The Instigator
burningpuppies101
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

God exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,065 times Debate No: 15793
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

burningpuppies101

Con

**DISCLAIMER**

I have not debated on this site in over a year. I'm an NOT up with the times on DDO. I have not yet taken the time to dive into the Religion forum and get mixed into the fray that exists there.

However. I do know how to debate.

Ok so I want to talk about God. More specifically the JudeoChristian God. I'm against his existence. I do not believe he doesn't exist. I just don't think he does. I find it difficult to believe that He does, but I don't believe that he doesn't.

My opponent will ideally be a:
rational thinker.

That's it. Lets not talk semantics, but actually just talk about the topic.

Round one: introductions and what not. The other side uses round one to accept the stuff in the intro and to present his opening argument.

Round two is debating.
Round 3 is debating
Round 4 is closing statements and what not. I'd appreciate it if Pro didn't do arguing this round, and did his closing in round 3, to correct skew.

And i patiently await my opponent i guess.
socialpinko

Pro

I thank my opponent for the challenge and look forward to an interesting debate. To move right along to something I noticed right off the bat, is my opponent arguing against the Judeo-Christian god specifically or just god in general? I'm afraid I will have a hard time defending it's existence if I do not know which one so I ask that my opponent clears this up in the next round. For now I will simply provide an argument for a god in the general sense.

I must say that personally I am a strong atheist but I have done so many debates on the existence of god that I have been trying to play devil's advocate more so as to understand where theists come from. I hope that will not be a problem for my opponent however my last opponent tried to get the vote by default as we agreed on the topic. I just thought I would clear that up before we begin.

Before this debate begins I would like to define the terms of the resolution so as not to allow any confusion.

God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.[1]
As a side note I do not believe that god must be the ruler over the universe as in a god who presides over human affairs. This would leave out impersonal gods like that of Deism. For this reason I suggest an interpretation of this definition to mean that this god is all powerful.

Exists: To be as a fact and not as a mode; to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual.[2]

I completely agree that this should be a semantics free debate although I do love to exploit a loophole. I accept all of the preliminary logistics you have provided in the first round and I look forward to a riveting debate. I will post my opening argument in this round and go into more detail as the debate proceeds as to follow the rules my opponent has set out for the first round.[3]

Kalam Argument[4]

Premise1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for it coming into being.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore the universe had a cause for it's coming into being.
Conclusion 2: This cause is god.[5]
Conclusion 3: Therefore god exists.

I now await my opponent's response.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://define.com...
[3]"Round one: introductions and what not. The other side uses round one to accept the stuff in the intro and to present his opening argument."
[4]http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
[5]I am not making a base assumption that the cause of the universe must be god, only that my definition provides that god is the creator of the universe.
Debate Round No. 1
burningpuppies101

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting the challenge, and I hope we have a fun debate.

Alright, let me clear it up. I did specify the JudeoChristian God in my first speech, as that is the one that I am most familiar. But as a more general "God", I think this sums it up quite well. "God" (whoever it may be, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the God of the Old Testament, New Testament, Yaweh, Allah, what have you) is "a supernatual intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even when think of doing them) " [1]

I'm not interested in holding my opponent to this definition of a theistic belief system, since that's not this debate. He's free to defend them if he wants, but it's up to him. But that is what a God is. You prefer this definition of a "god" to my opponent's of a "Supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe". My opponent has a pretty confusing justification after his definition, and it is never clear if he *is* or *isn't* defending a god who presides over human affairs. I propose that we *do* leave out impersonal gods like that of Deism, and just focus on the supernatural god of theism. It is pointless to talk about a god that means nothing in our lives. It is much more beneficial for everyone involved if we were to talk about a god that actually has a bearing on people today, or at least claims to. You prefer my definition of a god because that is the common usage of what it means to be "God." You ask anyone on the street, and that's what they'll tell you is god.

Also, I have an issue with my opponent's definition of Exists.
There seem to be two separate definitions in there, and I think the one he intended to apply to the debate is the second part:"to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual" [2]

But what does it mean to have an actual or real being? A quick search on Merriam Webster as to what it means to have a being is not helpful at all. The definition of being seems to be "the quality or state of having existence." [3] Wait what? To exist is to have a being, and to be a being is to exist? That seems circular.

Granted, a quick Google search isn't too helpful, since they all relate "being" and "exist" without really defining either one. But here's what Google's first response is when I put "define: exist" into the search bar: "have an existence, be extant" [4]. A little further down we see a definition that might help us out which is: existence: "In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them."

That definition seems to work. It's clear and concise and it's something that intuitively makes sense. Something that exists is something that we can experience with our senses. Short, sweet and simple.

The easiest way to define what "God" is was well to use a God we were

Now then, with definitions out of the way, there is something else that must be determined here. How do you, as the voter, determine who wins the round? Well here's how. There's the burden of proof. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that a God exists, has an existence, a being. Bertrand Russel puts it quite well in his parable of the celestial teapot.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it ere the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved , it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." [5]

So for me, the God is the teapot, and it is my opponent's job to prove his existence.

Ok so what does my opponent present? He presents the Kalam Argument. The Kalam argument is very similar to Aquinas' proof of god's existence, which loosely states; "Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God." [6]

There are a few problems with this argument.
A. It makes the unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to regress. Even if we allow my opponent to make this statement, that "God" is extant, there is no reason to believe him on that he is all powerful, all seeing, good, etc. My opponent in his definition says that "this god is all powerful" but how does the Kalam argument in any way justify this statement? Therefore, the God that he proposes is not sufficiently proven to exist by the Kalam argument.

B. This doesn't fit under my definition either. There is no warrant that he listens to prayers, forgives sins, etc etc.

C. The issue with my opponent's argument is all it does is label something as God. That doesn't prove God's existence. If I label my hand God, and I drop the cup I'm holding in it, does that mean that God dropped my cup? Merely labeling something is not enough to prove that something exists, and in fact calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst misleading

