The Instigator
Magicr
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
AshleysTrueLove
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God Probably Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Magicr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,104 times Debate No: 25331
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

Magicr

Con

The topic for this debate is fairly simple: Pro will argue that it is more likely that God exists than not, and I will argue that it is more likely that God does not exist than he does.

The BoP in this debate is shared.

God will be defined as the tri-omni God described in the Old and New Testaments.

Rules:

1. Both sides should respect the intention of the debate, therefore semantic and abusive arguments should not be counted.
2. Drops shall count as concessions.
3. No new arguments in the last round.
4. First round is for acceptance unless Pro wishes to begin arguments. If he does begin in R1, he or she shall not make any arguments in R5.
AshleysTrueLove

Pro

I accept your terms and per rule 4 I will await his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Magicr

Con



I would like to begin by thanking AshleysTrueLove for accepting this debate.

In this round I will fulfill my BoP in two way:

I will show that a tri-omni God is impossible, and therefore has a 100% likelihood of not existing.

-and-

I will show that even if a tri-omni God could exist, the God described in the Bible likely does not exist.

The Problem of Evil

If God was infinitely good, omnibenevolence, then He would be the opposite of evil.

If God had infinite knowledge, omniscience, He would know that evil was occurring. If God created the universe, space-time, then He would have to exist outside of time, therefore, He would know the future. So, God would know that evil would occur even before it happened.

And if God had infinite power, omnipotence, He would be able to stop evil from happening.

Yet, evil exists, therefore, a tri-omni God cannot.

It is sometimes argued that evil exists because God gave humans free-will, yet bad things occur beyond what is caused by human decisions. Examples of this are natural disasters and disease. If God was truly omnibenevolent, then He would not have created a world in which these things can occur.

Evolution

Another piece of evidence for this contention comes from the theory of evolution. Evolution is basically a fact, as it stems from a large amount of evidence from multiple scientific fields, and has been observed by scientists on multiple occasions [1][2]. Evolution, however, is a very slow process, having occurred over billions of years. This idea of an old Earth, which is corroborated by radiometric dating and geology [3], directly disagrees with the six day creation and young Earth that is described in Genesis. Therefore, the actions of God described in the Bible are shown to be incorrect by the scientific evidence.

Someone could argue that God used evolution to shape the world, however evolution is a lengthy process and flawed process, hardly a process that would be used by a perfect God.

Poor Design- See video

If one accepts that God designed everything on Earth, the question of God’s omnibenevolence comes into play once again. Genesis says that we were created in God’s image, yet God cannot have an image because He created space and would therefore have to exist outside of space. Our physical form cannot be based off of God’s image as he had no physical form, so God must have chosen to design humans like he did for a reason. Yet, our anatomy has many flaws and unnecessary parts, hardly the signs of work by a perfect creator.

An Immoral God

Finally, the God described in the Bible is far from perfect or omnibenevolent, in fact, I would go so far as to say that the God of the Bible is immoral. This is justified through the following syllogism:

P1: Only an immoral being would do X.
P2: God did X.
Therefore, God is immoral.

X can represent any number of events in the Bible, but for this argument, X will equal committing and/or commanding mass murder and genocide. God does both of these things in the Bible when he kills the innocent Egyptian first born children in Exodus, and when he orders the Genocide and pillaging of the Amalakites that is described in Samuel. Therefore, the God of the Bible is immoral, and not omnibenevolent.

Conclusion:

God cannot be all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful because evil exists in the world, therefore this God is not likely at all. Additionally, the actions of God as described in the Bible conflict with the scientific evidence.

It is extremely likely that God does not exist.

Sources:

[1]- http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[2]- http://www.pbs.org...
[3]- http://www.pbs.org...

