represent reality (truth is not the same as reality). Since statements require a mind...truths also require a mind. Therefore since there are universal truths, there must be a universal mind. Your argument is not even close to what I am arguing. You can compare it to my original format if you would like to.

"I can only assume a universal truth is a truth that applies to all reality, which is really no different from a truth."

All truths represent reality. The difference is that universal truth is not dependent on humans. But I have explained that twice already so hopefully things have been cleared up.
Debate Round No. 2
AWSM0055

Con

"Eternity does not require a concept of time since it never started to exist and it will never stop existing. In other words, beings that are above time are not required to be under time if that makes sense."

Eternal: "lasting or existing forever; without end."

For something to "last forever", it needs a concept of time. For instance, for something to be infinite length, it would need a concept of "length".

Similarly, for something to "last forever", it needs a concept of time. But this is irrelevant anyway because I conceded that the cause could be beyond the realms of space/time. If being beyond the concept of space/time automatically translates into "lasting forever", I'm not sure. This is as hard to comprehend as answering the question "what happened before the Big Bang?". It's simply beyond human conprehension. But I'll humour you anyway and say that the cause is eternal.

"But the cause created space itself. A cause like that would also go beyond the concept of space like you have already agreed."

But again, that makes no sense. The "cause" can't be "everywhere", yet be required to make the concept allowed for the "cause" to be "everywhere". Otherwise, that's begging the question. Omnipresence =/= space less.

"This shows that God is creative and that he can see everything, hear everything, know the taste of everything and etc...the creation of a creator represents some of the characteristics the creator has. Same thing with morality."

Really? So the cause wasn't all sensory before the existence of sensory perception? The universe is also made up of matter. Does that mean the cause is also material? If so, begging the question (since matter creating matter is paradoxical). But if not, why not? Why does morality in this universe represent one of the properties of the cause yet matter doesn't? In that case, special pleading.

"I don't have to prove [objective morality]. All I have to do is show that the cause of physical matter and the cause of morality is both all powerful and moral. And I have done this. Although...it really isn't that hard to show that human nature goes beyond the physical. A person who is in a coma is still human even though they are unconscious."

Ok, I'll humour you and assume morality can exist theoretically outside the physical mind to keep this debate simple. (But I'm not conceding that the cause is all moral).

"If the cause is intelligent, creative, and rational...the cause is personal."

You haven't proven its intelligence, creativeness and rationality. Also, could you define "personal" please? Actually, don't worry about it. I won't be able to rebut it.

"As for abstract objects, William Lane Craig states that "the cause of the universe cannot be an abstract object because abstract objects do not stand in causal relations to effects. The causal impotence of abstract objects is definitional for being abstract. So no abstract object can be the cause of the universe" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org......)."

But how do you know that if God is ultramundane?

"you could say that the cause exists necessarily."

Yes, I see that, but that's not what I want. I know the cause exists necessarily, but I reject your assertion that the cause was a being necessarily. The cause may not be a being, yet still be necessary.

Ok, now back onto the truth argument...

"For example, the truth statement that my favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate is not a universal truth since the statement is dependent on my preferences. But universal truth statements are not dependent on humans preferences."

Ok, so basically subjective truth and objective truth then? So truth is a subjective truth dependant on ones taste and opinion whereas a universal (or objective) truth is true no matter what people think? I think I get it. Let me reexamine your argument:

a. Truth is a statement that agrees with reality.
b. Truth requires a mind. Since truths are statements...and because statements are made by a mind, then it follows that truth requires a mind.
c. There are universal truths. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter who is aware of this fact.
d. Therefore it follows that there must be a universal mind (God).

So if I replaced the key words according to your definitions*, it should look like this:

P1. Truth is a statement that agrees with reality.
P2. To tell a statement that agrees with reality, you need a mind.
P3. There are statements that agree with reality independent of the mind.
C. Therefore, an independent of the mind mind exists.

