The Instigator
tala00131
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Projectid
Con (against)
Tied
0 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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 37851
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

tala00131

Pro

Here are some of the arguments for the existence of God.

The cosmological argument from contingency: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God, therefore, God exists. Everything that exists must have an explanation. Either in the necessity of its own nature, or an external cause. If you go to the park, you see a ball, you know it must have an explanation. The universe is no exception, it has an explanation. The universe can't exist in its own necessity, because it's possible for the universe not to exist. Therefore, it must have an external cause. The cause must be timeless, space-less, powerful, and personal (aka God.)

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe has a cause. The first premise is obviously true. The second premise is true. The expanding universe shows the universe had a beginning. The cause of the universe must be timeless, space-less, and powerful. Something like God! :) :) :) :)

A fine-tuned universe: It's clear the universe is finely tuned. If the rate of expansion after the big bang was altered by 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 life wouldn't exist. If the atomic weak force was altered by 2% life wouldn't exist. The fine tuning can only be due to chance or design, it is far to unlikely for it to be due to chance, therefore, it's due to design.

The moral argument: Humans have a moral code, we feel bad when we do something wrong. So who put that in you? Why do we feel bad when we see animals hurting? Why do we want to help people who do not have as much as us? This is what we should expect to see if there is a God.

Beauty: Humans have the ability to appreciate nature, and beauty. Why is that? Why do we like looking up at the stars? Or, looking at the sun set? This can't be due to evolution. For evolution is about survival.
Projectid

Con

Contention 1. The cosmological argument:
Problem a.) You are making the assumption that the cause is a God. So you need to prove that the cause is God.
b.) The assertion that it must be a particular God that the Pro has in mind is a complete non sequitur from contingency. It is impossible for the Pro to know this or prove it.
c.) The Pro also implies by default that the first cause could not be a multitude of Gods, this as well cannot be proved.
d.) Based on this argument of causality we must ask then: Who caused God and then who caused that cause, and on and on and on we go? The Pro will have to deal with infinite regression, and stating that God is an eternal presence that did not need to create himself will not work, because there is no proof and is not logical.
e.) The Pro: " Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God, therefore, God exists."
1.) The idea that every thing that exists has an explanation for its existence is completely unfounded.
2.) "IF" is the key word for the second part of the Pro's argument. Does the universe have an explanation of it's existence?
3.) Again God is a leap unjustified.

Contention 2.The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
a) Quantum mechanics proves your first premise false.
b) The second part of the argument assumes the universe had a beginning.
1.)"....the universe is expanding. Using the general theory of relativity, we can therefore infer from this data that the universe should be smaller and smaller as one looks back into the past. However, this works only up to a point. There is a point in time called the "Planck time" (after the late physicist Max Planck, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics) before which our ability to infer the behavior of the universe on the basis of general relativity alone is destroyed. The problem is that prior to the Planck time, the universe is so small that quantum mechanical effects become very important. Therefore, a correct description of the behavior of the universe prior to the Planck time requires a synthesis of quantum mechanics and general relativity--a theory of quantum gravity, in other words. And to this date, no full theory of quantum gravity has been developed, much less attained the consensus status that post-Planck-time Big Bang theory enjoys. Without such a theory, we cannot draw from cosmology any conclusions about whether the universe had a beginning or not."
http://www.infidels.org...
c) PRO: "The cause of the universe must be timeless, space-less, and powerful. Something like God! :) :) :) :)"
1) The Pro has not proven this statement to be true.

Contention 3: A fine-tuned universe
a).The Pro's first statement is a quote mine from Stephen Hawking which when taken alone (out of context) seems to prove the Pro's statement, but is does not. When reading the book "A Brief History of Time" in its entirety you will also read this: " Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen." (A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawkings pg.133)
Cosmological inflation solves the the issue of the expansion rate of the universe according to the brilliant Stephen Hawking.
b.) I assume the Pro is not a scientist, so what proof does he have in regards to the atomic force and its action and possibilities?

Contention 4: The moral argument:
a.) The Pro assumes that someone put our moral code (Ethics) in us, and because we have feelings this is what we should expect to see if there is a God.
1) This again is a leap, an assumption that because we have morals there must be a God. The Pro has only stated the idea of a God. Which God does the Pro mean? With out choosing one of the many Gods, we cannot know what morals the undefined God holds.

Contention 5. Beauty: Again Pro makes statements without any proof. The Pro thinks that without a God people cannot appreciate beauty. I have no God and I appreciate beauty everyday, therefore, I have proven his argument false.

All these arguments sound like William Lane Craig, I know this because I have seen ALL of his debates.

