The Instigator
tahir123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
fnarkchang
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 752 times Debate No: 39027
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

tahir123

Pro

First Round will be acceptance only.
Second Round will be Opening Arguments
Third Round will be Rebuttals
Fourth Round will be another set of Rebuttals
and Fifth Round will be Concluding Remarks

Please enjoy the Debate inshallah

Jazakallah
fnarkchang

Con

It is unreasonable to believe that a God exists.
Debate Round No. 1
tahir123

Pro

I seek refuge withe Allah (swt) from Satan the Rejected, in the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful

Dear Brother thanks for excepting this debate, I will now post my arguments as to why I believe God exists inshallah

1. God makes sense of the beginning of the universe

There are four possibilities as to how the universe originated

1. The universe is eternal
2. The universe came from nothing
3. The universe created itself
4. The universe had a creator

1. The universe is eternal: This can't be true because in order for the universe to be eternal it must have an infinite past, but infinity can't exist in the material world

for example what is infinity minus three? it leads to contradictory answers, therefore the universe can't have an infinite past because history and time can't be infinite

this demolishes all theories that the universe is eternal

Entropy also proves that the universe can't be eternal because all the energy of the stars would have burned out by now if the universe was eternal

Also the Big Bang proves that the universe did have a beginning 14.5 billion years ago and is not eternal

People like to use the oscillating model to suggest that the universe goes through an infinite series of big bang and big crunches to disprove this point, but this is irrational

The Oscillating Model has problems because again infinity can't exist in the material world, therefore their can't be an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches

also dark energy proves that there will be no big crunch and the universe will die in ice

also entropy would still effect the oscillating universe

and there is no known law of nature that would allow a universe to bounce back after into a big bang after a big crunch

The universe can't be eternal

2. The universe came from nothing: This is absurd, something can't come from nothing, if absolute nothingness existed then there would be nothing now, and why don't we see pink elephants popping into existence if it were possible?

Also some atheist like to use quantum fluctuations to prove that something can come from nothing, but the quantum vacuum is something not nothing, and it is something that is finite and therefore needs a creator, because I already proved that infinity can't exist in the material world, and since the quantum vacuum is part of the material world it can't be infinite

Also virtual particles come in matter and antimatter pairs and annihilate each other after they are created, where is the antimatter and how did the universe not annihilate itself?

Also Quantum physics is used by new agers to justify their concept that we are all God, such as quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment, why should we take quantum fluctuations seriously and not quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment?

3. The universe created itself: This is most absurd, can your mother give birth to herself? No therefore the universe couldn't create itself because it would have to exist and not exist at the same time.

4. The universe has a creator: This is the only sound explanation, the creator mus be eternal, so it has no creator so we don't have an infinite regress, it must be immaterial so it can be infinite and it must be intelligent sot it can create the universe.

2. The Argument from Design: The universe is fine tuned for life to exist, if gravity was a little bit stronger or weaker we would not exist.
Atheist try to say a multiverse can explain this, but where did all the universes come from?
Also there is no proof parallel universes exist in the first place

3. Transcendental Argument: The laws of logic exist (The law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non contradiction) These laws are immaterial, they are not made up of atoms, and they can't be just concepts made up by people because everyone uses them and everyone uses logic. Atheism or materialism can't account for them but theism can therefore God exists

When we use logic we are referring to God's perfect thinking, Alhumdulillah

4. The Moral Argument: Objective Moral Values exist, according to atheism however there is no God and no Final Judgement, we are just animals, so then why is it wrong for me to kill people, I could kill as many people as I want and then kill myself and then get away with it, if there is no God, but Objective Moral Values exist, therefore God exists

5. Biogenesis: We have yet to create life from non life, if we can't do it, it can't be done by itself. A single cell is more complicated than an airplane, but an airplane can't assemble itself, so how could a single cell. Not even Protobionts can create themselves, how did life begin? Evolution can't answer therefore there has to be a being greater than humans who created life, and that is God Alhumdulilla

6. The Quranic Argument: This is my most powerful argument proving that God exists. In the arabic language all forms of literature are either Prose or Poetry, the Quran alone falls into neither category and is a perfect combination of both.

The Quran challenges us, "If you are in doubt of what We have revealed to Our messenger, then produce one chapter like it. Call upon all your helpers, besides Allah, if you are truthful" (2:23)

To this day no one has met the challenge of the Quran and made a chapter like it that is both Prose and Poetry

whoever did try they failed and made a chapter that fell into either Prose or Poetry

The following is a list of the people who tried to make a chapter like the Holy Quran

Ibn al-Mukaffa'

Musaylimah

Abu'l-cAla al-Marri

Yahya b. al-Hakam al-Ghazal

Sayyid cAli Muhammad (Also known as Bab)

Ibn al-Rawandi

Bassar bin Burd, Sahib Ibn 'Abbad & Abu'l- 'Atahiya

They all failed

Furthermore the Quran has many scientific miracles in it such as the Big Bang (21:30) and embryology, furthermore there
are no contradictions in the Quran

The Origin of the universe, The Argument from Design, The Transcendental Argument, Morality, Bio-genesis, and the Holy Quran's challenge, are all proof that God exists

I am excited to hear Con's opening arguments and in the Rebuttal section I will inshallah take his arguments apart

God Bless inshallah

Jazakallah

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com...

http://www.islamic-awareness.org...

