The Instigator
atizzle666
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Reprobation
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

God is 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 780 times Debate No: 15305
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Reprobation

Pro

Hello, this is my first debate. I hope I can express this coherently, so you can understand. Please don't use profanity, as won't I. I ask that you be sincere and as I said earlier, I will try to be as coherent as possible. Con is an atheist, someone who doesn't believe in a Creator.

I) The universe could not have been a "product of chance".

Logically, there is an equal probability of the universe existing vis a vis its not existing (It is as someone may say 50/50). Existence will not give itself preponderance over non-existence except by being designated with it, by other than itself, i.e., by other than the universe.

II) The universe is not "self created".

A thing cannot create itself. Whatever is non-existent is incapable of doing anything, much less allegedly "create itself". The action itself is dependent upon the existence of that thing in the first place. Furthermore, to claim, for instance, that the universe created itself, entails two contradictions simultaneously: it would be like claiming that the universe existed before and after itself to create itself.

III) The universe is not "beginning-less".

What if someone told you "I will give you this dollar after an infinite amount of time". Will you ever receive this dollar? No. Likewise, if an infinite amount of time preceded the present, will it ever be traversed? No. The claim entails that an infinite amount of time can be traversable - which is impossible.

IV) Due to empiricism not applying to it, it does not necessitate that the thing's existence must be nixed.

Just because something isn't empirical doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I have never seen another person's mind; yet I hesitate not in believing that the people I deal with have minds/intellect. I see that in their speech and behavior--that is, I see the signs of their intelligence, and likewise, when I see the creation, I see the signs for The Creator's Existence.


Nowadays, scientists are able to discover many things because of technological advances. One hundred years ago, some empiricists would say since amoebas aren't observable, they don't exist. To the contrary, in the present day, one can use a microscope and see that it surely exists - such an application of empiricism is flawed.

V) Since the universe is not beginning-less, self-created, or a product of chance, one must assent that this universe has a beginning, meaning that it was brought from non-existence into existence by other than itself, i.e., by The Creator.
Excuse me if the font looks weird :/
Debate Round No. 1
atizzle666

Con

atizzle666 forfeited this round.
Reprobation

Pro

Definition: Allah: the prefix "Al-" means "The" and "Ilah" means God. When connected in arabic, it is "Allah", which literally means "The God".
_______________________________________________
Another proof that the universe is not beginning-less[1]

One logical proof of Allah’s existence is:

Premise A: We exist here today.

Premise B: Before we existed there were a series of events, one after another leading up to our existence today. (The passing of such a series of events is what we call time, and measure in minutes, days, weeks and years.)

If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning. This must be, because if someone claims that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before his existence, then he is saying that eternity came to an end, which is a contradiction in terms. It is like if someone said “this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times,” and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.

Those who claim that the world has no beginning are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes our existence must have a limit.

In addition, since it is necessarily true that this series of events has a beginning, then it must also be that before this beginning there were no series of events (defined as anything with a beginning). If someone claimed otherwise, then they would end up with the same contradiction (saying that infinity came to an end). Accordingly, the claim that the world was created by random events is irrational.

Rather, there must be a Creator that gave the series of events existence, since it was nonexistent before it began. Moreover, since it is impossible for there to be any events before the existence of this series, then it must also be that the Creator is not attributed with events, i.e. with any attribute or action that has a beginning. This again means that the Creator does not resemble His creation, since all created attributes must have a beginning. Actually, having a beginning and being a creation is the same thing. This is because to create is to bring into existence, and everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence.

We know from the above, by mathematical precision and logical necessity, that the Creator exists and does not resemble His creation. From the fact that the world has a beginning, we have proven that it must have a creator. The name of this creator is Allah in Arabic. If someone asks, “Who created Allah?” we say Allah does not have a creator, and does not need one as He has no beginning. If someone then asks, “how can you accept that Allah has no beginning, while you do not accept that the world has no beginning?” The answer is that we have shown that the world has a beginning based on the fact that it changes (changes are events). We do not believe, however, that Allah changes. Rather, we believe The Creator is One, and doesn’t change and has no beginning.

