The Instigator
bodhiBit
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
14 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 3 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 934 times Debate No: 17459
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

bodhiBit

Con

There is no rational reason to believe that any god exists..
It is up to Pro to give me a rational reason to believe that a god exists..
It is up to me to point out any flaws in Pro's arguments..

Define "god" and make your case..
thett3

Pro

For the purposes of this round, God will be defined as: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being[1].

Clearly something like God cannot be proven/disproven, so this debate will be one based on logic.

For my case, I will present three arguments and reserve the right to present more (other than in the last round).

Argument one: The Kalam cosmological argument.

1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.

2. The Universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Modern scientific theories such as the big bang support this argument. But why must the cause of the universe be God? First, we must look at the definition of God where he is defined as the creator of the Universe. Furthermore, before the Universe existed, there was nothing. How something (the mass used to cause the big bang) could come from nothing is scientifically inexplicable, so the only logical explanation would be a power that has the ability to undermine scientific laws, such as an all-powerful God. The Universe, and the matter within it, could not have existed for an infinite amount of time because true infinities are impossible. For example: infinity-8=infinity. This is mathematically impossible, yet at the same time IS possible. This is paradox, and since paradox cannot exist in scientific law, time cannot be infinite. Thereofre the Universe has not existed for all time. This does not defy God's existence because prior to the Universes creation God existed, but not in time. God created time.

Argument two: Plantinga's modal argument.

1. Its possible that God exists

2. If its possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world


3. If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world


4. If God exists in every possible world, then God exists in the actual world


5. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists


6. Therefore, God exists

If it is possible that God exists, than by the definition of God all of the following points are logically valid. Since the concept of God is coherent, than it is possible that he exists.

Argument three: Objective morality.

1. Objective morality can only exist if a divine power mandates our moral values.

2. Objective morality exists.

3. Therefore, a divine power exists.

The first premise is justifiable in the fact that since morality, unlike instinct, is commanding. Thus if objective morality exists, it can only be explained by a divine power who commands our morality, and God's definition includes this. If my Oppoonent disputes the existence of objective morality later, I will argue in favor of its existence.


Those are the arguments I will present for now, good luck to my Opponent and I look forward to a fun debate!

Source:

1. http://www.google.com...


Debate Round No. 1
bodhiBit

Con

Pro says: "For the purposes of this round, God will be defined as: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being[1]."
By "being" I assume you mean a sort of existential consciousness, awareness, something that can think and act..

Pro says: "Clearly something like God cannot be proven/disproven, so this debate will be one based on logic."
Technically logic is all about proof just without the necessity of evidence to attach the proof to reality.. If you want to give any rational reason to believe anything about reality, you need evidence..

=== Argument one: The Kalam cosmological argument. ===

"1. Everything that began to exist has a cause."
I will grant this premise..

"2. The Universe began to exist."
Provided "the universe" is defined as "everything since The Big Bang", then yes.. But this seems pretty arbitrary.. The Big Bang just happens to be the earliest event we know of.. We cannot rule out the possibility of any earlier events..
Another more simple definition of "the universe" is "everything that exists", thus an umbrella term for which the property of existence doesn't apply, but simply refers to everything that _does_ exist.. With this definition "The Universe began to exist" wouldn't make any sense..

"3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause."
I will grant the logical validity of this argument.. But it's application towards the existence of a creator god seems limited at best..

And explaining something inexplicable with something nonsensical is simply absurd..

=== Argument two: Plantinga's modal argument. ===

"1. Its possible that God exists"
That's debatable..

"2. If its possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world"
yes, but not necessarily _this_ world..

"3. If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world"
doesn't follow.. the argument is invalid..

=== Argument three: Objective morality. ===

"1. Objective morality can only exist if a divine power mandates our moral values."
Evidence..?

"2. Objective morality exists."
If it does, it is because there is a measurable outcome of our actions, which leads to an understanding of cause and effect, which in turn leads to morality..

"3. Therefore, a divine power exists. "
Validity granted.. Soundness however not..
thett3

Pro

Thanks Con. First I feel the need to apologize for my sub-standard argument, religion is certainly not my strong point for debating.

=Rebuttal=

Kalam Cosmological argument

Con makes a very weak rebuttal to this, suprisingly accepting all three premises. His only objections were raised on the second premise, which I will now respond to.

Defense of Premise two

Con states that we "cannot rule out the possibility of any earlier events" unfortunatly, this does not answer the argument. Sure, the Universe could be in a big-bang big-crunch cycle, but that cycle cannot have been going on infinitely. Indeed, he drops my argument that true infinity is impossible, and thus concedes to it. Therefore this stands.

He states that this does not point to God, however it does because scientifically something cannot come into existence from nothing. Therefore, the only way that the matter used to create the Universe could have been created would be through an entity that has the ability to undermine scientific laws, such as God. This argument stands.


Plantinga's modal argument

My Opponent offers weak objections to this as well, he states that its "debateable" that God exists yet provides no evidence nor logical analysis to support that. He conedes to premise two, and save for premise three, he drops the rest.

Defense of Premise three

Con only states "the argument is invalid" however he shows no holes or weaknesses in it. It IS valid, because since God is an all-powerful being, he meets the qualifications to make this argument work. Until my Opponent actually shows weaknesses in this argument it is presumed valid, and thus stands as well.

Objective Morality

Con asks for evidence of God being the only way to explain Objective Morality. He ignores my analysis of how moral values are commands and thus can only be given by a rational being, and thus has conceded to it. So I win on this premise. He tries to write off morality as a cause and effect thing, but that makes no sense. Yes, some moral values have practical purposes, but that doesn;t explain the moral aspect. Yes instinct would tell us to avoid killing if possible, but that does not explain the morality of it. An animal will not hesitate to kill another member of its species if it feels threatened, humans will only kill another in the gravest extreme. Murder is condemned in all religions and codes of ethics, and so we can rightfully assume that some moral values are objective.

Conclusion

My Opponent has not provided any arguments against the existence of God. The only way he can win this round is to completely destroys every single one of my arguments, and leaves it clear that they do not evenly slightly suggest the existence of God. If even a fraction of one of my arguments still stands, I win because he has provided none of his own argument. Since he has not destroyed my arguments, I urge a Pro vote and greatly look forward to my Opponents reply.


Debate Round No. 2
bodhiBit

Con

bodhiBit forfeited this round.
thett3

Pro

First off, thank you Con for this debate. I will now defend my arguments against my Opponents objections.

Kalam Cosmological argument

Con states that this argument is based on "the strawman of scientific unknowns". Completely false. Indeed this argument is grounded in scientific law! Con ignores my analysis that something cannot come from nothing, thus conceding to it. Con states that the Univserse "could be finite or infinite" however, he has already conceded to my statement about infinity being impossible and thus this objection falls.

Con also tries to offer several scientific theories to attempt to further his disbelief in God. This in no way invalidates God's existence, because he has not shown in his theories the Universe to be uncaused. However the Universe was created, since scientific law does not allow for things to be created from nothing, a power that can undermine scientific laws must exist, like God.

This point stands.


Plantinga's modal argument

Con only attacks premise three. Premise three stands because God is needed to create all worlds, therefore he cannot exist in only one world. Thus is God's existence is possible, than God exists.

Objective Morality

Con concedes that morality exists. Remember, the dfinition of God I provided mentions God as "the source of all moral authority."Just by this, I win however I will further attack my Opponents objections. Con has never explained a plausible reason to explain morality. As a species, humans are unique in their possession of a consience, of morality. If evolution could properly explain morality, than humans would not be unique in their possession of it. I've contended that God is the only rational explanation for morality, and my Opponent has not disproven this. Even if you, as a judge, disagree with this argument, for the purposes of this round it is valid.

I strongly urge a Pro vote for this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bodhiBit 5 years ago
bodhiBit
I appologize for the late response.. But I have posted it here in the comments, just to prove that I had it ready to post.. unfortunately the spell checker just took to long..

Technically I have forfeited the debate by not posting on time, but you may vote any way you want.. Whether its based on the rebuttal I DID post, or including the late rebuttal here in the comments.. or if you want to punish me for my lack of self discipline.. I leave it to you voters to decide..

And thank you, thett3, for the debate.. and sorry for keeping you waiting..
Posted by bodhiBit 5 years ago
bodhiBit
=== Argument three: Objective morality. ===
Pro makes a weak argument that suggests that objective morality can only come from God.. Pro argues that because morality is commanding (which it is: people command each other in accordance with their morality), there must be a higher authority to do the commanding.. this does not follow.. people are sufficiently capable of infering their own morality.. Pro complains that cause and effect does not explain "the moral aspect", but fails to elaborate..
Posted by bodhiBit 5 years ago
bodhiBit
=== Argument two: Plantinga's modal argument. ===
Pro presents a number of arguments all chained together to lead to the final conclusion: "6. Therefore, God exists"
Since each statement depends on the previous (exept for the first), it only takes one error to invalidate the entire argument..

"3. If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world"
<=> "if A is some of B then A is all of B"
As pointed out, this does not logically follow.. If a member is part of a group, it does not neccecarily imply that the member occupies the entire group..

As the rest of the statements depend on this premise, there is no need to go on with this argument.. it is already invalidated..
Posted by bodhiBit 5 years ago
bodhiBit
I will remind Pro of the terms of this debate..
In my first post I stated the term: "It is up to Pro to give me a rational reason to believe that a god exists.."
This doesn't mean merely hinting, suggesting or implying.. It means presenting argument, documentation and/or direct evidence to rationally justify a belief in the existence of a creator god..

Furthermore: "It is up to me to point out any flaws in Pro's arguments.."
This means that I'm not obligated to provide arguments of my own.. I am merely to point out and adress the errors and deficiencies of Pro's arguments.. The burden of proof is entirely on Pro..

Since appearantly I haven't made my points clear enough in my previous post, and no new arguments have been provided, I will try to elaborate..

=== Argument one: The Kalam cosmological argument. ===

Pro presents this argument as a classic syllogism almost as if that is the entire argument.. However, even granting its logical validity and impirical soundness (disregarding terminological ambiguity), it makes no reference to any god..

Only after the formal argument does Pro try to equate the cause of the universe to God, and does so appealing to a strawman of scientific unknowns.. We don't know what, if anything, was before The Big Bang, let alone that there was nothing.. We don't know whether the universe exists for a finite or infinite amount of time.. And since no reasons based on unknown premises are rational reasons, I have hereby pointed out a flaw in Pro's attemt to give a rational reason..

Secondly, there are a lot of plausible hypothesies about what created the universe.. It could be an oscilating universe being created and destroyed repeatedly.. Maybe we are characters in a story being told right now.. Maybe we are all stuck in The Matrix.. You can make up a lot of explainations, all consistent and difficult/impossible to disprove, but no way to tell which one is the right explaination.. at least not with out current knowledge..
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
I'd love to be con!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by aircraftmechgirl 5 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
bodhiBitthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con admitted premises, and then forfeited. It's an obvious win by Pro.
Vote Placed by ohnoyoulost 5 years ago
ohnoyoulost
bodhiBitthett3Tied
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: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
bodhiBitthett3Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit