Resolved: God Exists
This is a debate about the existence of God.
There are some strict rules that apply. Voters MUST penalize violation of the rules.
1. (a) Forfeiture is an IMMEDIATE loss, granting me an immediate 7-point victory. Therefore, the opponent MUST NOT forfeit ANY ROUND of the debate EXCEPT Round 5 (see Rule 4).
1. (b) My forfeiture will result in my opponent gaining an immediate 7-point victory.
2. The Burden of Proof (BoP) lies with Pro. Verifiable sources can be provided to strengthen the proof, but proof is necessary for all arguments.
3. All arguments must pertain to the definitions given below.
4. PRO must begin the argument in Round 1 and, therefore, MUST forfeit Round 5.
5. Appropriate conduct must be maintained:
IF appropriate conduct is not maintained, then my IMMEDIATE 7-point victory is guaranteed, and the argument WILL BE REPORTED to DDO authorities. If I do not maintain appropriate conduct, then Pro reserves an immediate 7-point victory and the right to report the same to DDO authorities.
Now as I begin, I would like to state the following:
"I am arguing on the point of Agnosticism, that the reference 'God' will not be attributed to any religion specifically, but rather, being referred to as a combination of all deities conceived."
The existence of an God has been debated frequently over the course of human history, but against the tide of scrutiny and criticism all religions have had, the idea of an omnipotent deity has always existed within every known civilisation, ancient or no. Yes granted most religions have been proven wrong in the past by the scientific method and it's variants. For example, "The sun orbits the Earth", "Evolution never occurred" etc. But I like think that religion takes up the ideology that science itself presents, that "A theory is true until it is proven false". And again, another prime ideology held by Science is that "Nothing can be proven to exist or not to exist, but rather, only the likability of it can be assessed". For example, there is no way that you can 100% confirm that the Moon exists if no one is observing it in any way shape or form.
Anyhow, to get onward toward the question presented. Like many others, Religion itself is an theory, yes a theory with many holes, but a theory with strong bindings to the physical world.
For example, the fact that life cannot be created by science, but rather, can only be created FROM something that was previously alive, and that conscious life has never been created by science, conscious life has only been AIDED by science to come into existence. Furthermore, that is not to say that modern-day species were created in their present image, but rather, the concept of life and self-awareness was created and the way for evolution was paved.
Also I would like to argue that this God most likely does not play an active role in the world, but rather, is indifferent and merely observes the runnings of the universe and that in all likelihood Humans are not the only intelligent life in creation.
Another physical binding in this world of the proof of a god is the Laws of Nature, which by what we know, govern the entirety of the universe. Yes, these laws has only been recognised and understood by the human mind, these laws have been observed to exist across the observable universe and are stable in their foundations. Knowing the instability of the universe, and by it's very indecisive nature of evolution, It can be safe to assume that these constraints have either been created or are being enforced upon us.
For example, the Speed of Light is a constant across existence. With light itself being the only thing to travel at such a speed, with only extremely alike things can travel closed to that speed; Photons being a prime example, Photons which have no mass and are incredibly like light only travel 99.9% of the speed of light, NOT at it's speed. Furthermore, if we consider light for a moment, it can be attributed to this envisioned God. Due to the fact that God is timeless and omnipotent, light does not experience time, and by its own existence, harbours attributes that are like to being omnipotent.
To elaborate on the before point of the constraints on the universe, death is a huge constraint. Death itself is a law of physics "All things must come to an end". Be it a living conscious human, to a plant, an inanimate object like a chair or a rock, to even a star and gas; all things disperse into the rest of the cosmos.
To sum up my initial argument:
- My stance toward this envisioned God is that it not a specific god, but a nameless combination of all.
- That this God is indifferent to the happenings or sufferings of living things, but merely, observes and enforces the laws of physics to keep order and stability to the universe.
- That some of the constraints it keeps upon us is Life, which is a granted concept (due to not being able to be created completely artificially), that the speed of light is a prime example of a constant, constraint put upon us and that death is another constraint and concept that is also a constant. That all things living or inanimate come to an end, from the smallest tardigrade to the universe itself (see the Heat Death).
P.S. I would like to thank Tejretics for offering this debate and I eagerly anticipate his response / rebuttal to my stance.
Thanks to @Durrandon for accepting this debate. I am equally eager for their rebuttals and arguments.