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com...

http://www.answering-christianity.com...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com...

http://carm.org...
fnarkchang

Con

Your Origin of the Universe argument is concise with what humanity has observed over the course of a short relative time in our stay in the universe, but what humanity has seen as opposed to the increasing knowledge of the universe is not much, thus, it is more reasonable to address this argument with ignorance; That it is most logical to say "I don't know whether or not the Universe has a cause or not a cause." However that does not mean we will remain ignorant. Our knowledge will change and will be subject to the information and data presented to us. If it changes, or if new data be recognized, our beliefs will be shaped accordingly.

Also, if it were the case that the Universe has a cause, many abstract objects can be the cause of it. We can be in a computer simulation, or the universe is caused by an abstract idea that is omnipotent but not conscious and identifiable like a single object like God is.

Furthermore, if it also were the case that one would propose that they were so intelligible of the Universe enough to give credit to an abstract idea to a God, it would their burden to absolutely, demonstrably, and deductively prove this to us. Otherwise, It would be unreasonable for anyone to believe you, and rightfully so.

We could be in a computer simulation or we could've been created by God, but we cannot absolutely know for sure. However, to believe that we were created by God is also reasonable enough to believe that we are in a Computer simulation; They're both unreasonable.

To address the fine tuning argument, If one finds it reasonable enough to believe that because of such specificity in the requirements of life, so a God must have done it, than it is also reasonable enough to believe that because of such specificity in the requirements of life, we must be in a omnipotent computer simulation.

Before I address more of these arguments, I'd like to express how your arguments are founded upon your first claim, that 'since the universe has a cause, therefore there must be a creator' which I found to be fallible because a cause does not necessarily mean a conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent like a God is, thus your subsequent arguments are also fallible.

It is true, we are animals, but even animals do have their own moral principles. Why does a mother bear care for her young? Why do wolves hunt in packs? Why don't wolves eat each other? What is ordering them to behave the way they do? It seems to me that our search for why we feel so morally obligated to one another does actually stem from nature than it does from outside this physical realm.

We have been able to create amino acids, the natural building blocks of life, under primordial earth-like conditions, and we have found meteors and asteroids containing amino acids. You're right Evolution cannot answer this, as abiogenises and evolution are two separate subjects. Abiogenises reflects upon how life began whereas Evolution explains how life evolves.

The Quranic Argument, that is not a solid argument that God exists. If I create a new genre of music that is a perfect mixture of classical and new age, and people deemed it beautiful, does it then mean that there is a God? Quite fallacious to assume the existence of a God due to the complexity of literature, don't you think?

I'd like to express once more that all the arguments given were not deductible evidence that a God exists. They were not demonstrable and absolute like a science experiment in University would be, and therefore truly unreasonable to believe such a case.
Debate Round No. 2
tahir123

Pro

I seek refuge with Allah (swt) from Satan the Rejected, In the name of Allah (swt) the Most gracious Most Mercifull

May Peace and Blessings of Allah (swt) be upon you all

"Your Origin of the Universe argument is concise with what humanity has observed over the course of a short relative time in our stay in the universe, but what humanity has seen as opposed to the increasing knowledge of the universe is not much, thus, it is more reasonable to address this argument with ignorance; That it is most logical to say "I don't know whether or not the Universe has a cause or not a cause." However that does not mean we will remain ignorant. Our knowledge will change and will be subject to the information and data presented to us. If it changes, or if new data be recognized, our beliefs will be shaped accordingly."

Well current data shows that the universe had a beginning, and that has been proved by the Cosmic Background Radiation, that a Big Bang happened

If the universe had a beginning it had to have a cause, because everything that has a beginning has a cause

Science may not be able to go back before the Big Bang but logic

does. I already have shown that the universe can't be infinite, because infinity can't exist in the material world because what is infinity minus three? It leads to self contradictory answers

Therefore there are only three explanations to the origin of the universe, they are; the universe came from nothing, it created itself, or it was created

Only one of those explanations is not self contradictory and makes sense, and that is the universe had a Creator

It is unreasonable to say that, "we don't know if the universe had a cause," because logic tells us that it did have a cause, and we have to deal with that because there is no alternative explanation, making God highly possible and highly probable to exist

"Also, if it were the case that the Universe has a cause, many abstract objects can be the cause of it. We can be in a computer simulation, or the universe is caused by an abstract idea that is omnipotent but not conscious and identifiable like a single object like God is."

What ever created the universe, had to have the will to create the universe, therefore it has to be intelligent, and if we are living in a computer simulation, who created the computer simulation? Was it aliens or robots like in The Matrix movies?

If so they too would require a creator since they are finite beings and God alone is infinite. The Creator of the universe must be infinite (So it too wouldn't require and explantion) He would have to be immaterial (so He can be infinite) and He would have to be intelligent (so He could be smart enough to create a universe.

"Furthermore, if it also were the case that one would propose that they were so intelligible of the Universe enough to give credit to an abstract idea to a God, it would their burden to absolutely, demonstrably, and deductively prove this to us. Otherwise, It would be unreasonable for anyone to believe you, and rightfully so."

I have already deductively proven that Creator of the universe has to be eternal, immaterial, and intelligent

"We could be in a computer simulation or we could've been created by God, but we cannot absolutely know for sure. However, to believe that we were created by God is also reasonable enough to believe that we are in a Computer simulation; They're both unreasonable."

Who created the simulation? Why are they both unreasonable? Where did the universe come from? Why is there something rather than nothing?

"To address the fine tuning argument, If one finds it reasonable enough to believe that because of such specificity in the requirements of life, so a God must have done it, than it is also reasonable enough to believe that because of such specificity in the requirements of life, we must be in a omnipotent computer simulation."

