The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points


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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 292 times Debate No: 72736
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Round 1: acceptance

I will have the burden of proof


I suppose I'll acceot. Best of luck
Debate Round No. 1


1. The Argument from Change

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.


The argument from change rebuttal:
In the second paragraph you say
God doesn't give us this. We get height(using the 12 year old 5'7 example) by genetics. We get our muscle mass not by God giving it to us, but by working out and strengthening our muscles. Everything we have is because of genetics. We all have genetic potential, just like the oak tree you use has the potential to become big from the little tree. We are like that tree metaphorically speaking. We go from an embryo to a fetus to a child to a teen to an adult to an elder. We all the genetic potential tells us how we are going to be. Using the punnet square and our knowledge of genetics, it's simple to see if we will grow past 5'7. We have the genetics to be great, but if we don't do it, we won't reach that potential. For example, if you can jump a great height, but you don't practice and use that ability, that ability will deteriorate. If you bench 225, but you don't workout in months, your max will go down. The change isn't God, it's us. We determine our fate. We determine our own destiny. We are born and are made up of chromosomes from both parents, and all have special attributes based off the genetics we had inherited. It's what we do with them that determines it. We are the change, not God. All these changes can be explained by science. Molecules, chemicals and chemical reactions, atoms, cells, chromosomes, all of these things and more that makes up everything in our world explain the changes of us. Science can explain the change of earth, and the universe.
Science is the change, not God.

The argument of design rebuttal:
Nature does not need a designer. Do I create a tree? No, seeds are covered by layers of dirt and grow due to sunlight and water. Water is made up of a chemical formula of H20. Oxygen is a necessary chemical needed for a things to live and grow. Dirt is made up of different chemicals compounds. Light is an integration of electromagnetic waves. A seed is an embryonic plant enclosed in a protective outer covering called the seed coat, usually with some stored food. All of these things that create a simple tree are not made by a interior design, but by science, just like everything else in nature.

The moral argument rebuttal:
You don't need God or the bible to have morals. While the Stone Age cannibal may just seem like a killer, he knew what it was doing. It did it because of survival instinct. We still today show we have that instinct. What about the people who kill people in self defense. What about Aron Ralston, who amputated his right forearm to escape from a dislodged boulder. All of these show we do what we need to survive, and that's what the Stone Age man was doing. Tell me, as an atheist, one moral you have that I can't have? Their is none. God doesn't give us morals. We learn morals by our enviroment, listening to people like your parents,teachers, even children cartoon characters telling you what is wrong and right, reading children books with MORALS in them, and seeing acts of sins and seeing how people react and seeing people doing good and how they react. Mostly, it's common sense. You mean to tell me if I didn't have morals I wouldn't know it's wrong to kill a man? That's ridiculous. It's not God telling us it's bad, it's psychology. It's things we have learned from experiences we have had or seen, and once again mostly common sense.
Debate Round No. 2


Key illustration: DNA. Containing the 3-billion-letter code inside our cells (of four recurring letters, or chemicals actually, the names of which start with these letters), it's a virtual library of instruction manuals for assembling and operating all the cells of the body.

A few years ago, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Anthony Flew, came to the conclusion that God exists based on DNA evidence.

"What I think the DNA material has done," he wrote, "is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.

"It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence" ( There Is a God , 2007, p. 75).

In his book The Case for a Creator , former atheist Lee Strobel writes: "The six-feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one-hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made. Cambridge-educated Stephen Meyer demonstrated that no hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (2004, p. 282).

So there is no logical explanation as to how this incredibly extensive, exquisite code inside the cell could exist without a supremely intelligent Being having designed it. Microsoft founder Bill Gates noted, "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised" ( The Road Ahead , 1996, p. 228).

It is absurd to think that nobody designed such a complex code"that it is simply a result of time, chance and mutation.

You have not answered where morality originated. Where did you learn morality, now ask him/her where he/she learned morality from....ALL SENSES OF MORALITY LINK TO GOD. The 1st person learned it from God and passed this on to their child. How is knowing that murder, thievery and rape is bad related to survival instincts. You have done a poor job in debunking my arguments and better luck next round.

New arguments

The Argument from Time and Contingency
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.

The Kalam Argument

The Arabic word kalam literally means "speech," but came to denote a certain type of philosophical theology"a type containing demonstrations that the world could not be infinitely old and must therefore have been created by God. This sort of demonstration has had a long and wide appeal among both Christians and Muslims. Its form is simple and straightforward.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

Grant the first premise. (Most people"outside of asylums and graduate schools would consider it not only true, but certainly and obviously true.)

Is the second premise true? Did the universe"the collection of all things bounded by space and time"begin to exist? This premise has recently received powerful support from natural science"from so-called Big Bang Cosmology. But there are philosophical arguments in its favor as well. Can an infinite task ever be done or completed? If, in order to reach a certain end, infinitely many steps had to precede it, could the end ever be reached? Of course not"not even in an infinite time. For an infinite time would be unending, just as the steps would be. In other words, no end would ever be reached. The task would"could"never be completed.

