The Instigator
Wain84
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mr.Infidel
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should I believe in God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,023 times Debate No: 19444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Wain84

Con

This debate is probably not structured like many others, but it does still have validity. My opponent will present evidence trying to convince me to believe in God, or at least to refute my arguments. This round will only be an acceptance round, arguments will be reserved for round 2. I apologize in advice if I do not structure my debates to the basic standard, I am a novice I admit.
Mr.Infidel

Pro

I want to thank my partner for instigating this debate. I will argue that the existence of God is more probable than not and there are good reasons to believe in God.

Good luck!

:-)
Debate Round No. 1
Wain84

Con

First of all, I would like to think Mr. Infidel for accepting this debate. I am pleased to not have to argue about Jesus, that will allot more room later.

1) The Cosmological Argument: The cosmological argument states that:

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

My problem with this argument is which god are we talking about? Is it the Judeo-Christian god,Allah, or a deistic god? It doesn't say which god, it just say that some god must exist. Also, postulating a god into this is not something that is necessary, why does any god have to be the cause? I simply say "I don't know" when asked about what the cause of the origin of the origin of the universe. There is no evidence for a specific god creating the universe, for all we know it could be many gods working in conjunction with one another. To me, polytheism is just as possible as monotheism. I do not believe in monotheism, not do I polytheism. Some ultimate being or beings designing the universe is just far-fetched to me, so I withhold judgement.

2) The Teleological Argument: This argument states since that the universe was intelligent designed it must of had an intellignet designer, but is the universe designed? I do not think so, why do sicknesses like cancer exist? They are of course, other examples, I will give two:

- In human males,the urethra passes through the prostrate gland, a gland that is very prone to infection then enlargement. That shows poor design.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

- A complication that happens in pregnant women is something that is called an ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg attaches itself in a place other than inside the uterus. Almost all of ectopic pregnancies occur in the fallopian tube, which is not the proper place for a growing embroyo. That shows poor design.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org...

3) The Moral Argument: This argument states that without god, people like me have no basis for morality. There is no universal morality though, look at historical figures such as Hitler and Mother Teresa, I think most would agree they had different moral codes. Many of us do today, humans disagree over abortion, the death penalty, some even stealing and murder. So I do not believe in an objective morality.

I will now conclude and turn the debate over to Mr. Infidel.
Mr.Infidel

Pro

I want to thank my partner for his arguments. In this round, I shall present my arguments to why I believe that G-d, or a transcendent being, exists.

Pulling the cart before the hose

My partner makes a mistake by asking the question: "Which God?" Indeed, this argument will only work if we were discussing the validity of a certain religion. I would like to remind my partner that I am attempting to prove that a G-d exists. I am not in any way showing the truth of any religion.

The Slick Cosmological Argument

This argument was formulated by Matt Slick, founder and president of the Christian Apologetics and research ministry. It is a type of the Kalam Cosmological Argument [1]:

  1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." (Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system.)
  1. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
  2. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.

.It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.

The universe could not have brought itself into existence.

.If something does not exist, it has no ability to perform an action by which it can bring itself into existence.

  1. If it exists so as to be able to perform an action, then it already exists.

The universe was brought into existence by something other than itself.

All things that come into being have causes.

.There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe (or past universes) were infinitely old. But, this would require an infinite amount of time to be traversed in order to arrive at the present. This cannot happen since an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed.

i.If the universe were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.

ii.If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.

iii.If it were infinitely old, then in order for us to exist here and now, an infinite amount of time would have had to have been traversed in order to get here now. But, an infinity cannot be traversed.

Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.

.A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.

i.Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself. (Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe).

ii.An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.

iii.Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe. (An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe, which we know to be finite).

iv.An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

This uncaused cause is supernatural.

.By supernatural we mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it.

i.This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.

ii.This supernatural uncaused cause is God.

What can we glean from this? Well, since we know that the universe could not have brought itself into existence, it must have had a upernatural transcendent cause. This cause is what we call "God."

Summary

My argument rests on the undeniable truth that the universe is not eternal; hene it is not infinite in size. Therefore, it must have had a beginning and it is a fact something transcendent brought it into existence.

Thank you!

References

[1] Slick, Matt. “The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Causes.” https://school.carm.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Wain84

Con

I am afraid I must express disappointment, as most of my arguments were untouched. They My opponent defined god as:

What can we glean from this? Well, since we know that the universe could not have brought itself into existence, it must have had a upernatural transcendent cause. This cause is what we call "God."

