The Instigator
Ramos-7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The Existence Of Everything Including Life Is Unavailing WIthout God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 975 times Debate No: 63820
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

Ramos-7

Pro

Without God (a necessary being) the strive to survive in life is only avoiding the inevitable (Death) and is unavailing. You could die the moment, hour, day, month, year after reading this argument I am posting and have had a enjoyable/awful life, but why continue to survive and whether you are willing to go to irrationally lengths to live (like killing another person/being) if you believe you will one day die, reject life after death like Heaven just to life a bit longer before you die?
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Ramos-7

Pro

Well, I kind of know you accept since you responded to the challenge. But I saw your religion as "Unitarian Universalist", wouldn't that make you a theist also (a person who believes in the existence of God)? If so, how could you not agree that without God, life is ultimately pointless especially if a person were to live their life rejecting his existence or not wanting anything to do with him. According to the Atheists he doesn't exist, Deists claim the natural world is reason enough to believe in him, but do not believe he is necessary/needed in our lives. If he truly is the architect of the Universe which includes everything material, space, time, the cycle of life, energy, the Laws of Physics etc. I would think he plays a greater role in our lives and giving him respect as well as being the best people we can be in this corrupt world full since people lack patience, reason and benevolence. I'll come back to this later since I'm tired, what is your reason(s) for supporting the opposite side of this debate?
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I want to thank Pro for instigating this thought-provoking debate.

I will begin with some definitions and clarifications, followed by rebuttals to that which he has already stated, and will close with additional arguments.

Clarifications

Since my opponent is Pro, he needs to show, beyond doubt, that "The Existence Of Everything Including Life Is Unavailing without God." On the flip side, I will negate the resolution by showing that a belief or concept of God is not necessary.

By God, I am assuming Pro means the Christian-Judea concept of the Abrahamic creator God and will form my initial rebuttals and arguments to that.

Definitions

Existence: reality as presented in experience. [1]

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Life: the ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks; the period of time when a person is alive; the experience of being alive. [2]

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Unavailing: not useful or successful. [3]

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Arguments

I. Is there even a God?


Pro started this debate under the assumption that there is actually a God. Normally, I wouldn't place the burden on someone to prove God's existence, but based on the fact that his entire resolution is based on God's existence, in order to affirm it he first needs to prove that God exists.

The difference between believing in a God, and actually stating that he exists, are found in "knowledge". If someone affirms that God exists, he must have knowledge of such an existence. If my opponent merely "believes" that God exists, then he has absolutely no grounds whatsoever to claim that everything in existence and life is unavailing without God's existence.

I look forward to seeing Pro prove the existence of God. If he cannot do so, then he fundamentally fails to affirm the resolution he's presented based on the fact that he is literally saying life is useless or unsuccessful without one.

II. There are many people who live useful and successful lives without accepting the existence of a God.

According to a Pew research study done in 2012, there are currently more than 13 million atheists and agnostics, as well as nearly 33 million people who claim no religious affiliation whatsoever. [4]

[4] http://www.pewforum.org...

I, for one, do not feel comfortable assuming that nearly 46 million Americans lead useless or unsuccessful lives even though the don't acknowledge the existence of God. It's a very foolish position to take, and is currently the position Pro is trying to argue for.

This is where Pro's burden comes into play. Now that I've presented numbers from a well-respected organization, my opponent has the burden of showing just how each of these 46 million Americans necessarily lead unsuccessful or useless lives.

Let's also keep in mind that this number only represents Americans... if we included everyone else in the world, the burden on my opponent would be even greater.

For example, Stephen Hawking is an atheist, and yet he is very successful and has lived a very useful life! Not just for himself either, but actually the entire world has benefited from his scientific discoveries which led to him receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom among countless other awards. [5]

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

There are literally countless atheists and agnostics who lead successful and useful lives, for the sake of space, I'll simply share a compilation of 25 of them, all of whom are highly distinguished, successful and have provided the world with useful accomplishments.

List of 25: http://www.superscholar.org...

III. Existence of everything (else)

I can't believe my opponent is actually saying the "existence of everything". As far as I know, the only creatures capable of even holding the complex idea of a God concept are humans. Thus, literally nothing else even depends on such an existence. I do not see rocks committing suicide because there is no God. It's just absurd to even think about.

Furthermore, I don't think that non-human beings can really be deemed successful or useful except under subjective human values that we place on such things. Like, a dog isn't successful because he is a dog, but rather because he won a local dog race and was thus successful in winning a race. Useful would be more appropriate, and I'd argue that many non-human creatures and objects could be deemed useful without a dependence on a god. My car is useful, for instance, when I need to get to school. My car does not depend on the existence of acknowledgment of a god. Rather, it depends on use by it's owner, and creation in a manufacturing plant born from the ingenuity of mankind.

Rebuttals

IV. Without God (a necessary being) the strive to survive in life is only avoiding the inevitable (Death) and is unavailing

I feel my opponent fails to realize that the strive to survive in life is always avoiding death (unless someone desires suicide, in which case they embrace death). God doesn't need to be there for this to be known, and on the flip side, even if God is in the picture we are still striving to avoid death. I don't see Christians committing suicide to join God quicker. Everyone avoids death as much as they can. God/no-god plays absolutely no role in this either way.

No-one is successful in avoiding death - so ultimately, it can also be argued that your resolution is a contradictory statement since there is no possible way of being successful in the attempt to avoid death. While literally everyone is unsuccessful in avoiding death - that doesn't mean they didn't live a successful or useful life though. This is Pro's largest error, the fact that he believes that without God no-one can have a successful or useful life before death.

V. why continue to survive

Some people might subscribe to Buddhist tenets and in that case don't wish to live a life so they can go to Heaven. Instead, they might desire to be reborn as something else, and would live their life according to that desire - thus they have meaning and purpose in their life without the need for a God or Heaven. Another person might live their life meaningfully through their children or spouse. The belief that God is the only thing that gives meaning to life is incredible short-sighted and not something that is held by every living person in this world. Christians are a minority, keep that in mind, and then re-consider that the majority is living meaningful lives without following the minority religion of Christianity.

VI. Unitarian Universalism

Not every Unitarian universalist is a theist. The theology of individual Unitarian Universalists ranges widely, including Humanism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, Deism, Christianity, Judaism, Neopaganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many more. [6]

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Ramos-7

Pro

"I will negate the resolution by showing that a belief or concept of God is not necessary."

Or so you think you will, that is quite arrogant of you to type "I will negate the resolution...", as if you will win.

"Since my opponent is Pro, he needs to show, beyond doubt, that "The Existence Of Everything Including Life Is Unavailing without God." On the flip side, I will negate the resolution by showing that a belief or concept of God is not necessary. Pro started this debate under the assumption that there is actually a God. Normally, I wouldn't place the burden on someone to prove God's existence, but based on the fact that his entire resolution is based on God's existence, in order to affirm it he first needs to prove that God exists."

Read the Comments Section, the original count for my response was over 15,000 words, I had to put my argument for God there so I could keep my other texts.

"There are many people who live useful and successful lives without accepting the existence of a God. I, for one, do not feel comfortable assuming that nearly 46 million Americans lead useless or unsuccessful lives even though the don't acknowledge the existence of God. It's a very foolish position to take, and is currently the position Pro is trying to argue for."

If a person believes that the world & Universe was caused by nothing for nothing for no reason and reject the existence of God, what justifies that belief? How can something come from nothing? Even in mathematics, this idea is rejected since anything divided by zero is undefined (to divide means to separate something into multiple classes/categories), this violates Science and Logic itself because this not only is physically impossible, but the a Law of Thought/Logic called the Principle of Sufficient Reason as explained in my argument for God. What's "foolish" is believing something czar cause it's own existence from nothing and create life from non-life (abiogenesis) and that event causation can occur without an agent. The ball was rolling down the street, someone had to make the ball in order for it to move and wind which is essentially a flow of gasses which is made up by particles that move around & act on their own? Just because something does not grow or reproduce, doesn't mean it cannot be alive or use energy since we need that to survive. Also I never asked you if you were comfortable with saying anyone who didn't believe in a higher power or not, I did not intend this discussion to be about how you feel whether comfortable or not and if my position is foolish, instead of forming a conjecture, use evidence to support your belief and explain why.