The Pro has certainly NOT proven that a God exists.
Debate Round No. 1
tala00131

Pro

First, my opponent did not give any argument to say that God does not exist. Let me respond to his "objections"

The Cosmological Argument from Contingency:
a) You are making the assumption that the cause is a God. So you need to prove that the cause is God.
Response: I'm not making an assumption. These are deductive arguments; if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows logicaly to be true. I explained why God is the best explanation.

b) The assertion that it must be a particular God that the Pro has in mind is a complete non sequitur from contingency. It is impossible for the Pro to know this or prove it.
Response: It doesn't matter if it was one God, or multiple Gods. All the argument says was that the best explanation for the exsitence of anything is a creator.
c.) The Pro also implies by default that the first cause could not be a multitude of Gods, this as well cannot be proved.
Response: Who cares? The argument says there must have been a cause, it doesn't matter if there was or wasn't more than one creator.
d.) Based on this argument of causality we must ask then: Who caused God and then who caused that cause, and on and on and on we go? The Pro will have to deal with infinite regression, and stating that God is an eternal presence that did not need to create himself will not work, because there is no proof and is not logical.
Response: God doesn't need to have a cause. God's existence is necessary, did you even read my argument?
e.) The Pro: " Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God, therefore, God exists."
1.) The idea that every thing that exists has an explanation for its existence is completely unfounded.
2.) "IF" is the key word for the second part of the Pro's argument. Does the universe have an explanation of it's existence?
3.) Again God is a leap unjustified.
Response: My opponent must believe in magic, since he thinks something can come into being un-caused.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
a) Quantum mechanics proves your first premise false.
Response: How so?
b) The second part of the argument assumes the universe had a beginning.
Response: No it doesn't, science proves the universe has a beginning.
1.)"....the universe is expanding. Using the general theory of relativity, we can therefore infer from this data that the universe should be smaller and smaller as one looks back into the past. However, this works only up to a point. There is a point in time called the "Planck time" (after the late physicist Max Planck, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics) before which our ability to infer the behavior of the universe on the basis of general relativity alone is destroyed. The problem is that prior to the Planck time, the universe is so small that quantum mechanical effects become very important. Therefore, a correct description of the behavior of the universe prior to the Planck time requires a synthesis of quantum mechanics and general relativity--a theory of quantum gravity, in other words. And to this date, no full theory of quantum gravity has been developed, much less attained the consensus status that post-Planck-time Big Bang theory enjoys. Without such a theory, we cannot draw from cosmology any conclusions about whether the universe had a beginning or not."
Response: Where did the point come from? Most scientists don't agree that the singularity is eternal.
A fine-tuned universe:
a).The Pro's first statement is a quote mine from Stephen Hawking which when taken alone (out of context) seems to prove the Pro's statement, but is does not. When reading the book "A Brief History of Time" in its entirety you will also read this: " Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen." (A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawkings pg.133)
Response: I didn't get it from Stephen Hawking, even if I did; it wouldn't matter.
b.) I assume the Pro is not a scientist, so what proof does he have in regards to the atomic force and its action and possibilities?
Response: Read a book on physics. https://www.youtube.com...

The Moral Argument:
a.) The Pro assumes that someone put our moral code (Ethics) in us, and because we have feelings this is what we should expect to see if there is a God.
Response: I'm not assuming that, I said a moral code is what we should see if there is a creator.
1) This again is a leap, an assumption that because we have morals there must be a God. The Pro has only stated the idea of a God. Which God does the Pro mean? With out choosing one of the many Gods, we cannot know what morals the undefined God holds.
Response: Please read my argument.

Beauty: My opponent says that he doesn't believe in God, and he still appreciates beauty. That doesn't prove the argument false.

In conclusion: I have dealt with my opponent's objections, he has given no argument to think that God does not exist. :)
Projectid

Con

1. Cosmological argument:

My contentions are my arguments for the likely hood that a God does not exist.

A)You cannot and have not proven that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. In order to know this you would have to know about everything in the universe.

B) You do not have an explanation of the existence of the universe. If "universe" is taken to mean "existence", it isn't clear how there can even be an explanation. An explanation of existence is a logical impossibility, as there is nothing outside existence that can explain it.

C) How did a space-less, time-less, and non-physical being CAUSE time and space without any physical attributes? It is not logical for this to happen.

2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

A) Quantum electrodynamic sub atomic particles come in and out of existence without cause as understood from Bell's Theorem.

B) A space time universe is needed for sequential causation, cause and effect is only something that occurs once the universe has already exists.

C) There are no signs of the violation of nature in the expanding of the universe, hence no evidence of any supernatural cause, therefore no God was needed.

D) The Pro did not deal with my argument on the "Infinite regression". So who created God?

E) If God was outside of time he never existed, if he was outside of space then he existed nowhere.

F) It is hypocritical to claim that something cannot come from nothing and then to assert that a God creates something ex nihilo.

3. A fine-tuned universe:

A) Supposed constants teetering on the brink of destruction do not prove God, they disprove him.

B) How can anyone claim that things that are close to destruction are based on a good design or intelligent?

C) Why would an intelligent designer make most of the universe lethal to humans if it was created around us or for us?

4. The moral argument:

A) Your moral argument does not prove God, but you use it as if it does. You assumed that someone put a moral code in us, and you assume to know what we would be like if there was no God, as if you have something to compare it with, while believing a God exists.

5. Beauty:
A) This again does not prove the existence of God.

POINTS FOR THE PRO TO DEAL WITH:

1. God is non-existent. The pro must show that God can be seen.

2. There is no observational empirical proof or evidence that a God exists. The Pro must provide evidence.

3. Evolution proves that God is unnecessary: The theory of evolution says that every living thing on this planet has evolved through a completely natural process. Every species that we see today is derived from simple, single-cell organisms over the course of hundreds of millions of years. The Pro must prove that evolution is false.

4. Science proves that God does not exist:
1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.
God: The Failed Hypothesis " How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger

We are going to see what evidence the Pro provides for us.
Debate Round No. 2
tala00131

Pro

A)You cannot and have not proven that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. In order to know this you would have to know about everything in the universe.
Response: Everything that exists must have an explanation. If you don't accept this, then there's no point debating.
B) You do not have an explanation of the existence of the universe. If "universe" is taken to mean "existence", it isn't clear how there can even be an explanation. An explanation of existence is a logical impossibility, as there is nothing outside existence that can explain it.
Response: The universe began to exist.
C) How did a space-less, time-less, and non-physical being CAUSE time and space without any physical attributes? It is not logical for this to happen.
Response: That's why the cause must be powerful.
A) Quantum electrodynamic sub atomic particles come in and out of existence without cause as understood from Bell's Theorem.
Response: They don't come into existence without a cause. They come into being in empty space with low levels of energy.
B) A space time universe is needed for sequential causation, cause and effect is only something that occurs once the universe has already exists.
Response: Can you prove this?
D) The Pro did not deal with my argument on the "Infinite regression". So who created God?
Response: God is eternal.

E) If God was outside of time he never existed, if he was outside of space then he existed nowhere.
Response: That's silly.

F) It is hypocritical to claim that something cannot come from nothing and then to assert that a God creates something ex nihilo.
Response: That's why the cause must be powerful.
A) Supposed constants teetering on the brink of destruction do not prove God, they disprove him.
Response: How?
B) How can anyone claim that things that are close to destruction are based on a good design or intelligent?
Response: How are things close to destruction?
C) Why would an intelligent designer make most of the universe lethal to humans if it was created around us or for us?
Response: We don't live in other areas of the universe, so why does it matter?

A) Your moral argument does not prove God, but you use it as if it does. You assumed that someone put a moral code in us, and you assume to know what we would be like if there was no God, as if you have something to compare it with, while believing a God exists.
Response: Read my argument.
A) This again does not prove the existence of God.
Response: How does it not?
1. God is non-existent. The pro must show that God can be seen.
Response: There are lots of things we can't see.
2. There is no observational empirical proof or evidence that a God exists. The Pro must provide evidence.
Response: Read my arguments.

3. Evolution proves that God is unnecessary: The theory of evolution says that every living thing on this planet has evolved through a completely natural process. Every species that we see today is derived from simple, single-cell organisms over the course of hundreds of millions of years. The Pro must prove that evolution is false.
Response: Evolution has nothing to do with God. There are many wholes in evolution. It's not supported by the fossil record. You're the one asserting evolution happened, the burden of proof is on you. Can you give an example of a genetic mutation, or an evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in the genome? Why are there gaps in the fossil record? The fossil record proves progressive creationism. How did sex originate? Where did the first living thing come from? How did the nano technology of the cell originate? Natural selection removes information, how did natural selection create new species?
4. Science proves that God does not exist:
1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.
Response: God is a question for philosophy.
Projectid

Con

I will conclude this debate by pointing out the facts as I see them.

The Pro gives several philosophical arguments to supposedly prove the existence of God.

A. The first one is the cosmological argument from contingency which states:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

The problem of this statement is that it is a fallacy of composition. Even if everything that exists at any moment has an explanation to it (i.e. there is no contingency), it does not follow that everything taken together has an explanation to it.

