The Instigator
othercheek
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
22 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 4 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,104 times Debate No: 40720
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

othercheek

Pro

This is going to be a serious, groundbreaking debate regarding the existence of a monotheistic God. I will be arguing that yes, there is an omniscient, omnipotent Christian God who created the universe and wants all good folks to know that sins are the work of the devil should be resisted at all costs. Con will be arguing that no, there is no such thing as an awesome, loving, all-powerful God. If you do not believe, please know that you are in my prayers. I hope you will someday experience the all-powerful love after this insightful debate.

The burden of proof is split between Pro and Con. No wrong information. No semantic or troll arguments. No fallacies. (Here are some fallacies to avoid: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;) If an argument is proven wrong, it is thrown out. You can't rely on the Koran or other myths.

Good luck to my opponent.
Mikal

Con

I have been wanting to take this, and this one is worded slightly better than the last one. So why not, I accept this and await pros first argument.
Debate Round No. 1
othercheek

Pro

1) Please tell my why you believe there is no god so I can rebut it.

2) Here are some proofs of god:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.patheos.com...;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.andrewcorbett.net...;

These are all rational, logical, scientific, objective reasons why there can be a god. Please explain why none of these are true?

3) God exists. My mind will not change until I see evidence. This solid rock of foundation--the etched-in stone concept in out brain, that we don't disbelieve until atheism is introduced through external sources--could plausibly be another bit of evidence.

4) Either matter and energy are eternal, or God is eternal. The first one scientifically doesn't make any sense, so clearly there is an eternal sentient Creator behind the matter and energy.

5) The Smithsonian says that the Bible's history is "very trustworthy."

‘ … On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

‘These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say … that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.’ http://creation.com...;



That is sufficient proof on my side. Now let me read and rebutyour arguments.

Mikal

Con

I would like to thank Pro for accepting this debate. Keep in mind that he has agreed to share the BOP, and has even claimed that a Christian God exists. This debate will be determined by whomever presents better evidence to support their case. Pro has offered no arguments in his first round and merely posted links to support his claim. I will offer some rebuttals to some of links and and questions he posted in a later round, but for now I am going to build my case.

P1: If there is no need for a God in order to explain the universe, and no empirical evidence that a God exists, it is more logical to assume that there is no God.

P2: Science can explain the origins of the universe logically, and also explain how and why almost everything operates the way it does, therefore there is no need for a God.


Defense of Premise 1

There is not much of a defense needed for this, because it is self explanatory. This is essentially Occam's Razor.

""If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along" [1]

This is in short premise 1. Until there is substantial evidence that can prove the existence of a deity, the most logical conclusion is to assume we do not need one. In times past people and cultures did not have the methods that we have involving modern science, so the best explanation for the cause and existence of the universe was a God or Gods. As time progressed we have evolved past the need for deities to explain the cause of the universe. Modern science and physics can show us how and why we came to be, and how and why the universe operates the way it does.

Until there is groundbreaking evidence to show that a deity does exist, the most logical conclusion is to assume one does not exist.

Defense of Premise 2

This will involve multiple contentions. I will show that there is no need for a God in order to explain the cause of the universe or why the universe operates the way it does.

C1

The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused Itself to Exist

I am going to give credit to Sargon for part of this argument. I would never have thought of some of this if he had not presented me with links and videos of Kagan and Smith who came up with some of the principles and ideas that I am about to bring forth.

If it is physically possible that some states of bodies or particles are instantaneously caused to begin to exist by other such states, then this is both metaphysically possible and logically possible. [2]


This is essentially saying that every state in the universe is caused by another state. So if every state of the universe is caused by a previous state , then every state can be logically explained. So the next most logical conclusion is that if every state can be logically explained and is caused by another state, then there is no state that was not caused by another state. Therefore a God or group of Gods can only exist if there is a specific state of the universe that was not caused by a previous state of the universe.[3]

This goes way more in depth, if you want to read it in full check the link for one of Sargons debates or the break down by Smith. I am restricted to character limitations so I can't go do deep without breaking my limits.

Essentially this ends up showing that a Theist would have to acknowledge there is a first state of time in the universe. General Relativity directly contradicts this and shows us that, every state of time is half open[4]. Since every state of time is half open then there can be no first state of time. Since theism depends on a first state of time, there can be no God. If you wanted to graph this. Every state in time must follow the big bang. If X where to represent the big bang and > where moments in time, and Y is the present it would look like this

X >> >> > > > > > > > > > >Y

or X < (the time of the big bang)

to even take it one step further a Theist must show this

God >>>>>>>>> X >>>>>>>>>Y

That burden of proof lies with him however.

