The Instigator
Philosophybro
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
stwadsworth27
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 2 votes the winner is...
Philosophybro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 64188
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Philosophybro

Pro

Do not post anything in the first round. I will start arguments in the next round
stwadsworth27

Con

Chi-ca-chi-cow
Debate Round No. 1
Philosophybro

Pro

1: Fibonacci

If there is a non-random pattern in nature it follows there is a creator. If atheism is true the universe came about by random means and theres no non-random patterns.

The Fibonacci sequence starts with two numbers then gets its next numbers by adding the last numbers

0,1,1 add the two ones, 2 add two and one, 5, add five and two,7.........

When coming up with a ratio for this pattern we have 1.61803... the title given to it is Phi.

Phi shows up an astonishing amount of times in nature.

The narwhal shell is a case


but io9.com lists 15 examples in nature

http://io9.com...

Its in flower petals, seed heads, galaxies, hurricanes, pinecones, faces, fingers, animal flight patterns, our DNA are only a few cases.







This is a mathematical pattern that shouldnt occur this many times if the universe was random. Maybe once or twice is believable but not this many. A God is responsible.



2: The Model Ontological Argument

Modal ontological argument shows gods existence through deduction and modal reasioning

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn‘t.
(3) If God doesn‘t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn‘t.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t.
(5) If God necessarily doesn‘t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t exist.
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence.
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists.

"The first premise is based on the idea that God is perfect, and that something is better if it has necessary existence than if it has merely contingent existence.

The second premise of the argument is simply the law of the excluded middle.

The third premise, “Becker’s Postulate”, is a widely accepted principle of modal logic. All modal properties are generally accepted to be necessary.

Four follows straightforwardly from the second and third premises.

Five is entailed by premise one.

Six follows from four and five.

Seven is plausible at first glance, but is widely thought to be the greatest point of weakness in the argument.

Eight follows from six and seven.

Nine is self-evident.

Ten follows from eight and nine."

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

7 must be attacked. Should we find no good argument against premise 7, then God exists

Thank you :)
stwadsworth27

Con

stwadsworth27 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Philosophybro

Pro

Ashame :(
stwadsworth27

Con

stwadsworth27 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
stwadsworth27

Con

stwadsworth27 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Philosophybro remind me to vote on this. Please spam my profile my shoot me a private message when this ends.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Philosophybrostwadsworth27Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff by con. Only pro offered evidence our sources.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Philosophybrostwadsworth27Tied
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: FF. Pro has provided resources and argument in Round 2.