The Instigator
Muted
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
MilitaryAtheist
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Official Beginners Tournament: 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 5 votes the winner is...
Muted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 755 times Debate No: 27707
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

Muted

Pro

This is part of ObiWan"s Beginners Tournament.

The definitions shall be as following
God shall be defined as "a supernatural deity worshipped by humans"
Exist shall be defined as "Be found, esp. in a particular place or situation. Is real, has objective reality." (Google dictionary)

The BoP will be shared. 8000 characters, 72 hours to argue, 1 week voting period, and 4 rounds, first for acceptance. The last round shall not contain any new arguments.

The rules shall be as following
D.R.1. No trolling.
D.R.2. No Forfeiting. A forfeit equates to an auto loss. Full seven points goes to the opponent.
D.R.3. No plagiarism.
D.R.4. No vulgarities.

If Con has any changes he wishes to make, shout it out in the comments section.
MilitaryAtheist

Con

I accept the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Muted

Pro

I would like to thank the organizer of the OBDT, ObiWan, and my opponent, MilitaryAtheist. I hope we both have an informative debate.

In this debate, there are two approaches, the first is the evidential approach, and the second is the philosophical approach.

I. The Evidentialist Approach
Let us take a look at the physical evidence for a real god. Let us take the Greek god Zeus. We can find many writings, descriptions, even models of this clearly supernaturally attributed deity. [1] Within the wikipedia article alone, there are six likenesses of this deity. These are physical objects, we can go to museums to see them, most of the time we can’t touch them, due to museum rules.

It can be seen that these physical objects are real, and by logical extension, since it was a deity much worshipped, it must have been real in the minds of the worshippers as well. This means that it fulfills the first definition of “exist.” As such, it is clear from this that the resolution is affirmed strongly.

II. The Philosophical Approach
This approach fulfills the second portion of the definition for “exist.”

Let us use the well-worn and still living argument known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

P1: Everything that has a beginning must have a sufficient cause.
P2: The Universe had a beginning.
C: It has a sufficient cause.

This cause had to be eternal, spiritual, and of absolute power. How do we know that?

Well, P1 I doubt will be disputed. In fact, it can not be disputed.

P2 is observationally verified. We know that the total entropy of the Universe is increasing and will one day cause the universe to die. It is easy to see from this that the Universe cannot have had an infinite past, otherwise it would have to have an infinite future.

As such, the cause has to be eternal and spiritual, so as to not be constrained by physical principles, and it has to be of absolute power, given the vast amount of power already present in the universe.

There are several candidates, deities, worshipped by humans, all of which points to the existence of a god.

However, what if the universe indeed did not have a causal beginning, but is part of a multiverse or an oscillating universe.

Well, this only delays the problem. It does not at all explain how the first universe formed in either.

What about a random beginning? This idea is brought about by the fact of quantum dynamics. Well, quite simply, that would mean there is matter already there, because the laws of QM only controls matter. It does not explain how matter got there in the first place!


With this, I pass it over to you. This is my small opening.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
MilitaryAtheist

Con

I. The Evidentialist Approach
Let us take a look at the physical evidence for a real god. Let us take the Greek god Zeus. We can find many writings, descriptions, even models of this clearly supernaturally attributed deity.

Not evidence.



...This means that it fulfills the first definition of â€Å"exist.†As such, it is clear from this that the resolution is affirmed strongly.

No it doesn't. What you think is not reality. If I think of a Pink Horse with wings and rockets on its side, It doesn't mean it exists. Its not found in a place. The mind is not a place nor anything of the sort. Stop trolling.



P1: Everything that has a beginning must have a sufficient cause.
P2: The Universe had a beginning.
C: It has a sufficient cause.

This cause had to be eternal, spiritual, and of absolute power. How do we know that?

Well, P1 I doubt will be disputed. In fact, it can not be disputed.


Okay? I think the KCA is bad for proving God. I show later.



There are several candidates, deities, worshipped by humans, all of which points to the existence of a god.

However, what if the universe indeed did not have a causal beginning, but is part of a multiverse or an oscillating universe.

