Does god Exist?
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 2: Continue
Round 3: Finish
To make it clear:
I am the Con side: I will be arguing that there is higher than a 50% that god does not exist.
The Pro side will argue that there is a higher than 50% chance that god does exist.
I will begin my argument.
It is clear to see the true story behind religion and god. It is also clear why people deny that religion is merely a story that spread like wildfire. Here is the story behind religion. Long ago, people did not understand the world around them. This makes sense as they knew only what they could see. They desperately wanted to know why everything was happening so they made up their own explanations. With the harsh lives they lived it makes sense that they would want something to live for so they easily believed anything that was desirable to believe. Everyone believed in religions because not only did their parents, who they trust to never lie, teach them to believe, but also because they hoped it was true. Holy books were written to reinforce these religions. Now today people still believe it because of three main reasons. 1. Everyone else believes it so they must be right. There is no way everyone can be wrong. 2. They are told by people they trust that it is true. 3. They want it to be true so they believe it is. This is the story of why there is religion and why people believe in a fake God. Does anyone wonder why almost every religious person is the same religion that they were raised into? Is that kind of strange? Do they even think why they are that religion in the first place? What if they had been born somewhere else and taught a different religion? Do they think that they would have converted if they were raised into that religion? Do people ever wonder why their religion conveniently gives them what they want and solves their problems. Do people ever wonder why god never tells them directly what he wants of them? Or how about why god doesn't stop what he supposedly doesn't like. Why does he not intervene when two men love each other? Why doesn't god just show Atheists that he is real? God has the ability to intervene since people pray to him and expect him to intervene. Why doesn't god just let all people experience happiness forever with no problems at all if he loves everyone? Why does it seem that god conveniently caters to whatever the people who believe in him want? If god causes "miracles" does that mean he also causes natural disasters. Why doesn't he stop it or is it because he enjoys watching the results like it is some kind of show? Why does he allow anything that would cause unhappiness to happen? There is a large amount of evidence to prove that the Earth is billions of years old. If this is true why did god do nothing all that time and then finally do something the last few thousand years? If you believe the Earth is young and it took seven days to make, then imagine how long it took to make the rest of the universe. If god is that slow at making a planet and putting some people on it, it would probably take trillions of centuries to make just the galaxy. Why does god need people to worship him? Does he just love watching that? Why does god want things to happen in the world so strongly? Why does he care? Can't he just sit back and watch the show? Wouldn't it be more fun for him to go on the radio every day and give the people of the world a speech in a language that can somehow be understood in all languages? Doesn't god get lonely? Doesn't he want to have a wife and maybe some kids? Or does he just want to play with his toys? Maybe god is really just a kid playing with his playset in a universe far bigger than our own. Maybe the universe will end when god's mother gives god a timeout for a few hours, but for us it's a few trillion years so we are left abandoned to die with no help from god. This is why god does not exist.
"Does god Exist?"
My opponent ends his first argument as follows:
"This is why god does not exist."
My opponent offers many questions, but only submits the following arguments to support his final statement:
1. God and religion were made up to both explain certain things that were happening, and also to ascribe some sort of purpose to life.
2. If one believes in a young Earth, it would have taken trillions of centuries to make the rest of The Universe.
My responses to each argument are as follows:
1. The BoP has not been met to show that both God and religion originated at a point, and the BoP has not been met to show that these concepts were created to explain certain things and ascribe purpose to life itself.
Furthermore, even if both God and religion were created from the human mind, this does not show that God does not exist. God can still logically exist in a world where He did not reveal Himself and was instead originally thought by his creation.
BoP extended to Con
2. Scientific evidence suggests that The Earth is billions of years old. This does not disprove the existence of God, only that God could not have created Earth in six literal days. If we take the Genesis narrative of creation literally, this still does not disprove the existence of God...rather the God portrayed in the Judeo-Christian creation narrative.
Now, I would like to provide a simple argument that proves the existence of God.
