The Instigator
AlexThunder
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Is believing in God necessary?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,218 times Debate No: 44149
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

AlexThunder

Con

When i told some friends of mine that i am an Atheist, they took it in a certain way, the way of how can you live and experience life without belief in God. That got me thinking why is having a belief in a deity a really important thing in our daily life.

I believe that belief in God is not really necessary to daily life.
Pro supports that God is needed in our daily life.

Interested and excited to see other peoples' opinions. I haven't touched a Keyboard lately so sorry for any errors in typing. Good luck to my opponent and fun shall begin!
Wylted

Pro

I Thank con for hosting this debate and I accept.

Since con has not offered definitions and the definitions for this are extremely important to the debate I will offer them.

God- The creator and ruler of the universe. [1]

Neccesary- An inevitable nature: Inescapable. [2]

Sources

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
AlexThunder

Con

also on merriam-webster.com site where my opponent got the definitions from: : so important that you must do it or have it : absolutely needed.

Why i believe that believing in God is not necessary (Absolutely needed described as the definition from the same site my opponent got it from). My example is myself. I personally do not believe in the existence of a God, at least on how its described in books like the Bible or the Koran, and remain agnostic on the existence of a deity. Yet, without belief in any of them i am facing any more problems that a duplicate me would face if he believed in God.

I will agree on the fact that you can feel better with thinking and believing that a God is above you and watching you, taking care of you. Caring for you. It's human psychology and it's a fact that it makes you feel better. But is it really necessary? In my opinion, no.

To be honest, i think it can even be worse in our daily life. Belief in God can be disastrous. If we take for example an accident that happened some years ago, where a pilot of an airline had a system failure in his plane, and whilst he could have saved the people on board he chose instead to pray to God to save them, which resulted in the death of 16 people and now up to this day the pilot is serving jail sentence. And that's not all.

Let's take a word as an example, a word which when i hear it i get sick. Faith-Healing. Faith-Healing is the belief that a divine power will heal a sick or injured person by prayers and rituals. It sickens me that a parent, instead of providing the proper medicine for his ill kid he turns to Jesus or any deity and prays to heal the kid. The deaths that have occurred are not few, and i mean deaths of kids even as young as couple months old. I will provide you with a link: http://www.idahopress.com...

Is that how faith and belief helps us? I think not. These poor innocent kids' lives would have been saved had their parents provided them with the proper medicine. This goes to show the absurdity of ANY religion. 2014 now, and there are people that don't trust science and turn to God.

God does not and will not help us out. Does God help those 18.000 kids that die per day in Africa? He does not. Getting out of topic here just a bit, but it goes to show that the belief in a God will not really help you in daily life, you can help it. God can't and won't.

So, is God necessary? No.
Wylted

Pro

" Also on Merriam-Webster.com..........."

You did not set the definitions or make them obvious in the first round, so I took the liberty. Nothing you say concerning the definitions will change the definitions I use while making my argument.

I'm arguing that believing in God ( the creator of the universe ) is neccessary ( inescapable ).

Another way to put it is:

Belief in The creator and ruler of the universe is inevitable.

I will use logic to show you that belief in the creator of the universe is inescapable. A lot of my arguments will be philosophical in nature and I will do my best to acknowledge the philosophers who I borrow from.

- I think therefore I am -

Rene Descartes

We don't know what's real an what isn't real

We can't know we don't live in the equivalent of the matrix. We can't know that everything we sense isn't a deception to trick us. Everything you know or have ever known may not exist. Even your memories could be fake. We could be plugged into a computer right now and never know it.

What do we know?

We know right now that we are thinking. We may not be able to trust our senses or our memories but we can trust that right now in this moment we have thoughts. As a matter of fact the only thing we can know for sure is that we are thinking. Everything else could be a trick to our senses. The very fact that you have a thought is proof that you exist. If you didn't exist you couldn't think. So now you can see we ( you ) most definitely exist.

Let's keep this in mind. I have just spent 1000 words proving that you exist. A belief in yourself is necessary ( inevitable ). You couldn't exist without being aware you exist.

Part one of proving a belief in god is inevitable is done. Now the rest of my argument will be spent proving that you yourself is in fact God ( creator and ruler of the universe ). If I can in fact prove that you are God then I have also in effect proven that a belief in god is neccesary.

-God is real and I can prove it-

Possibility one- Occam's Razor

William of Ockham

Occam's Razor is a rule of logic that states among competing Hypotheses the hypotheses with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Occam's Razor proves that you are god. Let me explain. We only know one thing for sure at this point in my argument. We know that you exist. Seeing as how this is the only verifiable fact that we have, we must work from there. Let's look at the main God hypotheses to see what uses the most assumptions and the least amount of assumptions. When we are done with this little exercise we will know if there is a god and if that god is you.

