The Instigator
westernmarch
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

God probably exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 8 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,960 times Debate No: 23546
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (8)

 

westernmarch

Con

God- The Jewish-Christian god.

R1 is for acceptance
Pro has the BOP
phantom

Pro

Since my opponent isn't responding to my question in the comments, I guess I'll just go ahead and let him start.
Debate Round No. 1
westernmarch

Con

Now I wish Pro went first, but doesn't matter.

In this debate, Pro has to prove it is more likely the Christian God ( and his most common qualities that come with him/her/it.)

I will admit I will be busy in the next 2 days so I will out line my points.

P1.
There is no empirical evidence that god exists.

P2.
The bible is lacking in prove of god

getting a little lazy but I will let Pro get the first shots.
phantom

Pro


Argument from awareness

This is mostly original so I’m just testing the water with this one.

Simply speaking, without God, humanity and the universe would exist simply as a world of natural reactions and chemicals. In this world the substance of all creatures would be that of only natural chemical matter. If life did begin to exist we would only be in a sense like machines or robots. Robots and machines are obviously not aware of their existence. They cannot think, reason, imagine or exist more than just a compilation of different parts. Without God we would simply be an arrangement of various substances of naturally formed matter. This would not account for any ability to be self aware of our existence.

Moral argument

The representation of the moral argument that I will be using is derived from various moral arguments, but the formation is self devised.

P.1 In absence of God, naturalism would be the next possible cause for morality. (By lack of other cause)

P.2 We possess a moral code in which we discern moral facts by intuition or sense. (By observation)

P.3 This type of objective morality requires a basis or source. (By necessity)

P.4 Naturalism could not account for this source. (By definition)

P.5 God can be the only other explanation for objective morality. (P.1)

P.6 God is the only possible source or basis for objective morality. (P.1, P.3- P.5)

P.7 God is the best explanation for objective morality. (P.1, P.3- P.6)

C. Therefore God exists. (P.1- P.7)

Naturalism co-existing with moral objectivity, SB-P Naturalism cannot account as a basis for morality.

Keep in mind that I am talking about a morality in which we naturally posses, within our being. The very idea of naturalism accounting for this type of morality refutes the whole basis of what objective morality is. No moral code as such can be naturally formed, because the very premise "natural", refutes the whole idea. This type of moral code needs a basis. In fact it necessarily requires it. Every part of our body therefore would have had to have evolved, which would include our minds. In other words naturalism would have to entirely create us. With this fact in place there could be no way that objective morality could exist. For why would it? We would lack the necessary tool to make right/wrong judgments. Naturalism could be the only possible source, and naturalism is not a valid basis at all. Thus morality would be subjective. If there is no greater power, than there is no basis for this type of morality. [1][2][3]

Existence of objective morality, SB-P problems with naturalism and our moral sense.

Let me make it clear that by objective morality I do not mean all moral facts are objective, but that a basic moral code exists and that some objective moral facts do indeed exist. I think it has been established that naturalism and this moral code cannot co-exist, so now the only thing to do is prove that more than likely a moral code does exist. By observation, moral objectivity is evident. Morality is not something that is flippant in nature; it is polar. Certain actions are blatantly obviously wrong, such as shoving shards of glass into a two year old babies eyes simply out of pure delight. Human beings possess advanced cognitive faculties, and observation prima-facie suggests that we possess the natural ability to differentiate between right and wrong. We can deduce certain facts, not logically but naturally. I can recognize signals from my sense of smell, and touch, just as I can recognize facts that my moral sense gives me. We cannot hold the view that our senses are incredibly untrustworthy. In fact to deny a moral sense would be to assert that we, for some reason, own a natural intuition that is entirely and completely flawed. The naturalist needs to answer the puzzling question, why do we have such a strong moral perception if it is entirely untrustworthy? In fact would not the naturalist believe that evolution would have by now eliminated this hindrance? Instead we would be left perplexed on why we as humans reserve such a deceptive and useless natural sense. It is probable that objective morality, if caused by God, would be something that humans are naturally in-tune with, and that is the exact type of morality that is evident in observation. Denying this fact only brings up opposing questions. For to negate this you would have to argue that we possess a highly, unreliable, deceptive and useless natural instinct, when there is no explanation through naturalism as to why it naturally exists within us. [4][5]

We can also derive the fact that naturalistic theory does not correspond with the moral sense we currently posses. While I did partially address this in the previous paragraph I will do so more directly here. Evolution postulates a survival and logic based thinking. Our moral senses do not correlate with such a theory, for many facts our moral sense tells are contrary to such an assertion. For example we are generally highly sympathetic to the feelings of others. Most people are reluctant to cheat and hurt other less superior people for own personal benefit, and those that do are labeled as corrupt. Naturalism assumes a survival of the superior. Genetic inheritance has not formed us into this way of thinking however. Certain facts that are more logical we conceive of as barbaric. It should be morally acceptable to torture people considering this view, but very few people would advance such a proposition. We also make efforts into preventing certain actions as being labeled as torture so that they are not viewed as un-justified, such as water boarding. Our moral sense strongly dictates that killing those who are weak and un-benefical to society in order so that the superior may survive, is wrong. However this would be directly in line with survival of the fitness and thus our moral senses dictate something that would be contrary to what a naturally formed moral intuition would dictate.[7]

Morality is something that humans are naturally in-tune with Hence "moral code". This sort of objective morality is somewhat analogous to sense perception. There is not much of a categorical difference between moral and sense perception. Our intuitions are often prima facie reliable. They allow us to perceive facts and make judgments. Hearing a sound behind me allows me to reason that someone is approaching. My sense perception allowed me to perceive a certain fact, just as our moral sense allows us to perceive certain facts. There is no reason to believe moral and sense perceptions are non-comparative. Our sense perceptions are within a reasonable amount accurate and our moral perception would have to be greatly skewed if we do not confirm to the fact that they are analogous [2][7]

Prophecies


The Bible amazingly foretells events years or even centuries before they take place. According to one source, the Bible contains around 2,500 prophecies. With our current knowledge about 2,000 have been accurately fulfilled.[8] If the chance of one of these prophecies being fulfilled were one in ten; the odds of all these prophecies being fulfilled is 1 and 1 followed by 2,000 zeros.[8]

Just to give an example, Daniel prophesied the coming of the Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires, Alexander the Great, the details of many military battles and the exact date Jesus would enter Jerusalem.


"The Bible is like no other book in the world. It is filled with internal evidence that it is the Word of God. No other religion has a book filled with prophecies fulfilled one right after the other. The few books that have even attempted this have been proven to be written by false prophets who cannot foretell the future. But you can trust in the Bible, which is the true Word of God, who proves that He is the Author of it by fulfilled prophecies. As He said more than 2700 years ago:"[9]

Sources are in link.


http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
westernmarch

Con

Simply speaking, without God, humanity and the universe would exist simply as a world of natural reactions and chemicals. In this world the substance of all creatures would be that of only natural chemical matter. If life did begin to exist we would only be in a sense like machines or robots. Robots and machines are obviously not aware of their existence. They cannot think, reason, imagine or exist more than just a compilation of different parts. Without God we would simply be an arrangement of various substances of naturally formed matter. This would not account for any ability to be self aware of our existence.



First, I like to add that God is the most aware thing that will ever come around if it/he/her existed. Because you say it reqiures a higher source of awareness to make a aware critter, then who created God? Who created him?


I didn't think much of this argument for this reason, and that auto-save failed.


Next!
-----------------------

The representation of the moral argument that I will be using is derived from various moral arguments, but the formation is self devised.

P.1 In absence of God, naturalism would be the next possible cause for morality. (By lack of other cause)

P.2 We possess a moral code in which we discern moral facts by intuition or sense. (By observation)

P.3 This type of objective morality requires a basis or source. (By necessity)

P.4 Naturalism could not account for this source. (By definition)

P.5 God can be the only other explanation for objective morality. (P.1)

P.6 God is the only possible source or basis for objective morality. (P.1, P.3- P.5)

P.7 God is the best explanation for objective morality. (P.1, P.3- P.6)

C. Therefore God exists. (P.1- P.7)

I am puzzeled. I don't know why as Nautalism could amount to morals. But Pro gives a vague explantion of "If it is not this, IT MUST BE THAT.". But that isn't the problem. Underlined is God. The reason why I did that is because Pro has to prove it was God and not Zeus or 65 other Gods.

Naturalism co-existing with moral objectivity, SB-P Naturalism cannot account as a basis for morality.

Keep in mind that I am talking about a morality in which we naturally posses, within our being. The very idea of naturalism accounting for this type of morality refutes the whole basis of what objective morality is. No moral code as such can be naturally formed, because the very premise "natural", refutes the whole idea. This type of moral code needs a basis. In fact it necessarily requires it. Every part of our body therefore would have had to have evolved, which would include our minds. In other words naturalism would have to entirely create us. With this fact in place there could be no way that objective morality could exist. For why would it? We would lack the necessary tool to make right/wrong judgments. Naturalism could be the only possible source, and naturalism is not a valid basis at all. Thus morality would be subjective. If there is no greater power, than there is no basis for this type of morality. [1][2][3]


I have to drop this for now.





Attack points




AP1



Is there other gods?


Like I said about the creation of God, Something had to create him and give him morals(Is that even possible?) as his endless love. It is logically impossibe to create something out of nothing and that something goes on to form the universe. But could there be some smaller gods that could have helped him out?

AP2


Unreilble evidence.



