The Instigator
JonathanCrane
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points
The Contender
10551901
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God exists.

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 7 votes the winner is...
JonathanCrane
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 745 times Debate No: 34855
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

JonathanCrane

Con

Ave.

Topic: God exists.
Position: Con/Against
Category: Science
Rounds: 4
Voting Period: 2 Weeks
Time to Argue: 24 hours
Argument Max: 6,000 Characters
Vote Comments: Yes

I am taking the Con position. It is my burden to show that god does not exist. It is the burden of Pro to show that god does exist. The winner of the argument will be the side that demonstrates their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if 51% of the evidence favors one side, that side should win arguments.

There are four rounds in this debate. The first round is for acceptance of the rules and framework. I will present my opening statement in the subsequent round, and the next rounds will be devoted to rebuttals.

The voting period will be two weeks.

Each side will have twenty-four hours to post each round. The maximum number of characters is six thousand.

Using pictures in order to demonstrate concepts is allowed. General expectations of conduct should be followed.

God is defined as the cause of the initial state of the universe.

The initial state is defined as the cosmological singularity.

The cosmological singularity is defined as a state of T=0 where all of the laws of, space, time, and nature break down.

Vale.
10551901

Pro

I'm here because I think God is alive and he is right now in heaven watching over us. And there's proof! Many testimonies have been told where the person has seen Jesus and God (not their face, though). And miracles have happened (like a child who had a comma, but when her church prayed for her, she awoke). And I just want to say one thing, I don't care who votes for me or not! I'm just happy in what I believe in! And more proof:
After becoming a Christian, I was never the same again!
Debate Round No. 1
JonathanCrane

Con

Ave.

Sadly, Pro has broken the rules of the debate that I stipulated in the first round. I stated that the first round of the debate was for acceptance, and arguments would take place in round two. Every argument Pro gave in the last round is impermissible. I ask Pro to give her arguments during the appropriate round.

I would like to state, in clear terms, what I will be arguing for in this debate. I believe that cosmology demonstrates that there was no initial state of the universe, or a singularity. God is defined as the cause of the initial state. If there was in fact no initial state or singularity, then god cannot exist, because an attribute of god cannot be actualized. This will be called the 'No Initial State' argument, and the premises go like this.

1: Cosmology demonstrates that there is no cosmological singularity.
2: An attribute of god is that god caused the cosmological singularity.
3: From one and two, god has an attribute that is impossible.
4: God does not exist.

[Support for P1]

The theory of relativity is one of the most proven theories in all of science. There are many proofs of general relativity, some complex and some simple, so I will show that relativity is true using one of the simpler arguments. For many centuries, it was noted that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different from what Newton's equations would predict. Instead of orbiting in a perfect ellipse like other plants, the orbit of Mercury precesses (which means it does not return to the same point after one orbit, but shifts slightly). When Einstein calculated the orbit of Mercury using the equations of general relativity, it predicted the orbit of Mercury with perfect accuracy. This is a strong indication that the theory of relativity is true.

So, what implications does the theory of relativity have on the first premise? Well, there are equations derived from the theory of relativity called the 'Freedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker' metric. This metric describes a universe that is homogeneous, isotrophic, and expanding universe. The models of the universe that are based on this metric have no initial state. [2] There is not some state X that god can cause. Because general relativity is true, FLRW metrics are true, and therefore there is no initial state.

The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem posits a singularity that the universe came from. However, Hawking and Penrose have withdrawn this theorem a long time ago. Why? They realized that, once you take quantum mechanics into account, there is no need for a singularity. Hawking has this to say in his book A Brief History of Time. [2]


It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe--as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.” [3]

Quetin Smith, professor of the philosophy of physics at Western Michigan university, talks about the impossibility of a singularity.

"The cosmic singularity is a hypothetical time t=0 at which all the laws of nature, space and time break down. It is hypothetical or merely imaginary because if it did exist, it would be a physically impossible state, due to the breakdown of all laws, even the laws required for time to exist. This breakdown at the hypothetical t=0 implies there is no first instant t=0 of the finitely old time-series and that each instant is preceded by earlier instants." [4]

Cosmology supports the idea that there was no initial state or a singularity.

[Support for P2]

The truth of P2 is contained in the definition of god that Pro agreed to in round one.

[Support for P3]

This follows logically from P1 and P2.

[Conclusion]

If there is no initial state, then god cannot cause an initial state. An attribute of god is causing the initial state. Since it is impossible for god to cause an initial state, an attribute of god cannot be actualized. Therefore, god does not exist.

References
1: Krauss, Lawrence M., Dr. "A Cosmic Mystery: Beginnings." A Universe From Nothing. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 3. Print.
2: http://plato.stanford.edu...
3: http://en.wikipedia.org...
4: http://www.infidels.org...

Vale.


10551901

Pro

Sorry for doing that. But I have to say, you are very persistence. But I'm not giving up without a fight! And God created the world (obviously because everything came from something, except God. He came out of nowhere). If God doesn't exist, then why are we here?! And why do dreams and visions come to people (it's happened to me), where God is actually talking to them or showing them symbolic things?! Even the bible is giving us proof about what's going on in the world and they're coming true! Think about it, the Bible is like, 1000 years old!
Debate Round No. 2
JonathanCrane

Con

Ave.

