The Instigator
lord_megatron
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ContraDictator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God doesn't 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 1 vote the winner is...
lord_megatron
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 92395
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

lord_megatron

Con

God exists as the universe exist. Forfeit counts as automatic loss.
God-The creator and overseer of the universe
ContraDictator

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Con

1.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.
Source- https://www.google.co.in...
exist- live, especially under adverse conditions
https://www.google.co.in...
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.
Cosmological argument-
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.
Teleological Argument
P1: If the universe is finely tuned, then an ordering intellect exists.
P2: The universe is finely tuned.
C: An ordering intellect exists
Summary==
(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.

Source-http://www.debate.org...
ContraDictator

Pro

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: a benevolent figure of legend, associated with Saint Nicholas, supposedto bring gifts to children on Christmas Eve.
http://www.dictionary.com...

Tooth Fairy: a fairy believed by children to leave money while they sleep in exchange for a tooth that has come out.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

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.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org...

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.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

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.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Con

You want to do this??? Bring it on!!!
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.
ContraDictator

Pro

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.

Checkmate.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ContraDictator 5 months ago
ContraDictator
I reported the other vote, not wylted's lol
Posted by lord_megatron 5 months ago
lord_megatron
who is reporting all the votes on random?
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Wylted// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). 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

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly analyzes some points and tactics used by both sides in the debate and explains how they influenced the outcome.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
I haven't argued anything.
Posted by lord_megatron 5 months ago
lord_megatron
Whiteflame also argues that the universe doesn't exist
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ockham// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con argued for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe, Pro argued that Con has not established that the universe exists and said only this debate exists, Con gave a definition and argued that it is obvious that the universe exists, Pro argued that we also have definitions for Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc., Con gave an argument inferring the existence of the universe from this debate. Pro did not respond to this last argument and instead introduced a new argument in the final round when Con could not respond to it, so the points for convincing arguments go to Con.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters in the debate. In this case, the voter mentions several points made by both debaters, but only assesses a general argument made by Con and a lack of response from Pro. That is insufficient. If the voter wishes to mention all of these arguments, then it's worth his time to take the next step and examine them.
************************************************************************
Posted by lord_megatron 6 months ago
lord_megatron
Contradictator next debate "the universe exists"
Posted by Ockham 6 months ago
Ockham
Challenging the inference from the universe to God is a strong objection, but asking for proof that the universe exists comes off as a bit silly.
Posted by swayamprakash 6 months ago
swayamprakash
Its to be a most atheistic debate forever in this debating world
Posted by lord_megatron 6 months ago
lord_megatron
HAHAHAH I am playing Devil's advocate for God....get the joke?..No? Alright..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 6 months ago
Wylted
lord_megatronContraDictatorTied
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:30 
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