Hypotheses 1- God created the you and the universe you perceive.

Assumption a- God exists?

Assumption b- God created you.

Assumption c- God created the universe you perceive.

Total assumptions= 3

Hypotheses 2- The universe is real and you are perceiving it with your senses. No god exists.

Assumption a- The universe you perceive is real.

Assumption b- Millions of different forces of nature came together to create what you perceive.

Total assumptions= Best case scenario 2 worst case millions.

Hypotheses 3- You created the universe you perceive.

Assumption a- You created the universe you perceive.

Total assumptions=1

As you can see according to Occam's Razor you are God. I have successfully proven that a belief in yourself is inevitable. I have also proven that you are god.

The other arguments

Let's say you do trust your senses. I don't know why you would, because you don't know that they aren't deceiving you and according to Occam's Razor you should definitely accept that they most likely are deceiving you. Sorry, back on topic now. Let's say you decide to trust your senses and believe that this world is real and that it indeed exists outside of your perception of it. I can still prove you are God.

The causal universe-

We can clearly see that we live in a causal universe. This means that for every action or thing there was something prior to it that caused it to happen or exist. Everything was caused by something.

Common sense tells you that when you look at history it could not go on indefinitely in one direction. There had to be a first cause. Scientists call this first cause the big bang. Now, they might speculate on a first cause before that and other things but since we live in a causal universe there had to be a first cause.

The acausal universe-

Here is the problem though. Because we live in a causal universe then something had to cause the first cause. This universe has to have a beginning. This universe had to be created from an acausal universe. A universe that doesn't need everything or anything to come from something. A universe that doesn't play by our rules.

Even if this causal universe was created from another causal universe then at some point there had to be an acausal universe to set up this string of events.

What if time is circular?

It doesn't matter. If our universe's destruction also leads to are universe's birth over and over in a viscous cycle it still proves that an outside acausal universe must exist. An acausal universe still had to step in to create this universe and it's vicious cycle. This cycle could not have just begun on its on.

The acausal universe is God-

For the purpose of this debate God does not have to be defined as an intelligent entity. It just has to be the creator of our universe. Laws of physics that rule this planet and all. This creator and ruler need not have intentionally created this universe or set its laws in motion.

The acausal universe created the causal universe we live in and rules it through the laws of physics. This acausal universe for all intents and purposes is God.

Something can not come from nothing-

It's a matter of fact that something can't come from nothing. Maybe in the acausal universe it can but in this universe it can't. So where did the stuff this universe is made of come from? It obviously came from the acausal universe. The acausal universe being God. So this universe is made up of stuff from the acausal universe. It's just the stuff of the acausal universe repurposed for the causal universe. To word it another way God created this universe and everything in it by using it's self as the source material.

Did you get that? This universe is made up of God. The causal universe is made up of acausal material. That means that God is inside of everything. Every tree, every flower and every poop you take.

This means that you are God. It is neccesary to believe you yourself exists because you couldn't function without self awareness.

Theory 1 summary- The only thing that can be proven to exist is you and based on Occam's Razor you are most likely God. Therefore a belief in God ( you) is neccesary ( inescapable).

Theory 2 summary- A causal universe must have acausal origins. This acausal universe for the purpose of the debate shall be known as God. The acausal universe used its own energy to create us. Therefore we are made up of God ( acausal material repurposed). Therefore we are god and self awareness is neccesary ( inevitable ).
Debate Round No. 2
AlexThunder

Con

Thanks for the reply.

I'm gonna try to keep this short.

I might disappoint some people by such a small answer but my opponent here goes to assume things that can not be proven or are proven not necessarily true by science. I'm gonna get to that in a second.

First off you say that there is no way for us to know that we are in the matrix or that we could be plugged into a computer right now. Let me assume that we are in a world that we think it's true but in reality we are just pixels in another's video game in a computer that we don't know. Sounds a bit crazy that maybe an alien is playing with us in his computer and we don't know that, but it is a possibility. My question is: does it really matter? Does it really matter to worry about stuff like that? To assume that something like that scenario is going on is kind of an unimportant issue as we can't prove it. Even if we live in a computer game or in the matrix we won't know unless the one in control of us decides to let us know. To assume that something is happening that we don't know anything of nor have evidence for is rather insignificant compared to things that we do know about and should be working on and thinking about. Even more pointless to believe in it.

