The Instigator
Philosophybro
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
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 6 votes the winner is...
Philosophybro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 839 times Debate No: 64865
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

Philosophybro

Pro

Thanks emospongebob527 for accepting.

Dont post anything in round one I will make my arguments in the next round.
emospongebob527

Con

I accept. State your case.
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 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.

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

Premise 1 is true because God is the perfect supreme being. It would be more supreme and more perfect to exist in all possible worlds than one.

Premise 2 is true from the law of excluded middle.

Premise 3 is true because of the Becker Postulate

Premise 4-6 follow from above

Premise 7 is the premise that needs to be attacked. It looks like premise 7 is true because it looks like God is at least possible. It is a big big claim to assume God can't possibly exist than to assume God can possibily exist.

8-10 follow from the others.


emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Philosophybro 1 year ago
Philosophybro
I dont know of anymore distinct ones like Fibonacci in the mathematical way.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
That first argument is pretty interesting. @Pro, are there other non-random patterns in nature besides the Fibonacci sequence?
Posted by Philosophybro 2 years ago
Philosophybro
hahah. a triage is easy to form a Fibonacci spiral not so much.
Posted by Dookieman 2 years ago
Dookieman
Made a troll version of Philosophybro's first argument:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by n7 2 years ago
n7
Interesting formulation of the MOA.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
challenge me next time you get an itch to do this. It's good you're getting another practice debate first.
Posted by emospongebob527 2 years ago
emospongebob527
I'll take this. Challenge me.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Get back to me on this. I haven't done a religious debate in a while.
Posted by Kaynex 2 years ago
Kaynex
I would like to accept, but emospongebob527 is clearly first. If he doesn't go for it, I will.
Posted by Philosophybro 2 years ago
Philosophybro
A supreme perfect being.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Philosophybroemospongebob527Tied
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 Dookieman 2 years ago
Dookieman
Philosophybroemospongebob527Tied
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: Emo Spongebob decided playing with Patrick Star was more important than debating the existence of God, and forfeited every single round. My vote goes to my Philosophy bro.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Philosophybroemospongebob527Tied
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
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Philosophybroemospongebob527Tied
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: How boring. Pro had some..... Unique arguments too
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Philosophybroemospongebob527Tied
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: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited multiple rounds in this debate which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to present any arguments whatsoever. This left Pro standing unchallenged, and thus affirming the resolution. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize sources in this debate whereas Pro did. Clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Philosophybroemospongebob527Tied
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: Con ff several times, so conduct to Pro. Only Pro made an argument, so arguments to Pro