The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
fishinbub
Pro (for)
Losing
8 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 5 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,276 times Debate No: 22021
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (5)

 

16kadams

Con

No definitions are needed. 1st round acceptance only.
fishinbub

Pro

I accept on the premise that God is defined as the supernatural.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

I accept the definition of a supernatural christian god as the definition provided by pro.

~POE~

1. If god exists he is morally perfect and omnipotent
2. If he is omnipotent he has the power to stop evil
3. If god is omniscient he knows when evil exists
4. If god exists and is morally perfect he has the power to end all evil
5. Evil exists
6. God cannot exist. [1]

Premise 1:

God is morally perfect, omnipotent, and like in P3 omniscient. [2] Now, as this is the case one can assume many things. God then knows what is evil and what is not, and is all powerful in all cases. The scripture holds him omnipotent many a time. [3]

Premise 2:

Given the fact god is morally perfect and omnipotent this causes some problems in the god argument. If he is morally perfect, he knows what is right and wrong always. This is accepted by both sides of the aisle. Now, if he exists he is also omnipotent and can do anything according to the scriptures. [3] So god can stop evil as he is omnipotent.

Premise 3:

In psalm the bible states god is all knowing of everything. [4] If god is truly omniscient he knows when everything is occurring, when it is occurring, and how it is occurring. He is the most aware thing ever if he is to exist. This too is accepted by atheists and theologists alike, if he exists he knows all.

Premise 4:

This is the fun part. As god is all powerful, morally perfect, and all knowing it is very safe to assume he would stop all evil. God, as stated, knows all of the right and wrongs and is all powerful, right here it would be easy to argue if he truly had these powers and existed there would be little evil. But as he has these powers and is omniscient then there is no reason he would not have stopped many of these evils. He knows what is right and wrong, is all powerful, and is aware of everything. If this was correct then he would stop all evil from occurring. As he does not do this then either he does not exist or he is not powerful, and his non existence is more likely as a non powerful god en begs the question how a weakling made the universe.

Premise 5:

Indisputable, evil exists. I will provide the example of darfur where thousands of people are being killed in wars and famines. [5]

C:

As god has all of these attributes according to his very definition and evil does exist one must beg the question if evil exists how is his existence possible? He has all the powers needed to stop evil and determine what evil is, if he existed it is logical to conclude he would stop the evil from occurring. These evils and theism is incompatible. [6]

Conclusion:

God has these powers:

All powerful + All knowing + knows what is right and wrong. If this is true then the same equation should = no evil occurs. But in the world today the equation = evil occurs. But this now doesn't add up. Gods existence and evils existence CANNOT go together, therefore god doesn't exist.




[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] The Existence Of God Oxford University by Richard Swinburne
[3] http://www.parentcompany.com...
[4] http://christianstandard.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.infidels.org...
fishinbub

Pro

First off I would like to address Con's points, specifically point 6 which is a non-sequitor logic fallacy. You falsely assume that because evil exists, God cannot exist but you not display how this is the case. The key fallacy in your argument is the statement, "As god is all powerful, morally perfect, and all knowing it is very safe to assume he would stop all evil". We are left to assume God would stop all evil. Because God is a moral God, and it is immoral to infringe upon the free will of people, God does not infringe upon this free will. Evil is like cold. Cold is simply the absence of heat. Evil is the absence of morality. Men choose to have an absence of morality. Because God is a moral God, and infringing upon free will is immoral, God does not force you to be moral. Because God does not force yo to be moral, the decision to be evil, or absent of morality, is up to the individual.

Now I would like to present my points in favor or God, or the supernatural.

1)The universe had a definite origin. It had a definite end. We know this because the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy available to do work in the universe is decreasing. It also states that energy cannot travel from areas of low concentration to areas of high concentration. Therefore the fact that we have not run out of energy available to do work, and the fact that there is concentrated energy present in the universe dictates that the universe had a definite beginning.

2)The natural origin of the universe is not possible. The natural laws of science, specifically the first and second laws of thermodynamics dictate that the creation of matter and energy, as well as the concentration of energy in the universe is not possible. Matter cannot be created, energy cannot be created, and energy cannot travel from areas of low concentration to high. Because the natural laws dictate that energy cannot be created or increased in concentration, we can conclude the the creation and concentration of energy in the universe is not natural.

3)The universe had a supernatural origin. Because the universe had a definite beginning, and the beginning was not natural, it must therefore be supernatural. God is defined as the supernatural. Therefore God must exist.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

My Argument:

His refutation to this is it's a fallacy, then doesn't support that premise, then he posts a contradictory argument of free will. People believe that god has a plan for us. If this is true then it is contradictory with free will. Free will means that we are in control, not god. [2] But according to the belief in god itself he is in control, if this is true then free will doesn't exist, of free will exists and evil exists then god cannot exist according to the POE. I will sum this up with a shorter POE:

" (P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.
(P2) There is evil in the world.
(P3) Some of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.
(C) Therefore, there is no God who is all powerful and all good. "[3]

To end the defense of my argument my opponents refutation actually contradicts with the god has a plan aspect of god.

My opponent basically posted a KCA type argument that goes as follows:

"1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause." [4]

I will refute his Kalam Points in Order:

Premise 1:

The universe did have a beginning, but this does not mean god created it. We agree on this premise, the universe has a beginning.

Premise 2:

Now here's where we disagree. Your are claiming an action such as the big bangs occurrence is impossible without god. I argue the big bang was created but not by a god. Saying everything has a cause is actually contradictory to the fact that god himself doesn't have a cause. [5] So, if everything must have a cause then god cannot exist as god fundamentally was not created. Now then I must explain what made the big bang. The big bang was started by naturally occurring quantum fluctuations. [6] Ok now to refuting your premise. If your premise was true energy would be concentrated, energy not expanding now shrinking. You forget the fact the big bang, a ton of energy, is expanding. As the big bang is expanding your premise is now false as energy is growing, not staying put. [6]

Premise 3:

I have proven the big bang was a natural occurrence therefore god doesn't exist.

Conclusion:

I have defeated his arguments and proven his refutations contradictory to god himself, vote con.





[1] Jeremiah 29:11
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://www.reason42.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
fishinbub

Pro

My opponent states that because God has a plan, there is free will. This is a hasty generalization, as my opponent does not explain how this is the case. I will display that this is not in fact that case. God has a plan, but we are given the option to accept or deny that plan, ie free will. A fine example is the Jews' crucifixion of Christ. It was God's plan that the Jews accept Christ as the Son of God and their king, but the Jews were allowed free will to accept or deny this plan. The Jews exercised this free will by denying Christ as the Son of God and King of Israel. It is quite obvious that God as a plan, and that we are given free will to accept or deny that plan.

In point [5] my opponent incorrectly attempts to apply the laws of science (nature) to a supernatural being. Science is the study of the natural world. Therefore the discoveries of science do no apply to the supernatural. You have accepted the definition of God as the supernatural. Therefore the laws of science do not apply to God. You cannot bind the creator with the same limitations of the creation. We know that Ipods are not capable of emotion. Therefore using your logic we can conclude that Steve Jobs is not capable of emotion. We know this conclusion simply is not correct. Steve Jobs loved animals and refused to eat meat. This is a testament to his emotional capabilities. Therefore your logic is flawed.

In point [6] my opponent contradicts the laws of science by stating that energy is growing. We know this cannot be true, because the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. My opponent has excepted the premise that the universe, more specifically the energy present within the universe, had a definite origin. We know that this is impossible because the natural laws of science dictate that energy cannot be created. Therefore the creation of energy must be supernatural. My opponent has accepted the premise that energy has an origin. He has accepted the premise that God is the supernatural. The laws of nature dictate that the creation of energy is supernatural.