Using those definitions*, one can clearly see that the conclusion makes absolutely no sense at all. "Universal mind" (according to the definitions above) means: "An independent of the mind mind". This is nonsensical. How can a mind exist independent of the mind? Unless you change the definition of "universal" in "universal mind". But that would be equivication fallacy.

Also, a subjective or objective truth (or "truth" and "universal truth") can both be uttered by just humans. A person doesn't need a "universal mind" (whatever that means) to make a statement that agrees with reality independent of the mind. So your conclusion is also also clearly non-sequitur.

The "universal mind" (God) also hasn't made an objectively true statement yet, completely invalidating your argument as well, regardless of how you define "universal" anyway.

[FOOTNOTE]

*I have replaced the words "universal truth", "truth" and "universal mind" with the definitions that you presented before:

Truth: "A statement that agrees with reality"

Universal truth: "[A] statement about reality that would still exist no matter which humans were aware of them."

Universal: That which would still exist independent of the mind.
(definition taken from the definition of "universal truth" minus the definition of "truth".
Jerry947

Pro

"It's simply beyond human conprehension. But I'll humour you anyway and say that the cause is eternal."

Since you recognize that the cause is beyond the concept of time, you must also recognize that the cause is not restricted by time. This must mean that it has no beginning or end. That is eternal. But since you have already agreed (for this discussion), it is pointless to continue talking about it.

"But again, that makes no sense. The "cause" can't be "everywhere", yet be required to make the concept allowed for the "cause" to be "everywhere". Otherwise, that's begging the question. Omnipresence =/= space less."

I am not claiming that we can completely understand the cause. But since the cause would go beyond the concept of space (like you agreed), it would therefore also be unrestricted by space making it omnipresent.

"Really? So the cause wasn't all sensory before the existence of sensory perception?"

I don't really get what my opponent is saying here. All I stated was that the creation of a creator shows attributes that the creator has. For example, the senses might indicate that the cause is above these senses and can see everything and hear everything and etc...

"The universe is also made up of matter. Does that mean the cause is also material?"

I never said that the cause of the universe is the things that it creates. I said that creation can reflect attributes of the creator. Matter would indicate that the creator is intelligent and creative. When I said that God could hear everything and etc...I wasn't saying that God is the senses...but that God (or the cause) would be above our senses since he is the one that created humans with them.

"Ok, I'll humour you and assume morality can exist theoretically outside the physical mind to keep this debate simple. (But I'm not conceding that the cause is all moral)."

This does get a bit complicated...but if my opponent were to admit that objective morality exists, then I could show that only a God could have caused this perfect moral law to exist. But that is for another debate.

"You haven't proven its intelligence, creativeness and rationality. Also, could you define "personal" please? Actually, don't worry about it. I won't be able to rebut it."

That was my definition of a personal being. One that is rational, intelligent, and creative. I have show that the being is intelligent (created the complex universe), creative (created the complex universe), and as for rational...I would point to the fact that this eternal cause decided to wait till a specific time to create a universe that exists contingently. This shows that the being is rational.

"But how do you know that if God is ultramundane?"

The cause of the universe could not exist within the universe during the beginning. Does that make sense? The cause of something cannot be in its creation before the creation even exists. And by looking at the facts I have provided, the cause has to be personal, eternal, omnipresent, and etc...this shows that a God has to be the cause.

"Yes, I see that, but that's not what I want. I know the cause exists necessarily, but I reject your assertion that the cause was a being necessarily. The cause may not be a being, yet still be necessary."

Well, as I have already showed you, the cause must be creative, intelligent, eternal, personal, and etc...

Notice how only a God could fit those requirements?

"Ok, so basically subjective truth and objective truth then? So truth is a subjective truth dependant on ones taste and opinion whereas a universal (or objective) truth is true no matter what people think? I think I get it. Let me reexamine your argument:"

There is no such thing as subjective truth. Truth is not based on ones opinions. However, when someone says that their favorite ice cream is _____, this is a truth. It only becomes subjective when someone states that it is the best flavor that exists.