D. What caused God?

That's what I've got for my opponent on his argument. He hasn't met what it means to be God yet, and as such his proof is insufficient to prove God's existence. It's quite full of holes. It's holey. Sorry. Had to.

````````````````````````````````
But moving on. Why God most certainly does NOT exist:
1. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747
The Boeing 747 argument is that "the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747."[7] Dawkins continues to say that this argument is also applied to the evolution of complex living bodies, where it intuitively seems to make sense at a first glance. I mean, you can't make a dog by randomly shuffling things around. At least that would be what at a first glance makes sense. However, God faces this same problem. Dawkins puts it quite well in saying that "however statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747."

That's if you believe the creationists. This *is* an argument against intelligent design, but also against God himself. If He is the supposed intelligent designer, then who designed him? If everything has a cause, what was His cause? The argument is turned on its head.

That's all I've got for now, since again, the onus is on my opponent to show God's existence, not for me to prove he doesn't exist.

Works Cited:
[1] Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print.
[2]My opponent's Round one Speech
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.google.com...
[5] Russell, 'Is there a God?' (1952_, repr. in Russell (1997b).
[6] Dawkins
[7] Dawkins
socialpinko

Pro

Me and my debate discussed it and my opponent has agreed that I may defend the existence of an impersonal Deistic god instead of a theistic god who interacts in human affairs.

I accept my opponent's definition of existence over my own. His definition is stated below:

Exist: In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them.

My opponent goes on to state that as defender of the existence of a god, I have the burden of proof. However my opponent is instigator of this debate and as instigator, holds the burden of proof. If I were to challenge my opponent to a debate on the existence of god it would certainly be my job to defnd it's exisence but that is not the case here. My opponent is making the positive claim that god does not exist and it is my reponsibility to refute them.

Now let's look at my opponent's objections with my argument.

A. It makes the unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to regress. Even if we allow my opponent to make this statement, that "God" is extant, there is no reason to believe him on that he is all powerful, all seeing, good, etc. My opponent in his definition says that "this god is all powerful" but how does the Kalam argument in any way justify this statement? Therefore, the God that he proposes is not sufficiently proven to exist by the Kalam argument.

Me and my opponent have agreed that I may defend the existence of an impersonal Deistic god. God as I am describing it does not need to be all seeing or all good.

Also, to my opponent's contention that god is not immune to regress, we assume that everything must have a cause because everything as we know it is bound by time and most things therefore abide by a cause and effect relationship. God however is above time as he created it when he created the universe. Therefore the universe is bound by time and requires a cause, but god does not as he is outside and above time.

B. This doesn't fit under my definition either. There is no warrant that he listens to prayers, forgives sins, etc etc.

As I stated previously, my opponent and I had a miscommunication and have agreed that god may be impersonal and not interested in human affairs, as in the Deistic god. So the god that I am defending does not need to listen to prayers or forgive sin as it is in no way theistic.

C. The issue with my opponent's argument is all it does is label something as God. That doesn't prove God's existence. If I label my hand God, and I drop the cup I'm holding in it, does that mean that God dropped my cup? Merely labeling something is not enough to prove that something exists, and in fact calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst misleading

I am labeling the cause of the universe as god because as I defined god, it fits that definition. If multiple eyewitnesses to a robbery describe the suspect as red haired, male, white, with blue eyes and you see a person who exactly fits that description near the crime scene then logic follows that he could be the culprit.

Likewise the cause of the universe would have to exist outside of time and space. This is how the Deistic god is described so this goes in my favor.

D. What caused God?

I have already dealt with the issue of eternal regress earlier.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747

This argument fails in that I am not making the claim that the universe is too complex to have existed by chance. I am arguing that the universe needs a cause which exists outside of time and that this is god as described by Deism. I certainly cannot stand the teleological argument.

//"If everything has a cause, what was His cause? The argument is turned on its head."//

Everything does not have a cause. As I stated in the first round, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause for it coming into being." The universe began to exist at some point and thus requires a creator. However god exists outside of time and therefore there was no 'time' when it did not exist. So, god is immune to this premise.

//"That's all I've got for now, since again, the onus is on my opponent to show God's existence, not for me to prove he doesn't exist."//

This is wrong in that as instigator of this debate, you retain the burden of proof. If I were trying to convert you then the BOP would be on me but since you are the one making the positive assertion the BOP is on you. You cannot win this debate by simply refuting my argument. To win this debate you must show that god does not exist, or at least that it's non-existence is more probable than it's existence.

To voters, my opponent has not upheld his burden of proof, therefore I urge a Pro vote.
Debate Round No. 2
burningpuppies101

Con

Alright, lets talk about a deistic god.

So we're good on what kind of God we're talking about. We can use my opponent's chosen definition, but he still fails to win this debate.

He concedes the definition, and that's going to be important, later on.

I've won this debate on the burden. It's as simple as that. I have not made a positive statement that "God" exists. I am the Con to the statement that "God Exists." The resolution, simply put, is "God exists." As the Pro, it is his job to prove that it does. My job is to prove him wrong. That's why in my opening statement, I allow the Pro to make his advocacy first.

I'm not making any positive claim that God doesn't exist.

Also, he concedes my Russel evidence. Russel clearly states that if you have a dogma that you want others to believe, it is your job to prove it right. Technical rules aside, it just makes sense. There is no reason to presume that my opponent is right. Russel's teapot is a elegant example of this. If I say there is a teapot in between Earth and Mars, and the resolution posed was, "The Celestial Teapot exists," it would not be my job to prove that it doesn't. It would be anyone who believes in said teapot to prove that it does. If I say I can fly, it is not your job to prove that I cannot, it is my job to show that I can.

Anyone defending a dogma has the burden of proving the dogma true. I win the burden right there.

~~~~~

Contention levels
A. Fine, your god doesn't have to be all seeing or all good, but your own definition provides him to be all powerful. Where's the warrant? Who said he's all powerful? The onus is on you, the defender of said Deistic god, to prove that he exists, and that he meets YOUR own definition of God, which is the supreme creator the universe and that he is omnipotent. It's your own definition, and you don't meet it.

Also, in regards to "God is not bound by time," it begs the question, "Says who? Since when? Where's the argumentation?"

Answer to that question is: There is none. The only advocacy my opponent provides is enclosed within the Kalam argument, which does not provide any warrant as to why God is above time.
There's also an intrinsic contradiction in my opponent's words.

1. He says, "everything as we know it is bound by time."
2. He then goes to use that "fact" to prove that God exists.
3. By our definition of exists, gotta be able to perceive him, meaning know what God is and observe it.
4. Wait so since everything is bound by time, God therefore is also bound by time, since He is certainly part of "everything"

And even if you think that is semantics, it's really not. It's a unreliable and moving advocacy. Either everything is bound by time or he has to provide warranted exceptions. He makes the mere assertion that God isn't bound by time, but again. Says who. Why is he outside and above time? And what does it mean to be "outside and above time"? This is not answered by the Pro, which would be necessary to even understand his argument on a fundamental level. Does this mean that God can travel through time? Does this mean that God *is* time? Does this mean that God can manipulate time to His will? If it is any of these things, then it begs the question, "Why?"

B. Alright fine. So lets drop B.

C. My opponent fundamentally misunderstands the argument made here. Additionally, his argument is nothing short of circular.

He is using the word "God" to describe a phenomenon. If I use the word "hot" to describe that same phenomenon, does that mean that "hot" exists? Clearly not. Or how about pink invisible unicorn? Or flying spaghetti monster? Or any other word you choose. Just by labelling it does not prove existence, especially because we have a very clear definition of what it means to exist.

Secondly, lets say he wins that he can call the cause of the universe God. Does that mean he "exists"? No. He may have existed at that point in time, but the resolution is "exists." The "god" that my opponent has so fallaciously labelled no longer exists, so even if he wins that point there's no reason for you to vote Pro.

D. No, you haven't. Why does "God" get a cop out?

_______________________________________________

1. Ultimate Boeing 747
Where's the warrant for anything existing outside of time? And why does God get that privilege?

And the argument isn't that the universe isn't too complex to have existed by chance. It's that anything as complex as the universe, if it wanted a cause, said cause would have to be even more complex. How did the complexity arise?

Your argument may be that the universe needs a cause, but why does it need to exist outside of time? There are plenty of theories out there that say otherwise.

Speaking of which, why did the universe need a cause? the God that you say that I call the Big Bang has been only theorized. Not to mention, there is a huge debate between astronomers that the Big Bang wasn't even the start of time, space, matter, but really just one Bang in a whole series of Big Bangs in an infinite loop, that time and space were always there. [1]

That takes out your argument on a very fundamental level, as you have yet to prove that the universe truly needed a cause in the first place.

And so if not everything has a cause, what's to stop the Universe from not having a cause? Where's the warrant for that premise of yours? It's clearly not something that can just be accepted, seeing as there is a high amount of contention about it in the first place.

And I've already covered the Burden of proof stuff. And the burden of proof on my side has indeed been fulfilled. There is absolutely no reason to believe why a "God" necessarily created the universe, and in fact, if we use the logic of my opponent, God needs a cause, whether he likes it or not.

[1]http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
socialpinko

Pro

My opponent is still trying to assign me the BOP. However as I stated before, regardless of what the resolution actually states or whether or not the instigator is Pro or Con does not decide who has the BOP. By instigated this debate my opponent has made an assertion that god does not exist. As it stands my opponent instigated this debate and thus has the BOP.

