Rematch: Does God exist
Debate Rounds (4)
I will accept. However one thing. I don't have burden of proof. You do because you are making a positive claim. Like I said in our last debate. That's like me claiming Batman exists and when you say prove batman exist I say prove he doesn't. You can't disprove a negative. you have to prove god exist because you are making the claim he does. I am taking the position of I don't know if god exists or not but I don't believe he does. Just like me saying. I don't know if the men in black really exist but I don't believe they do. So in summary You have burden of proof not me. Please present your first argument. Also we have previously debated which I won eight to zero. If would like to check out that debate The link is right here.
Good luck to qwzx.
The material world we know is a world of change. As a 12 year old boy, I am 5'7", but I was not always that height. A great oak tree grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.
As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.
Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.
Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will""something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.
Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.
The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by "God."
Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.
The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause. This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.
-The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things.
-The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.
-The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or a teacher at a school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.
Then you go with the argument from causality. You say something had to cause the universe. Again what caused God.
The argument from design only works if you prove god which you have failed to do. Otherwise I could easily say nature behaves according to natural laws we have observed. Gravity for example is a natural law that helps shape nature.
The Ontological argument is just stupid. You basically said human minds aren't perfect therefore there must be a perfect mind. You don't prove that you just sort of declare it.
The Morality argument is easy to debunk. You say all humans seek to do good and avoid evil. Really ask Ted Bundy if he had a problem doing evil. Ask Hitler if he had a problem killing six million jews. Why do we have laws, the military, prison, and self help books. Easy we have laws for two reasons. One is for the good of society. If everyone runs around murdering each other that hurts society and hurts are ability as a species to survive. Also for self interested reasons. For example I don't want to be raped so lets make it a rule people can't rape me. Then you say the Atheistic view is incompatible. Which is odd seeing as not all atheists have the same moral view. You say the theistic view is so it must be correct. Really which view is that exactly. The Theistic view of Ivan the Terrible who slaughtered thousands for not agreeing with his god. How about the Theistic view of Hitler of in his book talked about doing gods work? Is that the view you mean. No because many different theists have many different views. Because morality is subjective. If there was one god wouldn't everyone have the same morality. Not everyone does I'll prove it. I don't support burning someone alive. But people in ISIS do. Need more proof I have a challenge for you. Go up to ten people and ask them this question. " You're favorite Dog that you love and Your neighbor that you hated and despise are both drowning in a pool. You only have time to save one who do you save? I've ask 4 people that and two said the dog and two said the neighbor. Go ask it to ten people I bet you wouldn't get the same answer.
The idea that God created time, along with the physical universe, is not just some wacky modern Christian interpretation of the Bible. Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, in his Hortatory Address to the Greeks, said that Plato got the idea that time was created along with the universe from Moses:
"And from what source did Plato draw the information that time was created along with the heavens? For he wrote thus: 'Time, accordingly, was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their dissolution should take place.' Had he not learned this from the divine history of Moses?"1
God exists in timeless eternity
How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence. Beyond the Cosmos: What Recent Discoveries in Astrophysics Reveal about the Glory and Love of God. God exists in multiple dimensions of time. The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created. Why can't the universe be eternal? The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempts to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe. What does science say about time? When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation (i.e., the Big Bang).3 In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time (see The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning). Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe. God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).
Do you seriously believe "nobody plus nothing equals everything"!
"The Ontological argument is just stupid."
That is not very civil in a debate...
Name one thing that humanity has done that is completely perfect...
It is just illogical to say that we can imagine something that we have never seen before perfectly. Have you tried describing colors to a blind person? It is impossible to do so where he can see and understand the colors fully.
In your attempted debunking of the morality argument, you only focused on humanity's lack of morality.
If there was no moral then, why would rape be frowned upon? There needed to be a perfect being to tell humanity that rape is a big NO. Laws were made to enforce that sense of morality.
"Theistic view of Hitler of in his book talked about doing gods work?"
You do understand that he, Stalin, Benito Mussolini were atheists right? Hitler used religion as an excuse. Stalin was an atheist and killed 20 MILLION PEOPLE. Might I also add that there is a fine line between extremism, terrorism and religion. There is also a fine line between passive atheism and Stalin's destruction of the church and mass murder of theists. There is another fine line between normal people and insane people. You can't bring up a small minority group of theists that are terrorists and proclaim that all theists are like that. If you want to do that, then atheism should be outlawed. Do you think that there should be a secret police that can kill you on suspicion. Stalin thought that was ok...he was also a atheist. Morality is indeed subjective but all NORMAL people ( not terrorists or other insane people) have a sense of morality.
1.We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.
2.Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility.
3.Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
4.Then right now nothing would exist. For
5.If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed"literally"nothing at all. But
6.From nothing, nothing comes. So...
7.The universe could not have begun.
8.But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But
9.If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So
10.There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
11.Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.
12.This absolutely necessary being is God.
Question1: Even though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still happens to exist, even though it was possible for it to go out of existence?
Reply: The two cases are not really parallel. To step outside your house on a given day is something that you may or may not choose to do. But if nonbeing is a real possibility for you, then you are the kind of being that cannot last forever. In other words, the possibility of nonbeing must be built-in, "programmed," part of your very constitution, a necessary property. And if all being is like that, then how could anything still exist after the passage of an infinite time? For an infinite time is every bit as long as forever. So being must have what it takes to last forever, that is, to stay in existence for an infinite time. Therefore there must exist within the realm of being something that does not tend to go out of existence.
Mariodude34500 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff all seven points in round three.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.