The Instigator
CarlaJMena
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ahmed.M
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Does God really 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 3 votes the winner is...
Ahmed.M
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 23680
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

CarlaJMena

Con

This is a debate that has been going on for over centuries, and it was about time i said something about it.

God is not real. Why? well, a Christian would say, "But Jesus HAS proven it! Just look at all of the miracles he did in the Bible! He healed the sick! He changed water into wine! That PROVES that Jesus is the Lord!" Does that make sense to you? Imagine that someone, today, were to come up to you and say, "I am God, and I will prove that I am God by healing the sick and turning water into wine!" What would you say? Be honest. You would not believe this person because:

Everyone has seen all sorts of "faith healers" who can "heal" the sick. And we all know that this sort of "healing" is quackery. If it were true, then we would not need doctors, hospitals or prescription medicines.
Turning water into wine... Doesn't that sound like something that a B-grade David-Copperfield-wannabe magician would do in a nightclub act? There are a dozen ways that you could stage things to make it look like water is turning into wine. There is no reason why a normal person would accept a magic trick as proof that someone is God.
Neither of these miracles can be scientifically tested today. Not one of Jesus' miracles left any tangible evidence for scientists to study.
Ahmed.M

Pro

= = = => Contentions <= = = =


1. Cosmological Argument


P1 Everything observed inside the universe is contingent

P2 A sequence of causally related contingent beings cannot be infinite
P3 A sequence of causally related contingent beings must be finite

P4 \ there must be a non-contingent/eternally existing at the beginning of the chain of contingent beings a.k.a the First Cause [1]


P1 Everything observed inside the universe is contingent


A being which is contingent exists due to another cause, reason, conditions etc. It owes it's existence to something else.


Contingent:

Logic True only under certain conditions; not necessarily or universally true: a contingent proposition.[2]


When one analyzes everything that has been observed in this universe we see that everything is contingent. All life if one doesn't notice is contingent. All life would not have existed without food, water, and sunlight (certain conditions). Large celestial bodies are also contingent. The earth as we know it could only have existed due to the precise conditions such as the formation of the magnetic field, atmospheric layer, and water. Even the sun which most of what is on earth is contingent upon is also contingent upon a cause external to itself (hydrogen gas and dust, nebula). Quantum fluctuations are also contingent because they would not exist without the field (conditions).


P2 A sequence of causally related contingent beings cannot be infinite


Each of the contingent beings owes it's existence to something else. One contingent being exists because of another contingent being and that contingent being exists because of another.


A-->B-->C-->D... (and so on)


This series of casually related contingent beings can either be of two things: infinite or finite. It cannot be infinte for 2 main reasons.


I. An infinte sequence would not explain the existence of the entire sequence. What does the entire set owe it's existence to, something else then something else and so on? This is an inadequate explanation for the entire set.


II. An infinite sequence cannot exist since there is no ultimate source and all the contingent beings would not exist as we know it. If there is no source for the contingent beings, the entire set would never have existed , but it does exist. An example to clarify:


(a). Imagine a train with an infinite number of boxcars, the train would not move because there is still no source for the motion despite all the box cars. The only way for the train to move is if there is the engine or the source for the motion of the entire train otherwise the train will not move.

The only option that remains is that the sequence of casually related contingent beings must be finite.



P3 A sequence of causally related contingent beings must be finite


If the series is not infinite than it must be finite. As was shown in the example, there cannot be an infinte number of boxcars that are in motion, but it is certain that there can be a finite series of boxcars with the source, the engine at the beginning.


Similarily the sequence of contingent beings cannot be infinte and still exist. It must be finite if the contingent beings are to exist. They must ultimately rely on a supreme source which is non-contingent.


P4 \ there must be a non-contingent/eternally existing being at the beginning of the chain of contingent beings a.k.a the First Cause



2. Teleological Argument


P1 If natural beings have telos', then an intentional and ordering mind exists

P2 Natural beings have telos'

P3 \ an intentional and ordering mind exists


P1 If natural beings have telos', then an intentional and ordering mind exists


What is a telos you might ask? Teleology comes from the root word telos means to have a purpose, goal, function etc. If a natural being has a telos, then it has a specific purpose and function. If natural beings have telos' than this strongly implies that there is some kind of intentionality and order which is at work. Intentionality and order is a feature of minds. So if natural beings have a telos' then an intentional and ordering mind exists.


