The Instigator
PreacherAndy18000
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
INTJ
Con (against)
Winning
58 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 12 votes the winner is...
INTJ
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,322 times Debate No: 11520
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (12)

 

PreacherAndy18000

Pro

I will be defending the position there is a god. I believe all the evidence points toward there is a god. And theres no good evidence there isn't a god.

1. The Kalam cosmological argument.

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
This we knows true by our experience logically nothing in nature just begins to exist causless.
2. The universe began to exist.
Theres a philosophical argument which can prove this.
1. If an infinite number of moments occured before today today would never have come since it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of moments.
2.But today has come.
3. Hence there was a finite number of moments before today the universe had a beginning.
3. The universe has a cause.

2. The teleological argument.

1. Any design implies an intelligent designer.
This we knows true by our experience example a watch implies an intelligent watch designer.
2. There is design in the universe.
One example of this is the fine-tuning of the universe's natural laws to allow life.
3. Theres an intelligent designer of the universe.

3. The moral argument.

1. An absolute universal moral law exists.
This we knows true by our moral experience.
2. This absolute universal moral law originated with us or with a moral lawgiver.
3. This absolute universal moral law can't have originated with us.
If moral laws can originate with us they can't be absolute or universal.
4. A moral lawgiver exists.

4. Religious need argument.

1. Any natural innate need has a real object that can fulfill it.
This we knows true by our natural and personal experience example your hungry food exists.
2. Human beings have a natural innate need for god.
3. Therefore there must be a god.
INTJ

Con

RE: "Anything that begins to exist has a cause."
And, "cause" does not always mean an intentional agent. For example, what causes atoms with more protons than hydrogen to begin to exist? I will answer this, because atoms are essential to the universe at large, and it's a good example of things that begin to exist, but that don't have an intentional agent.

What causes atoms with more protons than hydrogen to begin to exist?
Remember, hydrogen has only one proton.[1] No other element does.[2][3] Helium has two protons.[2][3] Lithium has three, and so on.[2][3] Technically, if we wanted to call a single proton a "hydrogen ion," we could—though we would only be talking about a bare proton with no associated electrons and neutrons.[4] That is why I asked the question the way I did—"what causes atoms with more protons than hydrogen to begin to exist," because we can technically call a bare proton "H+" if we wanted to.[4] But, enough review; moving on to the answer: Though, the number of protons uniquely distinguishes one atom from the next,[2][3] high temperatures are required to accumulate protons together in a resistant form and high temperatures are required to further join those resistant forms of subatomic particles, atoms, together more.[5] Such temperatures are found naturally in stars.[5] Fusion within stellar nucleosynthesis is what causes atoms with more protons than hydrogen to begin to exist, (NASA [5] and William Fowler [6]).

[1] http://www.britannica.com...
[2] http://www.britannica.com...
[3] http://media.iupac.org... (page 2057)
[4] http://www.britannica.com...
[5] http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[6] http://nobelprize.org... (paragraphs twelve and thirteen)

RE: "An absolute universal moral law exists."
Absolute—having no restriction, exception, or qualification, (Merriam Webster).
Universal—including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributive without limit or exception, (Merriam Webster).
Universal—existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions, (Merriam Webster).
What is this "absolute universal moral law" that you say exists? How does this "law" account for carnivorous diets among species; are there any anthropocentric allowances that threaten the "universal" part, since humans have carnivorous diets too?

RE: "Any natural innate need has a real object that can fulfill it. Human beings have a natural innate need for God."
Human beings seek to understand the world. And to that end, we start to conceive of and explore theories of reality. Some of these theories of reality are more reliable and have a better predictive utility than others (gravity, relativity, kinetic). Other theories of reality, such as, "The meek will inherit the earth," and, "God sends angels to protect us," require counter balancing theories to account for their lack of predictive utility. For example, "The meek will inherit the earth, but this will be fulfilled postmortem, or in God's timing [because it is obviously false if we say this theory corresponds in any reliable fashion to reality now]." Another example is, "God does send angels to protect us, and certainly to protect young children. But, some people are outside of the will of God. If they are inside of the will of God, and something tragic happens to them anyway, they will be with God. And, you can't forget about Satan; he's out there too," and so on. So, I don't think that this tendency to understand the world necessitates any "real object that can fulfill it," or any factual correspondence to reality. And, I don't think this is "innate" because unlike breathing and hunger that will run their natural courses regardless, the tendency to seek to understand the world, requires exposure to some environment first, from which to theorize.

