The Instigator
debataholic090
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Does god exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 373 times Debate No: 90364
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

debataholic090

Con

we will argue that god doesn't exist or he does exist i will be arguing he doesnt exist please dont attack me personally yet opinionated not personally im not trying to attack anyone or change there beliefs but just share ideas please accept and this will be the format

con argument
rebuttal and argument
summary
summary
final focus
final focus
ssadi

Pro

I accept and thank Con for instigating this interesting topic.


I, as Pro, will be arguing that God exists and Con will be arguing that God doesn't exist.



INTRODUCTION



Since Con as instigator didn’t provide any definition or didn’t set the rules etc., I will do instead.




Definitions



God: the creator and the ruler of the universe.


Universe: the totality of known (or supposed) objects and phenomena throughout space (i.e., space-time).[1]

Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.[2]


Logical Fallacy: false reasoning; a reasoning that doesn’t logically prove a claimed conclusion.




Burden of Proof (BOP)



BOP is shared (as Con also stated).

"A fundamental principle of logic is that when one makes an assertion (regardless of it being a negative or a positive assertion) it is their sole responsibility to prove that the assertion is true."[3]


The resolution is a question: "Does God Exist?".

Con claims that "No, God doesn’t exist."

Pro claims that "Yes, God exists."

Since both "No, God doesn’t exist." and "Yes, God exists." are assertions made by Con and Pro, respectively, then both Con and Pro have full BOPs to prove their claims. In other words, BOP is equally shared. In other words, the BOP is not heavily on any side, both sides have equal BOPs in proving their assertions. Votes that ignore this point will be reported to be removed.


Therefore;

1. Points for arguments will go to debater who provides more convincing arguments as compared to other debater's arguments to prove their claim.


2. In case both sides provide equally convincing arguments to prove their claims, then the one who provides more convincing rebuttals to other debater’s arguments wins the points for arguments.


3. The arguments are tied otherwise.




Rules and Conditions



1. IMPORTANT!! Voters MUST vote for arguments according to BOP conditions as explained above. Normal DDO standards are applied for points for conduct, S&G and sources.

2. IMPORTANT!! Debaters must follow the definitions.


3. Use logically consistent arguments.


4. The following link will be considered as a reliable source for logical fallacies:
http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...


5. Follow the following debate structure (I am providing this since Con's structure is not clear, we can discuss this further under comments if Con doesn't agree.)


Round 1: Acceptance, rules, definitions etc.

Round 2: Arguments.

Round 3: Rebuttals. No new arguments.

Round 4: Defense of arguments against rebuttals in round 3. No new arguments or new rebuttals.

Round 5: Closing Arguments (i.e., summary). No new arguments or rebuttals.



Warning!

If Con disagrees to anything I presented, then we should discuss it under comments and make changes before they post their arguments in round 2. Con can directly post their arguments for round 2 if and only if they agree to all definitions, rules, and structure above.



I will look forward to Con’s arguments in round 2 and wish them best of luck.

_______


[1]
http://www.dictionary.com...


Debate Round No. 1
debataholic090

Con

debataholic090 forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

I. GOD EXISTS



1)
KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (KCA)



P1:
Everything that begins to exist necessarily has a cause.


P2:
The universe began to exist.


C:
The universe necessarily has a cause.



P1:


Nothing comes into existence from nothing without a cause. It is completely unreasonable & nonsense to claim otherwise.



P2:


1. It is well-known that the Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe has a beginning.


2. The laws of thermodynamics suggest that the universe has a beginning.



According to laws of thermodynamics, heat always transfers from hotter regions towards cooler regions until all regions have the same temperature. Since there are regions that are cooler than other regions, like stars & galaxies, then the universe didn’t exist for sufficient time for all regions to have the same temperature. Therefore, the universe has a beginning.[1]



C:


Since P1 & P2 are true, then it necessary follows that the universe has a cause.




