The Instigator
qopel
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Neuhaus1994
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

I claim the existence of 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 5 votes the winner is...
qopel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,376 times Debate No: 31772
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (65)
Votes (5)

 

qopel

Con

You must take on the full burden of proof.
No Bible verses, no semantics, no BS definitions, no cut and pasted arguments.
If you make a claim it has to be backed with evidence, otherwise it's nothing I have to bother to argue against.
Neuhaus1994

Pro

Since Con has not provided a definition of the word God, I shall provide one. I also take the BOP.

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Basic Premises:
1. All objects in the universe must be created from other objects. Therefore all objects must be created from a single object (God), otherwise nothing would exist. If no God existed then all objects must have either existed before time, or all objects were created from nothing. The statement that a object could be created outside time is false, in that everything exists only in a universe where time exists. Also, an object cannot spring from nothing. Scientists call this principle CONSERVATION OF MASS. Only God was in existence before the advent of time could exist. Therefore, an entity outside of time was necessary in order to create the universe.
2. God does not have to be a directly involved creator. In this way the religion of Deism, with firm philosophical background, can also prove the existence of God. The idea that God had done everything in the Bible, Koran etc, is not provable, and will accordingly be ignored.
3.God, does not have to create a perfect universe. He may be omniscient and all powerful, but that does not mean that God created a perfect universe. He is God, so he would make any universe that he so desired.
4. All faiths on Earth therefore logically worship God. If God is all powerful, and he definitely exists, then it would be wise for all people to attempt to worship him.

Evidence:
1. The universe exists.
2. No matter can be created or destroyed, yet it has come into existence.
3. No energy can be created or destroyed, yet it has come into existence.
4. The vast majority of humans have believed in a deity, on philosophical grounds, for millennia.
5. Quantum physics shows the complexity of a universe created by an omniscient creator.
Debate Round No. 1
qopel

Con

My Opponent claims, without evidence, that "All objects in the universe must be created from other objects. Therefore all objects must be created from a single object (God)"

"Objects" are made from matter. Matter can be made from energy and energy can be made from matter.
The "single object" my opponent is referring to is not "god", but the singularity that existed before the Big Bang.

My opponent also states, "Only God was in existence before the advent of time could exist."
If fact the singularity was in existence. The singularity was the source of all that exists, not God.

My opponent claims, "If God is all powerful, and he definitely exists, then it would be wise for all people to attempt to worship him."
The word is IF. But IF doesn't prove there is a God.

Evidence:
1. The universe exists.
Agreed

2. No matter can be created or destroyed, yet it has come into existence.
Matter came from energy.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

3. No energy can be created or destroyed, yet it has come into existence.
Energy always existed in the singularity.

4. The vast majority of humans have believed in a deity, on philosophical grounds, for millennia.
That a logical fallacy known as "an appeal to the majority (ad Populem)".
It doesn't prove there is a God. It only proves many people believed in a God.

5. Quantum physics shows the complexity of a universe created by an omniscient creator.
That is a hasty generalization.
The Universe shows complexity, but that doesn't mean there's a omniscient creator behind it.
Natural laws such as gravity and motion can cause matter to interact and become more complex.
Evolution brings about complex organism from less complex organisms.

Since everything in the Universe can be explained to exist without a God, it is possible that God does not exist.
Since my opponent has the burden of proof, he must now prove God exists, even though his existence would be useless, due to it being unnecessary for him to "create" anything. One of the definitions of God has been "the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe".

The only other definition that can now fit is "the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

It's true that many people worship what they believe to be a God, but no evidence exists that such a God really does exists as an object.
Neuhaus1994

Pro

Rebuttals:

Con states: that I have given no proof to my claim that all objects must come from a single creator. In the universe we see that all objects come from other objects. I need no other proof. Science even states these principles as laws. The laws of conservation of mass and energy. Only something that was above these laws could break them. This force that can break these natural laws is called God. It does not matter if there are many or if their is few. They/it acts as a single collective body that monotheistic religions call God.

Con states: that "matter can be made from energy". I completely agree with him. E=mc^2 confirms this, and I am in no position to challenge this.

Con states: that "The "single object" my opponent is referring to is not "god", but the singularity that existed before the Big Bang."
The singularity is in essence God. It is the supreme originator from which the universe was created. Con attempts to distance the term singularity from the term God, but they are the same. Either the singularity is God, or the singularity is the product of God, which shows intelligent design.

Con states:Energy always existed in the singularity.
Con has not proved anything by saying this. He has attempted to avoid the question by simply saying that the energy always existed. Energy had to arise from somewhere, and that originator is God.

