God doesn't exist
Debate Rounds (3)
God-The creator and overseer of the universe
Con has to prove that not only does the universe exist, which I am challening him/her on, but that it existing proves that God exists.
I say that nothing exists other than this debate, the platform on which we are debating (Debate.Org) and any other entities or variables involved with this.
exist- live, especially under adverse conditions
Come on, we both know the universe exists. The definition itself says it is all that exists.
The universe exists as God is the creator of the universe. If you say Big Bang created the universe, then the Big Bang was God. God doesn't necessarily have to be a person, our feeble minds are incapable of understanding him. God oversees all forms of creation, and he doesn't intervene as we are nothing but an experiment to him.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe begins to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
P3: There was no time, space, change, materiality or anything abstract prior to the universe.
P4: Hence, this cause must be without time, space, change, and materiality.
C2: Such a cause is God, who exists.
P1: If the universe is finely tuned, then an ordering intellect exists.
P2: The universe is finely tuned.
C: An ordering intellect exists
(1) God exists as he is the one and only Creator.
(2) Universe building requires an intelligent and powerful being, and that being is God.
I know that the word universe exists and that many dictionaries supply varying definitions of it but the same goes for Santa, tooth fairy and ghosts:
Santa Claus/Klaus: Tooth Fairy: a fairy believed by children to leave money while they sleep in exchange for a tooth that has come out.
Ghost: the spirit of a dead person, sometimes representedas a pale, almost transparent image of that person that some people believe appears to people who are alive.
Unless you are suggesting that the existence of a word in the dictionary proves that it exists in any physical, real sense, you have proven absolutely nothing. If you do suggest this then since the word 'nothing' is in the dictionary, nothing exists.
Nothing: Not anything; no single thing.
It's a word in a the dictionary, so therefore it exists. Nothing exists, you agree to that along your own logic... Checkmate?
Since the universe is yet to be proven to exist by Pro, P2 is still considered false by me and the audience as Pro holds burden of proof here and the entire cosmological argument fails as the very universe it requires to exist in order to be true doesn't exist.
universe- all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.
All existing matter is the universe.
"I say that nothing exists other than this debate, the platform on which we are debating (Debate.Org) and any other entities or variables involved with this."
Fine then the Earth and the Sun exist as it is required for us to live. You and I exist. Same goes for water, food, internet connection, laptops/mobiles. The laptops/mobiles manufacturers exist. Their workers exists. Our parents exist. Power plants exist. Their workers exist. Wire/cable manufacturers and their workers exist. Architects exist for these buildings to be constructed. Bricks, mud and metal exist. Building manufacturers and their workers exist. All of them need money, so the government and the money-printing office exist. Our sources exist. Their authors exist. We require food to live, so farmers and plants exist. Farmers live far away from us, so food transporters and shopkeepers exist. Shopkeeper needs plastic bags, so plastic manufacturers exist. Plastic manufacturers need chemicals, so scientists exist. Scientists need glass, so sand and glass manufacturers exist. Internet exists, so data exists. For data to exist, software developers exist. For software developers, coffee (ask any pro-dev) exists.
I could go on and include far too many fields than needed for this debate.
Pro has turned this into a troll debate, please vote for Con.
Con's case requires the universe to exist.
The only proof Con has for the universe existing is that it's a word in the dictionary. 'Nothing' is a word in the dictionary too so nothing exists.
If nothing exists, God cannot exist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I don't like that the instigator chose the con position. It seems stupid in this circumstance. In round one con defines the universe as everything in existence. Then goes on to give the fine tuning argument and the Kalam cosmological argument. The arguments were not set up well. The premises needed to be expanded on instead of just plainly stated and he needed to show how that the conclusion is somehow relevant to the premises. Con explain your premises better in the future, that lazyness will usually lose you the debate. Unfortunately pro never challebges the arguments premises except for to make some sort of solipsism argument. Solipsism may be enough to disprove the KCA and fine tuning argument, but the default belief system is materialism. If judges are going to buy brain in the vat arguments, pro needs to explain why that should be the default belief system or he needs to set up the argument better. Con's contentions had no explanation of the premises, but pro had no premises
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.