"So if I replaced the key words according to your definitions*, it should look like this:
P1. Truth is a statement that agrees with reality.
P2. To tell a statement that agrees with reality, you need a mind.
P3. There are statements that agree with reality independent of the mind.
C. Therefore, an independent of the mind mind exists."

Things would be much easier if you didn't rewrite my argument. Premise c in you revised edition should say "independent of human minds". And your last premise should say since "there are statements that exist without humans minds (universal truths), there must have been a universal mind making these statements.

" A person doesn't need a "universal mind" (whatever that means) to make a statement that agrees with reality independent of the mind. So your conclusion is also also clearly non-sequitur."

No one here has said that humans cannot restate universal truths or discover them. The point is that these universal truth statements would still exist with or without humans. And since statements require a mind, it must be a universal mind that originally said these statements.

"The "universal mind" (God) also hasn't made an objectively true statement yet, completely invalidating your argument as well, regardless of how you define "universal" anyway."

I am not even sure what this means. This presupposes that there isn't a God for one. Also...it makes it even more clear that my opponent doesn't understand my argument.

My opponent seems to agree that the statement 1+1=2 would still exist without humans. So I now ask my opponent who he thinks stated this if not humans? It has to come from a mind that understands all truth. So the answer is...a universal mind.
Debate Round No. 3
81 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AWSM0055 8 months ago
AWSM0055
Please, PM each other or f-off. Your clogging my notifications!
Posted by dude100 8 months ago
dude100
You're trying to prove something that is currently beyond our comprehension using only theories at your disposal. That isn't enough to become a theory. Theories require facts, and you are using theories in place of facts which are in fact not facts.
Posted by dude100 8 months ago
dude100
Yes you're absolutely right "scientific theory is in principle irrefutable, yet we debate them and we achieve results.." This is because a theory requires E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. when new evidence arrives then we debate over the subject to modify or improve or disprove said theory. What you have is a hypothesis: If I do this, then this will happen. But then you go on to say that you can prove it by posing your version of a theory: if this is true, then this is true. your basing your "hypothetical theory" on something which is not yet proven. In order for something to become a theory it needs to be tested with a series of facts that reinforce your idea, thats how all other theories are presented. You're basing this on the assumption that other theories are proven fact thus you have no facts to support your claim. Theories have facts to support them but are not completely proven.
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
ssadi
"The only reason why we debate about the subject is because for our love of argument, we all know that at the end of the day we'll achieve no result unless the topic were irrefutable."

No scientific theory is in principle irrefutable, yet we debate them and we achieve results.. Your point is actually pointless!!!

Go and learn a little science, before making scientific claims..
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
ssadi
You asked for picture or a sample for God... That actually shows how nonsensical you are being..

Give me a picture of energy. Give me some samples for dark matter and dark energy... Can anybody on earth do that? Then by your logic, they cannot be proven to be real... That is why it is nonsensical.
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
ssadi
"You're trying to prove that god exists without any proof"

What do you mean by proof?
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
ssadi
Are you then ready to reject science?

Because it is a fundamental criteria in science that any scientific conclusion MUST be falsifiable/refutable!!!

Or didn't you know about it?
Posted by dude100 8 months ago
dude100
The only reason why we debate about the subject is because for our love of argument, we all know that at the end of the day we'll achieve no result unless the topic were irrefutable.
Posted by dude100 8 months ago
dude100
I'm not saying that God exists, nor that he doesn't exist, I'm simply saying that it can't be proven.
Posted by dude100 8 months ago
dude100
You said- "What??? That is absolutely nonsense.. Something can be real even if nobody verified it or could verify it."

just because something can be real, doesn't mean that it IS real.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
AWSM0055Jerry947Tied
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: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/83180/
Vote Placed by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
AWSM0055Jerry947Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Given under comments (starting from 10th to 7th comments). If you have any objection to my RFD, feel free to PM me (so that I was directly notified) about it. I can reconsider anything in my RFD.