A. //"Fine, your god doesn't have to be all seeing or all good, but your own definition provides him to be all powerful. Where's the warrant? Who said he's all powerful? The onus is on you, the defender of said Deistic god, to prove that he exists, and that he meets YOUR own definition of God, which is the supreme creator the universe and that he is omnipotent. It's your own definition, and you don't meet it."//

My opponent has conceded that the god I am defending does not have to be all knowing or all good. My opponent asks why is god omnipotent? That is like asking why a school bus is yellow. Regardless of if it is yellow or not has no bearing on it's existence.

//"Also, in regards to "God is not bound by time," it begs the question, "Says who? Since when? Where's the argumentation?"//

Because it is part of what I described god as. It is part of the definition that god is creator of the universe. From this we must ask why it is not bound by time. To create the universe a being would have to be outside of time. God's timelessness follows from it's very definition.

My opponent then goes on to completely misrepresent my argument. I did not say "everything as we know it is bound by time." I actually said, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause for it coming into being." Everyting as we know it does not have a cause. I only said that if something ever began to exist, it had a cause for coming into existence. This follows logically.

My opponent next makes the claim that:

//"By our definition of exists, gotta be able to perceive him, meaning know what God is and observe it."//

Nothing in my definition of god says that it cannot be perceived. Just because we have not yet perceived it does not make it impossible. Your full definition was, "In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them." Nothing in the definition of god which I provided makes it impossible to perceive it or makes it's existence bound to our thoughts.

My opponent tries to win the debate based off a semantics argument however he clearly claimed in the first round that neither of us were to use semantics in our debate.

//"That's it. Lets not talk semantics, but actually just talk about the topic."//[1]

//"And even if you think that is semantics, it's really not. It's a unreliable and moving advocacy. Either everything is bound by time or he has to provide warranted exceptions. He makes the mere assertion that God isn't bound by time, but again. Says who. Why is he outside and above time? And what does it mean to be "outside and above time"? This is not answered by the Pro, which would be necessary to even understand his argument on a fundamental level. Does this mean that God can travel through time? Does this mean that God *is* time? Does this mean that God can manipulate time to His will? If it is any of these things, then it begs the question, "Why?"//

I will repeat to my opponent, I at no point in this debate claimed that everything is bound by time. I would like my opponent to try and cite one time in this debate where I said that. I claimed that everything that eer began to exist had a cause. I have also answered the question as to why god is above time as it logically follows from the definition. My opponent by asking 'why?' over and over is simply begging the question and is not at all refuting my arguments.

B. Alright fine. So lets drop B.

My opponent has conceded B.

C. My opponent fundamentally misunderstands the argument made here. Additionally, his argument is nothing short of circular.

My opponent seems to be refusing to understand the point I am trying to make. I am not simply describing a phenomenon. I am using a fact about the universe(everything which began to exist had a cause) and applying it to the definition I gave for god. I stated that god is the creator of the universe and so when it is shown that the universe needs a creator, that makes god a logical explanation.

D. No, you haven't. Why does "God" get a cop out?

My opponent is ismply begging the question here. I contended that everything which began to exist must have a cause. I have never said that god ever began to exist. Therefore form premise 1 it follows that god gets a 'cop out' on time and needing a cause.

1. Ultimate Boeing 747
Where's the warrant for anything existing outside of time? And why does God get that privilege?

I get tired of repeating myself. God exists outside of time because in it's very definition god created the universe and thus time. In order to be able to create time, one cannot be bound by time. It logically follows from the definition of god which I provided, and my opponent agreed upon, that god would exist outside of time.

//"And the argument isn't that the universe isn't too complex to have existed by chance. It's that anything as complex as the universe, if it wanted a cause, said cause would have to be even more complex. How did the complexity arise?"//

You assume that I am claiming that the universe is complex and thus needs a cause. This is not my argument. The complexity of something doees not imply the need for a creator. It is the fact that if something began to exist there must logically have been a cause.

//"Your argument may be that the universe needs a cause, but why does it need to exist outside of time? There are plenty of theories out there that say otherwise."//

Again, it follows logically that for something to create time, it must exist outside of it. Just like how a fetus cannot logically create it's mother.

