The Instigator
lovespellssa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TrueScotsman
Con (against)
Winning
11 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 4 votes the winner is...
TrueScotsman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,218 times Debate No: 39403
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

lovespellssa

Pro

1.The complexity of our planet & human anatomy points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

2. We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.

But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent"but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.

Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us"and like every other link in the chain of receivers.
TrueScotsman

Con

Hello,

I will be arguing not for a deities non-existence, but rather to demonstrate that such a thing cannot be proven nor is the evidence provided by my opponent applicable as I will here display.

1. Your first argument is nothing but a god of the gaps argument, and simply assumes that a designer or deity was behind what we see. Rather we know from modern science why the Earth is the way it is and why present life forms are they are. Take for example the planet, everything that exists on this planet is from the remains of a star gone super-nova, star dust you could say that about 4.56 billion years ago (as radio metric dating has shown) formed our planet and solar system from the remains of those many stars gone super nova. The elements such as Carbon, Iron, etc. are all formed through continuous fusion that takes place in the center of a star and the super nova (which results from the creation of iron) provides the rarer elements that can only be created via that kind of heat.

As for the complexity of life, that is accounted for by biological evolution via natural selection. This conclusion can be arrived at by acknowledging these simple facts.

A. Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
B. Organisms produce more progeny than can survive.
C. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.

What follows from these facts is that different organisms will receive heritable traits that will lend more successfully to their survival and thus reproduce, while heritable traits that do not assist the organism in it's survival will not reproduce. Thus through random mutations and the non random consequences of effects populations change over time, and life has existed for 3.8 billion years.

For example, say we have a Polar Bear that has 2 cubs, one is born with white fur and the other has a genetic mutation that results in it having black fur. The Polar Bear with the black fur would have a much harder time surviving due to a lack of camouflage than the white Polar Bear and thus would not be likely to survive and pass on it's genes. This is an example of Natural Selection, where random mutations are preferred by nature by non random consequences.

2. This second argument seems to be arguing for god's aseity (the power of being) and also a "god the sustainer" argument. In some sense we do depend on other beings in order to exist, such as our parents who reproduce and we then grow from a Zygote (single celled organism) to an Embryo to a Fetus and then born as Human child. We then also require continual sustenance from our environment to fuel our individual cells to keep us alive. However, we do not require some sort of being outside of time and space somehow continually sustaining our existence, we are autonomous beings who have the capacity of individual thought and thus do not require an outside source. The argument that we do require this is nothing but an assumption on my opponents side, which he reveals when he says "suppose they are." It is a hypothesis build on a fallacious weak analogy and supposition without evidence.

Now I will address his remarks about existence being a gift that must be given by a deity. This ontological argument is also a god of the gaps fallacy, which basically goes like this.

1. We don't really know how we exist.
2. It must have been caused by something.
3. Therefore god did it.

It is a conclusion inserted not via rational thought, but rather by his presupposition and personal belief and an almighty being. The correct answer for the problem of being is really that we don't know yet. Physicists have worked on the big question of what comes before the big bang and it could be another universe in a different dimension, it could have been caused by a quantum vacuum. Basically what we know is that we are here and we exist, and that making huge proclamations about what caused the universe without taking into considerations the intricacies such as quantum mechanics, is really a poor way to go about "knowing" things.

Based upon my opponents arguments I am of the opinion that it has been revealed that one cannot know that a deity exists. Rather, he is more than welcome to suppose and believe that a god exists, but to use such evidence as the complexity of life and the problem of being as support only results in special pleading. Essentially he is ignoring arguments to the contrary and then presupposing based off his initial bent to say "god-did-it."

When it comes to issues like this I have no problem with my opponent exercising his faith and being public about it, but we should recognize it for what it is truly.. faith. And the correct answer for the question of "Does God Exist" is simply this:

I don't know... but here is what I believe.

Thank you for your time,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 1
lovespellssa

Pro

Species Without a Link Proves you Wrong
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
TrueScotsman

Con

Hi Again,

Thanks for your response!

