The Instigator
Lickdafoot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

It is more likely than not that God exists

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...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,800 times Debate No: 22454
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

Lickdafoot

Pro

I thank F-16 for engaging me in this debate!

It is more likely than not that God exists.

God: an omnipresent, omnipotent creator of the universe.


First Round: Acceptance, clarifications
Second Round: Opening Arguments and rebuttals
Third Round: Rebuttals, closing arguments

F-16, if there is anything that you would like to change with the debate, let me know before accepting.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

This is my first time doing a "god" debate so I thank Lickdafoot for the challenge and accept with enthusiasm. I also suggest that we use the normal dictionary definitions of the words "omnipresent," "omnipotent," "creator," and "universe."

Omnipresent: Being present everywhere at once
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Creator: One that creates
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


Universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole
http://bit.ly...


Seems like this will be a short debate with only two actual debating rounds. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Lickdafoot

Pro

I will be proving that the universe was created by a God that is omnipotent and omnipresent. The creation of the universe and the creation of laws are all consistent with a designer.

The Beginning of the Universe

We know that the Universe has a beginning. The Big Bang model places the universe at around 13 billion years old. [1] Also, according to the law of Thermodynamics, the Universe would be in a state of dissolution if it was truly infinite.

Anything that began to exist must have had a cause. Therefore, the universe, and all of the laws held within, had a cause. This cause it what we know to be God. Because our universal laws depend on this cause, and not the other way around, God is omnipotent and omnipresent.

Fine-Tuned Universe

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron....The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

- Stephen Hawking

The laws of the universe are designed exponentially succinct in order to sustain the universe, and life on the universe.

Here are a few examples:

If the charge of the proton and the neutron were not exactly equal, there would be no hydrogen, and thus no galaxies. [2]

If the amount of stars in the universe was reduced from 10 to the power of 22 to 10 to the power of 11, the cycle of expansion on contraction would have lasted about only one year. [3]

The forces of repulsion and extraction had not been exact, the universe would have either collapsed in on itself, or splattered in such a way that matter would have never united. [4]

The odds against the universe randomly supporting life are so numerous that it is more likely to be done through intelligent design than spontaneity.

Laws of the Universe

The laws of the universe are true, predictable, and consistent. Such laws as the law of relativity, the law of polarity, and the law of cause and effect are unseen forces that have a grip on everything in the universe. Furthermore, the laws of logic and morality exist in the world even though they are immaterial. If we lived in a world without God, it would be impossible to prove anything because there would be no objective logic, morality, or science. Consistent, non-material, objective laws have no meaning in a world that is materially random.

Conclusion

Without an omnipotent, omnipresent creator, the universe would have had no cause to creation, minimal chance of supporting life, and no universal, objective laws. Therefore, it is likely that there is a cause to the universe, God.


Sources:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://www.powertochange.ie...
http://www.religion-online.org...
http://www.creationofuniverse.com...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

I'll combine my arguments and my opponent's since they overlap quite a bit.


1) Anything that begins to exist must have a cause

My opponent says that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. However, she doesn't specify why this is the case. She also claims that this cause is what we know to be god. This is a tautology as she is attempting to define god into existence. No proof was given as to why anything that exists must have a cause or why that cause is defined as god. God was defined as an "omnipresent and omnipotent creator." There is no link between "god" and the "cause" which my opponent hasn't proven exists at all.


2) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

My opponent refers to "the law of thermodynamics." There are however four laws of thermodynamics: the zeroth law, the first law, the second law, and the third law [2]. I assume that my opponent is referring to the second law as she states that the Universe would be in a state of dissolution if it were truly infinite. However, that is a misrepresentation of the second law which I copied below:

"The entropy of any closed system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Closed systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium - the state of maximum entropy of the system - in a process known as thermalization." [1]

S = k ln W

This is commonly known as Boltzmann's Entropy equation. It talks about a specific type of system: a closed system with total energy E and tells us how to calculate the Entropy S of that closed system in terms of microscopic particles. Suppose we take a container of gas and consider all the gas in that container, each molecule in that container will have a specific position and a specific velocity collectively known as its "state" and the collection of the states of all molecules at any moment is called the miscrostate of the system. The microstate is constrained by two things: first, the positions of the molecules are constrained to lie within the container (which has volume V); and second, each molecule's velocity determines its energy, and the sum of the energies of all the molecules must equal E, the total energy of the gas. [4]

The number of different microstates that can fulfill the Energy and Volume requirements is given by W in the equation above which is the measure of disorder. The only conclusion we can deduce from the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is that the larger the W is, greater is the uncertainty in what specific microstate will be observed when we (conceptually) measure at a predetermined moment. [4]


3) Fine Tuning fallcy

There are many physical parameters in the Universe such as the Speed of Light, Planck's constant, and Newton's constant. These are arbitrary constants which establish systems of units. The only meaningful parameters are dimensionless ratios [5].

A common mistake made in assuming that the Universe is fine-tuned is to vary just one variable and keep the others constant. However, a change in one parameter may be compensated by a change in another. For instance, my opponent says that if the number of stars were reduced by a massive amount, the cycle of expansion and contraction would only last a year. However, if the mass in each of those stars were increased, it would compensate for the reduced number. My opponent kept all variables constant and only varied individual variables where as in reality, they are all interdependent on each other.

4) Laws of the Universe

My opponent claims that the laws of the Universe are "true, predictable, and constant." However, we constantly learn new things about these laws so they may not necessarily be constant. For instance, Newton's laws long considered to be true are now know to only be applicable in limited ranges and can't be used at very high speeds or very small scales [7].

Furthermore, my opponent claims that morality cannot exist without god. She however provides no reasoning why god is a prerequisite for having objective laws.


Sources
1) http://rationalwiki.org...
2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
3) http://www.strongatheism.net...
4) http://www.talkorigins.org...
5) http://www.colorado.edu...
6) http://www.newscientist.com...
7) http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion#Importance_and_range_of_validity
Debate Round No. 2
Lickdafoot

Pro

Lickdafoot forfeited this round.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

This is probably what my opponent was thinking:

http://cdn.memegenerator.net...

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Give me points, people :P
Posted by Lickdafoot 4 years ago
Lickdafoot
okay, sure.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Four with an acceptance round or three regular rounds are good. Can we wait till next week though. I am going to be really busy after tomorrow.
Posted by Lickdafoot 4 years ago
Lickdafoot
lmao drafter.

f-16, are three debate rounds good? or you want four?
Posted by Lickdafoot 4 years ago
Lickdafoot
yeah, let's do a rematch.
Posted by Lickdafoot 4 years ago
Lickdafoot
OMG!!! WTF!! I thought there were like 6 hours left :(
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Do you want to do it again? I thought that 2 rounds of debating was too short anyways.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Wish there was another round. 2 rounds of actual debating is quite short. Good luck on your next round though.
Posted by BlackVoid 4 years ago
BlackVoid
You are God. F-16 wants you dead so that technically God won't exist and he will win the debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
LickdafootF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Viper-King 4 years ago
Viper-King
LickdafootF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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: He was much more convincing and barely convinced me to vote for him. I also LOVED the Meme at the end so F-16 destroys his ex LDF.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
LickdafootF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
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: Forfeit