The Instigator
400spartans
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Is God real?

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...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/21/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 701 times Debate No: 72117
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

400spartans

Con

Is the Christian God real? I think not.

BOP is shared.
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1: Ontological Argument.

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William CriagThe Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]

The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.
Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere.
Now at this point you're probably asking yourself, okay Lannan that shows that the universe began at a point, but what does this have to do with God? This is that there is nothing known prior to the creation of the universe meaning that it since there is no determining factors to what happened before we must assume that it's personal and uncaused. This can be see by one asking how can a timeless rift be given such a temperory effect of the begining of time? One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe if not omnipotent. Thus for this reason God Exists.

Contention 3: Thomisitc TA

Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [4]
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [5]
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

Last year scientists have actually found ripples in time and space continum. Now I know what my opponent had brought up and I agree with a lot of it, however, I believe that it actually helps prove the existance of God than disproves it. We can see after the Big Bang there was gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds. [6] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."- Genesis 1:1

You see, back then they didn't have a large understanding on the universe and how things worked so we can definately see books like the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran to probably not be science text books. If God had shown humans this we can see that they would probably be like Nastrodamus's description of the German Blitzkreig by calling the NAZI panzers Metal beasts or how he wasn't able to describe skyscrapers and such, but you get my point. People didn't have the best information and how things are now and it wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago before we began to make improvements in Space and Science.

Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the term the "Big Bang," has stated, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." [7]

Next, we can see that the Big Bang here also highly applies to my 3rd Contention from my last round of Thomistic TA. The next 5 points are add on by Hugh Ross to the original 5 points and this helps show that the Big Bang proves the existance of God.

Sources in the comments section.
Debate Round No. 1
400spartans

Con

400spartans forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

Okay so continuing from where I was last round.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.

7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [8]


For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [9]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [9]


Sources
8. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
9. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)
Debate Round No. 2
400spartans

Con

400spartans forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 3
400spartans

Con

400spartans forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 4
400spartans

Con

400spartans forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by maxplastic1942 1 year ago
maxplastic1942
Depends which god we are referring to, of course. A possible proof of the non existence of Allah, for instance. Take the group calling themselves the islamic state. If they really believed in their omnipotent god then they would not need weapons, so obviously they are not certain enough in his existence to trust him with carrying out their mission. Not much of an encouragement for non-believers.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
LOL, I can type pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis pretty fast XD. Anyway, this is a Pro victory.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
400spartans,
BTW, I don't think pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is even a valid form of silicosis ... it was just created to be a 45-letter long word. And I don't have silicosis either. :D
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
Copy pasting the same stuff for 5 debates doesn't sound very productive to me. I am especially disappointed that you did not adjust your arguments one bit in light of the challenges I posed you. I would have at least expected you to justify metaphysical possibility for example...
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
LOL, Lannan13, you're debating three people at once about the same topic. XD
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
But what grounds have you got to call it sophistry and not a sound argument?
Posted by maxplastic1942 1 year ago
maxplastic1942
Sophistry may show that the concept of a God might be a reality, but the answer to the actual question "Is God real?" is nobody knows.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
belief=be lie
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
deal=devils all
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Depends on the belief and type of belief.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Juris 1 year ago
Juris
400spartanslannan13
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: FF