The Instigator
LiamKNOW
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
jhenley9111
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does a God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
LiamKNOW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 859 times Debate No: 45365
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

LiamKNOW

Pro

I will be arguing in favor of the existence of some supernatural deity, not the God espoused by any particular religion.
jhenley9111

Con

I gladly accept your challenge.

Please tell me your evidence for a god and why you choose to believe in one. There is no scientific evidence to prove this "fact". I would love to see your views.
Debate Round No. 1
LiamKNOW

Pro

Thank you for accepting to participate in this debate. I will present three basic arguments for God's existence, and will be happy to flesh them out later in the debate. (These arguments have been presented by William Lane Craig, an apologist you no doubt are familiar with.)

1) The Cosmological Argument
If the universe had a beginning, the universe has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Only the conclusion is established, an analysis of possible causes of the universe reveals that it must be immaterial, outside of space and time, immensely powerful, etc.)

2) The Moral Argument
If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values exist. (By "objective" I mean that they are valid and binding regardless of personal or social acceptance.)
Therefore, God exists.

3) Jesus' Resurrection from the Dead
Four historical facts have been established regarding Jesus' death and burial:
First, after his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb.
Second, a few days after Jesus' death, his tomb was discovered empty by some of his woman followers.
Third, many different people experienced appearances of Jesus' after his death.
Fourth, Jesus' disciples believed Jesus had risen from the dead despite compelling evidence not to.

The best explanation of these four facts is that Jesus truly rose from the dead; that provides compelling evidence for the existence of a God.
jhenley9111

Con

"If the universe had a beginning, the universe has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Only the conclusion is established, an analysis of possible causes of the universe reveals that it must be immaterial, outside of space and time, immensely powerful, etc.)"

No. Just because something had a beginning, does not mean it has a cause. That's obvious. If y
come at an atheist with that argument, you have to think if a god had a beginning. And not just any god. Your god.
This argument is related to the "God of the Gapes" argument. Just because there are some gapes in scientific knowledge does not mean you can fill it in with "God did it!"

"If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values exist. (By "objective" I mean that they are valid and binding regardless of personal or social acceptance.)
Therefore, God exists."

You might as well bring up the "banana" argument. Humans evolved as social animals. Since we depend on each other to survive, we naturally had morals. What I'm confuses about is the fact that you say your god is moral, yet he does unspeakable things in your holiest of text. I have provided a like that shows exactly what I'm talking about.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu...

" Jesus' Resurrection from the Dead
Four historical facts have been established regarding Jesus' death and burial:
First, after his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb.
Second, a few days after Jesus' death, his tomb was discovered empty by some of his woman followers.
Third, many different people experienced appearances of Jesus' after his death.
Fourth, Jesus' disciples believed Jesus had risen from the dead despite compelling evidence not to."

Your using the bible as prove of god. Let me remind you that there are no writings of Jesus while he was alive. In fact, there were no recorded writings of Jesus until more than 20 years after he died. 20 years! And the first person that wrote about him was not even alive the same time Jesus was living. That is why we have reason to dough the existence of Jesus at all. We have no evidence to prove any story of the bible. Case closed.

" The best explanation of these four facts is that Jesus truly rose from the dead; that provides compelling evidence for the existence of a God."

This makes me wonder if you know that compelling evidence means.

References:

^ "Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God", in Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), Vol. 2, p232 ff.
Jump up ^ Aristotle, Physics VIII, 4"6; Metaphysics XII, 1"6.
Jump up ^ "Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God", in Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), Vol. 2, p233 ff.
Jump up ^ "Islam". Encyclop"dia Britannica Online. 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-27.
Jump up ^ Duncan, S., Analytic philosophy of religion: its history since 1955, Humanities-Ebooks, p.165.
Jump up ^ Scott David Foutz, An Examination of Thomas Aquinas' Cosmological Arguments as found in the Five Ways, Quodlibet Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy
Jump up ^ Craig, William L. "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe". Truth Journal. Leaderu.com.
Debate Round No. 2
LiamKNOW

Pro

I dislike your derogatory tone, and wish you conducted yourself with more civility. Your objections are not new, and they have persuasive refutations, as I hope to show below.

