The Instigator
ambassador4christ
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DudeStop
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

God exixts?

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 1 vote the winner is...
DudeStop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 700 times Debate No: 41083
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

ambassador4christ

Pro

Does God exist? I would argue yes. Round 1 for acceptance only. I llok forward to a respectful debate round. Also no foul language, or direct rudeness.
Debate Round No. 1
ambassador4christ

Pro

hi there, thank-you for excepting! Let's begin...
I shall present my case in two main arguments. (well kinda three I guess!)

Argument 1 Rationality
What comes from nothing? nothing of course. God is the source of energy and matter. without God is to say something came from nothing. It is a logical fallacy. 0=0 you have to have God in the equation.

But let us assume something can come from nothing. wouldn't God not exist then? no. Because even If something could come from nothing it would be chaotic. If everything exploded from nothing it would be chaos. Instead what we see around us is extreme order. the laws of physics, the complexity of life. (even the simplest ones!) Order cannot come from chaos.
summing up this point, basically rationality tells us that a Creator exists.

Argument 2 Morals

this world has a problem. Where did we get these standards? if everything is relative, then nothing is absolute. Reason can not exist. Truth can not exist. Good and evil can't exixt. Not absolute standard can exist. there are morals and according to the atheist, they do not exist.

No matter how far we stretch out relatives, we can't come to absolutes ie. freedom, truth, morals, reason, and every absolute.

argument 3 Meaning

Without a God, there is no meaning to life. However if there is not meaning, then love is meaningless, truth is meaningless, everything is meaningless. Life is meaningless. Thus it has not value!

Argument 4 Civilization
Without a God, life is meaningless and thus has no value. If life is relative then life has no absolute value. Thus there are no basis for freedom. Freedom only comes when one has set the principle of absolute rights. Our own constitution confirms this when it says "
DudeStop

Con

Pro has not yet fulfilled the burden of proof that lies on him now, as he has made a claim. He gives me the Horrible impression of one who has never read the arguments against his side ever.
Pro says this in his arguments:

"God is the source of energy and matter. without God is to say something came from nothing. It is a logical fallacy. 0=0 you have to have God in the equation."
His logic:
The universe cannot have been created from nothing
Therefor, a wizard who defies all of the known laws of physics created it,
Pro assumes the only a universe can come to be is if a magical god came to be. Tell me:

1.How did the god come into being? If us humans are intelligently designed, then god needs an intelligent designer as well, as he is even more complex. Now there are two ways you can go with this:
A: He does not need a creator, he's above that: Then neither do us humans... If it is possible that an all powerfull god could've come from nothing, is it still improbable that a flawed earth could as well?An all powerful god that creates entire universes with the flick of his finger... Or humans... Your choice ultimately, but as there is *no proof of a God* nor will there ever be. But there are ways an earth could come to be, and I will tell you more on this later.
B: Yes, he needs a designer: Then that designer needs one to, as it is even more intelligent. Then you would go up a list of new gods, never finding the actual divine creator, which was supposed to be god in the first place. god did not create humans. Humans created God.

2. "The morality argument: "Where did we get these standards? if everything is relative, then nothing is absolute. Reason can not exist. Truth can not exist. Good and evil can't exixt. Not absolute standard can exist. there are morals and according to the atheist, they do not exist."
Absolute morality = something that is always moral. No exceptions.
Relative= depends on the situation, always exceptions.

So an absolutist would say, it is ***always***immoral to kill. Whereas Some relativists would say, yes, it's immoral to kill *unless*, you protect an innocent by doing so.
I think what Pro basically says that god commands good because he is good. Yet that would mean good comes from somewhere else, not from god. Please tell me if I'm wrong on what you meant and clarify what you did mean, thanks.
"Without a God, there is no meaning to life. However if there is not meaning, then love is meaningless, truth is meaningless, everything is meaningless. Life is meaningless. Thus it has not value!"
Is there nothing you like in this life? Would that not bring meaning? For example: I like cake. Why shouldn't I live life so that I can eat cake? Just because we were not created by a divine creator, does not mean life is now empty. Atheists do not kill themselves saying that life has no value... If they did then we would have no atheists in the world. Even if it didn't, so what? What does this have to do with god? You simply said that if there is no god there is no meaning to life...

"Freedom only comes when one has set the principle of absolute rights"
That does a not prove a god exists. You are arguing for a god. Freedom and rights has *nothing* to do with any sort of god... If it did, then god would have tell us what those are to prove that statement. Yet Pro talks about god, not any specific religion. And what he is basically saying, is that we cannot have absolute laws without god... So? No one is ever free. People can also lose those rights when they commit a crime.

Example: You will not be killed in the United States.
Unless you attack someone, and they defend themselves.
Or you commit a crime, and you are out on the death penalty.

Pro has very weak arguments, none of which actually prove god exists. He actually only focuses in the fact that nothing cannot come out of nothing, and that without a god we do not know what laws to decide on.

My arguments:
1. There is no proof of god. As you are making a statement, you must show *BoP* (Burden of proof)
You have none. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence as well." Christopher Hitchens, 1949 to 2011.

2. Simultanious causation:
Three states of the universe come into being at the same time, State A causes B, which causes state C, which causes state A; all at the same time. The cause and effect exist simultaneously, all having causal explanations.

Why accept God over simultaneous causation?

L.A. Mitchell came up with this, I deserve no credit for it whatsoever.
I can't come up with anymore arguments pretty much, because I don't know what kind of God Pro is trying to argue.
Conclusion: Pro's arguments are weak, and he offers not a shred of evidence proving the existence of God.
Atheist Quote of The Day:
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."
-- Chapman Cohen

Have fun mate, back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
ambassador4christ

Pro

Thank-you for excepting my debate, i look forward to see where this will go in the end, you are an exceptional debater!
Argument 1 Rationality
Your first argument goes that if humans need a creator so does God. My response is one you anticipated but twisted. My response is that if God exists, He does not need a creator. By definition God is eternal, so to say He needs a creator is to make Him less than God. It is a contradiction. You can either have God, or something created. Not one and the same.
You twisted in it in saying "if God can be above a creator so can humans." However that is a logical fallacy. If God exists He is infinite as we have established. However we are finite. Thus to compare them is a fallacy. Humans are finite in that we are bound by time. God is not. Thus God is God and can't have a creator, and we are humans were brought forth into time and thus need a creator!
Your next point was that there is no proof of a God. I ave two responses to this.
First is that there is. There is plenty of evidence that points toward God. The universe had a beginning, cause and effect, thus God had to be there in order to start. You dropped my point that 0=0 thus in order for the universe to come into existence there had to be God. Other evidences in say, the law of physics, exact precision of the universe, the incredible complexity we see around us! such as planets, life (even the simplest ones), also morals, (i will talk abit more about this later) but the point is, there has to be a God. we can show He exists, not necessarily looking right at Him, but looking away from HIm and seeing that He has to exist. An example is the sun, we can look at it and say it has risen, or we can look away and see that the sun HAS to have risen because i see around me.
My second is the flip side to this, there is evidence for Him in that there is reason and there will NEVER be any against Him. Why? Because if there is no God, then there is no such thing as absolute reason. If there is no absolute reason, then reason is dependent upon my brain, if my brain is dependent upon my body, and my body, dependent upon atoms, then i have no reason to trust my reason more than the sound in the trees! Nor do you have to trust yours, or mine. Or vice verse. You see, you contradict yourself, you prove there is no God with objective reasoning, and yet by disproving God you knock out the very chair you stand on. There has to be God, or no reason, yet we know there is reason. Thus there is a God.
You next point was that if God is complex, then He needs a creator even more than us! However this point in invalid. In that to say God needs a creator is a contradiction. As we have established, to be God means eternal. To say He needs a creator is to make Him less than God! You can either have God, or a created thing.
Argument 2 Morals
In this argument, you tried to prove absolutes do not exist. You said the "absolutist would say it is always immoral to kill" and you went on to say that the relativist would say it is sometimes alright to kill. Thus it would seem everything is relative. However this point is invalid in that you have totally misunderstood morals. You have disconnected morals to what they are. What makes morals what they are is the why behind the action. Actions are what flow out of those absolute standards of right and wrong. The right and wrong are the WHY'S behind the action. Thus when we look at your analogy of the killing, absolutes would not say it is always immoral to kill! Why? Because if i were to kill someone who was about to kill three other people. Not only is that moral, but i am morally obligated to do so. Why? because if the man was about to kill others then my action is morally justified and morally obligatory! So the relativist would rightly say it would be alright to kill the man if he was about to kill three others, because the relativist is going by the Absolute Standards of right and wrong! We have absolutes and they exist, thus God has to exist. The very fact that we are debating here proves there are standards. We are both adhering to an objective standard of right and wrong! that is what we Christians would call truth, and our adhering to this standard is called honesty. God has to exist, because the first thing we know about laws, is that there is a law giver!

I have addressed your point on morals and would now like to take a look at your two definitions. My points will be the same, i am just clearing up!
"Absolute morality = something that is always moral. No exceptions.
Relative= depends on the situation, always exceptions."

1) This definition is correct, things are either immoral or moral. But we have to remember, the action is either moral or immoral because of the WHY behind the action. Why kill? because it would save 3 lives.
2) this definition is correct. But again, the relativist may say it was alright to kill because it would save 3 others. He himself is abiding by the absolute standards of right and wrong.