Because the origin of energy is not natural, the supernatural must exist. Because God is defined as supernatural, God must exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

"A fine example is the Jews' crucifixion of Christ. It was God's plan that the Jews accept Christ as the Son of God and their king, but the Jews were allowed free will to accept or deny this plan. "

God creating free agents to bend his plans are contradictory. If god is indeed all powerful and has a plan the plan would happen. Why would he want us to do anything different? Having freedom itself is a dangerous problem that creates evil the thing he vowed to destroy. [1] Also if god is omniscient that means you don't have the power to say NO!!! If he knew yesterday I was going to write this, but I do not write this, then I have free will and god CANNOT be omniscient like you and I agree he is if he existed. If he knew yesterday I was going to write this sentence then I am technically NOT free to not write this sentence. If he is omniscient as we agree to then we technically can't have free will. These attributes to god contradict, if he ha a plan and is omniscient then we CANNOT have free will, therefore god cannot exist as he doesn't have these godly properties.

"We know this cannot be true, because the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created."

If this is true then nothing exists as god is energy. When I move my arm I am actually making energy through motion, therefore I just justified making energy. To disprove your argument all I must do is prove everything came from nothing. The universe used to have an energy of 0, with gravity of negative. [2] Then certain gravitational occurrences occurred and added positive gravity, creating quantum vacuum (energy was made just there...). These quantum fluctuations of energy 0 then created the universe with energies inside. [2] I have just proved a way without god that energies were CREATED. Further more the theory you are stating excludes the possibility of things at light speed creating energy.
Going faster then light creates infinite energy[3].

I have provided ways energy is created.


My argument:

1. If god exists he is morally perfect and omnipotent
2. If he is omnipotent he has the power to stop evil
3. If god is omniscient he knows when evil exists
4. If god exists and is morally perfect he has the power to end all evil
5. Evil exists
6. God cannot exist.


This argument stands. Vote Con.




[1] http://www.osho.com...
[2] http://www.infidels.org...
[3] http://math.ucr.edu...
fishinbub

Pro

My opponent operates on the false premise that if God has the power to infringe upon my free will and enact his plan, he will do so. I argue that this simply is not the case. It is immoral to infringe upon free will, and God is moral, therefore God does not infringe upon free will. I will address my opponents points in order.

1)Because God is omniscient that means you do not have the power to say no!!!
This is incorrect. You are operating on the assumption that because God has to power to infrine upon my free will, he will. I have the ability to throw my computer out the window, but I have not. Therefore using our logic we can conclude I do not exist. This is simply not true, as it is quite obvious that I in fact do exist. Therefore your logic is flawed.

My opponent also assumes that because God knows the outcome of my free free means God influence it. The fact that God knows what I am going to have for dinner tonight in no way affects my decision of what to have for dinner. I still exercise my free will, he simply knows the outcome of my free will. This does not mean he influenced it. I know the outcome of the 2012 super bowl, therefore using your logic I must have influenced the outcome. We know this is not the case, so therefore your logic is flawed.

2)My opponents states that because God is energy, and the origin of energy is impossible, then God does not exist. Once again he is attempting to apply natural laws to the supernatural. My opponent also states that by moving his arm, he creates energy. This is false, energy cannot be created. It is a basic principle of physics. My opponent is simply converting the potential energy from sugars ingested into kinetic energy, moving his arm. This displays a lack of understanding of the very basic principles of the natural world. If my opponent cannot even understand the basic principles of science, how then can he "prove" that the origin of the universe was natural?

3)Going faster than light creates infinite energy.
This has been disproven. http://www.reuters.com...

I would like the point out that Con is arguing AGAINST the basic principles of science. Because the basic principles of science have been found to always hold true in the natural world, one can logically deduce that Con's arguments are incorrect. Therefore Pro is the obvious choice.
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fishinbub 4 years ago
fishinbub
Actually he accepted my definition of God as the supernatural. That covers every God, demon, ghost, spirit etc. as well as supernatural events such as the creation of matter or energy...
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
haha...if this was me I would have made 16k disprove every possible conception (or at least dug up some obscure conceptions) of god there is simply because he didn't define god.
Posted by fishinbub 4 years ago
fishinbub
"Lastly, you say since the supernatural exist, God exist. False. Fallacy of hasty generalizations."

