The Instigator
jhenley9111
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DudeStop
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does a 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,059 times Debate No: 45064
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)

 

jhenley9111

Con

My argument is this: There is no evidence to support any claims of a god. Many religious people use faith as evidence, but faith is just a believe without evidence.
DudeStop

Pro

Thank You Con:

"There is no evidence to support any claims of a god. Many religious people use faith as evidence, but faith is just a believe without evidence"

Absence of Evidence is simply not evidence of a essence. If something is un-proven does that mean it is impossible as Pro is attempting to assert?
I ate a piece of toast this morning and it was delicious. I don't have any evidence. Does this mean it's automatically un-true somehow?

Faith is based more on spiritual apprehension rather than proof...
Con's assertion that god is not real has failed.

Now I will give some arguments to assert that god is real, and I shall also provide a definition of god:

"the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" [1]

We can now move on to my arguments for gods probable existence.

Contention 1: Argument from design.

The argument from design focuses on the fact that the universe is fit for human habitation. The universe is very finely tuned in order for us humans to exist. [2]

For a short argument, here are the premises:

1. The universe is very intelligently designed. [2]
2. The universe is likely to not have come this way by chance.
3. Therefore, it is probable to think that a creator finely tuned us.

In fact with support to premise two, where did the universe come from?

I have made very short arguments, and I now pass this over to CON...
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2]
Debate Round No. 1
jhenley9111

Con

"Absence of Evidence is simply not evidence of a essence."

The above is a favorite (and sometimes annoying ;-) catch phrase often repeated by many people (apparently including BradAppleton, for whatever that may be worth). Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we don't know one way or the other, we just haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge.
No, the paraphrase is utterly wrong -- evidence isn't knowledge or proof, not even remotely! We can have evidence of things that aren't true. Why is it so hard for people to grasp this obvious fact? And absence of evidence can pertain to any empirical claim, it doesn't have to be an existence claim. If you're going to set up a topic for discussion, just state it as is, don't seed it with your own harebrained misunderstandings.

"Faith is based more on spiritual apprehension rather than proof..."
Your saying almost exactly what I'm saying.

"The argument from design focuses on the fact that the universe is fit for human habitation. The universe is very finely tuned in order for us humans to exist. "

Pro argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon". Pro argues that science may provide an explanation if a Theory of Everything is formulated, which he says may reveal connections between the physical constants. A change in one physical constant may be compensated by a change in another, suggesting that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is a fallacy because, in hypothesizing the apparent fine-tuning, it is mistaken to vary one physical parameter while keeping the others constant.
The argument from imperfection suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life.
your argument is deeply flawed. I can see that you are using the god of the gaps argument. Most creationists don't use the god of the gaps argument anymore.

"In fact with support to premise two, where did the universe come from?"

Assuming the Big Bang is a valid theory of the creation of Earth and the Universe, then where did the original mass come from, that formed everything that we see today?

First of all, note that mass and energy are equivalent. So, the total mass of the Universe need not be conserved even though the total energy (taking into account the energy that is equivalent of the mass in the Universe) is conserved. Mass and energy are related by the famous equation E=mc2. Hence if there is enough energy, photons can create matter-antimatter pairs. This is called pair production and is responsible for the mass in the Universe.

As to where everything came from, there is no conclusive opinion. One idea was that the Universe was created from vacuum. This is because according to quantum theory, the apparently quiescent vacuum is not really empty at all. For example, it is possible for an electron and a positron (a matter antimatter pair) to materialize from the vacuum, exist for a brief flash of time and then disappear into nothingness. Such vacuum fluctuations cannot be observed directly as they typically last for only about 10-21 seconds and the separation between the electron and positron is typically no longer than 10-10 cm. However, through indirect measurements, physicists are convinced that these fluctuations are real.

