The Instigator
PreacherAndy18000
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
56 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,775 times Debate No: 11476
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (10)

 

PreacherAndy18000

Pro

Hi my name is andy and i will be arguing that god does exist for a few reasons i will wait for my opponent to give arguments why he doesn't exist although he must do two things 1st show my destroy my case for his existence 2nd make his own case why he doesn't exist here's my opening argument god exists 1 everything that begins to exist has a cause 2 the universe began to exist 3 therefore the universe has a cause (god)

1 the universe's fine tuning is either from chance or natural law or design
2. it can't be from natural law or chance
3. the univers has a designer

1. if god doesn't exist absolute moral values don't exist
2. absolute moral values do exist
3. therefore god exists

1. human beings really need god
2. whatever is needed usually exists
3.therefore god must exist
Cody_Franklin

Con

Alright. Welcome to DDO. I could probably offer up 1000s of counterarguments to these syllogisms, but I'll settle only for 2-3 each, so as not to overwhelm my opponent. Also, I'm not going to bother with deep, metaphysical arguments. In the spirit of keeping it fun, I'll also be keeping it fairly superficial.

1. Causality syllogism

a. This whole syllogism implicitly assumes the existence of God in order to prove that He was the cause of the universe. Fallacy.

b. His third premise is a huge, similar fallacy, which relies on the hidden, unproven assumption that, if the universe was caused by something, the cause MUST have been God. It could just as easily have been the Big Bang Theory - in fact, that's far more likely, given that evidence for this theory actually exists.

2. "Fine-tuning" syllogism

a. He makes the unwarranted claim in premise 2 that "[the universe's fine-tuning] can't be from natural law or chance." My question is, why not? He hasn't offered any warrant, logical or empirical.

b. The fact that the universe exists this way is merely a product of the natural tendency of things toward supporting life, whether intelligent or otherwise. We are a product of this natural order, and would not be here if the circumstances of the universe were different. The fact that we continue to exist is a result of what we might call luck. The fact that things just happened to settle this way doesn't mean that God was sitting up in Heaven, tweaking every little part of the universe to make human life possible. It just means that, based on the way that the universe is set up, we live. At best, the improbability of the existence of current conditions is fairly irrelevant.

3. Morality syllogism

a. Objective moral values can exist without being handed down by an unaccountable deity driven by subjective whims. Whether people choose to live by them or not is a different issue altogether.

b. You're asserting that absolute values exist. On what basis? On the basis that God exists. This is entirely circular. Your conclusion can't be the proof for one of your premises.

This last syllogism was my favorite.

4. Human need syllogism

a. Atheists seem to get along okay. Norway, for example. [http://www.nationmaster.com...]

b. I hate to make so many questions into responses, but what proof do you have to warrant the claim that humans "really need God"?

c. "2. whatever is needed usually exists" <- What...? According to whom? Proof? Anything?

In conclusion, I apologize for the superficial nature of my attacks; however, it's clear from simply reading Pro's arguments that all of his claims are either entirely unproven, rely on hidden, also-unproven premises, or are outright fallacious - and, I know that you guys can clearly see that. There just wasn't very much left to attack.

Oh, Pro also wants me to provide arguments against God's existence. I made up one, so let's hope this is passable.

Now, by definition, God is supposed to be omnipotent - this means not only possessing all logically possible powers, but also having unlimited authority.

Now, consider that the laws of logic are a priori true. A is A, A can't be ~A, and something must either be A or ~A. There's no disputing that.

This means that God is bound by those laws - his authority cannot change the laws of logic, nor can he step outside of them. Because there is a higher authority binding the activities of God, He cannot - by definition - be omnipotent; ergo, God cannot exist.

Okie dokie. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
PreacherAndy18000

Pro

1 Kalam cosmological argument

a. ok first i don't see how this assumes god's existence??

b. i agree with the big bang theory but thats the scientific explanation of what happened not the personal explanation of how it happened

2. Teleological argument

a i was going to i was just waiting for you to respond before backing up my claims it couldn't be from chance because the probability of our universe by chance being able to be life permiting is very small its much more probable it was designed

3. Morality argument

a no they cannot and you assume he bases these moral values on his subjective whim i never claimed that i agree whether or not people choose to live by them is irrelevant to this disscusion

b its not our moral experience tells us absolute values do exist

4. Religious need argument

a. i agree completly (seem) to get along okay

b. well the fact that almost every civilization believes in some sort of spiritual realm obviously there seeking for a reason
Cody_Franklin

Con

Alrighty. Let us begin Round 2.

