The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
black_squirrel
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Mini-Debate: God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
black_squirrel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,060 times Debate No: 43208
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro


God: Personal being limited neither by time nor space.


1. Everything that begins to exist had a cause.


2. The universe began to exist.


3. Thus, the universe has a cause.


This cause is God, for space & time are aspects of the universe. Space & time can't be created by something that lies within their contraints.


black_squirrel

Con

God?

I first take issue with your definition of God. If you define God as a being, then God is and thus he exists.
To have any interesting debate, we should start by not assuming that God exists.

The logical argument

I agree that 3 is a logical conclusion of 1 and 2. But I diagree with 2. The universe may have existed forever.
Even the big bang theory does not say that the universe had a beginning.

Also, even if we accept 3, we cannot conclude that a personal God is responsible for the universe.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I don't assume God exists.

The universe cannot have lasted forever; this would imply infinite time, any point in which would be impossible to reach, since it would take infinity to get there from any position. Our travel from point to point, however, demonstrates that time is not infinite.

God must be personal, for free choice is required to create the universe. Else, the cause would cause the universe by merely existing, which means the universe is as old as the cause, which makes no sense.

black_squirrel

Con

I do not see any problem with infinite, unbounded time. The life expectancy of humans is finite, so we cannot reach every point in time. It would not be so hard to imagine though, that there is no upper or lower bound for time.

As I argued before, the universe may not have begun to exist. But if it did begin to exist, and this existence did have a cause,
then this cause may not be a creation, a deliberate design of the universe.
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

  • I do not see any problem with infinite, unbounded time.”

According to the standard big bang model of cosmology, time began together with the universe in a singularity approximately 14 billion years ago.1

Do you concede to taking a position contrary to the most accepted one in modern science?

1http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu...

black_squirrel

Con

Your source does not have a PhD in Physics, and is not more qualified that I am. Whether there was actually a singularity is still being speculated in Physics. For example, Here is a Cambridge Physicist who disagrees:

http://www.wired.com...

Even if the singularity did exist. Time may have existed for all t>0 but not at t=0. So then there still would not be a beginning of time.
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro



  • "Time may have existed for all t>0 but not at t=0."


That doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't a birth of time. There was also no time for all t<0 so the first point after t=0 marks the beginning of time.


So a beginning of time existed.


The cause has to be personal, for if it's choice didn't cause, then it's existance caused! So just by existing, it caused the universe, but this would make the universe's birth the same as the cause's birth, which is illogical.


So the cause has to be personal.


black_squirrel

Con

There is not first time after t=0, because there is no smallest positive number. Indeed, if s is the smallest positive number, then s/2 is positive and even smaller and we have a contradiction.

You that the cause of the universe, if it exists, has to a personal God or "existence". This seems like a false dichotomy to me.

Now I'll attack your first premise. The law of cause and effect is part of the universe itself, and cannot be used to show that the universe has a cause outside of the universe.
Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

s/2 is positive and even smaller and we have a contradiction”

A unit of Planck Time is the smallest unit of Time.(1)

Regarding choice, it's not a false dichotomy. I'd like to see an alternative.

Cause & Effect isn't just part of the universe, it's part of logic, too. Logic also says nothing can cause itself.

(1)http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...


black_squirrel

Con

Time is not considered discrete, even though if it is impossible to measure changes over time periods smaller than 1 Planck time unit. Near the singularity, quantum mechanics as well as gravity plays an important role. Quantum mechanics is inherently nondeterministic. This undercuts your first premise, that "everything has a cause".

conclusion
Whether time has a beginning has not been settled yet in physics. The kind of God my opponents wants to prove is a metaphysical artifact not a personal God.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
How are people saying I assume God exists for this debate? That's stupid! The DEBATE is whether or not he exists. Defining God as "being" does NOT assume he exists. One may say "a supernatural being is a logical absurdity and therefore doesn't exist"... that is one possible argument against the existence of God.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Evidently many philosophers don't understand time, or they see time from the human delusion of time as being something of substance, which it is not.

Time is infinitely and randomly occurring throughout ours and likely the many other universes in the infinity of space. Every single change or movement in every universe in space, initiates it's own instance of time.

Time can only not exist if there is no changes anywhere in space, not even a wobble of a subatomic particle or dark matter particle. Not even a thought of a God, because a thought needs time. God thinks to itself, I will create a universe, oops that thought took time, therefore time had to already exist.

Humans, even Einstein got too carried away with the human delusion of time.
Humans only understand time from their own reference, which is limited.
Time is a function of Change.
Change means a movement occurred.
Time is a function of movement.
Too many physicists and philosophers have it the utterly wrong way around and state that change is a function of time, which is baloney,.
Time only exists because of movement.
No movement in any universe, not even the movements of those Black Holes that likely collided and caused the Big Bang. Yes, that is a valid theory on how our universe was created, and those Black Holes originated from the death of other universes, the process has been going on for infinity.
If there was no Time, our Universe would not Exist, because no forces/movement that started the Big Bang could occur, not even a thought of a God could occur without movement/change/time.
We have an infinite number of random time instances in our body, they are mostly random, time is a blur of random events.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
yeaaa i wasnt supposed to comment in here until after voting period is over woops plz report my comment
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Read the first premise carefully. It implies that God didn't begin to exist, for he always was.
Posted by Abnewstein 3 years ago
Abnewstein
1. Everything that begins to exist had a cause.

2. The GOD began to exist.

3. Thus, the GOD has a cause.

What caused the GOD to exist?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
GarretKadeDupreblack_squirrelTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes that the definition Pro gave for God as a being clearly makes Gods existence evitable, but then for the sake of debate asks Pro to assume God doesn't exist. Po never conceded to any such thing, therefore Con conceded first and foremost. Also the rest of the debate is irrelevant and off topic to the resolution, regardless if the universe always existed, which I don't believe it did, it makes no difference to the outcome of God's existence in this debate. Scrappy debate but a clear win for PRO. Also Pro gets sources.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
GarretKadeDupreblack_squirrelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off badly, applying assumptions as proof. It is not very convincing. I was hoping for some better references, but blogs are not convincing either. Time is change or movement, so long as something, even a subatomic particle moves, time exists. If a God did exist, just the motion of a thought (change in thought pattern) in the mind of God would need time to produce it. So time must have existed prior to any God, otherwise God would not be able to think about creating a universe. I think Pro needs to do more research before mounting such a debate topic. Pro may win the debate, but, as we know, philosophically, winning a debate is not a measure of correctness, it's a measure of how many friends they have on their side and public opinion, and public opinion is only too often Wrong! So Time existed prior to God, otherwise God could not
Vote Placed by kawaii_crazy 3 years ago
kawaii_crazy
GarretKadeDupreblack_squirrelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro and Con gave remarkably great arguments, something rarely found on DDO from both sides. Pro gave more sources, thus getting my vote.
Vote Placed by Kreakin 3 years ago
Kreakin
GarretKadeDupreblack_squirrelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument has not met his BOP in any way. Inference to the exsistence of God is not proof. Pro had lost before he started as he cannot provide proof to his resolution.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
GarretKadeDupreblack_squirrelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: My main problem with this debate is how incredibly off-topic it strays. Pro provides an initial argument, which is refuted under two claims: A: Premise 2 is wrong. B: Premise 3 does not imply God. By Round 5, Pro's arguments were unstructured and all over the place, making it difficult to know which contention he was refuting. Because of this, I give S&G to Con, not because his arguments were good, but because they were somewhat structured. In the end though, neither debater can earn arguments because Pro wasn't even trying to refute Con's central point, but Con thought it was substantial enough to repeat himself over and over and call it a rebuttal. Sources to Pro, because a source doesn't need a "PhD" to be considered valid. It's still better than a personal opinion.