The Instigator
JacobGibbsDofE
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
kn227
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God exists.

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 3 votes the winner is...
JacobGibbsDofE
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 59288
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

JacobGibbsDofE

Pro

Resolution: God exists.

I will argue that God exists. My opponent will argue that God does not exist. The Burden of Proof is shared.

Definitions
God - The timeless, immaterial, and personal cause of the universe.

Structure of the debate
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Arguments
Round 3 + 4 - Arguments/Rebuttals

Rules of the debate
1. No abuse of semantics.
2. No resorts to insults or personal attacks.
3. The Burden of Proof is shared.
4. Plus, all ToS (Terms of Service) apply.
5. Breaking any of the rules constitutes a forfeit and the voters are then not justified in giving that person any points.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
JacobGibbsDofE

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for accepting.

#1: The Cosmological argument

P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2) The universe began to exist.
C1) (from P1, P2) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
P3) The cause would have to be timeless, immaterial, and personal.
C2) (from C1, P3) Therefore, God exists.

In defense of P1

If something were to begin to exist coming out from nothing (without cause), there would be no reason why that thing came into existence and not something else. Therefore, it is logically impossible that something could begin to exist and not have a cause.

In defense of P2

It seems obvious that the universe would have began to exist. The alternative is that there has been an infinite regress of events, but this is impossible. If there was an infinite regress of events, then the time from T=0 to now would be infinite, however this cannot be true as infinity is not a quanitity/number. As Doctor of Philosophy and Theology William Lane Craig says "What is infinity minus infinity?" [1]. If the answer is zero, then infinity is not infinite as there are numbers lower than zero. If the answer is lower than zero, then it violates the law of non-contradiction as there would be more than one value of the same number [2].

C1

This is the logical conclusion following the first and second premise.

In defense of P3

This cause would have to be timeless and immaterial as it would exist out of spacetime. It would have to be personal because it would have to choose to create the universe, the alternative being something else caused him to do it, making him then fit the definition of God.

C2

This is the logical conclusion following the first conclusion and the third premise.

#2: The argument from the mentality of the physical world we experience

P1) If the physical world we experience does not reduce to the mental world, then the physical world we experience interacts with the mental world.
P2) If the physical world we experience does not reduce to the mental world, then the physical world cannot interact with the mental world.
C1) (from P1, P2) Therefore, due to the law of non-contradiction, the physical world we experience does reduce to the mental world.
C2) (from C1) Therefore, a conscious mind is the basis and grounding for the universe.
P3) The mind would have to be immaterial, timeless, and personal.
C3) (from C2, P3) Therefore, God exists.

Defense of P1

It is clear that there is some link between the physical world and the mental world. People can get drunk on alcohol, a physical thing, which can affect their thoughts, which are non-physical things.

Defense of P2

This is necessarily true as if the physical world we experience does not reduce to the mental world, then the only way that it'd be possible for them to be linked is if they interacted, which they can't do if the physical world doesn't reduce to the mental world as they are entirely different things, and for them to interact without one reducing to another, they would have to not be entirely different things (i.e: share some properties), so it wouldn't actually be two different things. Interaction between them would be incoherent.

C1

This is the logical conclusion following the first and second premises.

Defense of P3

(Same as defense of P3 in the first argument)

C2

This is the logical conclusion following the first conclusion and the third premise.

#3: The Teleological argument

P1) The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to chance, physical necessity, or design.
P2) It is not due to physical necessity and the odds are astronomically against it being due to chance.
C1) (from P1, P2) Therefore, it is highly probable that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.
P3) The fine-tuning of the universe being caused by design entails that there is a timeless, immaterial, and personal designer who caused the univere to be like this.
C2) (from C1, P3) Therefore, it is extremely likely that God exists.

Defense of P1

This is pretty self-explanatory. The three possible causes of the fine-tuning of the universe are that it has to be that way, that it doesn't have to be that way but just happens to be that way, or that a being designed it.

Defense of P2

There is no reason why the universe has to be the way it is, so the cause cannot be physical necessity
The odds are also astronomically stacked against it being due to chance. In fact, Julian Huxley, an arch-defender of evolution, estimated that at the known rate of helpful mutations over the known time scale, the ods against evolution happening by pure chance are 1 followed by 3 million zeros to one [3].

