The Instigator
rulshok
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Freeman
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Resolved: God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Freeman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,356 times Debate No: 9730
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)

 

rulshok

Con

Pro shouldn't post last round in order to maintain fairness
Pro starts with its first argument
Voters, please leave reason for decision
Freeman

Pro

Let me begin by thanking rulshok for instigating this debate.

My opponent has failed to define "God" so for the purpose of clarity I shall define God below.

==============
The Definition for God:
==============

God is the supernatural originator of the universe.

======
Case Pro
======

Contention 1: God is the necessary first cause for the universe.

I cannot take credit for creating this argument, but I will be responsible for defending it.

(The Kalam Cosmological Argument)

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause. [1]

The second premise is then supported by the following argument.
1.An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
3.Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events

It is simply impossible for the universe to have existed for an infinite period of time. Theoretical infinites like numbers can exist infinitely but actual infinites are logically impossible. If there were an infinite number of past events the existence of the future would simply be impossible. Therefore we can conclusively say that the universe did have a starting point in time.

Contention 2: The first cause for the universe must have been supernatural and personal.

1. There was a first cause to the universe. (Established by Kalam)
2. All natural evens are the result of a proceeding natural event. (This is not arguable)
3. Natural events cannot be their own cause, because they are the products of determinism. [2]
4. The first cause must have transcended natural boundaries. [3]
5. The first cause for the universe must have been supernatural. [4]
6. Any uncaused event is not the product of determinism. (Given)
7. The supernatural first cause was not caused by anything. (Established by Kalam)
8. The supernatural first cause could not have been the product of determinism. [6] [7]
9. The supernatural first cause must have been the result of free will. [8]
10. The supernatural first cause was a being that had free will. [9]
11. A supernatural being created the universe. [10]
12. Therefore God exists. [11]

Contention 3: God is a plausible explanation for the existence of consciousness, intelligence, creativity, logic, and reason.

Neurologists have been working for years trying to explain the origins of consciousness. It is true that consciousness, emotions, and creativity have been partly explained by reference to the evolution and biochemical complexity of our species, but a purely reductionist approach to these phenomena is simply na�ve. The purely naturalistic worldview is simply unable to account for the existence of love, compassion, creativity, and intelligence. If the entirety of existence is simply the product of atoms bouncing back and forth off each other how could anything like consciousness or creativity exist? With this understanding it is therefore plausible to think that certain aspects of what makes us human is rooted to some degree in the supernatural. And since I have shown that God is a plausible explanation for the existence of the universe it is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that the existence of God could explain these phenomena as well.

Contention 4: The universe is fine tuned for the existence of life.

Throughout the last hundred years of cosmological research scientists have determined that there are around two-dozen properties that govern the physical laws of the universe. [2] In this research they have also determined that if anyone of these properties were slightly different the universe would have collapsed in on itself or expanded to rapidly for stars to form. For example according to the physicist P.C.W. Davies if the (weak force) had been different by 1 part in 10 raised to the 100th power our universe would not be life permitting. [3] It's almost as if a super intellect has monkeyed with the laws of physics. Consequentially, if these values were even slightly different life as we no it would be impossible and you and I would not be having this debate. There are simply no plausible reasons to think that these values are logically necessary. Therefore we must ask ourselves why they would be fine tuned to such an astonishing degree. I maintain the existence of this fine-tuning constitutes indirect evidence that the universe was assigned purpose by a lawful God.

=========
Conclusion
========

Arguments for the existence of God are inductive. Since there isn't absolute proof that would vindicate either side we must use our logic and reason to determine whether or not God exists. So far I have shown that God is a highly plausible explanation for the existence of the universe. Secondly, the universe is teeming with purpose that attests to the divinity of a supernatural creator. Moreover, the nature of humanity and the mere fact that life even exists despite all improbability attest to the existence of God. (Resolution affirmed)

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.iep.utm.edu...

[3] http://books.google.com...

