The Instigator
narmak
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 30799
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

narmak

Pro

I would like to start yet another debate on the existance of god.1st round is for acceptance and the rest of the rounds are for making arguments and rebuttals. As for the definition of god it is going to be an all powerful creator as in the bible and quran and probably many more religous books.

i am going place some rules
1. no saying pro/con has failed to counter my argument that is for the voters to decide.
2.Logic must be used and cannot be ignored.
3.Saying god exists because we do and similar arguments are not valid.
4. if you forfeit one round it is an auto loss so dont accept unless have the time to post
Pennington

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate. It seems my opponent laid out rules in his opening round and I agree to all of them. With one of them not arguing in this round I will keep it short.


I hope that my opponent will accept to use the Biblical God as one of the Gods he suggest does not exist. I think this God fulfills all the demands he established in his opening round. This is my only request in this debate.


*We should note that the debate is not about just the likelihood of Gods non-existence, but rather that a such being does not exist. As the affirmative, my opponent accepts the burden of proof in proving the non-existence of God. I will simply try to argue against my opponents evidence.


Thanks again, I turn the debate over to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 1
narmak

Pro

1. It is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist
2. God is omnipotent
3. Since an omnipotent being cannot exist we can conclude god does not exist.

1. There are two definitions of omnipotent(all powerful)
The 1st definiton is **The ability to do anything even the logically absurd**
The 2nd definition is ** the ability to do anything logical** by this it is meant god cannot make a square circle as it has nothing to do with ones power because it is an impossible shape.

The 1st definition provided fails becuase if god has the ability to do even the logically absurd then he could create another being who has more power than himself and as such would not be all powerful as a being exists that is stronger than himself. ( I would like con to recognize that surpassing infinite power is logically absurd but god by this definition can do things logically absurd and as such this is a possible scenario)

The 2nd definition provided fails because if god can only do all things that are logical he would need to be made up of matter or energy if he wanted to move an object. Ek=1/2mv^2 the equation for kinetic energy basic example no energy means no velocity and no mass means no velocity resulting in 0 movment. If god is indeed made up of matter or energy than he is not all powerful as he woud have limits based on the matter or energy he is made up of.

Since both definitions of omnipotent fail we can conclude that an omnipotent being cannot exist and as such an omnipotent god cannot exist.

******************************************************************************************

The universe is made up of matter,energy,space, and time. From the 1st law of thermodynamics we know that both matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. The basic meaning for this is that somthing cannot come from nothing therefore somthing had to have always existed. **0 is not equal to 1 ever** I understand that this means there are two options the universe or god.

1st the universe we know to be made up of matter,energy,space, and time. That being said we also know that it is impossible for matter and energy to be created or destroyed so logically we can conclude that both have always existed. Both matter and energy exist within space and time so space and time must have always existed. If matter,energy,space and time have always existed then the universe has always existed.

2nd god has no proof to have always existed. If god did indeed create the universe he would be violating logic as 0 does not equal 1. you cannot create somthing from noting meaning he would have to be defined as the 1st definiton of omniopotent which i already proved has failed.

Logially since we know the universe does indeed exist we can again conclude that the universe has always existed. Since the universe has always existed and the bible states that god created the universe the bible must be a lie. if the bible is a lie then god does not exist as the bible is supposed to be gods words and god being omnibelovlent cannot tell a lie as lieng is stealing the truth and stealing is evil and would mean he is not perfectly good.

***********************************************************************************

1. An omnibelovalnt and omniscience(all knowing) being cannot exist.
2. A omnibelovalnt and omniscience being would not create objects/beings that commit evil acts.
3 Evil exists within this world
4. Therefore an omnibelovent and omniscience being does not exist.

The main reason an ombelovalnt and omniscience being can not exist is becaue if it is all knowing and perfectly good it would be unable to make an evil man/woman as this would be malevolent(Having or showing a wish to do evil to others.)
and as such would not be perfectly good. We know evil exists in this world and as such we can conclude that an omnibelvolent and omniscience being does not exist.

****************************************************************************************

So far i have proved it impossble for an omnipotent being to exist. It is impossible for an omniscience and omnibelovlent being to exist. It is possible for an omniscience being to exist provided it is not also omnibelvolent as well.

