The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Murphy98
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God Exists

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 1 vote the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 684 times Debate No: 42183
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I think it would be interesting to do this debate. I am going to be arguing that God exists; my opponent must undermine my argument.

Definition of God:

"The conscious being responsible for the universe we see"

First round for acceptance.
Murphy98

Con

I personally believe in the Christian God, however, I will debate against the existence of God to broaden my perspective and strengthen my faith. Are we looking at the existence of God in light of science or moral values? Or both? Am I argueing against a specific God (like Christian) or just a god or higher power.
1.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

2.The Bible has contradictions inside itself, see the geneology of Jesus in Mathew and Luke. The Bible must be false if it has any contradictions whatsoever because scripture is "God-Breathed", and if it is God-breathed it must be perfect. Contradictions are imperfections.
3. How can Jesus be both man and God? If the perfect man must be slaughtered to atone for the sins of the world then Jesus didn't fit the bill, because man can't do miracles outside of God- but Jesus is God, but Jesus is also man-Circular Reasoning. Man can't be 100% God and 100% Man. Geometric principle, Law of non-contradiction.
4. Why would God create imperfect beings and a chaotic world? Nothing imperfect can come from God, but the universe according to the Bible came from God. Sin must have indirectly come from God, making him little more than a higher power or supreme being instead of a flawless God.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

**Introduction**

In my first round I said "first round for acceptance", not for arguments. However, my opponent is new to this site, so the voters should not deduct conduct for it.

**The Problems With My Opponent's Arguments**

Even if The Bible is false, and even if there isn't an omnipotent or omnibenevolent being; God as I defined could still exist. My opponent cannot make up his/ her own definitions after accepting the debate. By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts my definition.

Since God, as I defined, doesn't have to be the Christian God; none of my opponent's arguments show that God does not exist. An evil being could have created the universe. As long as this being is conscious, then this being counts as God as far as this debate is concerned.

Also, my opponent doesn't have to show that God doesn't exist. My opponent only has to undermine my argument sufficiently. If my opponent does want to prove God does not exist, then it has to be against a conscious cause of the universe we see. Even if the Christian God doesn't exist, there could still be a conscious being who caused the universe we see. Thus, my opponent's arguments do absolutely nothing to show that God, as I defined, does not exist.

**My Argument**

I will be arguing God from Quantum Mechanics.

The Collapse Of The Wave Function

In quantum mechanics, a wave-function describes the propagation of the wave with regards to any particle or group of particles[1]. A wave function collapse is the process by which a wave function—initially in a superposition of different eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of the states after interaction with an observer[2]. This means that particles do not have definite positions until observed. The video attached explains this process in further detail[3].

The Entire Universe Has A Wave Function

The entire universe has a wave function[4]. There is even direct evidence of it as well (this is because time emerges from quantum entanglement[5].)

What Collapsed The Universe’s Wave Function?

The question that remains is; what collapsed the universe's wave-function? It must have been an external observer! What counts as an observer though? Well, it could either be a conscious observer[6], or a physical system made of particles (like a measuring instrument)[7].

Thus, either a conscious observer observed the wave-function of the universe into definite states long ago, or it was due to a particle, or collection of particles.

The idea of a particle existing outside the universe seems absurd. After all, if the universe is defined as the physical world, then we cannot have a particle, or particles existing outside of the physical world; as particles are physical. That would be a contradiction. If you believe there are other physical worlds, then we get an infinite regress. Something had to collapse that particle, or particles into definite states, and something had to collapse what collapsed those particles; ad infinitum. However, an infinite past is impossible. If we counted up the amount of universes there would have had to have been in the past, it will always equal a finite number; reaching infinity is impossible. This is based on a simple mathematical principle:

“Any finite number + A finite number = A finite number”

Therefore, there couldn’t have been an infinite chain of classically physically systems collapsing quantum systems. Thus, a conscious observer is the only reasonable option left. A conscious being must have collapsed the universe into its definite state; which is the universe we see.

Therefore, God exists.

**Sources**

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] http://www.princeton.edu...

[3] Video Source

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] https://medium.com...

[6] http://xenophilius.wordpress.com...

[7] http://aflb.ensmp.fr...

Murphy98

Con

Murphy98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

My opponent forfeited. Extend all arguments...
Murphy98

Con

Murphy98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
Oh sheet, this looks good. I assume both are playing devil's advocate, right? ;-)
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 2 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
Haha, this is actually going to be really interesting. I've seen Rational Thinker debate that it's possible for God to exist, but I've never seen him instigate a debate and take the side that a God exists.
Posted by Murphy98 2 years ago
Murphy98
oh, sorry.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
The first round is just for you to put "accept", not post an argument (you are new, so I figured I should point that our further than I did in my intro).
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Will you accept the debate quickly so I can post my first round?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
This is interesting. You have me, an Atheist, presenting arguments for Theism, against Theist who wants to refute them. I love it...
Posted by Murphy98 2 years ago
Murphy98
I personally believe that God exists, however, I think it would be beneficial for me to argue another's perspective.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
How can an atheist come up with a good argument for God's existence without convincing himself?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Rational_Thinker9119Murphy98Tied
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: I'm not trying to vote bomb, but Pro definitely won by a landslide. Con forfeited with no justification so that gives Conduct to Pro. Con didn't use a single source, whereas Pro used several. And arguments goes to Pro because he successfully gave a rebuttal to each of Con's arguments.