The Instigator
Riley0322
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

How can God have alwas exisited?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Ozzyhead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 563 times Debate No: 68761
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Riley0322

Pro

Please note that this is just a debate on the philisophical perspective of God's existence. This isn't a debate on Earth or the universe, just soley on how God has been always there or isn't there. I believe in God (Pro), and anyone who wants to can be against me (Con).

Think of a circle. You can't find it's start point, but you can't find it's stopping point either. It goes on forever. But because you can't find where it began, does that mean it doesn't exist?

That's where most Atheists' make their arguments. They expect everything to be handed to them in cold, hard, realistic facts; who's to blame them? Not everyone can believe with pure faith; some just need convincing (however, I'm not trying to make people believe).

Let's get back to that circle. Because you can't find it's starting and ending point, do you not believe in it even though all evidence of it's existence is before you?
Ozzyhead

Con

If my opponent asserts that God doesn't need a cause then my opponent must be open to the idea that anything in the universe being a constant or at least explain why God is the only thing that can be a constant using scientific backing. Any other backing won't be considered and herected is why? Absent of super natural, is there anything that we accept as true wwithout evidence? Everything in the world that we accept absent of super natural has reached its scientific burden of proof. If God was always there, why can't the universe have always been there? If everything needs a creator then either show that God was created or show beyond any reasonable doubt why God is allowed to bypass this rule.
Debate Round No. 1
Riley0322

Pro

Absent of the supernatural, the universe has not been always there because at first there was nothing but God. If my opponent have need for scientific explanation, then I shall attempt to provide it.
Take the accepted Big Bang Theory, for example. It states as follows: "The Premise The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day."
Taking it into consideration that scientists don't know where this "singularity" came from, how can they believe that the universe came from it? Perhaps God was always there, created the singularity and the outcome of it, and let time run it's course on it.
Ozzyhead

Con

If God is a constant, then there has to be a reason. If it's "it's the best possible explanation" than why can't anything else be a constant? Why couldn't the state of the universe before the Big Bang always be there? What makes it impossible for that to be the case but not God always being there? I am trying to understand why God is allowed to be a constant but nothing else is. There is an extreme lack of evidence that a god is even there. We haven't been able to observe a god through scientific means. And if scientific means is the only way we accept things as true, why do we not give any gods or super natural beings the same responsibility? According to humans, science is the only reliable way to find answers. If we "know" a god is there without the use of science, how can we know that that method is reliable? If our means of finding a god is a means only used to do so, then it is impossible to know that it's accurate.
God could have always been there, but it has been proven that he is not needed to create the universe. The universe is constantly expanding. The start of the universe without a god is supported. If there was a god, he has just been watching and not interfering with anything happening in the world.
Let's think about a god creating a universe for the human race: humans have only been able to observe less than one percent of the entire universe. Our equipment has only been able to travel to parts of the universe that still make our universal observation less than one percent. There are parts of the universe that we are almost guaranteed to never observe. We will never be able to observe more than one percent of the universe. Our sun is one of more than trillions of stars. The universe is way too big to be just for us. Consider this: let's say the universe is the average twelve inch ruler: our galaxy doesn't even cover half of a single line of the universe. Why would a god create such a thing for us? We won't see most of it. What a waste of his time
Debate Round No. 2
Riley0322

Pro

Fine. If you are really wanting evidence, then I will give it to you in a way. You have heat. Cold is the absence of heat, therefore, cold does not exist, only the absence of heat. Then there's light. Darkness is the absence of light, therefore, darkness does not exist, only the absence of light. And the brain of certain people. They can't see their brain, or touch their brain, or anything else pertaining to their senses, so therefore, they don't have a brain.
Ozzyhead

Con

Cold is the term we use to describe the absence heat. It's not a thing, it's the absence of a thing or things. In this case, it's heat molecules. A glass with nothing in it does not exist. It's called an empty glass. Same goes for darkness. Just be cause someone cannot sense their brain does not mean it is not there. The skull can be cut open and the brain can be brought out. Facts are not subjective. Just because you do or don't see something doesn't mean it exists or it does not. Multiple tests in science are done. If the results are consistent, we consider something fact. Multiple, qualified people do the observation so we know it is not subjective. I have no idea what the last argument had to do with the debate. Are you saying just because you can't observe it doesn't mean it's there? The only way we accept anything is using our senses. If we cannot sense it, we should not accept it. If we cannot observe it with our senses, how can we sure it exists? The default position is to not accept a claim without evidence. Unfortunately, any god has lacked too much evidence. Of course, we all know that. If someone found evidence for a god, they would have been rewarded handsomely by the scientific community.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
It's been a while since I debated. Besides, no matter what the context of this debate was, I knew I could debate it.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Thank you Ozzyhead for taking a debate that was being negotiated in the comments...
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
I, personally, think that the question of god's existence is philosophical, not scientific.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
What makes you think I won't be arguing philosophically?
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
I'd be interested in this. If it's a simple "God vs. no God" debate, I guess SNP1 could take it, but if you wanted it to be philosophical and not just black and white "yes vs. no," I'd be willing to take this up!
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
And make it 4 rounds? Then I will accept.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Can you change the resolution to "does god exist?" then? And can you add the definition of god to your first round?
Posted by Riley0322 2 years ago
Riley0322
Yea, this is a "does God exist" sort of debate. I support the existence of God. And by God I meant as a divine, supernatural, omniscent, omnipotent being who has always existed and will never cease to exist, and one who created all things.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Also, define god
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Wait, is this a "does god exist" debate? Your mention of atheism in your 1st round confuses the topic to me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Riley0322OzzyheadTied
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: First thing first, to both sides, USE SOURCES. Second thing, ORGANIZE YOUR ROUNDS. Now, I think that Pro showed pretty poor conduct in his 3rd round (practically giving up on arguing). Con's rebuttals were pretty much uncontested, and Pro never supported his arguments.... I do not think that either side deserves arguments (because of poor structure, no support for them, etc.), but Con did do a better job with them. Conduct and arguments to Con.