Again who created the computer simulation?

"Before I address more of these arguments, I'd like to express how your arguments are founded upon your first claim, that 'since the universe has a cause, therefore there must be a creator' which I found to be fallible because a cause does not necessarily mean a conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent like a God is, thus your subsequent arguments are also fallible."

I already proved the Creator has to be eternal, Transcendent, and intelligent just like God is

"It is true, we are animals, but even animals do have their own moral principles. Why does a mother bear care for her young? Why do wolves hunt in packs? Why don't wolves eat each other? What is ordering them to behave the way they do? It seems to me that our search for why we feel so morally obligated to one another does actually stem from nature than it does from outside this physical realm."

The animals hunt in packs and care for their young to survive as a species, but they rely on instinct, they don't have free will and the consciousness we do. Why should I care about the survival of my species when I know we are all going to die, Why can't I go around killing people, when I could get away with it? If there is no God or final Judgement, there are no rules, and the rules of nature don't apply to us either because we have free will, so I could go around killing people and get away with it, but I can't because there is a God and a final judgement

"We have been able to create amino acids, the natural building blocks of life, under primordial earth-like conditions, and we have found meteors and asteroids containing amino acids. You're right Evolution cannot answer this, as abiogenises and evolution are two separate subjects. Abiogenises reflects upon how life began whereas Evolution explains how life evolves."

Yes we have been able to create a few left handed and right handed amino acids, but proteins must be made up of only left handed amino acids, also proteins are way more complex than amino acids, as a house is to a brick, we have yet to create proteins or even a single cell,

"the chances of a cell assembling itself is like a tornado sweeping through a junk yard and creating an airplane," Fred Hoyle

also the if life could create itself why can't life create itself now? Abiogenesis has no proof but biogenesis does.

"The Quranic Argument, that is not a solid argument that God exists. If I create a new genre of music that is a perfect mixture of classical and new age, and people deemed it beautiful, does it then mean that there is a God? Quite fallacious to assume the existence of a God due to the complexity of literature, don't you think?"

I am not referring to the Quran's beauty I am referring to its complex form and structure, and it is both prose and poetry while all other forms of arabic liturature are either one of the two

Muhammad (saw) was not a poet and he was illiterate, how could he come up with the Quran?

I also gave a list of people who tried to create a chapter like the Quran, they all failed, why is that?

Con did not address that, Con also did not address the scientific miracles of the quran such as the Big Bang Theory (21:30)

Con also did not address the Transcendental Argument

This also was not a rebuttal round Con was supposed to make his own opening arguments, Con did not follow the format of this debate, but it's ok, in the next section he will have to make another rebuttal of his rebuttal

"I'd like to express once more that all the arguments given were not deductible evidence that a God exists. They were not demonstrable and absolute like a science experiment in University would be, and therefore truly unreasonable to believe such a case."

The arguments were deductible evidence that a God exists as I have shown, and the Quranic argument has been demonstrated in many universities and by a number of scholars, and is absolute, there for it is reasonable to believe in such a case

Jazakallah
fnarkchang

Con

I already said I agreed with you when there might have been a cause for the beginning of the universe. The problem is that you're giving credit to a God, which you cannot absolutely prove or justify, to the cause of the universe.

The cause can be a computer simulation.

Imagine this, a software company, say the creator, builds a new game called SIMS and releases out to the public. Each and every time a user opens up a SIMs game, an instance of the universe is created. By following your rules of logic, this scenario can easily be justified and reasonable to believe. Notice the creator, the software company, they are not in complete control of the instance of the universe a player has created. They have merely programmed the game and set some laws and restrictions added to it, but are not omnipotent. Therefore, it would be unreasonable, as an artificially intelligent SIMs character to call out to the creator for help. Furthermore, the player, albeit a little bit more in control still is not omnipotent because of the laws and restrictions set by the creator in the first place.

Lastly, for any event to occur, it may be relied on multiple causes instead of one. For example, if one were to make a chair, a series of causes (taking down a tree, gathering a wood, preparing the wood, having the woodworker finish the chair), can make an even occur. For the scenario given, the computer simulation, the causes would be the software company making the game, the computer processor to compute the game, the graphics card to view the game, the player creating an instance of the game, are all causes as to why this even has occurred.

I have just given a scenario that is justifiable to believe in, according to your logic, as it suits the need for a cause of the beginning of the Universe, but recognize how there is not iota of a God, an absolute creator, but just a conglomerate of causes.

There are an infinite amount of abstract ideas and causes that can suit the logic that you are using. What proves your God more justifiable than the scenario I have just given? Can you absolutely and demonstrably prove such a case? I know that anyone cannot absolutely disprove the scenario that we are in a simulation, that we can be in a game right now, where no entities in the outside realm are omnipotent to save us, nor is there an afterlife, but are we to believe in such a scenario?

No, it's unreasonable to believe in such a case, because of how we lack the knowledge of the universe at this point in time.

This is your problem, you're equating a cause to an absolute creator, when there are infinite amount of abstract ideas that can fit to the cause of the beginning of the universe.

"I have already deductively proven that Creator of the universe has to be eternal, immaterial, and intelligent"

No, you have inductively reasoned this because you are only using common sense and reason to bring your point. Had you've been deductively reasoning to me, You would've been conducting an experiment to foolproof prove to me that a Creator exists.