You said:

"Species Without a Link Proves you Wrong
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution."

A helpful note for you would be to in the context of a debate address the points which I personally raise, and not general points that you suppose I might raise. So I have not made this argument, but I will address your more specific statements below.

You said:

"This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species."

Let's look at the evidence, without making observations when it comes to ancient human ancestors. We have the Australopithecus afarensis which we have dated via the Molecular genetic clock and Argon dating to about 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. We also have the Homo erectus which came on the scene about 1.8 million years ago which we have dated using Argon and Paleomagnetism. And lastly (for the sake of brevity) we have the Homo neanderthalensis which we have dated as far out as 600,000 years ago and as soon as 33,000 years ago using Thermo-luminescence, Electron spin resonance, Carbon-14, as well as the Molecular genetic clock to date this period.

It has thus been established that these species existed at different points, and are clearly now extinct and became extinct around the arrival of other species of similar makeup. Another fact that we can see here is that these bipedal primates were not always around in regards to the fossil record, and that their anatomy seemed to "improve" as time went on. For instance, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis have a much bigger brain than these other species.

This of course is not to mention the genetic evidence of our common ancestry with other primates especially of chimpanzee's which is conclusive to the vast majority of biologists and geneticists.

What would be the more rational explanation? That seemingly related hominid species popped out of nowhere and then went extinct once the next species appeared? Or that these recent examples of speciation among bipedal primates evolving via natural selection over a period of about 4 million years? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go with the latter as the former makes no sense to me and would have to use all means possible to try and attack the dating methods (which there are many) that I hear noted.

You said:

"They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution."

In regards to fossils, we are constrained to what we have of course. And we of course have discovered more fossils of ancient hominids than we have of many other creatures. One should study how rare fossils are if they want to make such claims of course. However, we do know quite a bit about the Giraffidae and Elephantidae families and their evolution if you would like to learn about that?

You said:

"Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons."

Well this is just a simple misunderstanding of natural selection, it is the environment that determines whether or not the heritable traits received from the mother and the corresponding mutations will be favored for survival and reproduction. Those that aren't, are not passed down, those that are.. are. Your statements about what evolutionists state and do not state is not accurate, I as an evolutionist have never heard such a wild claim before.

This also fails to address the ultimate question of the debate, which is whether or not god exists, or if we can know it. Evolution is a question about science, and while it refutes your evidence from "design," one can still believe in god and hold to evolution.

I hope that moving forward you can make the effort to address my remarks specifically, rather than providing outside arguments that I haven't made nor agree with to refute my position.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 2
lovespellssa

Pro

1. Take for example the planet, everything that exists on this planet is from the remains of a star gone super-nova, star dust you could say that about 4.56 billion years ago (as radio metric dating has shown) formed our planet and solar system from the remains of those many stars gone super nova. The elements such as Carbon, Iron, etc. are all formed through continuous fusion that takes place in the center of a star and the super nova (which results from the creation of iron) provides the rarer elements that can only be created via that kind of heat.
-the deeper question is where did the stars come from, everything in our universe has a begining

As for the complexity of life, that is accounted for by biological evolution via natural selection. This conclusion can be arrived at by acknowledging these simple facts
A. Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
B. Organisms produce more progeny than can survive.
C. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.
-how come this process is not occurring now, we dont see species that are between phases of evolution
-the question is where did the diversity of animal come from with the inherent complexity.
-to try and explain all this complexity as a random star explosion is at best a weak argument.
-the existence of variation is does not negate creationism
-how come humans still have the appendix, by your reasoning this organism would have been done away with through biological evolution
-how come these random and non-random mutations are not occurring now, we dont find a half monkey half human or something in the middle of this million year evolution
-what controls the random mutations, there is precision, order and functional complexity in creation which points to a designer and intelligent designer who made everything for a particular purpose.