Thus summing up this point, we see morals are the why's behind the action. A car may do a moral action by stopping a murder for example, but does it make that car a conscious being and moral agent? No! because the car did the action in a non moral conscience.
Argument 3 Meaning
You also said atheists don't kill themselves because there is no meaning to life. You said cake could bring meaning to life. But my point under this was not that there wasn't joy in life anymore, but rather no meaning to that joy. Also my point was more of a springboard to my next argument. Without a God, there is no value to life. Why? because value only comes when inherent, inalienable rights are granted by a Creator. I meant more of an essence to life. But again, this point didn't directly prove God, it served mainly as a springboard to my next contention. the main point was that no value to life unless rights granted by God.
Argument 4 Civilization
Inherent rights have everything to do with God. You said that if they didn't, then He would tell us. He did, the most common one are Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My point was that if God does not exist, then no freedoms. Why because freedoms hinge upon rights granted by God, (can't be man, or else it would be relative) also freedoms hinges upon absolute standards such as justice. You kill God, you kill freedoms and justice. everything is a mess. Again, this most certainly proves God as we can "look" away from the sun and prove it has risen by looking around us and saying "if the sun hadn't risen, i wouldn't be able to see all this"
Your next point was that people can lose their rights. Thus they are not granted by God. However again, you contradict yourself. You say God doesn't exist by the fact people can lose their rights. You brought up the examples. However you can only make this statement by an objective standard of justice. He can lose his rights because he murdered. Why? because it is just. And yet you say God doesn't exists. So therefore justice doesn't exist. Thus you have absolutely no way of making this claim. you contradict yourself.
Your argument 1
"there is no proof of God" I have two responses to this.
The first is that as we have established, there are morals thus God exists. Also there is crazy complexity in the universe. hmmmmm let me see. The point of gravity which is a millionth to a millionth came by chance?
My second response is that again, never will you be able to disprove Him. Within this point i have two sub-points to make.
1) Science can never prove anything. What if the experiment was done wrong? what if in 100 yrs experiment proved wrong? you see, to put your trust in science is to build your house on a swamp,
2) atheists use objective reason to disprove God. But without God no reason. (contradiction)
Your point 2
No evidence for this point. What cause the explosion? Had to be God.0=0 Your 2 and 1 contradict. If no evidence proves no God,no evi for2
DudeStop

Con

... I'm sorry for the late post. Also, I just substituted god for he, I hope this brings no offense to anyone, a I didn't mean to inflict any. Not saying god's a guy, just doing it because it's shorte

Refutations:

"Your first argument goes that if humans need a creator so does God. My response is one you anticipated but twisted. My response is that if God exists, He does not need a creator. By definition God is eternal, so to say He needs a creator is to make Him less than God. It is a contradiction. You can either have God, or something created. Not one and the same.
You twisted in it in saying "if God can be above a creator so can humans." However that is a logical fallacy. If God exists He is infinite as we have established. However we are finite. Thus to compare them is a fallacy. Humans are finite in that we are bound by time. God is not. Thus God is God and can't have a creator, and we are humans were brought forth into time and thus need a creator"

Well the point is, an intelligent mind can exist without a creator. If god was real, then we have proof an intelligent mind can exist without a creator. But if he is not real... Well that proves the point as well. Therefor, we do not actually need a creator to have an intelligent mind.

Then he says there is *plenty of evidence* for god. Even though he supply's us with no real evidences... Let's see what he gave us:
"First is that there is. There is plenty of evidence that points toward God. The universe had a beginning, cause and effect, thus God had to be there in order to start. You dropped my point that 0=0 thus in order for the universe to come into existence there had to be God. Other evidences in say, the law of physics, exact precision of the universe, the incredible complexity we see around us! such as planets, life (even the simplest ones), also morals, (i will talk abit more about this later) but the point is, there has to be a God. we can show He exists, not necessarily looking right at Him, but looking away from HIm and seeing that He has to exist. An example is the sun, we can look at it and say it has risen, or we can look away and see that the sun HAS to have risen because i see around me."

He literally makes no since in any of his claims, he says the universe needed a cause and effect. If everything needs a cause and effect, then god does to. Other wise, he would brake that law. If he breaks that one law, he is outside of reality. Meaning he would not be real! Also, this is his logic:

1.Everything needs a cause and effect
2. The universe is a thing, and an effect
3. Therefor; the universe has a cause.
4. Therefor, the cause must be a as to be a omnipotent, all power full, all knowing, pure, sky wizard that can evade everything. No one can ever see it to.

Why assume 3? I clearly asked pro in a point to say why would we assume god over simultaneous causation, and he never answered that. He ignored it in fact. And went on to claim that it contradicted with something I said. Huh?! He claims that I "knock down the chair I stand on" because without god there is no absolute reason. Yet again, he makes a false and obnoxious claim. I can say that god isn't real, because there is no proof. You failed to offer any, therefor god is not real. I am not saying 100% I know god isn't real, because people make him all powerful and god can conveniently avoid all of our senses... But if you can offer proof of a god, I will go to your side immediately. Basically what I'm saying is, I don't know for absolute certainty that god is not real. But I am not making the claim here, he is. Me not knowing for sure does not contradict my point. Your logic fails.