Say one deems your logic reasonable, what then? He then asks, "well, which God is the true God," and you would express how your God is the most fitting, but what if he doesn't like your God. Say, this person has now converted to Hindu using all the reasoning that you have used in the first place. Then the most reasonable, who has viewed this whole situation, would believe it's unreasonable to believe either, and unreasonable to try and prove such a case when our knowledge of the universe, is not complete enough to make such assumptions.

The problem with the Morality argument is that you imply that only a creator can impose moral code, when man cannot. Throughout history we have seen laws imposed independent from religious beliefs. The United States federal law deems it illegal to smoke tobacco on federally funded elementary schools. This is not a law that has any sort of ties with religious ideas, but we as a society abide to it, because we are intellectually capable of what good this can bring. God did not make this law, man did. Man can make moral code.

Also, the atheist community comprises of only 9 percent of the federal prisons, when they are 30 percent in the census. The chances that a lawbreaker or evildoer is a religious person is highly more likely. A reasonable man would recognize this and conclude that religious ideas do not correlate with morality but more with society and nature.

Morality does not correlate with religion or a God. Is there a moral good that a religious man can do that an atheist man cannot absolutely do? Is there a moral evil that an atheist man can do but a religious man have not done?

"The animals hunt in packs and care for their young to survive as a species, but they rely on instinct, they don't have free will and the consciousness we do"
Can you prove such a thing? I would argue that animals have as much free will as humans do, there are emotional and thoughtful creatures besides humans. They love, they care, they fear, they show affection, they are free to do any of this. Oh, we, humans, are closer to animals than you think.

I have objectively concluded, THAT WITHIN THIS SOCIETY, it is wrong to kill someone because of the pain and suffering i'd cause not only the loved ones of said person, but the pain of this society. Anyone who cannot come to the conclusion of why killing is wrong, without the notion of a God, needs to seek mental help. If, for the sake of the argument, God was to be ULTIMATELY and ABSOLUTELY disproved tomorrow, would YOU go harm society? If you would and you believe every religious person would also do so, then I think evil comes from religion, don't you think?
If you wouldn't, why wouldn't you? Of course, you would reason with yourself how killing is not a nice thing to do, and you would use reasonable conclusions without the idea of a God.

You do not need God to be good.
Debate Round No. 3
tahir123

Pro

I begin with the Islamic Greeting of Peace, and by seeking refuge with Allah (swt) from Satan the accursed and in the name of Allah (swt) most gracious most merciful

"I already said I agreed with you when there might have been a cause for the beginning of the universe. The problem is that you're giving credit to a God, which you cannot absolutely prove or justify, to the cause of the universe."

Con agrees that there must be a cause to the universe, I already proved however that the cause must be eternal, so it too wouldn't require and explanation, it must be immaterial, so it could be infinite, and it must be intelligent so it could chose to create a universe, all these are attributes of God

Con then goes on to argue that the universe is a computer simulation, but I already addressed that and asked who created the computer simulation.

If the universe is a program in a computer game who created the computer, was it aliens, robots, or people?

all these are finite beings they would too need a creator, the creator of the universe has to be eternal and that can only be God.

"No, you have inductively reasoned this because you are only using common sense and reason to bring your point. Had you've been deductively reasoning to me, You would've been conducting an experiment to foolproof prove to me that a Creator exists."

We can't do an experiment to prove this physically, but we can do mental experiments and use logic, because something eternal had to have created the universe it couldn't be something finite like a computer programmer, because then we could ask the question who created the programmer?

Even if the universe is a simulation, someone had to have created it, the creator must be eternal so it too doesn't require and explanation.

"Say one deems your logic reasonable, what then? He then asks, "well, which God is the true God," and you would express how your God is the most fitting, but what if he doesn't like your God. Say, this person has now converted to Hindu using all the reasoning that you have used in the first place. Then the most reasonable, who has viewed this whole situation, would believe it's unreasonable to believe either, and unreasonable to try and prove such a case when our knowledge of the universe, is not complete enough to make such assumptions."

Which god is the true God, well there is only one God, as the Quran says, "Say He is Allah the one Allah the independent and besought of all, He begets not nor is He begotten and there is none like unto Him,"

God is an eternal independent being, and there is only one religion that worships such an independent being and that is Islam

I already proved that God must be eternal so He too doesn't require and explanation and that He must be immaterial so He can be infinite and eternal, sot this proves that the God of Islam exists

as for Hinduism they believe everyone is God, if everyone is God why can't we control the universe

Christians believe God is a man, but how can a man be God if he was created

only Muslims worship the eternal creator whose existence I have already proved

"The problem with the Morality argument is that you imply that only a creator can impose moral code, when man cannot. Throughout history we have seen laws imposed independent from religious beliefs. The United States federal law deems it illegal to smoke tobacco on federally funded elementary schools. This is not a law that has any sort of ties with religious ideas, but we as a society abide to it, because we are intellectually capable of what good this can bring. God did not make this law, man did. Man can make moral code."

Man can only create what is legal not what is moral, if it was legal to kill people would it mean that it was morally justifiable to kill people? No why is that? because we know there is a God and a final judgement, and God said don't kill people or you'll burn in hell, and that is why we know killing people is wrong

"Also, the atheist community comprises of only 9 percent of the federal prisons, when they are 30 percent in the census. The chances that a lawbreaker or evildoer is a religious person is highly more likely. A reasonable man would recognize this and conclude that religious ideas do not correlate with morality but more with society and nature.

Morality does not correlate with religion or a God. Is there a moral good that a religious man can do that an atheist man cannot absolutely do? Is there a moral evil that an atheist man can do but a religious man have not done?"

No where in the Quran does it say to go around killing people and committing crimes, you can't blame religion for what certain extremists do, just like you can't blame Darvin and Evolution for Hitler and Stalin who believed in Social Darwinism

"I have objectively concluded, THAT WITHIN THIS SOCIETY, it is wrong to kill someone because of the pain and suffering i'd cause not only the loved ones of said person, but the pain of this society. Anyone who cannot come to the conclusion of why killing is wrong, without the notion of a God, needs to seek mental help. If, for the sake of the argument, God was to be ULTIMATELY and ABSOLUTELY disproved tomorrow, would YOU go harm society? If you would and you believe every religious person would also do so, then I think evil comes from religion, don't you think?
If you wouldn't, why wouldn't you? Of course, you would reason with yourself how killing is not a nice thing to do, and you would use reasonable conclusions without the idea of a God."

Who cares about society if there is no God, we are all going to die aren't we, so why not go around killing people. If there was no God I would kill myself because I will die anyways and no one could stop me, who could stop me from killing people and getting away with it. Only God can and he gave us the moral code in his Book the Holy Quran and from it do we know what is right and what is wrong and if we do wrong we will be punished

and you can't blame religion (unless it's a crazy cult that does encourage killing people) for a few extremists, no where in the Quran does it say such things, so you can't blame Islam for anything

"You do not need God to be good."

You do need God to be good, because God is good, how would you define Good and Evil without a God?

Con missed some serious points in this debate

He still hasn't addressed who created the computer simulation, the transcendental argument, and the Quranic Argument

and why no one has been able to write a chapter like the Holy Quran

Con tries to use logic, but in doing so he is borrowing my worldview, the laws of logic are immaterial, and can't be made by humans because then they wouldn't exist and there would be no logic and no conversation

atheism/materialism says everything is made up of matter, but these laws of logic aren't thus disproving atheism/materialism

Con has to address this point

listen Con, Muhammad (saw) was no poet, how could he have come up with the Quran, while there were poets thousands of times better than him who could not

Mecca's whole economy ran around idol worship, so when Muhammad (saw) started preaching there is only One God, it ruined Mecca's economy, The Meccans tried to stop him, they tried to give him money, women, and power, but He said if you give me the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left I will never stop preaching

They then persecuted Him and his followers, and killed many of his followers, but still he didn't give up

all they had to do was create a single chapter (3 verses) like the Holy Quran, to stop him and his preaching

they had the best poets of Arabia ever, but they could still not do it.

That is proof that there is a miracle in the Holy Quran, therefore God does exist

I hope you address my points next round inshallah

Jazakallah
fnarkchang

Con

"Con agrees that there must be a cause to the universe"

No, I do not. I accept the possibility, but I do not absolutely believe in such a case. The wisest will remain skeptics until they are absolutely and demonstrably proven otherwise. The wisest will say, "It is not possible to know, in our current state, what may or may not have caused the universe." And if it were the case that one were to demonstrate a specific case, say Islam, then it would be their burden to prove this case supernaturally, as using reason and logic to demonstrate the supernatural is contradictory.

Pro failed to recognize my argument of the computer simulation in its entirety.
The computer program was programmed by the creator, however it is the user that starts the instance of the simulation, and it is the user that is "playing" therefore one cannot grant anyone in this scenario the title of "creator." Nor does this case include an afterlife and an absolute omnipotent being to be worshiped, therefore recognition of the outside realm is irrelevant. This case is just as believable as your case.

"all these are finite beings they would too need a creator, the creator of the universe has to be eternal and that can only be God."

Have you ever seen anything immaterial create something material. Logic and reason dictates that the number "1" cannot create a chair, nor can any other immaterial object create a material object, so therefore the creator of this universe, which is material, cannot be immaterial.

"We can't do an experiment to prove this physically, but we can do mental experiments and use logic, because something eternal had to have created the universe it couldn't be something finite like a computer programmer, because then we could ask the question who created the programmer?"

Again, I address this issue, you cannot use logic nor reason to explain the supernatural. You must prove and demonstrate that supernatural things can happen in order for credibility. Nor can you use the argument that something immaterial can create something material, because we have never observed such a case.

"Even if the universe is a simulation, someone had to have created it, the creator must be eternal so it too doesn't require and explanation."

Again you say "someone" as in referring to an absolute creator, when I have expressed numerous times that the cause of an event does not necessarily mean an absolute creator. The cause of this universe can be the case of an omnipotent entity, but not recognizable as a single object and is conscious normally you would think a god would be.

You keep on equating the cause of the universe to an absolute creator, which is a faulty assumption. It is within reason to believe that this universe may have a cause, but to believe a certain cause without proof, is unreasonable.

"Which god is the true God, well there is only one God, as the Quran says, "Say He is Allah the one Allah the independent and besought of all, He begets not nor is He begotten and there is none like unto Him,"

It is faulty to use religious text to address the credibility of believing in God.

"God is an eternal independent being, and there is only one religion that worships such an independent being and that is Islam"

You are only one of hundreds and millions of humans on this planet that believes their faith is the one true faith.

"God is an eternal independent being, and there is only one religion that worships such an independent being and that is Islam"
an adherent of Hinduism would beg to differ.

"only Muslims worship the eternal creator whose existence I have already proved"

You did not prove anything. You are just trying to make unreasonable belief reasonable. If you think your logic is correct, then you must assume all of these scenarios can also be correct.

