The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

God does not exist.

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 5 votes the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,131 times Debate No: 30631
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

KingDebater

Pro

I will be arguing that God does not exist.

Structure
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2/3/4/5 - Arguments and Rebuttals

Definitions
God - A maximally great being who created the universe.
Anti-atheist

Con

I accept. Just make sure your arguments dont suck, and dont be mean
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

Okay.

Argument #1: The argument from Quantity
(P1) Maximal greatness is a quantity.
(P2) You can always add to a quantity;
(C) Therefore, maximal greatness cannot exist in reality, as you can always imagine something greater.

P1
What is a quantity? As wikipedia explains, a quantity is something that can be compared in terms of 'more', 'less' and 'equal' or by assigning a numerical value in terms of a unit of measurement [1]. I think it's obvious that maximal greatness is a quantity.

P2
If we assign a hypothetical being a the number 1, we can imagine a greater being that we will assign the number 2. We can keep on imagining something greater forever, as numbers go on forever.

C
The logical conclusion of premise 1 and premise 2. What number would we assign a being that is maximally great? You can't say infinity, as infinity is not a number. You cannot count to infinity. Therefore, maximal greatness cannot exist in reality, as we can always imagine something greater.

Argument #2: The argument from Causation
(P1) For a being that exists to create something, it would either have to be affecting the thing it's creating or nothing.
(P2) You cannot make anything that does not exist do anything, let alone begin to exist;
(C1) Therefore, God is not affecting the thing he's creating.
(P3) If God were affecting nothing, nothing would be affected.
(P4) Affecting nothing inevitably causes nothing;
(C2) Therefore, God is not affecting nothing;
(C3) Therefore, no being that exists can cause something to exist.

P1
Straight-forward stuff really.

P2
'

C1
Logical conclusion of premise 1 and premise 2.

P3
Obvious.

P4
'

C2
Logical conclusion of Premise 3 and premise 4.

C3
Logical conclusion of Premise 1,2,3 and 4 and C1 and 2.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Anti-atheist

Con

I wanted cons arguments not to suck... They do

The argument from Quantity

Maximal greatness isn't a quantity, its a property. The argument stinks like skunk to take out ontological, the most irrefutable argument EVER!

The argument from Causation

" You cannot make anything that does not exist do anything, let alone begin to exist;"

God can. He can do anything, therefore your argument is null.

Does God exist? I would say definitively yes, as it's a fact of nature. Such an inescapable fact.

1. The Ontological Argument

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
2. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
4. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

2. The Moral Argument

Do you believe in objective morality? I.E. an objective morality would be that something such as rape is always wrong. If objective morality doesn't exist then show a case where rape is right.

1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
2. Morality is objective and absolute.
3. Therefore, God must exist. If morality is objective and absolute,

3. The Christological argument
From carm.org/easter-story-true

3a. Jesus' Tomb was Empty (JET)

In additon to the crucifixion, there are numerous reasons to believe that the tomb was indeed empty on that Easter morning. This evidence can be summarized by the acronym JET: J - Jerusalem Factor, E - Enemy Testimony, and T - Testimony of Women. First, the disciples preached the gospel in Jerusalem in the midst of opposition. It would have been virtually impossible for Christianity to survive and expand in Jerusalem if the body of Jesus was still in the tomb. All the opponents of Jesus would have had to do was produce the body of Jesus and squelch this Christian movement.

Second, early enemies of Christianity never disputed that the tomb was empty. Instead, they argued that the disciples stole the body (Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30).

Third, and perhaps the strongest evidence, the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women. Sadly, the testimony of women was not regarded highly in antiquity. The Jewish Talmud states, ""Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman" (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)." Furthermore, "Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women" (Talmud, Sotah 19a). However, in the Gospels, the apostles are the ones who are cowardly hiding from the Jews and the women bring them news of the empty tomb! If Christians were going to invent the empty tomb story, they most certainly would not have used women as the primary witnesses.

3b. The Transformation of the Disciples and the Emergence of the Christian Faith

The early disciples of Jesus did not expect their great Messiah named Jesus to ever face crucifixion and rise from the dead. In line with the current Jewish thoughts of the day, the disciples's Messiah was to triumphantly defeat the Romans and deliver the kingdom of God to the nation of Israel (cf. Acts 1:6). It is clear that the disciples did not expect the crucifixion. It was indeed an embarrassment to their faith. Their chief leaders had abandoned the faith and become skeptics and doubters. Of all people, women were the first to bring them news of the resurrection!

But, something happened to radically change these pitiful cowardly disciples from trembling doubters to bold proclaimers of this radical notion of a dying and rising Jewish Messiah in the midst of a hostile culture. These disciples were willing to die for their faith, and many of them would actually face death (all of the twelve apostles died by martyrdom except John). Radically, they changed their primary day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, they began to worship this man named Jesus while still claiming to be faithful Monotheistic Jews, something that was extremely radical and was blasphemous to the Judaism of the day. They did this all because something happened on that first Easter morning.

Due to all of these factors, it is certainly reasonable to conclude with the former church persecutor, then turned Christian, the apostle Paul,

"Death is swallowed up in victory. 55'O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?' 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 15:54-57).
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

My arguments
The argument from Quantity
If maximal greatness could exist in reality, it would be a quantity. Sort of like how if an actual infinite could exist in reality, infinity would be a number.

The argument from Causation
Con's Claim:
God can. He can do anything, therefore your argument is null.
Can God create a married bachelor? No, he cannot. He cannot do the logically impossible.

Con's arguments
The Ontological argument
No. See my argument from Quantity.

The Moral argument
P1 and P2 are baseless assertions. Con has failed to show that objective moral values and duties exist, or that if morality is objective, then God exists.

(P1) Any statement describing something with an adjective is an opinion. e.g: The Lady is beautiful.
(P2) Opinion is subjective, as it is neither true or false.
(P3) One's moral code is based on statements like 'Rape is wrong';
(C) Therefore, morality is subjective.

The Christological argument
Con copy and pasted his argument, so I'll do the same. [1]

It is curious that Pro offers this section in his debate on the existence of God, but he never explains how the resurrection (if it hapened) proves the existence of God.

3a. the empty tomb

My opponent gives three arguments for why we should believe the tomb was empty.

J - Jermusalem factor

This argument is horribly weak because according to Acts, the disciples didn't start preaching until 40 days after Jesus' death. If Jesus' body was still around by then, surely it would've been unrecognizable because of decay. So nobody would've been able to use the body of Jesus to disprove the resurrection.

E - Enemy testimony

The earliest account of Christianity's opposition admitting to the empty tomb comes in Matthew, which by most accounts was written in the 80's, a full 50 years after Jesus' death. Matthew's community was unlikely to have been in Judea (much less Jerusalem) since it was composed after the Jewish war.[2] Matthew's neighbors could not have known whether the tomb was empty or not. They probably just took the Christians' word for the tomb being empty and attempted to explain it away. That's often how people react to things like that. For example, if a Mormon missionary came to your house and said, "Joseph Smith was an uneducated man who completed the entire Book of Mormon in just 90 days, which proves that he had devine help," your first reaction wouldn't be to doubt that he was uneducated or that he completed the BOM in 90 days. You'd probably grant that and come up with some other explanation, like maybe an example of sombody else doing something similar without devine help.

T - Testimony of women

This argument is irrelevent since neither the gospels, nor the apostles in acts, nor any of the epistles use the testimony of women to prove the empty tomb. The women finding the tomb empty was just part of the narrative. It wasn't part of a proof of the empty tomb. In all accounts, you have men verifying that the tomb was empty.

The tomb may have been empty, but so far Pro hasn't given a particularly strong argument in favor of it. There are at least a couple of reasons to be doubtful, though.

First, in the earliest records we have of the death and resurrection of Jesus (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15), there is no mention of an empty tomb. Paul gives appearance traditions, showing a desire to prove the resurrection. We'd expect him to appeal to the empty tomb, too, if such were known.

Second, it would've been unusual for anybody who was crucified to have been put in a tomb in the first place. The usual practice would've been to throw the dead body in a common grave with all the other criminals where it would've been decomposed or eaten by scavengers.[3]

3b. The Transformation of the Disciples and the Emergence of the Christian Faith

Pro explains that the disciples did not expect the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus since the messiah was supposed to "triumphantly defeat the Romans and deliver the kingdom of God to the nation of Israel." Since Jesus didn't do that, we need an explanation for why they were later willing to die for their beliefs, change their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, and worship Jesus even though Jews were monotheists. The reason for all this, according to my opponent, is that "something happened on that first Easter morning," presumably the resurrection.