For me, believing in God is rather stupid as we don't have enough evidence to support his existence. If we take any God out there, tell me how hard it is for him to come down to earth and speak to us or do whatever he can to prove his existence. It will only take about 5 minutes for all the camera crew to get to where he is, record him, and the video of God will be spread across the Globe. If we assume that the reveal of that God was real, there is theoretically no human on earth who would not believe in him as we have all evidence we need to support his existence. This is where i want to get with this: Imagine God of Christianity or of any other religion out there, being the one playing the video game and we are his Bots. He can let us know that he is there for us to believe in but as long as he doesn't there is no reason to believe in him. So even if we are in a God game or any assumption you can make, we don't have enough evidence to support it so using it as an argument is rather pointless.

Moving on.

Then you go on and say that we can't trust our memories and senses. We can only trust our thoughts.

My question is: how do you know that your thoughts are pre-programmed, that we were programmed to think the way we think, to have senses and feelings. Do you know that? No. Please prove to me that you know your thoughts are not programmed by someone or something so i can take this assumption for real.

I do trust my senses, my feelings and my thoughts as a matter of fact. I am currently holding a red card. I know it is red as my eyes work fine and I've got scientific evidence to support that the card i am holding is in fact red. If i tell my brother to bring me the red card, he will look for it, spot a card that is red and bring it to me. Conclusion: It doesn't matter if in another real or if in a reality we are not aware of this card is blue or silver or a color that we can't name, but what matters is the practical importance of the thing itself at any given time.

Then you say that God created the universe. Yes, if you take certain things that we are not sure of and turn them into facts, you can pull it off. God did not create the universe, meaning that we don't have any evidence for that, so to say he did is pointless. All the assumptions that you made under "God created the universe" is not valid.

Your second Hypothesis makes no sense. First you go on and say that we can't trust our senses, then you say in that hypothesis that the universe is real and you feel it and perceive it with your senses. If your senses, by your own admission can not be trusted, how can we trust there is a universe? It's either that we can trust our senses and say that a universe exist or if the only evidence we have for the existence of the universe is our senses and we can't trust our senses, we can't trust the theory of the existence of the universe. You contradict yourself.

Hypothesis 3: You said that i created the universe i perceive and i am God. Let's go back to your first round: "I'm arguing that believing in God ( the creator of the universe ) is neccessary ( inescapable ).

Another way to put it is:

Belief in The creator and ruler of the universe is inevitable."

You said: Hypotheses 3- You created the universe you perceive.

Assumption a- You created the universe you perceive.

Since i can walk out the balcony door and look down at the universe i perceive. The trees, the sea, all the animals that live in this universe. And since i am the God of the universe i perceive, meaning again the trees outside my house, since the definition of God is the creator and ruler of the universe tell me how i have no rule over my universe. Why can't i control the trees, the sea, the wind, the ground, the fire. Isn't it the universe i conceive? And haven't you proven to me that i am the God (meaning the creator and ruler of the universe) that i conceive, why don't i rule it? Why don't i have any power over that universe. Why don't people from the universe that i perceive praise my as their God? And if that applies to any person, the same logic, we are all Gods. How absurd is that? Makes no sense what so ever.

Done with that.

Let's move on to where you say that you can prove to me that i am God if i do trust my senses. Let's go.

"The causal universe" Woah woah woah! I know where you are going with this.

You say that we live in a universe in which something had to cause the first cause, meaning that everything had an initial cause, therefor one thing can't come to existence by itself. This has been proven wrong by scientific experiments. It's the logic: We have A and B, we don't know or its highly unlikable to be A so B it is. That's wrong. Unless you can prove that with evidence, it should not be taken as a fact. Doesn't convince me nor some other people on the existence of God.

"Something can not come from nothing" Wrong. Scientifically it can. Of course, what is nothing for us differs from what science thinks of "nothing", but it has proven otherwise. Moving on.

"It's a matter of fact that something can't come from nothing. Maybe in the acausal universe it can but in this universe it can't" Wrong. Google it.

"So where did the stuff this universe is made of come from? It obviously came from the acausal universe. The acausal universe being God. So this universe is made up of stuff from the acausal universe. It's just the stuff of the acausal universe repurposed for the causal universe. To word it another way God created this universe and everything in it by using it's self as the source material." aaaand.... "Did you get that? This universe is made up of God. The causal universe is made up of acausal material. That means that God is inside of everything. Every tree, every flower and every poop you take."

That means that when i hold a glass, its god? When i look outside the window i see God? Because if everything is made out of God who is the materials himself everything around us is God. When us two open the windows in the morning, outside i see trees and rocks and cliffs, whilst you see God. To say that everything around us is God is not a proper argument. This keyboard that i am typing with right now is a keyboard, not God. Let's move on, shall we?

My opponent summarizes: "Theory 1 summary- The only thing that can be proven to exist is you and based on Occam's Razor you are most likely God. Therefore a belief in God ( you) is neccesary ( inescapable)."

