The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
chainmachine
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 21584
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I prepose that we debate the existence of God. First round is for acceptance. Hope you accept it. Good luck!
chainmachine

Con

Please start your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I thank my opponent for his acceptance. I will now begin my argument for the Affirmative. I will start out with two contentions and will present more in later rounds if need be.

C1: Argument from Change


I will now present the argument from change: The world we live in is a world of constant change. This teenaged boy grew to be 6'3, but he wasn't always that tall. There was a oak tree that grew from a tiny acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. Until it comes to be in existence , it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything. As for the things that change, although it can be what it will eventually become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right then in this state (such as a seed or acorn); it will actually exist in that state (oak tree). But it is not actually in that state. It only has the potentiality to be out in that state.

Now with this said, I will ask my opponent and the people following this debate a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved so that the change can occur? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have in the first place and the thing that changes can't have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change can't actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it can't change. Nothing changes itself.

Apparently self-moving things, like the animals bodies , are moved by desire or will something other than molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it from place to place.

Now that that has also been said I will ask a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they can't change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to bring it's potentiality for change into existence.

The universe is the sum total of all moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in a constant process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there has to be some force in addition to the universe, areal being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by the word "God."
Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

C2: The Design Argument


This next argument is based of you guessed it: The perfection of the design of well...everything. Consider this syllogism:

P1: The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility
P2: Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
P3: It wasn't chance.
P4: Therefore, the universe is the product of intelligent design.
P5: Intelligent design comes only from a mind or a intelligent designer.
C: Therefore, the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

P1: Obviously my first premise is easy to prove all my opponnent has and the voters has to do is either look at the sky or even look at themselves in the mirror and they will see how complex everything is.

P2: If all this order is not in some way the product of intelligent design—then what? Obviously, it "just happened." Things just fell out that way "by chance." Alternatively, if all this order is not the product of blind, purposeless forces, then it has resulted from some kind of purpose. That purpose can only be intelligent design. So my second premise stands.

P3: It is up to my opponent to give a credible alternative to intelligent design. And "chance" simply is not a credible cause. For we can understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened "by chance" is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected it to turn out, or that it did turn out in a way we would not have expected it to be. But expectation is truly impossible without order. If you take away order and speak only of chance as a kind of ultimate source of everything, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of the word chance at all. Instead of thinking of the word chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order-overwhelmingly intricate order-against a random, purposeless background of chance. That is incredible. Therefore, it is eminently reasonable to affirm the third premise, 'not chance', and therefore to affirm the conclusion, that this universe is the product of intelligent design.

Conclusion


In conclusion I would like to recap my preceeding arguments. I basically proved:
1. Everything must have something outside it acting on it so that it may go through change. This requires a beginningless creator to act upon the Universe.
2. That based on the sheer awsomeness and complexity of the world around us that is simpally illogical and unreasonable to say that everything was a result of meer change.

So, now I will await my opponnents response. I ask that the voters vote pro.
chainmachine

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his response.

CREATOR EXISTENCE

.I This "Creator" theory has no basis, the big bang theory is a prime example of scientific evidence that proves how the universe was created. You argument has no factual basis except life is to "Complicated" which is illogical. Genetic makeup and environmental effects is what makes life so complicated.

.II Your saying that an intelligent designer controls everything, knows the future etc. etc. How is that possible? If so then his followers shouldn't die and the world should be much more just.

.III If this "creator" made the universe, that would mean something created it? That means an endless cycle of creators have to make the universe.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://billgaede.hubpages.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

~~Defense and Rebuttels~~

1.
My opponent's first criticism of my argument does not really refute it at all. He says that the Big Bang Theory a 'good' example of scientific evedence that proves how the universe was CREATED (please not that my opponent did say that the universe was created). However, he does not give any evedence that supports my claim as illogical. Nevertheless I will prove to the voters and to my opponent that the Big Bang Theory is not a good enough reason to declare the existence of a god as false.

The Big Bang Theory has many problems with it. I will present one of them so that my opponent can see. They are:

Problem: The first problem that pretty much makes the entire theory crumble is one simple question: What happen before the Big Bang? It is highly unlikely that a huge pile of objects in the universe can just form from nowhere. This is yet more evedence that says that beginningless creator must exist.


I will also state that the Big Bang Theory really can not disprove the existence if it is true, because for the same reason up above. Something has to make the Big Bang happen, therefore the only real answer is that there is a almighty creator that would have to instigate the entire universe.


2. He then asks how it is possible for a all-powerful and all-knowing god to exist. It is possible for him to exist because he created everything (once again the only logical solution to how the Universe came about.) if one creats something then they obviouly know whats going to happen to it and everything that there is to know about it.

My opponent then brings up the age old argument of evil (note that evil includes the words my opponent brought up in his point). However, this can be refuted easily. The anwswer the problem my opponent has stated is the words free will. Can you picture a god that wants robots? No! Simpaly all the bad stuff in this world is in fact not the creation of god, but rather of his creation.

But then again your all probably asking the question: Why would a all-loving god tolerate such horrific evil in the world?

My simple answer to that question is that why should he/she do so? It is our mess that we have caused so then it is only logical to let the mess be cleaned up by the one or many that have made the mess.

3. Finally, my opponent says that if god or creator has created everything; then what created him? This is farely simple to explain. A god by definition is the soul creator of the universe. Therefore he created time. So, if there is no time before he was to create it, then he is not subject to beginning nor end. We obviously can tell that the universe is not infinate like some people say thanks to the Laws of Thermodynamics. They go as follows:

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.

So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down. This proves that everything had to be created by a beginigless creator.



In conclusion, my opponent has not really refuted my contentions at all. However, I have proven that the fact that everything is so complicated is in fact a good enough reason say that everything didn't come from chance, and that the Big Bang Theory is not a good reason to dismiss the existence of a god. That and combined with my refutation of my opponnet's probelm of evil argument and the fact that the whole universe had a beginning says that god exists.

~~Sources~~

http://nowscape.com...

http://www.angelfire.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...
chainmachine

Con

BIG BANG THEORY

.I It is just a theory, but still there is no proof that god exists. The Big Bang Theory at least has a basis instead of useless theology, molecules powered by protons and neutrons are the groundwork for life on earth. Matter makes up the universe, and everything. That is fact, if god is this matter... He is everything not a intelligent designer, your argument here doesn't make sense.

CONCLUSION

My opponent still lacks any solid evidence, he simply argues that god made everything. If god is an intelligent designer, then how was he created? And if he has been around forever then he was existing in nothing. Simply impossible, matter is everything. The only argument is god is everything but that makes him no longer an intelligent designer.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

~~Rebuttel and Defense~~

My opponent states the following:

It is just a theory, but still there is no proof that god exists. The Big Bang Theory at least has a basis instead of useless theology, molecules powered by protons and neutrons are the groundwork for life on earth. Matter makes up the universe, and everything. That is fact, if god is this matter... He is everything not a intelligent designer, your argument here doesn't make sense.

He basically says that there is no basis for the existence of a god. However, reason would say say otherwise. As I have stated before in my contentions the universe is under con stant change. There must be something that acts upon it. The only reasonable answer would be a almighty beginingless creator.

If there was a Big Bang then something would have had to cause it. Since everything had a beggining and is slowly running down (as stated in two laws of Thermodynamics) the only explaination is that there is a god.

My opponent then states that matter is the make up of everything. However, how dod matter come to be? Something had to of happend to cause matter to exist. Something had to have caused time to actually begin so that matter could exist. Therefore, this is reasonable evedence to say that there is a god. A god can't be made of matter because he himself has created it.

My opponent then says that what created god? However, if there would have to be time in order for him to be created. Since time can not simply be self existent. Time itself has to have a creator. This means god can have no beginning and no end. Reason and logic proves that time would need a beginning, and a beginningless almighty creator is the only logical answer.

~~Conclusion~~

I have given logical proof for the existence of a god. My opponent has not refuted my arguments. He has not given a speck of evedence to prove that god doesn't exist. So, I ask the voters to vote pro.

chainmachine

Con

MATTER

.I Matter has always existed, it existed before the big bang but the big bang set it in motion. Saying an intelligent designer exists is illogical, matter runs its own course because it is everything.

.II If an intelligent designer made the universe, then how did he exist? You dance and dance around this but cannot answer it! If he is beingless then how did he create everything without physical presences or energy?

CONCLUSION

My opponent has not been able to stand up to solid facts of evolution and still stands by his argument that god made matter the basis of a physical things. But of course since his physical presence has been proven false he has to be beingless therefore unable to do anything. Meaning he doesn't exist.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Philosopher1 4 years ago
Philosopher1
Nice copy paste for C1
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Nope, I just want you to tell me what is so illogical about it so then I can fix it.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Feel free to send a debate challenge to me. I don't really feel like doing it in the comments section of another debate.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
@DakotaKrafick: How arguments illogical? Explain please.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
DeathbeforedishonourchainmachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically drops his/his opponents arguments, or just restates his own, throughout the debate. btw, to pro, energy is not running out, it changes form.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
DeathbeforedishonourchainmachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically kept shouting illogical. He did make a case about having no proof, but con didn't have proof either. Con could have won, but didn't.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
DeathbeforedishonourchainmachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped most of his arguments.
Vote Placed by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
DeathbeforedishonourchainmachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con kept saying that Pro's arguments were illogical (which they were), but failed to explain why. Pro won this one by a landslide.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 4 years ago
jimtimmy
DeathbeforedishonourchainmachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped numerous arguments and was very weak.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 4 years ago
Lickdafoot
DeathbeforedishonourchainmachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had some interesting points and con dropped the ball. He repeated his arguments rather than respond to his opponents refutations, for example the "who created god" argument. Con didn't address pro's stance that god exists outside of time therefore didn't need a cause, but rather restated his original question. Pro's cases of design and change went largely unrefuted and he also pointed out that the big bang does not negate intelligent design.