This leaves one characteristic of god omnipresent(is everywhere). What we know is that no two objects can occupy the same spot in space. if you take two solid blocks you cannot put them into the exact same spot one will sit on top or beside in front or behind but it cannot be placed in the exact same spot. This means god cannot be made up of matter which means he must be defined by the 1st definition of omnipotent as he can not be made up of matter which is proven by the 2nd definition of omnipotent and here as if he is made up of matter and energy he cannot be omnipresent as he cannot occupy the space of other matter.

*****************************************************************************************

An omnipotent,omnibelovolent,omniscience,omnipresent being cannot exist because it is impossible to be both omniscience and omnibelovent when evil exists due to the beings creations and it is impossible to be omnipotent as proved in my 1st portion of this argument and omnipresnt relies on the 1st definition of omnipotent which is disproved.
Pennington

Con

Thank you to my opponent for posting his argument so fast. I would like to remind the readers that my objective here is not to prove the existence of God but poke holes inside my opponents case. My opponent is left with the burden to fulfill the obligation of proving that 'God doesn't exist.'

My opponent started off by giving us a descriptive example of one of his arguments.

"1. It is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist

2. God is omnipotent

3. Since an omnipotent being cannot exist we can conclude god does not exist."

In A1 my opponent gave us no reason whatsoever why we should assume that an omnipotent being can not exist. A3 also hinges on A1. For my opponents argument to stand up we must have reason why A1 is true.

I can not accept my opponents definition of omnipotent. He used no paste or link to show his definition is valid as a source. The word may actually include more or less requirements so let's look at a verified source's definition.

Looking at the second definition on Merriam's it says :

2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

This definition is more defined than the one provided by my opponent and it should be used throughout the remainder of the debate. My opponent continued on to say that his definitions failed to stand up against his argument but that is a fallacy. My opponent also made the assumption that God would create a more powerful being then Himself. I ask what makes that fact? Also what makes a being with infinite power absurd?

My opponent also seems to imply that in this supernatural scenario that God could not move physical things without Him also being physical. God does not need to be physical to have logic or to move physical things even in a world made up of matter. Even if God is made up fully of matter then that still does not make Him unable to exist. Both my opponents definitions failed in being accurate and reliable.



My opponent seems confident in concluding that matter, time, space, the universe and energy are all eternal but that's just speculative thought. My opponent then finds no viable evidence that God could exist when the religious say all that we see everyday shows God's existence. Pointing too that there could be numerous proofs for God's existence and we ignore them. Then my opponent's does calculations for us like 0 not equaling 1 but He forgets that God makes up 1. Therefore God starts us at 1 and then He creates equaling 2 which is viable, 1+1=2.

We can not logically know that the universe has always existed without actual proof. Since we do not have actual proof that the universe is eternal then we wont discuss non-factual discourses. We should not take this debate into making non-fact based assertions. If an assertion is made then facts should support it.



We can never determine that an omnibelovant and omniscience being cannot exist without proper evidence to determine so. It is reasonable to assume that this being would not create evil beings but it does not show any reasons why He couldn't. There is also no evidence that God created evil people. There are no reasons why God is malevolent for allowing evil. Furthermore evil is subjective and not conclusive so we can make no determination on evil without proper definitions or examples.



My opponent has not shown any real solid evidence that a God could not exist. My opponent has failed to show that omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibelovent are impossible.

I send it back over to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 2
narmak

Pro

It seems my opponent misunderstood or is attempting to use tricks in order to sway the vote. Con posts the definition for omnipotent but only goes by the 2nd example given which is exactly the same meaning as the 1st definition just worded differently.

om"nip"o"tent
[om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2.
having very great or unlimited authority or power. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The two definitions i gave are the same as the ones given above just worded differently as to make it easier to understand. There are two so that we can discuss what power is the 2nd one below is used becuase some say the ability to create a square circle is not a matter of power as the shape itself is impossible to create and therefore should not count as a valid argument against gods power. Now the 1st definition is used because people say logic does not affect god and he can indeed create a square circles.