Your claims have absolutely NO PROOF. You have not fulfilled your BoP, merely directly stating claims. Your BoP is not to prove any properties of God as shown by you in Round 1; it is to show the existence of God. Science is not something that "created the universe"; science is an explanation of what created the universe. You have merely stated that God does not play an active role in the universe. THAT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DEBATE. The primary goal of this debate is for Pro to show the EXISTENCE OF GOD. You have randomly stated a property that is completely irrelevant.
Getting to the proper rebuttals:
You claim that life can be created by only something that was previously alive. Why did a sentient being have to create the universe? A scientific force could have created the universe. The universe may have a source but does that source need to be the source of all moral authority? Not necessarily. It can even be a yet undiscovered force, or a singularity that transcends existence. If God can self-create or transcend creation, so can a force. There needn't be any of the properties described in the definition of Round 1 for this force to exist. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe originated from a singularity , a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume . According to the Big Bang, energy was absorbed from gravity inherent to existence (as God is, according to most theologists), and expanded into photons, that then contracted to form matter and antimatter.   The source of the universe need not be an omnipotent, omniscient being that acts as the source of moral authority.
1. Proof of the Big Bang:
B-mode polarization is a polarization signal that acts as a cosmic microwave background, a form of thermal radiation from the Big Bang itself. The polarization signal, when analyzed, showed that gravitational forces before the existence of matter did hold energy, and maximum energy was held at a point of immense energy: a singularity. According to Albert Einstein, these CMBs (cosmic microwave backgrounds) act as "ripples" in gravitational spacetime. This is virtual proof of sudden cosmic inflation, rapid expansion of the universe from a singularity, basically proving the Big Bang.  Prior to the Big Bang's recombination that created the universe as it is today, the "universe" was a hot, dense baryon plasma sea where photons were quickly scattered from free charged particles. The CMBs showed hints of unstable neutral hydrogen contact, but neutral hydrogen primarily became stable during the process of post-Big Bang recombination. Thus, the CMBs were pre-recombination or during recombination and thus are from the Big Bang. 
2. The Omnipotence Paradox
If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions (all actions include hypothetical one; "all" even includes nonexistent, or incomprehensible actions, which, by the rules of absolute omnipotence, require the ability to perform the same by the omnipotent being objectively). Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.  By this debate's definition of "omnipotence", the omnipotence referenced here is absolute omnipotence, meaning that there are no limits to the Supreme Being's omnipotence by the terms of this debate. Thus, omnipotence cannot exist. To further expand on this paradox: Now, an omnipotent being ("X") can perform ANY action whatsoever, even if that action, hypothetically, does not exist [yet]. Now let us say X creates a yet non-existent action Y that it cannot perform. [X has the ability to create even that action by the definition of omnipotence] As Y is conceivable by X, X cannot perform Y, even if the action Y does not exist. "All" encompasses the action Y. Therefore, as X cannot perform Y (which X creates only later), X is not omnipotent. Once X creates Y, Y becomes an existent action that X cannot do. To make this argument more concise, for the sake of the argument, let us take an action. (Disclaimer: This is NOT an action that the Supreme Being according to the definitions given in this debate cannot perform; it has been selected randomly) Now, let X be called "Superman" (just for ease of understanding) and Y be the act of making a dog's curved tail straight. (this is taken from a famous folktale of Aladdin) Now, let us say that all dog's tails are straight. (only for the purposes of explanation) Therefore, dogs cannot have curved tails, so the act of making curved tails straight does not exist. One day, Superman decides to make some dog's tails curved and then uses his powers to ensure that the act of making a dog's tail straight is impossible even for him. Since this action is conceived of, it is a hypothetical action that acts as an idea. This action could not be performed by Superman even before it was created, as it existed as an idea, with the square ground rule that Superman could not perform it. Therefore, Superman is not omnipotent.
