Voting: 7 Days
Arguments: 72 Hours
Character Limit: 8,000 Characters
All votes must have a comment.
-=Debate Rules - Violation of any will result in a loss of Conduct=-
The Bible will not be accepted as evidence unless proven to be true.
R1 is acceptance, so arguments begin in R2, and only rebuttals and closing in R4.
Use evidence (information that supports your position) and proof (conclusive evidence).
Pro must supply the definition as mentioned below for god in R2. If done later, Conduct penalty is still applied.
God: shall be defined by my opponent for the purpose of the debate. Must include his primary attributes (what is god?) and secondary attributes (what can/what did it do?).
-=Roles for Pro and Con=-
Burden if proof (now to be known as BoP) is my opponent, Pro, to prove god, and mine, Con, to refute his arguments.
I will be defending the agnostic atheist position (I do not believe in god, but I do not claim my belief to be absolute truth). Pro will be attempting to defend theism (belief that god exists).
God: (in especially Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief) the being which made the universe, the Earth and its people and is believed to have an effect on all things.
Who he is: The being which made all the universe. http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
What he can do: Capable of creating a universe. Laws of Science are not applicable to him.
I used Cambridge Dictionary for who God is, that is quite credible.
In anticipation for Pro's arguments for god, I will refute two of the common arguments: the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Intelligent Design.
Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The Universe began to exist
C1: The universe has a cause.
C2: That cause is a god.
P1 isn't necessarily true. It hasn't been observed or remarked that all existence has a cause. For example, Virtual Particles seem to pop into existence for a limited time without any cause.
I will concede P2.
Because P1 may not be true, we cannot accept C1, and therefore, C2.
The KCA has been disproven. I allow my opponent to argue for it.
Intelligent Design (ID)
This idea is well-known. Our bodies are perfect, because a great intelligence designed it. I will refute that claim.
There is an easy example that comes to mind to disprove ID, the appendix.
In the body of the modern human, the appendix is useless and even serve as a health rish ocasionally. Should ID be true, the apoendix could easily be gone upon birth of all new humans, but that clearly isn't the case. If you are wondering why evolution didn't take care of it, it is because evolution doesn't have huge standards, but it its standards are "good enough". If what evolution has caused is good enough to live for a while, then it's fine for evolution. The apoendix will only occasionally be a health risk, so evolution didn't bother to remove it.
Two common aguments refuted. I welcome my opponent to refute my rbuttals or present his arguments, but BoP is still on him to prove god.
Before I begin my arguments, I would like to thank Con for allowing me to debate this topic, I will do my best to defend and prove the existence of my God. My opponent refuted both the KCA,
The Principal of Sufficient Reason
The Principal of Sufficient reason is the age old argument that nothing is without a ground reason of why it is. For every X entity, if X exists, then there is a sufficient reason for why X exists. In our case, this X entity is the universe as a whole. Imagine you found a small toy car in the middle of the desert. You may not know why that car is there, but you know that there had to be some force, be it human, the wind, etc. that put that toy where it is. Now imagine that toy car is the size of an actual car, it still needs a reason for why it’s there, right? Now imagine that car is the size of the universe, it still must have an explanation. So no matter what size an object is, be it the toy car or the universe, there must be an explanation for its existence, or why it is there.
Keep in mind, the Principal of Sufficient Reason does not prove there is a God, but it does help to prove why the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is true.
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
Warrant for Premise One
The warrant for Premise one is just a simple restatement of
Warrant for Premise Two
Two is the logical equivalent to what atheists often affirm
Argument Based on the Law of Thermodynamics
In order to keep the law of Conservation of Energy valid,
I will await Con’s rebuttal to see what additional arguments
need to be made
Thank You Readers
Luggs forfeited this round.
Con shouldn't lose conduct for his forfeiture, sometimes you just can't make it back in time to post an argument, and that's okay.
I will rebut my opponents second round arguments.
My opponent refuted the common point that if there is an intelligent designer, then why didn't he make us perfect? Why did he give us an appendix? When one says that it is completely useless, they are only giving one half of that debate. There are several scientists and pharmacists who believe that it is actually a part of the immune system. So even though you can remove it and be fine, does that mean it never had a purpose? Of course not, you can live with one kidney, one eye, etc. We shouldn't use the appendix as a conclusion to disprove God's existence, we just haven't learned enough about it yet. Intelligent design is supported by several different sciences, including biology and physics.
Intelligent Design in Biology
Through recent studies, William Dembski has created an "explanatory filter," or three features he believes an intelligent creator would have installed in his creation.
1) It must be contingent.
2)It must be complex.
3) It must display an independently displayed pattern.
Dembski states that in order to have been created via intelligent design, the phenomenon being tested cannot have stemmed from laws of nature, and it cannot be the result of chance. Since complexity is not enough to prove to the everyday atheist that we are the result of intelligent design, we must include the final statement, that it must display an independently displayed pattern. This pattern had been found in cells themselves, where non-repeating genetic codes are sent between cells in a computer like fashion, in order to achieve the tasks they are sent out to do in the body.
Intelligent Design in Physics
In physics, we can show intelligence through the concept of cosmic fine tuning. Mathematically, are universe is very complex, but it has to be. If the universe fit together any other way, we would be incapable of existing. For example, scientists agree that the universe is expanding rapidly. If it were expanding at any other rate, either it would be expanding too quickly for the formation of stars, or too slowly so that the universe would collapse before it could form stars.
Looking at it objectively, a person could either say that we are extremely lucky that our universe is held together the way it is (astronomically lucky), or there is intelligent design, an outside force which pushes the universe along perfectly. Which seems more logical?
Those were a few sciences that support intelligent design, now let's take a look at the KCA.
My opponent says that there are particles that "pop" into existence without a cause. If that were true, my opponent would have a Nobel prize. If there actually were particle like that, then the laws of thermodynamics would be untrue. The safer way of saying "pop" into existence, is to say that "we aren't exactly sure how they are here, but since matter and energy cannot be created, there has to be another way these particles 'seem' to be acting unnaturally." Quite honestly, I haven't heard of the point my opponent brought up, so if he would like to cite the source of where he obtained that information, I would like to see it. May I also point out that my opponent opened his argument with the rule that we must cite our sources? He didn't cite where he found that.
1) If a particle pops into existence, both the KCA and the laws of Thermodynamics are untrue.
2) Particles don't pop into existence.
3) The laws of thermodynamics are true, as is the KCA.