The Instigator
tala00131
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Dose 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...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 692 times Debate No: 29511
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

tala00131

Con

There is no evadance for God and what is belife without evadance? Pepole would rathert get there belifes out of a 3000 year old book rather than from facts.
Pepole say well the forces of natuar are just right for life to exist this is the dumbest thing i have heard in my life. There are so many places in the universe that would kill life institly. Not just in the universe why are there so many volcanos ect. Why would God let so many african children get diesies and suffer. 95% of all species on earth have went extinct. Is this what God wanted? Why is there nothing about dinasours in any holy book? why arent theses species in any book? Why would a god create life and destroy it and create it and destroy it for millions of years ?
Pepole say that if we changed the laws of physic by one point of an inch we would not exist this is true but this dose not support the design. So many spots in the universe would kill life instintly. Why are there so many faild stars? why did god create the other planets in our solar system dead. Pepole used to think that the sun was a charriot riding acros the sky. The bible says the earth is 6000 years old we know that earth is 4.6 billion years old. Why would God let so many african children children to starve and die.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

Introduction

Con daringly mixes together dashes of an argument from silence, a cogent attack on the Teleological Argument, something that resembles a version of the Problem of Evil, and a criticism of Young Earth Creationism into a devilishly cunning argument that proves itself almost impossible to refute by virtue of the sheer rhetorical wizardry displayed by it's creation. I am obligated to tip my hat to Con, who has by any criterion set the standards for this debate almost insurmountably high with his novel arguments and unmatched command of the English language. Despite the futility of my cause, I intend to perservere, to crusade, until I am either devastated by my opponent's cutting wit and sharp mind or I emerge victorious, despite my current position as unlikely underdog.

I suppose I ought to undertake some sort of burden of proof, given that I'm Pro and my esteemable opponent seems to be operating under the assumption that I have such a burden. I do not doubt my opponent's ability to correctly anticipate what will happen, thus if Con appears to be acting as though I will undertake a burden, I ought to undertake a burden.

I intend, for the purposes of attempting to affirm the resolution, to use the third way proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor Angelicus.

The Third Way (Argument from Contingency)

'Tertia via est sumpta ex possibili et necessario, quæ talis est. Invenimus enim in rebus quædam quæ sunt possibilia esse et non esse, cum quædam inveniantur generari et corrumpi, et per consequens possibilia esse et non esse. Impossibile est autem omnia quæ sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non est. Si igitur omnia sunt possibilia non esse, aliquando nihil fuit in rebus. Sed si hoc est verum, etiam nunc nihil esset, quia quod non est, non incipit esse nisi per aliquid quod est; si igitur nihil fuit ens, impossibile fuit quod aliquid inciperet esse, et sic modo nihil esset, quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo omnia entia sunt possibilia, sed oportet aliquid esse necessarium in rebus. Omne autem necessarium vel habet causam suæ necessitatis aliunde, vel non habet. Non est autem possibile quod procedatur in infinitum in necessariis quæ habent causam suæ necessitatis, sicut nec in causis efficientibus, ut probatum est. Ergo necesse est ponere aliquid quod sit per se necessarium, non habens causam necessitatis aliunde, sed quod est causa necessitatis aliis, quod omnes dicunt Deum.' [1]

A summary from Wikipedia that I adapted slightly:

  1. A contingent being may either exist or not exist.
  2. It is impossible for everything to be contingent, as then there would be a time when nothing existed, thus nothing could be brought into existence, which is clearly false as things exist.
  3. Therefore there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent.
  4. That being is God.
  5. God exists.

Conclusion

Too much staring at a screen is bad for my eyes, so I'll hold off dealing with my brilliant opponent until next round. Thank you.

Sources:
1. http://www.corpusthomisticum.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
tala00131

Con

Where is the evadance for God. Why would God give evadance to a small group of jews 3000 years ago and not provide any evadance after that. Every creationist argument is the same.
Staint Thomas Aquanies proofs:
The unmoved mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move and that something we call God
The Uncaused Cause: Nothing is caused by itself every effect has a prior cause and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.
The Cosmological Argument:There must have been a time where no physical things existed.
My argument against these It is a unscientific and pethitic argument to say we dont know the answer there for god is. aqunias says there had to be a time where there was nothing well then there had to be a time where there was no God. If you say well God is eternal Why can not say the same thing about space.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

Opening Remarks

My esteemable opponent appears to be bringing arguments to bear against Christianity, however this is non topical to the resolution, and is certainly not what I agreed to debate when I signed up for this. For this reason, I will not deign to respond to attacks on Young Earth Creationism, the Bible, Christianity, or anything of that sort.

I will begin this round by defending my argument. After I have finished with that, I will treat with my brilliant opponent's nearly flawless arguments.