3. The Omniscience Paradox
(1) If God foreknows of some event E, does E happen necessarily, and (2) if some event E is contingent, how can God foreknow E's occurrence? Thus, omniscience implies the lack of contingency, and thus, by the definition of the existence of a Supreme Being, means everything is definite. This definitiveness is proof of the universe being completely entwined by order. But according to the thermodynamic measure of entropy, there is more than one way in which a thermodynamic system (eg: a region of the universe) may be arranged. This arrangement is variable, yet constant in the fact that the varied arrangements may coexist. Thus, there is, by definition, disorder in the universe. If there is disorder, then only one hypothesis of the possibilities of entropy may be predestined, and not more. Thus, foreknowing all the possibilities is impossible.  If you already know how everything will act, then you already foreknow it without deducting it by logic. If one already knows that something will happen, then that action is definite. "Knowing" is the act of having knowledgeability of a certainty. If something is a certainty, it is already predetermined. And a predetermined action lacks possibilities. There is no chance that no event is contingent. Definitiveness completely violates disorder in this universe. If there is definitiveness and God exists, then God is the only free will agent and we are unknowingly being influenced by God. But as there is absolutely no evidence for that, I will discredit this notion. If even one contingency exists, then God cannot be omniscient because no being can have certainty that a contingency can occur. As the existence of disorder is effectively proven by the laws of thermodynamics, lack of contingencies is impossible. The Bible is used as your only source in a rebuttal of yours, so I will use it as a source. The Bible says people must direct their actions on the basis of appropriate moral judgement and describes some as immoral. But if everything is predetermined, then moral judgement and immorality do not exist. Most other religions also believe that morality must be followed by God's law. Therefore, omniscience is impossible.
4. The Grand Design Question
The question "who/what created the universe?" is often the question posed by theists to cite the existence of God. But, if the answer is God, then the question can merely be deflected to "what created the God?" If something did create the universe, it was a singularity that acted as the starting point of the universe. The singularity was created by the energy inherent to gravity. 
I now shift the burden of proof to Pro.
 Hawking, S. (1996). A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Dell Publishing Group, New York, ISBN 978-0-553-10953-5, Edition 2, based on 1988 edition.
 Moulay, Emmanuel. "The universe and photons". FQXi Foundational Questions Institute. (http://www.fqxi.org...)
 Joseph Silk (2009). Horizons of Cosmology. Templeton Press. p. 208.
 http://gotejas.com......; Posts "God Does Not Play Dice With The Universe", "What Is Nothing?" and "E Pluribus Unum".
 Einstein, A (June 1916). "Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation".Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin. part 1: 688–696.
 Einstein, A (1918). "Über Gravitationswellen".Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin. part 1: 154–167
 Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s". Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.
 Spergel, D. N.; et al. (2003). "First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: determination of cosmological parameters".Astrophysical Journal Supplement 148 (1): 175.
 Savage, C. Wade. "The Paradox of the Stone" Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74–79
 "Purtill on Fatalism and Truth". Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.
 Viney, Donald Wayne (Spring 1989). "Does Omniscience Imply Foreknowledge? Craig on Hartshorneby". Process Studies (Center for Process Studies) 18 (1): 30–37.
 "Carnot, Sadi (1796–1832)". Wolfram Research. 2007.
 Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 47,57.
 Münster, A. (1970), Classical Thermodynamics, translated by E.S. Halberstadt, Wiley–Interscience, London, ISBN 0-471-62430-6, pp. 49, 69.
 Bailyn, M. (1994). A Survey of Thermodynamics, American Institute of Physics Press, New York, ISBN 0-88318-797-3, pp. 14–15, 214.
 Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York. ISBN 0-553-80537-1
1) "Your claims have absolutely NO PROOF... merely directly stating claims... Your BOP is not to prove any properities of god... [only] to show the exisence of god... THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THIS DEBATE... IS TO SHOW THE EXISTANCE OF GOD"
Above is a series of statements made by Con during his initial statement, to which I will aim my first rebuttal.
To Con: The claims I have stated are to be used as evidence / proof for the existance of god. I am arguing that the constraits put upon us by God (The Laws of Physics) is exactly proof for the existance of an enforcing agent (God). That the Life-Death cycle is an factor of God that it has constrained all existing things to follow. Furthermore, I argue that through my presenting of claims for the existance of God, the statement of his properities play a huge must and will have to be mentioned and rebuttalled by you (if it can be done), that these properities stated in Round 1 are the proof of this envisoned god of mine. In my Round 1 statement, I have attempted to show and or prove the existance of god, you have just decided not to take my points into consideration.