2. However, we do not require some sort of being outside of time and space somehow continually sustaining our existence, we are autonomous beings who have the capacity of individual thought and thus do not require an outside source.
-if we are self sustaining how come we dont live forever. there is something that sustains life. life is not the mere combination of blood, cells, organs and bone and oxygen. That which sustains life is God

1. We don't really know how we exist.
-The Bible account of creation is being proven true by history as the correct account of how we came into existence
TrueScotsman

Con

Hi lovespellssa,

I want to start off by thanking you for taking the time to address what I initially wrote, I really appreciate that effort on your part.

You said:

"-the deeper question is where did the stars come from, everything in our universe has a begining"

Well stars are formed in molecular clouds in space, like the one that eventually became out solar system. However, if we go back to the first stars that ever formed we need to start talking about the formation of the first Hydrogen atoms from sub atomic particles, the existence of sub atomic particles have continually been proven by the tests at the Large Hadron Collider. And these Hydrogen clouds in space began to fall in on themselves via gravity to such a density where they became incredibly hot and thus fusion happened and a star is born.

This of course can be taken as far back as the Big Bang, but beyond that we can only suppose or make inferences. Though the honest answer is, "we don't know" and supposing god is the best explanation is a faith based argument and of course god of the gaps argument.

You said:

"-how come this process is not occurring now, we dont see species that are between phases of evolution"

Who said it is not occurring right now? These things take place over millions of years, you won't be able to observe speciation in your life time. However, we can observe the evidence of speciation in all existing life and also via the fossil record. Why do you think there are over 400,000 species of beetles? Is there a god out there who is obsessed with a variety of beetles, or did these different species evolve over time due largely to environmental separation.

"-the question is where did the diversity of animal come from with the inherent complexity."

This diversity which arose over billions of years of evolution, it didn't just pop out of no where.

"-to try and explain all this complexity as a random star explosion is at best a weak argument."

The star explosion accounts for the diversity of elements that we find on the planet, ever seen a periodic table where you see there are varying numbers of protons neutrons and electrons? These different atoms are made in the center of stars with the fusion of atoms to create larger atoms with the massive gravity and extreme heat over billions of years. This of course is also adopted by the leading physicists in the world agree with me, which doesn't make me right... but rather gives you a non-expert more difficulty in saying it's a quote "weak argument."

"-the existence of variation is does not negate creationism"

Variation evidenced over billions of years of evolution does, and that is what I have been speaking to.

"-how come humans still have the appendix, by your reasoning this organism would have been done away with through biological evolution"

Actually, imperfections within organisms from their previous ancestors is what you would expect with evolution, rather than creationism for whom this is a bigger issue.

"-what controls the random mutations, there is precision, order and functional complexity in creation which points to a designer and intelligent designer who made everything for a particular purpose."

Mutations result from unrepaired damage to DNA, errors in the process of replication, from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements. These mutations can have no effect at all, or a negative or positive effect which will be determined via natural selection.

"-if we are self sustaining how come we dont live forever."

We age and die, especially because in a sense we are almost hosts for our DNA which once we have passed the age which we can transmit that, the body goes through a natural course where it begins to slowly die over time. Self sustaining does not mean immortal, we are dependent but not in the way you are supposing. And life is organic, that is demonstrably so to claim it is sustained by a deity is a faith based argument without evidence.

"-The Bible account of creation is being proven true by history as the correct account of how we came into existence"

What history? Human beings have existed for over 100,000 years, that goes back much further than the Genesis account and the first humans were from Africa not the fertile crescent. Not to mention all of the death that would have existed prior to the fall which would contradict your theology. The only place in which this history can be seen as true, is one where all evidence to the contrary is ignored for the sake of maintaining religious dogma.

The arguments you have made in the affirmative for god's existence are thus far naked assertions (assertions without evidence) and your objections are easily answerable. Therefore I once again assert that we cannot confidently affirm whether or not we know the existence or nonexistence of a deity.

