The Instigator
Debate_King1475
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/21/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 802 times Debate No: 84178
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (2)

 

Debate_King1475

Con

God cannot be proved or disproved with 100% certainty but I argue that God does not likely exist. There are several reasons why I believe this. One is that there is no way to measure, see, test, observe God, etc. Second is that it does not make sense why an all powerful god would want to create an imperfect human society whose life isnt even significantly long in the life time of the universe. Also, religion as a whole has mind washed so many people t believe that there is an "invisible man in the sky." Ok not really but I think you know what I am trying to say. Religion causes people to trust in a theic identity when there is no evidence for those made claims. They have a bible, millions of blind followers, and false reasoning. For these reasons, I don't believe in god and it is your job to argue for this so called god.
ssadi

Pro

I will show that since the universe exists, then there necessarily exists a Creator or God (not bound to universe and its laws).

Cause – Effect Principle

Here is how the cause-effect principle shows the existence of the Creator of the universe:

1 – The universe exists,

2 – it has a beginning (according to the Big Bang Theory, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.),

3 – since the universe began to exist, then there necessarily exists a cause (according to cause-effect principle) for this beginning.

Let’s analyze the result/effect (the universe and its beginning) to understand what that cause can be.

Think about an event. There necessarily exists a cause (C1) for this event to happen. There necessarily exists another cause (C2) for C1 to happen. … There necessarily exists another cause (Ci) for C(i-1) to happen (where Ci and C(i-1) are the ith and (i-1)th causes, respectively). There are only two options for this chain of causes;

a) – this chain stops in Ci if and only if (iff) Ci doesn’t need another cause to happen, i.e., iff Ci is an uncaused cause,

b) – otherwise this chain goes to infinity.

If option b is impossible for a chain of causes, then there necessarily exists a cause Ci which needs no other cause to happen, i.e., there is necessarily an uncaused cause. For a real chain of causes option b is physically impossible, since there is no such thing as infinity in physics (note that a quantity of infinity in physics is used to exaggerate the greatness of the quantity, not literally meant to be infinity). There are many examples that show that the infinity in reality (of the universe) is paradoxical, such as Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel, and therefore impossible. Scientifically speaking, we cannot show any example for it in the universe. So, at least we can say that, it is scientifically impossible.

1. Since the universe, according to the Big Bang Theory, has a beginning (i.e., option b above is not the case) then there necessarily exists an uncaused cause responsible for emergence of the universe (option a is the only option).

2. According to cause-effect principle there exists no uncaused cause in the universe.

3. Since both 1 and 2 seem to be correct (according to materials discussed above), then the uncaused cause in 1 MUST be beyond the universe.

We call this uncaused cause as the Creator of the universe, i.e., God. If you ask what caused God to exist, then the answer would be He doesn’t need a cause to exist, since he is uncreated Creator, as shown above.

Let’s show this with a simple example. Imagine a moving train with 80 wagons (except of locomotive). Since the 80th wagon is moving then what is pulling it (what causes it to move)? The answer is the 79th wagon. What is pulling the 79th wagon? The answer is 78th wagon. … What is pulling the 1st wagon? The answer is the locomotive. What is pulling the locomotive? Asdfghjkl?!? The answer is that the locomotive doesn’t need to be pulled in order to move. It is able to move without being pulled. Even if you argue that there is no need for a locomotive, another moving wagon is enough for the 1st wagon to move, then the same question would be asked again for that wagon. This chain of questions will never end unless there is a locomotive (or something that can move without being pulled and capable of pulling all the wagons connected to it). Therefore, we can say that for a moving train (or chain of wagons) since a never-ending chain of moving wagons is impossible to exist, then there necessarily exists a locomotive that pulls all the wagons and can move without being pulled.

Similarly, for an existing universe with a beginning there necessarily exists an Uncaused Cause that has started the universe and doesn’t need any cause to happen/exist. We call this Uncaused Cause as the Creator or the God.

This conclusion is also consistent with common sense and logic. A food is cooked by someone. We can ask who cooked the food. But it is absurd to ask who cooked the person that cooked the food. It is absurd because the cook is not something that is cooked. He has a totally different nature than the food. It is absurd to think of a direct similarity between something made and its maker. The same should be considered about the Creator of the universe. Similarly, since the Uncaused Cause we discussed above is the creator of everything, then there is nothing like Him.

To talk a little more about this God… Very precise constants and precise properties of particles and of laws of nature show that these numbers and properties are not just arbitrary numbers and properties. Then their existence and preciseness in the universe cannot be explained by coincidences. So the causes for those numbers and properties to be that precise cannot be arbitrary and coincidental causes. Since the emergence of these constants and properties took place in the beginning of the universe then we consider them as a part of the starting of the universe. So these precise constants and properties are also chosen by the same Uncaused Cause we discussed above. Then this Uncaused Cause has free will (ability to make a choice) and is intelligent (fine-tuned constants and properties and very precise relationships between these constants, properties, the laws of the universe and events surely imply the existence of intelligence).

Con’s Arguments

1. "...I argue that God does not likely exist. There are several reasons why I believe this. One is that there is no way to measure, see, test, observe God, etc.”


Answer: Firstly, not being able to measure, see, test, observe something, etc. DOESN’T MEAN it doesn’t exist. For instance, we cannot directly measure, see, test, observe, etc. the dark matter and dark energy using our available technology. It is estimated that about (roughly) 95% of our universe is dark (dark matter + dark energy) which means WE KNOW NOTHING about 95% of the known universe. NOTE that it doesn’t mean we know all about 5%, but it means that all what we know (scientifically) is related to and is about 5% and we know NOTHING about the rest 95%. If we accept Con’s argument to be correct for the test of existence of something, then we will have to reject existence of 95% of the universe. So not being able to measure, see, test, and observe something cannot show non-existence of anything. Secondly, measuring, seeing, testing, and observing can be possible for things that are made up of energy, matter or both. Con’s argument is as follows;

If God existed (assumption), then we would be able to measure, see, test, and observe Him. Since we are unable to do so (contradiction), then He doesn’t exist.

This is a very famous method of proving something wrong, method of contradiction. The problem with this here is that it assumes that God exists, but considers God as something measurable, seeable, testable, and observable. Since it is not the case for God as explained above (nothing is like Him) and no one claims about such a god, then the contradiction is invalid.

2. "Second is that it does not make sense why an all powerful god would want to create an imperfect human society whose life isnt even significantly long in the life time of the universe.”

Answer: The reasoning makes no sense. Again this argument assumes first that if there exists an all-powerful god and then considers the insignificantly short life of human society compared to life time of the universe and imperfection of human society as contradiction to this all powerful god’s wills. Well, if such a god is assumed to exist, then he could do anything he wanted and that would not contradict anything in the assumption made.

Rhetoric: It doesn't make sense why film makers would want to make a film which is insignificantly short compared to time it takes them to make it. Therefore, film makers don't exist (!).

References: Most of the materials discussed are very famous or are purely logical and can be confirmed by common sense. Therefore, I didn't give references. References would be provided when required.

Debate Round No. 1
Debate_King1475

Con

Debate_King1475 forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

I was hoping to bring some scientific evidences here as well. But Con has forfeited this round. So I will not post anything here in order for debate to be fair.
Debate Round No. 2
Debate_King1475

Con

Debate_King1475 forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

I proved using deduction and logic on scientific data and common sense knowledge that there necessarily exists an Initial Cause (Uncaused Cause). It should be noted that the initial causes are causes for coming into being, not just changing of something like events. Therefore, there necessarily exists an Uncaused Cause (Initial Cause) about which I discussed some other issues. We call that Uncaused Cause as the Creator of the universe, i.e., the God.

I hoped this would be a hard and enjoyable debate, but Con didn't participate in succeding rounds.

Anyways, I would like to thank the Instigator for giving me this opportunity.

I would like the voters to consider the forfeitures of Con in last 2 rounds..

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SirMaximus 11 months ago
SirMaximus
@ssadi: You're welcome!
Posted by ssadi 11 months ago
ssadi
Dear SirMaximus,
Thank you for taking your time, reviewing and voting. It is really appreciated!
Posted by ssadi 11 months ago
ssadi
Themeaman909*, sorry for that! :(
Posted by ssadi 11 months ago
ssadi
Dear Thememan909,
Thank you for taking your time, reviewing and voting. I appreciate..!
Posted by ssadi 11 months ago
ssadi
Thank you matt8800, appreciate it!

And you are welcome! :)
Posted by matt8800 11 months ago
matt8800
Ssadi - congratulations on a well presented argument. I felt you had this one.
Posted by matt8800 11 months ago
matt8800
It was an assumption on my part that they were the same. Thank you for the correction.
Posted by ssadi 11 months ago
ssadi
I was following your debate, and you didn't make any quotation from Qur'an. I think that you think the story is the same in the Qur'an as it is in the Bible. I am afraid that it is not quite correct.
Posted by matt8800 11 months ago
matt8800
ssadi, let me put some thought into it. Not sure if I can debate whether consciousness plays a part in creation because that seems to be the insinuation in the double slit experiment. Regarding the reliability of the Qur'an, I just finished a debate with the premise that the flood discredits the Bible/Qur'an. Its hard to debate if miracles are invoked because that can solve any discrepancy. Maybe the existence of miracles such as talking snakes, people turning into pillars of salt, etc? Another possible premise is that the old testament contains immoral teachings.
Posted by ssadi 11 months ago
ssadi
By "initial causes" in R3 of the debate I mean causes just following the Initial/Uncaused Cause!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 11 months ago
SirMaximus
Debate_King1475ssadi
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited 2 rounds, which made Con bad for conduct, but Pro didn't forfeit any rounds. If Con hadn't forfeited any rounds, then Con might've had more credibility and proper conduct in my eyes.
Vote Placed by Themeaman909 11 months ago
Themeaman909
Debate_King1475ssadi
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the last 2 most important rounds.