1.It is within reason to say our creator can be material
2.It is within reason to say the entity that created us is omnipotent, but not conscious like a God.
3.It is within reason to say the entity that created us is omniscient, but not omnipotent.
4.It is within reason to say that the entity that created us is a conglomerate of causes instead of one.
5.It is within reason to say that entity that created us does not exist anymore.
6.It is within reason to say our creator can be material, but their creator is immaterial
7.It is within reason to say the cause of this universe does not care for us.

Again, the only conclusion that you have made which is reasonable, is that there might be a cause of the universe. Please do not make the mistake of equating 'cause of the universe' to an absolute immaterial infinite creator.

Morality
You have a fundamental flaw. You assert that law is not moral code when that is just what it is.
How does man make law if he does not know what is moral? God did not instruct not to smoke tobacco on school buildings, yet why did man find it compelling to make this into a law?
You have a fundamental flaw in your morality argument. If God only knew what's wrong and what was right, then it is only he who is able to instruct man to do things, however man has found whats wrong and what's right independent from a God.

"No where in the Quran does it say to go around killing people and committing crimes, you can't blame religion for what certain extremists do, just like you can't blame Darvin and Evolution for Hitler and Stalin who believed in Social Darwinism"

Pro, has yet again, failed to recognize my argument in its entirety as I was not referring to any extremists.

Allow me to repeat myself

"Morality does not correlate with religion or a God. Is there a moral good that a religious man can do that an atheist man cannot absolutely do? Is there a moral evil that an atheist man can do but a religious man has not done?"

"Who cares about society if there is no God, we are all going to die aren't we, so why not go around killing people. If there was no God I would kill myself because I will die anyways and no one could stop me, who could stop me from killing people and getting away with it. Only God can and he gave us the moral code in his Book the Holy Quran and from it do we know what is right and what is wrong and if we do wrong we will be punished"

flaw 1 - you equate the wellbeing of society to the existence of a God.
flaw 2 - you assert that humans can only moral things in fear of punishment or reward.
flaw 3 - you equate killing yourself as a no-loss situation, when if there was no God, and if there was no afterlife, every moment you spend in your life should be deemed precious.
flaw 4 - Moral code(law), can be made by man.

Again, i understand that there is no need to talk about the atrocities that have occurred by extremists, and i have not mentioned anything about that, so please don't bring it up.

"You do need God to be good, because God is good, how would you define Good and Evil without a God?"

There is no absolute evil nor is there an absolute good. What is moral is relative to the situation and society you are in. If i'm in a civilized society, i will remain civil because this is what i was taught. If it was a dire situation with the means of life and death, my morality will change accordingly to survive. My morals aren't absolute, they are relative.

"Con missed some serious points in this debate"

I don't feel the necessity of addressing every single argument nor do i feel the need to follow regiment and order in order to come to the truth.

Transcendental Argument
Pro was trying to make the point that logic is absolute"that it is true in all times, places, and circumstances. I disagree with this statement. In his argument, for example, he refers to a "Law of identity", "Law of non-contradiction", and "Law of excluded middle." Pro is trying to lay the groundwork for a Law Giver who will eventually be the author of such laws. What Pro calls the "Law of identity" is really just the definition of equality. Exactly how you define equality is effectively a human-based assumption built into the model. The "Law of non-contraction" concerns the desirability of soundness of the system, meaning that if you build on false statements, you can no longer trust the conclusion. Soundness is a human-desired property of a formal system and we would reject any system that didn"t have it (and yes, such systems exist). Finally, what he calls the "Law of excluded middle" is an axiom of formal logic. Axioms are assumptions (made by humans) that may not be applicable in all situations. The point here is that no God is involved. Pro argument is on shaky ground from the beginning.

Quranic Argument
This is an issue of belief. Honestly, if you think, because some object is so complex that it can't be replicated, then there must exist a God, then I must say you're just a very gullible person. I can agree with you that the Quran is very complex, but in no way will that argument will ever bring me to believing in God. Furthermore, i do not see the correlation of how something so complex brings the idea of a creator.

Believing is unreasonable
Debate Round No. 4
tahir123

Pro

I seek refuge with Allah (swt) from Satan the Rejected, in the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful

Conclusion:

"No, I do not. I accept the possibility, but I do not absolutely believe in such a case. The wisest will remain skeptics until they are absolutely and demonstrably proven otherwise. The wisest will say, "It is not possible to know, in our current state, what may or may not have caused the universe." And if it were the case that one were to demonstrate a specific case, say Islam, then it would be their burden to prove this case supernaturally, as using reason and logic to demonstrate the supernatural is contradictory."

I already did prove there had to be a cause for the universe, because the universe can't be infinite because it is made up of bits and pieces of matter, while the infinite has to be indivisible, because what is infinity divided by three? It leads contradictory answers

The universe therefore either came from nothing, which is impossible, it created itself, also impossible, or it had a creator, which is possible

The only possible origin for the universe is that it had a creator, and I already proved this creator must be eternal, so it too doesn't require and explanation, it must be immaterial so it can be infinite, because matter can't be infinite, and it must be intelligent so it could create the universe, all these sound like the God of Islam

and logic and reason require the supernatural since logic and reason are immaterial abstracts

"Pro failed to recognize my argument of the computer simulation in its entirety.
The computer program was programmed by the creator, however it is the user that starts the instance of the simulation, and it is the user that is "playing" therefore one cannot grant anyone in this scenario the title of "creator." Nor does this case include an afterlife and an absolute omnipotent being to be worshiped, therefore recognition of the outside realm is irrelevant. This case is just as believable as your case."