P2 Natural beings have telos'


It is quite evident that natural beings do have telos'. When one is studying the organs of the human body in biology class the function of an organ is bound to be discussed. For example, the telos of the stomach is mainly disgestion. A stomach digests food because that is it's main purpose (telos). Most of the organs in the human body for example, have a telos and are working together in unison. The major discipline of medicine with specialists on each of the major organs work to restore organs to their proper function (telos). Even inorganic (non-living) beings havetelos' with regards to processes such as the water and rock cycles. David S. Oderburg says:


what is the function of condensation in the water cycle? it is the function of causing precipitation. what is the role played by precipitation in the water cycle? it brings about later evaporation. what function do igneous rocks perform in the rock cycle? They become sedimentary rock with the aid of exposure, sedimentation and pressure, and in addition through heat and pressure they become metamorphic rock...

...This is just how a geologist or a hydrologist talks about the cycles that are the object of their study. ‘How does evaporation function in the water cycle?’ ‘It does such-and-such.’...Yet function talk is a kind of teleological talk. In this highly attenuated sense, then, we can find teleology in the inorganic realm”[3]


P3 \ an intentional and ordering intellect exists



3. Profound knowledge in the Quran, brought to light in recent centuries


Origins of Groundwater


==Surah Az Zumar Chapter 39 Verse 21==


The Quran mentions the origins of groundwater and springs as being rain which goes through the earth. This is scientifically accurate [4]. One might try to argue that this has been copied or plagiarized from Greek philosophers but the fact of the matter is that none of the famous Greek philosophers had a clue about this fact. The Water Problems Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia states:


Aspects of groundwater origin were considered in many projects and philosophic works of the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers (Miletsky, Plato, Aristotle, Kar, Seneka, Pollio etc). The first quantitative concepts of groundwater formation due to infiltration of atmospheric precipitation were formed by French scientists P. Perro and E. Marriott in the middle of the eighteenth century based on the study of water balance in the Seine River” [5]


This is strong evidence that the origins of groundwater or springs were not known or even conceived of during the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) but the Quran mentions this amazing fact many centuries ago.


The Queen of Sheba and Sun Worship


==Surah An Naml Chapter 27 Verses 22-24==


Prophet Sulaiman (peace be upon him) was informed by the Hoopoe bird that he saw the people of Sheba and the Queen. The Quran mentions that they were worshipping a sun diety. The best modern evidence for the location of the kingdom of Queen Sheba is Southern Arabia around Yemen [6][7]. The national God of Sheba was calledAlmaqah. For a long time, people thought that this was a lunar diety. Recent investigations have shown that the characteristics represent a solar diety. This reveals a historical precision on the Quran with recent data (2012) brought to light.


Recent studies underline that the symbols of the bull's head and the vine motif that are associated with him are solar and Dionysiac attributes and are more consistent with a sun god, a male consort of the sun goddess.[8]


Conclusions

This being is eternally existing and is uncaused since it is the First Cause. It has a mind of tremendous intellect by which all teleology comes from. The last argument shows the knowledge in the Quran could not have been from anyone in 6th century Arabia implying a supernatural source namely, Allah.


http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 1
CarlaJMena

Con

CarlaJMena forfeited this round.
Ahmed.M

Pro

My opponent hasn't presented any case against the existence of God and my arguments go completely unrefuted. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Thank you, Ahmed, for using tele. :p now pick up your free n00bsnipe.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
@nyyfan:

Plenty of other things. God can't exist simply because I believe. Belief doesn't entail existence.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
If you want to use the Quran, you can find all chapters of the Quran by changing the number in the URL. For example the URL for chapter 2 of the Quran is:

http://scholaris.com...

and the URL is for Chapter 7 of the Quran is:

http://scholaris.com...

The only difference between the chapters are the numbers, one is 002 (for chapter 2) and the other 007 (for chapter 7).
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
Regarding the definition of Allah (Also fits general concept of God, monotheism) , I will use Surah Al Ikhlas:

==Surah Al Ikhlas Chapter 112 Verses 1-4==

"Say: He is Allah, the One and Only.
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."
Posted by nyyfan 4 years ago
nyyfan
Faith. Otherwise what else do we have?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Someone run teleological on her :p
Welcome to DDO. Here's some confusing epistemic philosophical argumentation. Have a nice day xD
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
CarlaJMenaAhmed.MTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: yep...
Vote Placed by innomen 4 years ago
innomen
CarlaJMenaAhmed.MTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: obvious forfeit
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
CarlaJMenaAhmed.MTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a case.