The Instigator
joseph.vu
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
UnhookedSchnook
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolution : God does exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 815 times Debate No: 83879
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

joseph.vu

Pro

The First round is for Acceptance. You may use any source, cite them. Are we good ?

The Terms of this debate are UnhookedSchnook's.
UnhookedSchnook

Con

After our private and public discussions I accept. I do look ford to this debate and hope that you bring forth compelling arguments. As my opponent is aware this is not my 100% usual topic. I have already started on my argument and, as I expected, am finding hard to find any evidence as there is practically none. Lucky for me I do not have the burden of proof, however, I still like to make arguments to support my position. This is why i prefer a specific religion as there are mounds of evidence. Never the less, best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
joseph.vu

Pro

What are we doing here ? What is our purpose in life ? I asked myself that many, many times. Humans have been asking themselves that for as long as history records........... Why did I talked about that ? Because it is in our nature. This debate is about the existence of A god. Here are three reasons why a God does exist....

1. The Argument from Contigency. The Philosopher Thomas Aquinas explained it best.
This Argument defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God.
(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

2. Morality. Information from this argument is from John E Hare's The Moral Gap. John Hare is a Professor of Philisopihcal Theology at Yale Divinity School.

The Perfectionist Moral Argument
(1) We ought to be morally perfect.
(2) If we ought to be morally perfect, then we can be morally perfect.
(3) We cannot be morally perfect unless God exists.
Therefore:
(4) God exists.

3. And Finally..... the Ontological Argurment from Christian Philosopher St Anslem's book, Proslogion.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

So reply ! Thank you for accepting this !
UnhookedSchnook

Con

Being a proud member of scientific and sceptical communities I think that a god’s existence is possible but unnecessary and unlikely, which also includes me as a member of the ever growing atheist community. By the way, I have broken my text into numbered sections for an easy way to communicate your refutes and my defences.



  1. 1. What does it do?


The world that we know has been observed by us for a long time, yet one thing has never changed, the physical laws that everything within our universe abides by. This leaves only the possibility of god creating the universe, and/or changing things that we haven’t, won’t or can’t observe. Besides the creation of the universe, which I will address later, there is no evidence that can suggest the “changing things that we haven’t, won’t or can’t observe.” as we cannot, will not or have not observed them. Why create a universe and not interact with it? Why create a universe at all?



  1. 2. Why does it exist?


Our universe is predicted to be 13 820 000 000 years old (http://www.slate.com...), the earth is meant to be 4 543 000 000 years old (https://en.wikipedia.org...) and life on earth is meant to be 3 800 000 000 years old (http://www.bbc.co.uk...). Humans have been on Earth for about 200 000 years (http://www.universetoday.com...). Since us humans have been on earth we have interacted with nature and built communities, cultures and civilizations. We dominate and dominated every other living creature; not because we are the strongest creature, not because we are the largest creature, but because we are the smartest creatures. Although our intelligence brought us triumph it came with a catch, we wanted to gain knowledge, ask questions, answer questions, record our victories, record our short comings, but most important of all, find ‘why and how we are here?’. Excluding the Christian Dark Age years our understanding and development has grown at an exponential rate. Each generation has more tools, more resources and more knowledge than the last, yet the question ‘why and how are we here?’ still goes unanswered. It goes unanswered mainly because of the low intelligence, low funding and unobtainable evidence for a conclusive answer. But since the earliest civilizations humans were not satisfied with having inconclusive answers, if we did not do it then someone else must have, and religion was born. This entailed the birth of ‘god of the gaps’. When it did not rain it was because god was punishing us, when a volcano erupted god was angry etc. Madness. But I digress. The point I am making here is that religion was created by us to full fill our needs and give us meaning and purpose. Each culture formed its own religion to suit its own needs. I think I know the refute you will make to this but I will have to wait and see. To conclude this argument, it does not disprove god but indicates the origins of god’s ‘interaction’ with humans; when this is examined it could be deduced that a god has not proven its existence or had its existence proven, but rather, was created by humans for humans; satisfying the scared and weak peoples of the past and giving rise to the powerful kings, queens and other leaders in the name of god (not all of the deductions arguments were included in the text, I can include more if you would like, just let me know in your refute.).