The gospels report that Jesus told them he would die and be resurrected (Matthew 16:21). They may not have been able to wrap their minds around that, but after Jesus was crucified, surely they remembered what Jesus said. That alone ought to have made them wonder if Jesus might rise from the dead, too. At the very least, it would've given them the idea that they could keep the movement alive by claiming Jesus did rise from the dead.

The evidence we have of their martyrdom comes too late to be historically reliable. Most of it comes from the third century or later. We really don't know what happened to most of the apostles since all the earliest records are silent on the matter. The only good evidence we have of any of them dying for their faith is the martyrdoms of Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. But if Josephus is to be believed, James wasn't arrested and tried where he would've had the opportunity to repent. Rather, he was killed by a mob. Joseph Smith was killed by a mob, too. Surely my opponent doesn't think Joseph Smith was telling the truth about the Book of Mormon just because he was killed by a mob. Peter, on the other hand, was crucified, but we don't know whether he had any trial or was given any opportunity to repent, so his death doesn't tell us anything about the strength of his convictions.

Pro's claim that the early Christians changed their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday is false. In the beginning, Jews who had converted to Christianity continued to go to synogogue on Saturday, which is evident throughout the first 13 chapters of Acts as well as in Jesus' prediction that they would be flogged in the synogogues (Matthew 10:17) and kicked out (John 16:2). Christians gathered on Sunday in addition to Saturday. The change from Saturday worship to Sunday worship was gradual, so clearly the change from Saturday to Sunday had nothing to do with the resurrection.

The worship of Jesus only shows that the Christians believed the story. It doesn't tell us anything about why they believed it.

So far, I've only rebutted Pro's case for the resurrection. I haven't made an argument against the resurrection. I'll do that in the next round if I have space, but since Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, I don't have to do that.

Sources
[1] http://debate.org...

Anti-atheist

Con

The argument from Quantity

youre wrong. It's a property.

The argument from Causation

It's not logically impossible. God would made the nothing from something. Nothing impossible

Ontollogical succedes

The Moral argument

We feel morality is objective. We know there's a universeal sense

If you do not have an objective standard of morality

* by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?
* how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?
* then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?
* then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
* then who decided that your subjective standard is the one that anyone should follow?
carm.org/questions-on-standard-of-morality


The Christological argument

J
After 40 days the body can still have identifiable parts [1]. Someone could've produced a shroud that clothed him.

E
Con doesn't address the full argument . The enemies wouldn"t coincide to an empty tomb sinceb it would hurt their case against christ.

T
The point is, they wouldn't of included the women"s testimony even in a naritive. It would've been useless to do it.

Con"s two objections to the resurrection don"t fly.

1. The absence of evidence of Paul mentioning a tomb is not evidence of absense.
2. A tomb burial was a common thing for upper class jews. The Romans wouldn't of resisted as he claimed to be a prophet and had a following

3b. The Transformation of the Disciples and the Emergence of the Christian Faith

Con uses hand waving to escape from this. The disciples really believed jesus rose. Con has yet to prove that wrong.

Con rejects the evidence of the deaths of the disciples because it's too late. Why do we need contemporary proof? As new evidence is appearing all the time from this era.

Con hasnt fully refuted the arguments. Nor has con proven atheism is true or correct. Con tries to do his best to defend the madness of atheism but no one can reasonably.

[1] Field, Brad "Facts about dead bodies" 2005.
Debate Round No. 3
KingDebater

Pro

The argument from Quantity
Con's Claim: youre wrong. It's a property.
Maximal greatness is a quantity, and a quantity is a property [1]. Would you care to back up your assertion, Con?

The Moral argument
Con's Claim: We feel morality is objective. We know there's a universeal sense

If you do not have an objective standard of morality

* by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?
* how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?
* then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?
* then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
* then who decided that your subjective standard is the one that anyone should follow?
carm.org/questions-on-standard-of-morality

Con has yet to prove that morality is objective. My point is that morality is subjective. It is not correct or incorrect, it is simply opinion. When someone says that murder is wrong, you can't prove them right or wrong. As even when held by a supernatural being, opinion cannot be objective.

The Christological argument
Con spent so much time focusing on this argument, but I still fail to see how this proves the existence of God, and I expect people watching this debate feel the same way.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Conclusion
- None of the three arguments that Con has put forward prove the existence of God.
- Con has ignored a good chunk of what I've said.
Anti-atheist

Con

Argument from quanity

And this isn't a property that God has

I win on the The argument from Causation and ontological.

The Moral argument

I did prove it. There's a sense of if in our world. Here's more since you're so ignorant.

