The Instigator
Dhides3
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
InSparksweTrust
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is the existence of God rational?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Dhides3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 112423
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

Dhides3

Pro

(The arguments presented are directly from or slightly adapted versions of Dr. William Lane Craigs' arguments presented in his book, On Guard).

Although we admit that there are many fideistic believers, holding to Christian values is reasonable, logical, and absolutely necessary. According to Surrendra Gangadean, in his book Philosophical Foundations, at the most basic level, the need for an eternal is essential to our existence and meaning. With that in mind, Christians who have a secure foundation for their faith follow their beliefs with great integrity. Being an atheist means that you believe that there is no God. That begs the question of where objective morals come from. Where do your moral values come from? Are we all just moralless apes? Here is one of the two logical symbolisms explaining the existence of God.

1. If God does not exist then objective values, meaning and purpose do not exist.
2. Objective values, meaning, and purpose do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

It is only through God that we, as moral human beings, have objective values, meaning, and purpose. Without God, who could possibly claim anything as truly good or evil? If any and every individual could determine for himself what is good, there would be too many contradicting ideas and claims. There is no moral accountability and moral consequences become inconsequential. If I were to say that murder is good there is nothing you could do about it, because values are subjective. In addition, meaning and purpose would not exist without God. Life would be utterly meaningless and we would just be a mere product of chance, contributing no real significance. This life would end after death and if we try to add meaning ourselves, then we are simply self-deceiving ourselves because how can we, as nothing, make something?

But how do we prove and explain that God Exist, besides our morals and necessity of human nature? With the existence of the Universe. Here is the argument.

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause.
(Can being come from non-being- Nope
External Cause must be the answer)
2. The universe exists.
(If you don"t believe this you are brain- dead; quite literally)
3. If the universe does have an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.
(Can be tested or logically correct
The explanation must be an external cause - God)
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1 and 2).
5. Therefore, the explanation for the existence of the universe is God (from 3 and 4).

You may be able to argue that if everything has an explanation then what about God? He, too, must have an explanation. However, He is a necessary being. The Creator cannot have a creator or he, no longer, is the creator We can not approach this with the mindset of one cause after another because it would send us into a never-ending, hopeless cycle and to discard it would make science and its purpose to provide explanations meaningless. We agree that you must not believe in God just because "you should" but because it is ultimately rational and reasonable through the gaining of understanding what and why you believe.
InSparksweTrust

Con

Ernest Beker’s thoughts about why people enjoy religion and created it to begin with. Becker feels that it is because humans naturally fear death, and that we do not wish for there to be nothing after death, so we create fantasy worlds of life after death to assist us with growing older and closer towards death. The author critiques Becker’s views and comes off as perhaps biased in his assessment of Becker’s thoughts, as for me I feel as though we use it as a coping mechanism and that we also use it to teach those around us, and even throughout the world a sense of morality, and values, how we should live our lives within society, however because that is all very subjective, multiple views and religions appear and clash with each other.

In closing, Religion is something that we construct to feel closure, it is irrational just like all our other behaviors that include avoiding the truths that we don't enjoy, but it is also very valuable because it teaches our societies own subjective views of morality and values, and without it, teaching morality would be rather complicated.
Debate Round No. 1
Dhides3

Pro

What a red herring. You have completely failed to address the arguments presented. If you are somehow simply conceding that without God there would be no objective value, purpose, and meaning, then there may be some sort of attempt at addressing the argument but that"s giving your response the benefit of the doubt. Please use round three to actually address the Leibniz cosmological argument. If you do not agree with the conclusion, you must show which premise or premises you believe to be false.

I will, however, chase you down this "religion" trail for a few moments. First of all, you"re absolutely right. Religion must be a construct of man. After all, we, as humans, are the ones who engage in religious beliefs and practices. However, this does nothing to prove that God does not exist. This seems to be your argument:

1. If religion is created by man (for whatever reason), then God does not exist.
2. Religion is created by man (for all kinds of reasons).
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

This, however, it totally question begging. The only reason anyone would have to believe premise #1 is because you already believe the conclusion. There is no reason to assume that if man constructed religion, then God does not exist. God"s existence does not hinge on anything man may construct. I may as well believe:

1. If Google is a manmade algorithm, then God does not exist.
2. Google is a manmade algorithm.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

I hope you can see the problems inherent in your argument about religion. Oh, and by the way, if there is a God and this God has revealed himself to mankind and mankind has developed a belief system based on these revelations and within these revelations are promises of peace, comfort, love, and eternal life, then, you"re right again, a very practical function of this "religion" would be to offer "closure." Yet, again, this fact does nothing to prove the religion faulty.

1. If God has revealed truths regarding his peace, love, value, and ultimate purposes for humanity, then the belief system based on these revelations would bring comfort and closure.
2. God has revealed truths regarding his peace, love, value, and ultimate purposes for humanity.
3. Therefore, the belief system based on these revelations would bring comfort and closure.

Obviously, you would want to refute premise #2 but then, that begins with refuting the Leibniz cosmological argument. So please address the LCA. Thank you.
InSparksweTrust

Con

The ancient Greek Socrates, said There is no truth beyond that of our own subjective views. This is seen in full with the various religions that mankind creates to suite their own needs, and to dictate their own sense of morality. Others create their versions of religions, because of their own inherent, objective views and to be deviant. A great example is a daughter raised by parents who are racist and hate black people, the daughter may wish to prove her parents wrong, and make black friends, and to simply even date black men, or get married to one to try and show them they are wrong. Of course because of how Bipolarization operates each of them grow to resent, or despise one another and will become even more firm in their beliefs, likely though the parent would blame not their daughters who they still care about, but rather the black people around her.

This is exactly how various religions will feud with one another for eternity, and each side will say their god is the greatest, and that their values are the holy ones and should be how the entire world operates. You think God just simply exists...well I cannot disprove it just as you cannot prove it, and have yet to ever do so, however lets theoretically say that God does exist, well in that regard then by a logical point, there must be multiple gods, however what makes you think that any of the religions conjured up by man is that of a true God? This is where your argument becomes full of holes, after all if a god had vested here and had rules, or laws for how we should act, then surely that God would make those laws or rules out of something not from earth that could easily stand out and that couldn't be destroyed, and would forever stand as a lasting legacy and reminder correct? Yet, that did not happen, I mean when we first sat foot on the moon we placed a flag of it to be a lasting mark of our visit there, yet your god wouldn't?

The bible and all other religions use subjective authorities for how God looks and acts, and what his/her message for our society to resemble and is in constant conflict with all the other such subjective religions, if there is a god, nor you or I know what his, or her thoughts are, or what he, or her feels our world should be like, and even then, it would be another subjective view not a truth.
Debate Round No. 2
Dhides3

Pro

Once again, you have not addressed the logical argument that I presented for the existence of God. I will present the argument again with a little commentary in the hopes that you will address the actual argument and stop developing these straw men arguments regarding the human origin of religion (which I conceded to in my previous post).

This is the Leibniz cosmological argument developed by Gottfried Leibniz, a brilliant 17th-century mathematician, and philosopher. So, please keep in mind this is not, in any way, my subjective view of a biblical God. You mention that I can't prove the existence of God. But this just is a rational argument that does just that, it proves the existence of a necessary being (i.e. God). So, if you do not agree with the conclusion, you MUST show how one or more of the premises is false.

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

(commentary: this is intuitive and completely rational. To not believe this premise means you believe that some things just don"t need an explanation for their existence. However, it is completely arbitrary to say that something like the universe doesn"t need an explanation while things like humans, cars, cats, and rootbeer need an explanation).

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

(commentary: something cannot come from nothing. So, where did the universe come from? It obviously did not create itself. If the universe has an explanation for where it came from, that explanation must be other than the universe itself. But what it the universe? The universe is all space-time-matter. This means that whatever caused the beginning of space-time-matter must be not made of matter-space-time. Well, what the heck is not made out of matter-space-time? An immaterial, timeless, spaceless being. There are only two types of beings that fit this description - an abstract object, like numbers or an unembodied mind. But this being must have causal properties since it would be responsible for bringing all matter into existence. Abstract objects do not have causal properties. Therefore the cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind).

3. The universe exists.

(commentary: if you don"t believe this, well, then you are living with the highest level of skepticism).