To expound on this, the next most logical question is can something come from nothing. Lawrence Krauss breaks this down in his book a universe from nothing. We now know that nothing can produce something. In between the quarks of an atom, particles are popping in and out of existence faster than they eye can see. Empty space is spawning matter. [5] Reference 5 may appear as a video at the top right of the screen. This model won the Nobel Prize and is widely accepted.

There are 3 possible types of universe in which we can live. An open flat or closed Universe.






An closed universe would have positive curvature, a flat would have 0 and a open would have negative. This is all in euclidean terms. If we look at it further from this perspective, knowing what type of universe we live in would tell us the ending. If we lived in a closed, the universe would in the end re-collapse upon itself. Both an open and flat are infinite in spacial extent, the only difference is that in a flat universe the rate of expansion would slow down at some point. To sum this argument up in a nutshell we have to live in a flat universe because it is the only mathematically perfect one and it operates with the value of 0. Meaning if you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero net matter/energy. Since this is the case, we are operating under the same laws of physics which allow quantum fluctuations to happen and which could allow a universe to come from nothing.


C2

Morality

We also know that we do not need a God in order to explain where morals come from. We often see William Lane Craig beat this argument to death.

We can have objectivity without God. Anything that can promote happiness without directly effecting another human negatively can be used as an objective gauge. As well as anything that can progress us as a person or species and offer advancements. To say there is no gauge other than God is just wrong. It just depends if you look at it using ontology or epistemology.

This also brings up the Euthyphro Dilema [6] in a lot of cases. I basically asks this

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God"

The problem this question raises for the Christian is a double edge sword. If something is good just because God says so, what happens if he condones rape or molestation. If not he is just simply reporting what goodness is, then he is no longer the standard for goodness and goodness is the submitting to an outside standard.


I will present some more points in later rounds, but for now i am gong to leave it with this until my adversary actually presents a case.


In conclusion.

My adversary has presented no logical or empirical evidence to support the fact there is a God. He has only posted links and asked a few questions. I on the other hand have shown logic and practicality as to how and why the universe can function without a God.

I await my adversaries argument.




[1] http://math.ucr.edu...
[2] Quentin Smith / http://www.qsmithwmu.com...
[3] Quentin Smith / http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com... / Sargon : http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[5] http://www.youtube.com...
[6] http://www.frame-poythress.org...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
othercheek

Pro

WOW!

Your arguments are amazing.

I kind of had to look hard at them and strain my brain because it was hardcore, flat-out science stuff, and I'm not used to that. Wish you'd "dumbed that down" (so to speak) so I (and other spectators) could understand, but nonetheless, when you break it down, it's solid stuff!!

You still haven't disproved God or Christianity though. After all, if one sets aside a few of your points, the contentions in my links remain unscathed. After all, everyone has a rock-solid belief in a god as the default and doesn't become an atheist until external sources make one believe that way. Although it hasn't been explicitly proven, all signs point that way.

And how does one explain the Colton Burpo and Tamara LaRoux cases?

I await your arguments.
Mikal

Con

Pro Offered no rebuttals regarding any of the points I made, so extend all contentions.

Seeing as how pro did not really build a case, there is nothing much to refute but I will offer some brief refutations in regards to some of the links and claims he made.

Accuracy of the Bible.

He gives a quote saying this

" On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories."

I do find this quite ironic in a sense. Mesopotamia was the first ever civilization on the earth. From this civilization an epic novel was written, called the Epic of Gilgamesh. What is so unique about this novel is some of the content within it. It has the story of Noah and the flood in it, except with different main characters, plots, and Gods. Remember every civilization came from Mesopotamia, and this is including the Greeks and Hebrews as well. This is where the bible originated. So if the bible is historically accurate and correct, why then do we see a story in the bible appear prior to the rise of the Hebrews.

For a full review of the similarities between the bible and the novel check out source [1]

This is not even including the similarities between the story of Christ and the story of Osiris. Osiris was betrayed and resurrected, and all those believing in him could go to paradise [2]. Again this is predating the rise of the Hebrews and the time the bible was suppose to be written. It is quite possible that when Alexander the Great merged all the known earth at the time of his crusade, stories could have been shared and cultures could have influenced each other. Some of the greatest biblical minds of our time even acknowledge the inaccuracy of the bible, and simply claim it to be a metaphor.

On Broken Links and Articles.

Pro actually linked me to a wiki article for defense of God. I am not going to even acknowledge this as credible or viable, because nothing was said by him personally and he simply linked me to a bunch of sites about apologetics. Also note when you click on most of these links, a few of them do not work.


In Closing.

There is nothing really left to defend. I have covered his contention about matter and energy in my contentions, and I also just showed why the bible could be historically incorrect. Other than that all we see are a bunch of articles and broken links by pro without him even presenting a case.

I would advise pro to actually build a case in his next round instead of spamming links with no credibility to them. Half of those links have like 10-20 points about random issues in religion, and have nothing to do with proving a God exists. I would ask pro to build a case so we can have a proper debate.

I await his response.

[1] http://www.icr.org...
[2] http://www.jimloy.com...
Debate Round No. 4
othercheek

Pro

othercheek forfeited this round.
Mikal

Con

extend all arguments. It is easy to see whom has won this debate. Con has offered nothing but broken links, and has not even really presented an argument.

It is a shame he FFed the last round
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
"... objective reasons to why there -can- be a god." This is debating the possible existence, not the concrete existence.
Posted by othercheek 3 years ago
othercheek
Ooops! Didn't mean to forfeit. :/

Can we do this again perhaps?
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Doesn't pro have to provide evidence that a god is real? If the point is: no one can disprove god therefor he exists then he is arguing absence of evidence is not evidence if absence. However, if something can Be proven without evidence then it may be dismissed without evidence as well.
Posted by Lazarius 3 years ago
Lazarius
I will NOT hold the belief that a monotheistic God exists until proportional, sufficient evidence is presented.

For instance:

There is a box. We haven't opened the box yet. So, we have no sufficient justification to prove the claim that the box contains anything.

WELL

Same goes for the claim that a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent God exists.
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
Looks like Mikal has an admirer.
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
Oooh. The hot debater is at it again. He's so thoughtful and rational. (Mikal, obviously.)

There's no way Pro is going to win. Haha
Posted by m2dnight 3 years ago
m2dnight
Oh-what an interesting debate. God does not exist. If so, why would he/she/it/whatever let his/her/its/whatever sons or daughters(which may be us, people) to go through genocide and crimes that are worthless of speaking? If you say that is the part the god can't control or that the god gives us the freedom of choice, this contradicts that our lives are destined by god. Losers, christians will justify themselves whenever there is a hardship, that this is compelled or commanded by god. Also, how can you prove that a bible is the true stories of god and what god have said, if it's written by the hand of humans? Ha, does god travel through some people's dream and teach them some moral and intellectual lectures? Plus, how come Jesus is a caucasian from Western? When will he appear next time? Probably until people become so stupid that they will believe someone who claims he have superpowers and is god's son? Mikal, I think you're really logical and persevere to debate with 'othercheek'. I absolutely respect you. Why don't you ask 'othercheek' the proof of a female god or fairies or elves or Santa Claus?
Posted by InvictusManeo 3 years ago
InvictusManeo
I see this debate for the con is going to be an exercise in futility and a headache inducing one, at that.
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
Wow. After reading pro's first argument, I wish I had taken this. Do your thing Mikal. And have fun.
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
I could argue the same for the Koran. The point is that we cannot use scripture. It is not acceptable to refuse the use of the Koran as myth and then base an argument is the bible.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
othercheekMikalTied
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: It is very clear that all points in this debate have to go to Con. Pro did not make any arguments and did not answer any questions or make any rebuttals. The links Pro gave are in some cases links which you need to link out to find the real source so are not reliable. The conduct points also go to Con as Pro forfeited a round and used a lot of sarcasm. Spelling and Grammar was also far better for Con than for Pro.
Vote Placed by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
othercheekMikalTied
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: While I do believe in god, my vote goes to Con. Pro made no arguments, only linking to outside sources.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
othercheekMikalTied
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: well, you can kind of figure who won just by looking at it and FF. Pro didn't even present an argument as he was in shock and awe and amazed by what just happened.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
othercheekMikalTied
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: Interesting argument for strong atheism, I'll read it again and look into the sources. Pro did not present an argument, basically conceded Con's case and then forfeited. Arguments and conduct to Con.