The Instigator
Equalright4every1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Does 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 3 votes the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 70176
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Equalright4every1

Con

I am not trying to offended anyone. I am expressing my own beliefs, and I expect my opponent to do the same.
1Credo

Pro

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

Burden of Proof

There will be a shared burden of proof in this debate, with my opponent defending the view that God does not exist and myself defending the view that God exists. As it is evident that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, my opponent and I will each be responsible for putting forth arguments and evidence in favor of our respective positions. Readers should weigh these arguments against each other and make a decision on the winner of the debate on the basis of the strength of arguments.

Arguments for God

i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.
Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.
Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C1: Therefore, God exists.

Defense of P1: Here again, premise one is relatively uncontroversial. If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God.
Defense of P2: Each of us have a sense of morality which tells us that certain actions are objectively "good" or objectively "evil". For example, I can clearly recognize that altruism (self-sacrifice in order to further the well-being of others) is objectively good. I can also clearly recognize that raping and torturing a child is objectively evil. I have no more reason to doubt the reliability of these moral senses than I do to doubt the reliability of my physical senses. In other words, for any argument given in an attempt to show that our moral senses are not valid (and objective morality is therefore not valid), I can construct a parallel argument to show that our physical senses are not valid (and the physical world we experience through these senses is therefore not valid). In order for one to disagree with premise two, one must believe that an action like rape is just as "good" as an action like generosity, and that no objective distinction can be made between the nature of "goodness" of the two acts.

iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Defense of P1: In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.
Defense of P2-P6: I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.

Summary

I have presented three arguments in favor of God's existence. In order to win this debate, my opponent must refute each of these arguments (by knocking down at least one premise in each argument) and successfully put forward sound arguments in favor of his own position. Until my opponent is able to do this, we can reasonably conclude that God exists.

Thank you.

Sources
http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Equalright4every1

Con

Equalright4every1 forfeited this round.
1Credo

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Equalright4every1

Con

Equalright4every1 forfeited this round.
1Credo

Pro

I have nothing further to add, as my opponent has forfeited in the final round.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
TommyB12. 4 points to Con. Removed because: TommyB12 appears to have mistakenly voted for the wrong side. It was *Pro* that advanced an argument, whereas *Con* was the one that forfeited every round. TommyB12's RFD said the reverse.
Posted by 1Credo 1 year ago
1Credo
@missmedic

#1- I've never implied something so silly as that. However, the fact that there is not a single viable alternative for the explanation of the origin of the universe does serve as evidence for God's existence.
#2- I agree that contradictions can't exist in reality, but I fail to see how God (or objective moral values) is contradictory. You seem to assert a contradiction without providing any sort of justification.
#3- This is not just about logical plausibility; if each premise in the argument holds, the conclusion that God exists is sound. There is a key difference between something being logically plausible and something being logically sound, as this argument is.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Your Arguments for God
#1
The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an intelligent creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an intelligent creator prove that it isn't.
#2
Objective moral values must exist without contradiction, God is a contradiction.
Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict, reason is an absolute, therefor objective moral values must be based on reason not a supernatural being that may or may not exist.
#3
It is logically plausible, but this does not make it a fact, like wishful thinking does not make something true. The lack of evidence is particularly glaring since theistic gods are said to affect the physical world.
William lane Craig would be proud.
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
1Credo. Did you write that yourself, or transcribe it from a talk by William Lane Craig?
Posted by Equalright4every1 1 year ago
Equalright4every1
Well @Zarroette , I everyone has different views and religions, and I also find it funny, that if you are in fact offended that the possibility of god not being real, that it is listed in your profile that your are atheist.
Posted by 1Credo 1 year ago
1Credo
@JP_Hatecraft

Thanks, I appreciate it!
Posted by JP_Hatecraft 1 year ago
JP_Hatecraft
@1Credo Not very good at this myself but... Impressive.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
I am really offended by this!!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Equalright4every11CredoTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Equalright4every11CredoTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Equalright4every11CredoTied
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: Pro ff many times, had no arguments and no sources. Con did.