The Instigator
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Clash
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

It is Probable That God Exists.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Clash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,258 times Debate No: 26873
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

emospongebob527

Con

I would like to thank Clash for his willingness to debate this topic and I hope we have fun.

My resolution: It is not probable that God exists.

Rules-
Please no trolling or semantics.


Definitions-

it- an impersonal verb that expresses a condition or action without reference to an agent.

is- present 3d singular of be.

probable- supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof.

that- the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation.

God- The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe.

exists- to have real being whether material or spiritual.

Round Structure-
1. Acceptance
2. Main Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals
5. Conclusion/Resolution Reached

The BOP will be shared.
Clash

Pro

Accepted. As Pro, I will affirm the resolution by arguing that it is probable that God exist, meaning that it is more likely than not that God exist. I would also like to note that I will not be arguing for a particular God, like for example the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic God. Rather, I will be arguing for the existence of a maximally great being with great properties such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc. With that being said, I'm looking forward to a nice and fruitful debate.

I now turn it over to Con for his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Clash

Pro

Unfortunately, for one or another reason, Con forfeited his second round; the round in which he should have presented his arguments. However, since my opponent is new to this site and so on, I will be nice to him and let this go. Let's start from this round.

Now, in order to prove my case that it is more probable than not that God exist, I will give and defend one argument. This argument will be the kalam cosmological argument.


The Kalam Cosmological Argument


The kalam cosmological argument goes as follows:

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.


Premise 1


The statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is a self-evident truth. If it wasn't, you would see things popping out here and there uncaused. But that clearly doesn't happen. Imagine if we saw a dog suddenly appear on an empty place. Would it be reasonable to say, "Hi, dog. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" Of course not. We would look for a cause, assuming that there has to be one. Indeed, no one believes that things can just pop into being for no reason at all. Premise 1 is a metaphysical principle: A being cannot come from non-being; something cannot come into existence uncaused from nothing. It is thus absurd to say that the universe should pop into being uncaused out of nothing.[1] William Lane Craig nicely and correctly writes,

"To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic. Nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause. But if we make the universe an exception to (1), we have got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever." [2]

Premise 2

This premise is supported by both philosophy and science.

1. Philosophy

Philosophically speaking, if the universe never had a beginning, then that would mean that there must be an infinite history of past events in duration. However, the concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world and cannot exist in reality, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make sense. The following two examples by Hamza Tzortzis clearly show the absurdity of an infinite history of past events:

"1. Say you have an infinite number of balls, if I take 2 balls away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense? Well, there should be two less than infinity, and if there is, then we should be able to count how many balls you have. But this is impossible, because the infinite is just an idea and doesn’t exist in the real world. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said,

"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."

2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldn’t. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events to. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite history of past events." [3]

Simply put, one cannot form an actually infinite collection of things by successively adding one member after another. Thus, since one can always add one more before arriving at infinity, it is impossible to reach actual infinity.

Moreover, if the universe never began to exist, then the present moment could never arrive. However, since the present moment has obviously arrived, it logically follows that the universe is finite in the past and began to exist. [4]

2. Science

Scientifically speaking, we know from cosmology that the universe had a beginning some 14 billion years ago with a cosmic event commonly known as the "Big Bang". John Gribbin, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University, correctly states:

"…the discovery of the century, in cosmology at least, was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the Universe is not eternal, static, and unchanging." [5]

Alex Vilenkin himself, one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists, writes:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." [6]

If Con goes to school (something he probably do), then I don't think he will dispute this fact. However, if he chooses to argue against the big bang theory as being false, then I will happily refute all his objections against the big bang theory when I'm going to defend my argument.

But why God?

Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Thus, since the universe began to exist, it has a cause. However, why should we think that this cause is God? There are several reasons as to why we should think that this cause is God. Let me just give six of them:

1. This cause must be unimaginable powerful as it bought the whole universe into existence, if not omnipotent.

2. This cause must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial, because time, space and matter began at the "Big Bang" (or at the moment the universe came into being).

3. This cause must transcend both matter and time because it created matter and time.

4. Because it is not in time, this cause must therefore be changeless.

5. This cause must itself be uncaused, because if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place. For example, if our universe followed another cause, and that cause followed another cause, and this went on ad infinitum, our universe wouldn't exist in the first place. Thus, we have to posit an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes.

And indeed, while it is possible that the creation of our universe was caused by another universe, or something else like an angel or demon, it still would have to have a cause behind that one. Hence, an infinite cause is the only way to break the regress of causes.

6. Lastly, this cause must be personal; for how else could a impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect? As William Lane Craig rightly states, "For the effect of the universe to begin in time the cause must be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time." [7]

In summary, this cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, changeless, uncaused, personal, and unimaginable powerful - if not omnipotent. This cause must also transcend both matter and time. Indeed, this cause is a being which basically everyone takes to be God. Given the kalam cosmological argument, we can rightly conclude that God exist.

The resolution is affirmed.

_______


Sources

[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 274.

[2] William Lane Craig and James Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in Craig's and Moreland's, "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology", page 182.

[3] http://www.hamzatzortzis.com... The Qur'anic Argument for God's Existence by Hamza Tzortzis.

[4] http://www.leaderu.com... The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe by William Lane Craig.

[5] John Gribbin, In the Beginning: The Birth of the Living Universe, page 19.

[6] Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universe, page 176.

[7] William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, page 145.
Debate Round No. 2
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Clash

Pro

Extend my argument.
Debate Round No. 3
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Clash

Pro

Extend my argument.
Debate Round No. 4
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Clash

Pro

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Yeah, it's very unfortunate. But hey, free win to me! You cannot argue against that...
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Sorry to see that emo keeps forfeiting.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
emospongebob527ClashTied
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 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: CONDUCT: Con forfeited without a reason. That shows bad conduct. SPELLING: Fine grammar on both sides. ARGUMENTS: Pro's arguments are completely unrefuted. SOURCES: Sources are not necessary for a debate like this, but as Pro cited many, it shows he has done more homework and put forth more effort in understanding the subject.
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
emospongebob527ClashTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
emospongebob527ClashTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to really do anything.