The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Gwydion777
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,010 times Debate No: 46646
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Mikal

Con

I have been challenged to this debate and I accept

Both of us share the BOP and the person that presents the best case for why a God does or does not exist will win.

My adversary shall start his round with contentions. Meaning his R1 he shall go straight into his case

In his last round he shall type "no round as agreed upon"

Failure to type this in the last round shall result in a full 7 point loss due to him having an extra round.

Lets begin. I pass it over to my adversary to start his case.
Gwydion777

Pro

My first argument is going to be focused on the idea of the teleological argument, that is, the world is too designed to have been brought about on its own.

1) We all have gone outside and smelled the fresh air, gazed on the seemingly endless horizon, and laid in the soft and comforting grass sometime in our lives. (if you haven't I highly suggest so, it cures cancer). I am sure, being on debate.org, that we have all considered how the world has been put into place and designed to run perfectly without defects. My answer is that you, me, and the rest of the universe was created by a higher deity, God.

2) My first example will be about the position of the earth. I learned this, in fact, in 7th grade. My teacher showed us that the earth is placed in the perfect position so that it isn't too hot or too cold, regardless of the time of year. Even in the hottest places in the middle of summer on earth will never be over the temperature for live to thrive. If the earth were any closer then this figure would be dramatically changed, to the point of being fatal. In addition, if the earth were any farther away from the sun then we would all freeze in the coldest times of year. Even where the earth is in the universe points to a great designer.

3) My next point is that somewhere in the world there is a particular insect (the name escapes me at the moment) that has the ability to project from its abdomen a pyro-based chemical that is used against its predators. First of all, coolest bug in the world. Second of all, assuming that my opponent or anyone reading this is a follower of evolution, this would be physically impossible to accomplish through evolution. If evolution claims that the world is billions of years old and if this bug started developing maybe a few thousand years ago, then it would make sense that it had to evolve to acquire this ability. If you research this bug, which I suggest it is very interesting, you will find that its anatomical structure is so precise, radical, and important to its survival that it would've evolved correctly the VERY FIRST time for it to have worked correctly. If it had made a mistake it would either not work or even blow up. If every bug did this, then it wouldn't be able to pass its findings to its children, then all of its children would blow up, then their children would blow up, until you have no more " fire bugs".

4) My argument is simply stating that if we live in a world of design, there must be a designer.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

I would like to thank Pro for proposing this debate

The first thing I want to review is the resolution

"God exists"

I do want to point out what I have to do to win and what my adversary must do to win. He must show that God exists. He can not show that God probably exists, or that there is a possibility that God exists, but must abide by the resolution

This is a positive claim, and by saying this he is affirming that God does exist. There must be empirical and direct evidence to support this statement, and he must not operate under assumption

It is my job to provide reasonable doubt, and also show why we do not need a God.


An Impossible Stance

Atheism and Christians share one common issue. The issue is they both claim a positive statement. Atheist claim "God does not exist", Christians claim that "God does exist". The fundamental failure in both of these stances, is that we are discussing something that cannot be tested or proven to be factual.

This is commonly explained through an analogy called Russel's Teapot.


" Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God." [1][2]

This is the most logical way to try and address an argument like this. It is psychically impossible for Christians to claim that they are correct because there is no way to they can be proven wrong. Atheist have the same issue in a similar way. It is impossible to say that they are right because there is no way to prove it either.

No need for Creationism.

This is a simple appeal to Occam's Razor. If we have a working model of how the universe began and was created, why add unnecessary changes to the model that is already working. Through modern science we can clearly see how the universe began, and that it does not need a creator to jump start it.

There are things that are called quantum flotations that can explain how matter and space first began to exist. To first address this question we need to ask can something come from nothing? Let's ask the novel prize winner David Gross

http://www.youtube.com...

Gross showed that the space between quarks in a proton can produce matter and energy randomly from nothing. They can exist and come into place through quantum fluctuation. So yes something can come from nothing. The next thing we have to address is what type of universe do we live in.


