The Instigator
trevor32192
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
danzchen7
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

High probability of God or Gods existence

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 537 times Debate No: 75946
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

trevor32192

Con

As con I shall be against a high probability of God or Gods existence.
As pro(my opponent) will be for a high probability of God or Gods existence.( no particular God or Gods must be argued, though my knowledge of religion is very limited outside of Christianity and Greek Mythology)

I will not ask for scientific data for the existence of God or gods, but I do ask that you use reasonable logic and/or math. (Though if you do have scientific data it is accepted)

reasonable- 1(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.
2.as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.
Logic-reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
*Please no trolls, rudeness, or personal attacks.
First argument will just be acceptance of debate. Last round will just be conclusion( no new arguments just supporting of ones own perspective)
danzchen7

Pro

I accept. Primarily, I will argue that God"s existence falls on the "high probability"-end of modal logic. Although my faith and theological perspective defines the existence of a Divine Creator as a necessary truth, I will not revert to this concept through out my argument, and I will define the debate such that it regards the existence of God as a contingency.

I also will ask Con if he will allow me to present the points presented by my own particular religion (Christianity) when I feel it necessary during some point in the debate.

Amen brah.
Debate Round No. 1
trevor32192

Con

Since I did not request scientific data. Also since we are arguing the Christian god I will refer to the bible in some occasions.
I will first start with logical inconsistency.
A. "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."-john 1:3
This is extremely inconsistent. If all things were made through him (God) then God must have made himself. Therefore you could conclude before God there was nothing, absolute nothing. Therefore if nothing existed before god yet god had to have made himself. That is inconsistent with arithmetic 0=0 or nothing=nothing. 0 will never equal 1. Nothing will never be something.
B. if without him not anything that made that was made. Then something like plastic which does not exist before man or in nature must have also been made by him. Yet we all agree that it was made by man.

2. If the bible is the word of god and he is omnipotent then it would be logical to conclude that none of the instances in the bible should be false or contradict one another. if God is omnipotent then mistakes would not exist. There fore if mistakes or contradictions do exist, the bible is not the word of God, but the word of men. This would mean the first quote I stated( "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."-john 1:3) is false for the bible was made by man not god.

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)" now since we have videos of the earth rotation and we can reasonably agree that the earth is orbiting around the sun. This is clearly false if you take it in the literal sense.
"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)"
"He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)"
"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)"
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)"
these all state that the earth is flat and some state the earth has edges(not circular) while the last quote states that the earth is circular but still flat.
I will conclude there to give my opponent plenty of Characters to both produce a counter argument of my points and to make points towards his own goal of a high probability of Gods existent.
danzchen7

Pro

I. The Contingency Argument
To enforce the concept that the universe was created from "what it takes to create it", or "God", I present my first argument, the argument of contingency.
Here are the basic concepts of "contingency":
1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe"the collection of matter in space and time"exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Let"s work out each of the concepts.

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
Suppose you deny this first rule. Then if A exists, there need not exist what it takes for A to exist. But "what it takes for A to exist" means the immediate condition(s) for A's existence. You mean that A exists only if B. Without B, there can be no B. So the denial of premise 1 amounts to this: A exists; A can only exist if B exists; and according to the skeptics, B does not exist. This is absurd.
So there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. But the debate is, what truly does it take? I will answer that soon.

2. The universe"the collection of matter in space and time"exists.
This is quite an obvious concept both secularists and theists agree upon.
In Physics, the universe is defined as "the collection of matter in space and time." Consider one such clump of matter- a being: yourself. You exist, and you are, in part at least, material. This means that you are a finite, limited and changing being, you know that right now, as you read this book, you are dependent for your existence on beings outside you. Not your parents or grandparents. They may no longer be alive, but you exist now. And right now you depend on many things in order to exist"for example, on the air you breathe. To be dependent in this way is to be contingent. You exist if something else right now exists. If the universe exists, there must be space, time, and matter. If space, time, and matter exist, something else must exist. It is difficult to deny this. Theists call this God.

[As a Christian, I personally believe the triune universe can be interpreted as the triune God"s way of letting us understand the extent of his power over what it takes to allow the universe exist (space, time, and matter)]

But not everything can be like this. Then everything would need to be given being, but there would be nothing capable of giving it.

3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.