2) You are right in thinking that a scienttific force created the universe, and that scientific force is a force that we have not discovered yet, we have only uncovered some of the constraints it has put upon us; this scientific force we have given a name: God. This God is the source of all moral authority, a type of moral authoirty that does not necessarily have to be attributed to this force, but it highy likely that it is. That this moral authoirties view on morality is not black and white, but rather, this god judges individuals after their death upon the sense of morality that they themselves attribute to, though these individuals might not not agee to these morals and openly defy them, in doing so they are agreeing to these morals. For example, If a serial killer murders his / her victims, he / she knows what they are doing is wrong, but they choose to do it anyway. Furthermore, yes the source of this universe does not have to be omnipotent, omniscient and the source of moral authority but it is most likely that it is, to a point, that this source or god can be taken as fact.
3) I would like to elaborate on my definition of a god for this argument, in case that my intial definition was not clear. If it was not clear, I apoligise if it was, but at any rate. My envisoned God is not one of any main religion: i.e. Christainity, Muslim. But rather an agnostic version of God, a God whose reasonings can not be known, only that some of his properities / charactersitics can be uncovered. God is genderless, emotionless and to an extreme extent opinionless, and of his / her opinions, nothing can be known.
4) The Big Bang. Though I have to presented the point of the Big Band in my argument, I accept the statement of the Big Bang. There is unique evidence to which proves the Big Bang, and further evidence to prove String Theory. And it is true that all mass and particles in the existance of the world, and in-turn biological beings, are a direct consequence of the Big Bang. Yes the entirity of the statement entitled under "Proof of the Big Bang" is all true, beside one point. The Big Bang was signalled by God. The intense singularity of mass was created by God, and it's subsequent explosion was an action by God. In this envisoned religion, this is how the universe was created. The Big Bang Theory is correct, and that the Big Bang itself was cauased by God. Through this, all biological beings that came into existance were allowed to exist by God. Through the String Theory, everything that came into existance is a direct cause by God; and the life that came into being, was allowed to be God.
5) The Omnopotence Paradox.. This Paradox is indeed a thorn in the side of my arguement, so is the Paradox of Omniscience. My answer to this paradox is as follows:
Although this simple argument may appear compelling at first glance, there are some fundamental problems with it. Before identifying these problems, however, it is necessary to make clear what is meant by "omnipotence". Great minds like Rene Descartes and Thomas Aquinas have created large and complex definitions of a paradox . Out of these two minds, I agree with Aquinas' theory of omnipotence. God is able to do anything possible; he can part the red sea, and he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic and mathematics in the way that Descartes states. So, if God exists then he is a being that can lift all stones. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. According to Aquinas" understanding of omnipotence, remember, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible.
And therefore,he paradox of the stone, and the omnipotence paradox, can be resolved. It fails to show that there is an incoherence in the theistic conception of God, and so fails to demonstrate that God does not exist.
LINK - http://www.existence-of-god.com...
6) The answer to the Omniscience Paradox is simple. God has the knowledge of everything, this includes all possibilities. There is no one possibility for any action, but rather, billions and bilions of them. There is no deterministic view of the universe, no action is predetermined, only that God has knowledge of all possible outcomes of every problem. The idea of free will can be rebuked by many scientific theories, but for the reasonings of this argument, humans have free will to do what they wish; and God knows all possibilities of this free will. There is an unlimited amount of choices humans make, and in turn, there is an unlimited amount of possibilities that God knows of. And I would like to point out that your sending statement of this point is completly false. You state that I referred to the Bible as a source, when in fact I did not. I stated that my argument for a god has no relevance to any major religion, the only refercing of the word 'bible' on this page, are two made by you. I have never used the bible as a source, nor will I; the ending to your statement is FALSE and as of such is void.
7) The Grand Design Question. Agnosticism works on the fact that there is a god, but nothing can be known about him; only properities of his / her influence on the world can be known. As of such, the knowledge of his origins cannot be known. And futhermore, this statement has no relevance on the topic of the debate. The topic is DOES GOD EXIST, the relevance of his / her creation has ZERO bareing on the question.
8) A expansion of my points. My proof of gods existance is the constraints he / she has placed upon us. Such as:
- The Life / Death
- The Laws of Physics, such as Thermodynamics, Speed of Light, etx
- The established Laws of Nature, siuch as gravity, evolution, etc
These constrains are proof of God due to the fact that they are being constantly enforced upon us, a highly likely explanation for such, is the exinstance of an deity.