Con failed to identify the creator of the computer simulation,

Con's theory of a computer simulation universe is hypothetical and con cannot prove that there is no afterlife just because the universe is a simulation,

also I said the creator of the simulation must be, God, the devil, aliens, robots, or people. Only one of those is eternal and that is God, and only God could be the creator of the universe because any finite thing such as aliens or robots such as in the matrix movies would create an infinite regress of explanations, Occam's Razor requires us not to multiply entities beyond necessary proving God must be the creator of the universe, and this God has to be eternal so it too doesn't require an explanation.

"Have you ever seen anything immaterial create something material. Logic and reason dictates that the number "1" cannot create a chair, nor can any other immaterial object create a material object, so therefore the creator of this universe, which is material, cannot be immaterial."

Just because we haven't seen anything immaterial create something material doesn't mean it can't happen, also Con missed the point why God is immaterial, which is so He could be infinite, because matter can't be infinite because it is made up of parts, only God can be infinite because He is immaterial and indivisible.

"Again, I address this issue, you cannot use logic nor reason to explain the supernatural. You must prove and demonstrate that supernatural things can happen in order for credibility. Nor can you use the argument that something immaterial can create something material, because we have never observed such a case."

Logic and Reason require the supernatural because logic and reason are immaterial abstracts, and as I already said just because we haven't seen something immaterial create something material doesn't mean it can't happen.

"Again you say "someone" as in referring to an absolute creator, when I have expressed numerous times that the cause of an event does not necessarily mean an absolute creator. The cause of this universe can be the case of an omnipotent entity, but not recognizable as a single object and is conscious normally you would think a god would be."

As I already said the Creator of the universe has to be conscious to make the decision of creating a universe.

"You keep on equating the cause of the universe to an absolute creator, which is a faulty assumption. It is within reason to believe that this universe may have a cause, but to believe a certain cause without proof, is unreasonable."

I already proved the universe must have a cause, and that cause must be conscious to choose to create a universe.

"It is faulty to use religious text to address the credibility of believing in God."

The creator must be eternal, immaterial, and conscious as I already proven which is just like the God in the Quran

"You are only one of hundreds and millions of humans on this planet that believes their faith is the one true faith."

but my faith is the only faith which worships the creator and not the creation, Hindus worship potatoes, and Christians worship a man, we worship the creator, Whom I already proved is eternal, immaterial, and intelligent.

"You did not prove anything. You are just trying to make unreasonable belief reasonable. If you think your logic is correct, then you must assume all of these scenarios can also be correct.

1.It is within reason to say our creator can be material
2.It is within reason to say the entity that created us is omnipotent, but not conscious like a God.
3.It is within reason to say the entity that created us is omniscient, but not omnipotent.
4.It is within reason to say that the entity that created us is a conglomerate of causes instead of one.
5.It is within reason to say that entity that created us does not exist anymore.
6.It is within reason to say our creator can be material, but their creator is immaterial
7.It is within reason to say the cause of this universe does not care for us."

1. I proved He has to be immaterial
2. I proved He has to be conscious
3. how so?
4. Occam's Razor goes against that, we can't have more entities than necessary
5. There is no proof of that
6. Why can't we say the creator is immaterial?
7. How do you reach such a conclusion?

Morality

"You have a fundamental flaw. You assert that law is not moral code when that is just what it is.
How does man make law if he does not know what is moral? God did not instruct not to smoke tobacco on school buildings, yet why did man find it compelling to make this into a law?
You have a fundamental flaw in your morality argument. If God only knew what's wrong and what was right, then it is only he who is able to instruct man to do things, however man has found whats wrong and what's right independent from a God."

Smoking ins school may not be legal but how is it immoral? If God doesn't exist why can't I kill people? I can get away with it?

"flaw 1 - you equate the well being of society to the existence of a God.
flaw 2 - you assert that humans can only moral things in fear of punishment or reward.
flaw 3 - you equate killing yourself as a no-loss situation, when if there was no God, and if there was no afterlife, every moment you spend in your life should be deemed precious.
flaw 4 - Moral code(law), can be made by man."

1. Who cares about society without God
2. yes
3. every moment will be forgotten so who cares about this non existent life?
4. Only legal codes can not moral codes

"There is no absolute evil nor is there an absolute good. What is moral is relative to the situation and society you are in. If i'm in a civilized society, i will remain civil because this is what i was taught. If it was a dire situation with the means of life and death, my morality will change accordingly to survive. My morals aren't absolute, they are relative."

If morals are relative then killing people is ok, also who cares about a civilized society when we are all going to die?

Transcendental Argument- Con tries to say the laws of logic are subjective, they are not, or else Con's argument is without foundation, because he doesn't believe in logic but is trying to use logic

Logic is real and immaterial disproving the atheist/materialistic worldview

Quranic Argument- "This is an issue of belief. Honestly, if you think, because some object is so complex that it can't be replicated, then there must exist a God, then I must say you're just a very gullible person. I can agree with you that the Quran is very complex, but in no way will that argument will ever bring me to believing in God. Furthermore, i do not see the correlation of how something so complex brings the idea of a creator."

Con did not answer the question how can a man who knew nothing about poetry such as Muhammad (saw) have created a masterpiece? where did it come from? And why couldn't the poets of that time create something better or at least as good? They really needed too for Mecca's economy's sake, and did try their best but still they couldn't do it,

Therefore the Quran couldn't have come from an arab, nor a non arab, only from God, proving that God exists

It is reasonable to believe in God

Well that's it for now I had a wonderful debate, Jazakallah everybody and may God bless you all inshallah

Salam
fnarkchang

Con

"Just because we haven't seen anything immaterial create something material doesn't mean it can't happen, also Con missed the point why God is immaterial, which is so He could be infinite, because matter can't be infinite because it is made up of parts, only God can be infinite because He is immaterial and indivisible."