I can prove that i exist, i can prove that my brother exists, i can prove that my computer which i am typing in right now exists. It's not God but me, my bro and the Computer. Occam's Razor has lots of problems in the arguments that i saw. It's not a way to convince someone that i am a God or even that belief in God is necessary in our daily life, which is the point of this debate.

"Theory 2 summary- A causal universe must have acausal origins. This acausal universe for the purpose of the debate shall be known as God. The acausal universe used its own energy to create us. Therefore we are made up of God ( acausal material repurposed). Therefore we are god and self awareness is neccesary ( inevitable )."

My problems with theory 2. You see, a causal universe does not necessarily come from a-causal origins. Scientific experiments that have been done in the last years have proven that something can come from nothing. And even if it were true, why do you necessarily fuse a-causal universe and God together. A universe, even an a-causal one is not necessarily God. We are made up from energy as you said, but energy isn't God. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...+(earth+science) That's energy.

And even if energy was god, how do you trust your sense of energy if you yourself said that we should not trust our senses?

Thanks for that round, if i went a bit off topic or had some typing errors it's because i am a bit tired. Anyways, thanks for Round 2 and i cant wait for the third round :D!
Wylted

Pro

The Matrix

I would like to start off by addressing the matrix scenario you were referring to. I was merely trying to point out that we can't trust our senses at all.

The only thing we can know for sure is that we exist. We know we exist because we have thoughts.

I think therefore I am.

Then I showed you a rule of logic known as Occam's Razor . I also showed you how Occam's Razor proves that the hypotheses that you are god is the most likely hypotheses. This is evidence that you are most likely God. If my logic is wrong then refute it, but ignoring my argument and refusing to address it only lends credibility to what I'm saying.

I Am-

" please prove to me your thoughts aren't programmed"

Your missing the point. It doesn't matter if your thoughts are programmed. What matters is your thoughts exist. Because your thoughts exist, it proves you exist. What we know after accepting the fact that you have thoughts is that you exist. As a matter of fact , your (my) existence is the only thing we (you) can know for sure. Once you learn Occam's Razor and look at all the conceivable hypotheses you can see that the most reasonable hypotheses is that you are God.

" all the assumptions you made under -" God created the universe" -is not valid "

As my arguments have already proven everything but your very existence is an assumption. This is where Occam's Razor comes into play. Since every possible hypotheses is an assumption we must look towards the hypotheses that requires the least amount of assumptions for the most likely answer.

Con you have failed to grasp my arguments . I know these concepts are probably new to you so I advise you before posting any more rebuttals to take the time to grasp the basic concepts of what I'm saying, so you can contest my arguments a little better.

Con
"Since i can walk out the balcony door and look down at the universe i perceive. The trees, the sea, all the animals that live in this universe. And since i am the God of the universe i perceive, meaning again the trees outside my house, since the definition of God is the creator and ruler of the universe tell me how i have no rule over my universe. Why can't i control the trees, the sea, the wind, the ground, the fire. Isn't it the universe i conceive? And haven't you proven to me that i am the God (meaning the creator and ruler of the universe) that i conceive, why don't i rule it? Why don't i have any power over that universe. Why don't people from the universe that i perceive praise my as their God? And if that applies to any person, the same logic, we are all Gods. How absurd is that? Makes no sense what so ever."

Now your adding even more assumptions. Don't assume anyone other then your self exists. Adding extra assumptions violates Occam's Razor. You do rule the universe you created. We already established using Occam's razor that you are God. Now you are asking me to use Occam's razor to see if you rule this world you created .

Hypotheses 1-you created this world but you aren't the ruler.

Assumption a- you created the world

Assumption b- an outside rule maker exists

Assumption c- this outside rule maker imposes rules on you

Total assumptions=3

Hypotheses 2- you created the world but another part of your brain that you don't have concious access to is the ruler.

Assumption a- you created the world

Assumption b- A secret part of your brain exists.

Assumption c- This hidden part of your brain rules the world.

Total assumptions= 3

Hypotheses 3- you created this world rules in place and all.

Assumption a- you created this world

Assumption b- you created pre set rules along with the world.

Total assumptions= 2

As you can see hypotheses number 3 is the most likely scenario based on Occam's Razor. You in fact created the world and when you created it you put the rules of the world in place. You rule the world but only through previous actions you are completely unaware of. I can't tell you why you created a world that doesn't shower you with adoration and bend to your every whim.