The only thing that is even close to provide evidence is the Bible.Which in of it of itself is poor evidence for concradicting facts that we know now.




phantom

Pro

I thank my opponent for the debate.


Argument from awareness



My opponent asserts that as God is the most aware creature this poses the question of who created God. That however entails God having a beginning of existence which strawmans the general theistic view that God is timeless.




As my opponent does not bring up any sound objections as well as essentially failing to address my main points, please extend this argument.



Moral argument



My opponent again strawmans my point and claims that I cannot prove that the Christian God specifically accounts for moralities when there are thousands of other Gods. I was not trying to prove the Christian God with this argument, rather just God in general. I attempted to prove Christianity further on in my case,(an argument which con entirely ignores) so cons objections are irrelevant.



My opponent quotes another large section of my argument and says that he has to drop it for now. I'm not sure what he means by "for now", as this is the last round, but as my opponent has not raised any objections to the actual argument please extend this entire contention.


Prophecies


My opponent ignores this point. Please extend.



Cons case


Con brings up two points this round. For the first contention he asks who created God? This has already been addressed. If God was timeless he would necessarily not require a beginning. There is nothing to suggest God has to have had a beginning.



The second point he presents is that there is no evidence. If my opponent does not think I have brought up any sound arguments perhaps he could try responding more to them?




Re-cap



I have brought up three arguments. Two were made to prove the existence of God. One was made to prove Christianity.


1. My opponent drops my point that naturalism could not account for objective morality and that objective morality does exist. If God and naturalism are the only two possible explanations for objective morality and my opponent drops my point that naturalism could not account for it than that is essentially conceding the existence of God...


His only attempt at refuting the moral argument was to claim that it did not prove the Christian God. That is misunderstanding its purpose. It's not supposed to prove the Christian God, just God. I supported Christianity latter on.


2. My opponent brings up a mostly irrelevant point in his attempt to refute my awareness argument.


3. My opponent entirely drops the prophecies argument, thus dropping my only argument for Christianity specifically.




Con hasn't really put much effort into this debate. I strongly think a pro vote is most justified.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
What?
Posted by TheMrkanyewest01 4 years ago
TheMrkanyewest01
Man,this sounds like more like an The Onion headline than a debate topic.To me it sounds like,and atheists giving up,and saying yeah,god probaly exists.
Posted by westernmarch 4 years ago
westernmarch
yes
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Since I have a massive burden having to prove both Christianity and God together, could I post my links in a seperate source to save space?
Posted by westernmarch 4 years ago
westernmarch
You got it right
Posted by westernmarch 4 years ago
westernmarch
It is fine
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Don't you want me to go first since I have BOP?
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
@CaptainTom: The use of the word "probably" indicates that Pro (whoever accepts) has to prove that its more likely God exists than not, and Con has to refute this by showing that its more likely God doesn't exist than does.
Posted by CaptainTom 4 years ago
CaptainTom
I know I'm new here but it seems very strange to me that "probably" is in the main argument. Don't debates usually have one side v the other?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by twocupcakes 4 years ago
twocupcakes
westernmarchphantomTied
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: Con claims that there is no proof of God and attempts to make his claim by refuting Pro. Pro gives an argument on self perception, morality and prophecies. Seems there are many good ways to refute self perception, asking who created god is not one of them. Con does not provide falsehoods of the bible to show the Bible is unreliable, or provide a reasonable "non-magic" way the Bible could have predicted prophecies. Pro clearly wins this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
westernmarchphantomTied
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: although pro won I still think people need rfds to vote, counter vb
Vote Placed by daytonanerd 4 years ago
daytonanerd
westernmarchphantomTied
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: GO GOOOOOODDDDDDDD!!!!!!
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
westernmarchphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Straightforward win to Pro. It felt like Con relied too much on the argument from God's beginning (I'm puzzled how this refutes the argument from awareness) which is easily refuted by the idea of God as timeless or meta-time (much in the same way atheists conceive the universe as). Con dropping Pro's arguments from prophecies and morality also didn't help him much.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
westernmarchphantomTied
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: Countering vb
Vote Placed by ras2000 4 years ago
ras2000
westernmarchphantomTied
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: god is really
Vote Placed by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
westernmarchphantomTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped big parts of Pro's argument-- I don't know if that's poor conduct or a bad argument? The only sources in this debate were presented by Pro, so the point for sources goes to Pro. There was just no enough "meat" in Con's arguments to grant him a point... where was the rebuttal?
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
westernmarchphantomTied
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: While I thought that the naturalism/morals argument by pro relied mostly on appeals to ignorance and the prophecies arguments had holes large enough to drive a truck through, Con simply did not engage, and thus loses. It was hard to tell which side Con was arguing on natural morality, and he just handwaved prophecies as the bible being unreliable.