References:

^ Mark Isaak (ed.) (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-10-31.
Jump up ^ Davies (2003). "How bio-friendly is the universe". Int.J.Astrobiol 2 (115): 115. arXiv:astro-ph/0403050. Bibcode:2003IJAsB...2..115D. doi:10.1017/S1473550403001514.
Jump up ^ George F. R. Ellis, "Does the Multiverse Really Exist?" Scientific American
Jump up ^ Lawrence Joseph Henderson, The fitness of the environment: an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter The Macmillan Company, 1913
^ Jump up to: a b R. H. Dicke (1961). "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle". Nature 192 (4801): 440"441. Bibcode:1961Natur.192..440D. doi:10.1038/192440a0.
Jump up ^ Heilbron, J. L. The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10 2005, p. 8
Jump up ^ Profile of Fred Hoyle at OPT. Optcorp.com. Retrieved on 2013-03-11.
Jump up ^ Gribbin. J and Rees. M, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology, 1989, ISBN 0-553-34740-3
Jump up ^ Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125.
^ Jump up to: a b Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71
DudeStop

Pro

DudeStop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jhenley9111

Con

It's to bad to see my opponent forfeit.
DudeStop

Pro

Well sorry.

To start off, Con plagiarized... I show both sources in the comments. Anyways, he begins to claim random
things. He plagiarized this by the way, which would explain things such as:

"If you're going to set up a topic for discussion, just state it as is"

While clearly he made the debate.

"Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we don't know one way or the other, we just haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge.
No, the paraphrase is utterly wrong -- evidence isn't knowledge or proof, not even remotely! We can have evidence of things that aren't true. Why is it so hard for people to grasp this obvious fact? And absence of evidence can pertain to any empirical claim, it doesn't have to be an existence claim"

What my claim actually was is that: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

This is the rebuttal to his claim that because we don't have any evidence for a god, there is no god. Seems like a logical fallacy to me by the way.

ANYWAYS, he then decides to say that the claim is saying that we don't have knowledge or proof but it doesn't mean it exists, but then contradicts himself in saying that evidence isn't simply knowledge of proof. While we used the term evidence, he simply misinterpreted the claim and decided to correct himself. I'm not exactly sure what the goal of this claim was here... I think I agree with the second paragraph, and my claim still stands.

This is the problem with plagiarism, sometimes you get random things and don't read it as close as you should.

So in ending, the first paragraph was indeed wrong.

"don't seed it with your own harebrained misunderstandings"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Con's arguments are therefore still refuted.

"Pro argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon". Pro argues that science may provide an explanation if a Theory of Everything is formulated, which he says may reveal connections between the physical constants. A change in one physical constant may be compensated by a change in another, suggesting that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is a fallacy because, in hypothesizing the apparent fine-tuning, it is mistaken to vary one physical parameter while keeping the others constant.
The argument from imperfection suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life.
your argument is deeply flawed. I can see that you are using the god of the gaps argument. Most creationists don't use the god of the gaps argument anymore"

I don't think I said anything about physical constants..... I'm not exactly sure why Con decided to plagiarize so much to the point where we can barely understand his arguments.... But....

He first says most of the universe is highly hostile to life. He doesn't provide any evidence to suggest this. Not a single shred. Even if we assumed his argument is complete, ironically, it is not, and is non fact deeply flawed.

If we found a huge piece of machinery on the moon, wouldn't it be safe to say it was designed? We may not have any evidence on what it was exactly, but we can still assert that something had to have created this. Therefore, there is something out there.

Furthermore, let's look at designs such as the car. The car was obviously designed by us humans. Is it perfect? Well, no. But it was still designed. I'm sure that in a million years, the car would be much better, assuming we still use cars at that point.

The point here is, just because something is imperfect, does not suggest that it was not designed. God may have not even intended for the universe to be perfect so that we humans could experience life. What's the meaning of life if everything is already perfect?

I'd love to see con use arguments he made to refute intelligent design in the next round .
Debate Round No. 3
jhenley9111

Con

"To start off, Con plagiarized... I show both sources in the comments. Anyways, he begins to claim random
things. He plagiarized this by the way, which would explain things such as:"

I sited all my sources above.