Con states: The Universe shows complexity, but that doesn't mean there's a omniscient creator behind it.
Natural laws such as gravity and motion can cause matter to interact and become more complex.
Evolution brings about complex organism from less complex organisms.
The universe does have an omniscient creator behind it, because otherwise the universe would be a statistical improbability. The singularity (GOD) has endowed the natural world with the laws called gravity and motion through the intelligent design of the singularity and the resulting creation of the universe. I also agree with Con when he says that organisms evolve from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. The universe has the opposite trend. The singularity was a point of absolute complexity that contained the blueprints for the structure of the entire universe. The current universe is headed towards infinite expansion and ultimate death. Therefore this trend would prove that the universe is moving from complexity to simplicity. That original complexity was God.

Con states: Since my opponent has the burden of proof, he must now prove God exists, even though his existence would be useless, due to it being unnecessary for him to "create" anything. One of the definitions of God has been "the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe".
Con's statement that God would have no necessity to create anything would led one to believe that he knows the will of God. This is ridiculous and will therefore be ignored. Also, I have already proved the existence of God through the natural signs present in the universe, and proved by modern science.
Debate Round No. 2
qopel

Con

Pro States "Only something that was above these laws could break them (The laws of conservation of mass and energy).
I, by no means, say that The laws of conservation of mass and energy have ever been broken.
The singularity contained all the mass and energy in the Universe. No God is required to break these laws, because these laws were never broken.

Pro States, "The singularity is in essence God"
One of the first rules of the debate was no semantics and no BS definitions.
The definition of God is not singularity and the definition of singularity is not God.
They are not the same things.

Pro claims the singularity "Is the supreme originator from which the universe was created"
An originator is not a creator. Ice cubes originate from water. Water is not a creator of ice cubes.

Pro claims "Either the singularity is God, or the singularity is the product of God, which shows intelligent design."
There is no evidence that proves the singularity was a product of God. Science can't answer where the singularity
came from, but that doesn't mean a God made it. That's a logical fallacy called an "Argument from Ignorance"
It basically says, if science can't answer where it came from, a God did it.

Pro says, "Energy had to arise from somewhere, and that originator is God"
Once again, an argument from ignorance.

Pro claims "The universe does have an omniscient creator behind it, because otherwise the universe would be a statistical improbability."
The probability that this Universe is the way it is, is 100%. There are no other Universes to compare it to. The fact that this only universe exists exactly the way it does, proves that this is the only way a Universe can exist at all.
The probability that a universe can be different is 0%. That does not prove it was created.
The probability that an ice cube can form at 32 degrees Fahrenheit is 100%. That doesn't mean God makes ice cubes.
There's nothing intelligent about the design of an ice cube. It happens on its own, just like the Universe itself happened on its own.

Pro gives me more arguments from ignorance: "Therefore this trend would prove that the universe is moving from complexity to simplicity. That original complexity was God."
You can not keep claiming "God did it" Every time you don't have the answer to something.

Is it POSSIBLE that there is a God that did all this? Sure! But that's not proof that God really does exist.
Just because something is possible, doesn't make it true. The burden of proof is on pro to actually provide evidence that God is real, not just claim God is real, because God is possible.

Pro ignored my claim that God would not be necessary as a creator if the Universe can form on it's own.
Pro claims that has something to do with knowing the will of God.
If there is no God, there is no will of God. If the Universe can come about on it's own, then God, or his will, is not necessary.
To quote Professor Stephen Hawking, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

Pro has tried many times to use the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance to prove God exists.
No matter how complex the Universe is, no matter how likely the probability of the Universe forming the way it did and no matter how science can not answer the question of where the singularity came from, it does not prove the existence of God, defined as "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

I want to thank my worthy opponent for this debate.
Neuhaus1994

Pro

Rebuttles:

Con states:I, by no means, say that The laws of conservation of mass and energy have ever been broken.
The singularity contained all the mass and energy in the Universe. No God is required to break these laws, because these laws were never broken.
Con attempts to fool the reader by making an argument out of ignorance. He says that energy and matter exist so they must always have existed. Con falsely assumes that matter and energy has always existed so he could avoid the question of creation. He also says that no God was necessary for creation, but if that were true then one must guess that all matter just existed. The logical explanation of how matter and energy came into being is through a single originator that is called God.

Con states:The definition of God is not singularity and the definition of singularity is not God.
They are not the same things.
I said that these thing share common characteristics, and that God embodies the characteristic of the singularity that Con described. I will retract my statement that God is not directly the singularity for the sake of appeasing Con's apparent dislike of that definition. He even went on to say One of the first rules of the debate was no semantics and no BS definitions.That does not mean that the singularity is not the product of God. God created the singularity that shows intelligent design. Everything that came from the singularity created the universe and set natural laws in place. In this way God through a singularity gave the universe his divine design, and he also was controller of the universe through the laws that were within the singularity.

Con states: An originator is not a creator. Ice cubes originate from water. Water is not a creator of ice cubes.
An originator is something that causes the existence of another thing. I agree that water does not make ice cubes, but water does allow for the presence of ice cubes, just as God allows for the presence of the universe.

Con states:There is no evidence that proves the singularity was a product of God. Science can't answer where the singularity
came from, but that doesn't mean a God made it. That's a logical fallacy called an "Argument from Ignorance"
It basically says, if science can't answer where it came from, a God did it.
There is proof that the singularity came from God. It had to be created from somewhere outside of time and from something that could break the laws of conservation of mass and energy. That is not an "argument from ignorance". The argument is that we know that the singularity was created by something with those characteristics I described. Anything that has that ability fits the definition of God. It does not mean that I can prove God's exact characteristics, but rather that I can prove that a god must have existed, by definition.

Con states:The probability that an ice cube can form at 32 degrees Fahrenheit is 100%. That doesn't mean God makes ice cubes.
There's nothing intelligent about the design of an ice cube. It happens on its own, just like the Universe itself happened on its own.
God defined the laws that allowed ice to freeze. Therefore God allowed for the creation of ice cubes. Without intelligent design the water would no be able to freeze because the quantum mechanics would not be present. The universe would be chaos if left to chance.

Con states:You can not keep claiming "God did it" Every time you don't have the answer to something.
It is at this point that con has not even attempted to rebut my argument. This argument is none existent and so should be ignored.

Conclusion: Con has attempted at multiple points to ignore vital parts of his argument. He has avoided the question of creation by ignoring it and assuming that matter and energy always existed. I have showed through scientific laws that a God must exist otherwise the universe could not come into existance. Only a God-like entity could break the laws of science, and since he/it was the creator of the universe he/it would be able to create the scientific laws that are present today. In this way God rules over the universe through the laws that he created such as the laws of conservation of mass and energy.

1. A God must have existed in order to create things in spite of the laws of conservation of mass and energy.

2. A God must have existed in order to endow the singularity with the intelligent design that the universe possesses.
3. A God controls the universe through the laws that he has endowed the singularity to create, such as gravity, motion, and quantum mechanics.
4. All things must be created from something else therefore there must be an originator that is commonly defined as God.

I would like to thank Con for the debate.

With that said, Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Interesting how its MORE DIFFICULT to throw a rock thru a wet paper towel than it is to expose the soft intellect of the religious mind :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
eczema, your astute ability to filibuster gibberish from a vacuum of space between a skull is absolutely stunning :)

DUH 10:59--I think a sky daddy is going to protect me and I think that the reason for the stars is a stud because in his book he said that women should cover their head, and that makes perfect sense :)

CryBabies 2:37--Widdle kids will whine "Well science cant answer questions like "Why are we here? What is our purpose?", that is correct, and Wal-Mart cannot answer those questions for you either, so go pout and stomp your feet that nobody will answer your questions and nobody will help you go potty and wipe your butt for you. Put on your big kid pants and figure out your own purpose and legacy :)

Buddies 9:17--The reason for zombie worms that have sex in whale bones, made an appearance in the middle east so we would know to obey or get a spanking. That was nice of god to let us know that :)
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
How can you claim such things without evidence? God stands out of the law of physics? Prove that or don't say it as a fact.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
zezima
God stands out of the law of physics.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
What I find amusing is that my opponent claims that both "God" and the singularity "share common characteristics". Then why would it be possible for God to have always existed, but not possible for the singularity to have always existed? The singularity had to have been created, but nothing had to create God? That's not sharing "common characteristics". Just saying.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Anytime my opponent claims God did this or God caused that, he's making a claim without evidence.
I can replace the word "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and the claims would be just as valid.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
Who made God? If it's possible that God always existed, then it's possible that the singularity always existed, which would mean God is useless as a creator.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
Energy can't be created or destroyed either...
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
@samurai: You will always be ignored from now on.
Posted by samurai 4 years ago
samurai
qopel what kind of proof do you want? if you want scientific proof, you came to the wrong place. if you what that kind of proof just Google "does god exist" and get the information from there.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
qopelNeuhaus1994Tied
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: I validate Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
qopelNeuhaus1994Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's basic premises are not axiomatic and cannot be assumed at the outset.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 4 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
qopelNeuhaus1994Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con. Pro said: " Therefore all objects must be created from a single object". That seems like an argument for Con. Sources to Con because he used a source.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
qopelNeuhaus1994Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed utterly in his burden. At absolute best, he established the "first cause" argument, which, on its own, does nothing to establish a God. He made a lot of unsupported assertions, but he never actually made a case, for a god. Con addressed all of Pro's points, making sure not to drop them even when they were trivial to rebut, which gave him a solid win. I couldn't really award much else points-wise.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
qopelNeuhaus1994Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con as he countered Pro's arguments and the burden of proof was fully on Pro. Sources to Con as he used a source.