The Instigator
MilitaryAtheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ishallannoyyo
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God probably doesn't 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 1 vote the winner is...
ishallannoyyo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,619 times Debate No: 25099
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

MilitaryAtheist

Pro

Definitions

1. God: an intelligent entity which is all-loving, omnipotent, omniscient.

2. Probably: have a higher probability than the alternative

Rules

1. No semantics

2. Forfeit will be an auto-loss

3. No new arguments in the last round

Rd. 1 is for acceptance - Rd. 2 will begin the debate
ishallannoyyo

Con

I accept the definitions set forth by my opponent.

I look forward to an interesting and thought-provoking debate!
Debate Round No. 1
MilitaryAtheist

Pro

I thank PRO for accepting.


NOTE: I expected PRO to make the first shots, but he did not. Whatever it is I am fine.


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.


The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo. We can't take the rules for "ex materia" and then sic them to "ex nihilo".


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.



Thank you.


Vote PRO.
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments. I would just like to point out that MY OPPONENT is Pro, and I am Con. As it is one of my opponent’s first debates on this website, I would point out that since my opponent instigated, then he is the one to post the first arguments.

I would now like to take this time to refute some of the arguments brought forth by my opponent.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

My opponent’s contention boils down to this: God is morally perfect. There is evil. God doesn’t stop evil. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. This is a flawed argument in the sense that God doesn’t intervene on purpose. There are several reasons for this:

Firstly, God wants to wait as long as possible to allow as many people to come to him. He wants as many people as possible to repent their sins and approach God. He wants people to give Him a chance. A story exemplifying this is an atheist barber and a minister.

The minister and barber are walking down the street, and they see all the suffering around them. The barber says “This is why I don’t believe in God, look at all this suffering! Why doesn’t he stop it?” The minister doesn’t say anything. Then they come upon a homeless person, with a wild mane of hair and a far too long beard. The minister says “You must not be a very good barber, if you were a good barber you wouldn’t let people around here have that kind of hair.” The barber is furious and says “Why blame me for what he looks like? He’s never come to my shop! If he did, I would make him look nice!” The minster looked at the barber and said “That’s like God. If you went to God’s shop, he’d fix you up.” [1]

A second theory on why God doesn’t intervene is because it is part of his plan. His is omniscient, so he will always know what will happen. For example, a man prays that he will pass his exam and become a lawyer. He fails his exam. Why didn’t God answer his prayers? The same man later on becomes an entrepreneur, making his way up to CEO of a massive company. These are just two theories on why God doesn’t intervene.

The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo. We can’t take the rules for “ex materia” and then sic them to “ex nihilo”.

This is incorrect. Simplified, the Kalam argument is this: If x is true, y is true. X is true. Thus, y is true. This is one of the fundamental natural laws, everything that exists has a cause. EVERYTHING. The universe is a “thing”, it is made up of planets, stars, and matter. Because the universe exists, then it has a cause.

WHERE did God come from?

He just existed. Before the universe, before time, before anything, God just existed. He then created the universe, and thus us.

I will now move on to my own contentions.

C1: RANDOM CHANCE

What is the probability that we humans came into existence the way we did? What I mean is, what is the sheer chance that everything happened as it happened? What if the planets were slightly bigger? What if the particles that collided in the Big Bang slightly smaller or larger? What if a dinosaurs went extinct earlier, or later? What are the chances that we as humans, have our organs in the places we do, our mouths where they are, our bodies working the way they do, what is the chance EVERYTHING happening the way they happened? The odds are astronomical! This is also known as the teleological argument. Someone who doesn’t believe in God puts all of this down to pure chance. However, a far more logical answer is someone, or something created all of this.[2]

C2: EVERYTHING HAS A MAKER

A famous example of this argument is a watch. If you find a watch on the ground, you don’t know who made the watch. But you do know that SOMEBODY created the watch. What created DNA? What created the Big Bang? What created us, the way our bodies work? Certainly we are the greatest creation of all? Science has not yet found an answer to some of these questions, so the logical answer would then be God. He created everything.

C3: THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

God is the most powerful thing there is. Existence is greater than non-existence. If God doesn’t exist, then there must be something that is greater than God. There isn’t. Therefore, God exists. This argument uses the simple logic of inequalities, greater than and less than. Let’s simplify this argument into numbers. God is infinite, there is no number higher. Existence is greater than non-existence, it’s like saying that 6>4, it’s true. Infinity > X. If Infinity doesn’t exist, then following the road of logic Y > Infinity. But this isn’t true, there is no number higher than Infinity.

For these reasons, VOTE CON.

  1. http://www.newchristian.org.uk...
  2. http://www.existence-of-god.com...





Debate Round No. 2
MilitaryAtheist

Pro

I will remind the voters of who gas the Burden of Proof: Con.






The minister and barber are walking down the street, and they see all the suffering around them. The barber says “This is why I don’t believe in God, look at all this suffering! Why doesn’t he stop it?” The minister doesn’t say anything. Then they come upon a homeless person, with a wild mane of hair and a far too long beard. The minister says “You must not be a very good barber, if you were a good barber you wouldn’t let people around here have that kind of hair.”

I stop you here. When I blame religion for suffering, I mean about the extremity of religion. It boils my blood to hear "You're going to HELL!" etc etc.


A flaw with your reason. Barbers are not a high-payer job. I would not blame any one if that man did not cut the homeless hair. Besides payment, why? Because they are not in obligation to. God made this mess, he should make it rain.


A second theory on why God doesn’t intervene is because it is part of his plan. His is omniscient, so he will always know what will happen. For example, a man prays that he will pass his exam and become a lawyer. He fails his exam. Why didn’t God answer his prayers? The same man later on becomes an entrepreneur, making his way up to CEO of a massive company. These are just two theories on why God doesn’t intervene.


If God can look into the future, then why did he do nothing with Adam and Eve. "Because he chose not to." you might say? Then it reasons to think he is not all-loving.


This is incorrect. Simplified, the Kalam argument is this: If x is true, y is true. X is true. Thus, y is true. This is one of the fundamental natural laws, everything that exists has a cause. EVERYTHING. The universe is a “thing”, it is made up of planets, stars, and matter. Because the universe exists, then it has a cause.


Youby-passed my point. You just re-posted the KCA and called it a day. Extend.


He just existed. Before the universe, before time, before anything, God just existed. He then created the universe, and thus us.



Did God have a cause? If so, then what? This is special pleading.



C1 & C2 rebuttals



I will not go into detail, but these both are committing a argument from ignorance.

I will go in more next round.

The Ontological Argument is begging the question because the premise is hidden in the conclusion.
ishallannoyyo

Con


I thank my opponent for his comments. I would like to point out that we have a shared BOP, I need to prove that it is more probable that God doesn’t exist, my opponent needs to prove that it is more likely that God doesn’t exist.



When I blame religion for suffering, I mean about the extremity of religion. It boils my blood to hear “You’re going to HELL!” etc. etc.


I am not quite sure what my opponent means when he says this. I would invite him to clear up this confusion. Are you saying that extremism in religion is bad and it causes suffering?



Besides payment, why? Because they are not obligated to.


Is God obligated to save those who doesn’t believe in him? Does God have an obligation to us? When we don’t believe in him, why would you think he would believe in us?



If God can look into the future, then why did he do nothing with Adam and Eve?


God created us with free will. Adam and Eve were human, thus they had free will. God has a plan for us, and he gives us the path to salvation, but we have to choose to walk it. God doesn’t force us. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.



You by-passed my point.


True, I reposted the KCA as it seemed that you had a lack of knowledge in how the universe is matter.




Did God have a cause?


Yes, to create us and lead us to salvation.



I will not go into detail, but these both are committing an argument from ignorance.


Not sure why my opponent didn’t post his rebuttals as he had sufficient characters. I invite my opponent to thus post his rebuttals in the next round.



My arguments still stand, thus I urge voters to VOTE CON.




Debate Round No. 3
MilitaryAtheist

Pro

...Are you saying that extremism in religion is bad and it causes suffering?



Yes. But this is not the point.





Is God obligated to save those who doesn’t believe in him? Does God have an obligation to us? When we don’t believe in him, why would you think he would believe in us?

An all-loving god would. It is a douche-move to deny someone into Heaven/Paradise just because of his/her atheism. That person could be a citizen who works at a soup kitchen and loves all types of people. But since he is an atheist, I guess he won't go to Heaven. What I am getting at that since God (partly) caused evil, he should fix it.



God created us with free will. Adam and Eve were human, thus they had free will. God has a plan for us, and he gives us the path to salvation, but we have to choose to walk it. God doesn’t force us. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.


This is unrelated to the debate.


True, I reposted the KCA as it seemed that you had a lack of knowledge in how the universe is matter.


Stop strawmaning me. I know the Universe is filled with matter. In fact, you didn't touch off of why 'ex nilho' is wrong. I ask the voters to take my arguments as dropped.


Yes, to create us and lead us to salvation.


What is that cause? If he created himself out of nothing, then you just proved that the KCA can and was refuted. This has no prove and I ask of you to bring it.



  • Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
  • The idea of God exists in the mind.
  • A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
  • If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
  • We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
  • Therefore, God exists.

This is the Ontological argument. Note how it has a clever way of hiding the fact it is begging the question(The premise is basically the same as the conclusion).


