The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

Resolved: The Cosmological Argument Fails to Prove God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
RyuuKyuzo
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 3/12/2013 Category: Religion Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 8,680 times Debate No: 31202
Debate Rounds (4)

107 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
Con i have an issue with your infinity scenario. For this lets say copies of con are x and copies of pro are y. What you are saying is you have infinite amount of xs and ys you then create an infinite amount of rooms. So for what you have right now are 3 seperate cases of infinite. you then divide the rooms by 2 as you are making even and odd number rooms. we now have 4 cases of infinite. infinite xs ys oddrooms even rooms. xs fit into odd roos and ys fit into the infinite even rooms. where exactly is the issue with this. you have 2 cases of infinite with empty rooms and you are filling the rooms with another 2 cases of infinite.

This is like the argument where you line dollar bills then take out all the even number bills people say that means inifnite minus inifinite is equal to infinity but they are ignoring parts of the equation. what is happening is you are dividing one case of inifnity into 2 cases of inifnite. One case of infinite being the dollar bills lined up. The two cases of infinite are the even and odd number bills. THe equation is wierd as &\$% to show so i am attempting to explain it. We have one case of infinity and breaking it into two seperate cases. then we are taking away one case of infinity leaving us with the other case of infinity like it should.

infinity minus infinity will always equal 0
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
Ok well you guys are smarter than me at the moment so i want to say somthing and ask some questions. I have not read the entire debate yet it will take me some time to get and understanding of it.
First pros job is to disprove the ca and he goes to attack it in what looks to be a much more difficuly way. 1. everything that begins to exist has a cause 2.The unverse began to exist 3. Thereforethe universe has a cause 4. that causeis god.

The way i see it the problem lies wth point 2. The universe began to exist. There is no proof to support this. There is however proof to suggest the universe has always existed. A little bit of logic for this part. Somthing cannot come from nothing that is a known fact 0 does not equal 1. That being said logically we can conclude somthing has always existed leaving us two possibilities. God or the universe. God has absoloutely no proof to even suggest an existance. However if we take a look at the laws of physics. . Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed again proving somthing cannot come from nothing. This is the 1st law of thermodynamics and has been proven to be 100% true. That being said if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed then we should logically conclude that they have always existed. Both exist within time and space so space and time must have always existed. The universe is made up of matter energy space and time therefore we can conclude that the universe has always existed and therefore does not have a cause.

For my questions did i go wrong somewhere in my logic?
Pro why do you assume there is an infite amount of energy and space?
I understand the infinite time just not those two.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
That assumes a number of things. Firstly you assume you know exactly what type of a universe a perfect being would create. It may not seem perfect to you but you don't know how God wants it to be. More importantly, omnipotence is limited. God can't just do whatever he wants. He's bound by logic. So it's not likely he could make a perfect universe.
Posted by Argumentative9 4 years ago
I would just like to be an unbiased arguer. Firstly, there is not an unlimited amount of energy in the universe, that is untrue. As the fundamental law of the conservation of energy shows, energy can neither be created or destroyed and scientists have indeed calculated the approximate amount of energy in the universe. Secondly, god is considered perfect. However there are so many imperfections it implies it was created by an imperfect creator which is not god.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Didn't realize there was voting on this after me. Why would more people vote after I voted? I voted. That should be enough for everyone.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
I have been continuing my analysis of the debate for a good detailed RFD, but the more I study it, the more I am convinced that this was a tie between the two with excellent material coming from both sides. So I'll conclude my RFD instead.

Pros first premise I have already explained as being In pros favour, But what was apparent to me throughout the debate was that the person who just spoke appeared to be the person who was winning. Since that could go on forever, I wouldn't postulate anymore that one person deserved the win more than another. This was indeed, a very good debate.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
RFD #3: The affirmative case, Premise 2:
'Our Universe is composed of an infinite amount of time and energy.'
In the previous RFD I explained why premise 1 of Pros argument was solid regardless of Con's infinity point. Now I am going to do my critique of the second premise. Actually, screw everything. I'm going to have lunch. brb.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
RDF #2: The affirmative case, Premise 1 (continued):