The Instigator
eball45
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Is there a God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
socialpinko
Started: 4/7/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 761 times Debate No: 15832
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

eball45

Pro

I assert there is a god. Or, if you will, it's more probable to conclude there is a god than to conclude that there isn't. My reasoning will be explained thuroughly through the course of this argument.
First, and most simply, I proppose the regress problem arrived at through cause and effect. When we look at the world around us, we conclude there is a cause to every effect. For example, if I jump off of a building I fall toward the earth. The cause of me not flying is gravity. This is how our world works. If there is some phenomena of which a cause can't be arrived at, we believe it's just a matter of time before we unveil the mystery. Well then, we ask, whats the cause of the universe? Science, the ruler of cause and effect, has taken us all the way to the first momments of conception, "The Big Bang." The Big Bang is mathematically exquisite, explaining down to the most minute details. First there was nothing, and then "Bang" gasses appeared, achieving percise temperatures to form particles, particles became matter, and here we are (not to oversimplify). Well, going back to cause and effect, what caused this bang? This is something scientists agree will probably never be known, since we can't get out of time and space. Asserting everything that moves must have a mover (cause and effect), then we now have a very compelling argument for a mover. This mover is god. What kind of God is a matter for another discussion, and largely a matter of subjective belief.

Second, if you draw a large circle indicating all of the knowledge possible to be known, and then you draw a circle within that circle indicating man's current knowledge, the second circle will be incredibly small; possibly even a mere dot. The question is asked "Is it possible God exists outside of your dot?" The logical answer is yes. Most atheists would then argue anything could exist outside of the dot. A unicorn, for example. Well, my response is, if you want to call the initial mover a unicorn, thats fine with me. The only reason the positive assertion of god is made is because, like mentioning above, we need an initial mover. We don't argue about unicorns because a unicorn doesn't solve any logical problems, unless you assert a unicorn was the initial mover, in which case i'll say god and unicorn are synonamous.

Lastly, across all of human kind there seems to be a longing and desire for a god or higher power. This is manifested in many different philosophies, but the cause is this intuitive feeling there is something greater. Now, there is nothing in this world that doesn't fill a want or a desire. A baby cries for he is hungry; well we have food. Turtles are born and yearn to swim; well we have water. Man feels a physical desire for a woman; we have sex. There is nothing in this world we desire that doesn't have an antecedent. So, across humanity, there is a unanimous desire for God, which is synonamous with higher power. Atheists like to say we believe in god because we want there to be a god so bad. I'd like to turn that upside down and say god has to exist 'because' we desire god so badly.

To conclude, because of my arguments posted above, there is more than ample reasoning to arrive at a God. The percision of this universe didn't occur from random insanely improbable events. The unbelievable complexity of life didn't occur from billion to one odds aligning time after time again by accident. There was an architect. Our science is a glimpse into the architecture, a mere reflection. Taking these arguments into account, I feel the argument for god is much more plausible than the argument against god.
socialpinko

Con

As my opponent has not defined the terms of the resolution I will define them here.

God: (A)the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.[1]
(B)the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe[2]
(C)the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe[3]

Perfection, omniscience, and omnipotence of this supposed creator may be advocated by my opponent while my opponent must at least reasonable support the existence of a being who is the originator of the universe and who also rules over the universe.

Is: (A)3rd person singular present indicative of be.[4]
(B)When the nominative is a noun' is' is used for plural as well as singular in the present tense of 'to be'[5]

'Is' is the present form of 'to be'. Therefore in order to prove that there 'is' a god, my opponent must prove that not only WAS there a god who created the universe, but it is still in existence. If god is only the uncaused cause then as the universe has already been 'created' god, as the uncaused cause, would cease to exist. My opponent must show why god still exists as something more than the prime mover.

So actually something else should be added to the definition of god to make it more than simply the originator of the universe. This is why I left in the 'ruler of the universe' part so as to mean that this 'god' still in fact presides over it's creation. If my opponent is advocating a being who is simply the cause of the universe then he has lost this debate as the cause would not currently exist.

Now that definitions are out of the way I will move on to my opponent's arguments.

1.)The universe needs a cause

My opponent has made the claim that the universe could not have come into existence without some sort of cause. Now while I will show that this claim is both erranous and fallacious I must say that even if my opponent proes that the universe does need a cause, as I have shown earlier, the resolution is entitled, "Is there a god?". This means that to affirm the resolution my opponent must show that there 'was' a god as the prime mover, but that god 'is' still around today. Now to refute my opponent's first contention.

When reading my opponent's first argument he claims:

//"First there was nothing, and then "Bang" gasses appeared, achieving percise temperatures to form particles, particles became matter, and here we are (not to oversimplify). Well, going back to cause and effect, what caused this bang? "//
//"Asserting everything that moves must have a mover (cause and effect), then we now have a very compelling argument for a mover. This mover is god."//

My opponent does not understand the concept of 'cause and effect' fully I'm afraid. For A to cause B, there must be a 'time' when A was not B or a 'time' when A could change to cause B. Without time everything is simply eternal and unchanging. The concept of casuality does not apply when time is taken out of the question.

Time is an inherent part of the universe. Time and space converge to make up the 'fabric' of time. So before the universe was "formed", time was non-existent. So, the universe up until it's formation was not bound by casuality as time was not in existence. When one says that everything has a cause, this is because everything in our universe is bound by some form of casuality. Before the universe's formation, there was no time and therefore no casuality. Cause and effect was a non-existent concept and my opponent's argument that the universe needs a cause is non-applicable.

2.)Man does not know everything.

My opponent's approximation of man's knowledge compared with the amount of knowledge possible in the universe is speculation. While it is possible that 'god' could lie outside of man's current knowledge, this in itself does not prove it's existence or it is "more probable to conclude there is a god than to conclude that there isn't." This makes god's existence possible, but of course this makes the existence of 'Russells's teapot'.

Just because it's existence is logically outside of man's current knowledge does not say that it is more probable that it exists than to say it does not exist. Just like just because the winning lottery numbers for today are outside of my knowledge, this does not mean that I will probably win. My opponent has not shown why god's existence is more probable than it's non-existance.

Most people want there to be a god.

This is not an argument so I will not spend too much time on it. This is an argument from popularity and nothing else. Most people probably want to be rich, maybe famous, or good looking. This of course in no way means that everyone who wants to be will be rich, famous, or good looking.

As it stands, my opponent's arguments that god's existence is at least more probable than it's non-existance have been adequately refuted. Vote Con.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
[4]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5]www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/fulltext/am1924/pt_i.htm
Debate Round No. 1
eball45

Pro

eball45 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

It is unfortunate that my opponent has forfeited R2 of this debate as there is only 3 rounds. As no new arguments have been brought by my opponent and he has the BOP, I will reiterate my opponent's basic arguments and my refutations of said arguments.

1.)The universe needs a cause.

This argument goes like, 'The universe could not have come from nothing, therefore it must have a cause. God is that cause. God exists.' I showed that the universe did not need a cause as only things which exist in time are capable of having causes as without time, all is eternal. Time did not exist prior to the universe's existence as time is a fundamental part of the universe. Because of this, the universe was not bound by the law of casualty and does not need a cause.

2.)We don't know everything.

This argument goes like, 'If one were to make a circle with man's current knowledge, it would be miniscule to the size of a circle containing all possible knowledge. God could exist in this larger circle. God exists.' This argument runs into a problem though. It does not actually in any way support my opponent's overall argument that, "...it's more probable to conclude there is a god than to conclude that there isn't." Just because god could possibly theoretically exist does not make it's existence more probable than it's non-existence.

3.)A lot of people want god to exist.

This is really my opponent's weakest argument and easiest to refute. All it is is an argument from popularity and nothing else. Again, most people want to be rich, famous, or attractive but most people are none of these. Just because you wish something to be true has no bearing on said thing's objective existence.

My opponent has brought three arguments. The first is the cosmological argument. I have shown this to be faulty in that the universe is not bound by the law of casualty in that it existed 'before' time and thus is not bound by it. My opponent's second argument was basically an argument from ignorance and his third argument was an argument from popularity. The resolution has been negated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
eball45

Pro

First, as far as the initial move is concerned, my opponnent is not taking into consideration where time came from. He asserts, basically, the universe couldn't have had a mover as there was no time before the universe. Well, if my opponnent was familar, or took the time to become familar, the big bang arose out of nothingness (no space and no time). So, by his reasoning, the big bang is impossible since it requires 'time' to create. This just sends him into regress, which is the original problem requiring an initial mover. If anything, he's supporting my argument. Obviously, the mover would be outside of nature. As I mentioned, he would be the producer of the big bang (time and space). This 'time' rebuttal holds absolutely no weight. Also, I mentioned in the opening paragraph of my argument that the type of god wasn't the argument. The argument was inferring there is a god. I understand 'is' means present. I didn't realize I had to be so direct as to say "god didn't cease to exist after creating." So, I'll say god still exists outside of nature. But, this semantical addition does nothing to the argument of an initial mover.

Second, saying it's possible for god to exist doesn't give you much credibility when asserting there is no god. My circle of knowledge analogy doesn't prove god nor was it intended to. It simply gives reason to infer based on our extremely limited knowledge. You simply said what I said you were going to say, "anything could exist." You didn't rebutt my argument, which was if this tea-pot you speak of was the initial mover then I'll call the tea-pot god. The positive assertion for god is based under the context of the regress issue which I address as my first argument.

Third, your desire to be rich and famous has an antecedent; it's lots of money and fame. You clearly misunderstood the argument. The desire to win the lottery has an antecedent; it's lots of money. The argument isn't saying whatever you wish for you'll have. It's saying whatever you desire has an antecedent, or to help your understanding, you could think of it, in this case, as a cause and your desire as the effect.

In conclusion, no matter what side of the argument you agree with, it's plain to see that my opponnent has completely misunderstood everything I've so plainly argued. Further, he has weak at best reasoning to refute my arguments. He's answered with the sophistication of a 16 year old. Wait, he is 16. I was going to forfeit after I discovered I was talking to a naive boy that doesn't fully comprehend these matters yet. I only speak somewhat disrespectfully, as my opponnent provoked such when stating I can't comprehend simple reasoning, and then went on to give the weakest refutation i've come across on this site.
socialpinko

Con

//"First, as far as the initial move is concerned, my opponnent is not taking into consideration where time came from"//

My oponent's argument was not that time must have come from somewhere, but that the universe must have a creator as everything has a cause. I already stated that the universe is not bound by the same law of casualty as everything else is because time is a part of the universe, 'prior' to the formation of the universe, time did not 'exist'. This means that the universe does not need a cause and thus not a creator.

My opponent then tries to mix his two arguments. He claims that because there needs to be an initial mover, god's existence could lie outside of man's current knowledge. I already showed why the universe is nont bound by the law of casualty for the same reason that theists say god is not. Also, I already showed that while anything could possibly lie outside of man's knowledge, as we don't know, but that does not mean that god's existence is "more probable to conclude there is a god than to conclude that there isn't". My opponent has not upheld this part of his argument.

//"Third, your desire to be rich and famous has an antecedent; it's lots of money and fame. You clearly misunderstood the argument. The desire to win the lottery has an antecedent; it's lots of money."//

Just because one desires something does not automatically mean that there is an antecedent though. If you desire for unicorns to exist that does not mean that somewhere a unicorn exits because if it didn't your desire would not exist. You saying that because people want there to be a god, and every desire supposedly has an antecedent, therefore god exists is like me saying "I have always wanted there to exist a five-armed fire spitting raccoon man". Now since every desire must have an antecedent does that mean there exists a five-armed fire spitting raccoon man? Of course not, this does not mean that god's existence is more probable than it's non-existence. This argument has been refuted.

To voters, when voting on this debate, the choice is clear. Vote Con. My opponent brought three arguments and I completely refuted each and every one of them. Further, when awarding conduct points as he forfeited a round. Also refer to my opponent's personal attack on me:

"He's answered with the sophistication of a 16 year old. Wait, he is 16. I was going to forfeit after I discovered I was talking to a naive boy that doesn't fully comprehend these matters yet."

Voters should also award Con sources as I was the only one to provide any at all.

To conclude, Con should be awarded arguments, conduct, and sources. Spelling there didn't seem to be any clear winner so that should be left tied. To my opponent, good luck in the voting period and I very much enjoyed this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by anarcholibertyman 3 years ago
anarcholibertyman
eball45socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided sources while Pro provided none. Pro also loses conduct for the forfeit and the personal attacks on Con. Con also gets arguments because Pro did not uphold the BOP and his three main arguments were refuted.