God, as I will be defending, is defined as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The argument is as follows:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, The Universe has a cause.
This cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the cause of The Universe is God.
The cause of The Universe must have no cause itself, for if it did, the cause would begin to exist, therefore it could not be Supreme. However, a truly Supreme being must exist as even if the cause of The Universe itself is caused, the cause of that being must necessarily be a cause which is uncaused. An uncaused being must then therefore be a necessary being, as all things are contingent upon it and it is contingent upon nothing.
Therefore, having no cause, it is the greatest conceivable being
Therefore, God exists.
I will allow my opponent to suffice his BoP in the next round, and I will also be expecting a rebuttal against the argument I have presented in favor of the existence of God.
JR-CreativeGenius forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited this round.
"The BoP has not been met to show that both God and religion originated at a point, and the BoP has not been met to show that these concepts were created to explain certain things and ascribe purpose to life itself. Furthermore, even if both God and religion were created from the human mind, this does not show that God does not exist. God can still logically exist in a world where He did not reveal Himself and was instead originally thought by his creation. Furthermore, even if both God and religion were created from the human mind, this does not show that God does not exist. God can still logically exist in a world where He did not reveal Himself and was instead originally thought by his creation."
Pro states that it would not does not matter if religion and god were created from the human mind because this does not disprove his existence. This would mean that humans made a random guess about the creation of the universe and even though all of their theories on religion were wrong, they were right about there being a god. The thing is, how can pro be more than 50% sure there is a god if all religion is based on nothing and is a completely random guess. I think that there is more than a 50% chance of anything else creating the universe instead of god. Not only could it have been a big bang but it could be a possibility of other things. How do we know it wasn't a giant invisible magical unicorn? What about a three headed hippopotamus named mooooki? Out of anything that could have created the universe, why would there be a higher than 50% chance that god was the one to do it? This is only if pro does not think it is necessary for religion to be correct in order for there to be a higher than 50% chance that god exists. Now if pro thinks that the religion is correct then my other questions are indeed very relevant, contrary to what pro said. My other questions demonstrate and question why religion is so flawed and clearly a hoax. However, pro only thinks only one other question I asked is even relevant in this debate. That question was, If one believes in a young Earth, it would have taken trillions of centuries to make the rest of The Universe.
Pro responds with,
"Scientific evidence suggests that The Earth is billions of years old. This does not disprove the existence of God, only that God could not have created Earth in six literal days. If we take the Genesis narrative of creation literally, this still does not disprove the existence of God...rather the God portrayed in the Judeo-Christian creation narrative."
Pro's argument is that this only disproves the god portrayed in the Judeo-christian narrative, which is true so I will leave it at that.
Now I will counter Pro's argument for the higher than 50% of god's existence. Pro's argument is that everything that begins must have a cause so therefore the universe MUST have been created by god. Now I will counter this first with the obvious counter argument of who created god. Pro said that god was uncaused but that contradicts his original statement of "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." How can Pro make this exception for god but for nothing else? Why couldn't the universe be uncaused. Why could the atoms that exploded into the big bang have been uncaused? What a convenient exception. Pro said that it is reasonable to assume that the cause of the universe is god, but like I said it could be anything else. The amount of things it could be instead of god infinitely outnumber the chance that god was the one to create the universe. Without arguing the plausibility of religion, there is no argument to be made that god is any more likely to have created the universe than say, a gigantic elephant that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. In order for god to be real it must be a god from a religion because otherwise there is no argument that puts god ahead of anything else. Who knows? Maybe the people of the ancient times actually knew what they were talking about and their god did everything they said he did while all other religions went around lying it up. Of course all religions cannot be right so maybe one of them is right and the rest are just lying delusional people who think they are right. Let's see how many religions are there anyway? Hmmmm. Oh wow! There are an estimated 4,200 religions!
I apologize for my forfeit in the previous round. VOTE CON!
"Does God Exist"
Man, what an easy thing to vote on!
