The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Spock
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

God's existence can be proven, more likely than not

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...
Spock
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 731 times Debate No: 24261
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i had before argued that God could not be proven.... here is my argument and some background concepts broken down into more basics....
http://www.debate.org...

i actually have been needing to perhaps come to grips with the idea that perhaps God could be proven. some one pointed out a pretty basic idea... the laws of thermodynamics.

i've always thought it cheap to say "well, as long as we can conclude more than likely an uncaused caused caused everything... even if that's just particles existing etc, a primordial soup, a ticking time bomb etc.. then God exists". to make it more meaningful.... you'd have to prove something beyond that, before that, etc, that the uncaused caused equals

but with the laws of thermodynaics, we realize that matter is constantly breaking down. (there are some who say the universe will go out with a bang, not a whimper, but the laws in any case say we break down to nothing). this means that if we did have this supposed bunch of stuff... it would have to have went back up and up in terms of energy levels, infinitely. in a sense, this is somewhat just another way of thinking about the infinite causal chain of objects (if God could just be, could'nt that?)... but given we know the big bang started out at a point and exploded to to speak, we're talking about not so much an infiinte pool table balls knocking each other, so to speak, but rather an infinitely rising mass of energy.
this is too counter to what we are familiar with in everyday life. sure, an uncaused cause is not directly analogous to a bike rolling etc as we don't see those everyday and so perhaps we sholdn't conclude it'd have to exist just because we see causes and effects.... but we can say based on laws we know, that an infinite energy level is not part of anything we could say more than likely exists.... right? how could we have a chain of energy breaking down with a definite ending point, but not a definite starting point? wouldn't that be contradictory? the energy that was put into the system would then be finite, it ended, there's a certain amount of energy that was in the chain by virtue of the end.... if there was no beginning and an infinite amount of energy, it would have to have an infinte end, too, as there was an infinte amount of energy going into it.... which isn't what we observe.

if God is the uncaused caused beyond trying to define that as being mass that could exist, and would have to be before that mass occurred... that suddenly become very significant.

i know some try to point to quantum level, and say that random ness does occur, which means existence could just be random per similiarities to our world. but to my understanding, random quirks occur from other random quirks, and only in mass, which has to occur to begin with. ie, i dont think you find quantum stuff in a vaccum. we'd have to assume quantum particles exploded into something... if we assumed there were quantum soups in the beginning and it is found in a vaccum. we dont see quantum stuff exploding into anything other than other quantum stuff, though, and from preexisting mass. it'd have to have been a unique event that we're unfamiliar with for it to be quantum soup into mass... but it's contrary to what we know so far. if it was mass first, that brings us to the macrolevel that we see in every day life and all that that entails as mentioned.

in a very real sense, though, our knowledge of trying to prove God, continues to become debateable as our knowledge of the cosmos exists, leaning about quantum stuff, etc.

so i'm not sure i see a way except to admit that the most basic idea of an uncaused cause, in a meaningful sense, beyond random partiles and randomness etc, makes sense. (as is all that was posited by most theologians anyway)
it is much like the proverbial cue stick hit the balls. that stick is by definition beyond time and space and our laws. it might not be "intelligent" as we like to think etc... but it's there by reason of this cause and effect world we live in.
Spock

Con

I accept this debate and ask that at the beginning of my opponents argument, he clarify the resolution, to avoid unintentional semantic argument. I don't want to define things myself, and ask that he specify whether or not God's(Yahweh's) existence can be proven, or that intelligent design can be proven. Skimming through the first argument, I am given to believe that this was a simple introduction, not the beginning of an argument,so I thank my opponent for that, and wish him or her luck.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

as i said in the initial post... God is an "uncaused cause [....] beyond random mass and randomness [...] (as is all that was posited by most theologians anyway)"

proving intelligent design would prove that God exists by virtue of proving the designer. it's pretty much the same thing. if you can prove God you can prove intelligent design, or vice versa.
Spock

Con

In order to fix this debate a little (I didn't have an understanding that those were Pro's opening arguments, since it was so stream-of -consciousness. I apologize.) and since Pro didn't establish any rules, I'd like to provide for the defining of God as intelligent design in general (to avoid my opponent using God in terms of the laws governing the universe), and establish that only my opponent has the BoP. As such, I will pick apart my opponents argument line by line.

1.) "this is somewhat just another way of thinking about the infinite causal chain of objects (if God could just be, could'nt that?)"

This isn't really any indication of the fact that intelligent design can be proven. In this example, you're only personifying an idea as God, not proving that his existence can be proven.

2.) if God is the uncaused caused beyond trying to define that as being mass that could exist, and would have to be before that mass occurred... that suddenly become very significant.

This statement doesn't make much sense. I would ask my opponent to clarify.

3.) but to my understanding, random quirks occur from other random quirks, and only in mass, which has to occur to begin with. ie, i dont think you find quantum stuff in a vaccum.

You do. That's the basis behind the prevailing idea of the big bang, the fact that space itself has energy. This is the basis behind dark energy and zero point energy, also. [1]

4.) it'd have to have been a unique event that we're unfamiliar with for it to be quantum soup into mass... but it's contrary to what we know so far. if it was mass first, that brings us to the macrolevel that we see in every day life and all that that entails as mentioned.

The argument posed here seems to be that of the majority of those who try to rationalize God's existence, stating that because there is an absence of explanation, that immediately opens up the possibility of intelligent design. This notion is weak however, if you truly want to rely on the possibility of intelligent design being possible simply because there are things we can't understand.

5.) in a very real sense, though, our knowledge of trying to prove God, continues to become debateable as our knowledge of the cosmos exists, leaning about quantum stuff, etc

I feel the contrary, actually. The more we learn, the less debatable the topic becomes. We are running out of miraculous and inexplicable events to paste the god hypothesis into.

6.) that stick is by definition beyond time and space and our laws.

At one point, the tides were beyond our ability to comprehend. As were the movement of planets and heavenly bodies, understanding volcanoes ... these were all once explained by gods or a singular god until someone went out and discovered the scientific causes behind it. You're merely stating that the existence of God can be proven becasue there are things that we don't yet understand, and I must say that I reject this premise.

For these reasons, please vote in the Con.

Sources
1.http://www.cfa.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Spock

Con

My opponent has forfeited their round, and my argument still stands, with an emphasis on question 2.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
dairygirl4u2cSpockTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.