The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Carvar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God most likely does not exist

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 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,291 times Debate No: 22650
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I'm going to be arguing that God most likely does not exist. First round for acceptance.


Carvar

Con

Good luck and just to be clear this is on his existence and not a religion.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

X= A mind

Y= A brain

Z = Matter

If X is dependent on Y, and Y can only exist if Z exists, then X cannot be the cause of Z’s existence. If God is defined as a mind that created matter, then it’s an illogical concept like a perfectly round square. We can safely say it most likely does not exist.

P1: A mind is an effect dependent on a brain.

P2: Brains are dependent on matter’s existence.

P3: A mind could not be the cause of matter’s existence.

P4: God is defined as a mind that caused matter’s existence.

C: God does not exist.

The Theist could rebut the above argument by saying it’s possible for something to exist that goes against claims resting on observation from within the universe (brain-independent minds could be possible for example), however if this is true then the following argument is valid:

P1: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is a claim resting on observation from within the universe.

P2: If brain-independent minds are possible, then it’s possible for something to exist that goes against claims resting on observation from within the universe, because “A mind is an effect dependent on a brain” is a claim resting on observation from within the universe.

P3: A Cause-independent beginning of something’s existence is possible, because it’s possible for something to exist that goes against claims resting on observation from within the universe.

C: The Kalam Cosmological Argument fails.


Re-Cap:

Argument from Physical Minds

"Since all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are probably no disembodied minds. But God is conceived of as a disembodied mind. Therefore, God probably does not exist."

Kalam Cosmological Argument

"Since all known things that begin to exist have causes, there are probably no things that begin to exist that don't have causes. The universe is conceived of as something that began to exist. Therefore, the universe probably had a cause"

Either my opponent must accept the APM's logic, or reject the KCA's logic. We'll see where he goes with this.

Carvar

Con

Quick road map I will mention why God exist by the definition of God. Then I will mention why he must exist due to science and last refute the Pros.

1. God is defined as "The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) So we know something created the universe which this thing is God. His existence must be true. Why? Because simply existence is defined as "Continued survival." God survives in my mind. Due to that God must exist because in my imagination he exist.
2. Newtons Law of Inertia "Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed." What this means is without and initial force which created the universe (God) nothing would move so without God we could not be in motion.
3. As I mentioned God dose not have to be looked as a mind God can be looked at as the spark that began the universe by definition meaning without his existence nothing could exist or move.

Summary

Without God there is no motion, so with out motion there is no universe. Thus God must exist. Lastly with anything I imagine existing and I have an imagination of God it must exist.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Definition of God

god
/gäd/




Noun:



(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority;





You may be able to imagine a God, and therefore a conceptual God exists in your mind. However, if this concept which simply exists in your mind didn't actually create the universe, then by definition it cannot be God (an abstract human idea cannot cause universes to exist). Since the concept of God that you have in your mind wasn't couldn't have created the universe, then your concept of God is not actually God in objective reality and by definition. My argument is against God existing, not the concept of God existing (they are two different things).

Newtons Law of Inertia

"What this means is without and initial force which created the universe (God) nothing would move so without God we could not be in motion."

That law only necessarily applies to the parts within the universe, not to the universe itself as a whole (you are committing The Fallacy of Composition). Also even if an initial force was required for the sake of argument, that in no way means the initial force was intelligent or sentient (without intelligence/ sentience, there is no God).

God/ mind

God is defined as a "creator" and "ruler" therefore this implies sentience and a mind. You didn't show an initial spark is necessary due to a Fallacy of Composition, even it was necessary, that doesn't imply sentience or intelligence. Your argument for God based of an initial spark is a non sequitur.

Conclusion

P1: My opponent didn't logically refute the Argument from Physical Minds against the existence of God
P2: I logically refuted all of his arguments for the existence of God.
C: I have the upper hand in this debate
Carvar

Con

Unless you can refute the following God must exist.
Laws of Logic: An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.
Laws of Math: The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.
Laws of science:Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.
Moral Laws:some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws 'prescribe' how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.

The first being instilled Moral Laws and is "ruler" of our being and how we act. With God being considered a force this force must have been intelligent to spark morals and beliefs. With laws of science, math, and logic it shows God or the first being created logic, and rational thinking. This means he governed the universe from the day of the universes existence.

Because it is Easter I have to go to a family event so there will be some time before my next response I apologize. Also could you please tell me how to bold underline and italicize?
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rebutting my opponent's arguments

My opponent just simply listed simple laws of logic, laws of math, and laws of science. He didn't connect these to God's existence in anyway so they can be dismissed on the grounds that his argument had no grounds or foundation to begin with. Also moral laws come from collective human thought based on negative emotional and physical responses that are commonly biologically true to most of us in our species (just like saying "steak tastes good" is a way to describe an objective biological response shared by most humans). You have provided no reason to assume God must be the moral law giver, and you continue to dodge the Argument from Physical Minds.

"The first being instilled Moral Laws and is "ruler" of our being and how we act. With God being considered a force this force must have been intelligent to spark morals and beliefs. With laws of science, math, and logic it shows God or the first being created logic, and rational thinking."

Argument from Parsinomy

P1: Either rational thinking, the laws of logic, and moral laws came from man's collective
thought or God.


P2: Humans existing is fact, God existing is not fact.


P3: Based on the Law of Parsimony when chosing between two conflicting hypotheses,
the one which makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely correct.


P4: The claim that rational thinking, the laws of logic, and moral laws came from God is based
on the assumption that God exists. The claim that man created God is based on the
established fact that humans exist.
P5: The claim that rational thinking, the laws of logic, and moral laws came from God are 
based on more assumptions than than the claim that rational thinking, the laws of logic, and
moral laws came form man's collective thought.
P6: God most likely was not the source of rational thinking, the laws of logic, and morals.

Conclusion

P1:
Pro didn't logically refute the Argument from Physical Minds
P2:
I refuted all of his arguments
C:
I have the upper hand in this debate
Carvar

Con

Considering the truth of the Laws of Logic, Math, and Science. None of these objects are material objects they are all immaterial. These laws are all governed by the universe as a whole and an individual. These do not change because if you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are changing, then living with the expectation that they do not change would be inconsistent with your belief. No doubt, you wake up every morning expecting these laws to be the same as they were the day before. You don't think twice about drinking pure water because you know that the properties of water that nourished you yesterday will not kill you today. You don't wonder whether it will still be right to love your children tomorrow. You see, you deny that the universal, immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality are unchanging yet you base your life on their unchanging nature.
The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him. The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.

Recap (Opponent)
P1: God must have started rational thought because he is the only reason we can prove anything.
P2: God's existence is fact due to the reason human existence is fact.
P3: I must agree
P4: Only one of my ways to prove his existance.
P5: I have proven God creates these.
P6: Without God there is none.
C: God exist in imagination and started the universe as a force and proves everythin
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
DragonX
DragonX 12 hours ago
Yeah he does here's why the bible said that Israel would become a nation 1948 it happened. History itself proves that Jesus existed. There is now proof that king Darius existed. Even history proves that the Roman centurians did try kill the christians so that to tell you something. there is also recent proof that we didn,t evolve from the monkey & that humans were around the same time as dinosaurs. Both can be proved in this documentary Dragons or Dinosaurs. The bible does explain about dinosaurs. You can search up www.cloudtenpicture.com if you don't believe me. In Genesis 3:21 Genisis 1:29-30 Romans 5:12,14 & 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. You might not think so because the word dinosaur didn't exist until 1841. But the hebrew word was Tanniyn which's sometimes mean serpent Sea monster but mostly dragon. If you read those verses it'll tell ou the exact description of the dinosaurs. If you check th documentary Dragons or dinosaurs they'll show you in different countries that in ancient times that people have made numerous pictures of dinosaurs.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
DragonX
You got me on that 1 Sapiens but a lot of people forget that a couple of years ago that there were a couple of days where it was hotter in some northern states than in some southern states & lately in New Jersey the whether has become unpredictable. Also Why in 04 did it snow in mexico & California but not in texas or flordia those ? have yet to be unanswered.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Why exactly is it morning in 1 side of the earth & night on the other side. why does the Earth always at the exact same time revolve around the sun."

Wow, some people....
Posted by Sapiens 4 years ago
Sapiens
>Science hasn't proved any of this.

Yes. Yes it has.

I'll give you some simple explanations, and just like you answered me with just 'go look it up' I'll answer any of the further questions you have just with 'go look it up', but after this I will no longer care to respond, as your comment was just too far fetched to give me any positive influence in reasoning.

> why is it in the south it's warmer but the south pole is colder than the North

It is not that it is warmer in the south, that is just what you have been told/been telling yourself. It is warmer along the equator of the earth because on average that area of the earth gets more sunshine than the rest of the planet because of the tilt of the earth's axis relative to the sun.

Other factors like the humidity of some place which is relative to the availability of rainfall/humidity in the air, change the climate to either tropical or dry. Hawaii has a high humidity (because, you know, it is surrounded by a lot of water), ergo it is a tropical area, the Arizona desert is dry because of the lack of available rainfall (surrounded by a mountainous area which means clouds are less likely to pass over).

> Why exactly is it morning in 1 side of the earth & night on the other side

Because the sun shines from one side, which means that the other is dark.

> why does the Earth always at the exact same time revolve around the sun.

It does not. There are always slight changes of the earth's revolution around the sun due to the gravitational pulls of other planets and the moon. Although these are only very slight changes because of the enormous distance between us and other planets, which is why we can make a quite accurate assumption that it is almost the same amount of time. (but even that has some rather drastic measures Ex: Leap year).

Regardless, the ignorance of one theory would not prove the truth of another.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
DragonX
Think of it this way then why is it in the south it's warmer but the south pole is colder than the North. Why is it in Arizona that it's a desert area while Hawaii which's more southern is a tropical island. Why exactly is it morning in 1 side of the earth & night on the other side. why does the Earth always at the exact same time revolve around the sun. Think about this. Science hasn't proven any of this. Yes I did state about the 500 witness's of seeing Jesus live after he was born. If you look up the history of the Roman Centurions there was a reason why they were trying to kill the Christians. Anyone who studies the history of Roman Empire will tell you the same thing.
Posted by Sapiens 4 years ago
Sapiens
Again: Could provide a study that shows god was a causation not just a correlation? (So far you have stated that god was a correlation, which I agree to, a lot of people believe in god, even more when they are sick.)

Yes, I know that the Bible is a book written by different people who added more and more as time went on. These are no eye witness accounts.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
DragonX
Ok if you look up Sidroth.org there was a guy who had a contagious disease he even had a picture as evidence & he was healed when he started believing in that Jesus was God in the flesh. Also you should find a video about a woman being able to walk up from being in a wheelchair after at least 10-17 years/ If you're asking on if Jesus is God in the flesh then why did he ask God why did he forsake Him.. Picture this our brain & your heart are apart you but you don't know what everything that it knows. Even science will tell you that. Keep in mind the bible isn't 1 book but 66 books in . Written by different people keep that in mind as well.
Posted by Sapiens 4 years ago
Sapiens
@DragonX

You were asked to give a source for your assertion that 500 people witnessed Jesus rising again. Not just another assertion that "history proves it".

Concerning your other posts: Could you link us to a study on one of those stories that proves god was a causation of any of that healing? As you probably know, correlation does not equal causation. The reason that you were asked for an amputee healing story is because those stories that you have mentioned fall entirely in the miraculous medical possibilities that our bodies hold, while an amputee getting healed is rather biologically impossible.

Sources are what needed.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
DragonX
History itself proves that Jesus existed & that the crucifixion did happen & that was alive after the crucifixion. This is history that proves this. As for God not healing us there are several reasons why in the Bible it says you have not because you ask not. Other times it because God knows we can handle it. Other times God wants to see that's in our heart. Other times God wants us to have patience also there have been witness's telling there testimony on how they healed from being blind. there was a lady that was in a wheelchair for 10-17 years & she was able to walk again. She was walking slowly but surely there were people to help her up but eventually she walked again. There was a guy who had a contagious disease on Sid Roth he even had a picture of the disease on his face as proof & he said when he turned to Jesus he was healed. The doctors said if he was going to live that he'd be a vegetable. There was a person at my church he had a torn ligimate. There was of course an X-Ray. they said he was going to need surgery but when we prayed he didn't get the surgery because he was healed from it. Turns out that there was cartilage that growing around were the area was & he was healed from it. I had 5 Gram-Mal seizures in this 1 is the worse 1 out of all of them. Your body turns completely purple & you get no air whatsoever & you can't control where your body goes at all. 1 time I had to go to the bathroom in a restaurant & I had the Gram-Mal seizure there was stuck there 40 minutes there were witness's there I was able to get myself up before the ambulance got there. I hit either the sink or the toilet I know this because I had bruises over my left eye & my ear. So I defiantly believe God exist.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Also, why doesn't God heal amputees?"

He likes Starfish better than humans, so he gave them the ability to regenerate limbs but not us :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Rational_Thinker9119CarvarTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Rational_Thinker9119CarvarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not overcome Pro's arguments