PS – I forgot to include the fact that death is a large factor to this. ‘What happens once we die?’ – Well (as you most likely know) many religions say that depending on if you are a good person or not and believe in the right god, you have earned a ticket to heaven, even though no evidence is provided.



  1. 3. How was the universe created?


Since we agreed on my terms and definitions (from my other debates) we can easily agree that the definition of god is “the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe”. As it is claimed he is the creator of the universe and since people agree with it it is their hypothesis. However there are many other hypothecs, I am currently writing a thesis to answer this question, and many others. My hypothesis contains evidence, predictive equations and explanations as to how it fits within other observed phenomena, something any good hypothesis should include. However the god hypothesis, from what I have seen, has never given any: evidence, predictive equations and/or explanations as to how it fits within other observed phenomena. In many religious evidence etc. is substituted with fear; heavens, hells, raptures etc., all works of religion. Also, I want to ask you the question, ‘what created god?’, I usually get a steady state answer.




  1. 4. Even more about god of the gaps.


This plays along with arguments 2 and 3. My point is that less and less gets attributed to a gods doing as our knowledge grows. Praying for rain was replaced with meteorology etc. If you want to graph some functions I will give you some. (Scientific development = 2^x)(Events attributed to god = 2^-x)(x axis = time)(y axis = magnitude) ***only for an indication***. A new happening is that some religious folk have started to realise that science is proving things that they thought was only possible by god and have refused to take god out of the gap (evolution). It is only a matter of time before we fill in the last few gaps of what or how the universe was created.



That is allJ, as an atheist I do not have the burden of proof, however I still like to share why I don’t accept the god hypothesis. As an agnostic atheist I am more than happy to change my beliefs as long as I have evidence for god, though I doubt there will be any as I have searched and come up with nothing. Perhaps you will provide me with such evidence!


Debate Round No. 2
joseph.vu

Pro

1. Why create a Universe at all ? I am confused by your question or statement.

For the next 3 rebuttals, I will go reverse !

1. You have asserted that as our knowledge of the world increases so does our need for a God. I want to tell you about some people. Georges Lema"tre, a CATHOLIC Priest who proposed the Theory of the Big Bang, he used Einstein's Theory of Relatively to help. Francesco Maria Grimaldi was a Franciscan Priest, a mathematician and physicist. Thomas Aquinas helped to establish the Scientific Theory. http://www3.nd.edu... http://epicpew.com...
What is my point ? Science and Faith can work together. I assert that not only Science also known as Reason and Faith can work together, they must work together. For if We only relied on Faith than Superstition will develop. Relying on Reason only will lead to leads to nihilism and relativism.
Pope John Paul II wrote, " Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them." http://w2.vatican.va...

Science explains the How and Faith explains the why. They work together. My Question for my opponent is : Do you think that nihilism and relativism exists ?

2. What created God ? My Opponent is thinking of God as a a very big person or a machine in the sky. However, these depictions are very far off. God is a purely spiritual being, eternal and uncreated, without beginning or end. No one made Him. He could not have been made. Chicken Nuggets are made. If God came into existence like a Nugget, He would be like a Chicken Nugget. My Opponent's Definition of God is opposite of that. Powerful and all knowing. In addition, each of the listed things above at one time did not exist. They were brought into existence by something else and will go out of existence at some point and time in the future. God is not like a water bottle or a chicken nugget. Consequently, it is impossible that God then could have been brought into existence, or go out of existence like these things do. If He did, He would be the same as these created objects, which is silly. This is not God. If God had a beginning, He would not and could not be God " by definition. If He came into existence, He would be dependent on something or someone else for His existence as chicken nuggets owe their existence to something else.

If someone "created" God, then that Being would be God. Get it? Then, someone would ask where that Being came from, ad infinitum. This leads to contradiction of Who God is. By definition, God is the highest Being. He is eternal, not in need of being created. God is perfect being and existence " not contingent or dependent on anything else. He is not a being among many, He is Being itself. He is not in existence as we are (destined to go out of existence like stars, planets, and us mere humans), He is existence! Pure existence. If he didn"t exist, we wouldn"t either. He is the transcendent cause holding everything else in existence. This is important to understand! And about the what started the world question, the Catholic Church has always been supportive of the Big Bang and Evolution. http://www.ewtn.com...
http://w2.vatican.va...

3. The Concept of God is not a religious scam or a hoax but something that people have been crafting and talking about for who knows when. Alfred North Whitehead, a greatly respected Mathematician and Philosopher believed that God is not neccersailty tied to Religion. But saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system. (Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978), 207. ) He also wrote that religion served as a kind of bridge between philosophy and the emotions and purposes of a particular society. It is the task of religion to make philosophy applicable to the everyday lives of ordinary people. Thomas Jefferson also believed in a God but not religion. He using " God " many, many times in his writings but not accepting Jesus's teachings. Anthony Flew, another respected Athiest Philosopher, converted to believing in a God near his death but not a religion. There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007) with Roy Abraham Varghese (ISBN 978-0-06-133529-7).

My Point is, why put stereotypes ?

Thank you !
UnhookedSchnook

Con

“What are we doing here ?“, well that is a great question, let’s see if you answered, or partially answered, that for us.

  1. 1. __________________________________________________________________________________

Here we are at argument 1. Here you have taken the assumption that a ‘necessary being’ exists. First you start off by talking about ‘contingent beings’ and define them as “an object that cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence.” Then you say that a necessary being is god. So that means the definition of a ‘contingent being’ is an object that cannot exist without a god causing its existence. As far as I am concerned there is nothing that is a ‘contingent being’ anywhere, you are trying to prove that ‘contingent beings’ exist, not just tell us that they exist. I will include all of this information in the steps you wrote. My writing will be within {}.


(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence. {By what you said beforehand ‘a ‘contingent being’ is an object that cannot exist without a god causing its existence’ we will rename this [definition 1] and we will call your step 1 definition (“Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.”) [definition 2]. [definition 1] does not = [definition 2].}
(2) The universe exists contingently. {Prove that the universe is created by god ([definition 1]) and that it needs a reason to exist [definition 2]. That is what the debate is about, we are discussing whether god created the universe, having ‘god created the universe’ as a key part of your argument is crazy.}
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence. {well when step 2 is wrong steps: 3, 4 and 5 become void.}
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God. {well when step 2 is wrong steps: 3, 4 and 5 become void. Why does the reason have to be god? It may have been created by aliens who made it because their universe was dying and they had to make a new universe to live in, I can think of many more examples. The cause of the universe may have been to give aliens refuge.}
Therefore:
(5) God exists. {well when step 2 is wrong steps: 3, 4 and 5 become void.}

As you may know I like examples. I will rewrite this argument to prove my point. ***THIS IS NOT ANY PROOF BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT IS FILLED WITH FLAWS, IT IS MENT TO SHOW YOU WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT CORRECT*** the example wil have these brackets around it {[( and )]}.

{[(This Argument defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that is not created by a necessary being. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God.
(1) Everything that exists contingently was not created by a necessary being.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe was not created by a necessary being.
(4) God is a necessary being
Therefore:
(5) God does not exist. )]}

  1. 2. __________________________________________________________________________________


Again! This argument is similar to the last.
like last time I will write in {} and give an example of your argument with {[( and )]}

(1) We ought to be morally perfect. {why ought we be morally perfect? We aren’t all morally perfect, no one is morally perfect, there is no rule book of morals where we get marked.}
(2) If we ought to be morally perfect, then we can be morally perfect. {just because we ought be something does not mean we can be what we ought. I ought to win the golden lotto before tome exist and before the lotto exists. All desires can’t be reality.}
(3) We cannot be morally perfect unless God exists. {always happens {[(I exist, you exist, therefore god exists)]} how do you deduce that god exists from these things? Why must god exist for us to have morals? }
Therefore:
(4) God exists.
{[(

(1) We ought to exist.
(2) If we ought to exist, then we can exist.
(3) We cannot exist unless God does not exists.

(4) We exist.
Therefore:
(5) God does not exist.

)]}

See, it makes no sense.