"This is where Pro's burden comes into play. Now that I've presented numbers from a well-respected organization, my opponent has the burden of showing just how each of these 46 million Americans necessarily lead unsuccessful or useless lives."

When did I mention that the lives of those who do not believe in God are unsuccessful? I did not type that their lives are useless either, I typed that living has no purpose without God, not that those Atheists' lives are useless (which anyone could conclude I mean they're better dead) which is not true. Living just to live is not a reason and doesn't explain why you enjoy living. Your death will have no meaning when you are forgotten (in a world/Universe without God, as if such nonsense is possible), everything you did when you were alive did not save you from your destruction, going to the movies or some worldly activity just to do it before you die is irrational because it serves no purpose at all in helping you, oh by the way you're still going to die. The Nihilists would be right if a Godless Universe was one we lived in, but that is not the case and if I have to, I will defend God from anyone until I die.

"For example, Stephen Hawking is an atheist, and yet he is very successful and has lived a very useful life!" Not just for himself either, but actually the entire world has benefited from his scientific discoveries which led to him receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom among countless other awards. [5]

In a Godless world, he and everyone would still die regardless about your opinions about the man and a "successful life" is irrelevant to the topic at hand and also an argument from ignorance unless you lived his life and had knowledge of all his problems that he is, has and will encounter in the future. Just because he might be "successful financially" does not mean things like domestic/personal issues may not be affecting his mental/physical wellbeing, to be successful in living a affluent but stressful life (hypothetically) is not a successful one, and that's just one possibility out of many.

There are literally countless atheists and agnostics who lead successful and useful lives, for the sake of space, I'll simply share a compilation of 25 of them, all of whom are highly distinguished, successful and have provided the world with useful accomplishments.

Irrelevant. A cure for penal cancer, "OMFGNOWAYISTHISREALLIFERIGHTNOW?!", you are still going to die and never experience life (according to atheists) ever again and death is unavoidable. Life to an Atheist who believes in no afterlife & knows of the awful world which we live and has some form of intelligence will come to this realization as well. All that remains for Atheists and the worldly inhabitants of this planet is a life full of carnal pleasures which they will never get to enjoy again after their lifespan has expired.

"I can't believe my opponent is actually saying the "existence of everything"."

I didn't "say" that, I typed that and if you can't believe it, inspect the evidence there and believe because it happened. This begs the question "why does anything & everything exist?", without a reason, there can be no purpose and all that's left to describe everything in general as a temporary pleasure/pass time before you die where you will not be conscious at all.

"I feel my opponent fails to realize that the strive to survive in life is always avoiding death (unless someone desires suicide, in which case they embrace death)."

What you feel is irrelevant also, I have already mentioned that avoiding death is what people do and I've already explained how stupid it is to strive to survive while believing you're going to die (except you just want to postpone the moment of your demise) just to live longer and everything you've done in your life will ultimately (at the end of your life and those after you) not change the fact you will still die.

This site now restricts me to only 7,000 words per reply on this debate, I shall post the remainder on the comments like I did with my argument for God's existence.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I thank Pro for his round.

I. Is there even a God?

Pro failed to provide a rebuttal or proof of God in his latest round.

I therefore extend all arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged.

For the record, arguments posted in the comment section are null and void in relation to the actual debate. Voters cannot let there decision be influenced by what is said in the comments.

I'll ask Pro to place that argument in his next debate round if he wishes for it to be considered by the judges.

II. There are many people who live useful and successful lives without accepting the existence of a God.

Pro assumes that if you don't believe in God, then you believe the universe was caused "by nothing for nothing for no reason."

He fails to see that it's not so black and white. Science is currently providing answers as to what caused the universe (through the big bang) and are currently unveiling the unknowingness of the universe. A lack of belief in God does not necessarily mean they lack belief in everything. This is the whole point of science, to create factual systems of knowledge which allow for a greater understanding of the universe we live in. So, not only do agnostics and atheists not believe in nothing - but they are relying on systems of knowledge to gain an understanding - that's an even firmer foundation than mere beliefs.

Pro additionally asks me how "something can come from nothing"... it's not my burden to prove such a thing. My opponent incorrectly assumes that a lack of belief in God automatically implies a belief in nothing. This is simply wrong. There are many other religions that don't believe in the Abrahamic tradition of a creator god, and many non-religious individuals who believe in other forms of divinity. To assume that it is either one or the other is just a case of having a closed-mind, it does nothing to affirm Pro's position aside from showing that he does not acknowledge other religions or really anything aside from a creator god concept.

In response to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, it's basically saying that:

1- For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.
2- For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
3- For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

If my opponent wishes to stand by this principle - then he must first prove gods existence due to his belief that such an existence is the cause. Without that proof, this principle has no grounds upon which to stand.

Pro then states, "When did I mention that the lives of those who do not believe in God are unsuccessful? I did not type that their lives are useless either..." In response to that statement, if Pro looks at the definition of "unavailing" which I provided previously he will see that this is exactly what he is saying.

After my point about Albert Einstein, Pro responds by stating that, "In a Godless world, he and everyone would still die regardless about your opinions about the man and a "successful life" is irrelevant to the topic at hand..."

People die regardless of if there is a God or not, so this response is moot. My opponent is also mistaken by saying that "successful lives" are irrelevant, this can be seen in the definition of "unavailing" once again. My point in showing 25 atheists who have actually lived "availing" lives is not irrelevant. It's direct proof that his position is incorrect in regards to the terms he himself chose to use. Pro is debating this from a Christian perspective and continues to assume that life is meaningless without a god. Pro cannot prove what happens post-death, he can only share stories found in a book. So his assumptions are not only unfounded, but remain unproven as well.

III. Existence of everything (else)

My opponents reply to this point was that it "begs the question "why does anything & everything exist?", without a reason, there can be no purpose and all that's left to describe everything in general as a temporary pleasure/pass time before you die where you will not be conscious at all."

Pro is, again, failing to understand or accept that science is providing that "reason" as we speak. He, again, assumes that without a belief in God there can be no purpose to life. This is an offensively closed view of the world. Perhaps the purpose for the agnostic/atheist is to have children and pass their genetic lineage down. Perhaps it's to be the richest man alive. The whole "purpose" of life is subjective within itself and relative to each individual for differing reasons. The only people that believe life has no purpose without god are Christians, yet he extends such a thing to every living thing. It's absurd, unfounded, unproven, and an attempt by Pro to make a belief system stand as an objective purpose. Pro fails to recognize that if it WAS an objective purpose, more than a minority of people alive would believe it. But it's not. Hence this argument fails to affirm his position due to the subjectivity and relativity that Pro fails to acknowledge.

IV. Without God (a necessary being) the strive to survive in life is only avoiding the inevitable (Death) and is unavailing

Okay, so according to Pro it is "stupid to strive to survive just to live longer". This is nothing more than his own biased belief. He has not given any proof to show the validity of his own opinion. Why is it stupid? Pro needs to answer this question before I can even acknowledge this claim as anything more than a biased opinion. Nothing in life will change the fact that we will still die. Even a belief in God won't change that fact. So, again, pro fails to affirm his position and relies solely on his own biased opinions. Until he can prove that it's "stupid", this line of argumentation stands moot.

V. why continue to survive

Pro failed to provide a rebuttal to this line of argumentation in his previous round.

I therefore extend all arguments as they remain standing unchallenged.

Once again, something posted in comments is not valid for being considered in this debate.

VI. Unitarian Universalism

Pro failed to provide a rebuttal to this line of argumentation in his previous round.

I therefore extend all arguments as they remain standing unchallenged.

In closing,

Pro has dropped several arguments, provided biased opinions which lack any and all proof, used circular reasoning to affirm a point that is merely subjective and relative, and decided to post an additional 8,000 characters worth of arguments in the comment section which can't even be considered as part of this debate.