Just because every event that I have seen has a cause, does not mean an event can happen without a cause.

Did you see what I did there? Both cases are correct in their manner " that every event should have a cause and that an immaterial object should not be able to create something material.

You"ve said it yourself, that logic is absolute. So don"t go picking and choosing where you can apply the logic to your benefit, and choose not to use it lest it"d be harmful.

Just because I didn"t speak about your point of why God is immaterial, isn"t because I failed to recognize it, it is because I regarded it as nonsense, due to the fact that nothing immaterial can create material.

A cause does not have to be conscious in order for an event to happen. When an apple falls from a tree and hits the ground, what object is conscious to allow this event to happen? I have presented a case where no object is conscious, yet a cause and an event is present, therefore it is logical to conclude that a cause does not need to have a conscious in order for an event to happen, therefore it is unreasonable to absolutely conclude that the cause of this universe has a conscious, therefore it is also possible that the cause of this universe is not a single object like a God, and possible for it to be abstract.

You did not prove anything. It is highly possible that the universe has a cause, but it"s not for certain. Your claims are based on assumption, that everything in this universe has a cause, therefore not absolute proof.

Occam"s razor states that the claim with the least assumptions is usually the truthful one. Occam"s razor is not an absolute rule, therefore, although unlikely, my assumptions are still legitimate.

We have identified that smoking tobacco causes those around the smoker harm, therefore we have concluded that it would be harmful to smoke in most places where nourishment and education is key, therefore is considered immoral. We also have identified that killing people causes society harm, and that it wasn"t religion that taught us this, it was society.

"Morality is but a herd-instinct in the individual." " Frederic Nietzsche

"If morals are relative then killing people is ok, also who cares about a civilized society when we are all going to die."

Yes, in certain cases, RELATIVE TO THE SITUATION, killing people would be justifiable, and I care about a civilized society because it was what was taught by my society unto me, and because I believe that society has treated me justly, I will then proceed to be civil. If you believe that you do not need to be civil with society, either, because you lack the education to comprehend why it would be wrong to turn against those who supplied you with clean water, schooling, parks and protection, or because you"re just stupid, without the idea of a God, then, there"s no reason to believe your case.

CONCLUSION
1.I have never seen anything immaterial create something material, nor is it reasonable that anything immaterial is potent enough to create something material, like a number "3" would create a desk. Therefore, I do find it reasonable that if our universe has a cause (although reasonable, still also an assumption), it is of material.
2.Society shapes our morals, not God. We are taught that killing is wrong in most cases, not absolutely all. Killing can be justified in a hypothetical case, which I believe you can concoct with ease.
3.Quranic argument " this is an argument composed of garbage material. Just because something is complex, never gives a good foundation for a God. If I found a computer desktop in the middle of a street in the 1800s, it would be more reasonable believing in time travel than it would be believe in God.
4.Transcendental Argument " the laws of logic do not give a foundation of God, because logic is uncorrelated with the concept of God. Logic, is simply the application of the knowledge we ascertained, it is of elementary apprehension that the concept of God and the concept of how we can apply knowledge are two completely different things, and to tie them together would be ridiculous.

You are unable to present a demonstrable nor not even a clear rational argument for your God, and therefore it is unreasonable to believe in specific causes of the universe without proof.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
Somebody please vote for this debate inshallah
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
I have read my Bible, it is no longer the truth, The Bible has been changed, It is no longer the Word of God and that is a fact.

It is not in it's original language

It is a translation of copies of copies of the original manuscripts

the original manuscripts have been lost

and there have been books taken out of the Bible

where as the Quran, not a single dot of it has changed since it was first revealed,

and to this day no one has been able to create a surah like it

proving the Holy Quran to be a superior scripture to the Bible

and proving it to be the Word of God, Alhumdulillah
Posted by Redmoon 3 years ago
Redmoon
Sheesh! the debate goes on for a while, um look peeps,
all you need to do to find the truth is read your bible.
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
I was born and raised as a Qadiani, then I became an atheist, then a christian, then an atheist again, and now I recently converted to Islam and Alhumdulillah I feel more alive than ever before Alhumdulillah

so no I wan't born a Muslim and no I am not brainwashed

and it is sad you won't accept Islam

but I will leave the links for whoever is interested inshallah

Jazakallah
Posted by fnarkchang 3 years ago
fnarkchang
I was born in a fundamental christian community, so fundamental, we observed on sabbath day, we practiced glossolalia, and practiced the eucharist. I was so strong in my faith, that I was preaching door to door, and i was doing this for the first 20 years of my life, and i know the power of brainwashing, and that in all probability, you did not convert to islam, but grew up in it. So no thanks, I can be a good person without God.
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
http://www.beconvinced.com...

http://www.jannah.org...

http://www.jannah.org...

http://www.understanding-islam.com...

Here are some more links on Islam for anyone who is interested inshall alhumdulillah
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
http://www.islamreligion.com...

Also I would like to invite Con to become a Muslim inshallah, the website above should help answer his questions

http://www.islamic-awareness.org...

this one also, I will post more links if Con is interested, because Islam is a really great Religion Alhumdulillah
No votes have been placed for this debate.