The Instigator
judopop1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

God Exist

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...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 959 times Debate No: 16352
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

judopop1

Pro

Hello I am here to prove through good logic, that God does in fact exist.

Definitions-
God= The creator of the universe the all knowing.

I would like to start by saying will not be using any religious text to prove his existence.

I ask you to think about a chair. How was the chair, an inanimate object, made into a chair from wood? A human took the wood and transformed it into a chair. A piano, a TV, all with the same concept. Now if the theory about the big bang was true I ask, where did those elements come from? Simple, God.

Let me explain- Now there had to be something before those elements because time existed before those elements were there in the Dense Ball which exploded to cause the Big Bang.

These elements have been created, by god because there had to be something before them. Now you ask what came before god? There was no time before god! God created Time and Space so he was always there, there was no time before him.

Tying it back, you ask how rock was formed? It came from the earth which was part of a star at one point which was part of the dense ball taking part in the Big Bang.
In the CPO Science Text Book it was said that the energy in the dense ball was equal to the resistance that kept the ball together and that an additional force was added for the ball to explode. I ask what is the additional force? God!

God does exist, just not the way our religions state it to be.

I ask you voters, put aside our religious beliefs and vote for PRO.
socialpinko

Con

My opponent has brought one argument which supposedly proves the existence of what I would call the Deistic god. Pro has made a very nice opening argument. He uses kind of a mix between the cosmological and teleological argument.

To give voters a better understanding of my opponent's argument I will put it in ther form of a syllogism and then proceed to refute every part of it.

Premise 1: Everything has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe is part of 'everything'.
Conclusion 1: The universe needs a cause.
Conclusion 2: The universe's cause must be god.
Conclusion 3: God exists.

Premise 1: Everything has a cause.

My opponent has brought no logical justification for this premise other than that because a T.V., chair, and a piano obviously have a cause, this must mean that everything must have a cause. This argument is very similart to an argument where I argue that everything is blue because my eyes, the sky, and Dori from rom Finding Nemo are blue.

I would like to change this argument to something more like "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause." This premise is actually provable logically seeing as to begin there must be a cause.

I however argue that the universe did not have a cause and it does not need one for the exact same reason that my opponent argues that god does not need one. My opponent argues that god does not need a cause because 'he' created time. I argue that time is an inherent part of the universe as provable by the concept of space-time. Time is a part of the universe just as space is and so 'prior' to the formation of the universe, time as a force did not ecxist and so the univer does not need a cause in the same traditional manner that things like chairs or pianos need a cause. If my opponent argues that this line of reasoning is wrong then he opens up god to infinite regress.

Seeing as all three of my opponent's conclusions break down along with this premise, I have properly refuted my opponent's argument and nothing more needs to be done. However I could't help notice that in my opponent's opwn definition of god he desribes it as a "he". This can only mean that my opponent believes that god has personal qualities such as the classical theistic god. He also describes god as "the all knowing".

So even if my opponent can prove that there must be some external cause to the universe he has not proven that it is god seeing as he has defined god as something personal and more akin to the theistic instead of the deistic god.

My opponent has not upheld his BOP as instigator and Pro of this debate and so I urge voters to Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
judopop1

Pro

judopop1 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend all arguments and refutations. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
judopop1

Pro

judopop1 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

My opponent has forfeited the last round. All I can do I guess is extend my arguments and refutations. I would also like to point out that my opponent was online 14 hours ago. The response time is 72 hours. Oh well. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
judopop1socialpinkoTied
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: forfeit
Vote Placed by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
judopop1socialpinkoTied
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: I guess pro simply couldn't refute con's arguments...
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
judopop1socialpinkoTied
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: Too bad, this looked interesting.