I have provided rebuttals for each point raised, shown that non-religious individuals can live "availing" lives, and have thus effectively negated the resolution.

I now return the floor to Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Ramos-7

Pro

Ramos-7 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

My opponent has forfeited Round 4.

I, therefore, extend all arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged.

I now return the floor to Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
Ramos-7

Pro

Ramos-7 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

Pro has forfeited his final round.

I, therefore, extend all arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged.

Due to Pro forfeiting, he has effectively failed at maintaining his BOP since my challenges are still left standing.

I would like to thank Pro for this thought-provoking debate, and look forward to any and all challenges in the future.

Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
This isn't a rule that should even need to be discussed. It's a site rule that was in place from the moment you joined DDO.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Ramos, no judge or member from the audience is going to base there decision off of what you say in the comments. We have an equal amount of allotted character limits in our debate rounds. Keep in mind, you were the one that chose the character limits when creating this debate - so you are essentially breaking the limitation you gave yourself.

If you bothered to read DDO Orientation found in the main forums page: http://www.debate.org...

you would see that in section 7 - regarding voting - it states specifically that:

"Remember, the basis for decision should NOT include:

Opinions held by you, but not mentioned by the debaters.
Conversation with any persons during or after the debate round.
Comments made by other members of the site."

You are breaking the 2nd rule, regarding "Conversation with any persons during or after the debate rounds"

You are literally posting arguments in the comment section "after your debate round".

If you can't realize how you are breaking this rule - I will have no problem getting the real site Moderator involved. As far as I am concerned, this is a conduct violation on your part.
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
@lori17224 "... wait, isn't anything less than 50% a minority? Also, what if there was no meaning in life? What would you do then? Would you kill yourself? Or would you just continue to live on?"

In terms of population yes, but Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, look at the pie chart.
Also I have an argument for God's existence so no I would never commit suicide, read my argument then refer back to me when you have any further questions.

@Blade-of-Truth According to the definition you posted, the greater number according to my sources is Christianity near 33% of the population of Earth. You are still wrong, the 2nd most popular religion is Islam at about 21% and the numbers decrease from that point on, so the Muslims & us are the majority.
This debate was started by me, I am basically moderating my own discussion that I have started, if you needed to I would read off your comments because like me I had not enough space. These "rules" you claim I broke, what are they? Does this site have a set of rules that this violates or is that some traditional/subjective value you follow? Proving the existence of God is no small task, being able to put an argument like the one I've posted in the comments section as well as addressing your statements made in your argument etc. all into a limited space of 10,000 characters. This is not a formal debate. If you want to make it formal, then you keep it formal for you, do not tell me what I should & shouldn't do especially when these "rules" of yours were never addressed by you until now which just makes you look like a child complaining about something he should have made clear prior to this discussion beginning.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
"Christians cover about 30% of the Earths population, so technically you're wrong, we are the majority."

While I won't acknowledge this in the actual debate - here is the definition for 'majority': http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

As for the arguments you made in the actual debate section, I'll have my response posted by this time tomorrow.
Posted by lori17224 2 years ago
lori17224
... wait, isn't anything less than 50% a minority? Also, what if there was no meaning in life? What would you do then? Would you kill yourself? Or would you just continue to live on?
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Dude, what are you doing? You cannot extend your arguments into the comment section. I hope you realize that you're literally breaking the rules by doing so. Furthermore, I cannot, rightfully, acknowledge anything that has been said in this section. You are literally giving yourself more characters than you are allowed.

As far as I am concerned, this is an automatic loss of Conduct.
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
"Christians are a minority, keep that in mind, and then re-consider that the majority is living meaningful lives without following the minority religion of Christianity."

Christians cover about 30% of the Earths population, so technically you're wrong, we are the majority.

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org...

http://www.beliefnet.com...
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
"God doesn't need to be there for this to be known, and on the flip side, even if God is in the picture we are still striving to avoid death. I don't see Christians committing suicide to join God quicker. Everyone avoids death as much as they can."

