The Instigator
Diagoras
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
t-man
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Evidence for god

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,004 times Debate No: 18764
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

Diagoras

Con

Can someone come and show SUBSTANTIAL evidence for a god or a creator? Anything that shows that god is the most likely explination? And not some mindless thought experiment, but actual evidence, that is what science works off of.
t-man

Pro

Here is my evidence: The Universe exists.

There has to be a beginning to the Universe. It would illogical for there to be an event before an event before an event before an event before an event before Ad infinitum.

It is also imposable for it to be self-creating. Something that doesn't exist can't create itself.

The universe's existence isn't self-evident. If it is, what makes it that way?

The only remaining explanation is that something created the universe. Therefore there is a creator.
Debate Round No. 1
Diagoras

Con

There are many flaws to this line of "thinking."

1) t-man is assuming that infinates can't exist. If that is the case, I ask him, what is the largest integer? Can you not take one step left ad infinitum? can you not progress 1 second forward ad infinitum? These are examples of inifinities that are real, so simply pointing it out doesnt do crap.
2) t-man says that the universe must have a beginning, but offers no logic for that. Why does it have to have a beginning? Why "must" the universe have a beginning, but not god?
3) t-man says that the universe must therefore have a creator. This is also bogus since the universe doesnt have to have a "creator" which implies intent, but merely a causation of accident of other, non-god, events. Having a start does not mean the same as having a creator.

Every aspect of this argument fails.
t-man

Pro

1) There may be infinite possible integers but that doesn't mean that they all currently exist at this moment. You cannot find an example of every single possible integer in the universe. You could not take one step to the left or one second forward ad infinitum because that would take infinite time and time will never reach infinity.

2) My logic is that infinities are impossible. I have rebutted your so called "infinities".

3) If something was created than it has a creator by definition. I proved that the Universe was created in my 1st round argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Diagoras

Con

1) t-man says that 1 second cannot keep passing because that would take an infinite amount of time and infinities don't exist. This is circular reasoning and so illogical. He also admits, "There may be infinite possible integers." Which is admiting that ininity can exist.

2) t-man has provided no logic as to why infinity doesn't exist, he only said that it doesn't. That is not a logical argument, but an unbacked opinion.

3) t-man hasn't shown that the universe was created. There is also a difference between a "creator" and a "cause," of which t-man has had no argument.

t-man has made no logical arguments, nor shown any evidence. All he has done was an illogical thought experiment, which in the start of the debate was stated to not do. As per reading through other debates, he is not allowed to add any new arguments in his last round and as he has had no logical arguments yet, votes should be awarded to Con.
t-man

Pro

1) I did not say that 1 second cannot continue ad infinite because infinities don't exist. That would be circular logic. It is imposable because no matter how much time has past there still would be more to go before infinity is reached. Also, I said, "There may be infinite POSSIBLE integers." There are infinite possibilities, but there are no infinities in reality.

2) You have been unable to give any valid examples of infinities. It is, therefore, most likely that they don't exist.

3) If something caused the universe to exist, that thing created the Universe. Therefore it is the Universe's creator.

My arguments stand.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Pro set up a typical first mover case, and con raised three objections. The first of these - is infinity possible - didn't really attack pro's contention and was well handled by pro. The second, why must the universe have a beginning and not god, was parried by pro. Pro should have answered the "and not god" part, instead of relying on his first-point analysis. Con did not push the "and not god part" in later rounds. The third point was, however, not handled by pro well- something that doesn't exist can be CAUSED as opposed to CREATED. Con's response was that a causer was a creator, but as pro pointed out, there is a difference in that cause suggests intent.

Burden of proof in this debate was clearly carried by pro. Therefore, pro had to meet all three of con's objections in order to win the debate. Pro did handle most of the objections, however, the third objection was not really analysed until the last round, and even then the analysis had already been addressed by con. On the third point, therefore, I am obliged to offer con the debate.

Good effort by both debaters. 3:2 neg win.
Posted by Diagoras 5 years ago
Diagoras
Yes, why?
Posted by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
You're seriously 34, diagoras?
Posted by Diagoras 5 years ago
Diagoras
To an opponent that forfeited every round, yes, that is certainly proving your case.
Posted by InfraRedEd 5 years ago
InfraRedEd
Been there, done that. http://www.debate.org...
Posted by sammyc96 5 years ago
sammyc96
I'm not taking this debate but whoever does should use Einstein's quote
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
Diagorast-manTied
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: Everything goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by tennis47 4 years ago
tennis47
Diagorast-manTied
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: Con didn't state which "god" he was talking about.
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
Diagorast-manTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is in denial that infinites exist. Pro has not proved that they do not. Just because something is caused does not mean that there is a creator. Pro should be smart enough to know that.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Diagorast-manTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Larztheloser's comments. Both sides weak, but Pro never really addressed why his alleged cause is a god, and that was the essence of the debate. The exploration of this topic was underly lucid ("cause" vs "creator") but still determinative.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
Diagorast-manTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a poor debate. Giving points to Con, since Pro's only argument uses circular reasoning.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Diagorast-manTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.