The Instigator
zmikecuber
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
invisibledeity
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 4 votes the winner is...
zmikecuber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 44771
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

zmikecuber

Pro

Resolution: God exists.

I would like to thank Invisible Deity for the chance to debate him on this subject.

I shall be arguing that God exists. For the sake of this debate, God shall be defined as: an immaterial, timeless, powerful mind.

The burden of proof shall be upon me to demonstrate the existence of such a being. Without further ado, let's get into my arguments...

The Kalam Cosmological argument (KCA)

The KCA can be broken into two parts:

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: .'. The universe has a cause of its existence.

P3: EITHER the cause is a mind, OR the cause is an abstract object.
P4: The cause is not an abstract object.
C: .'., The cause is a mind.

The first part is a logically valid BARBARA categorical syllogism. (1)

The second part is a logically valid disjunctive syllogism. (2)

Thus, in order for the argument to be sound, the premises must be shown to be true. This is where the argument lies. I shall argue for the truth of the premises below.

Defense of Premise 1
There are multiple reasons to accept P1 as true. I shall list them.

1. This premise is a formulation of the most basic principle of metaphysics "ex nihilo nihil fit" meaning, "out of nothing, nothing comes" first formulated by the Ancient Greek Parmenides. (3) Since this is simply just a basic principle of metaphysics, it seems reasonable to accept this premise as true.

2. The second reason to accept the first premise is that it just seems intuitively true. If suddenly a rabbit appeared in front of us, for no apparent cause whatsoever, our first reaction would be to ask "What caused this rabbit to appear?" This suffices to show that the premise is just intuitively true. Unless we are given reasons which show otherwise, it is reasonable to follow our intuitions.

3. The third and final reason is probably one of the most obvious. Namely, that our experience assures us of the truth of premise 1. I for one, have never seen something come into being without any cause whatsoever. I doubt that anyone has ever experienced such a thing. While this is not necessarily conclusive evidence, it does add towards the favor of P1.

The first premise of the argument has been established as true.

Defense of Premise 2
The second premise is also easily defendable. The Bourde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem tells us that the universe definitely had a beginning. This beginning is also known as the big bang. While one may argue that a multiverse may be the case, and that this multiverse may have an infinite past, the BGV theorem also puts this notion to rest.

Listen to what world-renowned physicist Alexander Vilenkin has to say:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." (4)

Thus, modern physics points towards the beginning of the universe.

Therefore, the conclusion of the first part of the argument follows necessarily: The universe has a cause of its existence.

Now I shall proceed to defend the second half of the KCA.

Defense of Premise 3
Premise 3 is easily defended as well. At this point, it has logically been established that the universe has a cause of its existence. Clearly, this cause can be nothing physical, since if it were physical, it would be a part of the universe, and nothing can cause itself. It follows that the cause must be immaterial. Furthermore, whatever exists outside of the universe, must also exist outside of time. So the cause of the universe must be immaterial, and timeless.

Clearly, there are only two options which fit this description. Either an immaterial, timeless mind, or an immaterial timeless object. Either a personal cause, or a non-personal cause.

Defense of Premise 4
Finally, our last premise. In order to cause the universe to exist, the cause must have causal ability. This is logically clear. However, abstract objects cannot cause anything. If I find a pot of water boiling on my stove, and I ask "Who started this pot of water boiling?" it would be absurd to answer: "The number 7" or "The laws of logic" or "The objectively moral obligation to not kill."

Thus, it is obviously clear that non-personal immaterial and timeless things do not have any causal ability. The only other option is a personal cause, or a mind.

Conclusion
In conclusion, all of our premises have been defended as true. The conclusion follows necessarily: The cause of the universe is a mind. We have also rationally shown that the cause of the universe must be timeless, as well as immaterial. Furthermore, if the immaterial, timeless mind, is able to cause the existence of the universe, it must be immensely powerful.

Therefore, there exists an immaterial, timeless, immensely powerful mind.

The resolution has been affirmed.

Over to Con!

Sources:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
(4) Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176
invisibledeity

Con

Your usual blabber and trying to rehash arguments others made!

Not going to get into the same old which came first, god or the universe argument, Yada Yada!

You have no hard evidence a god exists. If you did, then WHERE IS YOUR NOBEL PRIZE?!?!?

Regardless, I DO NOT put the possibility of an existence of a god or gods at zero (just highly unlikely), and considered myself primarily agnostic until recently.

Even IF there is a god or gods, there is ZERO hard evidence that god or gods concerns itself in human affairs or intervenes the physical world or communicates with humanity in any way. That makes ALL RELIGIONS THE CREATIONS OF PEOPLE!!

So, go ahead and assume there is a god or gods out there. I have no problem with that. What causes problems is when people arrogantly say they know what a god wants, thinks etc.

Lets see:
1. hard evidence a god or god intervenes in human affairs or the physical world in any way
2. hard evidence to prove this god or gods has/have certain characteristics
3. hard evidence this god or gods has/have communicated their thoughts to humanity in any way

If you cannot show hard evidence for the above, you admit all religions are based on pure speculation and the Abrhamic god in particular is a lie created by men.