  1. 3. __________________________________________________________________________________

Like all other times I will write in {} and give an example of your argument with {[( and )]}
By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. {that is not the definition. “All the Terms come from the Oxford Dictionary.” Well this one does not. “supreme being” does not = “a being than which none greater can be imagined.” {[(I can imagine a super supreme being, it looks like a cat with green hair, it is not a god as it exists outside of our reality but within another reality where it is classified as a pet)]}, but it meets the ungiven criteria to be greater than a god.}
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.{who says that an existent being is greater than a non-existent being. I do agree but you should include a reason why. You should also be more specific than to just say greater, greater in what way/s?}
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God. {great, I have imagined something greater than god. The cat.}
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God. {I must be superhuman as I did what is impossible by a human.}
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality. {I had an idea of that green cat, then the green cat “necessarily exists in reality”.}
God exists in the mind as an idea. {so does my green cat.}
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality{. void as earlier points were void.}

{this is just a play on incorrect definitions of the word god.}


BTW – I would like if next time you could order your refute in the same order I wrote my arguments, makes it slightly difficult when there are 3 refutes (1 of which is answering a question) and I had 4 arguments.

Also – the question “ Why create a Universe at all ?” means why did god want to, or bother, create a universe?

Debate Round No. 3
joseph.vu

Pro

Heck..... I am going to go reverse again...... don't ask me why.
1. Why create a Universe at all ? Hasn't science shown that this immense universe was not created for us but that we are an inconsequential part of an uncreated universe ? Science can show us the Universe's dimensions but it cannot reveal any meaning or lack of meaning inherent in those dimensions. In response to this argument, the believer can simply ask, "Why can"t God choose to create a magnificent and grand universe like ours?" The critic might respond that God wouldn"t use such an inefficient process like cosmic and biological evolution and would instead create life instantaneously. Because God has unlimted resources and time due to his awesome power like the Oxford Dictionary says, there is no difficulty in him making a grand cosmos for human beings. It"s not as if God loses track of us in the expansive universe he created. Moreover, the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe, so why not think that God made a grand universe for such brains to explore? Moreover, how does the critic know with confidence that God would not create a world like ours? Suppose God made a very tiny universe with just our solar system in it. Would you think, in contrast, that such a world proves God exists? He might just as plausibly argue that if God existed, surely he would have created something grander. A small and simple universe, he might argue, is precisely what we would expect if it simply popped into existence from nothing, without a cause. As C. S. Lewis put it, "We treat God as the policeman in the story treated the suspect; whatever he does will be used in evidence against him." [i] C.S. Lewis. Miracles. (HarperCollins, New York, 1996) 79.
2. The Oxford Dictionary's Defenition of God is this, " the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the SUPREME being. " You are thinking of God as a material being. If you read my rebuttal to your arguments, you would see that God does not have a physical body. Also, one can inference from the defenition that God transcends the limitations of matter. He is supreme, not confined to Human thought. He's not confined to a body at a particular place. (And he's not restricted to living on another planet as some science fiction writers have imagined.) This is also why Catholics do not take the Bible word for word. My opponent agrees with me on the fact that a Existent Being is greater than a non existent being but asked me for a reason ? Okay..... why do you need a reason if you agree ? Are you hoping to prove a point ? My opponent has conceded this point, I think. My Glasses might be wrong.
3. Because God cannot be a Material Being as stated in my rebuttal to your arguments, My opponent's rebuttals does not make sense because he is thinking of god as a Material being. And Material Beings have limitations, and so if god is all knowing and Powerful, that cannot work. So, If God exists in the mind as an Idea, then one could reason that God has to exist in reality.

4. The Morally Perfect Problem. If Morality is a Human Convention as my opponent has asserted, why should we act Moral ? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions ? If God does not exist, Morality is just a Human Convention, Morality would be wholly subjective and non-binding. First, if God exists, objective moral values exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. God is the foundation of our Morality. If Athiesim is true, than Moral Values do not exist. If God does not exist, where do we get our values and our morals ?

This is what Pope Benedict XVI warned about, callling it Moral Relatvism, the idea that moral principles have no objective standard, so states its dictionary definition. http://news.bbc.co.uk...

And finally...... Once again my opponent is thinking of God as Material, if he read my rebuttals........... and we are not arguing about if God created the universe. We are arguing if there is a God...... My first argument is Philosphical, not Scientific. Everything has a cause and effect. One can deduce without requring Evidence, that God is the first cause. My opponent has failed to explain why the argument is Philisophically untrue.....
UnhookedSchnook

Con

1.

