The Instigator
GorefordMaximillion
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Pyyrate
Con (against)
Losing
0 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 1 vote the winner is...
GorefordMaximillion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,268 times Debate No: 27499
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (56)
Votes (1)

 

GorefordMaximillion

Pro

I would like someone to challenge my position that there is no God. ("God" being a creator of the universe. Not any specific Religious deity)

The challenger must assume the burden of proof since I cannot prove a non-existence. I can only prove alternatives and fallacies in arguments for. Challenger must prove "God" exists.

Challenger can open debate with any/all arguments for.

Following rounds will involve me debating opponents arguments and possibly offering my own alternate scenarios.

Also, opponent can offer modifications to the debate parameters which I will either accept or deny. If we cannot agree to terms, debate is canceled.

Round 1: Me offering terms of debate, and challenger offering his initial argument.
Round 2: Me rebuting his/her claims. Him/Her rebuting my rebut.
Round 3: Same as Round 2.
Round 4: Additional Rebut from me only. As challenger will have had a round to make an argument (Round 1) where I have only offered the challenge in Round 1, Challenger must forfeit his final round Rebut as I cannot answer any of his rebuts or claims after this round. Any additional arguments in final round from challenger are not included in debate.

Note: Challenger can feel free to challenge me to a debate on the same topic and open round 1 with his/her arguments.
Pyyrate

Con

Thanks to GorefordMaximillion for allowing me to debate this topic.

Before I start, I'd like to make my stance on God clear to avoid any confusion. I believe in the possibility of God's existence. I believe that it is extremely difficult to prove, if even at all possible, the existence of God. However, I also believe that it is equally difficult to prove the nonexistence of God.

First, let us attempt to define what God is. David Hume once wrote, "The idea of God, as meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good Being, arises from reflecting on the operations of our own mind and augmenting, without limit, those qualities of goodness and wisdom." (from his text, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"). In other words, God is a Being who contains all of the virtues of man, amplified to infinity. He is also a ubiquitous Being with the ability to create, destroy and modify all things at will. Essentially, God can do anything, anywhere, anytime. This, of course, is a widely accepted assumption, because no human being has ever been able to completely define God. In fact, nearly every person that believes in God will likely tell us that He CANNOT be defined; that this is exactly what makes Him God.

To be absolutely certain that God exists--or does not--is to have irrefutable proof. Therefore, in order to successfully challenge your position, hard evidence, that cannot be denied, must be provided. However, as we have just established, God cannot be understood through human reasoning. For this reason, instead of searching for "scientific" evidence, or evidence that we can understand, we will instead search for evidence that cannot be explained, just as God cannot be explained. Also, as we have already established, evidence pointing to the existence of God is extremely difficult to provide. Therefore, we will search for evidence showing that God COULD exist, rather than that He does.

Our first piece of evidence concerns an age-old, unsolved mystery: the origin of the universe.

Scientists today have managed to pinpoint exactly how human embryos in the wombs of their mothers develop into full-fledged adults. Though the important question of "how is life conceived" has been answered, another, even more important arises: "where did all life originate?" Researchers will point to the universe, and say that basically the universe contained all of the necessary ingredients for life: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, and so on. These ingredients combined in just the right way, and under just the right conditions to allow for life--initially in the form of microscopic organisms. We continue to probe, however, and ask, "where did the universe itself originate?" At this point, the scientist tells us that the general consensus in the scientific world is that in the very beginning, there existed an infinitely small singularity--a tiny area of infinite density that defies our understanding of physics--and that at one point this singularity expanded into what eventually became the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, and us. This theory is known as the Big Bang. Ineluctably, though, we ask the fundamental question: "what was there before the universe?" Scientists believe that the answer is absolutely nothing. Yet it is not that they believe there was nothing, it is simply that they do not see how there could have possibly been anything--other, of course, than the singularity.

Would it not, however, make sense that it was God who created this singularity? Is there the slightest doubt that God COULD have existed before this singularity, and, in fact, called this very thing into existence? The answer must inevitably be no. This singularity, and its surrounding context, completely baffle even the most advanced scientists, and cannot even begin to be explained. Yet it is plausible, completely conceivable even, that God was the Being behind it all.

Our next piece of evidence concerns another subject in this universe that is equally as baffling to human beings--scientists and common thinkers alike--as the universe"s origin: the self, or the soul.

The brain is a fascinating organ; it is the command center for the entire body, regulating its every function. Yet there is more to the brain than simply physical regulation. The brain is capable of learning, of assessing information, of acting upon this information, of constantly evolving. If an individual consumes a food that turns out to endanger his or her life, that individual will make a decision to never consume that item again. If this same individual notices, via sensory perception, a drop in temperature that no longer allows him or her to maintain a stable body temperature through homeostatic mechanisms, the individual may put on an article of clothing, or create a fire in order to artificially maintain the body's equilibrium. These processes, though formidable, can still be explained; scientists will describe to us in great detail the chemical and neurophysiological aspects of the brain and its functions. Indeed, the brain of a human being is no different than a computer. This gives rise to some very important questions: what is it that makes us unique? What is it that will make two human beings experience a situation similarly, but not identically? What is it that makes us imagine, or want, or love, or hate, or be happy, or depressed, or enraged? What is it that makes me me? All of these mental and emotional operations are what form the self. But where did the self come from? Where could the self have possibly formed?

Once again, we apply the guidelines of our search to the notion of the self, and we realize that there is a possibility that the self did not simply come into being from nothing; perhaps it was God who created my self, or your self, and placed this self into an embryo. There is, again, absolutely no cause for doubt that God COULD have existed and created the self.

We have searched for and found two very strong pieces of evidence pointing to the possibility of God's existence. Hopefully, this will be enough evidence to refute the certainty of God's nonexistence.

(note: I apologize if this was ridiculously long to read, but I couldn't really find a way to condense it.)
Debate Round No. 1
GorefordMaximillion

Pro

Thanks to Pyyrate for the challenge!

For this debate, I will accept con"s definition of God.
" I believe that it is extremely difficult to prove, if even at all possible, the existence of God. However, I also believe that it is equally difficult to prove the nonexistence of God."

I would agree with this statement, but I must make a few points. I point to round 1 stipulation:
"The challenger must assume the burden of proof since I cannot prove a non-existence. I can only prove alternatives and fallacies in arguments for. Challenger must prove "God" exists."

I do not believe it is possible to prove a nonexistence. One might be able to prove that it wasn"t a God who started the big bang for example, but that does not necessarily prove there is no God. However, in the case of a unicorn, you can present evidence to prove they exist, however I cannot present evidence that they don"t. So, is it undecided on whether they exist or not? This is called "Evidence of absence." There is a debate for this also, "Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?"
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

This is why I tend to put Burden of proof on the Con in this argument: making a claim such that an all powerful being created the entire universe is a huge one, and as Carl Sagan famously said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

With that being said, con has presented two types of evidence with logical questions: the origin of the universe and humanity itself.

" To be absolutely certain that God exists--or does not--is to have irrefutable proof."
"Therefore, we will search for evidence showing that God COULD exist, rather than that He does."
Here, I would argue that one could say anything COULD hypothetically exist. But, what would the "default" position be until proof is obtained and where is the line drawn? Fairies, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy COULD exist. If I make that proposition though, are we to lean more to the "yes they probably/quite possibly do" or are we to lean towards the "they probably do not exist" or "you must prove they exist before we can accept they do."
Again, I lean towards the Carl Sagan statement.
However, I would also argue con has failed to show me that it is more likely God exists (in the definition provided by con and my definition of creator of the universe) than does not.

To the origin of the universe argument:

"what was there before the universe?" Scientists believe that the answer is absolutely nothing. Yet it is not that they believe there was nothing, it is simply that they do not see how there could have possibly been anything--other, of course, than the singularity" Would it not, however, make sense that it was God who created this singularity?"
There is a general agreement in the scientific community of the existence of the big bang, I agree. Science tends to point out in Quantum Mechanics that things happen, at random, without any cause. (Virtual Particles, etc.) This is the purely scientific reasoning behind the big bang. Also, what the science community colloquially calls "nothing" is often misunderstood by the general public. The singularity is more the result of extrapolation using general relativity however.

There are several competing theories over what happened directly before the big bang however I will try to point out the flaw in the first cause argument using logic, not pure science, as this is something unsettled currently.
Con has basically posited the "first cause" argument. He has given the "first cause" the name "God" and has assigned some of the necessary qualities to it in order to give it the ability to start the universe. Here are the issues as I see it. If we use the logic of causality, there is always a cause that creates any given effect.
To explain the effect we know as the universe, con has used God as the first cause, who itself is uncaused. There is a logical flaw in this argument.

Con has had to abandon the very logic he used to justify his conclusion to allow the first cause"s existence. He has claimed the first cause had itself no cause. Con"s argument is that because every effect/cause (the Universe) must have had a preceding cause, we must have a "something" that had no cause. The second part of that sentence must ignore the first part to be true. Causality must be ignored when using causality to explain the universe using a first cause.

Using this pure logic can only lead to one conclusion however: in order for causality to remain true, there must be an infinite chain of cause and effect. It is the only solution to the origin of the universe that fits this logic.
Although I may not be able to say with certainty what the cause immediately prior to the Big Bang/Singularity was, I can logically deduce that the cause itself must have had something before it to make it happen, ad infinitum.
If one argues that the infinity of this existence is impossible, one has also immediately said the uncaused,-without a beginning- God is impossible.

If one argues that God does not need a cause, he has succumbed to Occam"s Razor, and merely added a layer of explanation that itself cannot be understood or explained. Why is it impossible for the Universe to start without cause, or be finite (if you include what was before the big bang) but an all powerful entity, who cannot be directly proved or even understood, is immune to this logical reasoning?

The Self:
I agree, the human mind is an amazing thing, and it seems we have barely scratched the surface of the 3 lb organ between our ears, but in this example I would point to another example of Occam"s Razor.

In your argument, you have explained the human mind/soul as something so complicated and amazing, that it could have only been put there by something even more complicated and amazing.

"Where did the self come from?" (Particularly consciousness in your argument).
You are claiming it came from an infinitely complicated "self" or "God." So then where did "God"s self" come from? You haven"t truly answered the question in your argument; rather you have added another layer of unexplainable complexity on top of it.

Not only has science made great strides in understanding the self, but if the trend continues, it may one day be able to answer this age old question. I tend to lean towards consciousness being an emergent phenomena of our brains. What is the difference in our theories and how could mine be preferable to yours?

I believe the complex physical brain and its interactions (the whole greater than the sum of its parts here) causes the self to emerge. In a nut shell, science has physical brains and can test them to see if this is accurate. I could be proven wrong or maybe right, but it is likely we will one day know whether I am correct or not.

You believe that an all powerful, undetectable, unable to be understood being has placed consciousness in every embryo conceived. You cannot test this or prove it, but you say it is not only possible but probable.

You present no real evidence, aside from the amazing complexity of the self, that only a higher complexity could design it. Especially since this "higher self than ours" had no "higher self than it" to design it. This higher self could not be explained and neither could ours.

So, to wrap up:
You cannot use logic to define a problem and then abandon it to give the answer.

Complexity is not explained by adding more complexity that cannot be explained.

Therefore, not only have you not met the burden of proof showing God exists, you have failed to use logic and other arguments to show that he reasonably COULD exist" which even then would not show that he DID exist.
Pyyrate

Con

Pyyrate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
GorefordMaximillion

Pro

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his round 2 rebuttal.

I will take this opportunity to restate some of the rules agreed upon in Round 1:

Round 1: Me offering terms of debate, and challenger offering his initial argument.
Round 2: Me rebutting his/her claims. Him/Her rebutting my rebut.
Round 3: Same as Round 2.
Round 4: Additional Rebut from me only. As challenger will have had a round to make an argument (Round 1) where I have only offered the challenge in Round 1, Challenger must forfeit his final round Rebut as I cannot answer any of his rebuts or claims after this round. Any additional arguments in final round from challenger are not included in debate.

These were agreed upon by the challenger. This can serve as a reminder that challenger can not offer an argument in Round 4 since this would give him the opening and the closing of the debate.

Thank you.
Pyyrate

Con

Pyyrate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
GorefordMaximillion

Pro

My opponent has forfeited his round 3 rebuttal.

The challenger has also forfeited the debate.

Maybe he has abandoned this debate?

Perhaps we will debate in the future.

I hope my challenger is ok though.