Can we agree on that point?? If so, go ahead and assume that a god or gods exist. Just admit that it is pure speculation and you have no idea what that god or gods are like even if they do exist and that all religions are the creations of men.
Debate Round No. 1
zmikecuber

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his somewhat passionate response. Unfortunately, he has failed to address the argument presented, and commits numerous Red-Herring logical fallacies.

To begin with, my opponent demands "hard evidence." I shall assume by this he means "scientific proof." But this is absurd. The existence of God is primarily a metaphysical matter, not a scientific one. Thus, this qualifies as a Red-Herring fallacy.

Then my opponent objects against religion. However, the topic of this debate is not regarding religion per se. Once again, these rebuttals are irrelevant and do not address the issue at hand. Another Red-Herring fallacy.

Until my opponent refutes the argument I have presented, the resolution remains affirmed.

Back to my opponent!
invisibledeity

Con

Maybe in your desperate little mind!
As for proving a god exists, you fail. If you had hard evidence and not just word games and old philosophical arguments you tried to copy from others, you could win a Nobel Prize!!

Most importantly, you have repeatedly ran from the fact that whether or not any god or gods exist is only a side issue for me. I dont think they do, but I do not put the chances at zero either.

My main point all along is that all religions are the creations of men as are the gods people worship, particularly the Abrahamic god.

As you cannot offer one spec of hard evidence that any god that intervenes in the world and human affair in any way exists, let alone show what characteristics that god has or prove what he wants from us, you have totally conceded my main point and admitted religions are based on pure human speculation.

That means either you agree with me or you lose. I am fine with either!!! Either way, the abrahamic god in particular is a sick joke!!
Debate Round No. 2
zmikecuber

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent still refuses to respond to the arguments I have presented. He repeats his personal opinions regarding religions ad nauseam, which is irellevant to the issue at hand.

Futhermore, he continually pokes jabs at the Abrahamic God. This is due to previous discussions he and I have had. Once again, they are irellevant to the topic at hand, and do not affect the Kalam Cosmological argument.

The resolution remains affirmed: Please vote Pro!
invisibledeity

Con

Oh, you want to run off on that topic because you cannot refute my point that religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones, are completely and utterly baseless!!

Again, you have nothing but speculation, copied arguments and word games. Not a spec of hard evidence any god or gods exist.

But as I have said so many times, I do not put the possibility of a god or gods existing at zero and that is not my main point by a long shot. I am willing to give that one to you for arguments sake regardless.

My points stand. As nobody can offer a spec of hard evidence any god is intervening in our world in any way, takes an interest in human affairs, communicates to us in any way etc. (all evidence in fact points against it), we can safely say that all of the religions and gods people have worshiped throughout human history were created by people, PARTICULARLY THE ABRAHAMIC ONE!!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RationalEvolutionist 2 years ago
RationalEvolutionist
Invisible is so f*cking stupid. Apologies. He continously babbled about his opponent not providing any evidence to support his claim, yet according to R1, he defends premises that validly follow the conclusion that a god created the Universe.
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
@ApollosMuse,

Perhaps I should have said "immaterial substance"? Either way, you get the general idea. An immaterial non-personal something.

Creation is not necessarily breaking the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit. There is a cause, namely God. You might try reading up what Aquinas' has to say on the subject.

http://www.newadvent.org...
http://dhspriory.org...
Posted by ApollosMuse 2 years ago
ApollosMuse
"P3: EITHER the cause is a mind, OR the cause is an abstract object."

Abstract object is a contradiction of terms as abstract is defined as "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence" and an object is defined as "anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form."

Moreover, you quote ex nihilo nihil fit. If an immaterial mind created the universe, where did the material come from that created the universe? Basically you are arguing that an immaterial mind willed material into existence, i.e. the universe was created ex nihilo. There has never been any observed example anything coming into existence ex nihilo.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
zmikecuberinvisibledeityTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow! I've never given all 7 point to somebody before (except a troll debate where I was asked to), but that's how things turned out. Arguments to Pro because he defined God, then gave an argument for the God he defined. Con just ignored that argument throughout the debate and raised red herring after red herring. Conduct to Pro because Con referred to Pro's opening as his "usual blabber," and responded to Pro's first rebuttal by saying, "Maybe in your desperate little mind." Sources to Pro because Pro cited four sources in his opening, two of which were academic, whereas Con cited no sources at all. S&G to Pro because of Con's grammar mistakes, e.g. incomplete sentence: "Your usual blabber and trying to rehash arguments others made!" and incorrectly conjugating a verb: "...you have repeatedly ran.." Con would've done better if he had forfeited every round because at least he would not have lost the S&G points.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
zmikecuberinvisibledeityTied
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 did not respond to pro's arguments and was very rude.
Vote Placed by chengste 2 years ago
chengste
zmikecuberinvisibledeityTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: neither had good sources, Wiki is not credible in my eyes
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
zmikecuberinvisibledeityTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL, Con's "passionate" writing (as Pro so politely put it) caught me off guard and was pretty hilarious since it was un-provoked. Interestingly, let me point out that Con's name seems to contradict his position... if he is an invisible deity, most of his arguments are lies. LOL. Anyways, Pros arguments were more, erm, CONVINCING? haha. Con's arguments were just an emotionally driven stampede of loaded words and sarcasm. Pro used more reliable sources, like that Alexander guy. Pro deserves a better opponent.