The Instigator
The-Holy-Macrel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UchihaMadara
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Does The Christian 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...
UchihaMadara
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 577 times Debate No: 64553
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

First round acceptance.
Second to fourth are arguements.
Fifth is conclusion.
Good luck.

Here it is:
For my first argument I would like to use the theorem:

Big Bang -> cause -> ???
Big Bang -> cause -> God -> cause -> ???

It was intended for anti-god but I will use it for pro-god.
"Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is but a name for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the Law."
There has to be a cause for something to happen. Since this is so what "caused" god?
My awnser god. God must have created itself. The reason being there was an intent. The universe is matter it doesn't think or do anything. But if there is a mind behind it there is both a reason and cause. Because there is a reason to exist there is a cause.

1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.
2. Not every being can be contingent.
3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

And so god exists.

Argument 1 part 2--

Since there is a god (supported by part 1) I will now use a priori argument.
This is the classic ontological, or a priori, argument. It was first articulated in 1070 by St. Anselm, who argued that because we have a conception of an all-perfect being "" which he defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" "" it has to exist. In his essay Proslogion, St. Anselm conceived of God as a being who possesses all conceivable perfection. But if this being "existed" merely as an idea in our minds, then it would be less perfect than if it actually existed. So it wouldn't be as great as a being who actually existed, something that would thus contradict our definition of God "" a being who's supposed to be all-perfect. Thus, God must exist.

Therefore the god that exists must be perfect.

Argument 1 part 3--

So assume there is another god (or gods) instead of the Christian god.
Allah and Elohim -- the gods of Islam and Judaism have pretty much the exact same belief as Christians. It is compared here:
http://www.answering-islam.org............

Now lets look at the greeko-roman belief -- they made them in thier own image so pretty much they literally made them up.

The only difference between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is belief in Jesus, and what happened in the biblical, tanakh, and quran times. God did not create sin Lucifer did in Christianity and Judaism, but what about Islam? Allah created sin. And his creation but cannot enter into the world. Allah is a kind god according to the quran though. I will argue the islam P.O.V. with if he could he would.

Therefore the Christian god is the only perfect/pure god.

Conclusion of parts 1, 2, and 3.

Therefore the Christian god exists and is the only god.

http://io9.com.........
UchihaMadara

Con

Thanks to The-Holy-Macrel for challenging me to this debate.

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

Carry on...
UchihaMadara

Con

Apologies for the confusion last round... unfortunately, this round will not be any better.
I must pass round due to my procrastination. Sorry, Pro :/
Next round, I will post for sure. Please award the conduct point to my opponent to punish my idiocy.
Debate Round No. 2
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

The-Holy-Macrel forfeited this round.
UchihaMadara

Con

Okay...
I'll shall present my refutations anyways.


R1) Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

Burden of proof is on Pro to affirm the truth of his premises, yet he has not attempted to do so at all-- that alone makes his argument unsound. Nonetheless, I'll go ahead and pre-emptively attack his second premise. But first we must define exactly what "necessary" and "contingent" mean. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, any being which depends on another being for its existence (i.e. requires a cause of its existence) is "contingent", and any being which does not is "necessary". Pro's second premise states that "not every being can be contingent". However, this completely ignores the existence of viable cyclical cosmological models; most of these models generally follow the template of an oscillating universe, which theorizes that the universe is perpetually engaged in a cycle of big bangs and big crunches because of a variety of factors including entropy, dark energy, branes, and gravity [1]. In other words, there are an infinite number of universes coming into existence one after the other, with each one being contingent on the previous universe. Such cyclical models have significant support from the scientific community and are even rendered preferable the traditional BBT via Occam's Razor due to all the unwieldy additions that have been added to the latter in order to keep it consistent with modern physics [2]. Until Pro demonstrates that cyclical models are implausible, his second premise is highly dubious, as cyclical models clearly indicate that our universe itself could be contingent. This alone is enough to cause his entire syllogism to collapse.


R2) Modal Ontological Argument

Ah... Anselm's classic. The major problem with this argument is that it is basically just defining God into existence; needless to say, simply defining something as necessarily existent doesn't actually make it exist. To demonstrate, I will go ahead and try doing so right now! I shall define a hypothetical creature known as "Bloorg" as "a giant anthropomorphic cucumber that will pop into existence on the Moon and will have eaten the Earth whole by the time I finish writing this sentence." ... Unsurprisingly, the Earth has not been eaten, so we can conclude that Bloorg does not exist in reality just because I have defined him as existent within my mind-- Bloorg does not leave the realm of cognition just because I imagine him as existing for real, and neither does the God in Pro's argument. At best, all that Pro's argument does is show that the most perfect being, if existent, would exist, which is a truism; he does not actually show that this perfect being would need to exist in the first place. And, actually, it doesn't even really succeed in doing that much because he never explains why existing would make a being "more perfect"-- we cannot just assume that existence objectively 'good'.


R3) Christianity

This argument aims to show that if God exists, he would be the Christian God. However, seeing that it relies on the now-refuted assumption that God exists (and that I couldn't make heads or tails of what Pro was trying to argue, here...), addressing this contention is unnecessary.


Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof.
The resolution is negated.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.physics.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

The-Holy-Macrel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
The-Holy-Macrel

Pro

The-Holy-Macrel forfeited this round.
UchihaMadara

Con

>.>

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
whoops, just realized this isn't 7 point system lol
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
Yeah, I probably could have applied some common sense to realize that I should have just gone ahead and posted my refutations...
sorry about that :/
I'll get to this in a few days.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
At first i wanted to see if you could find fault in my theory, then you wanted to change the debate to its current title. Remember your first comment?
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
lol you said first round was for acceptance...
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
btw, applying Occam's Razor, why can we not assume that the universe created itself?
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
The Christian God is a parody of the true God, for how would it be conceivable that God consists of finite attributes, yet be infinite in power?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The god concept is universal around the world, however it is pure human arrogance to claim to know the identity of any god. The problem for believers is, the more they try to define their God, the more they define him out of existence. The more attributes they assign to their God, the more limited and feeble their God becomes. For instance, if they claim that God can be only good, then the whole arena of activity in evil is precluded, thus limiting his powers. The more you know the less you believe, the less you know the more you believe.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
I saw you slay the kalam cosmological arguement, and so i wanted to see if you could disprove this original arguement.
I can do that though.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
Change the title of the debate to "The Christian God Exists" and I will accept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
The-Holy-MacrelUchihaMadara
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
The-Holy-MacrelUchihaMadara
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple forfeited rounds by Pro, this gave Con the edge in both arguments and conduct since Pro's absence left Con's refutations standing unchallenged. Due to Pro failing to provide rebuttals and thus affirm the resolution, Con wins.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
The-Holy-MacrelUchihaMadara
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Overall a better argument, and the opponent ff'd the last two rounds.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
The-Holy-MacrelUchihaMadara
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture