The Instigator
Sterasmas
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
bozotheclown
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Resolved: Some type of creator outside of the universe exists.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Sterasmas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 954 times Debate No: 19192
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

Sterasmas

Pro

Resolved: Some type of divine being exists.
The resolution asks us today wether a divine being exists! This is most certainly a mind boggling question but never the less debatable.
The resolution concerns itself primarly with the virtue of existence. My value criteron will be morality and reasoning. The affirmative supports existence far better than the negative. This will be shown threw my 2 contentions, 1. There are good reasons to think God exists 2. There are not comparbly good reasons to believe God doesn't exist. I will leave my openant to support my second contention, but my first contention will be shown threw 3 arguements, 1. The origin of the universe,2.Pascals Wager and 3rd, Objective moral values exist

1st Arguement: My first arguement involves the origin of the universe and the need for a being outside of the universe to exist. Lets consider the following facts: E=MC^2 What does this mean? Well it means energy equels the mass in realtion to the speed of light squared. Because of the law of Conservation of Energy we know the universe has had the sam amount of energy throughout its existance. We also know that when energy began to exist so did space/time. So to the law of cause and effect the universe needs a cause that exists outside of universe therefore not being bound by its laws.
2nd Arguement Pascals Wager
Lets assume that God exists if he does exist and you believe in him you are good, if not you are bad. If he doesn't then you are status qou no matter if you believe him or not. Therefore since according to Unitarianism we should judge an action by its concequences, the concequences are far better to believe than to disbelieve because the concequences when being weigh are better because if God doesn't exist its status qou but if he does the concequences are better of the affirmative.

3rd. The Moral Arguement
My last arguement is stating that objective moral values exist this is relevant because without a being to Ground these values then we have no basis for them on pure opinion which by nature is a fallacy.Also klets do a popular thought experiment: Imagine in 2020 a world dictator arises who is twice as persuasive and twice as strong as Hitler and the Nazis ever were. Imagine he initiated and won WWIII and continued to go throughout the world and gradually and systematically destroy nearly all people other than those of his same descent. He experiments, tortures, and kills all babies who are of races other than his own. Suppose his people flourished, curing diseases with help from their medical experiments on the children. Suppose they thrived by gradually destroying every other nation on earth and taking over their territory and resources, keeping some as slaves to work as labourers in their concentration camps. Suppose the world population was increasing at a steady, controlled rate because of the government breeding programs and immediate termination of unsanctioned pregnancies.

On a naturalistic view ,what is wrong with this situation? If 99% of the people left alive on earth believed that torture was OK, would that make it OK? There would be no basis to say that there is anything wrong with the situation. The human species would be flourishing and healthy with lots to eat and producing plenty of offspring for the next generation. I would argue that in a naturalistic explanation for morals would fail to see anything wrong with this.

In conclusion the Affirmative supports the value of existance threw morality and reasn far-better than the negative will. I can only urge a affirmative vote for todays debate.
bozotheclown

Con

Barney says no don't convict children...
Debate Round No. 1
Sterasmas

Pro

My opponent has stated the contention that "Barney says no don't convict children". I would like to refute this if I may. My opponent states that Barney(either a big purple dinosaur or a 1800 Labor Union activist) claims not to convict children and normally under regular circumstances we wouldn't claim Barney has really a valuble say in our every day lives. But my if my opponent is talking about the the dinosaur then he must concede that he is talking about a figure that primarly represents the moral standards of the world for example Barney claims that we must clean up after ourselves and love one another( or at least tolerate) but Barney was created for Children to teach morals therefere my opponents arguement is self refuting. He has not adressed my contentions so we must assume he accepts them and he has avoided the value clash. Therefore I can urge only a vote in the Affirmative today.
bozotheclown

Con

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)
The oceans and pangea
See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang!

It all started with the big BANG!

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will cause the stars to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it wont be hurt
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating out while here they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy, Encarta, Deuteronomy
It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big BANG!

Anyways my opponent loses todays round despite his three contention because he never directly proves that there is a god, he simply just says we can assume there is one. But, if he was truly real, then there would be thousands of different interpretations of him. He mentions the ideas of morals but think about it. A pack of piranha's knows not to attack each other, they have morals and so do all other animals, but do they believe in a god? It is a natural animal instinct to know what is right and wrong, and less born with sociopathic diseases. He mentions that everything in the universe is constant, but thats only the case in mass and energy, not in the way society has evolved. From the beginning of time until now, society has changed dramatically, and it has not been constant.
Debate Round No. 2
Sterasmas