True Christians know about Creation and the power, benevolence and knowledge as characteristics of God (who is eternal) and we are to let people know he exists and spread the teachings of the Bible such as morality, sin, mistakes people have made throughout time, why God did this or that, etc. committing suicide is selfish just for the purpose of going to Heaven since you abandon all your responsibilities and basically let others be ignorant of the truth etc. Answer this, why avoid death and continue living when you may believe there is no God and life is temporary?

"This is Pro's largest error, the fact that he believes that without God no-one can have a successful or useful life before death."

Your life was a success if you could keep it, everyone lived you, war never existed and everyone knew the difference between benevolence & malevolence which not everyone knows (nobody is successful of being perfectly moral & rational).

"Some people might subscribe to Buddhist tenets and in that case don't wish to live a life so they can go to Heaven. Instead, they might desire to be reborn as something else, and would live their life according to that desire - thus they have meaning and purpose in their life without the need for a God or Heaven."

Where did Heaven & the whole Universe come from then? Why go they desire rebirth into a different type of body (non-human)?

"Another person might live their life meaningfully through their children or spouse."

That is just pathetic, basing your only reason to strive to survive like an idiot for a person who is a mortal like you, the logic behind that is faulty. So once they die, what then? What are you going to do cry then seek after death to go join them?
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
Premise 2 Continued : So if people want to make the argument that the Universe doesn't need to have been created by a necessary being (God) but a necessary substance instead, this would not work since even though the necessary substance avoids the problem of infinite regression, to be able to do something. As mentioned before the substance would have to be conscious, have the ability to do something by itself because something without a mind or being alive for that matter cannot act on its own or be able to create something contingent (agent causation) and it would not be made up of anything in the Universe so it would most likely be immaterial, intelligent enough to know how to craft/formulate things, the power to act accordingly and independent of space, time, the cycle of life, energy, 3 dimensions, the laws of physics that apply to this Universe etc. which sounds like a Necessary Being anyways because a substance cannot do these things without influence from something that matches all these characteristics.

Premise 3 : Is a statement of fact, if you're one of those guys who suggests Solipsism, the Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis or whatever illusionary type idea, I can address any of those if you want to include that (if you were to object to premise 3 which people have actually done before) .

Premise 4 : I did my best to explain.

Premise 5 : Explained through 2.

Conclusion : This is my current scientific/philosophical argument for God
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
Premise 1 Continued : Particles probably come from the energy that is in the Universe, and I"m sure anyone who knows that Energy = Mass X (Speed of Light)^2 (ex. an atomic bomb) can understand that this energy conversion is more logical and possible than something that violates logic itself (Something From Nothing. For an event to occur, there must be a conscious being present that has the capability to do something by itself (Agent Causation).

Premise 2 : Many Atheists agree with Theists is that the Universe does indeed exist necessarily because it is the foundation for matter, space, time, energy, this planet which we live that is able to support life, the fact that the stream of consciousness exists etc. Without the Universe, none of these things (because they"re all inside of it) would be able to work in the way they all do today, yesterday and tomorrow. If the Universe was necessary in itself, it would have to be eternal (never failing to exist and always was) and changeless (never changes, correlates with eternal). But if the Universe was changeless and eternal, why is it undergoing this Redshift (the widening of the Universe at some velocity that"s supposed to be greater than light) that Edwin Hubble "discovered" that cosmologists say "the Universe is infinitely inflating" (Cosmic Inflation) ? Also the Borde-Guth-Vilekin Theorem of 2003 explained that the Universe which is believed to be expanding cannot be past eternal (which is the implication since there had to have been a moment in the finite past where the Universe to have been formed for it to be expanding or been experiencing a stage where that was not happening). Then questions like "why is Earth the only planet known to man the one that can support and has life (assuming this is the case)?" are asked (this brings up the topic of Fine-Tuning).
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Ramos-7Blade-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Ramos-7Blade-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by chewster911 2 years ago
chewster911
Ramos-7Blade-of-TruthTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF,also Pro did not use any sources. Con destroyed Pro's arguments and made more convincing arguments. Victory for Con.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Ramos-7Blade-of-TruthTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF without response to Con's last argument.