The Instigator
JustinKalaveras
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

God exist because everything needs an intelligent designer (Creator)

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 6 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 56187
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

JustinKalaveras

Pro

Tvs, Cars, Computers, Phones, etc all needed an intelligent creator (humans). Something so complex as life, cannot be created just from cells. Cells are the building blocks not the creator. We as humans create things, and God himself created us. Everything has a creator. It would make no sense for there not to be an all powerful creator.
KhalifV

Con

If one says that intelligence can only come from prior intelligence, then "god" must have came from something. It is absurd that one could argue that a TV needs an intelligent creator, but the most intelligent being conceivable does not. This view is incoherent. And my opponent furthermore asserts god created us, can he demonstrate such a being exists? This is a prerequisite, because a being that doesn't exist can't create anything. He's kind of putting the cart before the horse. The argument also assumes that design is an apparent trait that every one would derive from a complex object. Its pretty much the watch maker argument. If there's a watch, someone who knows what a watch is would infer design, but one with no concept of a watch, would most likely conclude that the watch is naturally there. How could it be that the earth was designed for life, but life has to adapt to it, or die? Finally, how can a being exist outside of space time? Given that space and time came into existence when the universe did, and a being created the universe, that being would have to exist before space and time, but this is not even a comprehensible notion. If something exists in no physical space, it isn't a real thing. It can be an abstract concept, but an abstract concept can't design anything. In regards to time, a being that exists for no unit of time, doesn't have any existence, in regards to the common usage of the word.
In conclusion: 1.I would like my opponent to demonstrate that a god exists, before he asserts a god created everything.
2. Explain how a the earth can be designed for life, yet life has to adapt to it.
3. How a being can exist outside of space and time.
Debate Round No. 1
JustinKalaveras

Pro

1. God is not necessarily out of space and time.
2. Souls are a source of energy, and God is a soul (in a way), he is the most powerful source of energy there is.
3. If God needs a creator then so does the Universe, and the cells, and everything else. How i look at it is God is the most powerful soul there is, before there was anything there was energy and that energy is God. Everything can not create its self, everything needs a creator, except for God.
4. Life has to adapt to our planet because it is constantly changing. Especially with how humans are treating it. The planet is young it is still changing and so will life.

If there is no God, then we do not make sense

So in the begging there was nothing? Then it exploded?

Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn"t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes"such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind"that does not mean it doesn"t exist?

Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

Of the two possible kinds of agnostic, which kind are you: 1) Strong agnostic who says we can"t know anything for sure? or 2) Weak agnostic who says we don"t know anything for sure (but we could if we had enough evidence)?

If you are the strong kind, then how do you know for sure that you can"t know anything for sure?

If you are the weak kind of agnostic, then is it not possible that we could know for sure that God exists (if we had enough evidence)?

Do you agree that an open-minded person should be willing to look at all the evidence? If so, then are you willing to look at the evidence for God"s existence?
KhalifV

Con

KhalifV forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Also there was not even a reason to respond, he didn't really address my points. The argument still stands.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Sorry, I actually fell asleep. I would like to debate again tonight. Pro's arguments are weak and have been refuted thousands of times by philosophers and scientists.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
It is standard policy to award conduct for the forfeit, Empiren.

There are a myriad of ways to respond WITHOUT forfeiting. Forfeiting isn't even a refusal to participate, it's an abandonment of the round. Some might have counted it as a concession due to the forfeit.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
I do not agree with bladrunners vote for conduct.

Not only did Pro commit an overwhelming amount of rhetorical questions, he went low enough to try and make Con try to explain the meaning of life.
"If there is no God, then we do not make sense".

I believe the forfeit shows better conduct than for him to respond since Pro completely ignored Con's arguments altogether.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
JustinKalaverasKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not commit a convincing argument
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
JustinKalaverasKhalifVTied
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 presents us with a set of arguments that read like Fallacy Soup, a misconception of Paley's "Watchmaker" Fallacy, which Con confidently debunked in Con's only statement, which also covered the argument in Pro's second statement concerning universe from nothing which is a fallacious concept.
Vote Placed by MetalheadWolfman 2 years ago
MetalheadWolfman
JustinKalaverasKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Observation and examination.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
JustinKalaverasKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con wins on infinite regress.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
JustinKalaverasKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, so conduct goes to Pro. Although Con did not reply to Pro's questions in Round 2, Pro's arguments are so weak that I can not give him the "convincing argmuents" part, especially considering that Con's Round 1 adequately refutes Pro's arguments in Round 2.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
JustinKalaverasKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. But for arguments, Pro never sufficiently responded to the infinite regress problem of "everything" needing an intelligent designer. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.