The Instigator
kcirrone
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Mogget
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Resolved: The existence of God can be proven indirectly.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 915 times Debate No: 4364
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

kcirrone

Pro

Resolved: The existence of God can be proven indirectly.

Definitions:
existence: the actual presence of.
proven: made true
indirectly: from reasons outside the direct idea

Contentions:

I. Argument of cosmology. The Universe, as the majority of the scientific community agrees, was created from the big-bang. This supernova created all the elements essential for the universe's own stability and survival. The question arises, how can this happen? Cosmologists have asked this question for such a long time. The only answer is God. For an event, like the big bang to occur, there needed to be a catalyst or cause. Since something cannot come from nothing then there needed to be an atemporal and a non-contingent beginning. God was that "necessary cause." Science has only come back to this conclusion every time. Take Einstein or instance, he tried to prove that the universe spontaneously created itself. He said this, "it was the worst experiment I ever did." Even Einstein claims that its impossible for the universe to create itself, on the basis that the necessary elements for its creation were not there. God is the necessary being. (Reason 1 for existence)

II. Argument of motion. According to Aquinas, the moved cannot be the mover. I.e. something cannot be potential and at the same time actual. E.g. A fire cannot be potentially hot, because its actual hot. It can be potentially cold, but its not actually cold. The Universe cannot sustain itself on its own. The Universe cannot be potentially existent while at the same time actually existent. A greater force was necessary to put the universal laws into motion for the effect of potentiality to actuality. Science has not proven a force great enough to do this, for as ive stated the universe is in actuality not potentiality. God is mover of the potential to actual. (Reason 2 for existence)

III. Argument of history. Since man's beginning the idea of God has been in their minds. From worshiping tree spirits, to the polytheistic religions, to the monotheistic religions. The idea of God cannot be spontaneous if God's existence is not actual. Take the color analogy, its impossible to conceive a "new" color, because that new color is not in existence. Its possible to create an idea from a mixture of ideas, however the idea of some God's/greater forces existence has always been there. Therefore, the existence of God is actual. (Reason 3 for existence)
Mogget

Con

Alright, let me cover each argument in turn.

I. The beginning of this argument is logical, to assume that the Universe simply created itself is fallacious. Everything that we have experienced has a cause and thereby an effect, this is logical. It is at the point where you state that a supernatural being must have created the universe that your point steps outside of the realm of logic on two levels.

a. The supernatural being commonly referred to as god cannot be explained by human beings, it lacks the ability to be understood. In essence the idea of a god is not an explanation at all, it is a place holder for our lack of an explanation. All throughout time humans have been baffled by many things, they have attributed these things to supernatural beings or occurrences that defy the laws of this world. The creation of the universe is one of these mysteries which I speak of, in fact the largest yet. We have to date not been able to explain how the universe was created, so much like man once thought that stars were made when great mean die, we think that the universe must also have been created by the supernatural. We think this because we have not yet found an explanation, this does not mean there is not an explanation and this most certainly does not mean that the supernatural is an explanation.

b. And of course, the idea of a god lacks the own premise which it was originally trying to defeat. Logically everything was created by something else, thereby god must have been created by something else..... what? Secondly, god gives purpose to the lives of people, something people like. What many people don't realize is that god still has no purpose, making our own existence meaningless yet.

II. Paraphrased, this contention states that something of a great force must have created the universe due to it's inability to exist and at the same time potentially exist. This isn't a bad observation, up until the point when we jump from this premise straight to the idea that what created the universe MUST be supernatural. In now way does it have to be supernatural at all. In fact let's take a look at a movie we all know, it's called the matrix. A perfectly reasonable explanation for the existence of that world exists, it's just hidden from the people.

The matrix is an example of the brains in vats scenario. In other words scientists could be performing experiments on us as we speak; yet we are hooking into a virtual reality and never know.

Another scenario, it's possible that we are all just a creation of some being and that being has hid the rather logical and very simple explanation of our existence from ourselves. In other words we could be much like computers that are programmed not to understand a certain string of data.

The possibilities as to how we came to be are endless, and all equally probable under our current lack of evidence. It is therefor faulty to jump to the least logical solution, the solution that has no logic.

III. Paraphrased, because we can think of god therefor it exists. God is an original idea and we cannot think of truly original ideas without them existing.
Gods are not original ideas at all. Let's take a look at some past gods:

http://images.google.com...
http://www.futureofthebook.org...
http://landru.i-link-2.net...
http://danielfuentes.iespana.es...

hmmmm....... something is strangely similar about all of these pictures, oh.... they are all images on men. Yeah, the gods are created in the image of man with heightened power. I'm awfully sure that the image of man is not an original idea, and I'm almost positive that power is not an original idea. Though in the gods' defenses we do have one other factor. The unexplainable factor, so here are the factors of the gods:

The image of man: The gods' are just like men, in fact most people even imagine they think the same way and behave the same way.

A fountain of power: More power than anybody could possibly know what to do with. In fact, even supernatural powers that will get the jobs of ordinary beings done in no time.

Inexplainability: Beyond the comprehension of man, something that we can't even imagine. (In other words this really isn't a factor at all, it is the complete absence of one.)