2)
FINE TUNING & DESIGN ARGUMENT



P1: Precise compatibilities between two things imply a common design.


P2: A design requires a common intelligent designer.


P3: Millions of things/events in the universe are precisely compatible with each other (directly or indirectly).


C: There necessarily exists a common intelligent designer (follows from 1, 2, & 3).



P1:


E.g., precise compatibilities of each part of a mechanical watch imply that they are designed as such. It is impossible that those parts were arbitrarily & coincidentally made due to insignificant probability of such an event. Even if each part was DESIGNED by a different individual that was unaware of what others were doing, it would still be impossible that those parts were compatible with each other to make a working watch. Therefore, precise compatibilities of different things with each other imply a common design.



P2:


Nothing designed, e.g., parts of a mechanical watch, can be without a common intelligent designer. By causality principle nothing can be without a cause. & nothing that has precise compatibilities with some other things (i.e., designed) can be the result of blind coincidences, chances or chaos. Is it at all possible that tens, hundreds, or even millions of precise compatibilities were the result of blind coincidences, chances or chaos? How?



P3:


Everything in the universe, including the laws & constants, esp. cosmological constant, are finely tuned & are very compatible with each other to make the current universe & life possible to exist. If they were slightly different, then it wouldn’t be possible for the current universe & life to exist. Everything being so compatible with each other from among billions of other possibilities each with comparable probabilities imply that they are not the result of coincidences or chances.


For example, imagine only some events after sun’s formation:


-formation of Earth,


-Earth having a particular magnetic field,


-Earth’s distance from the sun,


-its mass & orbit & orbital speed,


-Earth’s rotational speed & inclination of its rotational axis,


-formation of the moon,


-formation of atmosphere,


-etc.


All of these could be completely differently. But if ANY of them was slightly different, then there wouldn’t be these many life-forms on Earth.


Even the living things are precisely compatible & dependent on each other (directly or indirectly). For example, the existence of almost all living things has precise dependencies on atmospheric properties. The current atmospheric properties have precise dependencies on phytoplanktons’ characteristics, abundance etc.[2][3] So, almost all living things’ existence indirectly depends on phytoplanktons…


Is it possible that all of these precise compatibilities of these events & beings were the results of blind coincidences, chances & chaos? One has to “turn-off” his/her mind & logic to be able to accept such a claim.


Billions of such things/events are already examined & precise compatibilities are observed such as those mentioned above.



C:


Since P1, P2 & P3 are shown to be true then, by deduction, it follows that there necessarily exists a common intelligent designer. We call this common intelligent designer as God.




II. GOD (from DESIGN & KCA above) IS;



1)
UNCAUSED



Think about beginning (to exist) of the universe. There necessarily exists a cause (C1) for its beginning. There necessarily exists another cause (C2) for C1. … There necessarily exists another cause (Ci) for C(i-1). There are only two options (it is either finite (a) or infinite (b)) for this chain of causes:


a) This chain stops in Ci if and only if (iff) Ci doesn’t need another cause to exist, i.e., iff Ci is uncaused.


b) Otherwise this chain goes to (actual) infinity.


If we show that option b is impossible, then option a is necessarily true.

Let's assume that option b is the case. This means that there is a chain of total of infinite causes (Inf.(T)) before our universe begins, i.e., it goes "back" forever & never reaches a beginning point.

Since infinity = infinity/2 + infinity/2 & infinity/2 = infinity, then imagine a point that separates the chain of causes of our universe into two parts where there are infinite number of causes between this point & our universe (Inf. (1)) & the rest of infinite number of causes before this point (Inf.(2)). So, we have

Inf. (T) = Inf. (1) + Inf. (2).


There are still infinitely many causes prior to this point & infinitely many causes after this point until the beginning of our universe.

Since such an imaginary point exists on the chain of infinitely many causes of our universe, then our universe waited for infinitely many causes to happen before it began to exist.