You object to the cosmological argument by asserting that it is obvious that something can come into being without a cause. Please realize that this is a bare assertion that both intuition and cutting edge scientific research contradict. But I welcome you to present your case. Further, you claim that the argument is self-defeating since it demands a cause of God. But the argument states "if the universe had a beginning, then it has a cause", not "if something exists, then it has a cause." God, by definition, is an immaterial entity who has always existed. Since S/he is eternal, God does not need a cause, just as if the universe was eternal, it would not need a cause. Lastly, you claim that the cosmological argument appeals to "God of the Gaps" reasoning. On the contrary, it relies on solid astrophysical evidence to establish the beginning of the universe, and uses philosophy, ontology, and metaphysics to support the conclusion that the existence of the universe is contingent upon some cause. The argument does not appeal to gaps in scientific knowledge to justify belief in God.

Your response to the moral argument reveals that you both misunderstand the argument and misunderstand the parameters of this debate. First, I am not claiming that "my" God is moral, simply that s/he provides the moral framework in which humans operate. As I explicitly stated earlier, I am not defending the God of Christianity, and so accusations that the Bible sanctions evil are irrelevant. In an attempt to explain humans' moral behavior you appeal to evolution and social conditioning. I do not contest that we evolved as social animals, but such an statement has sparing relevance to the argument I presented. If certain things are truly evil (like rape and murder), and some things are truly good (like self-giving love, compassion, and tolerance), then we must seek the roots of such morality. Evolution -- a purely naturalistic process -- is unable to provide such a root, though I agree it can influence our behavior. It seems to me -- and to many philosophers -- that one must either acknowledge the existence of God as a moral law-given or deny the existence of truly evil or good acts.

You object to the argument based on Jesus' resurrection by questioning the veridicality of the facts I listed. Though am I not an ancient historian, I have read many of their works, and I assure you that they facts are widely recognized by non-religious historians who are simply relying on sound scholarship. You should also know that the Bible is by no means the only text used in assessing these facts (and when the Bible stories are used, they are not treated as infallible but instead evaluated critically for purely historical -- not religious -- information). A number of ancient Greek and Roman authors also described the events passed on to them by a vibrant oral tradition. Your claim that the very existence of Jesus is questionable flies in the face of every single historian and textual scholar of the last century, and such a notion -- as far as I know -- is only propagated through atheist websites and blogs, hardly places of cold objectivity and careful analysis.

As for your last snark about my knowledge of the meaning of "compelling evidence," we not in court of law, nor must we submit to the standards espoused by one (a legal burden of proof germane in this discussion is the "preponderance of the evidence," which simply means more probable than not). By "compelling evidence" (and I understand the subjectivity of that term) I meant that someone rising from the dead is a powerful reason to believe in God.

I look forward to your response.
jhenley9111

Con

"You object to the cosmological argument by asserting that it is obvious that something can come into being without a cause. Please realize that this is a bare assertion that both intuition and cutting edge scientific research contradict. But I welcome you to present your case. Further, you claim that the argument is self-defeating since it demands a cause of God. But the argument states "if the universe had a beginning, then it has a cause", not "if something exists, then it has a cause." God, by definition, is an immaterial entity who has always existed. Since S/he is eternal, God does not need a cause, just as if the universe was eternal, it would not need a cause. Lastly, you claim that the cosmological argument appeals to "God of the Gaps" reasoning. On the contrary, it relies on solid astrophysical evidence to establish the beginning of the universe, and uses philosophy, ontology, and metaphysics to support the conclusion that the existence of the universe is contingent upon some cause. The argument does not appeal to gaps in scientific knowledge to justify belief in God."

I reject the cosmological argument because it has already been debunked by Christians and atheists alike. Do we know how the universe began? Not fully. But we will.

"Your response to the moral argument reveals that you both misunderstand the argument and misunderstand the parameters of this debate. First, I am not claiming that "my" God is moral, simply that s/he provides the moral framework in which humans operate. As I explicitly stated earlier, I am not defending the God of Christianity, and so accusations that the Bible sanctions evil are irrelevant. In an attempt to explain humans' moral behavior you appeal to evolution and social conditioning. I do not contest that we evolved as social animals, but such an statement has sparing relevance to the argument I presented. If certain things are truly evil (like rape and murder), and some things are truly good (like self-giving love, compassion, and tolerance), then we must seek the roots of such morality. Evolution -- a purely naturalistic process -- is unable to provide such a root, though I agree it can influence our behavior. It seems to me -- and to many philosophers -- that one must either acknowledge the existence of God as a moral law-given or deny the existence of truly evil or good acts."

I actually get this argument everyday. I was prepared to ONLY argue that point. That's how many time I get it. I am referring to your religion as Christianity because you talked about Jesus. If you had mention another demi-god I would such as Hercules, I would refer your religion as Greek mythology. Why is it so hard for you to think that we naturally have morels? If you don't think that evolution and morality can go hand in hand, you don't know what natural selection is.

"You object to the argument based on Jesus' resurrection by questioning the veridicality of the facts I listed. Though am I not an ancient historian, I have read many of their works, and I assure you that they facts are widely recognized by non-religious historians who are simply relying on sound scholarship. You should also know that the Bible is by no means the only text used in assessing these facts (and when the Bible stories are used, they are not treated as infallible but instead evaluated critically for purely historical -- not religious -- information). A number of ancient Greek and Roman authors also described the events passed on to them by a vibrant oral tradition. Your claim that the very existence of Jesus is questionable flies in the face of every single historian and textual scholar of the last century, and such a notion -- as far as I know -- is only propagated through atheist websites and blogs, hardly places of cold objectivity and careful analysis."

Of course I object to the argument based on Jesus's resurrection. There is no proof of it. It seems that you think historians deny poof of Jesus. They don't. They haven't found any. If they have and you know about about it, please tell me.
Debate Round No. 3
LiamKNOW

Pro

I'm sorry; your continued derogatory tone, coupled with a profound misunderstanding of the arguments I presented, leads me to conclude that this debate is unlikely to be very enlightening. Thank you for your time, but I will not be responding again.
jhenley9111

Con

Of course you won't. I know what arguments your presented and have debated them before. I think it is very cowardly of you not to post another argument in the final round. I do not agree that I had a derogatory tone. It's almost as if you gave up in round 4.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by codemeister13 2 years ago
codemeister13
I wish I could vote upon this but alas, a comment will have to do.