1. The ability to do anything even the logically absurd
2. the ability to do anything as long a it is logical

And as proven by my 1st round both of these definitions fail and as such makes it impossible for an omnipotent(all powerful) entity to exist.

***CON says **** . My opponent also made the assumption that God would create a more powerful being then Himself. I ask what makes that fact?*****

It would appear con misunderstood again i did not state that god would create a being more powerful than himself. This was to prove that and omnipotent being by the 1st definition given could not exist. I stated that if god could do even the logically absurd than he would be capabe of creating a being that was more powerful than himself and since it is possibleto be more powerful then god then god is not omnipotent as he is not all powerful if there is a level higher than god. (Remember that being able to do even the logically absurd means god would be able to create a being that surpasses infinite power as the idea of passing infinite is illogical but logic does not affect god in this definition )

*****con says**** My opponent also seems to imply that in this supernatural scenario that God could not move physical things without Him also being physical. God does not need to be physical to have logic or to move physical things even in a world made up of matter. Even if God is made up fully of matter then that still does not make Him unable to exist. ****

Again con does not seem to understand My point on god not being able to move objects was to prove the 2nd definition also fails. We know and can that in order to move somthng in the universe we need matter and energy. Ek=1/2mv^2 is the equation for kinetic energy. If m=0 there is no velocity and if ek=0 again there is n velocity and as such no motion at all. NOW if god goes by this 2nd definition he MUST be made up of matter or energy to move an object and since he would have to be made up of matter or energy he would have limits based on the matter and energy he is made up of and therefore could not be omnitpotent(infinite power) (If god lacks the power to move somthing he is again not omnipotent)

****Con says****My opponent seems confident in concluding that matter, time, space, the universe and energy are all eternal but that's just speculative thought. My opponent then finds no viable evidence that God could exist when the religious say all that we see everyday shows God's existence. Pointing too that there could be numerous proofs for God's existence and we ignore them. Then my opponent's does calculations for us like 0 not equaling 1 but He forgets that God makes up 1. Therefore God starts us at 1 and then He creates equaling 2 which is viable, 1+1=2.****

I provided clear cut logic to explain how the universe could possibly have always existed. Somthing cannot come from nothing as such somthing must have always existed. (MOST BASIC MEANING 0 does not equal 1)

We know that matter and energy exist. We also know due to the first law of thermodynamics that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore since it cannot be created from nothing we can say logically that both matter and energy have always existed. We know both matter and energy exist withing space and time and as such space and time have always existed. The universe is made up of matter,energy,space and time therfore the universe has always existed.

**** con says **** We can never determine that an omnibelovant and omniscience being cannot exist without proper evidence to determine so. It is reasonable to assume that this being would not create evil beings but it does not show any reasons why He couldn't. There is also no evidence that God created evil people****

I Have used logic as evidence that an omnibelevolent and omniscience being cannot exist. An omnibelovlent being meaning perfect goodness would not create a man if he knew 100% that the man would commit evil acts If he did he would not be perfectly good as he would have wished for that man to do the evil things. Since god is supposed to be omniscience(All knowing) and omnibelovolent (perfectly good) then evil cannot exist as he would not create those who would commit the evil acts . Evil does exist and as such it is impossible for an omniscience,omnipotent,omnibelevolent being to exist. Con also says that there is no evidence to say god created evil people but god is said to have created everyone and even then if he is not responsible for creating the evil people As an omnibelovlent,omniscience being he would know when the evil acts would be commited and how but does nothing to stop them. If god allows evil to exist and does nothing to stop it then he is wishing the evil things be done and cannot be omnibelovolent.

I Have proven through logic that an omnipotent being cannot exist. I have proven through logic that An omnipotent.omnibelovolent,omniscience being cannot exist in universe with evil as the being would have the knowledge of the coming evil the power to prevent it and be obligated to stop it as a perfectly good being could not allow evil to exist.

Another look at omnibelevolent through noahs ark god sends a flood to wipe out the population of the earth and we know killing to be evil making god evil for killing and not omnibelovolent
Pennington

Con

Thank you to my opponent for his last round. I appreciate the clarification he gave us about his argument.