RE: "Any design implies an intelligent designer. One example of this is the fine-tuning of the universe's natural laws to allow life."
It is easy to term something as "fine-tuning" after the fact, that is, by looking back, subsequent to knowing a result and saying, "If this hadn't happened, then that couldn't have happened and this couldn't have happened further," and after doing that present what resulted as an inevitability. But, here is a picture of the Milky Way Galaxy directly from NASA's website, http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov... . There, our sun is so small it is not discernible in it—one of several hundred billion stars. And, here is that galaxy in perspective, http://upload.wikimedia.org... . So, the claimed that we are "fine-tuned" requires a very localized focus to make the interpretation.
Debate Round No. 1
PreacherAndy18000

Pro

Re KCA While its true those atoms with more protons than hydrogen have a cause thats a natural process instead of an intentional agent this doesn't help your argument at all because then you have to ask what caused the natural process??????????

Re MA The point isn't what the absolute moral law is or whether people follow it its the point is it exists.

Re RNA Religion isn't just theories about reality its about trying to fulfill a need.

Re TA You prove my point. The fact that the universe is so big and our small planet is the only one that sustains intelligent life proves it must have been fine tuned for this specific purpose.
INTJ

Con

RE: "While its true those atoms with more protons than hydrogen have a cause thats a natural process instead of an intentional agent this doesn't help your argument at all because then you have to ask what caused the natural process??????????"

It does help my argument, because the Kamal Cosmological Argument for God uses the word "cause" as if it presents no problems for the consequentiality of its case for God. But, "cause" does present a huge problem for the consequentiality of its case, because "cause" can still be used in its public and common way while having no intentional agent.

RE: "The point isn't what the absolute moral law is or whether people follow it its the point is it exists."
In order to tell whether "an absolute universal moral law" corresponds to fact in reality, one needs more than assertions.

RE: "The fact that the universe is so big and our small planet is the only one that sustains intelligent life proves it must have been fine tuned for this specific purpose."

In your alleged God's way of "fine-tuning," stars the size of our sun have precursors to DNA as their norm [7], we can identify other material rich earth-like planets forming with no intentional agents [8]. So, if God is functionally consequential to the formation of material-rich planets like our own, or even the formation of organic materials in space [7][9], he is doing a good job of hiding it.

Then, books which are allegedly from God give misleading accounts of creation like this, "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars," (Genesis 1:16).[10] That's interesting because, one of the "two great lights," the lesser one (moon), emits no light.

[7] http://www.nasa.gov...
[8] http://www.nasa.gov...
[9] http://www.herschel.caltech.edu...
[10] http://www.biblegateway.com...

Contention 1: Religious theories of reality have counter balancing theories to account for their lack of predictive utility.
I've already given examples of this, and I assume my opponent agrees with this point.

Contention 2: God cannot be identified in reality—as in reliably distinguished from other distinguishable things in reality.
Debate Round No. 2
PreacherAndy18000

Pro

Re Kca
Only a being with a free choice can could bring something from nothing which is what happened at the big bang. Something came from nothing.

Re Ma
"In order to tell whether "an absolute universal moral law" corresponds to fact in reality, one needs more than assertions."
Exactly what more do you want be specific?????

Re Ta
"In your alleged God's way of "fine-tuning," stars the size of our sun have precursors to DNA as their norm [7], we can identify other material rich earth-like planets forming with no intentional agents [8]. So, if God is functionally consequential to the formation of material-rich planets like our own, or even the formation of organic materials in space [7][9], he is doing a good job of hiding it"
I see your point but there are two problems with it.
1. Maybe the reason it seems like gods not designing these things is because he designed the overall system to do what its doing. The subtle natural process of evolution for example although i doubt he used evolution its possible and that would explain why it doesn't seem like hes creating these things.
2. You say theres stars with precursors to DNA and material rich earth like planets. Ok but are they able to sustain intelligent life?????

"Then, books which are allegedly from God give misleading accounts of creation like this, "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars," (Genesis 1:16).[10] That's interesting because, one of the "two great lights," the lesser one (moon), emits no light."

I am not arguing for the inerrancy of the bible just the existence of a god.

"Contention 1: Religious theories of reality have counter balancing theories to account for their lack of predictive utility.
I've already given examples of this, and I assume my opponent agrees with this point.

Contention 2: God cannot be identified in reality—as in reliably distinguished from other distinguishable things in reality."

I am not sure your contentions have to do with what i just said or what you mean by the explain?????

Sources
1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
2. Dr. Norman L. Geisler Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics Kalam Cosmological argument PGS 399-401 (1999)
INTJ

Con

RE: "Only a being with a free choice can could bring something from nothing which is what happened at the big bang. Something came from nothing."
That is not what the Big Bang Theory describes. The Big Bang Theory does not support the concept that the universe began ex nihilo. Instead, it says that the universe began from hot, dense, matter [11][12][13][14].

[11] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... (paragraph one)
[12] http://www.britannica.com... (paragraphs one and three)
[13] http://astronomy2009.nasa.gov... (paragraph seven)
[14] http://www.askoxford.com...

RE: "Maybe the reason it seems like gods not designing these things is because he designed the overall system to do what its doing."
Maybe it seems like God is not designing these things (atoms with more protons than hydrogen, material rich earth-like planets, organic molecules in space), because God is not designing these things.

RE: "In order to tell whether ‘an absolute universal moral law' corresponds to fact in reality, one needs more than assertions."
RE: "Exactly what more do you want be specific?????"
I want to know if the term "universal" is an accurate description of a moral law, and if the term "absolute" is an accurate description of the same moral law. A statement is not true because it is asserted. So, the statement "An absolute universal moral law exists" is not true because it is asserted. Like any statement, it is true if what is described is a factual account of the subject in reality. But, you've offered no evidence to support this—merely the assertion itself.

RE: "I am not sure your contentions have to do with what i just said or what you mean by the explain?????"
The contentions are a just formal listing of parts to my own case. If you disagree with the contentions, you should rebut them.
Debate Round No. 3
PreacherAndy18000

Pro

Re KCA so you believe matter is eternal ex materia?????

Re TCA my point is even if you say that these things are forming through natural processes that still doesn't help your argument. Because i could say gods working to form these things through the natural processes he created.

Re MA yes but the point i tried to make earlier is you can't base the truth of the statement on whether or not people follow this moral law its not absolute or universal because everyone folllows it but because it applies to everyone.
One proof such a law exists is if it didn't moral disagreements would make no sense.

Re Contentio 1 give me another example of this i didn't understand your other ones.
Contention 2 makes no sense at all still?????
INTJ

Con

RE: "if you say that these things are forming through natural processes that still doesn't help your argument. Because i could say gods working to form these things through the natural processes he created."
I can conceive of things too. But, conceptions that have no confirmable relation to a subject in reality (like your conception that God is working through the natural processes) do not suddenly make null and void all the publicly verifiable things that do have a confirmable relation to a subject in reality.

RE: "One proof such a law exists is if it didn't moral disagreements would make no sense."
Consider people like the following:
Person (A) is a sincere Christian, who has implemented Matthew 5:38-40, before, among other verses, and would do so again.
Person (B) is not a Christian, and would not turn the other cheek if struck on one of them, nor do anything metaphorically equivalent.
Person (C) is a homeless person, who yearly and intentionally steals in the winter months, so that he can be jailed.
Person (D) is from Iceland, does not support the death penalty, and agrees with his nation's policy where the death penalty is outlawed.
Person (E) is from the United States, supports the death penalty, and reasons that if someone wanted to kill him, and the death penalty were outlawed in his country, the person could kill him without risking the same abrupt demise.

Would there be moral disagreements among persons like (A) through (E), if an "absolute universal moral law" did not exist? Yes. Would the disagreements still make sense? Yes. Even with a casual knowledge of why people behave the way they do, the disagreements would still make sense. Would any of positions be founded on some universal unchanging absolute moral law? No.

RE: "Contention 1 give me another example of this i didn't understand your other ones."
Another example of a religious theory of reality that has counter balancing theory to account for its lack of predictive utility is, "Jesus will return soon." The counter balancing theory is, "A day to God is a thousand days to us."

RE: "Contention 2: God cannot be identified in reality—as in reliably distinguished from other distinguishable things in reality."
RE: "Contention 2 makes no sense at all still"
I seriously doubt that you don't know what that statement means. There is even a definition in the statement itself. If you understand what the statement says, the only remaining part, that might take some time, is deciding whether you agree with it or not.
Debate Round No. 4
PreacherAndy18000

Pro

"I can conceive of things too. But, conceptions that have no confirmable relation to a subject in reality (like your conception that God is working through the natural processes) do not suddenly make null and void all the publicly verifiable things that do have a confirmable relation to a subject in reality."
Your missing the point natural processes don't explain anything because you have to explain what caused the natural processes.

Re Ma
1. Wrong moral disagreements make no sense unless an absolute moral law exists. Example one person says hitler was wrong one says he was right if its relative they would both be right but they can't both be right at the same time.
2. Your confusing the absolute moral law with our understanding of it. To borrow your example everyone agrees murder is wrong. But people disagree if its wrong to use death as punishment under certain circumstances for murder the death penalty its not the absolute moral law itself that changes but our understanding of it.