[No Initial State Argument]

Pro drops the entirety of this argument. I have an argument on my side that shows god cannot exist that has gone unanswered. This tips the preponderance of evidence towards my side.

[Bare Assertions]

Pro does not give any reason to accept her factual assertions. She asserts that god created the world, when nebular theory is a better explanation of the fact that planets exist. She asserts that everything came from something, without any evidence. She asserts that the Bible has told us things that would happen in the future, and they have actually come true. No evidence or sources have been offered to accept any of these claims as true. By the dictum 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence', I dismiss these claims.

[Contradiction]

Pro states that everything came from something. Presumably, god is contained within this 'everything'. Yet, Pro also states that god came from nothing. If god came from nothing, then we have an example of something that did not come from another something, which contradicts the premise that everything came from something.

[Dreams and Visions]

Pro does nothing to show that, because something happens in a dream, it correlates to reality. I've had dreams about the Lord of the Rings. I've had dreams where I've talked to people I know in real life, but in situations that obviously didn't occcur. Why does dreaming about something mean it exists or happened?

Vale.
10551901

Pro

Con is very persistent, tough, and reasonable. I like a difficult challenge, you're doing a great job. But like he said, I need proof. So, here's proof:

Talking about nowadays

But outside are dogs (meaning, traitors or bad people) and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murders and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
Revelations 22:15

For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.
Titus 3:3

All of these of verses talk about today and there's a lot more verses in the Bible
Debate Round No. 3
JonathanCrane

Con

Ave.

[No Initial State Argument]

Pro drops the entirety of this argument (once more). I have an argument on my side that shows god cannot exist that has gone unanswered. This tips the preponderance of evidence towards my side.

[Bare Assertions]

I asked Pro to give us some reasons to think that god created the Earth, and that everything came from a prior something. Pro ignores this and does not give us any reasons to think these things are true. Again, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Contradiction]

I showed that Pro was contradicting herself. She never responded to this argument. Another dropped point.

[Dreams and Visions]

Pro drops this argument.

[Pro's Proof]

There is nothing about Pro's proof that demonstrates anything requiring the supernatural. There were traitors, murderers, sexual deviants, and malicious, hateful, envious people during the times Revelation and Titus were written. Why do you need a supernatural being to make those observations? None of those verses even make a prediction about the future. They describe the present moment or the past.

[Preponderance of the Evidence]

Pro dropped the following points.
- God created the Earth.
- Every something came from a prior something.
- My argument as to why Pro was contradicting herself.
- My argument against the existence of god.
- My argument against the argument from dreams and visions.

[Sources]

I gave more sources than Pro, and they were of good quality.

[Conduct]

Pro broke a rule by giving arguments in the first round. Vote on that as you wish.

Vale.

10551901

Pro

This debate is getting harder and harder, but I guess I better give out some sources from different websites. And here's the website:

http://www.squidoo.com...

And if you really want to proof that God created the world, then read Genesis for once. At least once. And if you can't, well in reality, you're not trying to find proof!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
Yikes!!! Someone had no right even taking this debate.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
Oh man... opening with the ol' "it has to be true because I'm happier" argument. I don't know if I can bear to watch this.

But where are my manners, welcome to the community, Pro. You picked a tough opponent for your first debate, but I see that you're in it to have fun rather than to win. Cheers to that, life is too short so I couldn't agree more. Well, either that, or life is an utterly meaningless prelude to an infinitely long tribute to all powerful, yet still vain and insecure God. At any rate, good luck and enjoy yourself!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
JonathanCrane10551901Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I swear to God (heh heh) that this is not a VB. Pro broke the rules, so conduct goes to Con. "You are very persistence," run-ons, and "a child who had a comma," so spelling and grammar goes to Con. Pro's argument was basically, "I believe in God!" so convincing arguments goes to Con. Pro cited one source that essentially helps in no way whatsoever, so reliable sources goes to Con. I'm done here.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
JonathanCrane10551901Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: If it is any consolation to Pro, I believe she did a fantastic job of articulating the viewpoint of many millions of American Christians. I imagined that her arguments were being read in the voice of Bill O'Reilly, and funny enough it sounded perfectly fine to my mind's ear. In all seriousness, Pro, if you would like to pursue Christian apologetics (not that I recommend it) you may want to study the work of Bill Craig, who has demolished plenty of leading Atheist intellectuals in debates. You may benefit from studying and using some of his tactics and arguments. Here's his site: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig
Vote Placed by silvertechfilms 3 years ago
silvertechfilms
JonathanCrane10551901Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: "No amount of belief makes something a fact." - James Randi
Vote Placed by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
JonathanCrane10551901Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: KO!
Vote Placed by SlaterJ23 3 years ago
SlaterJ23
JonathanCrane10551901Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Good lord that was a massacre
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
JonathanCrane10551901Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented a valid argument from Quentin Smith. He showed that God (as defined by Con) did not exist, because the singularity could not exist. Pro did not argue against the Freedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker' metric which shows no singuarlaty; thus the resolution was negated. Pro had absolutely no rebuttal. Pro's arguments for God were just bare assertions, and were not backed up by anything. Con also gets conduct, as Pro broke the rule pertaining to the first round being for acceptance.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
JonathanCrane10551901Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Open & shut.