Kindest Regards,
TrueScotsman
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Flipper72725 3 years ago
Flipper72725
it doesn't have to be the christian god. There are many other religions too. Perhaps a god that was never thought of and never worshiped never had his/her own religion. We could be worshiping a god that doesn't exist that just assumed a false identity. Buddah could have created the world. Allah could have created the world. maybe All of the religions are right, maybe none of them are right. Maybe a combination of a few are correct. As mortals there really is no way to be sure.
Posted by Quatermass 3 years ago
Quatermass
@Emilylckep

I think you have a distorted view of what 'proof' is. Proof is an outcome that is verifiable and reproducible. Since none of the events of the Bible are 1) reproducible or 2) verifiable, it's contents cannot be submitted as 'proof' of anything.

Secondly, an unexplained occurrence is not proof that god is real. During Biblical times lightning was an unexplained phenomena (and naturally was considered to be the anger of god) as were rainbows and many millions of other occurrences. However, as science has progressed we have gradually begun to explain many things.

Thirdly, scientists 'don't want to explain everything'. If we could 'explain everything' then there would no longer be a point to science.

Fourthly you contradict yourself. You said 'this proves god is Real' suggesting a substantive but later say 'we don't know anything is for sure'. By your logic then you cannot know God is real 'for sure'. Therefore you cannot promote the Bible as 'proof' that 'god is real'.

For my own statement: It is clear that god is not real. The god described in the holy bible so closely mirrors the policies of Men (that is, human males) that it must be the work of human males. The god described in the bible is a very, very human god and it is evident for all to see. He attempts genocide when humans weren't working out for him (indicating that he thought he'd made a mistake), sends plagues, orders infanticide. This does not seem to indicate a divine intelligence at work, but rather a human being.
Posted by Ignopius 3 years ago
Ignopius
Con did the better debating. Pro did not even address every point made by the con. Gl con, if I could vote, you would be the winner.

Pro please go read a highschool biology book. Evolution is VERY well proven and accepted in the scientific community. Gravity is lesser understood then evolution just to put it into perspective what your arguing against.

Bottom line pro doesn't give any real logical reason why we should jump to God just because our universe seems to have a cause doesn't prove it's God. Also pro doesn't prove we need a God to sustain our world today which is one of the pros main arguments.
Posted by Emilylockep 3 years ago
Emilylockep
Yes. The bible has lots of proof and many unexplained things have happened, this proves that God it real. Scientist want to be able to explain everything, but they can't. We are just humans and we don't know if anything is for sure.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
lovespellssaTrueScotsmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I have seen better debates on the existence of any god or gods, but this one was slightly enjoyable. Con clearly gets arguments and conduct for answering every one of Pro's points and always providing more. Pro also continuously drops Con's arguments and splashes myths of evolution and the argument of the gaps in his face. He could have had a better point by attacking the big bang, but it would have failed due to the fact that gaps are not evidence of god and any god of the gaps is eventually destroyed like the Wind, Fire, Sun, Moon, War, Love, Peace, and many other gods of the past.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 3 years ago
johnnyvbassist
lovespellssaTrueScotsmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Weak debate. No sources and points were off topic and underdeveloped. Conduct to Con due to ignorance from pro. Pro did not meet burden of proof.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
lovespellssaTrueScotsmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote 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: First, my opinion was not changed in this matter. Indeed, it veered towards evolution vs creationism (a false dichotomy) by the end. Conduct was fine. Spelling and grammar were fine. Arguments to Con because his were more clear and developed whereas Pro's were rather bland and contained many arguments from ignorance. Nobody used sources, therefore, sources are tied.
Vote Placed by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
lovespellssaTrueScotsmanTied
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: Arguments to Con because he is correct that at this point in time, we do not know if God does or doesn't exist. There are reasons to believe God exists, but reason and proof are not the same thing. Because of this, Pro cannot meet his BoP. Many people believe it to be true, while many people don't, but if anybody does have actual knowledge on the matter, they've gained that knowledge through personal experience, which is not verifiably true. Perhaps someday will have a concrete answer to the question of Gods existence, but at this time we do not. And until we do, debates like this are literally pointless (Except, perhaps, to show people that believe God exists, or does not exist, that belief and knowledge are not the same thing).