AshleysTrueLove

Pro

I will begin by attacking my opponent's case and then building my own:
1. The Argument from Evil
There are several problems with the so called problem of evil. One is the freewill argument, my opponent supposes this argument and fundamentally drops it claiming irrelevant to natural disasters and disease. Now that he seems to fundamentally accept the freewill argument, I will suppose an argument to deal with other forms of "bad" stuff.
The reason is because anything that is perfection is de facto God. God could not have created the world perfectly or without flaw unless the universe would be unto god himself. God is perfection and when creating the universe he created the best universe possible, a God given the three-omni traits could only create the best of all possible worlds. Due to our inability to see all factors or be omnipotent we cannot see that this is the best of all possible world (Dr. Tom Morris once said "epistemology should not dictate metaphysics") but logically we can see that this is the only possible world for if God exists than he could have only created the best of all possible worlds therefore the problem of Evil fails.
2. Evolution in no way interferes with the concept of Judeo-Christian god. Suppose you were on the planet Jupiter, how long would a day be there? 10 hours clearly less than an Earth day. The fact is time is subjective to place and reference point, for example if one has been to school repeatedly it may not seem to be as long as it actually is. Time is relative. The fact is not all Christian's are fundamentalists and many have no quarrel with Evolution myself included. Now assuming evolution occurred refer to point about the best of all possible worlds, if evolution occurred it was because it was the best possible way for everything to occur. It is the only possible way things could occur.
3. Poor Design
It seems ridiculous to suppose that the Bible is suggesting the physical appearance of God rather the characteristics of virtuousness that are inherent to his being. The Bible is not suggesting individuals are made to look like an incorporeal being rather that individuals possess inherent qualities that the being represents.
4. He claims two instances so I will address both:
Exodus:"God was acting in perfect justice. The Egyptians had selfishly mistreated the Israelites for decades, using people who were created in God's image as their slaves. They had also enforced a barbarous system of infanticide that must have brought untold suffering to the families of Israel. (Pharaoh decreed that every newborn Israeli boy was to be cast alive into the Nile River) The loving God could not remain passive. What did the ancient Egyptians deserve? They deserved to die. People who kill other people's babies deserve to die. Still, God showed them mercy for years, giving them time to repent. Finally He had to act. Love and justice demanded it..... Too many people only see God's judgments in this story. But can you see the incredible mercy of God? Pharaoh could have averted God's final judgment if he had heeded the warning of God's initial, more minor judgments. But he didn't." David Servant
Amalakites: The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation (Ex 17:8). "When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind" (Dt 25:17-18). They later attacked Israel during the time of the Judges (Jdg 3:13) and often raided the Israelites' land after they had planted crops, leaving them with nothing (Jdg 6:2-5). God punished the Amalekites by ordering Saul to destroy them (1 Sam 15:2-3) - over 300 years after they had first attacked Israel. During that time, the Amalekites had contact with the Israelites and would have heard about God. They could have repented and changed their ways, but they continued to raid and plunder other cities up to the time of Saul and David (1 Sam 30:1-3).
Argument from Reason
C.S. Lewis originally makes this argument in Miracles.
Standard form of argument is as follows
1. For an assertion to be capable of truth or falsehood it must come from a rational source (see explanation below).
No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitutes a rational source.
Therefore, no assertion that is true or false can come from a merely physical source.
The assertions of human minds are capable of truth or falsehood
Conclusion 1: Therefore, human minds are not a merely physical source (see explanation below).
(5) A being requires a rational process to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim (hereinafter, to be convinced by argument).
(6) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a rational source.
(7) Therefore, considering element two above, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a non-physical (as well as rational) source.
(8) Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality. That is, no arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing.
(9) No being that begins to exist can be rational except through reliance, ultimately, on a rational being that did not begin to exist. That is, rationality does not arise spontaneously from out of nothing but only from another rationality.
(10) All humans began to exist at some point in time.
(11) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, there must be a necessary and rational being on which their rationality ultimately relies.
Conclusion 2: This being we call God.
Debate Round No. 2
Magicr

Con

CON CASE
The Problem of Evil

My opponent begins by saying that I am conceding the free will objection to the Problem of Evil. Not so. I merely raised it as a possible rebuttal, and said that it was irrelevant, but did not say that it was a sound rebuttal at all.

Pro proceeds to say that God could not have created a perfect world, because in doing so he would be creating himself, so God creates the best possible world He can.

Yet, our world is not even close to the best possible world. Some possible world could be infinitely close to being perfect without being perfect, i. e.: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999repeatingforever percent perfect, but is not perfect by 0.00000000000yougettheidea1 pecent. For instance, there is some possible world in which natural disasters do not occur, but people can still get sick. That world would be more perfect than our world, thus our world is not the best possible world that God could have created.

He continues by engaging in circular reasoning by saying that if God created our world, then our world must be the best possible world. This argument presupposes that God exists and did create our world, and uses that presupposition to justify how God could have created our world.

Pro's own logic can be turned against him: Our world is not the best possible world that God could have created, therefore, God could not have created our world and the resolution is negated.

This argument stands even stronger than before.

Evolution

Pro makes the claim that six days does not have to mean six days as we know them, yet even if time is taken out of the equation, evolution still negates the Genesis account which describes God creating everything on Earth. The Genesis account even describes God creating light and plants before the sun, which contradicts the scientific evidence that concludes that the sun predates the Earth.


He continues by writing:

"Now assuming evolution occurred refer to point about the best of all possible worlds, if evolution occurred it was because it was the best possible way for everything to occur. It is the only possible way things could occur."

This argument uses the same circular logic that was used before: It assumes that God used evolution, and uses this to explain why God would have used evolution. Using evolution is obviously not the best possible way for things to have occurred, as God could have bypassed the flawed process of evolution.

It should be noted that my opponent dropped my argument that evolution is a flawed process, so that has already been conceded.