Well, God is not defined as just a cause, he is defined as the supreme or ultimate reality in one definition, or in its most commonly a powerful being. When most people think of god, they thing of the supposed supreme ruler of the universe. That is the concept I presented in this debate. Now, why did the cause have to be supernatural? Could it have not been a natural cause we are unaware of?

Next, My opponent accussed me of "pulling the cart before the horse". He said

My partner makes a mistake by asking the question: "Which God?" Indeed, this argument will only work if we were discussing the validity of a certain religion. I would like to remind my partner that I am attempting to prove that a G-d exists. I am not in any way showing the truth of any religion.

I was simply stating that this argument doesn't apply to a certain god, which it is often used to do. I actually included a deistic god in the possibility so I was in no way commiting my arguments to disprove a certain god. Just as you my opponent is no way attempting a certain religion, I am in no way trying to disprove a certain religion.

Moving on, my opponent presented the slick cosmological argument. His points that the universe is not infinite in time or size are not things I disagree with. He said that an uncaused cause is the case and that cause is god. What evidence that it is a single god that is the kick starting cause without a cause? There is no way to know that, it is simply postulated. I fail to see why an exclusitivity of the kick starting cause without a cause is attached to god, why can it not be something else? How does stating it is something unprovable logically superior to simply saying I don't know? How do we know we can even comprehend it? Einstein once stated

" I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinzoa's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Notice he said "the problem involved is to vast for our limited minds", why should postulating something unprovable in something there is no proof for be my belief. It is illogical just to pick an explanation like the cosmological argument, the logicial step is to withhold judgement.

To conclude, my arguments in the previous round were not even acknowledged. I made solid cases which are absolutely relevant to our debate. I showed that god does not have to be the uncaused cause to kickstart the universe, it is simply speculation. We have no proof or evidence that a supreme being created the universe.
Mr.Infidel

Pro

I would like to extend a thank you to my partner for his well-thought-out rbuttals. Here, I will defend my arguments.

Why think the cause is G-d?

My partner asked why the cause is G-d and not another item. In my debate with contradiction, contradiction argues: "But why think the cause is God? It must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. We are therefore warranted in concluding that God exists." [1]

Stuff to note

" To conclude, my arguments in the previous round were not even acknowledged. I made solid cases which are absolutely relevant to our debate. I showed that god does not have to be the uncaused cause to kickstart the universe, it is simply speculation. We have no proof or evidence that a supreme being created the universe."

I didn't need to respond to your arguments in the previous round for two reasons: (1) I have shown that G-d is most probable in existence; (2) I like to keep the second round for just my opening arguments; and (3) There are better arguments for G-d's existence than the ones you respoded to.

The Slick Cosmologica Argument is a variation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, though it is much better explained.

| CONCLUSION |

My partner has failed to rebut anything from my opening syllogism. Moreover, I have proved that saying that G-d is the cause is perfecty warrented.

Thank you.

References

[1] Kohai-vs..-Contradiction: "God does not exist." http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Wain84

Con

My opponent gave me a good rebuttal, I will now rebut his rebuttal.

Why to think the cause is not god

My opponent used a quote that was actually used against him in a previous debate, while I praise him for his humility, I disagree with the quote. While an uncaused cause is logical, I do not agree that a personal god is logical. A personal being would logically have to be an intelligent being, who in turn would of course have to had intelligently designed the universe. As I stated in the second round we have evidence of poor design. I can not fathom a personal god creating women with the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy, it is alien to me. Some god just creating everything and then just kicking back is also alien to me. I find it quite difficult to believe in a god that would allow evil as well. I imagine god would have to be a moral being, yet children are starving and being raped. One could say "maybe god can not intervene in human affairs", but wouldn't he created at least 125 galaxies?(1) Why would he be able to create us and not be able to sustain us? God sounds more like a bad parent in that case(no offense). Maybe he can sustain us by stopping rape and he chooses not to.This god has allowed 99.9% of all animals and plants to go extinct.(2) That would make god immoral, or maybe he is just special. So god would have to a callous or not aptly sustaining god, and a poorly designing god? This god would also have to be quite clandestine for none of us have seen him. I find it too troubling and illogical to believe in such a god. The idea of god I presented does seem like an aberration from the truth, but the evidence shows that it is quite clearly the case. It is not an arcane truth, I am for sure not presenting new information, however. I utilize sources so you all can do your research, which I implore you to do. I do not claim to know the cause of the universe, we may never know. Postulating an intelligent, personal being will be a hinderance to our seemingly never-ending search for answers.