There would not exist what it takes for anything to exist. So there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which does not exist only if something else exists; something which exists in itself. What it takes for this thing to exist could only be this thing itself. Unlike changing material reality, there would be no distance, so to speak, between what this thing is and that it is. Obviously the collection of beings changing in space and time cannot be such a thing. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist cannot be identical with the universe itself or with a part of the universe.

This concept is generally difficult to grasp for secular believers (ex. atheists), who have a rather naturalistic point-of-view and are quite conservative about it. But in honesty, without this explanation, there cannot be the triune universe. A non-agnostic irreligious person might say that space, time, and matter are infinite, and subtract God from the image. However, one must remember that these three pillars of our existence are applied within our universe; they are therefore worldy, which means they must also have the first rule apply: "If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist."
Furthermore, from nothing to what we have today requires change. However, change requires something to enforce the change [onto the 3 pillars].

4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
Space is a background: it does not change something. Time only applies during a worldly change- there cannot be time without change. Finally we have matter, which cannot be added or subtracted from without an enforcer who goes beyond all three concepts. This enforcer is what theists call God. Atheists don"t have a clue who the enforcer is. Remember that this is not a debate about whether something remains a mystery or not. In short, the probability of God does indeed, fall on the higher end.

5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
With this conclusive, crucial piece of information, the concept of God has a high possibility.

(So much more I could present but I"m afraid I"m out of room)
Debate Round No. 2
trevor32192

Con

To start I must say what a great argument. Well thought, logical, and self supporting.
1.My opponent stated stated
"1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe"the collection of matter in space and time"exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time."
While this is a well thought argument it does a very good job of contradicting itself.
1. if something exists,there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. If this is to be true then even if something exists outside of space and time must have something that is what it takes for it to exists. for example even if God is outside the realm of space and time God still requires something to exist in order for him to exist. In order for God to exist there must be some where that is outside of space and time. then for there to be an area that is outside of space and time, there once again must be something to provide it. This is like the difference between 1/3rd and .3333 repeating. 1/3rd is a finite amount where .333 repeating while equivalent to 1/3 never ends.

In the last argument I stated that in order for a god to exist there would have to be a realm outside of space and time. This brings me to the next point. If there is a realm outside of space and time matter could just spontaneously spawn from it nothing could=something 0=any number because of this the need for a specific being to create something is mute.

The main problem with my opponents theory is that 1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. cannot be true if a God created himself. Because that would mean in order for God to exists God must exist.(also if this is true God exists because God exists then the same principle can be applied to matter and spacetime) Also if God does exist outside the realm of space and time there would be no way for him to interact with the realm of space and time. Once he created the realm of space and time he would be outside it. If he is outside the realm of space and time once created he could not create matter there because once in the realm of space and time matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Outside the realm of space and time no laws of physics exist but once inside the realm of space and time the laws apply.
danzchen7

Pro

First of all, the world by its intervals of existence is generally a line of things as portrayed by the argument. Within the bounds of our universe, one thing relies on the previous thing to exist; that is one of the premises: a rule of the space-time-matter universe. But as I said, if this were entirely consistent, there would be no beginning, and therefore our processes of change in the triune universe will not exist, and therefore the matter of the triune universe will not exist (that includes us).

The 5-step premise brings this idea with a beginning that lies beyond the triune universe. The 5th premise:
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
In the theistic view, God is what it takes. God therefore must transcend both space and time, in a way likely analogous to the Flatland theory. Because the laws of our universe do not necessarily apply to what transcends the laws the universe (by definition of transcending), Con"s POV is more of a guess on what sort of laws that transcending dimension carries. Therefore we can still expect to say that there is an infinite God. After all, God, by definition, created space, time, & matter.
But even with Con"s rebuttal, an enforcer of beginnings and changes outside the universe is still undeniable under this logic, opposed to the agnostic alternative.

