The Instigator
DarwinBulldog
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
EliasPredko
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

God Does NOT Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 4 votes the winner is...
DarwinBulldog
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 698 times Debate No: 54916
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

DarwinBulldog

Pro

God Does NOT Exist

Definition of Terms:

Physical: material existence [1]

Supernatural: outside the natural order [2]

Reality: stateofbeingreal;existsindependentlyofideas [3]

Terms Explained:

Something that is supernatural, BY DEFINITION, is outside of the natural-physical world.

Something that hasn't been discovered yet could be considered supernatural - but when it is discovered it becomes part of that natural world.

The only things which exist are are the things which are real. The things which are real are the things which are natural and rooted in physical systems.

Deductive:

P1) Everything that exists is physical

P2) God is not physical

C) Therefore, God does not exist

Examples & Analysis:

Three common things that one might consider to be supernatural: God, ESP & ghosts.

(let's just pick ESP for an example) If it doesn't exist, then one could call it supernatural as in, "doesn't exist in our universe."

On the other hand, it's possible that ESP does exist (I don't think it very likely, but it could) and if it does, then supernatural isn't all that super; it just means something natural that we can't yet explain.

In this context "supernatural" might mean "real, but unexplained." As soon as we have access or data for something supposed to be supernatural - it becomes firmly fixed in the physical.


In short, it seems to me that supernatural either means "doesn't exist at all" or "exists but is not yet explained." Either way, it's not "other worldly."


Source References:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[4] http://www.sciencechatforum.com...
EliasPredko

Con

I contradict this idea using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. You can find it here - http://en.wikipedia.org...

There are three basic principles of this argument:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

Throughout history, we have seen that every effect has a cause. For example, how is an automobile created? It cannot just appear there. The automobile manufacturers build it. This, by example, tells us that everything has a cause to exist.

2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.

As stated before, throughout history, we have seen countless examples of this to happen, so if our planet has a beginning, wouldn't our galaxy, and furthermore, our universe? This eliminates the law of infinity and demonstrates to us that there has to be a cause that is outside of time, space, and matter. Both of these reasons lead us to the main point that...

3. The universe has a cause of its existence that is infinite, spaceless and timeless
Debate Round No. 1
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
It's not cheating, but it IS a bit disingenuous. That said, with a wary debater, those who use such tactics can find them winding up biting them in the butt, so it can go both ways.
Posted by DarwinBulldog 2 years ago
DarwinBulldog
ArcTimes, thank you. My point exactly.
Posted by DarwinBulldog 2 years ago
DarwinBulldog
I'm sorry ElaisPredko, but before accepting the debate Debate.org explains the debate parameters and restrictions.. are you in the habit of impulsively accepting God debates just to insert the Kalam argument..?

You accepted the debate without reading the guidelines; how is that "cheating" or anyone else's fault but your own?
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
I don't that's cheating. Technically you were able to see the time before accepting.
The 10 minute challengers are annoying tho.
Posted by EliasPredko 2 years ago
EliasPredko
By the way, everybody, DarwinBulldog cheated by giving me an unfair disadvantage by giving me 10 minutes to post my argument, so I had to make it brief.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
No offense, but your arguments for God not existing are really weak. I could play devil's advocate and win this debate pretty easily.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Lt.Harris 2 years ago
Lt.Harris
DarwinBulldogEliasPredkoTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was a tie as there was no swearing or ff. S & G was close enough that neither got the points. I think that Con had a better argument as Pro's argument focused on "everything that exists is physical" which I feel is a flawed statement and is not true which is why I gave the points to Con. Con also made a great point with everything that exists, exists for a reason. Pro's sources are better while Con sited wikepedia which I don't feel is a reliable source.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
DarwinBulldogEliasPredkoTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had only one source, Wikipedia. Pro had quite a few more reliable sources (sources Pro). None of Pro's arguments were rebutted, and Con's argument was weak (arguments Pro).
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
DarwinBulldogEliasPredkoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side presented particularly compelling arguments. Pro did not present a case that definitively demonstrated a lack of existence for God. But it was an assertion regarding god's lack of exisence. Con's choice of rebuttals fails because *even at face value*, it fails to support god existing now, it only supports that a god once existed. As it's VERY hard to prove a negative, Con could have garnered an easy win with just an appeal to possibility. But by never doing so, he fails to support either possibility or actuality of god's existence. As they debated past each other, as it were, I don't think I can award points to EITHER side, hence this nulled vote. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by DerKing 2 years ago
DerKing
DarwinBulldogEliasPredkoTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had slight grammar issues, did not provide any sources, and just made claims without evidence.