The Instigator
RhysJaxson
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
PhilosophicalPerson
Pro (for)
Losing
7 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 7 votes the winner is...
RhysJaxson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 605 times Debate No: 43417
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

RhysJaxson

Con

This debate is whether or not it is more probable that God exists than God does not exist. Pro's burden will be to demonstrate that it is more probable, while my burden will be to refute Pro's arguments and show that it is more probable that God does not exist. Neither party has to prove 100% that God does or doesn't exist.

God can be defined as any personal deity, this debate doesn't apply to non-personal or pantheistic concepts. I ask Pro to define which god concept he will be arguing for in Round 1.

I will mainly be attempting to refute Pro's arguments rather than presenting arguments of my own. The basic principle of my position is that God is not necessary, and the concept of God is more complicated and therefore less probable.

Round 1: First arguments for Pro.
Round 2: Rebuttal by Con, rebuttal/arguments by Pro.
Round 3: Rebuttal by Con, closing remarks by Pro.
PhilosophicalPerson

Pro

This "God" we both are reffering to - Let's just define him as any monotheistic religion defines him as; The creator of our Universe, and everything in it.

So, what happened is, before the Big Bang, time came into existence.

WHAT!!?? It CANNOT!

How so?

Without time, nothing can happen. This is agreed upon by most people. If so, NOT EVEN time could come into existence... AND BY ITSELF, THAT IS.

Time must've existed forever in Heaven. This is agreed upon by most people. So, HE MUST'VE created it.
Debate Round No. 1
RhysJaxson

Con

My opponent has decided to base his arguments on unsubstantiated axioms such as:

"Time must've existed forever in Heaven. This is agreed upon by most people."

Not only did my opponent fail to provide any substantiation for that claim, he attempts an unsubstantiated appeal to the masses, which is a well-known fallacy.

According to scientific models, time came into existence via the Big Bang, not before it. Quantum Mechanics provides an explanation for something coming from nothing, demonstrated in theory as well as in the measurement of virtual particles.

Both Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking describe the potentiality of a universe spontaneously coming into existence from nothing in their books Something From Nothing and The Grand Design, respectively.
PhilosophicalPerson

Pro

If time came into existence during the big bang, why does it come at that certain point in time? And if it did so DURING THE BIG BANG, the past occurences from the Big Bang CAN NOT have occured.
Debate Round No. 2
RhysJaxson

Con

My opponent has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the existence of God is more likely than not.

The argument of needing a cause breaks down outside of time, as there can be no cause/effect relationship without time for it to occur in.

In the absence of evidence for some deity, and the absence of the necessity of some deity, the inclusion of that particular deity makes the system more complex than otherwise, and therefore less likely. Seeing that there has been no evidence or necessity presented, it is clear that it is more probable that God does not exist.
PhilosophicalPerson

Pro

A lot of people are dumb... Definitely not you hehe
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by FluffyCactus 2 years ago
FluffyCactus
Horrible debate. Pro did not do justice to his position. A well informed Catholic could have presented a far greater argument with Thomas Aquinas and Tolkien.
Posted by fidelacchius 2 years ago
fidelacchius
"So, what happened is, before the Big Bang, time came into existence."

This argument is impossible on both sides. What came before God? Where did God come from?

Just as you can't disprove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster that created everything.

You can't prove something like God does not exist. I you can only look at evidence that points to him existing. And personal a book written 2000 years ago by people who lived in myth/superstition is not convincing enough for me.
Posted by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
I like that con conceded probability, in the absence of us having any absolute knowledge. Makes it a much more fair debate than saying "the metaphysical doesn't exist unless you physically prove it".
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
So True LogicBlock, they can only argue on probability, not proof, So the Debate Title should read.
"It Is Most Probable That God Exists."
That would be a more logical debate title.
Posted by Logicblock 2 years ago
Logicblock
This kind of debate is not logical. There is no definitive evidence that proves an existence or non-existence of god
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Odd debate, though without time, a god could not think of creating anything, because Thought takes time and thus God needed time to think and even create itself.
If god was in the shape of a human, it would take time to move it's little pinkie,
So God could not exist without time.
Because all time is, is movement.
Anything in any universe even wobbles, you how have time.
A creator thinks of something, that is a change, all changes create time.
Time is so very Simple.
Many philosophers have no concept of time.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
If we don't believe in gods then it falls to use to make the world a better place.
Posted by PhilosophicalPerson 2 years ago
PhilosophicalPerson
OH YEAH! BUT NO EVENTS CAN TAKE PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE! GOD CAN NOT INTERVENE THEN! SO TIME MUSTVE EXISTED FOREVER! SCREW GOD I WAS JUST KIDDING lolo
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
RhysJaxsonPhilosophicalPersonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted his arguments and made convincing arguments. Pro just gave up. Neither cited their sources.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 2 years ago
Tophatdoc
RhysJaxsonPhilosophicalPersonTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very poor quality debate. Con provided a stronger argument. Source point goes to no one. Conduct goes to Con because Pro was saying things like "WHAT!!?? It CANNOT!" and Pro's last round behavior. Good luck to your both in future debates.
Vote Placed by msheahan99 2 years ago
msheahan99
RhysJaxsonPhilosophicalPersonTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a very poor debate on the side of pro. It is hard for me to set aside my personal beliefs to vote on your topic, but con argued his point better. I am a Roman Catholic and I firmly believe in God, but for the purpose of his debate Con argued his points, refuted the few arguments pro had and didn't insult pro in the arguments. Con wins hands down, I will put the tied option for the before and after so my beliefs don't get in the way, but everything else goes to con.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 2 years ago
MassiveDump
RhysJaxsonPhilosophicalPersonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't see how anyone in their right mind would have voted for Pro. Con rebutted Pro's arguments, which Pro responded to with one sentence per round, one of which was simply, "you're not dumb." Let me put this in the simplest manner possible: Pro did not argue. Excessive use of all caps and obviously not putting forth a valiant effort also wins Con S&G and conduct.
Vote Placed by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
RhysJaxsonPhilosophicalPersonTied
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: Theory and virtual particles ey? Let me know when you get to time-travel. No sources used, and grammar was about even. Conduct to pro for making more argument while con went on a tangent declaring his own victory without actually rebutting Pro. This was a very short debate, but Pro's point was very good and con simply dismissed it as false by restating the model that Pro challenged with his reasoning. Quantum physics does not trump physics, because the former is mostly hypothesizing on paper while the later deals with universally observed laws.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
RhysJaxsonPhilosophicalPersonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe in God, but Pro's arguments made no sense, and Con's arguments didn't really prove that there is no God. Conduct and Spelling goes to Con because Con maintained a much more professional demeanor. Neither side cited sources.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
RhysJaxsonPhilosophicalPersonTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sources and conduct tied because no souces and no real judging factor on behavior. Spelling and gramnar go to con because of poor capitalization by the pro. Overall, the pro made more sense. I feel the con had really no bop, and only rebuttaled