Pro

My opponent claims that I lose this debate today because I never directly prove that a God exists, merely that we can assume that a God. Lets remember that in a debate it is not the affirmatives resposiblity to prove without a reasonable doubt that a resolution is true, merely that the affirmative case is more proble than the negative case. I have proved this through my 3 three contention which my oppenents has yet address. I would like to address my oppoents contentions now. One my oppoent claims that Animalistic instinct is realible to morality but this is fallacy. The Theory of Evoultion shows us quite quickly that this is not the case because any survival of the fittest argument directly interferes with biological altruism. If anything instinct is egoism and egoism is largely rejected by the majority of philosophers. Lets move on the voters:
You should vote for the affirmative today because the affirmative did a better job of proving the existance/nonexistance of God, Took the debate seriously, proposed a value to undermine the case, laid out simple contentions, and last had a point by point attack on the neg. case.
bozotheclown

Con

There are many arguments advanced by Christians that attempt to infer a God's existence by the alleged evidences of intelligent design in nature. All are deeply flawed in that they commit the fallacy of first presupposing design in order to prove a designer, putting the cart before the horse.

One of the most popular of these is the watchmaker argument, first advanced by theologian William Paley in 1802. Basically it goes like this. If you're walking through the forest/along a beach/wherever, and you see a watch lying on the ground, you could pick it up and tell just by looking at it that the watch could not have just materialized there out of nothingness for no reason at all. Clearly this is a highly intricate piece of machinery, deliberately created and manufactured for a purpose. From here, the argument points out that since organisms in nature exhibit just as much complexity in their makeup as this watch, it is reasonable to assume that nature is the work of deliberate design too.

And this is the first and most obvious problem with the watchmaker argument: it is nothing more than an assumption, based upon an appearance of order. The appearance of order in nature is not alone sufficient justification for assuming that this order is the result of purposeful, intelligent design by a supernatural - trees providing oxygen etc.- but most of the sciences have shown us that there are practical, mechanistic explanations for how and why things work in nature the way they do. In order to mount a convincing argument that things in nature require a Divine Creator to explain them, Christians must first demonstrate that it is impossible to explain them in any other way, and such design arguments as the watchmaker argument fail to do this.

Viewed another way, the structure of the watchmaker argument is self-refuting. The hypothetical person noticing the hypothetical watch on the hypothetical beach thinks it looks designed...but compared to what? In order for one to recognize design, one must have a concept of non-design as a frame of reference to work from. So if the watch looks designed compared to its natural surroundings, then that clearly implies those natural surroundings were not, in fact, designed, though they may exhibit the appearance of order.

Even if one were, for the sake of discussion, to take the watchmaker argument seriously, it would still not be a strong argument that the designer inferred by the comparison of watch-to-nature bears any resemblance to the Christian God. For one thing, no watch is made by a single person these days; they are usually made by factories employing thousands of workers. And the factories that make watches are not the same factories that make chairs, Styrofoam cups, computers, or Winnebagos. So why assume that nature, with all its dazzling variety, must be the work of only one designer? At best, the watchmaker argument can be said to be an argument for polytheism, or a highly clever and advanced race of aliens who have figured out how to make solar systems and planets.

Still another refutation along these lines is that watches do evolve. The modern digital watch was not dreamed up in every detail by anyone in the modern day. It evolved from older watches, which evolved from analog watches, which evolved from hourglasses, sundials and other time-keeping methods. Each step in the "evolution" of the watch was achieved by people thinking about older designs and coming up with new ways to improve them. So if the analogy is going to work, it's going to have to allow at minimum for God experimenting and modifying his design through an evolutionary process and selection. This is important when you consider that many creationists try to use this argument to refute evolution.

Finally, it can be pointed out that Christians who argue from design take a highly selective view of nature. One woman who called The Atheist Experience some months ago couldn't understand why we weren't convinced of God's existence because of "all the beauty" in nature. We pointed out that while things like butterflies, waterfalls, and sunsets were indeed beautiful; other things like earthquakes, cancer and the Ebola virus were not. "Beauty" is a human concept that individuals apply subjectively to things we observe. One must wonder why the loving God of Christianity would consider it "beautiful" to set nature up so that animals in the wild had to massacre one another to survive. Surely God would not take pleasure in the death agonies of a gazelle having its throat torn away by a ravenous cheetah...would He? If God is such an "intelligent designer," why couldn't He have created "meat trees," so that the carnivores could pluck their meals every night and leave the gentle herbivores alone?

Do we know with absolute certainty that the universe is not the result of deliberate design? Well, no. But any sort of objective view of nature must lead one to conclude that the specific design arguments of Christianity are invalid, as it makes no sense their supposedly omni-benevolent God would design a nature so harsh and cruel.

Q: How can anyone possibly be moral without believing in God?

A: Pretty much the same way that anyone else can be moral: by considering their actions, weighing the consequences, and deciding whether they are doing more harm than good to themselves and other people.

