The Instigator
Epica
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
thedude99
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God Most Likely Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Epica
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 79152
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Epica

Con

This is a debate between me and whoever accepts first. I will be arguing that God most likely doesn't exist.

God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

You may start in the first round. Format will then be simple presentation, then refutation. For an equal number of rounds, Pro must leave their last round blank.
thedude99

Pro

What if god didn't existed in a kingly sense? Maybe I should had asked that in a comment before accepting the debate but anyway it is a kind of god. God in the sense that it is this single energy or force that created the universe and lives in the eternity in a never ending game of hide and seek
Debate Round No. 1
Epica

Con

I have already specified what God is being debated. The supreme being who created the universe. Con has yet to present any arguments for this being. I will wait till Con does.
thedude99

Pro

Man is a little germ in an unimportant rock ball who floats around this spherical fire in the outer edges of one of the smaller glaxies. That is kind of a sad way to look at life. If the atheists were right then we wouldnt have souls and we would oonly be compicated machinery but. Just like a fine clock wasnt made by itself our "Conciouss" and our "bodies" had to be designed by somebody else. Or else all the universe would still be lifeless . Just look at everything that has life it is too complicated and precise to be just something that happened by "odds" Even this world has all the characteristics necessary to grow people and all the animals
Debate Round No. 2
Epica

Con

Something being a "sad way to look at life" doesn't tell us if such a way is true or not. It is an appeal to emotion.

While most atheists don't believe in souls, there is nothing that binds them to that position. Pro hasn't shown why we should believe in souls anyway. Just because we have a set of complex material that was created (clocks) doesn't entail that all sets of complex material are created. This is known as a fallacy of composition [http://www.nizkor.org...]. Why does an atheist need to be bound to the claim that everything happens by chance? It is accepted that the creation of life was due to physical laws, not chance [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...].

Temporal Argument

God is the creator of the universe (connected spacetime), however it makes no sense for there to be a cause of spacetime. Causality is necessarily based on time. A cause of something follows an effect in time. There can be no "before" the first moment in time, because that would require time. Consequently, there can be no cause, as in this event a cause comes before an effect, no before equals no cause.

Some appeal to simultaneous causation to get around this, however SC itself is also based on time. SC states the cause and effect can exist at the same time. When applied to the origin of time "simultaneous" loses all meaning. The cause and effect (time) existing at the same time presumes there is time for time to be simultaneous in.

Therefore, there cannot be a cause of time and by extension cannot be a cause of spacetime [http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...]. The universe is just connected spacetime, therefore the universe cannot have a creator.
thedude99

Pro

God. He who is all mighty but doesnt like to remember it.
There is no such thing as souls. There is one single "soul" or "essence" or "god" as you want to call it. He can do anything, he can know anything. But does he remembers it? Suppose for a moment that you were "god" after some time it gets boring so you disguise yourself as rocks, plants, animals, humans. Letting go of the almighty power because at the end you wake up to who you are.
Now if we are not a soul and we are just this physicall body that means that after we die we will be completley gone. It will be as if we never existed. This also means that before we were born or concived it was as if we never existed. It is a cycle you see? If you were nothing before being convived and you will be nothing after you die then the process may happen again and again.
Of course time has no starting point and no ending point as being said. In deed the only thing that really exists about time is the "now" Yesterday and tomorrow or past and future are concepts and ideas that only takes place inside our minds but it doesnt really exist. The only moment one experience is "now" You cant live anywhere else and at the moment you start reflecting about the now you are in it is gone. Yet it is all that there will ever be.
Lets start connecting the dots. Can you define completley an organism without describing its beheaviour? No. Can you fully describe an organism beheaviour without describing its enviroment? No. So if to describe who you are I have to describe your beheaviour and the beheaviour of the enviroment it measn that we really have one ocmplex system of beheaviour. Just like to describe light there is needed the concept of dark. They are not two separated concepts it is like a magnet and experience or "consciouss" works in the same way. Like a magnet that polarizes itself in positive and negative exxperience polarizes itself in self and other but it is all one single thing.
Death, lets go into that again. We think as death as something bad. Because a dying person is not beheaving right he is not acting normal so hospitals and doctors dont know what do with them. A doctors job is to mantain people alive as long as posible so to tell somebody "you are going to die very shortly" or to help them to die seems completley wrong for a doctor to do. Death is to see what life was all about, it is something that the ego cant deal with. So if one can go into death with eyes open and someone help you if necessary you would know "well i wouldnt have missed the opoertunity for the world" You get to know how exciting it was to live and see magic once again in the world. If someebody could live for undefinded time at some point they would realize that isnt the way in wich they wanted to survive. Why else would we have children? It is like passing on a torch so you dont carry it all the time. After some time of being alive one stopps seeing magic in the world and we are not the universe admiring itself anymore. So we die and life is reniewed. And of course for you to be forever you would be a inimaginable suffer.
And to say that we are all one single energy is accuratley according to "science" because deep down we are all made of atoms wicha re being moved by energy. Just like a wave is something that the whole ocean is doing we are something the the whole universe is doing in the palce we call "here and now" Existence is kind of weird and kind of odd we are this conciouss thing so we become the nexus of experience because ina world were there are no eyes the sun would not be light and in a world were there are no muscles there would not be heavy. Existence is relationship and you are stuck right in the mmiddle of it
Debate Round No. 3
Epica

