The Instigator
BigSky
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
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 6 votes the winner is...
BigSky
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 700 times Debate No: 30732
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

BigSky

Pro

I am a Catholic looking for an Agnostic/Atheist to debate the existence of God. Not particularly the God of the bible, but just a God in general.

God: The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Exist: To have actual being; be.

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Opening Arguments.

Round 3: Rebuttals and Secondary Arguments.

Round 4: Rebuttals and Final Arguments, Questions.

Round 5: Rebuttals, Answers.

No trolling.

Forfeiture is an automatic disqualification.

Usage of Ad Hominem merits an instant loss of conduct.
emospongebob527

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
BigSky

Pro


Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate, I hope it will be informative for all of those who read it.

There's clearly a difference between our gradual discovery of such a being, and the
actual existence of such a being, if the being exists. But if we can conceive
of such a being, then it seems that at least it's possible for it to exist, but
by virtue of maximal excellence, the supreme being must in exist in all
possible worlds (if maximal greatness is incoherent) or every possible world,
which includes the actual world (by virtue of being maximally excellent). Thus
if you think it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then it follows
necessarily that a maximally great being does in fact exist! We can summarize
our argument thus far as follows,

Ontological Argument

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in
some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.

Most philosophers agree that if God’s existence is possible, then he must exist. That is, God is a necessary being which grounds all reality if he is merely possible. Think of a very difficult math problem on a chalkboard. If it's beyond our ability to grasp, we may say that it's possible that the equation is true and it's possible that it is false. But we thereby merely confess our epistemic uncertainty concerning the equation's truth value. But the equation itself is either necessarily true or necessarily false. We just don't know which. But if it is true, it's necessarily true, and therefore
it's not possible for it to be false.

Warrant For Premise One

a priori

A maximally great being is intuitively coherent and therefore possibly instantiated. So in order
for the argument to fail the concept of God must be logically incoherent. But a
maximally great being doesn't seem even remotely incoherent, so at least
there exists a prima facie warrant for premise one.

a posteriori

If we carefully ponder 1 and objections to it and if we
consider its connections with other propositions we accept or reject and we
still find it compelling, then we're within our rational right to accept 1.
So even if we cannot come to a priori warrant, we're rational in accepting
1 by a posteriori warrant from arguments like the Leibnizian Cosmological
Argument, which demonstrates a metaphysically necessary being who grounds
contingent things .

The Principal of Sufficient Reason

The Principal of Sufficient reasonis 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

  1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. (PSR)
  2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
  3. The universe exists.
  4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)
  5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)

Warrant for Premise One

The warrant for Premise one is just a simple restatement of
the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Warrant for Premise Two

Two is the logical equivalent to what atheists often affirm
that if atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence. For
the transcendent cause must be immaterial, and there are two things which fit
such a description: abstract objects or Minds. But abstract objects don’t stand
in causal relations, they don't fit our criteria for existence, hence the cause
of the universe must be an ultra-mundane mind. The universe clearly exists, so
therefore it follows logically that the universe has an explanation, that
explanation being God.

Argument Based on the Law of Thermodynamics

  1. According to the Conservation of Energy Law,
    under the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be destroyed, or
    created.
  2. Since energy cannot be created, theoretically, there
    should be no Universe.
  3. If there is a Universe, then there must have
    been an outside force that doesn’t have to follow the laws of thermodynamics. That
    influence had to be God.
  4. Therefore, God exists.

In order to keep the law of Conservation of Energy valid,
there is only one other possible explanation and that is that the Universe is
eternal. This cannot be the case however, according to the 2nd law
of thermodynamics.

  1. According to the 2nd Law of
    Thermodynamics, the Universe has a limited supply of energy that it can expend.
  2. Thus, the Universe is finite.
  3. If the Universe is finite, then the energy has
    to have come into being without conflicting with the first or second laws of
    Thermodynamics. That force could have only been God.
  4. Therefore, God exists.

I will await Con’s rebuttal to see what additional arguments need to be made.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://bibowen.hubpages.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...




emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BigSky

Pro

I understand the rules said forfeiting is disqualification, but I would like to give my opponent another chance to respond. I worked on that argument for quite a while.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BigSky

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for what would have been a very fun debate.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
BigSky

Pro

Extended.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
Read my argument, and please feel free to point out any possible rebuttal you may see.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
You have the burden of proof, BigSky. If this debate falls apart,let me know, so I can take over.
Posted by PonyGirl 3 years ago
PonyGirl
Be patient, " brother". :)
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
Im waiting for his response, we still have 3 rounds of debating left...
Posted by PonyGirl 3 years ago
PonyGirl
What happened to you debate with luggs? Or is it luggage? Never mind, it's luggs you were doing well with him. :)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
BigSkyemospongebob527Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
BigSkyemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: 4 fit
Vote Placed by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
BigSkyemospongebob527Tied
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: BSIADB
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
BigSkyemospongebob527Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. BigSky made uncontested arguments, presented sources, and didn't forfeit an agreed-upon debate. Qopel's vote is obviously based on his opinion and not the debate.
Vote Placed by Apeiron 3 years ago
Apeiron
BigSkyemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
BigSkyemospongebob527Tied
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: Forfeit.