The Instigator
SebUK
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
NightofTheLivingCats
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Series 1 Episode 2 : Does God Exist?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 53371
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

SebUK

Pro

This is part of my series in which I defend my views . This is a 'does God exist' debate I will be arguing for his existance and my opponent against his existance . Round 1 is for acceptance only and you have to have at least a 3 week membership of the website to accept .
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

Thank you.

The BoP is slightly shared, with Pro having most of it.

No semantics, or Ad Homs.
Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Pro

Thank you For accepting the debate and I already apologise but I cannot structure paragraphs on my computer for some reason so unfortunatly its gone be one paragraph unless a miracle happens , Also I have to disagree that most of the BoP is on me. Does God Exist ? Does God exist? well it has been a subject to many debates with most of them actually debating religions and not the actual God , A deistic God on the other hand is rarely debated . A God doesn't have to be a God that interferes but simply '1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.' -http://dictionary.reference.com... , and because we are debating if he exists not if he intereferes I ask my opponent not to assume I am debating for a religious God . The one argument I always use in a debate about God is the 'Kalam Cosmoligical Evidence' .

The argument goes like this:



  1. Whatever begins to exist requires a cause

  2. The universe began to exist

  3. Therefore, the universe requires a cause Now a smart move by my opponent would be to claim that God doesn't have to be the cause but can he give me any example of what else is capable of this? .

    1. Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.

    2. Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did notcome into being. The cause existed eternally.

    3. And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang. I realise my arguments are quite short but we have more rounds to expand on . and I ask my Opponent to make his case without rebuttals , since we will refute each others arguments in Round 2 .



NightofTheLivingCats

Con

I guess it is arguments first?

This is something I found.


Argument from Temporal Minds


P1: If God exists he is/ has a functioning atemporal mind

P2: Mental processing is required for a functioning mind

P3: Temporal duration is required for processing

P4: A functioning atemporal mind cannot exist

Conclusion: God does not exist

P1 should be conceded because Pro concedes it.

P2 to be argued would be like a TV isn't needed to Channel surf.

P3 since God created the universe before time, there was a transition, that needs time.

P4 rounds up the argument.
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Pro

Argument from Temporal Minds - The word “atemporal” must be defined. Without a proper definition, the argument cannot be made.

Minds are processes and/or involve processes:
This assumes that all minds are like human minds; and that God, who is not restricted to time, must think in a manner that involves time, i.e., sequentially. The assumption cannot be verified, so the argument is based on an assumption and is not a logical proof.
Also, if God knows all things eternally, then sequential thought wouldn’t be necessary or applicable to God. Therefore, to apply a sequential requirement to God’s mind is invalid and unnecessary.
If God is ontologically prior to the universe, then time isn’t applied to God’s mind; and the issue of temporal sequence of God’s thoughts doesn’t apply. God is not a man and you cannot limit him to human standards , my opponent assumes God's mind has the same constraints as ours, and also assumes to know how timelessness works in relation to God . My opponent didn't attempt to refute my argument's therefore I extend my arguments.
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

Argument from Temporal Minds - The word “atemporal” must be defined. Without a proper definition, the argument cannot be made.

Ehh, I disgree, but whatever.


Also, if God knows all things eternally, then sequential thought wouldn’t be necessary or applicable to God.

Why not? Even if you knew the outcome, you would still have to start to do something and that would take time, but since God is outside of time, that cannot happen.

God is not a man and you cannot limit him to human standards , my opponent assumes God's mind has the same constraints as ours, and also assumes to know how timelessness works in relation to God .

Would you like to show your theory on God's timeiness? The agruments works on ALL minds. Cats, dogs, humans, rats, and even Gods. We can go back and forth saying "Ha hah, your arguement is invalid because God works differently!". At this point, you gave an assumption yourself.

My opponent didn't attempt to refute my argument's therefore I extend my arguments.

You told me to start without rebuttals. I didn't want to risk breaking the rules, and I shoudd have cleared that up before.


The KCA

Whatever begins to exist requires a cause

An assumption. There is no reason to assume that we follow the same logic as the Universe did long ago. I also assume you are going to say God is exempt from this?

The universe began to exist

You know, I like to think that the Universe always existed, in the form of the singularity and space it self expanded. But this is an assumption.

Therefore, the universe requires a cause Now a smart move by my opponent would be to claim that God doesn't have to be the cause but can he give me any example of what else is capable of this? .

http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

Alot of things. Besides, how the hell should I know? Could the cause be unknown to humans? Of course.

The KCA is invalid due to P2 and P3, as for the reasons I mentioned.

Debate Round No. 3
SebUK

Pro

'Would you like to show your theory on God's timeiness? The agruments works on ALL minds. Cats, dogs, humans, rats, and even Gods. We can go back and forth saying "Ha hah, your arguement is invalid because God works differently!". At this point, you gave an assumption yourself.' My opponent continues to use the same argument in which he claims that God is limited to his own creation and his mind must work the same way as animals that he created which is not true once again God is not limited to his creation , which is a more logical theory God is not limited to human standards or that God's mind must work the same way that human and animal minds work? also my opponent forgot that we are not discussing a religious God , what I mean by this is that I never said that i'm claiming that a God that interferes exists , I'm simply arguing that he exists not if he inteferes , so that being said God could have been the cause behind the Big Bang and than simply didn't intefere ever again in our issues and therefore he doesn't have to have the same mind as we do because in that case our minds would have evolved naturally . 'An assumption. There is no reason to assume that we follow the same logic as the Universe did long ago. I also assume you are going to say God is exempt from this?' My opponent is trying to prove me wrong by calling my argument an assumption which he forgets Science is about , we assume laws of the universe based on the fact that they repeat themselves in every case. The Law of Cause and effect is perfectly legitimate and God indeed doesn't need a cause but there is a reason for that .

The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning rather than 'everything has a cause ' I would say everything that has a beginning has a cause God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity which has much experimental support as we know , shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time Therefore (this means) He is not limited by the time dimension He created and so he has no beginning in time . I await my opponent's response .


NightofTheLivingCats

Con

NightofTheLivingCats forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SebUK

Pro

What a shame I extend my arguments , Vote Pro.
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

NightofTheLivingCats forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SebUK 3 years ago
SebUK
I could paragraph it :D this time but it will probably not work next time .
No votes have been placed for this debate.