PS: I would like to thank Con for his rebuttals and I eagerly look forward to his next round of rebuttals / points forwarded.
You are merely stating that a "creative force" exists. Why does this creative force have to be sentient and omnipotent? The creative force can merely be a force that entangles the universe. Your arguments have supported a "God" that acts as a creative force; you have not given me a REASON for that God being the source of all MORAL authority. By my definition, God has to INVOLVE himself/herself in the universe. All morality and moral judgement is defined by this God. Despite this, you are completely discrediting moral judgement. Why SHOULD the creative force be a source of moral judgement? Your rebuttals have no answers to these questions and so I request Pro to strengthen his rebuttals in the next round.
1. The Big Bang
What is the proof that God caused the Big Bang? The Big Bang could have merely been caused by the singularity itself; perhaps the ancients referred to "God" as the singularity. But an omnipotent, benevolent (by "benevolent" I refer to God being the source of ALL moral authority) envisioning of God needn't have caused the Big Bang.  What is the proof that God caused the Big Bang? Pro has not fulfilled their BoP. I will expand on your points of the String Theory in the next rebuttal.
2. The String Theory
The String Theory is a theoretical framework of cosmic particles that states that these particles, as envisioned by various scientists, actually act as one-dimensional structures called "strings".  This "resonating" aspect refers to the supersymmetric interaction between string-particles such as the interaction between bosons and fermions.  I presume Pro is stating that this quantum entanglement-like form of supersymmetric resonation between string-particles is what Pro is stating is the connective force of God. My rebuttal is that this interaction between string particles may be omnipresent, but it is not a sentient force, nor is it caused by a sentient force. Pro has not provided logical arguments pertaining to the definition of God as given in Round 1.
3. Moral Authority
My next rebuttal concerns moral authority. While the universe may have been created by a force of particles (perhaps strings) causing the Big Bang, these particles need not hold MORAL AUTHORITY. Moral authority refers to the creation of all human psychological moral judgement in the universe, i.e. the root cause of human perception of righteousness, virtue, and morality. What does morality have to do with the scientific creation of the universe? And a source of moral authority has to intervene in the universe to create MORAL JUDGEMENT. As an adjective, moral means "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour" or "holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct."  Pro has neither explained nor given proof of how this creative force provides principles for proper conduct.
4. The Grand Design Question
Before I reach the paradoxes, let me cover the Grand Design Question. By the definitions of the debate, "God acts as the creator and ruler of the universe". This is in extension from the Big Bang argument. My argument is that the Big Bang created the universe without the intervention of a supreme being. As stated, this was not a rebuttal directly to you, but merely a rebuttal against a common question posed by theists. But yes, since you did not pose any similar argument, the Grand Design Question is irrelevant, so it is disregarded for the rest of the debate.
In citing the existence of God, Pro must prove the existence of a God in accordance with the definitions. (Rule 3) By the definition of "God", there are certain ascribed properties. You claim that the properties of God cannot be known, but my point is you must prove the existence of God in accordance with the properties of OMNIPOTENCE, OMNISCIENCE, BEING THE SOURCE OF ALL MORAL AUTHORITY, ACTING AS THE RULER OF THE UNIVERSE, and ACTING AS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. Therefore, an agnostic argument such as yours is not able to prove these properties. Please do so in the next round. If it is not done in the next round, I request the voters to penalize the violation of Rule 3 by invoking Rule 7.
6. The Omnipotence Paradox
As mentioned in the previous round, here I am merely stating that an essential property by the definition of the existence of God is impossible, thereby disproving the existence of an omnipotent God. The definition of omnipotence is not by Aquinas' understanding according to the rules of this debate. Omnipotence, according to the rules of this debate, is "the ability to perform any action whatsoever". The definition of whatsoever is "at all".  This means that omnipotence, by the definition of this debate, is the ability to perform any action regardless of any barriers or conditions. Even an impossible action or a nonexistent action is a conceivable action and, therefore, applies to this definition. Impossibility does not apply to absolute omnipotence. Thomas Aquinas spoke of basic omnipotence , but the definition of the debate, including the essential word whatsoever, refers to absolute omnipotence, which Aquinas himself argued was impossible by the omnipotence paradox.  By Rule 6, as all properties are restricted by logic, the omnipotence paradox still stands.