You start off by saying “…that we are an inconsequential part of an uncreated universe ?”, you have destroyed your own argument. If the universe is uncreated then there is no “creator and ruler of the universe” thus, no god. Unless the universe is yet to be made, but then where are we?

“Science can show us the Universe's dimensions but it cannot reveal any meaning or lack of meaning inherent in those dimensions.”

Why would there have to be meaning? Why does there have to be god to be meaning? Why does god give it meaning? What determines if it has meaning?

Why does science not show there is meaning or lack of meaning? Because there is no to suggest such a claim evidence.

So, what is your point? That does not spell out G-O-D- -E-X-I-S-T-S!

"Why can"t God choose to create a magnificent and grand universe like ours?"

He could, like I said “I am more than happy to change my beliefs as long as I have evidence for god”. God could do such a thing, just there is no evidence to say it would, let alone even exists. Now can you get back to my question of “why create a universe?” instead of answering my question with a question?

“ the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe”

Prove it. I think that things like the big bang, pre-big bang, nothing, black holes and quantum mechanics are the most complex thing in the universe. What does it matter, I did not give any evidence, just like you, you need evidence! All the organs of a dog are more complex as it is a brain + all other organs.

“why not think that God made a grand universe for such brains to explore?”

Because there is no proof of god creating the universe, creating us or existing. Did god create it for dogs or black holes to explore?

“how does the critic know with confidence that God would not create a world like ours?”

He could, like I said “I am more than happy to change my beliefs as long as I have evidence for god”. God could do such a thing, just there is no evidence to say it would, let alone even exists.

“Suppose God made a very tiny universe with just our solar system in it. Would you think, in contrast, that such a world proves God exists? “

Yes, as god made it and there would be evidence of that. Unless of course it did not have any evidence, in which case, no, I would not believe it. How would this be proof of his existence?

I don’t know but I think you mean that it would be justified as it would seem we are special, however, we would not be as the sun would swell up and kill us all and we would have nowhere to go, then the sun would become a dwarf and give off very little energy in its later years, until it dies out. Why would there be a need for planets like mercury? So if you mean we lived in a universe where there is only the earth and he god provides energy, seasons and all that jazz, then yes I would believe in him as there is the evidence that he is providing for us.

1.

In no way have I asserted that “as our knowledge of the world increases so does our need for a God.”. In fact I ‘asserted’ the exact opposite (if you bothered to graph the functions you would know that). There is no doubt that someone of faith can create amazing hypothesis within the scientific world, or any academic discipline, as they too are people like you and I. What it is is academic dishonesty. All sciences are based on evidence, faith is not welcome (unless it is personal faith while you develop and contextualize your ideas). A man/women of faith can’t also be a man/women of science (they can be scientists). As for your claim of “Science explains the How and Faith explains the why.” This is ludicrous. When I play a standard game of tennis on my earthbound tennis court I know that, unless obstructed, the tennis ball will always fall to the ground. The how and why are shown below, no faith required.

Egrav (((m1)(m2)) / d2)

Where

Egrav is the force between the two objects

m is the mass

d is the distance between he centres of mass

In response to “Do you think that nihilism and relativism exists ?” I do, and I have already told you tht this is what I believe.


2.

The fact that you manage to know what I am thinking from a three word question is amazing (sarcasm)! However that is not what I was thinking. From the beginning of this debate I have thought of god strictly as the definitions we agreed upon (“the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being”, “ a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity”, “An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god”, and the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe”). This can be seen in my arguments and rebuttals, nowhere have I claimed that god is a machine or an extraordinarily large person. If anything you are the one who has preconceived ideas of what a god is as you are the one who has defined god different from what the agreed terms are and were. Who are you to say that ‘god’ is not a large person or machine in the sky? We agreed this was not to be about a personal god but the god hypothesis that is defined by my terms and definitions.

Going further into your refute, you say that “God is … uncreated, without beginning...” the only things that I can think of that are uncreated and don’t have a beginning are things that don’t exist, perhaps you could help me with this though. You also say that “No one made Him.”, well I am glad that we know god has a penis, how do you know if god is a man, women or has a gender at all? This goes back to the definition thing mentioned earlier, my definitions do not define god’s gender and this was not meant to have any personal beliefs in it, so where did you get the penis from?