Thank you.
Pyyrate

Con

Pyyrate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ellielynch21 3 years ago
ellielynch21
we are made in his image! but God's dominate features aren't outer appearances. of course we are all different because we all reflect different aspects of God's character. we don't all act the same because we aren't all the same. sure we are made in his image but like i said earlier.. this is a sinful world. Of course we are created like Christ, but we only develop certain attributes because of the fact that we are not perfect. but if you think we simply evolved, explain love. its silly to believe that we love only because our brains aren't as developed. look at dogs. they love their owners, even though their brains aren't as developed as ours. there is no way to explain the power of love and what it drives us to do for others with science. it isn't just a development of the brain.
Posted by narmak 3 years ago
narmak
You dont seem to understand there are no facts to counter evoloution as it is proven quite simply with the platypus and the fact that all living organisms share x% of dna/ Also if taught how apes can create sky scrapers so does that make them also gods chosen? also if we are made in his image than why are we evolving and this may sound silly to you but why arent we invisible? not to mention we also all look different.
Posted by narmak 3 years ago
narmak
You dont seem to understand there are no facts to counter evoloution as it is proven quite simply with the platypus and the fact that all living organisms share x% of dna/ Also if taught how apes can create sky scrapers so does that make them also gods chosen? also if we are made in his image than why are we evolving and this may sound silly to you but why arent we invisible? not to mention we also all look different.
Posted by ellielynch21 3 years ago
ellielynch21
God made us in His image, before sin entered into the world. Sure we are still made in the image of God, just a distorted image of Him because of the ways sin has effected us. 1 Samuel 16:7 says, "Man looks at the outer appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." When God is talking about being made in his image, he isn't talking about our outer image. What would that do? He's talking about what's inside of you and me. Our hearts. Not our physical heart that keeps us alive, but our emotional heart that keeps us alined. Our soul. 1 Peter 2:9 says, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." You said it yourself. Frogs can't build skyscrapers because they are physically and mentally unable too. But why us? Why are WE physically and mentally able too? Because we are God's chosen people, a people selected by God. How can you go on living your life without the hope God Himself gives us? What are you living for? Who are you living for? What would be the whole meaning of life? You've got to dig deeper. You're looking, but you're not seeing. Sure, I have facts to counter evolution. And if you want to here them, then I'll tell them too you. But I don't want you to change your beliefs because of logical facts that have to be true. Stop trying to look at it "logically!" I know that probably sounds crazy, but seriously. Go ahead, try to explain chemistry with logic, or math with logic, but humanity? It just can't make sense with an equation or a math problem. How could it? How could God make himself any clearer? He's calling you to Him right this very second. All creation points back to the Creator who has thoughtfully created it. Look at how beautiful the flowers are. The tranquillity of the water. The stamina of nature through tough winters. All of nature's aspects ring true to the one who created them. The insanely loving God.
Posted by narmak 3 years ago
narmak
And more proof for evoultion is the platypus which has a bunch of different attributes from each of the speices alive today. And again more proof is us we have suffered from certain diseases before medicine even existed and we grew immune to some of them. how is this possible aside from evoloution? evouloution does not happen over night it takes longg time and to prove this claim we still are born with pinky toes and the appendix which have no current use in our bodies along with some muscles that do not do anything but they do suff in other primates. ANd also seeing as evoloution is real how could we be changing if god made us in his image? are we surpassing his form?
Posted by narmak 3 years ago
narmak
lol pyyrate i live by one rule to never give up no matter what unless i am hurting someone else by accident. and since im not i shall continue.

elley your saying it makes more sense to have an all mighty magic man that has always existed rather than somthing we know exists to have always existed? to me that makes no sense at all as im looking at this with logic and logically god does not make any sense. And not to mention that we are not born knowing what is right and wrong if you go take a look at history mankind has raped killed eaten each other with no mercy if we were born with knowing what is right and wrong how could this possibly happen to our ancestors x amount of years ago i am saying x amount of years because i dont know when mankind came into existance.

and again you cannot prove we have souls or if animals do or dont the main differnce between humans and animals is the development of our brains. Frogs cannot make sky scrapers for two reason one their bodies are not designed to move heavy objects and 2nd their brain is the size of an ant compared to us frogs are dumb. with our brains we are able to understand things that other speicies cannot. If you take a close look at our species I do not know if there is a single animal we do not share dna with. Which goes to prove evoloution as we all evolved from the same speicies. We share 98% of our dna with monkeys 75% with pumpkins and 93% with fruit flys but we are not anyone of those mentioned as we adapted under different circumstances.

And elley the universe as we know today may not have always existed but what im trying to get across is that the universe meaning all the space/matter/energy/time has always existed. it is constantly changing today the earth is here but in a couple billion years it will be gone HOWEVER the matter and energy it is made up of does not dissapear it is simply transformed.
Posted by ellielynch21 3 years ago
ellielynch21
hahaha thank you it matters a lot!!
Posted by Pyyrate 3 years ago
Pyyrate
Dang, you guys sure have some stamina lol... I have to congratulate you guys for being willing to debate this issue for over a month. That's really impressive. Kudos to both.
Posted by ellielynch21 3 years ago
ellielynch21
yes. because something is beautiful it is made by God! that is exactly what i'm saying. how could the universe just always been? with no one behind it all? it makes more sense to believe that someone created it than saying it has always been there. you don't even believe that there is some design behind it all? we all have souls. everyone when they're born has a sense of right and wrong. how can they just have been? why don't animals have souls too? why aren't frogs creating skyscrapers and birds arranging flowers? we are God's chosen people. don't you think that it is harder to believe that the universe has just always existed than to believe someone is behind it all?
Posted by narmak 3 years ago
narmak
so your saying that because somthing is beautiful it must be made by god?

How can god have always been you would believe he has but not believe it is possible for somthing we know to exist? when it comes down to it its the unvierse or god that has always existed logically it is the univerese as the universe is the only one to provide a shred of proof.

Also There is only one thing that cannot have definate evidence for not existing and that is an imaginary being aka god
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
GorefordMaximillionPyyrateTied
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: Con forfeited.