7. The Omniscience Paradox
"Know" is defined as to "be absolutely certain or sure of something" in this context.  "Omniscience", by this debate, is "knowledge of everything". If a being E knows absolutely everything, then E is absolutely certain of everything, including future actions. As omniscience implies definitiveness of future, it means everything is predetermined. Reproduced from the previous arguments, "If one already knows that something will happen, then that action is definite. 'Knowing' is the act of having knowledgeability of a certainty. If something is a certainty, it is already predetermined. And a predetermined action lacks possibilities. There is no chance that no event is contingent. Definitiveness completely violates disorder in this universe."  Thus, the omniscience paradox still stands.
8. Pro's Proof:
The explanations for these three arguments are simple: randomness. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe was created because of the existence of disorder. Disorder keeps growing in the universe. This randomness fuels the universe and destroys it.  The human mind is hardwired to believe that there is a source for everything, but new scientific evidence has come to light that says that some things exist without a cause.  This also renders the first point of the Kalam Cosmological Argument baseless (the first point is called the causal premise or CP).
Pro's primary argument is the causal premise, but modern quantum physics renders the causal premise baseless, effectively crippling the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
As all my arguments still stand, I extend all my arguments from Round 2, strengthened with these rebuttals.
 Pro has violated Rule 3 of the debate. Any further violation of Rule 3 will result in enforcement of Rule 7 that guarantees my immediate 7-point victory.
 Pro's arguments have been amazing. I'm seriously looking forward to your arguments. Thanks a lot to @Durrandon. Also, thanks for accepting my friend request.
 http://gotejas.com...: posts "God Does Not Play Dice With The Universe", "What Is Nothing?", and "E Pluribus Unum."
 Sean Carroll, Ph.D., Caltech, 2007, The Teaching Company, Dark Matter, Dark Energy: The Dark Side of the Universe, Guidebook Part 2 page 59
 Klebanov, Igor and Maldacena, Juan (2009)."Solving Quantum Field Theories via Curved Spacetimes" (PDF). Physics Today 62: 28. (http://www.sns.ias.edu...)
 The New Oxford Dictionary of English (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
 Aquinas, Thomas; Summa Theologica Book 1, Question 25, article 3
 Ross, James F., "Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae (ca. 1273), Christian Wisdom Explained Philosophically", in The Classics of Western Philosophy: A Reader's Guide, (eds.) Jorge J. E. Gracia, Gregory M. Reichberg, Bernard N. Schumacher (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003)
 Geach, P. T. "Omnipotence" 1973 in Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 63–75
 New Oxford Dictionary of English
 "Purtill on Fatalism and Truth". Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.
 Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA
 Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York. ISBN 0-553-80537-1.
The main point of this debate is to prove the existance of God, NOT to provide any reasonings in anyway shape or form. I do not have to provide a REASON why God is the source of all moral authoirty, and your fact of stating that 'a creative forces does not need to be the source of all moral authority: has NO relevance on the debate at hand. This debate is not going to work if you do not fulfil your end of the bargain, as it were. I put forward points and you either rebuttal them or agree with them, and vise versa. Just stating "YOU HAVE NO PROOF" or "YOU HAVE NO PROVIDED A REASON" is completely irrelevant to the debate, and just further confuses those who will vote on the debate. YOU must put forward a sound and precise argument against the point I put forward, a thing that you have failed to do. Furthermore, you state that "God has to involve himself / herself in the universe, by your definiton"; you defintion of a god is as follows: "A sentient, intelligent being that acts as the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being; the properties of GOD in this debate are: OMNISCIENCE and OMNIPOTENCE." In this definition it does not state that God has to play an active role in the universe, just be the 'ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority'. A ruler does not have to play an active role, in the sense that you are arguing, God's role in the unverse is one of an observatory stance. Meaning, he obseres the universe and enforces constraints upon us. I may be repeating myself, but these statements are to be considered by PROOF of God. To effectively rebuttal these statements or proofs you MUST be able to disprpve these constraints by offering a much more likely reason why these constraints are constant and unbreakable.
On the subject of the Big Bang, you state that a benevolent God needen't have created the Big Band but a singularity could. What I am stating is that God created the singularity, which in-turn caused the Big Band. The duty of Proof does NOT lie with me explaining my God did such a thing, OR discussing the possibility between God having no part in the manner. Only the evidence for my statement, which is as follows. No where in the scientific world have we observed something with near to omnipotent power, the only thign we know of such power is a deity. So the only explanation we have of an omnipontent power, must be the one we accept until we come up with another explanation.