Con
"You say that we live in a universe in which something had to cause the first cause, meaning that everything had an initial cause, therefor one thing can't come to existence by itself. This has been proven wrong by scientific experiments. It's the logic: We have A and B, we don't know or its highly unlikable to be A so B it is. That's wrong. Unless you can prove that with evidence, it should not be taken as a fact. Doesn't convince me nor some other people on the existence of God."

I believe some things are in order here. First let's use some simple common sense. If there are only 2 options A and B and we decide A is highly unlikely then obviously we need to assign B as having a higher percentage likelihood of being true and accept it as truth until we gather more evidence.

What scientific experiment has proven that an initial cause isn't neccesary? Don't just say that scientists say a first cause isn't neccesary prove it. Show me your source. I thought scientists were saying there was a first cause and it was the Big Bang.

I want to remind you also that according to how we have defined God for this debate, that if the big bang occurred we could call it God. According to the terms of this debate God only needs to be the creator and ruler. If the Big bang created the world and the laws by which planets operate then we can call the big bang God. God doesn't have to be an intelligent all knowing entity. It can be merely a natural phenomenon.

Something from nothing-

I argued that something can not come from nothing.When I make a statement like this I don't need to quote sources because it's self evident. However you responded to this statement by saying I'm wrong and suggesting I Google it. If you have evidence that something can magically come from nothing please show me. I don't want to see any Chris Angel videos either.

" This means that when I hold a glass, it's god?"

Yes it does. The force that created the universe whether a natural or supernatural force is within every object. The Big bang ( aka God) occurred and every part of that compressed matter exploded everywhere. This explosion set the laws of physics in motion and now every single object in the universe is made up of the compressed matter ( God ). Even that glass of water your holding was once part of that compressed matter that exploded and was part of the big bang ( God ). I did extend the big bang theory in round 2 to show what happened before the big bang but showing anything prior to the big bang is unneccesary. The fact that the big bang occurred is enough to prove you are made up of God and therefore are God. It is also self evident that being self aware is an inescapable( a neccessity ) reality for humans,

" I can prove that my brother exists, I can prove that my computer exists"

As I've already explained the only thing you can prove is that you exist and the only person you can prove it to is you. There is no way for you to prove to me your brother or your computer exists for all I know your figments of my imagination.

You point out that my 2nd theory contradicts my first. This is absolutely true. Each theory can stand on its own, but they can't exist together. As I explained before writing my 2nd theory . The 2nd theory is only there if the evidence for the first was too hard to digest. In order for you to win this debate you must disprove both of my theories.

" acausal energy isn't neccesarily God"

If we conclude that this universe sprung from an acausal universe then for the purposes of this debate we can consider the acausal universe to be God. It is of no consequence if the birth of this universe was a natural phenomenon or if the acausal universe has no intelligence attached to it.

Summary of points

My opponent has done nothing to refute Descartes proposition of " I think therefore I am "

Unless and until it is refuted it must be accepted as valid evidence.

My opponent has failed to refute either Occam's Razor or my use of Occam's razor .

This evidence is still valid until he does so.

Both of the above pieces of evidence taken together prove my claim if left unrefuted.

My opponent has failed to show how this universe isn't a causal universe. Since my opponent made the claim that the universe is not causal , and it is self evident that this universe is causal, he needs to show sources verifying his claim.

If con can not show sources refuting that the universe is causal or show legitimate problems with my logic then my theory must be accepted as proof that my opponent is god and that it is inescapable that he believes in his own existence.
Debate Round No. 3
AlexThunder

Con

AlexThunder forfeited this round.
Wylted

Pro

I extend my arguments but, basicaly my opponent has refute my arguments or show any flaws in my logic.
Debate Round No. 4
AlexThunder

Con

First thing, i want to deeply apologize for missing a round and basically taking so long to reply. I have been busy with studying those days and had next to none free time to spend on the debate. Anyways, lets move on.

I think i am gonna start by saying that we are not debating at the moment about a God of the bible for example as i believe both of us as atheists-agnostics do not think that the god of the bible or of any other religion is really needed. I can see that the debate is going towards: you are god. My opponent here thinks i am God. Since he has chosen that way, all i really have to do at this point is wait for him to get enough evidence to convince me that i am God of the universe i perceive and i am the one ruling it. So far, there was little evidence shown that has not convinced me that i am God. I believe that i am not a God and i do not rule or have created the universe i perceive.

Now, let's make one more thing clear. Occam's Razor. As an atheist, when i judge certain things i use it in the back of my head and i too go with the most reasonable answer. Still, that doesn't mean that is enough to prove somebody something with no evidence.