"let's look at the five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. If objective moral values exist and we can intuitively perceive them, this hypothesis explains five pieces of empirical evidence

1.Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no personal or genetic benefit.

2.The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists.

3.There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.

4.The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.

5.Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world"

From www.shenvi.org/Essays/ObjectiveMoralValues.htm

The Christological argument

Por sad "Cant refute DO NOT WANT BACK AWAY BACK AWAY" He forfeited like a barrel! It proves God, because only god can perform a miracle like it. Nothing else has been able to do so.
Debate Round No. 4
KingDebater

Pro

Quantity
Con's Claim: And this isn't a property that God has
I'd disagree, considering the fact that the definition of God that we agreed upon was 'a maximally great being who created the universe'. Unless anti-atheist wants to argue that a maximally great being doesn't have maximal greatness.

Morality
Con's Claim: I did prove it. There's a sense of if in our world. Here's more since you're so ignorant.

"let's look at the five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. If objective moral values exist and we can intuitively perceive them, this hypothesis explains five pieces of empirical evidence

1.Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no personal or genetic benefit.

2.The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists.

3.There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.

4.The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.

5.Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world"

1. This isn't proof for objective morality. In life, humans look for happiness and try to avoid sadness. Comitting crimes to another person inevitably ends in a punishment, which is sadness. It's up to the person to decide whether the crime is worth the punishment. This doesn't make morality objective, as you cannot prove or disprove a statement such as 'Murder is bad'.
2. Baseless assertion.
3. Yes, morality worldwide is fairly similar, but it still isn't objective as you cannot prove or disprove a statement like 'Rape is morally wrong'.
4. That doesn't make morality objective.
5. That doesn't make morality objective.

Ontological
I'd just like to talk about the Ontological argument. One of the problems I have with it is that the logic is flawed. You just replace 'maximally great being' with 'invisible omnipresent mouse whose fur can be felt by any living thing' and you get an error. Con states 'I won', which I find highly unconvincing.

Causation
Con claims that nothing is impossible. He obviously doesn't agree with the law of non-contradiction.

Christological
It's actually been calculated by Richard Swinburne that there's a 0.97% chance that Jesus resurrected [1]. It is not reasonable to believe something when there's a 99.03% chance that it didn't happen. Case closed.

Sources
[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Anti-atheist

Con

Argument from quanity

Maximal greatness isn't a quanity because you cant add to maximal greatness.

The Moral argument

I did prove it. There's a sense of if in our world. Here's more since you're so ignorant.

"let's look at the five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. If objective moral values exist and we can intuitively perceive them, this hypothesis explains five pieces of empirical evidence

1. Yes and we objectively do that! How? I can prove murder is bad! We all know it's wrong. Is pro sayibg we can murder anyone? So Adam Lanza cant be judged because it was just a rearrangement of atoms.

2. Its obvious you dope

3. Why is it so objective? it proves it.

4. yes it does
5. yes it does.

Im always winning like Charles sheen.

Ontological

Can't be maximally great! A mouse cant be invisible and have fur. A mouse can't be a mouse and be omnipotent! A mouse is finite!

Causation.

Nothing is impossible to thee!!!! Absolutely nothing! God wins

The Christological argument

But the evidence shows it happened. So it has to be a miracle meaning from God.

Vote me.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
I find it interesting how the only person who gave points to anti-atheist has no reasons to do so.
Posted by DeadSpace 3 years ago
DeadSpace
Oops, I agreed with Pro before the debate. (vote)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by FritzStammberger 3 years ago
FritzStammberger
KingDebaterAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I wrote all my reasons but stupid debate.org froze and switched pages, I am not writing them again Con won.
Vote Placed by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
KingDebaterAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a "dope"
Vote Placed by Billdekel 3 years ago
Billdekel
KingDebaterAnti-atheistTied
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 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: Cons not always winning like Charlie Sheen. His arguments were awful. I didn't like Pro?s arguments but Cons were worse
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
KingDebaterAnti-atheistTied
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: Con did not offer any serious rebuttal to the argument from quantity or from causation. Con's moral argument was well-rebutted.. Con did not actually prove objective morality, no matter how many times he claimed he won, and I am also zapping him conduct points for calling Pro ignorant.
Vote Placed by DeadSpace 3 years ago
DeadSpace
KingDebaterAnti-atheistTied
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 seemed to have just been stating that Pro was wrong without any logical reasoning behind many of their claims.