1) Moral Authority
As I refer to before, discussing why or why not the moral of authority needs to have a source, we MUST argue that God is the source of this authority, which by the fact of the universe existing and the fact of our societies morals being based upon religious and cultural reasonings, cultural reasonings being influnced by religious ones, we can only assume that the source of m moral authoirty lies with religion, to which states that it lies with God.
This point I brought up was only to narrow the debate and steer it away from arguments that have no real relevance (such as the accuracy of the Bible, etc). Furthermore, if one god exists, we have nbo way of knowing, or prooving, anyt of his reasonings, only his characteristics. This is my point of Agnosticism, to which I have accepted the definitions and defined characteris of this god stated by you; this vieew of agnosticism is a morphed one to suit this question, so your point is ireevelent.
3) Omnipotence Paradox
God has the power to do anything, that is true. But anything is a broad subject,. You stated that God must be confined to logic, and that is the case in this arguement. His omnipotence is that he can do anything possible; making an impossible object is not possible, so in retrospect, your point is flawed; just another one of your confusions to further befuddle voters.
4) Omniscience Paradox
You have misunderstood me, you are to concerned on the matter of God 'knowing' and in-turn we have no free will and that all actions are predetermined. This is not the case. God simply knows of all possibilities taken, to which are there innumerable and as of such we have free will. You entire point of an determinist view of the unvierse, with all this predetermined, is false. You are unable to successfully analysis my arguement in this point, except. you continue to bring your argument on one determined point that you are unwilling to change. As of such, with the omnipotence paradox, I have answered both with not only a reliable answer, but an realisitic one.
Your final point is a tricky one, yes randomness and disorder exists; but is this really disorder. No, it is not. We are just unable to comphrend it, this disorder exists to keep the running, and as we know, God enforces STABILITY into the universe. Your arguement states that DISORDER creates STABILITY, in the sense of the runnings of the universe, unknowingly, you have just furthered my point and strenghened it. God enforces constraints and stability in the universe, and this disorder is in-fact stability.
You have not fulfilled your BoP. All your arguments from Round 2 have been spent rebutting me, and you do not have arguments of your own. Since BoP rests on Pro, Pro must PROVE the existence of God pertaining to the definition. All Pro's arguments are for the existence of a creative force. But a creative force NEED NOT be the source of all moral authority. Pro must prove not merely the existence of Pro's own envisioning of God, but the existence of a God who is ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE DEFINITION.
You have not proven the existence of God. I rebutted all your arguments for the existence of God. You have only rebutted my rebuttals. You have NOT created a positive case, merely rebutting my negative case. All arguments presented so far have been proof of SOME source. Does that source need to be God? You have not presented ANYTHING to back this argument. It is not only the existence of God that has to be proven. By rule 2, "proof is necessary for all arguments". You have NOT presented proof for any argument of yours, nor have you provided an explanation for my rebuttal of your proof. This is a major violation of Rule 2. Nevertheless, I shall rebut your other arguments.
1. Moral Authority
You cannot assume anything in a debate. If you present anything, you must present it with valid support. You have not made ANY arguments to show that there is a being that is the source of all moral authority. You have merely stated that we must argue about this topic, without presenting any argument. I invoke Rule 2 to ask you to provide proof that religion is the source of all moral authority. Proof has not been provided, rendering this argument based on illogical assumption invalid.
2. The Omnipotence Paradox
You are randomly providing your own definition of arguments. The definition provided in this debate for omnipotence is "the ability to perform any action whatsoever." There are no conditions of possibility imposed on this definition of omnipotence. This is another violation of Rule 3. I request the voters to invoke Rule 7 and penalize this violation of Rule 3. (Refer rules from Round 1)
3. The Omniscience Paradox
Disorder is not stability. Disorder is defined as "absence of order", or "a state of confusion". Disorder states that there is no predefined possibility. God knows of a certain happening with certainty (according to the definition of omniscience: knowledge of everything). God does not enforce constraints; constraints exist out of randomness and disorder. Chaos creates and destroys the universe. Disorder does not create stability, disorder merely created the universe. Omniscience implies that all actions are predestined and, therefore, cannot be contingent. Pro has neither argued against this point nor has Pro accepted it.