You see, what my opponent is doing here is trying to convince me that the most rational thing is that i am God of the universe i perceive using Occam's Razor. I completely disagree with my opponent and i do not believe that i am the ruler and creator of the universe i perceive. Since that is just a rational thought of his and he is not backing it with any evidence i am not convinced that i am God. I will await for further proof that i am God. It's my opponent's job to prove me that i am God, not mine to disprove that i am not a God. He has not proven that i am God just by using rational thinking. Something that is rational is most of the times gonna be the true one but evidence is what is used to prove that. You can assume that it is answer A and not answer B, but since there could be evidence that B is the right answer and yet we have no evidence as to why A should be the correct one, it is only an assumption, does not prove anything.
Logic, rationale and arguments are refutable, good piece of evidence is not.

I agree, if i accept that i am a God using the logic that my opponent presented (still some problems with it) i can't deny that i don't believe in myself therefor i do believe in God. But where the problem lies is if i do not accept that i am God because there is not sufficient evidence, my opponent's logic grinds to a halt. If he is able to prove to me that i am God in another way, i will accept it.

And Quantum theory suggests that something can come from nothing. Check this out:

{{{{We"ve all heard it before. The classic argument from a theist"s perspective on why a god must have created our universe. I can"t tell you how many times religious people have said to me: "well, can you think of one example where something comes from nothing in the universe?"

Hubble Deep Field: thousands of galaxies in one tiny view of space
They are correct in noting that "something cannot be created from nothing" within our known universe, as far as we have been able to demonstrate through scientific inquiry. However, when considering the big bang and the origins of our known universe, we cannot apply the laws of physics WITHIN the known universe to that which act OUTSIDE the known universe. Before the start of our universe, it is plausible that other laws of "physics" governed and dictated how our universe singularity began and where the energy and material originated from.
Additionally, when a theist states that "something cannot come from nothing" and then states that a god created the known universe, he still hasn"t solved his own question. Is god "something"? Why, yes, god is something. Then where did he come from? Theists usually state that god is eternal, and always existed and was never created. This statement violates the first assumption they make that "something cannot come from nothing". God is a "something" and they are supposing he came from "nothing". All this supposing gets us nowhere, which is why we turn to evidence and the scientific method of inquiry to find answers. When we do not know the answer, we continue searching, testing and finding evidence for what is actually real, while admitting that we do not know the answer until we have evidence. There is a notable phenomenon observed in quantum mechanics. Particles composed of quarks such as protons, neutrons, positrons, etc have been observed popping into existence from nowhere and leaving again just as fast. Such particles "appear" in a vacuum where no other matter or energy exists. At the quantum level, even empty space is not truly empty but is seething with activity; particles are constantly popping in and out of existence everywhere. In pair creation, a particle and its antimatter partner seem to "appear" (see Bosons). This is cutting edge quantum mechanics research. The Large Hadron Collider in Switzlerand was built and is just recently up and running in the search for the Higgs-Boson particle.
We cannot apply the laws of this universe to that which acted outside of the universe. The laws that hold true within the bubble of our universe may not govern outside the bounds of this universe. It is plausible that there are endless numbers of other universes "floating" about and our universe is just one of them. Within each of these multi-verses different laws and properties may govern the interactions within. This "Multiverse theory" is the leading theory in the scientific cosmology community, though it remains untested and still a speculation. (Though this speculation is based on other observations and evidence of how our universe operates). It is probable that the "laws" that act outside our bubble universe commonly call into existence something from nothing. It is also possible that our universe is eternal, in the sense that it cycles through stages. We cannot say with certainty so it is irresponsible to jump to a conclusion without the ability to test or prove it to be false or true. This applies to the multi-verse theory and the theory of a god or gods.}}}}

Yes, quantum mechanics support a theory that claims that something can come from nothing. And i know my opponent is not going to but for other people i say the following things. There is difference between what theory in common use means and what it actually means in science. "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step"known as a theory"in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

Link for the quantum theory: http://liberatedmind.com...

Link for the scientific theory: http://www.livescience.com...

So at this point i have refuted both my opponents logic and arguments. Occam's razor is an assumption, not proof, therefor i can reject it if i can and i do have the right to ask for more evidence. I also refuted my opponents stand that something can not come from nothing.

Just one more thing. You can trust your senses because unless you have some type of defect, the surroundings that you perceive are true. If i look at blue and ask myself why is this blue color i have scientific evidence as to why this color that reflects this amount of light beams is called blue, why do i see it the way i see it, why is it light blue or dark blue and how does the entire thing work. If i kick the table i am sitting at right now it will make a noise. Noise is nothing more that waves that are collected by your ear, travel trough it and create vibration to a sensitive part of the ear called the eardrum which vibrates and we are able to hear (it's a bit more complicated than that but i am keeping it simple). That's how i trust my senses, there is evidence for it. Evidence to support that blue is indeed blue. Things that we can not perceive is not relevant (like Wi-Fi waves and more). That means that it is not only thought that i can trust, but my senses too. You argument is irrational. If i can only trust my thoughts, i can trust anything around me just by convincing myself it's true or by thinking about it. If i can think (under the impression) that something i perceive is true, the evidence for its existence is my own thoughts. That's irrational.