The fact that Allah does not resemble His creation can also be known by saying that since God’s existence must be (as shown above), then it cannot also be merely possible (since “must be” and “possible” are incompatible meanings – something cannot be both a must and a possibility at the same time). Therefore, The Creator must be clear of any attribute that belongs to the possible category of things. For example, weakness, limits, boundaries and needs are attributes that may or may not have existence; their existence depends on them being created; their existence is a possibility, not a must. They need a Creator to specify their limits. We know that we need a Creator, because we know that our own attributes need specification. We know they need specification because they have limits, and limits must be specified. For example, if you pointed at a table in a room and said, “Who made it in that shape?” and someone answered, “No one, it is just there like that eternally!” Would you accept this? Of course not, because we know anything limited needs someone to specify it.
If someone asked: If an event can be defined as an action that has a beginning and giving a series of events existence is an action with a beginning (and if it’s not, then what is it?), then how can one rationally conclude, based on the logic presented above, that the Creator is not attributed with events?

The answer to this is that we did not define events as actions having a beginning, but as “anything that has a beginning.” Actions may have a beginning, namely the actions of creation – as they all share this resemblance, or they may not, namely the actions of Allah.

Allah does not resemble His creation, so He is not an event or attributed with events. This is because to “create” is to “bring into existence,” and all events are therefore by definition created. As Allah’s attributes are not creations, they are not events.

Last but not least, in attempt to confuse, or out of confusion some may ask:

“What if the world’s existence is cyclical?” Our answer to this is that cycles are still one cycle one after another, so they are events. Some may also ask, in an attempt to confuse: “Before Allah created this series of events, was He able to create another series or not?” Our answer to this is that this is a nonsensical question, because what we established was that there must be an event that is first, regardless of the number of series, or the number of worlds preceding the current one. We also established that Allah’s actions are not events, so they are not described with a “before.”
_________________________________________
Many atheists deny God's existence, because they say "God is evil"[2]

Someone asked "So what would be the Islamic response to the suffering of babies and insane people?"

Answer: I presume you mean explanation? Well, in light of the fact that Aļļaah is All-Powerful, and All-Knowing, it means that Aļļaah has no needs and no obligation, as He has no judge, and does whatever He wills. You may want to click on “Predestination,” under categories to find a number of discussions on this issue. The bottom line, however, is that Aļļaah is not subject to the concept of injustice, because this concept only applies to something that has a judge or an owner, or in other words, something that has restricted rights. Aļļaah, however, is eternal without a beginning, and is the true owner of absolutely everything, as He is the Creator of everything. If someone said, it would be injustice if Aļļaah did so and so, then he has actually appointed himself as a judge of the Creator. How is that for arrogance?
_______________________
[1] http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com...
[2] http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 2
atizzle666

Con

atizzle666 forfeited this round.
Reprobation

Pro

So...seeing as how my opponent hasn't replied to my arguments...I will address a conviction he may have or someone else who has read the arguments presented, i.e., he may be saying: "So what if I do believe in God, what makes your religion different from any other, there are a multitude of religions which claim that theirs is right, what makes you think yours is, among the many, what makes you think I should follow yours?"

I will slowly show you:

Let's take a look at the different religions: there are those who say there is One Creator and some that say that "there are many gods".

First, I will prove that the latter is impossible.

If there were two purported gods, and one so-called god willed for the sun to set in Memphis, and the other willed for it to rise in the same place at the same time, one of two would occur:

1) None of there wills would be exercised, therefore proving them to be impotent.

2) One of there wills would be fulfilled, thus proving the other to be again impuissant.

Weakness displays being limited and created (which means it's a creation and not The Creator).

It is rationally impossible that both of their wills could be executed. Two matters can't happen in the same time and place in opposite regards* (Another example, would be for it to be raining and not raining in the same time and place). If one says that there wills can coincide, then that would mean that they would both be dependent upon one another and both would be weak.

It is logically absurd for there to be more than one Creator.

___________________________________________________

*The Law of Non-Contradiction states this: a thing cannot both be and not be in the same time and place in the same regards.

_______________________________________________________

I have eliminated some religions, but still, there are other religions which claim to be monotheistic and say that there religion is correct, particularly jews and christians.