Poor Design

My opponent has misunderstood my argument in this section. I agree with him that God does not have a physical appearance. I am using this idea to say that because of this, our physical design is not based on the way God looks, but rather that God would have had to have chosen that our anatomy is the way it is for a reason. My opponent does not challenge my point that our anatomy is flawed, so he thus concedes that God would have intentionally designed us with flawed anatomy. He could use his "we can't be perfect" argument, but this is rebutted here just as I have rebutted it in the past two sections by pointing out that God could have given us one tiny flaw, and thus we would not have been perfect, yet we have many flaws in our anatomy. For example:

In some possible world, humans would not have to eat for 30 days. This would not be perfection as humans would still have to eat, but it eliminates the flaw of having to constantly keep reloading our bodies with energy.

As pointed out by Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the video in R2, the universe is poorly designed in a multitude of ways. God could have eliminated all but one of those flaws, and the world would be better than it is now, but not quite perfect.


An Immoral God

Pro argues that God's actions were justifiable. He argues that the Egyptians deserved punishment. While this may be true, I think he would agree that killing a murderer's child to punish the murderer is not moral. God does not kill all of the Egyptians who were responsible for mistreating the Israelites, but rather he chooses to kill their children. Not only does God choose to kill the innocent Egyptian children, he also kills all of the first born animals. Killing the children of killers is not justice.

As for the Amalekite genocide, once again we see that God is not just commanding justice for the people responsible for attacking the Israelites, but the innocent women, children, and animals who are part of the tribe. 1 Samuel 15:3 states that God said:

"'Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys’” [1].

In this verse, God is commanding an act of genocide: He is saying kill everyone in this tribe, specifically because they are a member of that tribe. Don't just kill the adults. Kill the children. Kill the infants. Kill the animals.

Both of these actions describe God killing innocent children. My argument stands.

REBUTTALS
Argument from Reason

Here, my opponent provides a number of premises, none of which he backs up with reasoning. For example, I see no reason why the assertion that physical material or combinations of physical material can constitute a rational source must be true. Since he is making this claim, he must prove it to be true, otherwise, it can be discarded, as can his first conclusion. This false conclusion would result in the negation of the entire argument.

And even if the entire argument were to be conceded as true, it would not prove the existence of the tri-omni God described in the Bible. All this argument can prove is that there is something beyond the material world.

CONCLUSION
In this round I have successfully defended my arguments against my opponent's attacks by demonstrating that a non-perfect possible world exists that is closer to perfection than ours.

Additionally, Pro's offensive case was shown to be nothing more than logic based on an unfounded premise that in no way proves the existence of God.

At this point in the debate, Con is clearly winning.

Source:

[1]- http://www.biblegateway.com...

AshleysTrueLove

Pro

AshleysTrueLove forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Magicr

Con

Extend all arguments.
AshleysTrueLove

Pro

AshleysTrueLove forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Magicr

Con

I must confess I am severely disappointed in this debate. Oh well, extend those arguments again.
AshleysTrueLove

Pro

AshleysTrueLove forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
The guy is astrophysisist Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I used it because it provided a good summary of the design flaws if you will in the universe.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Has the guy in the video finished high-school yet? Cuz either his claims are designed to parody the actual argument of Intelligent design, or he is severely misinformed. If its the first, then its rather useless for your debate, if its the second, then its a bad source.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
@RationalMadman: Not sneaky at all. A tri-omni God is at the core of most monotheistic religions.

@CriticalThinkingMachine: It could be argued that if God necessarily exists, then God must exist, therefore it is probable that God exists. I see no reason why arguments using logic to show necessity or impossibility should not be used.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I cannot take this debate because I do not match your age/and or rank criteria, but I'd like to ask a clarifying question that may help potential contenders for this debate understand your resolution.

You say that your opponent must show that God probably exists. Do you mean this literally? In other words, will arguments that attempt to show the NECESSITY of God not be allowed in this debate? To put it another way, are arguments showing that the non-existence of God is a logical impossibility not allowed in this debate? Following suit, do you disallow yourself from presenting arguments that attempt to show the necessity of God's non-existence, or arguments that attempt to show that God's existence is a logical impossibility?
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
Sneaky to use tri-omni God. Easy win for con.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Understandable.
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
Alright. I will try to get to this debate. Semester just started and I'm really having trouble with greek. I love debating, but school has to come first for me right now. If I can't do this now maybe over a break
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Changed.
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
I do probability debates with shared BOP
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
MagicrAshleysTrueLoveTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
MagicrAshleysTrueLoveTied
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: Pro didn't address Con's round 3 arguments and forfeited 3 times. S&G for Pro's terrible format.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
MagicrAshleysTrueLoveTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
MagicrAshleysTrueLoveTied
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: FFs.