Con accepted my definition of God as the supernatural. If supernatural exists, and Supernatural=God, then God exits. Sounds like you have a problem with the definition of God. Unfortunately Con accepted my definition...
Posted by IFLYHIGH 4 years ago
IFLYHIGH
Con gave a source that showed if something goes faster than light(which the expansion of the universe is) than energy could be created. Your rebuttle was ENTIRELY based on the assumption that there are no exceptions to scientific theories or laws. Science has proven you false and Con has proven you false.

The debate was about God. Who were you trying to prove, the flying spaghetti monster? All I said is that you claimed the universe cause must be supernatural which is a false claim. False claims make for false conclusions. Show how the only cause for the universe must be supernatural, and then we'll talk. And thanks for answering my three questions below, just furthering my point that energy can be the eternal cause of the universe. Lastly, you say since the supernatural exist, God exist. False. Fallacy of hasty generalizations.

But the comment section isn't a debate. You were unclear in your arguments and your rebuttals unsubstantial. You have even now only answered half of my question. If you believe you won the debate, then fine go ahead, unfortunally it is my opinion that matters. I have seen superb arguments for KAC from a christian viewpoint and would have voted for them accordingly if I could have. But this was not a superb argument, it was filled with unproven assumptions and false claims. Learn like I did from my bad debates, and just try to do better next time. And that is my final thoughts folks, off to go eat some icecream and to read new debates ;)
Posted by fishinbub 4 years ago
fishinbub
What do you not understand about the fact that we have observed matter going faster than the speed of light, and there was no creation of energy?

Also you state that I displayed that the origin of the universe must be supernatural, but that I did not show that supernatural force was God. You obviously did not read the entire debate, as Con accepted my definition of God as the supernatural. Therefore if the supernatural exists, God exists. You conceded I won in your comment...
Posted by IFLYHIGH 4 years ago
IFLYHIGH
And since the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light and energy is being created, than there is infinite amount of energy.
Posted by IFLYHIGH 4 years ago
IFLYHIGH
Can you show that there is a finite amount of usable energy?
Can you show that unusable energy cannot be converted back into usable energy?
Posted by fishinbub 4 years ago
fishinbub
Energy is eternal, concentrated energy, or the energy available to do work is not. It cannot be. The second law of thermodynamics states that the energy in the universe available to do work is decreasing over time...
Posted by IFLYHIGH 4 years ago
IFLYHIGH
I have looked this up before and NOT ONE science article or theory said energy wan't eternal. They all said energy was eternal. If you could show me where thermodynamics says energy isn't eternal, than I will happily read it. Just one google search of "is energy eternal" and you will get a overwhelming yes.
Posted by fishinbub 4 years ago
fishinbub
Typo, usable energy cannot be eternal
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by mariahjane 4 years ago
mariahjane
16kadamsfishinbubTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved his point.
Vote Placed by TheBrorator 4 years ago
TheBrorator
16kadamsfishinbubTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro introduced what looked like a new argument in the last round. S/G and Args. to Pro because arguments were more logical, Cons first point was a logical fallacy, like Pro pointed out and was generally a weak argument to start with. Sources tie because it is not about the number of sources, but their legitimacy.
Vote Placed by IFLYHIGH 4 years ago
IFLYHIGH
16kadamsfishinbubTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully showed how pros arguments did not refute the POE. Poor agument for KCA on Pros side which was easily refuted by Con. Overall, pro end up being turned into a stawman and his sources did not support his claims.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
16kadamsfishinbubTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Con never defined evil. BOP was on him. Pro's refutations worked. Con never refuted Pro's argument for God. Sources to Con. S/G to Pro for stuff like "ok".
Vote Placed by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
16kadamsfishinbubTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro rebutted Con's POE in the end only by introducing a new argument in his final statement, an argument (or rather an assertion) for compatibilism. At the same time, Con did not rebut Pro's argument for God's existence; he rebutted a completely different argument. Tie.