"This is the rebuttal to his claim that because we don't have any evidence for a god, there is no god. Seems like a logical fallacy to me by the way."

Do I think there is a god? No. Do I claim that is no god? No. Most atheists, like myself, don't believe in a god because there is no reason to. There is no evidence.

"I don't think I said anything about physical constants..... I'm not exactly sure why Con decided to plagiarize so much to the point where we can barely understand his arguments.... But...."

I really wanted to bring it up for an example. I knew what I was doing.

"He first says most of the universe is highly hostile to life. He doesn't provide any evidence to suggest this. Not a single shred. Even if we assumed his argument is complete, ironically, it is not, and is non fact deeply flawed."

Wow! I was beginning to think that you were not as smart as I thought you were. Thanks for sticking your nose in it. Earth is the only place inhabitable by humans. Not that we won't find another place.

"If we found a huge piece of machinery on the moon, wouldn't it be safe to say it was designed? We may not have any evidence on what it was exactly, but we can still assert that something had to have created this. Therefore, there is something out there."

To conclude that something is designed, you have to compare it to something that is not designed. We also have to have proof that it is designed. For example, a building had blue prints. Our universe has nothing to compare it to and we have no proof of it being designed. Therefor, we can not conclude that it is designed until we have proof.

"The point here is, just because something is imperfect, does not suggest that it was not designed. God may have not even intended for the universe to be perfect so that we humans could experience life. What's the meaning of life if everything is already perfect?"

I really don't believe the universe is flawed. Maybe flawed for us, but there is really noting wrong with it right now. What's the meaning of life? That's a stupid question. Take mountains for example. We know exactly how they got there, but that does not mean there is a meaning for mountains. Does it? No. Just because something has flaws, does not mean it is designed.
DudeStop

Pro

I really don't believe the universe is flawed. Maybe flawed for us, but there is really noting wrong with it right now. What's the meaning of life? That's a stupid question. Take mountains for example. We know exactly how they got there, but that does not mean there is a meaning for mountains. Does it? No. Just because something has flaws, does not mean it is designe

I never said that. I was refuting your argument that if something has flaws it couldn't be designed by god...


I also was only saying the "Meaning of life" Comment in order to reinstate that god wanted life to at least be of some interest. It was more of a retorhical question...

To conclude that something is designed, you have to compare it to something that is not designed. We also have to have proof that it is designed. For example, a building had blue prints. Our universe has nothing to compare it to and we have no proof of it being designed. Therefor, we can not conclude that it is designed until we have proof

We can conclude that it's likely it was designed.

What other way could the universe have come to be? By process of elimination, god is the only thing left.

I don't have to prove my parents identity to conclude that I had a creator. It would be folish to think so.

Do I think there is a god? No. Do I claim that is no god? No. Most atheists, like myself, don't believe in a god because there is no reason to. There is no evidence.

I've given the intelligent design argument to show that it's unlikely it came to be any other way...

You do claim there is no god in this debate... If you're just going to avoid defending the resolution then maybe next time you shouldn't make a debate.

I really wanted to bring it up for an example. I knew what I was doing.

Didn't you claim I had deeply flawed arguments? Yet those claims you made was based off of a different argument...

I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish, but watch out mate, plagiarism is dangourous.

Wow! I was beginning to think that you were not as smart as I thought you were. Thanks for sticking your nose in it. Earth is the only place inhabitable by humans. Not that we won't find another place

Still refuses to provide the slightest bit of evidence.

Conclusion: We have good reasons to believe in god, and no reasons to conclude he is not real.
Debate Round No. 4
jhenley9111

Con

"We can conclude that it's likely it was designed."

No we did not. Maybe you did, but our current understanding of how the universe works says other wise.

"What other way could the universe have come to be? By process of elimination, god is the only thing left."

You sound like a person who has not looked at the scientific clues of how the universe came to be. The most likely way our universe could have been made is the big bang. At least that's what we know now.

"I've given the intelligent design argument to show that it's unlikely it came to be any other way..."

Well you have not proven your theory.

"You do claim there is no god in this debate... If you're just going to avoid defending the resolution then maybe next time you shouldn't make a debate."

No I don't. I am completely open to the idea of a god. However, undeniable scientific evidence has to be presented. You have not provided that.

"Still refuses to provide the slightest bit of evidence."

Are you kidding me? You don't have enough common sense to know that earth is the only known place that we can live naturally? For example, if you sat on the moon, you would die of suffocation. Or if you were on Venus, you would burn.

"Conclusion: We have good reasons to believe in god, and no reasons to conclude he is not real."

We have no reason to believe in a god. No one has provided evidence for one.

"and no reasons to conclude he is not real."

Your right. However you have what's called "burden of proof". That is because Atheism is the default position. You have to prove your god is real.
DudeStop

Pro

None of my claims were refuted by Con. He even admitted that there is not one reason to assume that god is not real.

1. Con admits there is no reason to conclude that god does not exist.

2. His burden of proof is to show that god doesn't exist.

3. As we know from 1., he cannot do that.

4. Therefore, Con doesn't have a debate argument.

I've given intelligent design arguments. I posted a link in the comments section showing how exact our earth is. He has not refuted this, so it's more probable that god does in fact exist.

Con also plagiarized.

Please, be rational, and vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
It's all a matter of curiosity, that is all.
Scientists are curious people, that is why they are scientists.
We are curious about everything inside and possibly outside our universe, including the origins of other universes.
There is possibly a new universe being born right now, somewhere in deep space.
There may be infinite universes.
If we can understand where we came from, we might have a chance of predicting where we are going.

Scientists don't argue about origins, only Creationists do that, scientists are just continually being bashed with stupid origins questions by naive clowns who wouldn't understand the answers that they are given anyway.
Posted by Maria_Magalhaes 2 years ago
Maria_Magalhaes
Sagey. I have a "why" question for science. Why the need to discover the origin of the universe and of Life?
Isn't it kinda of pointless?
It's kinda of stupid if you think about it. What are they looking for? Knowledge? Why? Is it gonna make them more happy? But how is that suppose to help us survive as a species? Shouldn't we be more worried in not f***ing up our planet?
Scientists seem like those children that have been adopted and try to meet their biology family for no reason.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
I could answer some plausable "how's" though.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Nobody can know Why the universe exists, "Why" meaning purpose???
Scientists would never put a purpose onto the existence of the universe.
They only accept it exists.
A reason for existence is pointless, and an entirely non-scientific pursuit, because "Why?" is subjective only.
Science only investigates that which can be observed and tested.
A "why?" cannot be tested, thus ignored by Science.
For something potentially unfathomable to human equipment and analysis, the only scientific investigations that can be done are: What?, How?, If? and When?
If there is a Why? they may stumble onto it accidentally, but even then, they really could not test it, so it would still not be scientific.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Scientists, of course, readily admit there ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not. Wish full thinking will not make it true, and the great thing about science is its true whether you believe in it or not. Scientist don't pretend to know things they don't know, the religious do this often and call it faith. If one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn"t believe the claim on the basis of faith. "Faith" is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief, but when one just goes ahead and believes anyway. By every reasonable measure science has improved the lot of humanity by orders of magnitude more than any other institution. The scientific method is the most important discovery in the entire history of the human race. The essence of that method is actively seeking out disconfirming evidence, doubt, analysis, critique, skepticism, and defeasibility. Religion can not and will not survive such scrutiny.
Posted by jhenley9111 2 years ago
jhenley9111
Not at all my friend. This will be by last comment to you. Feel free to debate me in round 2.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Every word you uttered was completely copied.
Posted by jhenley9111 2 years ago
jhenley9111
I apologize for forgetting to site one of my references. My mistake will sure to be fixed in round 3
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Well, no.

And I really don't care about you intentions. Had you somehow given credit to the site it would have been okay, but this is ridiculous...
No votes have been placed for this debate.