My point? The idea of god's could not be less original. It has been said that man always hungers for more power. If man always hungers for more powerful then he is always imagining himself (or herself) in his/her own image with more power. The greatest extent of which would be ultimate power or a god. God? Original? Nay, mundane if anything. Even I at a very young age imagined myself having super powers. The fact that we can make up things that don't exist in our minds doesn't make them true.
Debate Round No. 1
kcirrone

Pro

Ok, ill break this down piece by piece, attack my opponents case, crystallize my own...blah blah blah.

The beginning of this argument is logical, to assume that the Universe simply created itself is fallacious. Everything that we have experienced has a cause and thereby an effect, this is logical. It is at the point where you state that a supernatural being must have created the universe that your point steps outside of the realm of logic on two levels.

My Response, then ill go to his 2 levels: He agrees that it is illogical that the universe created itself. Good, we agree on this. But he says that the supernatural is illogical. Lets look at this; he claims its illogical to believe God created the universe. As I brought up, the Big Bang. All the elements were created at this time period. Therefore, nothing natural could have created the universe. By agreeing with me on this, he is conceding the idea that a supernatural being has done this. Why?? Because you either have a natural beginning, or a metaphysical. The only way for a natural to begin totally is to have something outside that realm. I.e. atemporal and aphysical.

His levels:

A)The supernatural being commonly referred to as god cannot be explained by human beings, it lacks the ability to be understood. In essence the idea of a god is not an explanation at all, it is a place holder for our lack of an explanation. All throughout time humans have been baffled by many things, they have attributed these things to supernatural beings or occurrences that defy the laws of this world. The creation of the universe is one of these mysteries which I speak of, in fact the largest yet. We have to date not been able to explain how the universe was created, so much like man once thought that stars were made when great mean die, we think that the universe must also have been created by the supernatural.

My Response: Ok, he is making the whole notion that humans make god up as a place holder. This is true, as seen through history. However, all the things that gods have been given power over are NATURAL phenomena. I'm not saying that I think there is a god of rain, for arguments sake. But when talking about the creation of the universe you are going outside the whole realm of the natural. As I said before, he has conceded that the universe needed to have been created. A natural cannot create a first natural, that is illogical and against science.

B) And of course, the idea of a god lacks the own premise which it was originally trying to defeat. Logically everything was created by something else, thereby god must have been created by something else..... what? Secondly, god gives purpose to the lives of people, something people like. What many people don't realize is that god still has no purpose, making our own existence meaningless yet.

My Response: God is not natural, you agree its supernatural and metaphysical. I.e. it doesn't have to be created. God is the necessary mover, prime mover, clock-maker. He is the first movement to start all natural laws. This also, attacks your second statement. God's purpose was to start the process, therefore we have a purpose as well.

II. Paraphrased, this contention states that something of a great force must have created the universe due to it's inability to exist and at the same time potentially exist. This isn't a bad observation, up until the point when we jump from this premise straight to the idea that what created the universe MUST be supernatural. In now way does it have to be supernatural at all. In fact let's take a look at a movie we all know, it's called the matrix. A perfectly reasonable explanation for the existence of that world exists, it's just hidden from the people.

My Response: Again you bring up the supernatural. BY AGREEING THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT HAVE CREATED ITSELF FROM ITS OWN ELEMENTS, THEN YOU AGREE ITS SUPERNATURAL. I.e. all your attacks fail.

Resolve Clarification: It states indirectly, no direct.

Burden: I have proven through cosmology that there needs to be a greater force of supernatural being to have started it all. If your me, its God, but either way, its a greater unnatural force. My opponent has failed to give reasons why God doesn't exist. He only says nothing can be supernatural. And as i keep on reiterating, my opponent, by conceding the idea of first begininning, concedes an unnatural force.
Mogget

Con

Well considering that Kcirrone won't bother responding next round I'm going to take the privilege of taking a break this round. I will post my response next round.
Debate Round No. 2
kcirrone

Pro

kcirrone forfeited this round.
Mogget

Con

Mogget forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RedEye 8 years ago
RedEye
lol, don't even bother. There is no point.
Posted by RedEye 8 years ago
RedEye
Lol, srry bout that, this is my new account =) I accidentally closed it. O well, it was a good debate, well, even though it was half finished.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
Great.... he closed his account, this helps....
Posted by kcirrone 8 years ago
kcirrone
Hey again, hope you vote PRO, LOL =)
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
III is weak, but rest is pretty strong, although metaphysics might get I
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by bacon 8 years ago
bacon
kcirroneMoggetTied
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 
Vote Placed by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
kcirroneMoggetTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by radical258 8 years ago
radical258
kcirroneMoggetTied
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 
Vote Placed by Josh 8 years ago
Josh
kcirroneMoggetTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by bladewarrior2 8 years ago
bladewarrior2
kcirroneMoggetTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by tangerineman91 8 years ago
tangerineman91
kcirroneMoggetTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
kcirroneMoggetTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Protagoras 8 years ago
Protagoras
kcirroneMoggetTied
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:03