The Instigator
not_an_idiot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
etherealvoyager
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

God is Not Real

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 3 votes the winner is...
etherealvoyager
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 437 times Debate No: 46065
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

not_an_idiot

Pro

A superhuman that created us with his breath cannot possibly be real in this universe. The bible has been wrong many times (stars and planets revolve around sun, Earth was created roughly 2000 years ago, etc.) I know this isn't a very long argument, but I have save some stuff for the end. ;)
etherealvoyager

Con

DISCLAIMER

Please note that my views are not necessarily represented accurately here. I actually would consider myself as an atheist.

Preliminary Remarks
I thank Pro for instigating what I hope to be an enlightening debate. Before I begin my arguments, in the next round, I would like to provide some preliminary remarks.

The resolution of this debate is ‘God is Not Real.’ Pro, therefore, is arguing that God is real, or does not exist, whilst I am arguing that God is real, or does exist. However, before one could have a serious discussion or debate about God, it is necessary that ‘God’ is defined.

I do not believe that overcomplicating definitions in this debate is necessary, so consequently, I will define God, the way Anselm of Canterbury defined it as: “a being than which no greater being can be conceived of.” [1]

The Burden of Proof in this debate shall be shared, even though I believe that the theist have a bigger burden of proof than the atheist.

Having gone through various preliminary remarks, I turn this debate back to my opponent. I hope to have an intriguing debate!

[1] http://www.uky.edu...

Debate Round No. 1
not_an_idiot

Pro

not_an_idiot forfeited this round.
etherealvoyager

Con

I am disappointed that Pro has forfeited. Hence, what is below is a very brief summary of what I intended to write.

The Kalām Cosmological Argument

The purpose of the cosmological argument is to demonstrate the existence of an uncaused First Cause, which is God. The Kalām Cosmological Argument is a variant of the traditional cosmological argument, put forward by various Islamic Medieval scholars, but popularised in the late 20th century by the philosopher William Lane Craig. Craig formulates the argument as thus:

  1. Everything begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

[1]

Premise 1 is obvious, intuitively. Surely, it is impossible for something to come into existence without a cause! Even the atheist philosopher David Hume concedes this point. He wrote: “….allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything may arise without a cause.” [2] William Lane Craig himself writes: “it is a kind of first principle of metaphysics and something can come out of nothing; out of nothing comes. And I think that this a metaphysical truth that we do intuit rationally when we think about it.” [3]

Premise 2 is supported by modern science, in many ways. First, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that: “In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (entropy) increases” can be used to infer a beginning of a universe, because, if the universe existed forever, it would have suffered a heat death! [4] The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, published in a paper in 2003, demonstrates through mathematics, that the universe cannot be infinitely old. [5] Vilenkin writes: “It is said that an argument is what convinces a reasonable man and a proof is what it take to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof not in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is not escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” [6]

Premise 3 follows logically. But, what can cause the universe into existence? There is, according to Craig, only one possibility. God. He writes: “the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present. Thus, a finite time ago a Creator could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time.” [7]

Therefore, God exists.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] Craig, William Lane &Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 2004. God? A Debate Between An Atheist and A Christian. 1st ed pp.5: Oxford University Press.

[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

[4] http://www.personal.psu.edu...

[5] http://sententias.org...

[6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

[7] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Debate Round No. 2
not_an_idiot

Pro

not_an_idiot forfeited this round.
etherealvoyager

Con

My Opponent's Case

My opponent's argument against the existence of God consists of several statements. Let's take a look.

"A superhuman that created us with his breath cannot be real in this universe."

My opponent fails to recognise that there are a great number of individuals believing in God that denies that 'a superhuman [that] created us with his breath.' Antony Flew for instance, before he died, was a deist, and did not affirm at all that 'A superhuman [that] created us with his breath.'

"The bible has been wrong many times (stars and planets revolve around sun, Earth was roughly created 2000 years ago, etc."

My opponent fails to realize that the question over the existence of God is not solely determined by the Bible. What about the Koran? The Bhagavad Vita? What about people like Flew's belief of a deistic God? Also, the claim that the Bible claims the 'Earth was roughly created 2000 years ago' is false. It actually is closer to 5700-10000 years ago. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
not_an_idiotetherealvoyagerTied
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 Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
not_an_idiotetherealvoyagerTied
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: The Kalam is potent enough of an argument, hence its popularity. Pro never made any serious argument, nor refuted the Kalam in a meaningful way. Arguments and conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Xerge 2 years ago
Xerge
not_an_idiotetherealvoyagerTied
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: Forfeits by pro and Con presented a more in-depth case.