C1

This is the logical conclusion following the first and second premises.

Defense of P3

(Same as the defense of the third premise for theother two arguments)

C2

This is the logical conclusion following the first conclusion and the third premise.

I feel I have made three good arguments supporting my case.

Thank you.

Sources
[1] Craig, William Lane. http://www.metacafe.com...
[2] 2007. Gottlieb, Paula. http://plato.stanford.edu...
[3] Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 718.
kn227

Con

People have been arguing for centuries whether God exists or not so my answers will be repetitive and trite, concise too. Probably nothing new you've heard or anyone on this website for that matter. I apologize if my text is not lined up perfectly I am new to this website and English is not my first language.

Science has not yet found an answer to explain how the universe began but they are actively trying to find out how it was actually put to place. To assume that God created it because we have not found any scientific evidence that it could have happened without any supernatural force would be analogous to, for example, say 1000 years ago that God kills you when your time on Earth is over. That has obviously been shown to be blatantly false through modern biology.

To quote some scientists on this topic:

"There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter," [Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] says. Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally. This, of course, raises the question of what came before the big bang, and how long it lasted. Unfortunately at this point basic ideas begin to fail us; the concept "before" becomes meaningless. In the words of Stephen Hawking, it's like asking what is north of the north pole.

Rebuttal of the Teleological argument:

Many people would argue that the universe is due to chance and that it is designed perfectly. However, that is untrue because my opponent failed to explain why it would be considered due to chance without a God creating it. The universe is extremely unorganized. Stars scattered here and there. Galaxies crumbled every now and then. The only things that are organized in this universe are due to the laws of physics. Saying that the universe is due to chance is analogous to saying that evolution is due to chance. If you calculate the chances of animals evolving this way from the beginning of life until now the chances would be extremely low, but it's not due to chance. Animals evolved this way because the environment favored them. So in conclusion arguing that the universe is organized or designed is ridiculous; the universe is due to trial and error not chance.

Source from the quotation:
http://atheism.about.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JacobGibbsDofE

Pro

I thank con for posting his argument in this debate and will take into account that he is new to this website and English is not his first language.

Con's claim: "To assume God created it [the universe] because we have not found any scientific evidence that it could have happened without any supernatural force would be anologous to, for example, say 1000 years ago that God kills you when your time on Earth is over"

I agree that there are problems with the God of the Gaps fallacy, however, if you have positive evidence of God's existence, then it is reasonable to say that God exists.

Con's claim: "Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally. This, of course, raises the question of what came before the big bang, and how long it lasted. Unfortunately at this point basic ideas begin to fail us; the concept "before" becomes meaningless. In the words of Stephen Hawking, it's like asking what is north of the north pole."

Nobody, to my knowledge, claims that God came before the universe, as God exists outside of time and so time cannot be applied to him - his existence cannot ever start or end, it just always is.

However, con offers no arguments that actually conclude that God does not exist.

Con's rebuttals of my arguments

#1: The Cosmological argument


Con does not even mention this argument.

#2: The argument from the mentality of the physical world we experience

Con does not even mention this argument.

#3: The Teleological argument

Con's claim: "my opponent failed to explain why it would be considered due to chance without a God creating it"

The fine-tuning of the universe would have to be caused by chance if God does not exist because the three possible explanations of anything are physical necessity, chance, or design, and the universe does not have to be the way it is for any reason (con would have to provide a reason for physical necessity to refute this argument), so it follows that the only option left is chance.

Con's claim: "the universe is due to trial and error not chance"

As I've proven earlier, the chances of evolution happening by pure chance is 1 followed by 3,000,000 zeros to 1, and con has not even tried to refute that. Therefore, the odds are astronomically stacked in favour of God's existence.

Conclusion
- Con has offered no arguments supporting his case
- The Cosmological argument stands
- The argument from the mentality of the physical world we experience stands
- The Teleological argument stands

Thank you.
kn227

Con

kn227 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JacobGibbsDofE

Pro

All arguments extended.
kn227

Con

kn227 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
JacobGibbsDofEkn227Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
JacobGibbsDofEkn227Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and no meaningful response to the KCA.
Vote Placed by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
JacobGibbsDofEkn227Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ... FF