To my opponent's claim that there are other theories as to if the Big Bang was the cause of time, these are theories. And I know that scientists use a different definition of theory and that the word actually makes them credible. However, would the existence of other theories does not itself disprove my own.

//"And so if not everything has a cause, what's to stop the Universe from not having a cause? Where's the warrant for that premise of yours? It's clearly not something that can just be accepted, seeing as there is a high amount of contention about it in the first place."//

I have already explained why the universe does need a cause. It began to exist as I stated earlier and logically for something to begin to exist it must exist in relation to time and thus needs a cause. God is immune from this premise in that it never began to exist as it is the creator of time and therefore is not held by it but exists outside of time.

My opponent has repeadetly claimed that god needs a cause. This conclusion however is fallacious in that I have covered why god is immune from this premise in that it never began to exist. The universe needs a cause because it began to exist while god never did. I hate that I have had to repeadetly explain this to my opponent but I hope that I have been clear enough as to persuade voters to vote Pro.

[1]From my opponent's first round post.
Debate Round No. 3
burningpuppies101

Con

Alright, so I'd like to start my 4th speech by thanking my opponent for a thoroughly interesting debate, even though it didn't quite end up the way we (or at least me) thought it would.

Ok so lets see how the round boils down.

There are basically 3 places of contention in the round. There is, who has the burden of proof, the Kalam argument, and the Ultimate Boeing 747. I'm going to show why I'm winning at all 3 of those points.

So first of all, again, the burden of proof is not assigned to my opponent. He enters the debate with it already on his shoulders. By proposing to defend the existence of something like God, it is his job to prove his side. Again, you look to Russel's teapot. You Look to my Russell evidence to show why this is true. Just on the strength of link evidence you would prefer my side of the argument, because I have a well known author and philosopher supporting my side, while we merely have the rhetoric of my opponent to try to believe his side.

I didn't start this debate with the assertion that God does not exist. As the instigator of the debate, all it means is that I've started something. Doesn't mean i start the debate with a specific advocacy that I'm defending, in fact I even state in my first speech that I'm allowing my opponent to make his advocacy first, because of the inherencies in the topic.

The BOP argument my opponent attempts to make is pointless and counter productive because he's trying to assign an impossible burden of proof to the Con in this debate. It is nigh impossible to prove that something does not exist. On top of that, the resolution isn't worded in a negative fashion. It's not that I've opened the debate by saying that God does not exist. I invited someone to defend the statement "god exists" and that I would be attacking said advocacy.

Enough on that.

//Regardless of if it is yellow or not has no bearing on it's existence.//
It actually does. Being omnipotent was part of your definition. And I quote " For this reason I suggest an interpretation of this definition to mean that this god is all powerful."

His own interpretation of what "God" is includes all powerful. It would therefore seem to be necessary to warrant in your "proof" that God exists that "god" is also all powerful. So no, don't let my opponent just attempt to exclude this argument.

//Again, it follows logically that for something to create time, it must exist outside of it.//
Where's the warrant that the universe created time? That's not a warrant that's ever shown in my opponent's argumentation. That's just a premise he chose to accept, and hoped that we would too, but there's no reason for us to even grant him that statement, especially since I've shown that that premise isn't even the only theory out there.

// However, would the existence of other theories does not itself disprove my own.//
But it doesn't prove your theory true. The Big Bang theory is also just a Theory. The existence of this theory does not itself disprove my own. See the problem when arguments don't have warrants?

//It began to exist as I stated earlier and logically for something to begin to exist it must exist in relation to time and thus needs a cause. God is immune from this premise in that it never began to exist as it is the creator of time and therefore is not held by it but exists outside of time.//
Who said the universe began to exist? Where's the warrant? It's clearly just a theory that you've just asserted to be true, but I've provided evidence that suggests an equally plausible theory. There's absolutely no reason to believe your theory over mine, which is more than enough to mitigate any offense of yours.

