The Instigator
mfigurski80
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Dw1b3r
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God Exists

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 3 votes the winner is...
mfigurski80
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 267 times Debate No: 85880
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

mfigurski80

Pro

First round acceptance.

I started this debate because I noticed that you were debating this topic with someone else, and I would like to try to prove God to you as well. Please accept?
Dw1b3r

Con

If everything has a beginning and the universe was created by god, who or what created god? If you tell me that there is no creator of god you are saying that the universe could have been created in another way, and because there is no other proof that god exists there is no point of believing that god exists.

If the universe, the world and the human body is created so perfectly why do we need a god?

If god exists why is bad things happening? I mean if he controls everything and creates everything, god could stop it. There is no point of making people suffer, if god makes us suffer on purpose then that means that god is a very bad god.
Debate Round No. 1
mfigurski80

Pro

My opponent's points can be summed up in three logical paradoxes, which I will state here for the benifit of viewers.

1) What made God?

According to popular belief, God wasn't made, he simply is. Never had a beginning, and will never have an end.
Could the uniferse have a different cause, if God had no cause? No it couldn't have, as it lacks the parameter for zero causation. It has a specific beginning, at least according to the widely accepted Big Bang theory.
If the universe was created in the Big Bang, what created it? Religion points to God. The M-Theory points to giant u-branes colliding and giving matter. They really might be the same thing, as both are infinite, never ending and never beginning, all-powerful and unreachable for humans.
Yay, we have a theory for god (probs not)!

2) Humans don't need God.

Have you determined how much humans depend on God by scientific study? As far as we know, he may be holding all of matter together, or just standing by the side and watching, and there is really no way of determining even how probable it is that he is doing either, so this argument has to be dropped by lack of information.

3) Evil in the World.

Human free will generates evil independently from God. Natural disasters aren't necessarily 'evil', just damage-dealing.

MY POINTS

Occam's Razor - is a philosophical proof that allows us to choose between two possibilities without solid evidence for either. This proof says that the option with the least amount of assumptions is statistically more probable to be correct.

Opponent's assumptions:
The Universe, and all it's Laws.
My assumptions:
God

Notice that I have to assume neither the universe nor its laws, as God, being an omnipotent being, could create both.
Ergo, I have the least amount of assumptions, and according to the Occam's Razor, I am correct.
Dw1b3r

Con

A long time ago people thought that the sun was orbiting the earth. After a time a man came up with a theory that the earth was orbiting the sun. This theory was against the church and people didn't accept the theory. Year after year science prove that religion is wrong.

If god created the big bang, why couldn't he create in other way. The big bang theory is physically possible, does god need to obey the laws of physics?
Because most of the things that is written in the bible is physically impossible.
Debate Round No. 2
mfigurski80

Pro

I would like to highlight that I am not arguing for the Catholic Church, but for the existence of God. But nevertheless, I'll answer to the accusation.
The Church itself wasn't opposed to scientific theories, it just distrusted Nicholas' credibility and supported actual, leading theories that were accepted in the day. It is important to understand that during the days of Copernicus, the teaching society was composed entirely of monks, friars, and other religious peoples. By saying that the Church opposed a Heliocentric system, we are really saying that educated society opposed the possibility, which always happens whenever a new theory is created. Cynicism is what drives our science forward today. [1]
As for his death, his theory threatened the authority of established scientists of the day who preferred Geo-centralism. His execution was purely political.
Moreover, I would like to point to the ancient belief in an eternal world, one that had no beginning nor end and simply was always. This was widely accepted by Greek Philosophers such as Aristotle, and many others. Religion was one of the first to show that the universe had a beginning, and that God created the world when it wasn't before. Recent theories such as the big bang have been slowly finding this out.
Also, elementary quantum mechanics states that, in essence, everything is made of the tiny packets of energy that waves send. Therefore, in a way, our entire universe is made out of solid light, which is the first thing that God made in the Old Testament.

The Big Bang is physically possible, to an extent. The theory does explain what happened, yet it doesn't explain how exactly 300 sextillion or probably more atoms suddenly appeared out of empty space. This we can attribute to God.
As for why specifically the Big Bang possibility was used, why not? If some other possibility was used, and we figured out what exactly it was, you would ask the same question. There was a chance, but something had to be picked.
If God created physics, then it would naturally follow that he could break them as well.

Also, I would suggest for my partner to at least try to refute my point. An attempt is seen better by the audience than a flat out forfeiture.

[1] https://www.quora.com...
Dw1b3r

Con

Dw1b3r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mfigurski80

Pro

mfigurski80 forfeited this round.
Dw1b3r

Con

Dw1b3r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 10 months ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
Classic God vs Science argument, i don't know how it has become a mindset that it is a competition between them? Also it may be worth knowing that the reason we have the big bang theory is because of a catholic priest.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by CapAhab 10 months ago
CapAhab
mfigurski80Dw1b3rTied
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: In my opinion, it is useless to prove or disprove G-d. We were simply not there and the big bang is as impossible in our human mind than G-d. Nevertheless Pro has better arguments.
Vote Placed by iTruthSeeker 10 months ago
iTruthSeeker
mfigurski80Dw1b3rTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro effectively answers Con objections. Con also forfeited the majority of his rounds giving conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
dsjpk5
mfigurski80Dw1b3rTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff more times, so conduct to Pro.