Con

Pro has changed his position on souls. He now states there is one soul, God. His theory of souls doesn't seem to be relevant, nor does he offer an argument in support of it. He then talks about death and how if we don't have souls we will be gone into nothingness. Again, the impotence of this is never mentioned. Next, he talks about the idea that you cannot define yourself without your behavior and that consciousness works this way. Then some more about death, then something about us being a single energy. What any of this has to do with God is beyond me.

Pro has dropped his teleological argument and instead has chosen to argue something which has nothing to do with God.

Temporal Argument

Pro hasn't at all touched on my argument from time. He discusses some temporal ontologies, like claimimg the present is the only temporal state that exists. However, this is irrelevant to my argument, the actual nature of time is trivial. What matters is that causality is bound within time. Presentism fits quite well with my argument. In fact Pro agrees that "time has no starting point", since time needs a starting point for God to exist, it seems Pro has just conceded the debate.
thedude99

Pro

I never stated an initial position about souls. In deed the first time i mentioned them was to say that there is only one soul. Now what seems to be the issue here so that "con" doesnt understands my arguments or what they have to do with gods tells me that "con" isnt familiarized with oriental philosophy. And a person that is very engaged in the western way of speaking, thinking and looking at what god might be. Also "con" doesnt seem to be reading my arguments to understand but to answer back. (And i know that this is a debate but if one is not open to change its position how can he expect to find out who is right?)
"Then some more about death, then something about us being a single energy. What any of this has to do with God is beyond me." - Con. This supports what im saying that "con" doesnt tries to understand the other one way of seeing the universe.
But now lets think for a moment. What can death have to do with god? What could be the importance of nothingness? What does the concept of everybody being one can possibly have to do with god? It seems tha I will have to explain this in a more clear way and stop expecting for "con" to figure it out.
But i want to start with something else that "Con" pointed out. ""Time needs a starting point for god to exist" Why does god also need to have a starting point? Asking who created god then or how was it created would be the same thing as asking who created time and how it was created.
Death is always related to god. At the matter of fact he is who created life so death is also atributed to god. God is connected to life, life implies death, life implies beheaviour that implies enviroment that implies a universe. All this thigns are not separated events they are like the sides of a dice.
Nothingness. A tricky subject. We in deed will become nothing at somoe point. You cant be nothing unless there was a point were you were something and the other way around. It still ties to you cant have death without life and light without dark. So after we die we become nothing. We have no past no present and no future, for ever and for never because you cant have a sense of time when you are nothing. There isnt even time because nothing is nnothing at all. And nothing is something necessary because it is the other side of being. What im talking about is buddhist Zen or Taoism.
But lets try to do it on what is the normal way of arguing.
Statement: There is one "god" who is everything and has always been here and will always be here.
Time: The only time tthat exists is now. Time starts now and ends now, those are the boundaries of time. We can use the past to explain this just like using the wwakes of a ship to explain where it was in the ocean but after some distance they dissapear into the whole ocean. Therefore you can only explain things tha happen now.
Life and death are not two separated things they are both the same thing expressed in different ways. And you cant have one without the other.
Then who is "I"? A way in wich the universse or god centers itself in itself so it feels as a separated thing because the sens of "self" or "I" involves a sense of "other". The universe xperiencing itself.
The universe = god= energy =It =Everything/Nothing
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: roguetech// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument consists of: "If the atheists were right [sic] then we wouldnt [sic] have souls and we would oonly [sic] be compicated [sic] machinery but. [sic] Just like a fine clock wasnt [sic] made by itself our 'Conciouss' [sic] and our 'bodies' had to be designed by somebody else. Or else all the universe would still be lifeless," thereby creating a fork of possibility (i.e. they provided their reasons why the debate topic is important). They try to establish that the Pro position is plausible. Frankly, it doesn't matter to the debate topic whether it is merely plausible; the issue is probable. Pro offered no reasons why it is or should be considered a true proposition. Ergo, Con wins. Pro has consistently bad grammar.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is sufficient in examining what he considers to be faulty S&G, even if it appears somewhat generic by the end. The voter then examines Pro's burden and explaining that he failed to argue anything that could satisfy it. While this does not include any examination of Con's argumentation, and does not examine Pro's arguments in detail, assessing the burdens and how well they're met by the arguments given is a reasonable way to determine who wins the debate. Therefore, while it's not very specific, it is sufficient
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
RFD - Part I:

The tl;dr of my vote is that Pro doesn"t fulfill their huge burden of proof, which requires them to prove that an entity such as "God" exists, and doesn"t explain their arguments sufficiently, with very few warrants, that allows me to vote Con.