"In this argument, you tried to prove absolutes do not exist. You said the "absolutist would say it is always immoral to kill" and you went on to say that the relativist would say it is sometimes alright to kill. Thus it would seem everything is relative. However this point is invalid in that you have totally misunderstood morals. You have disconnected morals to what they are. What makes morals what they are is the why behind the action. Actions are what flow out of those absolute standards of right and wrong. The right and wrong are the WHY'S behind the action. Thus when we look at your analogy of the killing, absolutes would not say it is always immoral to kill! Why? Because if i were to kill someone who was about to kill three other people. Not only is that moral, but i am morally obligated to do so. Why? because if the man was about to kill others then my action is morally justified and morally obligatory! So the relativist would rightly say it would be alright to kill the man if he was about to kill three others, because the relativist is going by the Absolute Standards of right and wrong! We have absolutes and they exist, thus God has to exist. The very fact that we are debating here proves there are standards. We are both adhering to an objective standard of right and wrong! that is what we Christians would call truth, and our adhering to this standard is called honesty. God has to exist, because the first thing we know about laws, is that there is a law giver!"

Actually you misunderstand the point sire. An absolution just says you may never do this. Ever. The relativist is the one giving the exceptions, reason being: "Because it is moral" Your point fails...

"Your next point was that people can lose their rights. Thus they are not granted by God. However again, you contradict yourself. You say God doesn't exist by the fact people can lose their rights. You brought up the examples. However you can only make this statement by an objective standard of justice. He can lose his rights because he murdered. Why? because it is just. And yet you say God doesn't exists. So therefore justice doesn't exist. Thus you have absolutely no way of making this claim. you contradict yourself."

Well, the law is the one saying this. I never said it was justice, but it is not at all an absolute right granted by god if it can easily be taken away. Justice is based on the laws of a country, and is often an opinion. You may have different views on what "Justice" is than the jury in a courtroom...

"1) Science can never prove anything. What if the experiment was done wrong? what if in 100 yrs experiment proved wrong? you see, to put your trust in science is to build your house on a swamp,
2) atheists use objective reason to disprove God. But without God no reason. (contradiction)
Your point 2
No evidence for this point. What cause the explosion? Had to be God.0=0 Your 2 and 1 contradict. If no evidence proves no God,no evi for2!"

I don't understand everything. He says, due to the lack if actual words. Evifor2? I guess: Evidence for the second point?

The first point: Science is subject to change. We can't experiment god, so this is not at all valid. What "experiment" are you referring to mate?

Number two was kind of hard to understand... But I think pro is saying: without god, there is no absolute reason. We've been over this already. No one can say anything for a fact without god apparently. But when I see way an apple fall from a tree, why do I need a god? What does that have to do with anything? I can go up to people and say I saw an apple fall from that tree over there; because I witnessed it. That is absolute reason without a igod.

Pro claims at various points I contradict myself, and I have proven these "Cintradictions" false. He has not fulfilled his burden of proof. And like I said: Why accept god over simultaneous causation? Which he never answered. Therefor we can only assume that Pro has no answer. Or that Pro just didn't see it, which is highly unlikely. Thanks for the debate Pro. I am running out of characters now , so I leave this debate to the voters. This should be an easy one folks.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ambassador4christ 3 years ago
ambassador4christ
hey con, sorry for the abrupt end. ran out of characters. My point was that you say no evidence proves no God, and yet your next point says no God with no evidence? By your own logic you negate your second points. Also i have shown plenty of evidence in my speech. C.S.Lewis summed up my points when he said "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." I look forward to your responses!

PS You God i am arguing is one that created the universe and sustains it but is not part of it. (Christianity)
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
*Tri omni
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Hey can you define what kind of God you mean? A creator who doesn't ace, tried omni... What?
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Quite alright.
Posted by Yi 3 years ago
Yi
Yes 100 % God is Exist .
Posted by ambassador4christ 3 years ago
ambassador4christ
hey con, sorry about my unfinished argument post, for some reason it deleted some of my post. I don't know why but I got the bulk of my desired arguments in. Look forward to seeing your responses. The declaration of independence quote was going to go like this. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." sorry about the mess up on my part!
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
"I think, therefore I exixt"-Rene Dexsxcacs
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jesusfreak22 3 years ago
jesusfreak22
ambassador4christDudeStopTied
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: Though I don't agree with Con's side (I'm Christian), he did have better arguements. It seemed as though Pro didn't quite know what side he was argueing for. However, did not like the breaking of the "no foul language" rule by con.