The Instigator
Curt
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jimtimmy
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Every Argument For God's Existance Can Be Refuted.

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...
jimtimmy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,368 times Debate No: 17538
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Curt

Pro

I assert that there are o arguments for God's existance that cannot be sucessfuly refuted.

Round 1: Con will give his first argument's for God's existance
Round 2: Pro will refute con's argument's for God's existance. Con can either challenge my rebuttals or present new arguments for God's existance (or both).
Round 3: Con may only challenge my rebuttals I give in this round.
Round 4: Final rebuttals from pro; con may NOT present any rebuttals or new arguments.

Due to the fact it takes more space to respond to God's existance, my opponent is limited to 3 arguments. Good luck.
jimtimmy

Con

It is a pleasure to debate this topic.

Before I get into my arguments for God's existence, I should mention that I am a Christian. My Christianity is based on Faith. However, my role in this debate is to prove the existence of a God logically, which I believe is possible.

While nothing is separate from my Christianity, I am arguing for the existence of God from a logical standpoint, meaning that I will not be referencing Faith Based Arguments, even though I see many of those as valid.

Okay, so here I go with my Arguments for God's Existence:









1) The Ontological Argument



This argument was first made by Saint Anselm (and later revived by Descartes). Here is Anselm explaining it himself:

"If therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone [and not in reality], then this thing than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than that which a greater can be conceived. And this is clearly impossible. Therefore, there can be no doubt at all that something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists in both the understanding and in reality."



Basically,this argument holds that God, by definition, exists. Here is my explanation:

1.) God is the greatest Possible Existence (Atheists would agree with this, even if they don't believe in God)

2.) God's existence is conceivable (basically, God could exist in some reality)

3.) That that exists in reality (things that do exist) is greater than that that does not exist in reality

4.) Therefore, a God that does exist in reality is greater than a God that does not exist in reality

5.) However, a God that exists in mind only (does not exist in reality) would already be the greatest possible existence (1)

6.) Since God is already the greatest possible existence, the possible non existence of God would mean that something (a God that exists) could be greater than that which nothing greater is possible

7.) Point #6 is clearly absurd. Therefore, by definition, God exists



I am sorry if I did not explain this argument perfectly. I strongly recommend everyone read the first link I provide at the bottom, because it explains this argument in a much better way than I do.

However, I do believe that, despite the many criticisms, this doctrine holds. God, therefore, can be proved through simple human reason.

I also would like to stress that even if the Ontological argument does not hold, there are still many arguments in favor of God. This is stressed by the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas, who was known for making many arguments for God's existence, actually critiqued the Ontological argument.





6) The First Cause Argument



To me, the First Cause argument is the most logical and rational argument for God. In fact, I would say that this argument alone can prove the existence of God.

This argument has been made by philosophers and thinkers for millenniums. Aristotle, famously, made this argument. As did Thomas Aquinas.

The argument itself is not all that complex. It can really be summed up by German Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz:

"Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?"


The universe had a beginning. Even Atheists agree with this. In modern Science, this beginning is known as the Big Bang.

In light of this Big Bang, William Lane Craig set out this nice argument for the First Cause:



"1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.The Universe began to exist.

3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause."



The idea of the First Cause is that something outside the Universe originally created or set into motion the Universe we know today.

Like all of the arguments for God, this argument does not prove the existence of a specific God. However, it does, I believe, prove the existence of a Creator or a Higher Power.





3) The Argument from Design



This is another very convincing argument that basically makes Gods non-existence nearly impossible. Of course, this argument has been abused and misused by Believers, leading to well deserved attacks from Atheists. Ray Comfort gave atheists an easy target when he claimed that a Banana fitting in the hand proves God's existence.

While he was rightly criticized, this is not the argument from design. In fact, it is much more complex and logically coherent.

The basics of this argument is that the conditions for the miracle of life were extremely unlikely. If the Big Bang had been slightly different (ever so slightly), it is likely that life could not have developed at all. Existence-of-God.com summarizes part of this argument well:



"That this was the case, though, was either an extraordinary fluke, or was intended by the big bang's Creator. Had the rate of expansion been even fractionally slower—one part in a million million—then the big bang would have been followed by a big crunch before life could have developed. Had the rate of expansion been even fractionally faster—one part in a million—then stars and planets could not have formed. It is highly unlikely that a random big bang would be such as to allow life to develop, and therefore highly unlikely, according to the argument from design, that the big bang from which our universe was formed happened at random.

The fact that the universe is fit for life requires explanation, and an appeal to chance is no explanation at all. It is far more likely that the universe was initiated by a being that intended to create a universe that could support life. The fine-tuning of the universe for life can only be explained with reference to a Creator, as the result of intelligent design."



The Universe, if you will, was fine tuned for the creation of life. This implies a Creator who had a greater Cause in mind when creating the Universe. The Miracle of Life, in itself, is proof of a Creator beyond our own understanding.




4) The Moral Argument



The Moral Argument relies on the fact that a moral code does exist in our society. People are born with an innate sense of these moral laws. There are, if you will, moral facts.

An example of this is to not kill another. There is no physical or scientific justification for this idea, yet it is a major component of our society.

Again, I turn to Existence-of-God.com for a short explanation of this:



"The moral argument appeals to the existence of moral laws as evidence of God's existence. According to this argument, there couldn't be such a thing as morality without God; to use the words that Sartre attributed to Dostoyevsky, "If there is no God, then everything is permissible." That there are moral laws, then, that not everything is permissible, proves that God exists."



These moral laws typically come in the form of Commandments. Commandments, of course, imply a Commander.

More importantly, this Commander must have ultimate authority over Humans (and the universe). After all, if it were anything short of this, then there is no conceivable way that these moral laws would be nearly as universal as they are. This would imply that an All Powerful Being commanded these laws for our respective society.







Of course, there are other arguments for God I could not get to in this argument. I hope to have space to touch on some of them in my next argument. I certainly look forward to responding to my opponents counter points.



Here are my sources (many of them provide better explanations for these arguments than I do):


http://www.angelfire.com...


http://www.existence-of-god.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Curt

Pro

Curt forfeited this round.
jimtimmy

Con

I think it is safe to say that my opponent will not be responding, as his account is now dead.
Debate Round No. 2
Curt

Pro

Curt forfeited this round.
jimtimmy

Con

Lol, account still isnt back
Debate Round No. 3
Curt

Pro

Curt forfeited this round.
jimtimmy

Con

Well, this was not much of a debate...
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
Okay, thx
Posted by Curt 5 years ago
Curt
reason for votong. In other words, why should the voters vote for you
Posted by Davididit 5 years ago
Davididit
Good luck, Jim :)
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
I'm sorry, I'm new to Debate.org...

What does R4v mean?

Lol
Posted by Curt 5 years ago
Curt
no, just R4V
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
So, the Con can't post an argument in the fourth round?
Posted by Curt 5 years ago
Curt
thanks
Posted by Trent_H 5 years ago
Trent_H
The topic would be clearer if it read, "Every argument for God's existence can be refuted" thus eliminating a double negative.
Posted by Davididit 5 years ago
Davididit
This a nice debate topic ;)
Posted by Curt 5 years ago
Curt
The resolution could say: "There are no valid arguments for God's existamce", but that would lose quickly for me.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by VocMusTcrMaloy 5 years ago
VocMusTcrMaloy
CurtjimtimmyTied
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: Pro did not respond to Con's arguments. Pro used NO references; and most of all, Pro forfeited!
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
CurtjimtimmyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a very easy task ahead of him but forfeited every round, all votes to Con by default. Annoying because his arguments were pretty weak!
Vote Placed by QT 5 years ago
QT
CurtjimtimmyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not respond to any of Con's arguments.