Again, i will only wait for my opponent to give me evidence to prove to me that i am God (creator and ruler of the universe i perceive). I have not yet been given enough evidence that i am God (that i have not found problems in it's logic) so i will just wait due to the nature of this debate.

Again, i deeply apologizing for taking too long to reply. Good luck!
Wylted

Pro

My last round I had a few misspellings. I trust I won't be punished for that, due to the fact my opponent has problems capitalizing the word I, which he uses quite frequently.

" now, let's make one more thing clear. Occam's Razor. As an atheist, when I judge certain things I use it in the back of my head and I to go with the most reasonable answer. Still, that doesn't mean that is enough to prove somebody something with no evidence."

I can't prove anything other then my own existence and I can only prove that to myself. My job in this debate is not to prove that believing in God ( creator and ruler of the universe, but not neccesarily an intelligent being ) is necessary ( unavoidable ). My job is to show that given the evidence used in this debate that the most likely conclusion is belief in god is necessary.

Occam's Razor is a tool in logic that says the hypotheses that requires the least amount of assumptions to be correct is the most likely one to be correct. Con had every opportunity to criticize how I applied Occam's Razor or how Occam's Razor is flawed, he has failed to do so.

"logic, rationale and arguments are refutable,good piece of evidence is not."

Con states this but has failed to refute my logic rationale or arguments. I have pulled from different philosophies to make my arguments. The reason con believes I have not provided evidence is because he doesn't realize all the evidence I have alluded to is self evident. I don't have to provide evidence for things that are self evident.

" I agree, if I accept that I am a God using the logic that my opponent presented (still some problems with it) I can't deny that I don't believe in myself "

My opponent has just made this debate a lot easier by conceding that he believes in himself. So if he is God a belief in himself is certainly neccesary (unavoidable). He states that their are problems with my logic but fails to mention them.

Let's remember I put together 2 arguments proving that my opponent is God. He has failed to disprove my first argument. He hasn't refuted the portion of Rene Descartes philosophy known as " I think therefore I am" which was my set up for my use of Occam's Razor, to prove that he is God. He failed to show my flaws in logic or my use of Occam's Razor was incorrect. He has failed to show that Occam's Razor is not a good tool to use in logic.

I have met my burden of proof showing that my opponent is God and that belief in himself is necessary.

Even though I have met my burden of proof without defending my 2nd argument, I will still defend it.

In previous arguments I have made in this debate, I argued that a causal universe had to come from an acausal universe or force. I proved through logic how a causal universe could not exist unless an acausal force or universe existed as well to create this causal universe.

Funny enough in my opponents final round he makes several arguments to support my claim of an acausal universe/force that exists seperate from this universe, the causal universe. He even at points concedes that this universe was created by the acausal universe. If the acausal universe created this universe then for the definition of God used in this debate this makes that acausal universe technically God. Since the energy from the acausal universe created this universe and governs it through the laws of physics, then there is no question that the acausal universe is God according to the terms of this debate.

I also think its pretty obvious that the acausal universe had to use its own material to create us. Since we are made up of the material from the acausal universe then we are in essence also part of God/acausal and therefore are God.

Here is a list of my opponents arguments for the existence of the acausal universe and a seperate causal universe.

1. " They are correct in saying something cannot be created from nothing within our known universe"

Here my opponent admits we are inhabiting the causal universe, and hints at an acausal one.

2. " However, when considering the big bang and the origins of our known universe, we cannot apply the laws of physics WITHIN the known universe to that which act OUTSIDE the known universe"

I agree with my opponent once again, and I want to thank him for making my argument for me. As I've already stated the known universe ( causal universe ) has different laws of physics then what's outside the known universe ( aka the acausal universe).

3. " Before the start of our universe, it is plausible that other laws of "physics" governed and dictated how our universe singularity began and where the energy and material originated from."

The other laws of physics as repeatedly stated refer to the acausal. Now my opponent is arguing that the universe, it's energy and material originated from the acausal. This is what my whole argument is based around and I am extremely confused as to why he is arguing my case for me. Sure he is using slightly different terminology but it's the same thing.

4. I won't directly quote my opponents fourth argument for the acausal universe, because of it's length but I will sum it up briefly. My opponent goes on to explain that certain particles have been known to pop in and out of existence at random. Then speculates that this may be caused by a universe outside of this one influencing what happens in this one. This is my opponents fourth argument for an acausal universe.