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3)

5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)

By the way, you mentioned that my argument has holes in it because if, theoretically, God exists there must be multiple gods. This is completely wrong. In fact, it"s the opposite. I don't expect you, at this point, to understand this philosophy but here goes nothing:

1. If a necessary being exists, the necessary being would be eternal.
2. If the necessary being is eternal, the necessary being would be unchanging and complete in all qualities (all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.).
3. If the necessary being is unchanging and complete in all qualities, then it would be impossible to distinguish this being from another eternal being which would be ontologically identical. (If there were any way to distinguish between them, then one would be lacking something that the other had. If one was lacking anything, that one would not be eternal, thus not the necessary being).
4. Two ontologically identical beings are not separated by anything (whatsoever), thus, they are not separate at all but one and the same being.
5. Therefore, there is only one necessary being (there can literally not be multiple gods).
InSparksweTrust

Con

You wish to explain the origins of the universe...well that's a laugh, but I'll enlighten you a bit, do you understand the immense pressure of a vac cu me? That pressure of a vacuum with nothingness would simply implode on itself in a type of explosion, thus the big bang....oh but wait what of the time before that you ask, well Stephen Hawking did very well in explaining it. He said that simply time was imaginary and bent in a unique way. In fact many scientific theories exist for that, but here's the difference between you and I. I go by science that can offer real explanations, and test them, and prove themselves, all you do is believe in some God and say, this is why everything occurred, whilst ignoring evolution and prove science, on top of that I conceded that there may even be a god, or gods however you fail to ever address that. The issue is, you act so arrogantly in believing that you know of this God lol that you've got a clear image of god as you go to church or pray lol, but where's that proof...?

As for life after death, that's another debate but let me enlighten you. Our souls are a powerful mass of energy and that energy is what causes the breakdown of our physical bodies and after that we break free of them, and become a 2D being, incapable of interacting with 3D beings as we learn to accept that we've died, but eventually we do, and we realize without the energy that our bodies created for us to survive and move with, our souls are now burning to use fuel our actions and thoughts, thus making it of the greatest importance to replenish such energy, or find a new host body to occupy in order to survive, thus reincarnation. There are plenty of stories of children reborn into the world who claim to be important people of the past, one such incident occurred with the boy Christian Haupt who claimed to be Lou Gehrig and told of info that boy couldve never known, because not even the media knew what they boy knew.

Your argument is flawed and will always be flawed because anytime anyone asks you for proof you dismiss that and instead force them to disprove you, knowing that science has theories but nothing concrete, but at least we are working on it...still yet your arrogance in thinking you know God is laughable.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InSparksweTrust 1 month ago
InSparksweTrust
I study psychology and understand it very well, I'm not against there being a God I'm against the fact that you don't know what that God is, yet are so arrogant to claim you do. That is why the belief itself is irrational, as for a soul which has science backing it, what's to say its not just energy, like another form of matter? Why is it everything had to be created by some God and only 1 God? Thats my issue, and what power could they hold that we ourselves couldnt obtain? It makes no logical sense
Posted by Dhides3 1 month ago
Dhides3
Sparky, I just don't know what to say! Your own self-induced out of body experience? That must have been intense! What mind boggles me (or should I say soul boggles me) is that you seem to be adamantly set on my providing you empirical evidence for God but you hold yourself to no such standard. You make a claim for the existence of a soul. This is a totally legitimate metaphysical claim - I like it! But then you give nothing but anecdotal evidence for an immaterial soul. Furthermore, Sparky, If you're willing to believe in an immaterial soul, and that, only based on anecdotal evidence, then why not believe in God (who by the way, you sort of need for the whole creation of the soul thing- both 2D and 3D I would imagine) based on real metaphysical demonstrations like the Leibnizian cosmological argument? Do you have something against God? Can we talk about it? I am a trained counselor.
Posted by InSparksweTrust 1 month ago
InSparksweTrust
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

there is countless accounts for out of body experiences as well, even our own govt has done so, and showed the results clear as day, so how can there be an out of body experience without a soul...? Why is it we all experience life differently, what's with the sudden off the chart spikes of brain activity before death...could it be our soul breaking free of our bodies...? This is my evidence as well as my own self induced out of body experiences that ive experienced and let me simply say if you think we are just particles of matter that we are nothing more but the compounds of our body then youre the most ignorant person ever to be seen. Our mind cannot be scientifically, and objectively measured or studied but does that mean its not worth trying to see how the mind operates, why people have their thoughts, their dreams etc...?
Posted by InSparksweTrust 1 month ago
InSparksweTrust
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

there is countless accounts for out of body experiences as well, even our own govt has done so, and showed the results clear as day, so how can there be an out of body experience without a soul...? Why is it we all experience life differently, what's with the sudden off the chart spikes of brain activity before death...could it be our soul breaking free of our bodies...? This is my evidence as well as my own self induced out of body experiences that ive experienced and let me simply say if you think we are just particles of matter that we are nothing more but the compounds of our body then youre the most ignorant person ever to be seen. Our mind cannot be scientifically, and objectively measured or studied but does that mean its not worth trying to see how the mind operates, why people have their thoughts, their dreams etc...?
Posted by InSparksweTrust 1 month ago
InSparksweTrust
i have, as i explained in round 3
Posted by RipMe 1 month ago
RipMe
Excuse me, good sir. I believe Dhides explained how his argument differs greatly from the circular reasoning you claim it to be. The reason we fail to grasp your soul theory is because you have given us no reason for it. You simply said, Souls are 2D. As a man of science, I inquire you, what evidence is there for this? How were these souls created? Evolution? Because they don't seem to contribute to survival.

And an eternal 'being' (not God) in any form, needs no creation simply by inherent description. I'm sorry you are so angry, but please, give reason for the soul theory, or how you believe the universe came about if you aren't even going to address ours.
Posted by InSparksweTrust 1 month ago
InSparksweTrust
Youre as wrong as Freud in psychology, that style of argument only serves to prove only what you want it to prove, and btw God would have a form likely some type of energy like a soul that we all have...youre not addressing the fact souls are 2d thus 2d world exist separate of 3d beings.....and you give 0 evidence lmfao all you say is that everything had to be created except somehow this all powerful god STFU! Its explained with science how everything came to be and you fail to understand that! Somehow particles and atoms being here is unacceptable however an all mighty God is believable STFU!!! I've explained how man created religion dumbass and why its important go back to your hole
Posted by Dhides3 1 month ago
Dhides3
Last one for InSparksweTrust.

1. If God exists, God is all-powerful (regardless of what other character traits God may have).
2. If God is all-powerful, you and Hell's most furious army cannot remove him from power.
3. God does exist (see the EVIDENCE presented in the Leibnizian cosmological argument that you never addressed).
4. Therefore, God is all-powerful (regardless of other character traits).
5. Therefore, you and Hell's most furious army could not remove him from power.

This is an absolutely logical, non-question begging argument. If you cannot show that one or more of the premises are false (or even less probable than their opposites) then it is supremely rational to believe the conclusion.

Good luck there Sparky.
Posted by InSparksweTrust 1 month ago
InSparksweTrust
I said multiple times, that perhaps god does exist..however to think we know god is arrogant, foolish,naive and simply stupid. Is the belief of god rational? No...because we have zero evidence for or against it. How none of you seem to see that point in my arguments is truly showing, as to how educated you are, which isn't very much. To address further however, if God turns out to be a tyrant mad with power as in the bible, then we have a duty as with dictator's to stand and remove such a god from power, when we meet that god.
Posted by RipMe 1 month ago
RipMe
Wait, so, let me get this straight. The idea of an eternal being is apparently absurd, because it's not quantifiable by science, but reincarnation is totally fine? Plis explain. It hurts.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ssadi 1 month ago
ssadi
Dhides3InSparksweTrustTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: 1st Round: Pro provided 2 arguments, namely objective morality and L. Cosmological Argument. However, Pro didn't explain how the explanation of universe is God. Con mainly argued that religions are man-made and religious morality is subjective. 2nd Round: Pro stated that even if all religions were manmade, that wouldn't disprove the resolution (this is true, e.g., in case of Deism). Con claimed that if God existed, there had to be unbroken rules and something like a flag (like on the moon) that showed his existence. Not convincing, if people didn't put a flag on the moon, it wouldn't mean they didn't visit it. Con also claimed that if God existed, then multiple gods could exist. However, it doesn't disprove the resolution. 3rd Round: Pro provided more explanations on LCA's premises which were again dismissed by Con. Con made bare assertions on big bang and human soul and claimed that Pro's argument flawed. Result: Pro provided more convincing arguments as compared to Co