The Argument from Contingency

With his trademark talent, my opponent has provided incredibly brief, yet impeccable summaries of the first three of the five ways. With unmatched clarity, he boldly puts forth: 'It is a unscientific and pethitic argument to say we dont know the answer there for god is. aqunias says there had to be a time where there was nothing well then there had to be a time where there was no God. If you say well God is eternal Why can not say the same thing about space.', clearly attempting to put me off my guard by rendering his sentence in a fashion that pays only lip service to normal rules of style. While again I am forced to acknowledge Con's innate superiority over my limited abilities, I do believe his arguments suffer from fatal flaws.

Objection 1. It is a unscientific and pethitic argument to say we dont know the answer there for god is.

Reply to Objection 1. My opponent is playing a crafty game, trying to throw me off the scent by strawmanning the Argument from Contingency. This is one such strawman. The Argument from Contingency says nothing of the sort.

Objection 2. aqunias says there had to be a time where there was nothing well then there had to be a time where there was no God.

Reply to Objection 2. Aquinas said that there had to be a time when nothing existed if everything is contingent. Clearly, something exists, which means that there was no time when nothing existed, so everything can't be contingent. God is not contingent, being necessary, and for that reason removes the possibility of there being a time when nothing existed.

Objection 3. If you say well God is eternal Why can not say the same thing about space.

Reply to Objection 3. Because it's possible that space could not exist.

Rebuttals

I now intend to counter my opponent's arguments from Round 1.

My opponent writes 'Pepole say well the forces of natuar are just right for life to exist this is the dumbest thing i have heard in my life. There are so many places in the universe that would kill life institly. Not just in the universe why are there so many volcanos ect.'

I wouldn't say that the forces of 'nataur' are just right for life to exist, but they are sufficient for life to exist, and they fit within the very small margin for which life could exist.

My opponent writes 'Why would God let so many african children get diesies and suffer. 95% of all species on earth have went extinct. Is this what God wanted? Why is there nothing about dinasours in any holy book? why arent theses species in any book? Why would a god create life and destroy it and create it and destroy it for millions of years ?'

I didn't sign up for Q&A. If my opponent wants to turn this into an argument, then excellent, but if all it wants to do is put forward questions it can hardly expect me to be under obligation to answer them.

My opponent writes 'Pepole say that if we changed the laws of physic by one point of an inch we would not exist this is true but this dose not support the design.'

Yes it does. I wouldn't say it single-handedly proves design, but it certainly supports it.

My opponent writes 'So many spots in the universe would kill life instintly. Why are there so many faild stars? why did god create the other planets in our solar system dead.'

Why does my opponent ask so many questions instead of making arguments?

My opponent writes 'Pepole used to think that the sun was a charriot riding acros the sky.'

This is completely irrelevant. My opponent is trying for duplicity, in order that I might underestimate it, but I will not fall for such elaborate tricks.

My opponent writes 'The bible says the earth is 6000 years old'

No it doesn't.

My opponent writes 'we know that earth is 4.6 billion years old.'

Irrelevant.

My opponent writes 'Why would God let so many african children children to starve and die.'

In a clever attempt to turn one of it's many questions into a statement, while retaining the overall inquisitiveness of a question, my opponent puts forth this. I advise the readership to not be taken in by this treachery.

Conclusion

I believe that I have addressed all of my opponent's arguments, although as my opponent seems to operate on an intellectual level far above my own, it is possible that I haven't. As it stands, I deem the resolution affirmed.
Debate Round No. 2
tala00131

Con

tala00131 forfeited this round.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

Opening Remarks

My opponent has ingeniously adopted another strategy to gain victory, and while it's certainly unprecedented and the type of strategem I would expect one of his great intelligence to employ, I doubt it will carry the day.

Conclusion

As my opponent 'appears' to have 'forfeited', 'extend' all my 'arguments' and 'vote' for 'me'.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
There is no evadance for God and what is belife without evadance? Pepole would rathert get there belifes out of a 3000 year old book rather than from facts.

I do belive you need to work on your spelling rathert then debating about evadence of God lol
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
lit.wakefield
tala00131AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't agree with him, but he clearly wins. Quite funny also.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
tala00131AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for FF. Con has very poor spelling and grammar. Pro has one source, as opposed to none. I wasn't exactly fond of the arguments because neither side was very convincing; Con had very distracting spelling and grammar, and pro avoided refuting con's arguments by referring to it as 'treachery' instead. Regardless of what pro said, it is an argument. If pro was able to answer those questions, it would have been more convincing.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 3 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
tala00131AlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Con results in a victory for Pro. Aquinas triumphs on his Feast Day. Go Catholics. Yeah