*Definitions

My opponent never gave us any reference for the definition of omnipotent that was supplied by him. I find it irregular to create a definition from your own words to use in a debate format. More proper procedure is to supply a well known definition and source. So, I then offered a reliable source and definition for us to go by. My opponent then seemed to have a problem with my definition because I chose the second definition given instead of the first from my source. I agree with both definitions on Merriam's and hope this settles any definition concern for this debate.

*Definition use

My opponent admits to using his own prescribed definition. He claims that it is easier to understand but I think that a documented definition is satisfactory.

My opponent would be correct to determine that God can do all things with matter, time and energy that is impossible to humans under the understanding of our definition of omnipotent.

Under these definitions God created the use of circles and squares and therefore can use them any way He likes. Logic would therefore come from God and could also be changed or be improved by God.

*Argument

My opponent seems to give the acceptance of his definitions and also the dictionaries while also showing how God, who created time, space and matter, must also be contained inside those concepts. I suggest that God does not have to be contained inside what He has created. If space and matter were created by God then He would still exist even if they exist or not showing that He is outside those concepts. My opponent must show how these are impossibilities to God who is defined as creator and all-powerful.

It is illogical to even think that an all-powerful God would create a God more powerful than Himself. Obviously that would diminish His own power and He would not be as He claims to be, all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal. It does not mean He can not create eternal beings as himself who are also all-powerful and knowing. My opponent must further explain why it is impossible for God to be able to create a more powerful being than Himself but just hasn't.

My opponent never shows why God can not move things that He created. Considering that God made matter, He could be made up of it, He could be partly made up of it or He could be outside matter itself and be able to use it and become it at will. My opponents case fails because of the lack of arguing for why God is contained at all by creation. God could enter creation at anytime so it will do His will and also be outside of creation and make it do as His will. God is not bound by scientific and physical limitations.

I do not argue against my opponents claim that something always existed because I believe it has. He has a harder time actually showing that the universe has always existed. Most scientist believe only particles of the universe existed and the Big-Bang started what we know today. My opponent must show by facts why space, time, matter and energy have always existed and eternal.

I offer two logical arguments for the existence of God that my opponent can address.

A1*Moral Argument

M1) If god does not exist, then objective morals values do not exist.

M2) Objective moral values exist.

MC) God exists.

A2*Ontological Argument

O1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

O2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

O3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

O4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

O5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

OC: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

*Assertions

My opponent never gives us a reason as to why God is required to stay within our logic. He never gives any proof other than assertions as to why God is bound by His creations. My opponent can not assume that his logic is clear to everyone else. He must show with evidence and scientific terms that God does not exist. I have not seen any logic in any claim by my opponent that is supported by facts. If it is supported then he has not shown that support here.

*No Sources

In a debate of this magnitude my opponent must supply scientific evidence to support his logic. He tells us that he has supplied us with clear logic but hasn't given us any scientific support of this logic. I urge my opponent to deliver the evidence needed for us to take his logic seriously. He must show how God can not alter physical laws and logic.

Debate Round No. 3
narmak

Pro

narmak forfeited this round.
Pennington

Con

Rules:

In my opponents opening round he gives us the rule that if one round is forfeited then you automatically lose. My opponent could not hold up to his own rules therefore he should lose.

Argument:

My opponent gave us a flawed argument to begin with. He offered us a bogus definition to go by. He also based his entire argument solely from his own logic. This is not a hindrance normally because every argument starts from our logic but it should come with evidence o some kind of support. My opponent offered us no support. I offered two logical arguments in my last round that have been used for centuries.

Voting:

I offer my opponent the chance of responding in his last round to save himself and this debate. If my opponent offers a grand last round then I think that should count towards votes.

----

Until my opponent responds and gives us an explanation then all points should be awarded to myself. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
narmak

Pro

narmak forfeited this round.
Pennington

Con

My opponent forfeited two rounds, so on those grounds he should lose all points. He never gave us satisfactory reason for his resolution and because of these reasons he should lose.


Vote Con


Thanks!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lizard 3 years ago
Lizard
narmakPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
narmakPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
narmakPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FFs.