The Instigator
Dagolas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
stubs
Pro (for)
Winning
34 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 7 votes the winner is...
stubs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 742 times Debate No: 29713
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

Dagolas

Con

I know we get a similar debate every day, but I'd like to try my hand at it.
This debate is simple: Does God exist?
The Con (myself) will have to prove that God does not exist, and Pro will have to prove that a God does indeed exist.
My opponent may immediately start with arguments.
stubs

Pro

I accept this debate.

I would like to provide a definition. For this debate God will be defined as a maximally great being as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity. Hence doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are irrelvant to this debate.

I hope my opponent is okay with this definition. As he has stated, the burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable. I look forward to the debate and best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Dagolas

Con

Dagolas forfeited this round.
stubs

Pro

First I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as well as thank my opponent for setting up this debate.

The ontological argument:

1: It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2: If it is possible that God exists, he exists in some possible world.
3: If God exists in some possible world, He exists in every possible world.
4: If God exists in every possible world, He exists in the actual world.
5: Therefore, God exists in the actual world
6: Therefore, God exists
7: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

When philosophers talk of possible worlds, they just mean the way the world might have been. A possible world is not a planet or universe. It is just a world description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world is to say that no matter which description is true, the entity will be included in that description. We can use unicorns as an example. Unicorns do not in fact exists, but there is some possible world in which unicorns exists. There are many mathematicians that think numbers exists in every possible world. That is to say they exists necessarily. God is the greatest conceivable being. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. What would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and he would exists in every logically possible world. Let's look at the implications of this. If Gods existence is even possible, then if follows that God must exist. If a maximally great being exists in any possible world, it exists in all of them. That's part of what it means to be maximally great. So if Gods existence is even possible, he exists in every possible world, including the actual world.

The atheist has to maintain that it is actually impossible for God to exist. The atheist has to say that the concept of God is not even possible in any possible world. Take for example a married bachelor. There is no possible world in which a married bachelor exists. My opponent would have to show that God is something like a married bachelor, not existing in any possible world. The problem is that God does not seem to be incoherent in that way. The idea that a being is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and exists in every possible world is coherent.
Debate Round No. 2
Dagolas

Con

Dagolas forfeited this round.
stubs

Pro

Extend Arguments
Debate Round No. 3
Dagolas

Con

Dagolas forfeited this round.
stubs

Pro

Extend Arguments
Debate Round No. 4
Dagolas

Con

Dagolas forfeited this round.
stubs

Pro

Extend Arguments
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
I was talking to a friend the other day and somehow our conversation directed to unicorns and mythical creatures. This occurred to me- we actually could make it so unicorns exist (without the magic and rainbows, of course). I watched an episode of NOVA where scientists were able to genetically modify a rat to grow something that looked like an ear on its back. We could do the same with horses by genetically modifying them to grow a horn.

Pretty cool. :-)
Posted by Dagolas 3 years ago
Dagolas
I'll start up the arguments, no worries.
Posted by stubs 3 years ago
stubs
Dagolas, must I start with arguments in the first round? I prefer to just let you start in round two that way we can both post in the last round and I don't get an extra round of argumentation. Thank you for setting up the debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by gt4o2007 3 years ago
gt4o2007
DagolasstubsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm Atheist and yet I'm voting for the person that say's god exists tsk tsk
Vote Placed by Maikuru 3 years ago
Maikuru
DagolasstubsTied
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: Con was sent to hell and forfeited all rounds.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 3 years ago
InquireTruth
DagolasstubsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: You always hate to see good debates go to waste.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
DagolasstubsTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Apeiron 3 years ago
Apeiron
DagolasstubsTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
DagolasstubsTied
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: F.F.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
DagolasstubsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro because of con's FF. Arguments to pro because con fails to present any argument at all. Even though I don't necessarily agree with pro, it was a great and fairly well construced argument on his side.