The Instigator
JKL
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Existance of 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 796 times Debate No: 22333
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

JKL

Con

Though I have said not to use God in your arguments, that is exactly what this debate is about.


Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Main Argument (no rebuttals please)
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Wrapping Up
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I accept.

However, God will be difined as a supernatural deity that created the Universe. (not just the Biblical defintion).
Debate Round No. 1
JKL

Con

JKL forfeited this round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Contention 1: The Kalam cosmological argument.

P1. Everything that begins to exist, also has a cause.

P2. The Universe began to exist.

C: Therefore, the Universe had a cause.


P1: The premise expresses the rather obvious truth that someting can not come from nothing. It would be rather absurd to deny this since it isn't really logical to say that something that is material can come from absolute nothingness. To deny this then one would have the burden of proof as to how this could possibly happen. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting it. So, that means there is a cause for everything.

P2: All known scientific evidence supports this premise. Ever since Edwin Hubble discovered that the Universe is exspanding in 1929. All scientists agree that the Universe in finite and was caused 14 billion years as a result of ' The Big Bang' (which had a cause) [1].

Now with this made clear then we must ask ourselves one question: Why say that a god was the cause?

Well it must be noted that there is nothing before the cause of the universe. So that means it wont be able to be explained scientifically because there was nothing before then. There was no time, no matter, no anything. Therefore, the cause must not be before time itself and must be the cause of time. And in order for the whole of the universe to be created from nothing the cause has to be all-powerful. There is no other logical way to explain the origin of the universe is that a god did it.


Contention 2: The Design Argument


This next argument is based of you guessed it: The perfection of the design of well...everything. Consider this syllogism:

P1: The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility

P2: Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.


P3: It wasn't chance.


P4: Therefore, the universe is the product of intelligent design.


P5: Intelligent design comes only from a mind or a intelligent designer.


C: Therefore, the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.


P1: Obviously my first premise is easy to prove all my opponnent has and the voters has to do is either look at the sky or even look at themselves in the mirror and they will see how complex everything is.

P2: If all this order is not in some way the product of intelligent design—then what? Obviously, it "just happened." Things just fell out that way "by chance." Alternatively, if all this order is not the product of blind, purposeless forces, then it has resulted from some kind of purpose. That purpose can only be intelligent design. So my second premise stands.

P3: It is up to my opponent to give a credible alternative to intelligent design. And "chance" simply is not a credible cause. For we can understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened "by chance" is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected it to turn out, or that it did turn out in a way we would not have expected it to be. But expectation is truly impossible without order. If you take away order and speak only of chance as a kind of ultimate source of everything, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of the word chance at all. Instead of thinking of the word chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order-overwhelmingly intricate order-against a random, purposeless background of chance. That is incredible. Therefore, it is eminently reasonable to affirm the third premise, 'not chance', and therefore to affirm the conclusion, that this universe is the product of intelligent design.



~~Sources~~

[1] http://skyserver.sdss.org...
Debate Round No. 2
JKL

Con

Deathbeforedishonor, please do not post any arguments in the last round. I am sorry I was unable to post my argument, I was in Gettysburg and did not have time. I also have to leave soon and the debate expires in six hours, so I will shorten my arguments. Here are my main arguments:


1. How did "God" come into existence? As has been said about the big bang theory, something cannot come from nothing.

2. If a god really does exist, why doesn't he show himself? If he truly wanted everyone to rid themselves of sin, he would give a message or sign that he is real so that nobody would want to sin.

3. A kind and loving god as has been described by the Bible would not send "sinners" (including atheists) into eternal punishment to pay for their crimes. Instead, he would bring everyone to heaven and try to rehabilitate these "sinners".


Refutations:

C1P1: Something cannot come from nothing, correct. So as I stated above, how did God come into existence?

C2 Intro: If "God" wanted perfection, he would've created perfect species to inhabit the earth. How come, then, did he not?

C2P3: If "chance" is not a credible cause, then neither is a god. Wasn't your God created by chance?

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

~~Defense~~

D1: Actually, my opponent's first 'refutation' can be turned both ways. He says that the Universe was caused however, what caused that cause? And what caused the cause of the cause? It's a never ending paradox. But in my case this paradox does not occur. This is because gods/goddesses are timeless. This is because it is it that created time itself. This means a god can't be bound by the restraints that time places on things. Therefore, a god is has no beginning nor end because beginnings and ends are restraints that are brought forth by time. My first case still stands.

D2: The answer to my opponent's next question is free will. We were gieven free will and we screwed it up. This is the cause of imperfections in our and other species. For example: Let's say the first humans were perfect. However, they began to do things that was negative to their health and this caused negative health conditions. When they had offspring then these conditions were passed down to those offspring and the offspring's offspring. It was bad choices that caused the imperfections in health that we see today.

D3: No, because as I stated in my first defense a god was not caused.



~~Rebuttels~~

R1: Already covered in first defense.

R2: Who said he wants too? Who says that Christianity is right? We are not arguing about the Christian god; we are arguing about the existence of a god. Even if one proves Christianity false (and they have), this does not rule out the existence of a creator. Also, the very fact that the Universe is in perfect alignment is a perfect sign that there is a god.

R3: We are not arguing about Christianity, we are arguing about the existence of a creator. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
Debate Round No. 3
JKL

Con

JKL forfeited this round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Arguments extended vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by JKL 4 years ago
JKL
sorry i was not able to post round two, very busy... please do not make any arguments this round
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I will accept this in 3 days when I have completed one of my 3 current debates. Sorry about the delay. :)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
JKLDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: Conduct goes to Pro for Con's Round 2 and 4 forfeit. Pro gets convincing arguments because Con never properly responded to his claims. Pro also gets reliable sources because he was the only one to cite
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
JKLDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: Really bad debate.... For someone who claims to not believe in God, period, they should at least be able to back up their beliefs under pressure. Well Pro destroyed con's "arguments" and established a Creator does exist.
Vote Placed by Beachgirly 4 years ago
Beachgirly
JKLDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Well Pro had better argument all around...
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
JKLDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
JKLDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
JKLDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: FF