Good Luck :)
Debate Round No. 1
rulshok

Con

rulshok forfeited this round.
Freeman

Pro

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
rulshok

Con

rulshok forfeited this round.
Freeman

Pro

My opponent seems to have adopted a rather bizarre approach. However, I am thoroughly unimpressed by it.

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
rulshok

Con

rulshok forfeited this round.
Freeman

Pro

My opponent has not presented any arguments and has forfeited 3 rounds of a 4 round debate. The outcome of this exchange should be clear. (Vote Pro)
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rulshok 7 years ago
rulshok
Hey sorry about this. I just have been really busy, so i prolly wont be able to post at all
Posted by Da_King 7 years ago
Da_King
interesting pro side... coming from one who is an atheist.
Posted by vodyanoj 7 years ago
vodyanoj
Interesting, and since rulshok seems to be lagging, I must put another tuppence worth in here:

"The purely naturalistic worldview is simply unable to account for the existence of love, compassion, creativity, and intelligence. If the entirety of existence is simply the product of atoms bouncing back and forth off each other how could anything like consciousness or creativity exist?"

Argument from ignorance; a form of the god of the gaps and logically invalid...:)
Posted by vodyanoj 7 years ago
vodyanoj
"And yeah, Craig is a great rhetorician...but that's all."

Precisely. There is no substanc to his arguments, and, as I have said, he manages to demonstrate his ignorance of modern science. What's more, he lies directly--it's hard to interpret some of his statements in any other way, since he was made aware of their incorrectness many times before. See the two links I gave earlier for specific examples.
Posted by vodyanoj 7 years ago
vodyanoj
"Do you think things can come into existence uncaused and from nothing?"

I do not have to think so. Virtual particle production is a direct consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in its time/energy form and is both theoretically predicted and empirically confirmed. Our Universe could be some such fluctuation on a manifold of higher dimensionality and would not violate any physical laws.

What's more, the toital energy of our Universe is zero, so its creation (and eventual annihilation) does not violate any conservation laws assuming they hold in the bulk.

A cloud of atoms coming into existence in fromnt of my computer would surprise me, but not beacuse I believe it is impossible, It is only highly improbable, and the probability of such an event can be calculated precisely using fundamental QM.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
I kind of enjoy coming to Craig's defense.

"Do you think things can come into existence uncaused and from nothing?"

"Why not?"

So, if a large collection of atoms suddenly appeared in front of your computer that wouldn't surprise you? It shouldn't if you think that some natural occurrences don't need a cause.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"Do you think things can come into existence uncaused and from nothing?"

Why not? In fact, according to quantum mechanics there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, which lends credence to the idea that something can come from "nothing". Besides, we have interesting examples such as virtual particles and the Casimir effect.

And yeah, Craig is a great rhetorician...but that's all.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
"Kalam argument fails entirely since neither one of its premises holds."

Do you think things can come into existence uncaused and from nothing?
Posted by vodyanoj 7 years ago
vodyanoj
"For example according to the physicist P.C.W. Davies if the (weak force) had been different by 1 part in 10 raised to the 100th power our universe would not be life permitting. "

The quote is taken from Craig's book and is a simple lie. Davis makes no such claim. For details, and a clear explanation of Craig's lies, see http://openparachute.wordpress.com... and http://openparachute.wordpress.com...
Posted by vodyanoj 7 years ago
vodyanoj
Kalam argument fails entirely since neither one of its premises holds.

1.Causality is not a proven principle; in fact, on quantum level events are probabilistic and can be looked at as a-causal.

2.The Univerese had a beginning: the term "universe" in this context implies our Universe only, and not the larger manifold it is embedded in (stringy vacuum?) which indeed is required to be eternal.

Craig's attempts to formulate an argument on such shaky premises only betray his fundamental ignorance of modern cosmology.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by vodyanoj 7 years ago
vodyanoj
rulshokFreemanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
rulshokFreemanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
rulshokFreemanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15