I believe Con carried themselves in a very unprofessional manner and I believe their tone was uncalled for. I urge everyone to vote pro on this debate as they conducted themselves better and provided a more solid argument for their side of the spectrum.
Posted by ProfJacob 2 years ago
ProfJacob
Earth may not lie, but she is not who speaks for us; It's us who introduced religion(s), nature laws, etc.
Posted by abraralam 2 years ago
abraralam
Natural, Neutral and Irrefutable Proofs on Truth of Islam
The Earth: (1)
The Earth is a nature. It cannot tell a lie. It cannot favor or support wrong thinking or wrong beliefs or wrong lifestyles. It is 100% true and neutral. This obeys only true God or true followers of God. It doesn't obey any other fabricated Gods or any followers of fabricated Gods or any Atheists.
The irrefutable proof on above commentary is that there are hundreds of fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs and saints who are preserved from decay in their graves since centuries and years without used any chemicals. Once we had dug their graves for any reasons, we found them in above condition, our doctors examined them and there are thousands of eyewitnesses too. We will not dig their graves again for every person on his desire now because you non-Muslims are 5 billion at this time in the world.
So, if you are sincere for truth, but you do not trust us, then contact us with your doctors, researchers and media team about the research of these fresh dead bodies. If you refuted above research, we will pay you 1 million dollars and we will be ready for any punishment from you in front of world media otherwise accept our research and enter in Islam. Do not see condition of some bad Muslims because the Islam is perfect, but all Muslims are not perfect.
According to my research there is no fresh dead body with fresh blood of any Atheists and Non-Muslims that is preserved from decay under the Earth or on the Earth since centuries and years without used any chemicals. So it is 100% proof that there are no other Gods except Almighty Allah and the nature Earth doesn't support or obey any fabricated Gods (except Almighty Allah) or followers of fabricated Gods or Atheists.
Posted by abraralam 2 years ago
abraralam
The Air: (2)
The Air is a nature. It cannot tell a lie. It cannot favor or support wrong thinking or wrong beliefs or wrong lifestyles. It is 100% true and neutral. It obeys only true God or true followers of God. It doesn't obey any other fabricated Gods or any followers of fabricated Gods or any Atheists.
The 100% proof on it is that if you leave intact dead bodies of all soldiers on the Earth who fought against each other in the name of their Gods and religion, then after death only Muslim Martyrs will remain in fresh condition with fresh blood and their enemies will decay.
There are two questions to all Atheists and Non-Muslims:
1) The Muslim soldiers who are slain in the way of Islam, why their dead bodies remain in fresh condition with fresh blood? And, all Atheists and all Non-Muslims soldiers who are murdered in the way of their religions, why their dead bodies do not remain in fresh condition with fresh blood?
2) Why the God did not preserve your soldiers' dead bodies who sacrificed for Him and why the God of Islam Almighty Allah preserved the dead bodies with fresh blood of those Muslim soldiers who sacrificed for Him?
Posted by abraralam 2 years ago
abraralam
The Fire: (3)
It is perfect that the Fire is a nature. It does not have any capacity to save any human body in it. So, if a Muslim goes in it without using any chemicals and he is immune to burn, then it will be a miracle and a 100% proof on truth of Islam. And, look how intransigents are majority of Atheists and Non-Muslims that they do not agree to demonstrate such miracle and if we Muslims are ready to demonstrate such miracle (by the mercy of Allah) then they are not even willing to convert to Islam.
Dear Atheists and non-Muslims, I ask you that if a Muslim goes in Fire without using any chemical on his body in front of world media and he is immune to burn in it, then will you all convert to Islam or not?
If yes, then fix a time, date and place and start announcement in whole world because you are 5 billion and it is impossible that we enter in Fire for every Atheists and Non-Muslims for proving the truth of Islam.
Posted by abraralam 2 years ago
abraralam
The Water: (4)
The water is a nature. Our claim is that it only obeys the God of Islam or only true followers of God of Islam. So please study following research and event that is proof on our claim
Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) were escaping from Egypt. When they reached to the Red Sea, they prayed to Almighty Allah. Allah the exalted said to Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) to hit the Red Sea with his staff. When the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) hit the Red Sea, then sea split in two parts and they found the open path to cross the sea. So, the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) crossed the sea.
The Pharaoh Ramesses and his army who were chasing the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) reached to Red Sea. They found the open path, so they walked on dry ground following them, but when they reached in the middle of Red Sea, the sea joined back on them and they drown in it.
After this event, Almighty Allah saved the dead body of Pharaoh forever as a sign for Atheists and Non-Muslims.
So according to head of archaeologist and anatomical scientists the Professor Maurice Bucaille (who converted to Islam after his research) and according to Holy Quran, Pharaoh Ramesses died in the Red Sea following the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them).
For details on research of Professor Maurice Bucaille on this event please study "The Dead body of Pharaoh" in the article section on www.rightfulreligion.com.
Commentary on this event:
(1) This event is 100% true. So this event proves that there is existence of a God Almighty Allah (who is God of Islam and the God of Prophet Moses) because the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) hit the red sea via his staff by the order of Almighty Allah and the red sea obeyed the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) and his God Almighty Allah.
(2) This event also proves that water obeys the God Almighty Allah and His true followers because when the Prophet Moses (peac
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Nice debate topic. I find the words "Diety" or "Divinity" helpful in such contexts.
Posted by ProfJacob 2 years ago
ProfJacob
jhenley, quoting fact doesn't imply what you think it does.
Posted by BlackWolf456 2 years ago
BlackWolf456
Considering the lack of evidence we have right now, i would say no but there may be a possibility. As of now, no one knows really so a "yes" may just be as valid as "no" but i'm saying no
Posted by jhenley9111 2 years ago
jhenley9111
That's why I put it in quotation markes. Duh.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
LiamKNOWjhenley9111Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's tone was uncalled for. I also spotted a few grammar/spelling errors on Con's part. While Pro's arguments were so abstract, Con's rebuttals were more dismissive than refuting.