1. Causality Syllogism/KCA

a. Argument from personal incredulity. "I don't see how my claim is false =/= the claim is objectively true/verifiable. For a brief explanation, however: my opponent claims that the universe must necessarily have been caused by something. I say okay, let's run with that. He says that "the cause must be God"; when I ask why, the answer my opponent gives is that God exists because the universe must have a cause; ergo, he is implicitly presuming God's existence as proof that God caused the universe. You see why this claim is fallacious.

b. "i agree with the big bang theory" <- Okie dokie. I win. However, Pro also says that the BBT is not "the personal explanation of how it happened". Honestly, I have no idea what he means by "personal explanation", nor would such a subjective, opinion-based theory be sufficient to prove the existence of God. Just because I would REALLY like to believe that God created everything does not make that explanation any more truthful when I expound my belief.

2. "Fine-tuning" syllogism/TA

a. My opponent's argument basically boils down to this: the manifestation of the universe by chance is impossible because it is very improbable (possible, but very unlikely). Remember earlier when I stated that something cannot be both A and ~A? Well, something cannot be both possible and impossible. Unfortunately, my opponent is contradicting himself. Furthermore, this argument, at best, only proves that the probability for deity-guided creation is somewhat greater than the probability of creation via natural tendency; curiously, though, I wonder how my opponent can claim to accurately know the probability of having a universe created by chance/nature/whatever you'd like to call it. It seems to me like such a probably would be unknown; that my opponent would be ignorant of such a probability; that is to say, my opponent seems to be arguing from ignorance.

b. Pro dropped this response. Extend it from Round 1.

3. Morality Syllogism

a. Considering that God can make something moral or immoral whenever he pleases, it seems to be fairly whimsical, i.e. subjective. The point was, objective moral principles can exist independent of religious conceptualization thereof; humanity's choice not to follow those principles does not render them nonexistent.

b. "our moral experience tells us absolute values do exist" <--- If our "moral experience" tells us that these values exist, that suggests that these morals exist without God. Furthermore, though, it's not moral experience (whatever that is) that outlines an ethical code; such a code is nothing more than humanity's means of survival, based on the unavoidable circumstances of reality. Once again, people's ignorance of that ethical code does not equate the nonexistence of that code.

4. Human need syllogism/RNA

a. He agrees with me. If people can get along fine without the concept of a deity, then they don't need God.

b. The fact that some people choose to seek out the comforting thought of a perfect afterlife and benevolent creator doesn't mean that humanity needs God; that merely means that such a notion is psychologically pleasing, and fairly popular. You know what they say about appealing to popularity, though... or maybe not.

c. He drops my attack on the second premise. Extend it from Round 1.

Finally, he drops the case I've made against God - the "Problem of Logic", if you will (if anyone uses that, I expect royalties!).

Anyway, it's around 1:20 AM. Goodnight, good luck, and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
PreacherAndy18000

Pro

1. KCA

a. its not fallacious
"my opponent claims that the universe must necessarily have been caused by something. I say okay, let's run with that. He says that "the cause must be God"; when I ask why, the answer my opponent gives is that God exists because the universe must have a cause"

i never said i never said that the cause must be god because the univers must have a cause
the reason the cause must be god is because theres nothing else that could cause the universe

b. what i mean by personal explanation is this if you saw a kettle boiling and you asked someone why it was boiling they could give you the scientific explanation because the kinetic energy of the flame is conducted by the metal bottom of the kettle to the water causing the water molecules to vibrate faster and faster until their thrown off in the form of steam thats scientific explanation (big bang) or they could say they put it on to make a cup of tea personal explanation (god caused it)

2. Teleological argument

a. no i said improbable not impossible and if its improbable that it could have been fine tuned by chance it seems more logical considering the other proofs ive given for god that god fine tuned it

3. Morality argument

a. but i already said thats not how believe he gives morality your assuming i believe god bases morality on his whims

b. you don't get what i mean by moral experience i mean people genrally seem to know there are certain things that are right and wrong experience tells us if morals are just evolved for survival then their not really absolute in other words you can't say for sure that anything is wrong or right

4. RNA

a. no thats not what i said i said they seem appear to but they don't actually

b. are you claiming that belief in god is like a crutch??
Cody_Franklin

Con

No offense to Pro, and I apologize to the voters, but the way in which some of my opponent's arguments are worded borders incomprehensibility; thus, you must forgive me if I happen to stumble a bit in this final round.