Despite what evangelists tell you, the threat of hell is not what stops most people from, say, going on a mass-murdering spree. Even if there was no hell, there are still bad consequences for bad behavior. Our society has laws that threaten criminals with fines, imprisonment and sometimes death. And even if those laws didn't exist, there would still be the threat of punishment from other sources. For instance, if you commit a murder, the victim's family and friends might come looking for revenge. Nobody likes to be taken advantage of. The justice system just makes the whole process a little more orderly, which is a good thing.

However, it seems like the threat of punishment and the promise of rewards is not really the only thing that keeps people from being bad. With or without religion, people don't like to be hurt, and they usually recognize that other people getting hurt is a similarly undesirable thing. Jesus didn't invent the principle of treating others the way you would like to be treated; it was around for centuries before. When people are in danger of being mistreated, they seek out protection through cooperation and relationships. Society is simply a much larger extension of those relationships.

With rare exceptions, people (atheists included) don't really have the urge or desire to run out and kill or steal or otherwise harm other people. And honestly, when people say "If it weren't for God holding me back, there would be nothing to stop me from being a criminal", we worry about them. If your grasp of right and wrong is so shaky that you can't stop yourself from doing bad things, and you need someone threatening you with eternal punishment to keep you in line, then we wonder how safe you really are to be near.

Q: What is Pascal's Wager?

A: It's a well-known logical argument why you should believe in God, even if there's a strong chance that it might not be true. Simply put, the argument is that you should believe in God just because there's a chance that you might go to heaven and avoid hell.

Blaise Pascal, a philosopher and mathematician in the 17th century, first formally put the argument forth. He is considered the founder of probability and he made other significant contributions. There's also a programming language named after him.

Pascal's wager, in a nutshell, is this. No one knows for certain whether God exists. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It's a gamble whether you believe in god. I will continue this next round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Good news, Bozo's account has been closed!

Sterasmas, would you like to go again? I'll debate you if you'd like. You can use the same opening post if you want.
Posted by Sterasmas 5 years ago
Sterasmas
I would like to point out that my oppenant introduced new evidence in the end round which is aganist the rules of any debate.
Posted by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
Pascals wager refute continued:

Q: What is Pascal's Wager?

A: It's a well-known logical argument why you should believe in God, even if there's a strong chance that it might not be true. Simply put, the argument is that you should believe in God just because there's a chance that you might go to heaven and avoid hell.

Blaise Pascal, a philosopher and mathematician in the 17th century, first formally put the argument forth. He is considered the founder of probability and he made other significant contributions. There's also a programming language named after him.

Pascal's wager, in a nutshell, is this. No one knows for certain whether God exists. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It's a gamble whether you believe in him or not. So let's treat it like a gamble, says Pascal, and look at the odds.

He described the payoff of this gamble like so. If you choose to believe in God, and you happen to be right, then the reward is infinity: eternal bliss in heaven. However, if you are wrong, then you lose nothing at all. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're right, you GAIN nothing (in either of the previous two cases, you just die and that's the end). But if you are wrong, your payoff is negative infinity: eternal suffering in hell.

Now here's the main thrust of the wager. Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, just on the small chance that he might exist, you'd better believe. It's the only wager that makes sense.

Okay, that's Pascal's wager, now here are our reasons for not agreeing with it.

Reason 1: In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero. For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying "Okay, I believe now" and getting on with your life. Serious beli
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I agree but if no one acceots ill try being the other side. Oh and BTW your moral argument is shaky, message me for more details so you dont get pwnd there
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
SterasmasbozotheclownTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con acted the best he can...as a clown, dodging about the topic and conjuring contentions without a single look at the resolution or understanding the workings of debate...
Vote Placed by warpedfx 5 years ago
warpedfx
SterasmasbozotheclownTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: uh...
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
SterasmasbozotheclownTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments are refutable, but Con never tried. He waited until the last round to argue at all, so that Pro would have no chance to respond, and then he largely tried to refute arguments that Pro hadn't raised.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
SterasmasbozotheclownTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro; con made a mockery of this debate and C/P both his second and third rounds. Pro's spelling was terrible, but Con didn't write anything, so no point. Everything else to Pro, for making an effort.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
SterasmasbozotheclownTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never refuted Pro's arguments, even though they could have been refuted. New arguments introduced in the last round are discounted, as are arguments made in comments. Pro apparently didn't run spell check; many errors: "arguement", etc. Con's flippant first round loses conduct.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SterasmasbozotheclownTied
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: to me at least it seems that con put the arguments at the end and not the beginning, because he may have been afraid of rebuttal.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
SterasmasbozotheclownTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively forfeited the argument rounds, only providing arguments in the final summary round, most probably plagarised at that.