The Instigator
Cold-Mind
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CordialCongressman
Con (against)
Winning
15 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...
CordialCongressman
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 695 times Debate No: 58943
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

Cold-Mind

Pro

Put your definition/description of god in the comments, and I will change the debate so you can accept it.
When we start a debate only statements about god you listed in the comments will be accepted as true description of god. Any statement about god you add up later will be rejected as probably false.

Round 1 is acceptance only. BoP is on Pro.

Voting rules:
- Forfeit in Round 2 means loss.
CordialCongressman

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. For the purpose of this debate, as stated in the comments, god will be defined as "The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator and ruler of the universe"
Debate Round No. 1
Cold-Mind

Pro

1. To be omnipotent means to have power to control everything. That means nothing else has power to control anything.
For example: If person1 has power to jump, and person1 wants to jump, and god doesn't want person1 to jump, then god has no power to control everything.
Lets suppose, god has neither decided for person1 to jump or not to jump, which means (because he designed humans) that he put human's "jump property" at random. In this case, person1 may believe that he has free will, but his behavior is objectively random.
To say nothing except god has power to control something, is equivalent of saying nothing has power, but all things happen by some law on nature, which is unavoidable.

2. Omniscient means to know everything. If something does not have brain, it can not know. If something has brain it can know. Therefore god has brain. Brain has size. Two things can not be present at exact same coordinates, if one is not part of the other one. For example, two cats can not exist in same coordinates, but leg of a cat (which is part of the cat) can exist in same coordinates as cat.
To be omnipresent means to be present in every single coordinate. Since everything is part of the universe, it is only possible for universe to exist in every single coordinate. Therefore god is universe. Universe has no brain, therefore god is not omniscient.

3. In imaginary universe that has no matter, presuming space and time exist there and presuming space and time do not exist gives exact same result. Matter can not be created or destroyed. It can only change its form. If matter wasn't created and time and space only exist where the matter exists, universe was not created, but always was existing.
CordialCongressman

Con

Contention 1: God, as stated in the definition used for the purpose of this debate, is the "creator and ruler of the universe". If god created the universe, then the universe did not exist before he did, and neither did the scientific laws which govern it. Therefore, god must have created what we know as the laws of physics.
It can therefore be said that god, if he wished to, could defy these laws. If god is powerful enough to create the universe and it's rules, then he is also powerful enough to change them at will, making him omnipotent, or all-powerful.

Contention 2: As god is omnipotent, he can defy the laws which he has created. God can, therefore, exist even in space which is occupied by other matter. God therefore has the power to be omnipresent, meaning everywhere at once. If god can be everywhere at once, than he can be aware of everything, making him omniscient. God, having existed before the universe (and thus matter), also must be able to exist nowhere at all.

Contention 3: It is impossible for my opponent to prove that god does not exist. An omnipotent being, by it's very definition, is all powerful. What if it chose to not reveal itself, as a test of our faith? It wouldn't even have to, really. Much of space, even much of our own oceans, is still uncharted and unexplored. For all we know, god is sitting right past the range of our telescopes, and it is impossible for my opponent to prove otherwise.
Debate Round No. 2
Cold-Mind

Pro

C1: It is impossible for god to create what we know as laws of physics if statements above are true, because what we know as laws of physics is god's will. It is logically impossible to create your own will.

C2: god is everywhere = god is nowhere
For example, each quark has its own hrb56. But there is no way to prove it or disprove it, because there is no quark that doesn't have hrb56. We know each quark has hrb56, but when we list properties of each particular quark, we do bother writing it has hrb56, because that does not differ him from any other quark.

My opponent's contention 3 is not relevant to my argument 3. I will reword it.
It is impossible for matter to be created or destroyed, it can only change its form ---> matter is not created
Universe is of matter ---> universe is not created ---> universe does not have a creator. ---> God is not creator of the universe.
CordialCongressman

Con

Contention 1: Matter can be created and destroyed - my opponent is confusing matter with energy. Most mainstream scientists believe the universe began with the big bang. This is how god created the universe.

Contention 2: Since god existed before the universe (and thus matter), he does not have to occupy space or have a brain, as my opponent claims he ought to. Being the creator of the universe and it's laws, he is powerful enough to be everywhere at once.

Contention 3: As god can choose to exist everywhere or nowhere at all, it is impossible for my opponent, who has the burden of proof, to prove god does not exist.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
I just have to respond to Con's last round. Most scientists DO NOT believe that the universe began at the Big Bang. They believe that the universe AS WE KNOW IT began then, and that we are not currently able to know what was there before that point.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
@ArcTimes That is exactly what I planned. But I knew chances are I will loose when I was hosting this, as burden of proof is hard here. It will still be fun though.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
"I'm an antitheist, but you cannot prove that a god does not exist." Yeah because of the definition.
But here, Pro is asking for a definition to Con. So he will show problems with the definition. If the definition doesn't make sense, or has logic problems, he will argue that a being with those definition can't exist.
Posted by CordialCongressman 2 years ago
CordialCongressman
You say religion of all forms is evil. What about Buddhism, which preaches peace and humility? Or Sikhism, which preaches that everyone is equal under god, regardless of their faith, race or gender? What about the charity work promoted by these organizations?

Religion can be abused, yes. But it can also compel people to be kind and charitable to others. Also, not all religious people are against evolution: I, though Christian, believe the theory of evolution is correct. Many modern theists believe the universe was created by the big bang and evolution did occur, but that they happened at the behest of a higher power.

I really don't want to start an argument, and I respect your opinions, but if you're looking to start a flame war by making these kind of generalizations, please do this elsewhere.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
I'm an antitheist, but you cannot prove that a god does not exist. That being said, no one can prove that a god does exist. What we can prove is that religion is man-made, that the sole purpose of organized religion is power, and that religion of all forms is evil. We can also scientifically prove why life exists and we are getting closer everyday to explaining the origin of the universe.
Posted by CordialCongressman 2 years ago
CordialCongressman
I'm removing the Supreme being part from my definition, making the definition of god:

The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator and ruler of the universe.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
I propose definition of being - living thing
life - capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. (source:google)
If you don't like these, you can either propose different definitions or change description of god.
If you do, just say so, and we shall start the debate.
Posted by CordialCongressman 2 years ago
CordialCongressman
Then what definition for being do you propose?
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
No. Definition of entity: Something that exists in itself.
If god exists in itself by definition, than I can't really argue that he doesn't exist, can I?
Obviously, this definition is not acceptable.
Posted by CordialCongressman 2 years ago
CordialCongressman
Being: living entity
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Cold-MindCordialCongressmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro couldn't manage to uphold the resolution
Vote Placed by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
Cold-MindCordialCongressmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't fulfill BOP since he can't prove or disprove the exsistence of I AM.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Cold-MindCordialCongressmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Superior rebuttals. Pro, free will is irrelevant, the brain is not the sole way to process information (look at your computer if you don't believe me) and is irrelevant, and C3 is jibberish).
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
Cold-MindCordialCongressmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: An interesting debate. Con wins because Pro took on a near-insurmountable bop.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
Cold-MindCordialCongressmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really didn't fulfill BOP, he even states in his case "there is no way to prove it or disprove it," when he compares quarks to the debate, but his job is to prove it, neg doesn't have to disprove it, thus aff doesn't fulfill requirements to win debate.