So the first part of the argument is FALSE. This alone proves the syllogism FALSE.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God, therefore, God exists.

The pro assumes that he has the explanation of the universe and the external cause of the universe is God. The Pro does not know this and he cannot prove it. In fact the Pro cannot even tell us who or what a God is. This is what we call the God of the gaps theory. Whatever science is not absolutely sure about, the Theist inserts a God. The second premise of his argument cannot be verified with any evidence, merely speculation.

B. The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
a) This means the Pro has to accept "A-Theory" or "Tensed Theory" of time which is controversial and an unscientific position. This means that something that could exist timelessly and changelessly could not move, could not have different mental states, and couldn't think. Even William Lane Craig knows this, that is why he uses the Neo-Lorentzian's interpretation of relativity.
2. Premise two: The universe began to exist.
a) The universe indeed began to exist, and the First Law of Thermal dynamics proves that something existed before the universe began. If there is even a possibility that a God could exist before time and space then so could the nature of the universe, all we would need is a simple quantum state to get everything going. The burden of proof is this: in order to establish premise 2 the Pro would need to show that all material reality had an absolute beginning and that all material reality was preceded by "Nothing", but the Pro and no one else can do this.

b)The Kalam argument demands a "Timeless" causation, which is absurd.

C. The "Fine-Tuning" argument:

1. " The talk of necessity for highly tuned constants to permit life is that they were TO permit life and more importantly, that life is at all important. This assumption is unwarranted. Why should it be fine tuned for life and not rock? Or, if you are talking about how life is very rare (which in itself is an argument AGAINST fine-tuning), then why is it not argued to be fine-tuned for an exceptionally rare element, or combination of elements that is rarer than life itself?"
Richard Carrier; "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism"

2. The Pro said this: "The fine tuning can only be due to chance or design, it is far to unlikely for it to be due to chance, therefore, it's due to design."
a) This is not an argument for proof of a God, I can easily say "It is far too unlikely for it to be due to a invisible being, therefore, it's due to chance".

D. Moral argument:
1. The Pro NEVER really had anything else to say about this argument beyond his initial post. The Pro has NOT explained his God in any way as to know what God he defends in this debate, so it is meaningless to talk about any morality since no one knows what this unsaid God's morality is.

E. Beauty argument: If the unsaid God of the Pro is like any of the supposed Gods I have investigated, then beauty argument is a waste of time like the moral argument. Perhaps another debate on morals would be beneficial.

Now on to how the Pro dealt with my arguments:

1. God is non-existent. The pro must show that God can be seen.
Pros response: "There are lots of things we can't see."
a) We have NOTHING for proof when it comes to anyone seeing a God or the effects of a God. Your response is lacking.

2. There is no observational empirical proof or evidence that a God exists. The Pro must provide evidence.
Pros response: "Read my arguments."
a) Your arguments are not empirical evidence for a God. The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.

3. Evolution proves that God is unnecessary:
Pros response: " Evolution has nothing to do with God."
a) I couldn't agree more.
b) "When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming."
http://www.talkorigins.org...
c) No God is needed to explain life.

4. Science proves that God does not exist:
1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.
Pros response: " God is a question for philosophy."
a) Philosophy has not proven the existence of a God.

b) "There are no philosophical arguments that prove that any gods do or must exist. Even the very best philosophical arguments would, at most, make the existence of some sort of god plausible or perhaps likely " and that is assuming that those arguments are strong. In reality, however, even the best arguments defending the existence of God are full of problems, holes, and logical errors. Most of the time they seem to be more about helping believers rationalize and justify beliefs they already hold rather than to provide a sound foundation for adopting a belief." - Austin Cline

The Pro has not proven the existence of any God and that burden of proof is on him will always be on him.

I would like to thank the Pro for his time.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DhuiLim 3 years ago
DhuiLim
The instigator for sure can give no evidence to prove god's existence, anyway i would say, its beyond our understandings and we need to admit it. The God exists because you trust it, and so the reverse.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
Well simpleman,if the Bible and philosophy proved that God existed then there would be no debate.
Posted by simpleman 3 years ago
simpleman
Con, science has not and cannot prove a negative absolute, or the absolute nonexistence of anything. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't say he knows for sure. Such a thing is logically untenable in the absence of unlimited knowledge of the universe, and since science is still studying our own galaxy, much less the billions of others, I would not stand on that basis for support. Life is not lived through evidence, elsewise where is your individual personality in the universe?
Posted by Dognip 3 years ago
Dognip
Con, a Fined tuned universe actually contradicts your argument.

Wouldn't god's hand be forced?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
tala00131ProjectidTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: great effort