I would like to thank Con for finishing the debate strong.
Now, I shall address my opponent.
Con states that if God was merely something we thought up originally, then that would not make the existence of God at least 50% likely. To this, I would agree. Where we find that the likelihood is greater than 50% is in my argument for the existence of God, later on in the round. Since my opponent does not claim that this possibility does not gauge the likelihood of the existence of God to below 50%, I find his point to be irrelevant. The claim was not to prove that there is a 50% chance of its own likelihood, or the likelihood of God existing if this possibility were actualized. That was the job of the causal argument later on in my response.
Con also states that the cause could be The Big Bang, or a Unicorn, or a Hippo.
Simply put, The Big Bang is not the cause of The Universe. it is simply what happened to all the "stuff" we see in The Universe. -http://profmattstrassler.com...
That's a good article with a good discussion in the comments.
As far as the cause being a hippo, a hippo demands physicality. And, if The Universe truly is the entirety of material, it can't be a hippo.
Same with a Unicorn, Unicorns have hooves and physical properties as they are explained by their originators. Even if it does not exist, if we could call it a Unicorn then it would fit the description of a Unicorn, which requires a physical element.
I do not suppose that any religion must be true for God to exist, but this does not mean that his questions are relevant as Con tried to reason. His questions, while thought provoking, are not arguments that support his position. They are questions, inquiries...the mere presence of questions does nothing to effect validity of the proposition that is being questioned. All of Con's questions made no actual case for his position, so I used the only actual points that he made and addressed them.
Con also says that his statement about a young earth which I addressed was actually a question. The point that I responded to on the issue of a young earth was not a question, but actually a statement that Con made. The claim is as follows:
"If you believe the Earth is young and it took seven days to make, then imagine how long it took to make the rest of the universe. If god is that slow at making a planet and putting some people on it, it would probably take trillions of centuries to make just the galaxy. "
This is not a question, as Con claims, but rather a claim that he made. I only addressed statements that he made, not questions.
Apparently, my opponent's response is that this disproves the Judeo-Christian God. This, is actually also false. Only if one believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative does it disprove such a God. Only if one takes a special interpretation of such text does it therefore disprove the God described in the narrative.
Nevertheless, even if it did disprove the existence of that God (Yahweh), it has absolutely no weight on the issue of God existing. Thus, Con's entire claim is an irrelevant point, as it does not support his position.
Now I will respond to Con's counter of my argument for the existence of God...
My opponent asks "How can Pro make this exception for god but for nothing else?" when the exception is one where God is not caused.
The simple answer is that God does not have a cause. He never begins to exist.
To be God, you must be Supreme. To be Supreme, you mustn't have a cause superior to you. Therefore, you must be uncaused.
Con goes on to say "Why can't the universe be uncaused"
Well, The Universe is made up of material. And, more importantly, encompasses time. If The Universe truly existed as an uncaused object, that would mean that time is infinite in the past. And, as we know, actual infinites do not exist.
The same exact reasoning applies to atoms or any other physical objects.
Now, my opponent goes on to say that the cause needn't be God, but it could be many number of things.
He presents an elephant that is immaterial as evidence.
The problem with this is that, an elephant has a trunk. And, trunks are physical constructs. Therefore, elephants cannot exist outside of The Universe.
Furthermore, if my opponent were to say that this being only looked like an elephant to physical beings but was really immaterial, then the elephant would actually be God. God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. This is a being which is completely superior. If such a being looks elephant-like, it does not change the definition of such a being. Such a being is still God.
On a side note, my opponent also says that there are 4,200 religions. He does not make any sort of argument for this point, other than to indirectly support the notion that it may not be likely that God exists due to the sheer number of religions. This, again, is a non point.
In conclusion, I have successfully refuted my opponent's claims against the argument for the existence of God, and I have also shown how my opponent's claims against the existence of God fail.
Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for this respectful engagement.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round. All other categories were even.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.