God most likely does not exist
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
| Started: | 4/8/2012 | Category: | Religion |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 749 times | Debate No: | 22650 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)
 Pro I'm going to be arguing that God most likely does not exist. First round for acceptance.
 Con |
 |
|||
|
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. 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. Con 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. |
 |
|||
|
Pro Definition of God
god/gäd/
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 Con 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? |
 |
|||
|
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
P5: The claim that rational thinking, the laws of logic, and moral laws came from God are
P6: God most likely was not the source of rational thinking, the laws of logic, and morals. Con 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 |
 |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 1 year ago
| Rational_Thinker9119 | Carvar | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 7 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 1 year ago
| Rational_Thinker9119 | Carvar | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not overcome Pro's arguments
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.
Wow, some people....
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.
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.
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.
He likes Starfish better than humans, so he gave them the ability to regenerate limbs but not us :)