The Instigator
Thorough
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mr.Infidel
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

God

Do you like this debate?NoYes-7
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 9 votes the winner is...
Mr.Infidel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,013 times Debate No: 19567
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (8)
Votes (9)

 

Thorough

Con

I believe that God does not exist. What I say goes, because I am omniscient and omnibenevolent, so know everything and do not lie.
Mr.Infidel

Pro

==REBUTTALS==

My partner makes an extraordinary claim that he does not lie and knows everything. He has not proved that so please disregard my partner's arguments.

==ARGUMENTS==

The Slick Cosmological Argument

This argument was formulated by Matt Slick, founder and president of the Christian Apologetics and research ministry. It is a type of the Kalam Cosmological Argument [1]:

  1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." (Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system.)
  1. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
  2. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.

.It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.

The universe could not have brought itself into existence.

.If something does not exist, it has no ability to perform an action by which it can bring itself into existence.

  1. If it exists so as to be able to perform an action, then it already exists.

The universe was brought into existence by something other than itself.

All things that come into being have causes.

.There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe (or past universes) were infinitely old. But, this would require an infinite amount of time to be traversed in order to arrive at the present. This cannot happen since an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed.

i.If the universe were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.

ii.If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.

iii.If it were infinitely old, then in order for us to exist here and now, an infinite amount of time would have had to have been traversed in order to get here now. But, an infinity cannot be traversed.

Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.

.A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.

i.Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself. (Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe).

ii.An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.

iii.Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe. (An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe, which we know to be finite).

iv.An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

This uncaused cause is supernatural.

.By supernatural we mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it.

i.This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.

ii.This supernatural uncaused cause is God.

What can we glean from this? Well, since we know that the universe could not have brought itself into existence, it must have had a upernatural transcendent cause. This cause is what we call "God."

Summary

My argument rests on the undeniable truth that the universe is not eternal; hene it is not infinite in size. Therefore, it must have had a beginning and it is a fact something transcendent brought it into existence.

Thank you for a fun debate!


References

[1] Slick, Matt. “The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Causes.” https://school.carm.org......

Debate Round No. 1
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Sherman, no one cares about your sources. The existence of God is probably the most debated topic on DDO, and perhaps the world. If you think you are that much smarter then everybody else then put forward a debate challenge.
Posted by Sherman_Flipse 5 years ago
Sherman_Flipse
I disagree with the outcome of the vote as it is highly biased and deceived by use of conduct, complexity, and sourcing. These do not necessarily make the argument correct. If one has an unbiased mind and an internet connection, he/she will almost certainly come to the conclusion that god does not exist. If you want my sources, start google and youtube searches for random bits of information about religion related topics.
Posted by Thorough 5 years ago
Thorough
On newbs, one does not need to waste time, as all points go to you in the proposed alternative argument:
1) obviously, you would have had better conduct
2) omnibenevolent is spelt incorrectly (omni-benevolent)
3) obviously, you would have had more convincing arguments
4) a mere reference to the Slick Cosmological Argument would grant you the most reliable source
...without the need for a long and complex argument.
Posted by Thorough 5 years ago
Thorough
Yes, but your argument was long and uneeded, so you have wasted time
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
I just love noob sniping. The cosmological argument does prove that a transcedant being (God) exists. Hence it is valid and sound. I win by default anyway.
Posted by Thorough 5 years ago
Thorough
I'm not a newb. I'm an active debator who wants to test other's intelligence so as to find their weaknesses
Posted by Thorough 5 years ago
Thorough
Mr Infidel: All you needed to do was specify a single piece of evidence and you would have won, as I have not produced any valid evidence to contradict God's existance. For example, you could have said, more for simplicity than validity, God does exist because this world must have been created by something. The is valid evidence, although not reinforced by more. Moreover, you would have won by default without the need for a long and complex argument.

To be blunt, why bother?
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
I love noob sniping.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by C-L-Fox 4 years ago
C-L-Fox
ThoroughMr.InfidelTied
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: isn't it obviouse...
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ThoroughMr.InfidelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I give him arguments as a joke
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
ThoroughMr.InfidelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious that Pro won.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
ThoroughMr.InfidelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Quit trolling.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
ThoroughMr.InfidelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: noob sniping at it's best.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
ThoroughMr.InfidelTied
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: Troll debates are annoying, but good effort and work by PRO.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
ThoroughMr.InfidelTied
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: lol./.... Kinda obvious.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
ThoroughMr.InfidelTied
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: Was this seriously a debate? Nice job on Pro's part, but what is the point of issuing a debate that's only one round? How does one expect to come to truth?
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
ThoroughMr.InfidelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: obvious