But what about the step just before the end? Could that point ever be reached? Well, if the task is really infinite, then an infinity of steps must also have preceded it. And therefore the step just before the end could also never be reached. But then neither could the step just before that one. In fact, no step in the sequence could be reached, because an infinity of steps must always have preceded any step; must always have been gone through one by one before it. The problem comes from supposing that an infinite sequence could ever reach, by temporal succession, any point at all.

Now if the universe never began, then it always was. If it always was, then it is infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed"one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before"in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point"for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point"or any point before it.

So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite. In other words, the universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being, a Creator.

Question 1: Christians believe they are going to live forever with God. So they believe the future will be endless. How come the past cannot also be endless?

Reply: The question really answers itself. Christians believe that their life with God will never end. That means it will never form an actually completed infinite series. In more technical language: an endless future is potentially"but never actually"infinite. This means that although the future will never cease to expand and increase, still its actual extent will always be finite. But that can only be true if all of created reality had a beginning.

Question 2: How do we know that the cause of the universe still exists? Maybe it started the universe going and then ceased to be.

Reply: Remember that we are seeking for a cause of spatio-temporal being. This cause created the entire universe of space and time. And space and time themselves must be part of that creation. So the cause cannot be another spatio-temporal being. (If it were, all the problems about infinite duration would arise once again.) It must somehow stand outside the limitations and constraints of space and time.

It is hard to understand how such a being could "cease" to be. We know how a being within the universe ceases to be: it comes in time to be fatally affected by some agency external to it. But this picture is proper to us, and to all beings limited in some way by space and time. A being not limited in these ways cannot "come" to be or "cease" to be. If it exists at all, it must exist eternally.

Question 3: But is this cause God"a he and not a mere it?

Reply: Suppose the cause of the universe has existed eternally. Suppose further that this cause is not personal: that it has given rise to the universe, not through any choice, but simply through its being. In that case it is hard to see how the universe could be anything but infinitely old, since all the conditions needed for the being of the universe would exist from all eternity. But the kalam argument has shown that the universe cannot be infinitely old. So the hypothesis of an eternal impersonal cause seems to lead to an inconsistency.

Is there a way out? Yes, if the universe is the result of a free personal choice. Then at least we have some wa


DNA is a complex thing to understand. However, just because we don't know what it is, we can't just give credit to God. What happens to when we finally learn how things work we originally said was a miracle performed by God?

The same explanation to where it originated could be the same things. Morality does not originate from God. Where does a man who has not grown up with any religion know where he got his religion? He doesn't have God in his life, so how could God have gave him morality? I have listed how we got our mortality. We learn from our environment, it's psychology. Besides, everyone knows how valuable life is. It doesn't take a genius to know its bad to kill anyone. They know the consequences. They know they could face death, life in prison, losing all their privileges and people they love, and they are killing someone who has people who love him.
You said rape is wrong, which is funny since God commanded people to rape women.
"When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Deuteronomy 20: 13-14
When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

You said how complex DNA is. The universe is 10 times as complex as DNA. The rule is a complex design most have a designer that is as much or more complex. That means if God did create the universe, God must have a created, proving he cannot be an uncaused cause.

Also, did you know the bible says itself God didn't create the universe? It went from saying he created it in the 6 days to contradicting itself at the end of the book.
Genesis 6:11 - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
If the earth was corrupt before God, how could God has created it? He couldn't have.
It's possible for God to exist, but probability makes a lot of things possible. It's possible for me to get struck by lightning, win the lottery, and catch Ebola all in one day. However, the chances are slim, just like I feel the chances of a God are slim in this dimension. I'm not saying my side or view is better than yours, just my belief. Good job by pro. Vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
*~||RFD - Reason for Voting Decision | Debate - Rematch||~*
|||**3 POINTS to PRO, 1 POINT to CON**|||
Con failed to address Pro's arguments from Time, Contingency, and the KCA. Con's *only* rebuttals were against the Argument from Change and the teleological argument presented by Pro via. the DNA structure example, which Con managed to negate. Nonetheless, the KCA, etc. still stands. Conduct to Con as Pro copy-pasted a portion of their argument from change from one of many websites that contain the same text, eg. Nonetheless, overall victory to Pro. Also, Con focused on *only* a Biblical God. Both sides failed to define God in the terms of the debate. Therefore, Pro could have even been arguing for a Deistic God. Pro's morality argument was deeply flawed and addressed by Con thus by quoting the Bible. Very close debate with deeply flawed arguments by both sides. The MOA [ontological argument] presented by Pro was also left non-refuted, allowing for further non-addressed arguments, further strengthening Pro's case and allowing for the eventual victory of Pro.
*~||Voted User: tejretics|||~*
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.