The Instigator
coolcatdog23
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
usernamesareannoying
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Religious

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 2 votes the winner is...
usernamesareannoying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,076 times Debate No: 75379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

coolcatdog23

Con

Should everyone believe in god? Please accept this challenge if u are a willing to compete
usernamesareannoying

Pro

Prologue

Since the resolution was left pretty vague, I base the guidelines of this debate from what my opponent said in her opening round - "should everyone believe in God?" So therefore, as Pro, I should show that people should believe in God. I define God as "the creator of the universe".


Positive Case


How to fulfill my BoP


I will fulfill my burden of proof if I can show that the following logical format is sound:


P1: God exists

P2: If God exists, then people should believe in God

C: Ergo, it is prudent that people should believe in God



A1 The Cosmological Argument from Contingency


P1: All physical entities has contingent existence.

P2: If the universe is defined as "all space-time, matter and energy", the universe has contingent existence

P3: All contingent entities are the universe, so therefore the universe has contingent existence

P4: If the universe is contingent, there must be something that is non-contingent to prevent reductio ad infinitum

P5: The non-contingent being must be transcendental, because the being cannot create space-time, while existing in space and time.

P6: If all physical entities are contingent and the causer isn't contingent, the causer must be non-physical

C: Therefore, a being that is non-contingent, transcendent and non-physical must exist.


Defense of premise one:

Premise one is a known posteriori - all physical entities has contingent existence, viz. all entities in the observable universe has a cause to exist e.g.. the expansion of space-time is contingent upon dark energy. (1)


Defense of premise two:

The universe is defined as "all matter, energy and space-time as a whole". (2) Since the universe is what was just listed, it evades the parts whole fallacy as it is not composed of it, it is all matter, energy and space-time. If premise one is valid, the validity of this premise logically follows.


Defense of premise three:

Premise three is also dependent upon the first two premises.


Defense of premise four:

Reductio ad infinitum is a logical incoherency proposed by Aristotle. (3) The fallacy rests upon Aristotle's notion that everything must have a cause. If Pro wishes to refute this postulate, then she must refute Aristotle's intuitive notion. As already noted, everything is contingent upon something, yet there would logically require something that is non-contingent to spark the chain of everything else existing viz. if we were to regress through time, to the first notable event in the universe (the big bang), there must be something to cause that to happen; to cause the universe to exist etc.


Defense of premise five:

The cause of the existence of space-time cannot be within space-time, so the creator must be transcendental.


Defense of premise six:

This is a tautology as long as the assertion is true.

<br />The uncaused cause in the diagram would be

Therefore, the causer is transcendental, non-physical and non-contingent. Now, how many contenders are there to fulfill this position? None really; except God.


Since I have proven that God exists, my BoP syllogism is sound, hence my BoP is fulfilled.


Conclusion

I wish my opponent good luck, I am too a non-believer in God.




(1) http://science.nasa.gov...
(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(3) https://glosbe.com...
Debate Round No. 1
coolcatdog23

Con

How do you know god exists if there is no sign of him/her anywhere? Researchers do not have a single fragment of proof if god exists or not, no documentary except made up myths. Also, the bible is false as well according to : http://www.truthbeknown.com...
"Have you read the Bible cover to cover?" Actually, I have, and the hypocrite who asks such a question obviously hasn't, because the Bible is full of dreadful stories about genocide, murder, adultery, incest, deceit, greed, arrogance, megalomania, sexual perversion, and all sorts of despicable behavior. On second thought, perhaps the people who ask such a question HAVE read the Bible, as we are sure it creates dementia.
usernamesareannoying

Pro

I'm replying on my iPad, so I cannot use the features of RTF.

In this round, my opponent says that we cannot prove something without physically observing it. However, in the last round, I provided an entire argument doing the opposite, which my opponent dropped. I extend that, by the way. My opponent opines that if we cannot prove something exists, beyond posteriori proof, it cannot exist. This argument assumes the following syllogism:

P1: Things that we cannot observe cannot exist
P2: God cannot be observed
C: Ergo, God cannot exist

As we can see, Con has not provided evidence for premise one viz. Con commits the bare assertion fallacy.

The rest of Con's arguments are red herrings, as she is arguing against the Christian God which obviously does not pertain to the resolution. Nevertheless, I will rebut those as well.

Pro opines that the Bible is false, but the source she uses to corroborate it does not debunk the Bible; it only cites the person's interpretations of the Bible. So no. The Bible is not false.

She states that the Bible contains morally bad stories, but for this to be permissible, she must prove objective morality exists, so the stories can be deemed as objectively bad.

Over to you.
Debate Round No. 2
coolcatdog23

Con

coolcatdog23 forfeited this round.
usernamesareannoying

Pro

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mwedwards 2 years ago
mwedwards
I would definitely vote Pro. Can't because I do not fulfill the requirements to vote. Sorry.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 2 years ago
usernamesareannoying
What are you doing?
Posted by sarah.zhang123 2 years ago
sarah.zhang123
This is getting way out of hand.
Posted by sarah.zhang123 2 years ago
sarah.zhang123
I don't want to be involved in a religious argument.
#nowayhosah
Posted by sarah.zhang123 2 years ago
sarah.zhang123
#YAY
I'm actually kind of glad nobody has challenged me.
Posted by sarah.zhang123 2 years ago
sarah.zhang123
Somebody want to challenge me? Anyone?
Posted by tschuk 2 years ago
tschuk
Funny how we have a Hindu over here trying to prove God doesn't exist.

Con, have you even looked at your religion? I highly doubt blue elephant gods that have orgies could be considered moral, or to even exist.
Posted by OverLordGoldDragon 2 years ago
OverLordGoldDragon
@usernameannoying nevermind.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 2 years ago
usernamesareannoying
@OverLordGoldDragon, I am glad I was here to help boost your testosterone. Although, if you want to criticise my grammar, please set a good example with a grammatically accurate response yourself.

But yes, I would love to debate you. But, I would love to take the Con side. Those are the conditions.
Posted by OverLordGoldDragon 2 years ago
OverLordGoldDragon
@usernamyannoying I'll debate you if Con won't. But next time perhaps try to fix grammar instead of trying to incorporate fancy terminology.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
coolcatdog23usernamesareannoyingTied
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 forfeited a round of the debate. Forfeits are generally considered unacceptable conduct in all debate settings. Pro nonetheless graciously extended their arguments instead of exploiting the chance to argue further, thus equalizing rounds and displaying excellent conduct. Thus, I penalize Con for their forfeiture and award the conduct point to Pro. Pro was able to show that if God likely exists, religion is logical and should be there. Pro used Aquinas' cosmological argument from contingency to show deductively that God exists, and this deductive argument was entirely dropped by Con, who said "God has not been observed, thus he doesn't exist." Pro accurately criticized this as extreme empiricism, which Con then had to justify under a shared BoP, or would be making bare assertions. Con's forfeit of the final round hindered their ability to address Pro's rebuttal or argument from contingency. Thus, arguments and conduct to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
coolcatdog23usernamesareannoyingTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round.