The Instigator
tylersch96
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
joustfortheround
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

God isnt 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 1 vote the winner is...
joustfortheround
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 735 times Debate No: 56034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

tylersch96

Pro

I have changed my mind on religion.
I dont believe in 'god'. first round is acceptance.
joustfortheround

Con

Today I except the to debate the argument that God isn't real taking the position that He does indeed exist.

The first two Arguments I will present based off Science and Logic Showing why we need a God for the earth or universe to exist the way it does.

The FIRST argument:
1st: Without a God for creation to exist we are left with the idea of the big bang
2nd: The big bang entitles that in space everything should be moving in the same direction because of the vacuum that would have been created by the big bang itself
3rd: Fact: Some stars & planets spin right and others left
4th: Thus the Ideal that is set by the big bang is crushed by the reality of fact and we are left asking how this happened.
5th: Conclusion: Now that we know it wasn"t random we look for something that could have done this and find GOD

The SECOND argument:
1st: Without a God to create the animals we are left with the ideal of evolution
2nd: Evolution states that animals have evolved over a Long------- period of time
3rd: Cambrian Rock is assumed by most scientist"s to represent 570-500 million years ago and also the second to the bottom layer of rock in the geological column.
4th: Fact: Walcott found thousands of fossils of very complex life in Cambrian Rock, in fact he found representatives from every major animal phylum that exists in our classification scheme today.
5th: What does this discovery mean? a) the bottom of the geological column as presented in textbooks is wrong. b) Thousands of the fossils that Walcott found were too complex to have evolved in the short time represented by Cambrian rock, in fact according to the geological column most of us know these creatures weren"t suppose to have evolved until millions of years later.
6th: Why in the world were these complex fossils found in Cambrian rock? This discovery alone crushes the ideals of evolution showing not a long laborious process of evolution, that many scientists today wish you to believe in, but a spring of complex animals.
7th: Conclusion: Based upon their own ideals and the evidence at hand Evolution and Scientific facts of Cambrian rock do not coincide. There must have been something to create these complex creatures quickly namely GOD!!!!
Debate Round No. 1
tylersch96

Pro

The Universe is quite fine on it's own. I could concede that Earth is 1/billion but that is point-less as there are unthinkable number of planets out there, some of them are bound to be fit for life, Earth being one of them.

Scientist say that everything we have now is because of a 'big bang' but if that happened then how would a planet so perfect happen from an explosion?

I would not have used the word 'perfect', but whatever. See above. The Big Bang also was not a explosion in the normal sense of the word. Think of it like me blowing a ballon with air.

Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. (As defined by Christian theologians and philosophers.)
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God does not have the power to eliminate all evil, or does not know when evil exists, or does not have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist.

There are a few out-comes for the PE (Problem of Evil)

1: God is not Omnipotent
2: God is not Omniscient
3: God is not morally perfect.
4:Evil doesn't exist
5:God is not really a Tri-Omni god.

Not the best argument but time to move on the the Kalam.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

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

One other thing. God is a problem for the KCA. WHERE did God come from? HOW (like how the big bang was created the universe?) did God come to be? No doubt by "argument from design" logic it had to be quite the anomaly. Thus by this logic the KCA and God are self refuting.
joustfortheround

Con

Problem of evil: Response

I actually agree with you up to 5 then of course I would have to disagree. You said, "6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God does not have the power to eliminate all evil, or does not know when evil exists, or does not have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist."

Counter Conclusion on 6. Now this is where you have misunderstood (I"m going to take this from a Christian world view since you defined God based off a christian world view) based on a christian world view God is all powerful and has the power to eliminate evil, he knows it"s here and he wants it to stop it but to display his Glory his is waiting for the right moment to end evil. In fact according to the Bible God sent his own Son to die for us so that we could be saved from his wrath when he decides to destroy evil. That throws in Omnipotent, Omniscient, morally perfect, and has love to boot.
(I could probably dig up some verses from the bible to support all four of these claims if you want)Thus you can still conclude: There is a God with these three plus one attributes who could/does exist under a christian world view.

Kalam Cosmological Argument: Response

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

Now here you made the clam that based on KCA there has to be something that created God thus this argument is a self destroying argument for the existence of God. However, the KCA says that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence (The key word here being BEGINS). The whole point of the argument is to show that something CAN exist without a cause, namely, God. But are we wrong in assuming that God doesn"t need a cause, while the universe does? Absolutely not! The reason why the universe needed a cause is because it is finite because of time. If the world had no beginning then how would we get here there would be not starting place to get from here to there this is often called the "Impossibility of traversing an infinite" rule. God escapes this because there is nothing successive about God"s nature. He is traditionally viewed as unchanging, and this is metaphysically necessary as well. God did not have to endure through an infinite timeline as the world would have needed to. To boot if we are talking about the Christian God we know the bible says in 2Pet. 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. " In other words time is different with God.

Now moving on to another argument for God: Your Mind

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

1. Do you think we are mentally capable of thinking? (processing)
2. How do we know our minds work? (Why do you think that we can think straight)
3. If it"s blind chance that created the minds that study Math, Science, and Logic then how do I know that any of what is said about those things are not totally wrong?
4. How can I trust knowledge to be true?
Conclusion: If you are an Atheist it seems to me that answering these questions you would find that anything you know could be totally false/ a lie.
Alternate Conclusion: The Theistic world view has a different answer, Christians in particular believe, God gave us a rational mind with which we can learn about him and his creation.

Your Conscience:

Another Question: Why do we hold people accountable for wrong? (In other words What makes wrong, wrong?) Where did our conscience get such an absolute authority. There are only four possibilities.

1) From something less than me (nature)
2) From me (individual)
3) From others equal to me (society)
4) From something above me (God)

Let's consider each of these possibilities in order.

1) From Something less than me:
How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me"for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival? This idea doesn"t even make sense.

2) From me:
How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out, thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise. Nope this one doesn"t hold up it falls apart by pure logic.

3) From other equal to me:
How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is "society" God? No we"ve seen clear portraits throughout history showing where quantity definitely doesn"t equal quality, take hitler for example.

4) From something above me:
The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will, morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience.

Thus God, or something like God, is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience. Conscience is thus explainable only as the voice of God in the soul.

4 reasons I"v given so far for God"s existence:
1) The Human Mind
2) Your Conscience
3) Stars spinning in opposite Directions
4) Cambrian Rock (Cambrian Explosion)
Debate Round No. 2
tylersch96

Pro

tylersch96 forfeited this round.
joustfortheround

Con

Fifth Reason to believe in God: The Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution. Let me explain in the following.

1st: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (or part of it) essentially says that everything tends towards chaos

Decaying buildings. Massive structures may appear to be capable of lasting almost forever, but they will not. The need for ongoing repairs stems, in part, from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust. Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.

Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.

On the 2nd law of thermodynamics Physicist Lord Kelvin stated, "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.

It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.

2nd: Evolution requires things to work in the opposite direction of chaos over an extended time period

Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex.

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

3rd: Law of Thermodynamics Counteracts this idea

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification, disorder, chaos.

Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics reveals that in the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simple and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.

4th: There must be something else to explain the way it is

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.

5th: Conclusion

If God exists then everything he created could have started complex and have been degenerating ever sense this makes see with the second law of thermodynamics taken into account.
Debate Round No. 3
tylersch96

Pro

tylersch96 forfeited this round.
joustfortheround

Con

5 reasons I"v given so far for God"s existence:
1) The Human Mind
2) Your Conscience
3) Stars spinning in opposite Directions
4) Cambrian Rock (Cambrian Explosion)
5) The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Bummer my opponent bailed on the last two rounds I was wondering how a big bang theorist would explain those things and my first time debating this sort of thing too. Well such is life. The above were my five arguments throughout the round that have not been debated or negated by Pro for the existence of God. I hope I was able to successfully debate or negate the arguments that were thrown at me from Pro.

I hope whoever reads this debate can learn something or is given something to think about.

Please vote Con...and enjoy voting on some other debates.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Siladheil 2 years ago
Siladheil
There were no sources from pro or con. Poor debate overall.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
tylersch96joustfortheroundTied
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 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