//My opponent has repeadetly claimed that god needs a cause. This conclusion however is fallacious in that I have covered why god is immune from this premise in that it never began to exist. The universe needs a cause because it began to exist while god never did. I hate that I have had to repeadetly explain this to my opponent but I hope that I have been clear enough as to persuade voters to vote Pro.//
Hm... wrong. You've made the assertion that the universe needs a cause, with no warrant to back up your assertion.

Let's conclude the debate. My opponent makes a very simple, quite elegant argument, really. He starts with the UNWARRANTED premise that the universe needs a cause. I've already given you other theories to disregard this premise or at least call into question the validity of this claim.

He then moves on label that the "cause" is God. He doesn't answer my answer to this that just labeling something God isn't enough to say that it exists in any way that is perceivable and follows our definition of exists, which is CONCEDED by my opponent.

~~~~

On top of all this, if you've disregarded every thing that I've said so far, you can vote for the CON based off of one piece of offense that my opponent fails to answer AT ALL. If a God has been proven to have existed by my opponent, clearly the "cause" for the universe no longer exists, since I think it's a reasonable assertion to say that universes aren't being created at every moment all the time. Granted, there are theories that dispute that, but it's not my job to answer my own argument. Don't let my opponent pull out some new theories in his last speech saying that universes are constantly being created.

Why is that important? because unless Universes are constantly being "caused" the "cause" for the universe no longer exists. And therefore the "god" that my opponent has "proven" doesn't exist.

So how do you vote.
CONDUCT: TIE. Both me and my opponent were pretty nice to each other, in my opinion. If you have to vote one way or the other, you would give me the point because if you read closely, my opponent clearly failed to realize that the debate was premised on the Judeochristian God, and proceeded to argue for a deistitc God.

S/G: TIE. I don't think either of us had major transgressions....

Arguments: CON. I'm winning the burden of proof argumentation, and I've sufficiently proven my opponent wrong with his Kalam argument, and why his argumentation is not only insufficient, but wrong. On top of that, i'm generating offense from my argument that even if such a god did exist, he no longer exists. Don't let my opponent garner any evidence off the Boeing 747 argument, since I'm dropping it, its not generating offense for either of us.

Source: CON. I provide stronger source for my definition, to the point where my opponent has conceded my definition. I also win this point based on breadth of evidence since I canvass multiple authors and multiple sources. I also provide evidence whenever possible for my argumentation, while my opponent relies on unwarranted rhetoric to try to answer my arguments.

Thank you
socialpinko

Pro

BOP

Over the course of this very interesting debate my opponent and I have squabbled over which of us retains the burden of proof in this debate. As this is the last round and we never agreed as to who has it, continuing this conversation seems rather pointless. After all, during the debate I have provided an argument in favor of god's existence(Kalam argument) while my opponent has offered an argument against god's existence(Ultimate Boeing 747 argument). So while my opponent and I have pointlessly argued over who in this debate has the BOP, in practice we have shared it.

It is for this reason that my opponent and I's fight over who has the BOP is not only pointless but counterproductive in this debate.

Omnnipotence

My opponent argues that I must prove that the god I am defending is omnipotent in order to prove it's existence. This simply boils down to who in this debate has the BOP. Does my opponent as instigator of this debate retain the BOP? Or do I as defender of the resolution retain the BOP? Regardless of the answer to this question, this debate is not on whether or not the god I am defendng is omnipotent or not. It is on whether or not it exists.

God's timelessness

//"Where's the warrant that the universe created time?"//

First, I never argued that it was the universe which created time. I argued that as time is an inherent part of the universe, it logically follows that a being who created the universe would have also created time. So, it logically follows from my own definition of god, that it is the creator of the universe, that it would stand outside of time.

Existence of rival theories

I argued that the existence of rival theories as to the formation of the universe does not in itself prove that my own theory is false. My opponent countered with:

//"But it doesn't prove your theory true."//

My opponent here makes the mistake of thinking that I was attempting to use the existence of rival theories to prove my own to be true. However it was my opponent who brought them up in a vain attempt to disprove the existence of god. My opponent is correct though in that the existence of the Big Bang theory does not in intself prove god's existence. However this is a moot point in that neither does the color of the laptop on which I am typing this debate. Just because something does not help my theory does not by itself mean that it detracts from it.