(1) Temporal Argument

I"m not getting any proper rebuttal from Pro. Pro talks about a distinction between time "now," there being no time "then," but these arguments are incoherent. There"s no sufficient warrant from the argument, and I have absolutely no idea how that links to the temporal argument. There"s absolutely no mention of causality in the whole thing. I can"t even *comprehend* the refutation. Pro basically argues eternalism, i.e. the "past," "present," and "future" are illusory, but I don"t see how that links to the concept of time *as a whole.* Debaters should presume that every voter is tabula rasa, i.e. has no outside knowledge of the topic. Thus, judges -- under their obligation to act as blank slates -- shouldn"t vote on arguments that are insufficiently explained. I wouldn"t have bought this refutation anyway. Nonetheless, the temporal argument is sufficiently defended, since the ontologies of time and the *nature* of time doesn"t affect that causality is bound by *some* form of time that is required for any event to "happen" coherently.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Part 2

(2) Other issues

There"s no categorization of Pro"s argument. Essentially, first Pro talks about souls, that absolutely don"t link to the resolution. I can drop souls as a judge. Pro also argues something about "death" being the end of life, and there having to be an afterlife, but (a) there"s no justification for that, and (b) it doesn"t link to God either. Debaters should always show a *clear* relation of each argument to the resolution, and presume that judges don"t understand how an argument relates to the resolution -- thus, judges must merely assume that an argument is irrelevant and dismiss all related impacts unless proven otherwise by the debater. Then Pro brings up some form of a teleological argument, which is so weak I just can"t buy it -- and Pro drops it later. Pro concludes with some form of pantheism, which doesn"t link, because the "God" referenced here is the *creator of the universe,* not *the universe* itself.

== Impact Calculus ==

The temporal argument is a clear victory on Con"s side, simply because Pro doesn"t really have any strong defense, merely arguing about the nature of time, which doesn"t touch upon whether causality binds time. It is also riddled with bare assertions on Pro"s side, and insufficient warrants, which -- as a "blank slate" judge -- I can dismiss. It obviously has a stronger impact than Pro"s non-linking, unclassified arguments that are especially weak, talking about souls and the afterlife (which are irrelevant), and arguing for the no-link pantheism. There are way too many unwarranted assertions and weak lines of argumentation from Pro, and Pro"s burden of proof is unfulfilled. Therefore, I vote Con.
Posted by WillSelenus 1 year ago
WillSelenus
I'm not a voting member of the site yet, but I want to post my review here.

I hesitate to say much for fear of stating the obvious. Proponent has failed to argue his case to the effect of any reasonable persuasion. I commend opponent on their conduct and their arguments in the face of this kind of rambling rhetoric we so often see in debates concerning the existence of deities.

Opponent has shown a great deal of knowledge on the subject that most would not know. I was particularly impressed with their caveat that nothing about atheism binds an atheist to disbelief in a soul.

Proponent should consider that if opponent, along with many others, I'm sure, cannot understand the proponent's arguments, it's that proponent's arguments are very scrambled, difficult to read, and a chore to decipher into basic meanings.

I hold it against proponent that he seemed on the borderline of being cordial in the last round. I will give proponent the benefit of the doubt.

I urge proponent to reassess his lines of argumentation on this topic.

Lastly, kudos to opponent.
Posted by WillSelenus 1 year ago
WillSelenus
I'm watching this debate now. I'm impressed with opponent's conduct and arguments, especially in the face of these frustrating irrelevancies from proponent.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
I am extremely tempted to accept this challenge, unfortunately lack the time.
Posted by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
I am extremely tempted to accept this challenge, unfortunately lack the time.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
I could accept the debate if I wished, however, I am with Con on this topic.
Posted by Epica 1 year ago
Epica
Ha. There was no hide age option, figured making it ridiculously high was the next best thing.
Posted by Kyle_the_Heretic 1 year ago
Kyle_the_Heretic
You're a 109 years old. I don't think you'll live long enough to finish the debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
Epicathedude99Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument consists of: "If the atheists were right [sic] then we wouldnt [sic] have souls and we would oonly [sic] be compicated [sic] machinery but. [sic] Just like a fine clock wasnt [sic] made by itself our 'Conciouss' [sic] and our 'bodies' had to be designed by somebody else. Or else all the universe would still be lifeless," thereby creating a fork of possibility (i.e. they provided their reasons why the debate topic is important). They try to establish that the Pro position is plausible. Frankly, it doesn't matter to the debate topic whether it is merely plausible; the issue is probable. Pro offered no reasons why it is or should be considered a true proposition. Ergo, Con wins. Pro has consistently bad grammar.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Epicathedude99Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments