The Instigator
republicantown
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ThreePointOneFour
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God exists and is a real being

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 46117
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

republicantown

Pro

Con goes first with arguments.

He will not go in last round since he goes first.

God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
ThreePointOneFour

Con

I accept.
Thank you for starting this debate and I look forward to an interesting exchange of ideas. This is my first debate so we'll see how it goes.
Since Pro has stated I go first I'll need to make sure we agree on the god we are debating.

For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism.
The burden of proof lies with the pro since he has made the claim, however I share a burden of proof to show flaws (if any) in the propositions put forth by Pro
Debate Round No. 1
republicantown

Pro

republicantown forfeited this round.
ThreePointOneFour

Con

Pro did not respond in the first round. He is in another debate similarly named so I"m not sure what is going on or whether he intends to respond. Meanwhile since this is my first time debating I am going to proceed and see if he defends his claim. I sincerely apologize if I was expected to add more on round one, but since it was unclear what we were debating it was pointless to proceed without first deciding what to debate.
Pro"God exists and he is a real being.

When pro offered to debate the God exists and he is a real being , he essentially shoulders the burden to provide the evidence and reasoning his claim is true. A coherent correspondence between that which I believe and facts of reality is the object or "truth" I pursue. Truth is that which corresponds to fact or reality.

The concept of "god" is paradoxical and illogical.

"If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent"

Richard Dawkins.

This is a great example of the inconsistency of the primary identifying characteristics of god and logically demonstrates this cannot be the truth.

Pro claimed; "God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."

The claims that this god is a creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority are all bare assumptions that lack evidence and proof. Pro must back up this claim to win this debate.
These are the claims that anyone could make for their dignified alien, imaginary beast or mythical being. And since claims like these bear no likeness to reality or fact one in justified to defer acceptance until there is reason or evidence.
Debate Round No. 2
republicantown

Pro

Sorry for forfeit.

Self reflection

By self reflection you can come to the conclusion not only does God exist but hes a real being. We know evil is real. My opponent said so. We do bad things. Yes its true there is not one that does good. we have all had evil moments and thought bad thoughts stole something lied ect. Its human nature. But it only takes one lie to make you a lair. We would all be highly immoral the soceity would be an evil ruthless society without some counter balance. The counterbalance cant come from the world because this world is corrupted. It must come from a highly moral world from a moral being into this world. There must have been a perfect man to do away with our evils. This man cant have been all man because man is corrupt. It must be a man not of this universe that is perfectly moral. This being is clearly God. Not only God, but Jesus.

Self reflection of the mind

Consider mind. Its a tough subject. We exist. Because we think. Our minds must exist. Alvin Plantenga said if whats true for my mind is true for my body then we should be able to doubt the mind. We can dobut the body but not the mind. The mind is not of the body but the mind began. From an atheistic perective its impossible. How did the mind itself begin and become correlated with the body? God must have been in play. It debunks materialism and disproves atheism. It mean the mind can't become into being by natural processes. It must be caused by a conscious being. Otherwise we would know about many useless immaterial things

Con arguments debunked and refuted

"If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent"

Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is known to be unphilosophical. God is omnipotent in the sense that he all powerful within logical laws. He can't be himself and not himself, he can't out power himself. He can't change himself. Con argument makes an unphilosophical assumption of the definition.

that's all.
ThreePointOneFour

Con

By self reflection you can come to the conclusion not only does God exist but hes a real being. We know evil is real. My opponent said so.

I’m wondering how Pro came to believe that I know “evil is real”. Was this bit of knowledge acquired while you were, “self reflecting”? I have never stated that evil is real. As a matter of fact I don’t believe there is such a “thing” as evil.
Self reflection confirms nor proves anything about a gods existence or his celestial dictatorship. Facts, truth and epistemological evidence are what one needs to prevail in this debate.


God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.


I think Pro is largely operating on the argument from personal experience for much of his claims. However the problem with arguing from ones personal experience is that it's personal. Whatever you feel is not something that anyone else can feel. Therefore it is meaningless and inconclusive. I can find somebody who thinks he saw Elvis in Hardees last week. That doesn't mean Elvis is alive. It means he was deluded. Any claim that cannot be tested or subjected to some sort of independent verification is not a meaningful, legitimate claim. People claim to feel the presence of god, but this can also be explained rationally from a psychological perspective via various concepts such as the power of suggestion, lucid dreaming, hallucinations, mental disorders, etc. Most importantly, personal "feelings" are not evidential.



We do bad things. Yes its true there is not one that does good. we have all had evil moments and thought bad thoughts stole something lied ect. Its human nature.
But it only takes one lie to make you a lair. We would all be highly immoral the soceity would be an evil ruthless society without some counter balance. The counterbalance cant come from the world because this world is corrupted. It must come from a highly moral world from a moral being into this world.
There must have been a perfect man to do away with our evils. This man cant have been all man because man is corrupt. It must be a man not of this universe that is perfectly moral. This being is clearly God. Not only God, but Jesus.



Pro is desperately trying to make an appeal to divine objective morality. There are serious problems for the theist who stores up his treasures in this argument. Divinely commanded morals are a huge problem for the religious to justify. I challenge Pro to solve Euthyphro’s Dilemma and preserve the idea god is not arbitrary.

Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?

Euthyphro: Certainly.

Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?

Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.

Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?



If rightness just is what is commanded by God, then whatever God commands is right. If God chose to command murder it would be right. It is because of the nature of acts of murder in relation to their circumstances that they are wrong. What a divine command explanation of the wrongness of murder threatens to do is to cut the wrongness of murder off from its basis in the nature of murder. Therefore it is a bad explanation and this form of moral argument cannot succeed.




Self reflection of the mind

Consider mind. Its a tough subject. We exist. Because we think. Our minds must exist. Alvin Plantenga said if whats true for my mind is true for my body then we should be able to doubt the mind. We can dobut the body but not the mind. The mind is not of the body but the mind began. From an atheistic perective its impossible. How did the mind itself begin and become correlated with the body? God must have been in play. It debunks materialism and disproves atheism. It mean the mind can't become into being by natural processes. It must be caused by a conscious being. Otherwise we would know about many useless immaterial things

Pro appears to build a case for dualism. Actually, according to John Searl, the mind–body problem is a false dichotomy; that is, mind is a perfectly ordinary aspect of the brain.

Con arguments debunked and refuted

"If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent"

Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is known to be unphilosophical. God is omnipotent in the sense that he all powerful within logical laws. He can't be himself and not himself, he can't out power himself. He can't change himself. Con argument makes an unphilosophical assumption of the definition


Pro begins his counter argument with an Ad Hominem fallacy which is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Then he limits god to logical laws. If god commands objective morality then surely he can create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it. For example, if I were to invent an imaginary god then my god already is way more creative and powerful than your imaginary one. My god is so omnipotent that she could make a very heavy rock, then make herself just weak enough so that she would not be able to lift it. Problem solved!




References:

Churchland, P.S. & Sejnowski, T.J. (1992). The Computational Brain
Descartes, R. (2008). Meditations on First Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com...
Debate Round No. 3
republicantown

Pro

Yes, i didn mean to say you said evil existed. I copied that from another post. Evil does exist. You cant deny. Children die. Harm is done.

Con say my argument is based on personal experience. What was he reading? Nothing I said had nothing to do with personal experience.

Euthyphro's dilemma is flaw. God IS good. It is not seperate and apart from god it is with god a part of him! When you talk about the good, you are talking about a nature of God. The dilemma fails.

"Pro appears to build a case for dualism. Actually, according to John Searl, the mind"body problem is a false dichotomy; that is, mind is a perfectly ordinary aspect of the brain. "

This can't be. Con fails to get the argument. Mind can't be perfectly aspect of the brain because i can doubt the brain. It cant be any aspect of the brain at all. I win on this 1.

" If god commands objective morality then surely he can create a rock so heavy he can"t lift it."

This doesn't follow at all.

"For example, if I were to invent an imaginary god then my god already is way more creative and powerful than your imaginary one"

WRONG. It isn't as powerful, it is a contradictory god and an impossible one. But one limit by logic is perfectly coherent. Con is arguing against differenrt god. Not the god in the debate.

Ad Hominem is only commited when I don't address the argument. I did address argument so it not an Ad Hominem.

Vote me
ThreePointOneFour

Con

I would like to thank Pro for bringing up this important debate and giving me a little to think about.
According to the rules of this debate I will not be able to respond to any of Pros arguments posted in this round. The burden of proof was on Pro to demonstrate his claims and mine was to refute all or any that I could.
Please read the debate and add your comments as I would like to hear some opinion on my counter arguments. If you think I responded to pros claims and properly supported my reasoning then Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ThreePointOneFour 2 years ago
ThreePointOneFour
republicantown where are you?
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
A very common topic...
Posted by ThreePointOneFour 2 years ago
ThreePointOneFour
Wafic, by definition a being is a real or imaginary living creature or entity. Pro will have to show this being as one has a non contradictory identity.
Posted by Wafic 2 years ago
Wafic
Just i wanted ti fix your statement: God is not a being, because a being is more like a creature, but he is The One True God, great topic btw :D
No votes have been placed for this debate.