A famous example of this argument is a watch. If you find a watch on the ground, you don’t know who made the watch. But you do know that SOMEBODY created the watch. What created DNA? What created the Big Bang? What created us, the way our bodies work? Certainly we are the greatest creation of all? Science has not yet found an answer to some of these questions, so the logical answer would then be God. He created everything.

ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments.

Yes. But this is not the point.

I consider this to be a concession of that point.

An all-loving god would.

God will save everyone, but only when everyone believes in him. He will eradicate evil and allow everyone to join Him, but only once everybody has turned to him.

This is unrelated to the debate.

This is very related. Please show how it isn’t related. I also take this to be a conceded point.

I ask the votes to take my arguments as dropped.

This is the 3rd dropped argument.

What is that cause? If he created himself out of nothing, then you just proved that the KCA can and was refuted.

First of all, God didn’t create himself out of nothing. If you look at my arguments, it clearly states in both my arguments and the Bible that God simply existed. Secondly, just because an argument for God is refuted (not saying that the KCA was adequately refuted as my opponent DIDN’T refute the argument and instead dropped it) doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. There are so many arguments for God, just because one is false doesn’t mean the rest are.

Note how it has a clever way of hiding the fact it is begging the question (The premise is basically the same as the conclusion)

My opponent posted this in the last round, yet has not explained this point as all. I invite my opponent to explain how this refutes the Ontological argument.

In my opponent’s final point, he simply quoted me and had no refutation.

For these reasons, God clearly exists, Vote Con.



Debate Round No. 4
MilitaryAtheist

Pro



I consider this to be a concession of that point.



Which was a Red Herring. I did not have enough time for a rebuttal, besides it was a red herring.




God will save everyone, but only when everyone believes in him. He will eradicate evil and allow everyone to join Him, but only once everybody has turned to him.


What? How is that a loving god? It basically can be summed up to :


Worship me or be killed.


How can that be moral?


This is very related. Please show how it isn’t related. I also take this to be a conceded point.



Bible details are not related to God's existence.


First of all, God didn’t create himself out of nothing. If you look at my arguments, it clearly states in both my arguments and the Bible that God simply existed.

Without a cause. This is self-refutting for the KCA.


Secondly, just because an argument for God is refuted (not saying that the KCA was adequately refuted as my opponent DIDN’T refute the argument and instead dropped it)


I DID.


"The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo. We can't take the rules for "ex materia" and then sic them to "ex nihilo""


You did not rebut this.



doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. There are so many arguments for God, just because one is false doesn’t mean the rest are.


Never said this.



Con dropped many of my agruments and replaced them with with fallaious thinking.


For that reason, VOTE MA


ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments.

I did not have enough time for a rebuttal.

Which essentially is a concession of that point as my opponent didn’t refute my point.

What? How is that a loving god? It basically can be summed up to: Worship me or be killed.

This is not at all what it is summed up to. It is loving because God is giving everyone a chance to believe in him before he eradicates evil and takes everyone to heaven. A non-all loving God would eradicate evil whenever he wants and take the people who believe in him to heaven while leaving some people behind. It cannot be summed up to worship me or be killed as God isn’t killing you, he isn’t asking you to worship him, just believing in him. Is that so hard?

Bible details are not related to God’s existence.

Yes they are.
Without a cause. This is self-refuting for the KCA.

I had already addressed this point. Some believe that God’s purpose is to create us and lead us to salvation.

I DID.

Yes you did, and then I refuted your weak refutation. I had clearly rebutted this as I showed how the universe is not ex nihilo, but ex material. Thus, the rules for ex material still apply. Furthermore, you dropped this argument in the previous round!

Con dropped many of my arguments and replaced them with fallacious thinking.

Yet my opponent has dropped many of his arguments.

Ontological argument: I asked my opponent to explain his refutation (which my opponent didn’t). Furthermore, his refutation doesn’t actually tell us what the question it was begging was.

Everything has a maker: In the last round my opponent quoted my argument, yet provided no refutation, and failed to provide a refutation in R5. This point has gone un-rebutted the entire debate.


KCA argument: this point was dropped by my opponent in the previous round.

Suffering: this point was also dropped by my opponent in the previous round.

Adam and Eve: this point was also dropped in the previous round

My opponent has dropped the majority of his case and has failed to refute any of the arguments I have brought forth. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to prove his BOP. Thus, it is clear for Voters to VOTE CON.

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Plagarized from my debate dude.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
MilitaryAtheist said that the first round of this debate was for acceptance. Then in his post for round two he said he expected his opponent to make the first shot in the first round. Huh?????
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
I'm the real Batman, you can be Robin :)
Posted by MilitaryAtheist 4 years ago
MilitaryAtheist
You can post R1
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I will accept if I can post an argument in Round 1.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
MilitaryAtheistishallannoyyoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had flawed logic in presenting his case. Con had better arguments.