Re
Contention 1
I don't see what this has to do with god's existence. But you ripped those two quotes out of context from the bible there not meant to be counter balancing theories there not even mean to be theories at all your trying to apply scientific ideas and terms to the bible its not a science text. And i told you already i am not arguing for the innerancy of the bible or christianity as the one true religion just gods existence.

Contention 2 This is what ive been arguing for in the whole debate that god can be idenified in reality he is seen through the origin of the universe the universe itself the origin of morality and in our need for him he is seen all over in nature.
INTJ

Con

RE: "But you ripped those two quotes out of context from the bible there not meant to be counter balancing theories there not even mean to be theories at all your trying to apply scientific ideas and terms to the bible its not a science text."
The response I was given from Christians, as to why "soon" doesn't mean "in the near future," was because "a day to God is a thousand years to us." So, if the verses are "out of context," remember, this is not my conception that I'm presenting to you; this is another real example of what religious theories say will occur, in their matter-of-fact way, and their counter balancing theories when it is clear that they are not dependable.

There are moral disagreements and moral consensuses. My opponent asserted that moral disagreements would make no sense. So, I thought of actual moral disagreements that people have. And surely, they still made sense. Now, my opponent is emphasizing moral consensus on murder. Well, it is not difficult to figure out, nor is it spiritual to figure out, why there would be moral consensus against murder. Yet, my opponent's position was that an absolute universal moral law exists, and that it was given to us by God.
Absolute—having no restriction, exception, or qualification, (Merriam Webster).
Universal—including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributive without limit or exception, (Merriam Webster).
Universal—existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions, (Merriam Webster).
RE: "But people disagree if its wrong to use death as punishment under certain circumstances for murder the death penalty its not the absolute moral law itself that changes but our understanding of it."
An absolute universal moral law should not change "under certain circumstances." It should not change during considerations of the death penalty, during self defense, for the terminally ill, nor in response to military invasion. In addition to those, there are degrees of murder in our legal system, distinctions of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

RE: "Contention 2: God cannot be identified in reality—as in reliably distinguished from other distinguishable things in reality."
RE: "This is what ive been arguing for in the whole debate that god can be idenified in reality he is seen through the origin of the universe the universe itself the origin of morality and in our need for him he is seen all over in nature."
That's interpretation, not identification.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro quickly ran out of steam as Con built systematically upon the Con arguments. The argument about atoms with multiple protons was weak. Better to use other examples of natural forces producing things that appear to be designed -- crystals are a good one. Nonetheless, arguments were all Con. S&G and Conduct were tied.
Posted by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
Pro,
Study your arguments more. You did not support them well and fell into many well known traps present in God debates. Work harder next time.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
I read the first pro rebuttal and voted all Neg. If you really believe in what you are debating than you would give more than 5 sentences to stop the attacks against it. Because you are not passionate about what you debate you deserve no votes.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
First worse: "The best proof we have for God is that he said he exists"
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
I take that back, it's the second worse.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
This may have been the worst case for God I have ever seen. "Religious need argument"...ROFL!!!!
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
2. The teleological argument.

1. Any design implies an intelligent designer.
This we knows true by our experience example a watch implies an intelligent watch designer.
2. There is design in the universe.
One example of this is the fine-tuning of the universe's natural laws to allow life.
3. Theres an intelligent designer of the universe.

Thats the worst version of the teleological argument I've ever seen.
Posted by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
Honestly I'm tired of debates over the existence of god. I voted my opinion but refused to vote on the debate itself.
Posted by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
"4. Religious need argument."

Somewhere in the air, Darwin's recycled atoms are laughing. I'm sorry PreacherAndy, but your are too genuine for this site.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
All he does is perpetually reuse the same arguments - he never changes them, never replaces them, and never gives them a higher-quality defense in subsequent debates.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
PreacherAndy18000INTJTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
PreacherAndy18000INTJTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
PreacherAndy18000INTJTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
PreacherAndy18000INTJTied
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 
Vote Placed by adamhami19 6 years ago
adamhami19
PreacherAndy18000INTJTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
PreacherAndy18000INTJTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by HappyHumanist 6 years ago
HappyHumanist
PreacherAndy18000INTJTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
PreacherAndy18000INTJTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Donutdude143 6 years ago
Donutdude143
PreacherAndy18000INTJTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MCJazz77 6 years ago
MCJazz77
PreacherAndy18000INTJTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07