We can live in an open , flat , or closed universe. This is also addressed with curvature. The universe can be Positive, Negative, or Flat.












All three geometries are classes of what is called Riemannian geometry, based on three possible states for parallel lines

never meeting (flat or Euclidean)
must cross (spherical)
always divergent (hyperbolic) [3]









The universe is commonly accepted as a flat universe.


" Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."[4]

The perfect part about this is that a flat universe yields total energy 0. Which is the only universe that can produce quantum fluctuation and actually spawn random universe into existence. [5]




Probability

When determining if something is actually a working model or viable model, there are a variety of factors that go into play. One of which is probability. The irony of this is that probability is actually in my favor. I can show that a God probably does not exist and meet my part of the resolution. My adversary can not abide by this and must show empirical evidence. That is the downside of the resolution and claiming such a bold stance.

Example

Let's examine this statement

"Chickens like to peck the ground"

Now lets have a little thought experiment. Pretend we have no idea what a chicken is. We have just discovered them and we are observing facts about them. We have ten chickens in ten different pens. We notice that the first 8 chickens like to peck the ground. The ninth does not. So when we go to watch the tenth, what is the most logical conclusion we are going to arrive at? The chicken will probably like to peck the ground. We can assume this because it is a trend among the majority of other chickens.

Through experiments like this, hypotheses and theories are developed. Working theories often share a common theme and can be proven through verifiable evidence. How do we know chickens like to peck the ground? Because 99 percent of chickens like to do this. Even if 80 percent of chickens liked to peck the ground, if we were going to make a theory it would be something like "most chickens like to peck the ground"


Conclusion

Creationism is an outdated idea that should have long since been discarded. We have working models such as evolution, and even the string theory to help us understand how we began to exist. When we are normally dealing in terms of logic and rationality we take basics facts and compare it to other basic facts

The issue with God is that you can insert any variable in place of God and it would have the same tone and argument. You could say (x) created the universe. There is no way to prove it or disprove it, the only logical way to address this is the previous ones that I mentioned. Do we need (x) to explain how and why the universe operates? No we do not, we have working models in every way, shape, and form that help us understand how and why we exist

The resolution we are looking at is

"God exists"

Perhaps you could prove it is rational to believe in creationism but it is almost impossible to prove that it is viable. When compared to modern scientific data and facts. There is no need for it.








[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://russell.mcmaster.ca...
[3]http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
[4]http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[5]Lawerence Krauss; A Universe from nothing
Gwydion777

Pro

I would like to commend my opponent for such a convincing, appealing, and well-structured argument. However, I would like to point out that try to prove that God doesn't exist is just as impossible as trying to prove that he exists. For example. I could research all of the ancient texts, go to the places where it happened, and find no evidence it did. No you can go there and do the same thing as I but in the opposing case. Just because you don't find anything doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is the same for religion. How can you prove he doesn't exist if I can't prove he does exist? By the idea that "since he isn't here and we can't seem to see him anywhere" doesn't prove he isn't there.

"No ned for Creationism." It would seem that science has shown us what the universe is like and how it started, but the concept that, "it does not need a creator to jump start it" is completely false. Creationism doesn't mean "jump start it," it means to bring into being.

Genesis 1
King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Something coming from nothing is exactly what God is about. This also goes along with the statement, "It is my job to provide reasonable doubt, and also show why we do not need a God. God created the world for Him, not for us. In fact, the Bible tells us that God created man because the other animals weren't in His likeness. He breathed his own essence into the first man. In addition, God gives us mercy and grace for our sins by sacrificing his own son, Jesus Christ, so that we don't have to suffer eternal Hell. He isn't just a man giving us eternal forgiveness though, He has struck down countless men and gives us a new day everyday. If anything is to be said about God, its that we need Him, and He doesn't need us, not the reciprocal.

Sources for Genesis 1:http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

At this point there is nothing to refute sadly. My adversary has used the bible as a source which is not a credible source in this type of debate. He would first have to show that it is accurate.