Then after talking about chicken nuggets and water bottles you came to the point of, “If someone "created" God, then that Being would be God.”, well if someone within the universe created god that would be the case, but what about the possibility of outside the universe? Also, what about the fact that it does not have to be a someone, but a something. Someone does not make water flow down the stream, gravity makes the water flow down the stream, I am yet to meat Mr and Mrs Gravity.

3.

This refute barely addresses my argument but instead addresses the fact that I used the word religion. Since we agreed to use my terms and oxford dictionaries terms your points are rendered obsolete. I introduced no such “stereotypes” as the definitions of religion by oxford dictionary are

1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God orgods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion

1.1A particular system of faith and worship:the world’s great religions

Correct me if I am wrong but it appears that the belief and worship of a god and having faith are exactly what I meant when I used the word religion, no problems with that.

As for the rest of your refute, you have not provided any evidence as to why “God is not a religious scam”.

EXTRA:

Pro, as usual, has made extra ordinary claims without any sort of or meaning. References to people’s quotes are not proof of this issue, what Larry said shows Larry’s opinion, but that does not make it true. Sure Larry may be a witness of a crime and then it is used for evidence, but has to be backed up by other evidence. The only proof that a quote can give is the proof of someone’s beliefs, ideas or past.

Debate Round No. 4
joseph.vu

Pro

If there was once a girl named Sarah...... Sorry about that I went off track again.... I had a crush on girl named Sarah Sessano and yeah......

But anyway,

1. Why does God have to be a religious scam ? A Scam meaning that someone decided to trick an entire race into thinking that is that..... What more evidence can I give you ? Faith is not foolish, is not something a uneducated people put their trust in or use. If that is the case, then perhaps all of us are foolish. Foolish to believe Santa Claus exists. Foolish to have Hope. What more can I give you ? I don't even think I need to provide evidence for a Philosophical Debate. And I put this debate in the category of Philosophy which might be my mistake. And what is wrong with what people believe ? It is their personal belief. The fact that I did not put this debate in the category of Religion really tells you a lot........ LOL. It might be a scam to you, but to others it's not.

2. " This refute barely addresses my argument but instead addresses the fact that I used the word religion. "

I did not in any way shape or form. You are using Religion to argue a Philosophical case. I don't recall doing such stuff. Am I that stupid to do that ? I should however clarified more. To me, there is a difference between Religion and Philosophy. And since this is a Phlisopihlca Case, I find it interesting that you would bring in Religion...... And besides, the people I mentioned...... these were ATHIEST Philosophers ! They were not famed Christians, or ........ If my opponent thinks that Philosophy is another form of religion and is not a valid branch to study, that is not another debate I want to have.....

3. How do we know God has a Penis ? Once again, my opponent is thinking of God in a religious way. As if God is Material, lives in a Fancy Mansion upstairs. If my opponent has studied Metaphysics or Philosophy in General, his mind of thinking would change a little. Religion is used to tell the why. That's why Christians believe in all of that fun stuff.

"Also, what about the fact that it does not have to be a someone, but a something. Someone does not make water flow down the stream, gravity makes the water flow down the stream, I am yet to meat Mr and Mrs Gravity. "

That's great ! But that is in the topic of Science. We can have another debate on that. But since we are debating about God in a Philosophical Sense, one does not need Proof, Scientific Proof, I meant.

"We agreed this was not to be about a personal god but the god hypothesis that is defined by my terms and definitions. "

My opponent is either living in a Time Warp or has no Idea what the truth is. I commented and messaged him many times on what I want for this debate. The Debate to be about the existence of a God in the Philosophical terms. Maybe it was my fault that I did not explain enough. And perhaps it was my mistake, because I assumed that even though I accepted his terms, I thought that he would accept my only term, that is to be a debate about a God, not a personal God of Religion. I was wrong. Instead, he has betrayed what we have agreed on and turned this into the hugest mess since my Birthday Party..... Now I think I know what he is going to say........ but the definition of God in the Oxford Dictionary.... is that not a god of religion ? My opponent has consistently flip flopped. And my opponent brought the religion stuff in of his own will.

