The Instigator
fishing_007
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I know that God does exists.

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...
fishing_007
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 756 times Debate No: 21660
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

fishing_007

Pro

Would you anyone care to debate me on this proposition?
Debate Round No. 1
fishing_007

Pro

A Contingent Being Exists. To be contingent means that such a being cannot account for its own existence. It is as possible for such a being not to exist as it is for it to exist at all. As such, a contingent being is dependent upon something or someone other than itself for its own existence. And, this holds true for its coming into existence and remaining in existence from one moment to the next. As a matter of fact, I myself am such a being, for I can not account for my own existence, nor can I explain how I continue to exist from one moment to the next. My existence was originated from outside myself, and my existence continues from outside myself. But, what exactly is a "contingent being." Winfried Corduan explains:...Ordinary things have causes. Or, to be more precise, finite things have causes. It is here that metaphysics becomes important because I have to clarify what I mean by a finite thing. A finite thing is something that meets any one of the following conditions:
1. It is restricted by time and space.
2. It can be changed by something other than itself.
3. It has a beginning in time.
4. It needs things other than itself to continue existing.
5. Its attributes, whether essential or accidental, are to some extent influenced by
other things.
Another term that we can use for a finite thing is that it is a contingent being. It is a contingent being simply because it could not exist without all of the factors that bring about its existence, sustain its existence, and shape its nature. To say that a thing is contingent is to say that it is finite and dependent. (204)
From what has been said thus far, this seems obvious, since any being is either (1) self-caused, (2) caused by another,
or (3) uncaused. I am not uncaused, which is synonymous with necessary existence, and a Being which exists necessarily is what theists mean by God. Neither am I self-caused, since to be self- caused, I would have to exist prior to my own existence in order to bring myself into being. But, this is clearly absurd! Therefore, I (as a contingent being) am caused by another.
That Which Causes (Explains) the Existence of a (or any) Contingent Being Must be Either (1) Another Contingent Being, or (2) a Non-Contingent Being. But, if explanation is given in terms of another contingent being, then since any contingent being also requires a cause outside itself, one only postpones the question until it is framed in terms of (3) an infinite series of contingent causes. As a result, the following premise emerges:
That Which Causes (Explains) the Existence of a (or any) Contingent Being is Either (1) an Infinite Series of Contingent Beings (Either a Transitive or an Intransitive Series), or (2) a Non-Contingent Being. Now, a non-contingent being is one that does not depend upon any other being for its existence. Thus, it is self-existent. Furthermore, since it could neither come into existence nor pass out of existence, such a being is eternal. Moreover, since such a non- contingent being not only explains a single contingent being, but also all contingent beings (including the universe itself which is also contingent), then such a being must be omnipresent. It goes without saying that such a being must also be infinite in power, for such a being's causal efficacy is such that it explains all contingent reality. In other words, one means by a non- contingent being, what the Judeo-Christian theist calls God. Indeed, the first chapter of Genesis makes the same claim I am now making: "In the beginning [when nothing contingent at all existed], God [a non-contingent Being] created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1, emp. added).
It is also necessary to explain what is meant by "transitive" and "intransitive" in the proposition just stated. A "transitive causal series" does not require that each member be in such close contact with another member. As far as existence is concerned, my parents explain my immediate existence, and theirs in turn by their parents, and so on. The causal series, in effect, has each member of the series is explained by looking at previous causes in the chain, whether or not they are intricately connected together. My parents caused me, and I, in turn, caused my children to be born, and they will continue the chain of cause and effect in this same way. Adam is not in close proximity to me, however, if the Biblical record is correct (and I hold that it is), I am in the causal chain that began with Adam and Eve. A "transitive causal series" has to do with sequential cause and effect, and is the main consideration of Arabic philosophers and what has come to be known as the Kalamic Cosmological Argument (cf. Craig).
An "intransitive causal series," is one in which every cause in the series causes a succeeding effect only insofar as it is itself being caused. Each cause depends upon a prior cause precisely for its own act of causing, for instance, that a stone is moved by a stick, the stick is moved by a hand, and so on, to infinity. It is only that each member's existence can be explained only by considering the foundation (or ground) of existence. Put another way, an "intransitive causal series" is not as interested in sequential cause and effect, but rather, in foundational cause and effect. Contingent beings need an explanation outside themselves, both for their original existence and also their continuing existence! And, the sum total of contingent beings (which comprises the universe itself) is nothing more than contingent in nature, anymore than a hundred pieces of wood are anything other than wood when they are glued together to form a table. The accidental collection of wooden objects, which form a table, or contingent beings, which form a universe, does not alter their essential nature! Since contingent beings require an explanatory cause outside themselves, and since the universe is a contingent being (comprised of the sum total of contingent beings in existence at any given time), it follows that the universe must have a cause outside itself. But, this explanatory cause cannot be contingent, or it would also require an explanatory cause! We must finally come to the foundational explanation, and this is what the theist (and the Bible) calls God (cf. Genesis 1:1; Psalm 19:1-6, etc.)

http://warrenapologeticscenter.com...
Zaradi

Con

Nevermind. I just realized that I'm going to be busy for this weekend, and I don't have enough time to research and put up a good round. Appologize for the inconvenience.
Debate Round No. 2
fishing_007

Pro

We'll have to do it another time then.
Zaradi

Con

Zaradi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
fishing_007

Pro

fishing_007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
fishing_007

Pro

fishing_007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by IFLYHIGH 5 years ago
IFLYHIGH
fishing_007ZaradiTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited first and Pro was the only one to present an argument.