About my Opponent

Mr. Infidel stated: "I didn't need to respond to your arguments in the previous round for two reasons: (1) I have shown that G-d is most probable in existence; (2) I like to keep the second round for just my opening arguments; and (3) There are better arguments for G-d's existence than the ones you respoded to."

My second contention in my opening arguments shows improbability, so if you are arguing for probability you should address that contention.

He then stated: "My partner has failed to rebut anything from my opening syllogism. Moreover, I have proved that saying that G-d is the cause is perfecty warrented."

I did not counter the premises, but I did counter that the conclusion, which would be god, followed those two premises. God is not the necessary conclusion, I have shown that. Premises must be logically coherent, my opponents are. However, in order for the conclusion to follow the premises the conclusion must be logically coherent. The postulated that is god is not logically as I have present in the beginning of this round. My opponent has not proved that saying the cause of the universe is god. Not to be redundant, but I have shown that is not the case.

To Conclude

I have shown that god is not a necessary conclusion. With the vastness of the known universe we can not fully comprehend, how can we comprehend what is beyond? Any god would have to be a poorly designing, and lazy and/or incompetent. Thank you, Mr. Infidel, for engaging me in this debate. You showed civility and I thank you for it.


References

(1) http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

(2) http://www.amnh.org...
Mr.Infidel

Pro

I thank my partner for his superb maturity that he has shown in this debate. I would like to use this round to summarize.

What have I shown? I have shown that a transcendent being (G-d) must exist via the argument of entropy and first cause. My partner mistakingly thinks that I am arguing for the truth of a religion, which I am not. All what I am showing is a transcendent being, or G-d, exists. This particular being does NOT have to be intelligent in the way WE understand it, which gets both of us confused.

I shown that to say G-d did it is 100% warranted (see the previous round).

I hope to debate with you again in the future.

Voters, I leave this into your hands.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
The key issue: Pro thinks he's proved that something unnatural caused the natural world, and Con seems to grant this. So Pro leaps inexplicably to the conclusion that the unnatural creator is some god. Con points out that we have been given no reason to believe this. Pro never gives a reason, so Con would win if Pro had the burden of proof.

So, if Pro had gone first, Con would have won. Pro would have had the burden of proof. And Pro's argument was not persuasive. But Con went first, and some people apparently think that means Con has the burden of proof. I don't normally agree with that. But, in this case, Con argued as if he thought he was proving something. He may have thought he had the burden of proof. And he never stipulated who had it.

Con's arguments were all aimed at a smart kind god. Pro specifically pointed out that he was just arguing for some god, not necessarily a smart kind god. So Con's arguments are refuted as completely as Pro's are.

Which leaves us with a tie, unless somebody had a burden of proof, which isn't clear.

So I'm calling it a tie.

Obitur Dictum: It's usually a mistake for Con to go first. No matter how good his arguments are, Pro will likely say, "Those aren't my arguments." And note that the better Con does, the more likely that Pro will do this. If Con's refutations are ironclad, Pro will be forced to find another line of attack.

Here's an example of how Con can set up a debate to avoid this problem: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Wain84 5 years ago
Wain84
I meant 125 BILLION galaxies not just 125
Posted by Wain84 5 years ago
Wain84
Oops, forgot quotations in Round 2. I hope the context is sufficent.
Posted by Wain84 5 years ago
Wain84
I want the debate to be a bit informal in regard to the structure, I want it to be a bit more personal than usual. I feel my title fits my personal requirements, but you both make excellent points.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
I agree that the addition of a definition would be beneficial. However, there was nothing wrong with the original resolution; it puts a personalized perspective on an otherwise repetitive topic and introduces a host of additional prospective arguments.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
If I could suggest something, a better resolution would be "It is more likely than no that God exists". Also a definition of God(whether it's the traditional 3-omni theistic God or the deistic first cause God) would be helpful so as to minimize confusion surrounding what you intend to debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Wain84Mr.InfidelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.