" The point I am making here is that religion was created by us to full fill our needs and give us meaning and purpose. Each culture formed its own religion to suit its own needs. "

This was from your Round 2 Argument. In Context, what my opponent is saying is that God was made up to feed the masses.......

"We agreed this was not to be about a personal god but the god hypothesis that is defined by my terms and definitions. "

Really ? Really ?! Has my opponent forgotten his own argument ? And my opponent's Defention of God from the Oxford Dictionary clashes with with the quote up above. One can inference from the Definition that God is worshiped..... a personal god............ When was the last time, a unpersonal god was worshipped ? Thomas Jefferson believed that a God existed but he never worshipped the God. And why do I have preconceived Ideas of God ? Show me PROOF that I ever said anything of the sort in my arguments ! Besides......

" the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being"

What I did or at least tried to was to expand on that. And why should you depend only on one source ? My opponent's terms to my knowledge never forbade using other sources to expand my argument further.

" In no way have I asserted that "as our knowledge of the world increases so does our need for a God.".

4. Thank you for finally responding to that point..... I mistyped. I was being super tired. And no one is a Super Human. That's FANTASY, A SCAM.... LOL...... And why does not one need faith to have Science ? Bob has faith that his evidence for the Big Bang Theory has no problems at all. Are you going to go accuse him of Academic Dishonesty ? And why is it Dishonesty ? Both Religion and Science are in search for the truth. Why is is that some of the Top Universities in the USA are Religious ? University of Notre Dame, Santa Clara University,..... I am just saying that Both Religion and Science are based on Faith. A Faith that there is something out there. There is a reason why Many of the Scientists and Thinkers of our time have a Faith. William Craig, George Mendel, Thomas Aquinas..... And how about the Biblical Scholars huh ?

" A man/women of faith can"t also be a man/women of science "

Why ? Why is that ? Show me Evidence. What do you say to the Catholic Church who to my knowledge accepted both Evolution and the big bang theory ? One cannot be a person of Science alone. Same goes for Faith. Besides aren't you a person of faith in Science ? Do you believe in the Scientific Method ? Why ? Can you prove it ? If you say no, Then you contradict yourself again. You say you should believe something only if it's proved scientifically, yet you believe that even though it isn't proved scientifically.

Why does one look for the truth ? Science and Religion are both looking for the same ending, through different pathways. Why do you look for the truth ?

Here is my answer to your question. First off, as a Catholic, I accept the Big Bang, Evolution, and everything else Science has revealed. That's the How. The Why ? I believe that God did all of that because he wanted to share his love. That's what I believe. Perhaps you believe different. But the fact that we both accept all that Science has revealed shows that you are bit narrow minded. We are just different on the why stuff. Your Entire argument against my argument falls apart because we both agree on how the earth was created. Now did God have a hand in that ? Maybe...... But that is my belief.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by joseph.vu 1 year ago
joseph.vu
One more week ! Of school....
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 year ago
UnhookedSchnook
At school? We have holidays now here in Australia! I though everyone got 2 weeks off during Christmas.
Posted by joseph.vu 1 year ago
joseph.vu
I will post my arguments when I get home from School tonight.
Posted by zeyadahmed 1 year ago
zeyadahmed
Check this debate guys its about same topic , and vote for what you think made more sense http://www.debate.org...
Posted by joseph.vu 1 year ago
joseph.vu
This is going to be so fun !
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 year ago
UnhookedSchnook
Sure, I am open to that. I will accept soon, I am just busy today. Look ford to this descution.
Posted by joseph.vu 1 year ago
joseph.vu
If you are going to base your argument on the fact that I am a Catholic/Christian than I am not going to debate you. What I am looking to debate on is the existence of a god so to speak. Just read Anthony Flew and you'll understand.

And yes, we are going by your rules.
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 year ago
UnhookedSchnook
So are we going by my rules on the other debate. Are you Christian?
Posted by joseph.vu 1 year ago
joseph.vu
Terms ? All the Terms come from the Oxford Dictionary.
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 year ago
UnhookedSchnook
When I have done topics in the past that refer to god like you have it ends up being me making arguments to what I presume they believe and what they are arguing for, then, so that they win, they change their beliefs and claim I strawmaned their belief/argument. I am more than happy to accept, just define terms ect.
No votes have been placed for this debate.