Muslims, unlike any other religion, believe that The Creator is not a spatial entity, or, as some atheists usually mockingly say, "a big man in the sky". This is because The Creator existed before everything - before light, darkness, time, space, and all places. Jews and Christians claim to believe that The Creator is Perfect, created everything, and believe that The Creator is a transformer. These are mutually contradictory. If one accepts that The Creator created everything and is Perfect, then they must also accept that The Creator existed without a place and is impervious of change/transformation. The Creator created everything means that The Creator existed before light and darkness, Heaven and Hell, time and space, etc. This means that The Creator existed without a place (some christians may read this and be saying "wtf is he saying, how can God exist without a place, it's as if you're saying that God doesn't exist". I will address this conviction later...).


Transformation or "change" is, logically speaking, either from an inferior state to superior state, or from a superior state to an inferior. The person is implicitly saying one of the two when they say "God changes/transformed". Christians and Jews claim to believe that God is Perfect, yet, how can they reconcile it with there belief that God changes/transformed? They can't. The Christians believe that God changed into a man and came to earth. Jews believe that God is a man on a throne.


Muslims believe that The Creator is Incomparable, Transcendent, Eternal, beginning-less, and is Perfect, Immutable, All-Powerful. The Creator is not a big man in a sky, or a thing ascribed with physicality. This is known because whatever is physical NEEDS space to exist. The Creator existed before everything, hence, doesn't need anything, and this includes space. Hence, The Creator is not physical. Nor is The Creator in the Heavens. This is known because The Creator existed before the Heavens. The Creator existed before all places. The Creator existed without a place. As mentioned earlier, The Creator is clear of change/transformation. The Creator is not a shape, color, texture, or size. The Creator exists without a place and is clear of physicality or physical properties. The Creator is not a corporeal entity. Well, I've just eliminated every other religion, other than Islam. The other religions are logically absurd.


Well, I've just showed that the jews and christians pray to a creation or an idol they formulated in there mind. This is because whatever changes/transformation, is created. The change had a beginning, it was brought from non-existence into existence. Before the change, the change did not exist, and after the change has occurred, the change has come into existence. And anything that was non-existent then came into existence is a creation. The Creator is clear of needing the creations, including change/transformation. In other words, anything that changes, itself has a beginning, thus, the conclusion that Jews and Christians believe that The Creator is a creation.


Muslims don't worship something they imagine in there minds, nor something which is made with there hands.


A Muslim Scholar once said "Whatever you imagine in your mind, Allah is different from that". The imagination is related to those things that are perceived by the senses. The Creator cannot be compared to what we see in the creations - consequently, a picture of THe Creator cannot be formed by the mind. Furthermore, the person who worships an image in his mind is in reality no different from the idol worshiper. The idolater worships a shape he has formed with his hands, and the one who worships a mental imagem worships a shape he has formed in his mind. Muslims believe that The Creator is not an image nor has has image - but that The Creator created all images and is not similar to any created thing. The Creator existed before there was space; The Creator is eternal; The Creator does not change. That being the case, common sense tells us that the Creator is not an object, is not a form, and cannot be portrayed by a picture or an image.


___________________________________________

In brief,


The Creator is not a body or physical/spatial/ethereal entity. The Creator existed before everything. The Creator existed without a place. The Creator exists without a place. Every other religion says that The Creator is in a specific place or all places. This is wrong because The Creator existed before all places, so that means The Creator existed without a place.

________________________________________

A christian may read this and think "wtf is he saying, it's as if he's saying The Creator doesn't exist".


No, I'm not saying that The Creator is non-existent. I, unlike you, am not saying that The Creator's existence is dependent upon a specific place or all places existing. This is because you believe that The Creator is in the Heavens, all places, or some other specific place. If you accept that The Creator existed before everything, then you must accept that The Creator existed without a place, otherwise, if you claim that The Creator didn't exist without a place, then it's as if you're saying that The Creator didn't create that place, although you also claim to believe that The Creator created everything, but as you can see, it is mutually contradictory. In many christians minds, they say: "If place doesn't exist then The Creator doesn't exist". This is clearly making the Creator's existence dependent upon place existing - and this is also ascribing a need to The Creator, whom they also claim doesn't need anything. Anyways, these are just a few rational absurdities among many in the christian credo.

_____________________________________________________________

All one needs to say is become Muslim is "No one deserves to be worshipped except Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah".





Debate Round No. 3
atizzle666

Con

atizzle666 forfeited this round.
Reprobation

Pro

Reprobation forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
atizzle666

Con

atizzle666 forfeited this round.
Reprobation

Pro

Reprobation forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.