In addition to this he says

"Something coming from nothing is what God is about"

He accidentally conceded by premise that something can come from nothing or without a cause, which negates the fact that we need a God. There is no need for a God if the universe could cause itself or does not need a cause in order for it to exist.


I am going to offer one brief contention


Bible is not a source.

The only rebuttals he used were form the bible. If the bible is proven wrong he loses this debate. I am just going to touch on this slightly with the age of the earth.



When we look at timelines for the earth according to the bible it is roughly 6 thousand years old [1].






Now how do we know this is false. I could do an entire debate off of this but will keep it short

(a) carbon dating

Through dating and other forms of measurement we can see that some of the rocks on earth are shown to be nearly 3 billion years old [2]. In addition to this we can use half life and other various methods to tell the earth is more than 6 thousand years old. If the earth is older than 6,500 years the bible is false unless you are taking a epoc stance on the days in which God created the earth but when reading this literally and not subjectively it is 6,500 years old. Even in the Greek and Hebrew versions of the bible almost all text points to this being a literally seven days no matter how you play semantics with it.

(b) dendrochronology

This is

(dendron = tree, chronos = time, logos = word = the science of): The science that uses tree rings dated to their exact year of formation to analyze temporal and spatial patterns of processes in the physical and cultural sciences. [3]

Basically this is measuring a trees rings to see how the tree is. More in depth but that is the short version. Just some younger trees have been discovered to be 8,000 years old with others being 11,000 years. This is the younger ones and the dates of some trees go back even further than that. For the purpose of this debate 8,000 is sufficient though. [4]


Conclusion

There is no need for a God. My adversary also conceded the point something could come from nothing negating the need for a God

I also refuted the fact the bible is accurate







[1] http://bridavis.chickenfactory.net...
[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3] http://web.utk.edu...
[4] http://waynesword.palomar.edu...
Gwydion777

Pro

Gwydion777 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Implying that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Dukej, just stop with the votebombing.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 2 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Vitezamotors, Science is not corrupt-able.

Specific studies might be corrupt-able but the peer-review process is important
for dealing with such issues.

Do you not know what the peer-review process is?
Posted by Gwydion777 2 years ago
Gwydion777
It is one to be debated about. As long as there is a belief there will be someone to oppose it. That goes for both sides.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Lost count at how many times this subject has been debated.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
its cool

thanks for being balsy enough to challenge me mate :0
Posted by Gwydion777 2 years ago
Gwydion777
Dang it. I couldn't get on today. I guess I had to forfeit the last round.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
"we have all considered how the world has been put into place and designed to run perfectly without defects."

that last part made me lol
Posted by ninjakiwi0717 2 years ago
ninjakiwi0717
Your opponent also has to prove that the Bible is not a credible source since she said so.
Posted by Vitezamotors 2 years ago
Vitezamotors
Well that's the point. I have seen a bunch of debates and you hit the nail on the head. We talk about the notion that man created the bible, therefore corruptible. Science is also corruptible, how do you think science is funded? Through grants right? The people who find scientists want certain types of results. Do you think creationists fund reserch for evolution...I doubt it.

Both sources are corruptible! That being said, I will simply vote for the person with the most logical reasoning. Philosophy is great when trying to ask the right questions for the unknown. I won't vote based on sources, as with this particular debate, it's useless. The person with he best deductive reasoning will get my vote.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
MikalGwydion777Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dawndawndawndawn 2 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
MikalGwydion777Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, made good points, gently, and fleshed out the points well. I was impressed by the grammar, even with a few missing commas. Con's knowledge of the greater arguments of the past is impressive and the use of the greater arguments of the past is part of what made Con's sources excellent
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 2 years ago
progressivedem22
MikalGwydion777Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had reliable sources and arguments, whilst Pro's primary case came from the Bible, which cannot stand alone as evidence. Pretty good debate, though. That turtle/slug/alien/whatever image is amazing.