Let's address a few random statements near the end of my opponents last turn.

"Occam's Razor is an assumption, not proof"

Occam's Razor is merely a way to show what hypotheses is most likely to be true. It is an assumption based on the fact that the most likely thing to be true isn't always true.

If you have 2 hypotheses one being the sun will come out tommorrow and the other being that the sun won't come out tommorrow, then Occam's Razor will show that the sun coming out is the most likely hypotheses. Sure it's an assumption that the sun is going to come out but at some point we need to accept what the most likely scenario is and operate under that assumption. Burden of Proof doesn't mean I have to prove its impossible that a belief in God is unnecessary. Burden of proof only means that I need to show that a belief in God is necessary, is the most likely hypotheses to be correct.

" I also refuted my opponents stand that something can not come from nothing ,

No you didn't actually when it came down to it we both argued that there was a known universe you called your known universe known universe, while I called it causal universe. You called things that lay outside this universe and that don't have the same laws of physics merely, " outside the known universe". I called it an acausal universe.

You took my argument and argued the exact same thing as me using slightly different wording if anything your arguments reinforced exactly what you were trying to argue against.

My opponent ends his final round by stating that your senses can be trusted. His argument for why his senses can be trusted has no basis in fact he is using his own personal experiences as proof his senses are trustworthy. He has provided no evidence that his senses are trustworthy.

Summary,

My opponent fails to derail my arguments. His rebuttals of my first hypotheses is are very weak and he fails to refute my evidence or logic.

As far as my second hypotheses is concerned my opponent instead of refuting it makes arguments to support it.

My opponents concedes that if he is God then a belief in himself is indeed neccesary.

Arguments-

Go to me I have met my burden of proof. My opponent has failed to show how my logic is flawed or how my evidence is faulty, and at points even makes my arguments for me. I would also like to point out that my opponent never challenged my definition of God or necessary despite a mild expansion which he quickly dropped.

Spelling and Grammer-

My opponent fails to capitalize the word I in almost every instance of using it.

Better behavior-

My opponent has forfeited a round

Sources-

My opponent used a blog as a source and another source explaining what a scientific theory was for some reason. Neither source should count as reliable. While my dictionary sources come from reputable dictionaries.

I want to thank my opponent for participating In this debate with me and to the voters for reading it. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I shouldn't have directed the votes at the end. I saw a more experienced debater do it and made the mistake of thinking it was appropriate.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
That would be great alex it was a pleasure.
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
Firstly, sorry for wasting a round and doing poorly with my arguments. I have been studying a lot for the past week. Anyways, i don't want the voters to take the fact that i was studying into account. Thanks to my opponent for giving me great arguments for me to think about-of, for his patience and the research he did to provide these arguments. Thanks to the readers-voters for reading it.

Good luck and i hope to debate you again one day (Hopefully there will be no school at that time).
Posted by swethabis 3 years ago
swethabis
I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us.
Posted by FathomTheDeep 3 years ago
FathomTheDeep
I am a Christian and I would say belief in God is not necessary. People are free to believe whatever. But of course I don't want them to go to hell for rejecting God either...
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Good luck to you also,
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
Take as much time as you want. My first time debating with an atheist being myself an atheist. This will be nice. And you can win as i am new to that topic. Whoever is to win, priority is good debating, nice ideas and fun. Good luck!!!
Posted by XLAV 3 years ago
XLAV
Atheist versus atheist, this will be interesting.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I think I can make it work despite being an atheist so yes I can accept, but since it will be a tough debate I will have to take a lot of time with my rounds
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
You worded the debate in a way that makes it impossible for me to win
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
AlexThunderWyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF a round. Pro made very good arguments and stayed on point and had good punctuation. So pro gets the points for conduct, spelling and grammar and convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
AlexThunderWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really needs to understand how Pro structured his portion of the debate and respond to his philosophical assumptions directly, either by providing an alternative that's better or by disparaging the given assumption. Occam's Razor is far from unassailable, and Pro even hints at some of the possible problems with it. Pro's analysis of what he has to prove could have been directly assailed in R3, but goes practically uncontested. And both of these desperately needed to be hit. It's possible to grant most of Pro's argumentation and hit at these two alone and still win the debate, but I just don't see it, and much of the argumentation Con makes is simply furthering Pro's argument. Conduct barely goes to Pro for the forfeit, though Pro should avoid directing the vote on specific issues at the end. Con, capitalize your "i"s, that got very annoying. And sorry Pro, but you don't get points for citing a dictionary.
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
AlexThunderWyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost points for conduct since he was campaigning for a win, not rely on his arguments. However, he had better SG and arguments.