1. Causality syllogism/KCA

a. You've already agreed to the validity of the Big Bang Theory; how can you argue that God just decided to create everything in 7 days (as the Bible instructs) if you've agreed to the BBT? The answer: You cannot, without contradicting yourself.

b. Your "personal explanation" is nothing more than a reason for having done something. The motivation; not the actual causal factors of the event itself. How was the Universe caused? Scientifically speaking, BBT. Why? Well, it just happened to come out that way. Just because the event causing the Universe isn't extravagant or infinitely complex does not mean that your explanation, arguably more complex/perplexing, is correct.

2. "Fine-tuned" syllogism/TA

a. "no i said improbable not impossible" <--- Really?

"it couldn't be from chance"

That sounds a lot like you're claiming impossibility based solely an unknown probability which you have presumed to be extremely tiny - you still haven't even bothered to prove that the probability of a "fine-tuned" universe is infinitesimally tiny compared to the unbelievably low probability of creation by a mystical, all-powerful spaceman who can't be sensed or detected by any means.

"it seems more logical considering the other proofs ive given for god that god fine tuned it"

What other proofs? You haven't "proven" anything. You've made a lot of unwarranted claims and logically bankrupt arguments. Nothing else.

b. Once again, he's dropped the argument. Extend from Rounds 1 and 2.

3.

a. Whether you believe God gives morality a certain way is irrelevant. By that same logic, I believe God doesn't exist. I win. Truthfully, though, God's so-called "objective morality" is based on his subjective whims. Something is moral or immoral based on how he happens to feel about it at the time; ergo, it's based on subjective whim. At the point that you admit that morality doesn't stem from those subjective whims, you admit that it doesn't stem from God, which thereby loses you the round.

b. A code of ethics suited to survival is the only absolute moral standard, since the facts of reality which dictate the necessary processes of survival don't change.. If life is the ultimate standard of judgment, nothing is going to change. What's suitable to the life of a being committed to survival doesn't suddenly change every few thousand years. Whatever furthers one's life = good; that which hinders, maims, or otherwise injures one's life = bad. I don't need God to tell me that preserving my existence is my ultimate goal.

4. Human need syllogism/RNA

a. I'll demand what I demanded a couple of rounds ago. Prove that they "don't actually" get along fine without God. Norway is doing fantastic right now, and they're a pretty atheist nation. Then look at Israel - "God's chosen people" - not quite so hot.

b. I'm arguing that, just because some people find the idea of an all-loving god to be very psychologically appealing, that doesn't mean that humanity actually needs God any more than it needs other addicting things; cocaine, for example.

c. Extend this argument from Rounds 1 and 2.

Also, extend the Problem of Logic from Rounds 1 and 2.

So, it's 4 in the morning. I'm very tired right now, but let me break down the points distribution.

Conduct: Tied - I was kind of a douchebag, but the way that Pro conducted this debate was really sketchy and improper.

S/G: Con - Obviously.

Arguments: Con - Also obvious. Pro = fallacies, drops, and unwarranted claims galore. You didn't need my argumentation to tell you that.

Sources: Tied/Con - I used a source in one of my arguments; if that's not enough to get the point, though, tie it up.

Oh, and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Pathetic opposition from pro, he listed syllogisms that have been destroyed many times before.
Con wins.
Posted by bjb87 6 years ago
bjb87
shouldn't it be:

1. human beings really need god
2. whatever is needed usually exists
3. therefore god must usually exist
Posted by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
Don't get me wrong, I still love you Pro.
Posted by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
Voting Con for all my debates from now on.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
PreacherAndy18000Cody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by mkjoe 6 years ago
mkjoe
PreacherAndy18000Cody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by bjb87 6 years ago
bjb87
PreacherAndy18000Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by PreacherAndy18000 6 years ago
PreacherAndy18000
PreacherAndy18000Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
PreacherAndy18000Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
PreacherAndy18000Cody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
PreacherAndy18000Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
PreacherAndy18000Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
PreacherAndy18000Cody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
PreacherAndy18000Cody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06