The Instigator
SweetCrackerJack
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mabrewer
Con (against)
Tied
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 404 times Debate No: 42901
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

SweetCrackerJack

Pro

I will argue in favor of the resolution that a God indeed exists.

Big Bang theory argument

P1) If the Big Bang occured, it must have a cause

Defense of P1

According to the theory, due to the extreme heat and pressure (It was very dense, and matter was very compact), it was no longer able to hold in, and the Big Bang ooccured.

If it was eternal, and at one point, there was this cataclysmic explosion, how did it hold in for so long?

Kalam Cosmological argument

1) If we came into existence, we must have a cause
2) We came into existence
3) Therefore, we have a cause
4) That cause is God
5) Therefore, God exists

Defense of P1

If something is designed, it must have a designer. If something is created, it must have a creator. Think about it. The chances of the first men and women just coming into existence with no cause whatsoever is vanishingly small. It also sounds absurd.

Defense of P2

This is pretty self-explanatory.

Defense of P3

Like said, think about it. The chances of the first people to come into existence with no cause whatsoever is vanishingly small. It sounds absurd.

Defense of P4

Self-explanatory.

Defense of P5

Because we came into existence, we have a cause. That cause is God. Therefore, God exists.
mabrewer

Con

I accept the premise that the Big Bang must have had a cause.

I reject the "designed/creation" argument because you have not established that we are designed or created. That is a necessary prerequisite to your argument.

"Because we came into existence, we have a cause. That cause is God. Therefore, God exists."

The first sentence is unassailable. The second, that the cause is God, is an undefended premise inserted into the argument, not a logical continuation of the argument.
Debate Round No. 1
SweetCrackerJack

Pro

matt is blank
mabrewer

Con

mabrewer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SweetCrackerJack

Pro

SweetCrackerJack forfeited this round.
mabrewer

Con

mabrewer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SweetCrackerJack

Pro

SweetCrackerJack forfeited this round.
mabrewer

Con

mabrewer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SweetCrackerJack

Pro

SweetCrackerJack forfeited this round.
mabrewer

Con

mabrewer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by xxWesxx 2 years ago
xxWesxx
Pro's entire debate is a string of pre-existing arguments that have been around for centuries, and are all mashes of logical fallacies. I don't even see the need of con to post an argument, a fallacious debate is fallacious with or without a rebuttal. Pro simply has no debate here.
No votes have been placed for this debate.