What does "waiting for infinitely many causes to happen" mean?

It literally means "waiting forever" which literally means "not stopping waiting forever" which literally means "NEVER stopping waiting".. This literally implies that in such a case "our universe waited forever before beginning to exist" which implies "our universe NEVER stopped waiting before it began to exist" which literally means "our universe is still waiting before beginning to exist" which literally means "our universe has not began to exist yet" which literally means "our universe doesn’t exist yet".

This (i.e., option b above) is a clear contradiction to reality... since our universe DOES exist.


Therefore, option b is not the case!!!


=> Since option b is impossible, then option a must be true.


Since option a is true, then there necessarily exists a cause Ci which has no beginning / is uncaused.


1.
Since the universe has a beginning, then it necessarily has a cause.

2.
If the cause of our universe began to exist, then it necessarily has another cause. Similarly, that cause has another cause etc..

3.
Since the chain of causes in (2) cannot go to infinity as shown above, then there is necessarily a beginning of those causes, i.e., there necessarily exists an initial cause (Ci) which hasn't began to exist, i.e., doesn't have a beginning, i.e., always existed, i.e., is eternal, i.e., is uncaused (i.e., Ci in option a).


We call/name/define this uncaused initial cause as God. If one asks what caused God to exist, then the answer is that He is necessarily UCAUSED, as demonstrated above.



Further clarification



Imagine a moving train with 80 wagons.


- Since 80th wagon is moving, then what is pulling it (pulling is the type of cause in this case)?


- 79th wagon!


- What about 79th wagon?


- 78th wagon!



- What about 1st wagon?


- Locomotive!


- What is pulling the locomotive?


- What?! The locomotive doesn’t need to be pulled by something else in order to move. It is able to move without being pulled (unlike other wagons it has an engine).


If there are moving wagons (i.e., a train), then there necessarily exists something that, unlike other wagons, doesn’t need ANYTHING ELSE to pull it & it has the ability to move itself & all other wagons, i.e., locomotive. It is so, because infinite number of moving wagons, each of which requires something else to pull it, is physically impossible & logically absurd.


Similarly, for an existing universe (including all causes until the initial cause), where everything in it has a beginning, there necessarily exists an uncaused initial cause that has the ability to create something from nothing. We call this uncaused initial cause as the Creator of the universe or the God.




2)
SUPERNATURAL, INVISIBLE, & THE SUPREME BEING


i)
Since He "existed before” & is above space-time universe (i.e., nature), then He is supernatural.


ii)
We humans can only see matter & energy (i.e., light). Since God is the creator of matter & energy, then it is nonsensical to think that He is also made up of matter & energy. Since He is not made up of matter & energy, then He is invisible to us.


iii)
Since God is the Creator & the Ruler of the universe (i.e., everything known), then by definition He is the Supreme Being.[4]



3) THE CREATOR



Since He is the cause of the universe’s coming into existence, then He is the Creator of the universe, by definition.[5]




4)
THE RULER



There are laws in the universe (laws of nature/physics) that everything obeys them, i.e., they are ruling the universe. These laws are created within the universe & are a part of it. Since they are a part of the universe, then they must be created by the same cause we deduced from Design & KCA. Then, we conclude that this cause is constantly ruling the universe through these laws of the universe.


Therefore, consequently, God is the Ruler of the universe.




CONCLUSION



Con forfeited R2 which was the only round they could present their aruments. I look forward to Con’s rebuttals (only) in R3 & wish them best of luck!




Debate Round No. 2
debataholic090

Con

debataholic090 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
debataholic090

Con

debataholic090 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
debataholic090

Con

debataholic090 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 6 months ago
fire_wings
debataholic090ssadiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ffety ff
Vote Placed by Ragnar 6 months ago
Ragnar
debataholic090ssadiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 6 months ago
dsjpk5
debataholic090ssadiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro. Pro was also the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Pro by default.