I extend my arguments from previous rounds because Pro has not properly rebutted. Invoking Rule 7, I criticize Pro's violation of Rules 2 and 3. By Rule 7, I invoke an immediate 7-point victory. I invite Pro to contradict this in the next round.
Thanks to @Durrandon for accepting this debate.
Source: New Oxford Dictionary of English
- In Round 2, Con took up the Burden of Proof by presenting points for me to rebuttal, and has continued to do so, therefore, the rule of Pro having the Burden of Proof has been contradicted and is therefore flawed. I request that the BOP section of the debate rules be declared void and be stricken of the record.
- You cannot prove a negative. As many have tried before, you can never present any solid evidence for the existence of God, this is because that God is a hypothesis, an idea, to which no solid evidence can be attributed to. The only thing I can present that is closest to this proof is the possibility of evidence presented, to which is the Constraints enforced upon the Universe.
1) Moral Authority
I have already efficiently debated Moral Authority on God's side. Not only have I identified his role as the source for this authority, but I have also outlined where morality comes from, which is cultural and religious values, to which cultural values can always be linked back to religious values; though the two may contradict. (For example, in the Christian belief system, it states that no one should commit murder, however, it does state that good christians should kill heretics. Another example is that a man should not judge another man, but yet goes onto that we should prosecute those who commit crime." Furthermore, you have stated that does this creative force have to be the source, or why should it be, etc. These questions cannot be answered in anyway that is relevant to the core topic of this debate.
2) Both paradoxes I have answered, you continuing to state these paradoxes does nothing to further the debate. I am not randomly defining my arguments, I am working off your definitions. Omnipotence: "The power to do anything". This definition is accurate, and we already know that the expanded definition of Omnipotence is "The power to do anything POSSIBLE'. Creating an impossible object is not possible. So the omnipotence paradox is FLAWED at it's core, and I have answered and successfully rebutteled this paradox. The Omniscience Paradox has also been answered. God knows everything, it matters not if we have free will or no, nor is it relevance if everything is pre-determined. I have presented an accurate and reliable answer to this paradox, that God knows of all possibilities that exist. There are infinite possibilities, infinite choices to every action; in retrospect, we have free will. And God knows of all these possibilities. Furthermore, you go onto attempt to rebuttle the stability of the universe with Thermodynamics. Stating that the universe exists in disorder at it's core. What you fail to see is that the Laws of Thermodynamics is part of the Laws of Physics and Nature, to which is enforced upon us by God. The fact that the universe exists in disorder is apart of God's plan, it is mean't to be that way, disorder ensures stability in the universe. Your argument is INVALID in concern to this point. The definition of Stability is: The State of being Stable. And the universe IS stable in it's own way, and way we have not yet to comprehend.
I have presented by points and my evidence, you have failed to rebuttle any of them. Furthermore, I have rebuttled all of your arguments, you just fail to recognise them. I request to the voters to see this and identify this. To ignore Con's calls for confusion and to vote according to this argument. Vote not to your personal beliefs nor to whether you agree with me or my point. Vote for whose argument was more stable, whose argument was more coherent, whose argument made more sense out of the points presented on both sides.
This debate was about the existence of God. Now you merely state that it is a possibility, but you must be certain. You have NOT fulfilled your BoP whatsoever. You accepted this debate according to the terms and conditions of Round 1.
Your violations have been of Rule 2 and Rule 3. To make a positive claim, you MUST fulfill your BoP. I now invoke Rule 7 to grant me an immediate 7-point victory. I reserve the right to declare an immediate victory.
The "expanded definition of omnipotence" is your own definition. If you wish to debate, you should have followed the DEFINITION provided by the debate. This blatant violation of Rule 3 grants me an immediate 7-point victory. Absolute omnipotence declares no impossibility, but your arguments seem to support mine.
Vote Con. This is an immediate 7-point victory by the rules of this debate. Pro has violated these rules and has not fulfilled their BoP.
Thanks to @Durrandon for accepting this debate. Pro cannot post any arguments in Round 5. Pro must forfeit Round 5. Do not penalize Pro for forfeiture of Round 5, as stated in Rule 4.
Thanks to @Tejretics for this debate, though I was doomed to fail from the start, I still had an enjoyable time debating this topic and I look forward to debating against you again.,
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|