Con stated "if God does exist outside the realm of space and time there would be no way for him to interact with the realm of space and time". This statement is fallacious. If I did say that, I will correct myself: God TRANSCENDS the realm of space & time.
According to the Flatland theory, as three-dimensional beings we can construct in two-dimensions. The laws of a 2-dimensional world do not apply to us, because we have depth (and life). Yet we can control a two-dimensional world, by drawing, erasing, coloring, etc. God does the same to the universe. He stands in all the dimensions there are, and percieves ours. He is able to interact with space, time, and matter and change the features of the universe at will.
If you read Flatland, the logic is this: we have a 2D world. The people in this world see things in only 2 Dimensions. We are 3D, gods to these people. If we stuck a finger into the 2D plane, all they can see is a circular outline that our finger is entering.
This is analogous to the many ways God communicated with us (although a 3D world has much more detail) as of the Bible, if you believe that. But since we are just arguing his existence, I"m just making this as the theory of how God CAN interact with the realm of space & time.

Now to the Bible.
My opponent, referring to John 1:3, has said this: "if without him not anything that made that was made. Then something like plastic which does not exist before man or in nature must have also been made by him. Yet we all agree that it was made by man."
My opponent has stated: If the bible is the word of god and he is omnipotent then it would be logical to conclude that none of the instances in the bible should be false or contradict one another. if God is omnipotent then mistakes would not exist. Therefore if mistakes or contradictions do exist, the bible is not the word of God, but the word of men. This would mean the first quote I stated("All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."-john 1:3) is false for the bible was made by man not god.

My opponent either has ignored the premises I have presented or has forgotten, that what it takes for something to exist also has to exist. The ingredients of plastic come from nature, which mankind uses in technology. This computer I am typing on was created by man. But in religion, man could not exist without God" therefore my computer could not exist without God. There is a chain of existence and it all goes "through God". This is a very vacuous argument against God"s existence.

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

Foundation = the action of establishing an institution or organization on a permanent basis, especially with an endowment.

Therefore, a cycle of movements is a foundation, since it relies on a consistent basis of mobility.
The earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun. Have you ever known the earth to "unfix" itself and "move" itself out of its orbit around the sun? It doesn't happen, because the earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun.

The earth also is fixed and immovable in relation to us. There has never been a single day in which we had no place to stand, b/c the earth unfixed itself and moved itself out from under our feet.

The earth has always been fixed and immovable, both in relation to us and in relation to its orbit around the sun. In fact we"ve learned to take it for granted that the sun will shine during the day and that there will ground for us to stand on when we awake in the morning.
Debate Round No. 3
trevor32192

Con

I would first like to say that flatland theory is a great concept but falls apart in every application. Whether you are drawing on a piece of paper or coloring it none of it is 2-d. Our entire universe is made up of 3 dimensions even a line on a piece of paper has length width and height even though it is minute. Just like years ago we believed that everything was made up of atoms then we realized that there is a more basic building block(electrons, protons, neutrons), we then saw electrons and the rest as the smallest building blocks we were wrong again because we now know electrons and the like are made up of quarks. Even though I doubt this is the smallest building block. So since it is impossible for us to not only interact with a 2-d universe but we have no evidence that it would even exist. Therefore there is no logic to suggest that even if God was in a "4-d" universe there would be no 3-d objects ,nothing in that universe could be 3-d.Just like we have no 2-d objects in our 3 or 4 dimensional universe( though it is argued that we could have anywhere from 3 to 32 dimensions in our universe)

Secondly, I agree a being or anything outside the realm of both space and time could do anything inside that realm but once inside the realm of space and time(our realm of existence) the laws must be followed. Therefore even if God was in a realm outside of space and time anything inside the realm space and time must follow the laws of space and time. For example the law that matter cannot be created or destroyed must be followed therefore it would be impossible for him to create matter in our universe without breaking the laws of our universe.

Thirdly my opponent states "Therefore, a cycle of movements is a foundation, since it relies on a consistent basis of mobility the earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun. Have you ever known the earth to "unfix" itself and "move" itself out of its orbit around the sun? It doesn't happen, because the earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun."
As we know with objects orbiting the earth once they do not have sufficient speed to stay in orbit they will fall to the earth due to gravity. The earth orbiting the sun is the same eventually the earth will fall out of orbit and either be shot into space away from the sun or loose too much speed and fall into the sun. One could actually claim the the earth is constantly being pulled into the sun.( there has been some scientific research suggesting that an a massive body outside our solar system is actually pulling us towards it.)
danzchen7

Pro

I shall continue with my rebuttal.
My opponent has stated: "I would first like to say that flatland theory is a great concept but falls apart in every application. Whether you are drawing on a piece of paper or coloring it none of it is 2-d."
The reality of the literal issue is indeed, none of which these material supplies are 2-Dimensional. However, we do have many studies of 2D worlds, in which we visualize a single plane and one-sided objects on the piece of paper. As long as we cancel the 3D factors in a representation, the flatland theory is still applicable.

One mistake Con has made is that the flatland theory is a study of perspective physics using an imagined model of our universal properties minus the ones that a 2D plane would not have, NOT based on mainstream physics.

Con is virtually repeating the points that I have already addressed: "Secondly, I agree a being or anything outside the realm of both space and time could do anything inside that realm but once inside the realm of space and time(our realm of existence) the laws must be followed. Therefore even if God was in a realm outside of space and time anything inside the realm space and time must follow the laws of space and time. For example the law that matter cannot be created or destroyed must be followed therefore it would be impossible for him to create matter in our universe without breaking the laws of our universe."

First of all, remember that the main point of the theistic view is that God transcends time and space. This means God controls time, space, and of course energy. Space is there for the universal backdrop that contains matter, Matter is the building block of every object within Space, and Time is used to allow time-perceptive consciousness to understand the universe. God, in theory, creates the fabric of space, sets a specific rate of time (i. e. time dilation) for the conciousness to perceive, and converts energy into matter in a way more advanced that what scientists have done today. By transcending space and seeing all, God is timeless, seeing the past, present, and future from an outside standpoint which most people might call Heaven.

God, in definition, created the Laws of the Universe. Con has stated that after doing this, God cannot interact within the Universe because the laws of the universe affect Him. This is absurd considering that the God we are referring to is not an immanent being (unless you count Jesus if you"re a Christian like me). None of our laws apply to Him, since He transcends them.

Creating matter by manipulating energy within the universe is within the laws of the Universe, since scientists have done it with light energy (proving Einstein). I also don"t see why a transcending God cannot read time like we observe a 2D graphic plane.

My opponent has stated "Thirdly my opponent states 'Therefore, a cycle of movements is a foundation, since it relies on a consistent basis of mobility the earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun. Have you ever known the earth to "unfix" itself and "move" itself out of its orbit around the sun? It doesn"t happen, because the earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun.'
As we know with objects orbiting the earth once they do not have sufficient speed to stay in orbit they will fall to the earth due to gravity. The earth orbiting the sun is the same eventually the earth will fall out of orbit and either be shot into space away from the sun or loose too much speed and fall into the sun. One could actually claim the the earth is constantly being pulled into the sun.( there has been some scientific research suggesting that an a massive body outside our solar system is actually pulling us towards it.)"

Yet, he has not listed any source of information that renders the occurence of which the Earth moves closer to the Sun as scientific, and proves this. Also, I did not say anything about objects orbitting the Earth being fixed, and I am sure the Bible does not say so either.
Debate Round No. 4
trevor32192

Con

trevor32192 forfeited this round.
danzchen7

Pro

danzchen7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by trevor32192 1 year ago
trevor32192
I read the debate. Stuff like santa only exist in imagination it is fictional. Santa is not tangible as are the other things mentioned in the argument
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
For the whole God has to exist to create himself thing. Look into non-existant objects, it's a real help. I'll also be posting an argument that logically proves this in a relatively explained manner. The debate can be found here: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by MaskedSpartan 1 year ago
MaskedSpartan
The contingency argument looks very nice. Good luck Danzchen7!
Posted by trevor32192 1 year ago
trevor32192
Round 3 can be rebuttals but since there are 5 rounds new topics arent entirely discouraged.
Posted by danzchen7 1 year ago
danzchen7
So round 3 is the rebuttals right?
Posted by danzchen7 1 year ago
danzchen7
I"ll have to warn you on being careful what you use your debating space for. The Bible has a very strong defensive (you sure you ready for my rebuttal?) position and those who do not think twice about the very possible vincibilities and fallacies of their own interpretations of the Scripture find themselves in tough positions.
Posted by danzchen7 1 year ago
danzchen7
Alright thanks for the notice.
Posted by trevor32192 1 year ago
trevor32192
You may refer to your particular religion at any time you feel it is necessary. In the first round I am sorry I was not clear. What I meant is that there is no specific god or gods existence you have to debate. For example you could debate the Greek gods existence or the judea-christian god or both. There are no specific requirements on which god or gods to defend.
No votes have been placed for this debate.