The universe began to exist

//"Who said the universe began to exist? Where's the warrant? It's clearly just a theory that you've just asserted to be true, but I've provided evidence that suggests an equally plausible theory. There's absolutely no reason to believe your theory over mine, which is more than enough to mitigate any offense of yours."//

The universe beginning to exist at some point is actualy backed up by sound science. However, if there is not reason to believe your theory over mine then we may simply allow the voters to decide. Just because you can provide another theory does not itself take away from the logical viability of my own.

God needs a cause

I have repeadetly claimed that for something to begin to exist, it needs a cause. This follows from simple logic. If one applies this logic to the universe, it would need a cause. However if one were to apply this logic to the god which I am advocating then it does not need a cause. Because the need for a cause rests on the point of existence. If something never came into existence then it does not need a cause. My opponent has chosen to completely ignore this however.

My opponent in a last ditch effort to win this debate has stated that voters should vote for him because if god is ismply the cause of the universe then unless there are new universes being created, god does not fit the definition of 'exists'. This is simply a cheap semantics argument which my opponent himself asked that I not use. It is for this reason that I ask voters to disregard this 'argument' and give Pro the conduct vote.

As for arguments, my opponent simply picked at whether or not the universe needed a cause or not. He gave no warrant why the universe did not need a cause. He only stated that there were other theories. So, for arguments I urge a Pro vote.

As for spelling and grammar I believe we were tied but if you find more mistakes on my part then my opponent's feel free to award him that point.

As for sources, I believe that my opponent and I were tied in that we both provided an adequate amount of sources when we presented our arguments.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mauricio2 5 years ago
mauricio2
cool,im an athesit too but only cause religon just seems stupid to me.so many wars started by religon,so many live taken by religon.......i realy hope osama realizes that he got screwd by his gay religon lol na he cant cause hes just dead.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Yep
Posted by mauricio2 5 years ago
mauricio2
athesit?
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
I'm actually not a very good debater. I just debate god's existence a lot.
Posted by mauricio2 5 years ago
mauricio2
Oh man im a little afriad to debate with socialpinko now......he school's eveyone on debates
Posted by burningpuppies101 5 years ago
burningpuppies101
says who?
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Regardless of who is afirming or negating the resolution, the instigator always has the BOP. This is a basic part of DDO.
Posted by mongoosecake 5 years ago
mongoosecake
Even though pro keeps trying to avoid the BOP, he has to realize he is pro on a debate that says "God exists" so of course he has the BOP.
Posted by burningpuppies101 5 years ago
burningpuppies101
Oh i suppose it's been less than I thought, haha
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
"I have not debated on this site in over a year."

http://www.debate.org...

Your last debate was seven months ago... I suppose you mean "less than a year"?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
burningpuppies101socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, Pro got conduct from the fact that Con tried to force BoP Pro agrumentation was better aswell. Gave sources to con though(Merriam webster is a published dictionary)
Vote Placed by anarcholibertyman 5 years ago
anarcholibertyman
burningpuppies101socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to pro for con's semantics argument which he specifically ruled against in the first round. Arguments barely goes to Pro because Con did not show why the universe did not need a cause. Con only claimed that there were other theories. Pro also has better sources.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
burningpuppies101socialpinkoTied
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: Pro, nice effort but far too definitional.
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 5 years ago
bradshaw93
burningpuppies101socialpinkoTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Cancelling mb852's vote. He gave all seven points to Con with no RFD except for, "I agree".
Vote Placed by mb852 5 years ago
mb852
burningpuppies101socialpinkoTied
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: I agree
Vote Placed by Labrat228 5 years ago
Labrat228
burningpuppies101socialpinkoTied
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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had great reasoning and skill with their logic, but Con seemed to have a slight discontent for Pro, which worries me.