Well, this only delays the problem. It does not at all explain how the first universe formed in either.

It doesn't have to. In fact, Creationist/God did it-ist have the same problem. The only difference is that God depends on being created.

"God created himself!"

How so? If God created himself surely the universe could do the same.


What about a random beginning? This idea is brought about by the fact of quantum dynamics. Well, quite simply, that would mean there is matter already there, because the laws of QM only controls matter. It does not explain how matter got there in the first place!

Maybe matter was there already? Please tell me how God avoids these problems.











Attacks

Bear in mind it is Muted to prove God doesn't exist.

The know all paradox.


Can a God who whos the future change his future mind?

What this mean is that God cant change the future and is therefore not all powerful or all seeing.

If God changes his mind, he would see that he would change his mind, and if he wants to again, He would see that, the cycles keeps going.
Debate Round No. 2
Muted

Pro

Note that there are two forms of “exist” in this debate. The “exist” in the evidentialist approach is “Be found, esp. in a particular place or situation.”

My opponent has not refuted this approach. Extend Arguments.


My opponent tries to refute the KCA argument by postulating that God needed a beginning. Note that what is spiritual is not bound by physical laws. It thus is eternal. Most of what I said has not been addressed. Extend Arguments.

My opponent’s attack on God center around the notion that He is bound by the dimension of time. That which is eternal and spiritual cannot be bound by time at all. My opponent’s attacks does not work.

SInce my opponent has not responded to most of what I wrote, this reply needs be short. In conclusion, Extend Arguments!
MilitaryAtheist

Con

MilitaryAtheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MilitaryAtheist

Con

One of tha top billin challenges ta tha human intellect, over tha centuries, has been ta explain how tha fvck tha complex, improbable appearizzle of design up in tha universe arises.
Da natural temptation is ta attribute tha appearizzle of design ta actual design itself. In tha case of a man-made artefact like fuckin a watch, tha designa straight-up was a intelligent engineer. It is temptin ta apply tha same stupid-a$s logic ta a eye and a wing, a spider and a person.
Da temptation be a gangbangin' false one, cuz tha designa hypothesis immediately raises tha larger problem of whoz a$s designed tha designer. Da whole problem our crazy-a$s asses started up wit was tha problem of explainin statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution ta postulate somethang even mo' improbable. Our thugged-out as$es need a "crane," not a "skyhook;" fo' only a cold-a$s lil crane can do tha bidnizz of hittin dat shizzle up gradually n' plausibly from simplicitizzle ta otherwise improbable complexity.
Da most ingenious n' bangin crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. Darwin n' his successors gotz shown how tha fvck livin creatures, wit they spectacular statistical improbabilitizzle n' appearizzle of design, gotz evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. Our thugged-out asses can now safely say dat tha illusion of design up in livin creatures is just that-an illusion.
Our thugged-out asses don't yet gotz a equivalent crane fo' physics. Right back up in yo muthafuckin a$s. Some kind of multiverse theory could up in principle do fo' physics tha same stupid-a$s explanatory work as Darwinizzle do fo' biologizzle. This kind of explanation is supaficially less satisfyin than tha biological version of Darwinism, cuz it makes heavier demandz on luck. But tha anthropic principle entitlez our asses ta postulate far mo' luck than our limited human intuizzle is laid back with.
Our thugged-out asses should not give up hope of a funky-a$s mo' betta crane arisin up in physics, somethang as bangin as Darwinizzle is fo' biologizzle. But even up in tha absence of a straight fVckin satisfyin crane ta match tha biological one, tha relatively weak cranes our crazy-a$s asses gotz at present are, when abetted by tha anthropic principle, self-evidently mo' betta than tha self-defeatin skyhook hypothesiz of a intelligent designer.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
MutedMilitaryAtheistTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: I love rap
Vote Placed by Hemanth_Nambiar 4 years ago
Hemanth_Nambiar
MutedMilitaryAtheistTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
MutedMilitaryAtheistTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
MutedMilitaryAtheistTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
MutedMilitaryAtheistTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF