The Instigator
purplehaze
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points

The Existence of 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  
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: 6/1/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,702 times Debate No: 8496
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (9)

 

purplehaze

Pro

Well there are many reasons why God must exist, and by God I merely mean "the cause of everything".

Ill start with first cause. Absolutely everything we are capable of observing in the universe around us has had a cause or causes. From stars collapsing in onto themselves to form black holes, to the birth of a child, absolutely everything observable has had cause.

I also believe that nothing is infinite. And yet again everything we are able to observe in the universe around us proves this. Well not everything, but ill get back to that. And if you want to believe that the universe is infinite, then you may not believe in the big bang theory, because these two ideas directly contradict with each other. Seeing as their is no resistance to movement in space, if the big bang really did take place then the universe will continue to expand until it meets an obstacle, and if it is still expanding then that means it could not have been infinite at any time before now. Therefore if you want to believe in the big bang theory you must accept that nothing in the universe is infinite.

Ok so now my two beliefs contradict with each other.

That everything needs a cause, and that nothing is infinite, and the only way I can make them fit with each other is by introducing a first cause, which unfortunately must have been infinite and must not have had a cause. Now I know you may not agree with my beliefs, but if you can see any other possible way of fitting them together, I would be delighted to hear it.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

If by "God" you simply mean "the cause of everything" we are dealing with a much different argument than usual...

Responses:

>> "Absolutely everything we are capable of observing in the universe around us has had a cause or causes."

That's not quite true. There are various experiments in quantum physics that show that certain quantum events do not actually have observable causes. For example, Quantum Tunneling (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and Nonlocality (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Furthermore, a simple thought experiment can demonstrate the possibility of acausality. Is it logically inconsistent to suppose that objects could simply pop into existence? It's highly UNLIKELY, but the fact that you can properly imagine a chicken popping into existence and laying an egg on your bed renders the experience logically consistent. Unless you cannot imagine this in the same way you cannot imagine a square circle, it is still POSSIBLE.

>> "I also believe that nothing is infinite."

Time? The concept itself is infinite - it's just our conceptualization of it that renders it a numerical value...

>> "if you want to believe that the universe is infinite, then you may not believe in the big bang theory"

Then it's good that I don't believe the universe if infinite... The cyclic universe model helps explain this.

>> "their is no resistance to movement in space"

False. Gravity presents significant resistance to movement in space.

>> "Therefore if you want to believe in the big bang theory you must accept that nothing in the universe is infinite."

The propositions for this conclusion have been undermined - it no longer stands. One can believe a cyclic model or a Big Bang/Big Crunch model. The notion that the universe is not infinite may be correct, but does not rest on notions of resistance, etc...

>> "That everything needs a cause, and that nothing is infinite, and the only way I can make them fit with each other is by introducing a first cause,"

You should read Hume's "Why Must There Be a Cause?"

*************************************************************

The argument for "God" by appeal to first cause involves a fundamental error. If one can conceive of an uncaused cause or something that does not need a cause, then one has already accepted acausality. And once this has been done, the need for a first cause entirely disappears. The proposition is self-defeating.

I await rebuttal.

NEGATED
Debate Round No. 1
purplehaze

Pro

"That's not quite true. There are various experiments in quantum physics that show that certain quantum events do not actually have observable causes."

Yeah but Quantum events are dependant on time and space. That is why Quantum mechanics can attempt to explain it.

"Unless you cannot imagine this in the same way you cannot imagine a square circle, it is still POSSIBLE."

Yeah and you cannot imagine everything exploding from nothing because you have no idea what nothing is. Does that mean that this is impossible to you?

"Time? The concept itself is infinite - it's just our conceptualization of it that renders it a numerical value..."

Time will have an end. You forget that I am arguing something that has always existed. Besides sticking me in a hell of routine time also tells us how long things have existed. How could time exist in a place that has always been. It wouldnt be possible. And you must agree with me on this because you have already stated that you dont believe in anything that isnt possible to imagine.

Why would quote me when you agree with me on something.

"False. Gravity presents significant resistance to movement in space."

Im not talking about our and anything elses progression through space. Im talking about the expansion of time and space. Gravity has no effect on time or space. You misunderstood me.

"The proposition is self-defeating."

I know the proposition is self defeating. Why are you agreeing with me. This is supposed to be an argument. Do you not remember this from my opening arguement."Ok so now my two beliefs contradict with each other.That everything needs a cause, and that nothing is infinite, and the only way I can make them fit with each other is by introducing a first cause, which unfortunately must have been infinite and must not have had a cause.".

You didnt NEGATE one thing.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

My opponent seems to be egregiously confused about his own resolution. He is supposed to be defending the First Cause argument, yet concedes that he "know[s] the proposition is self defeating." Perhaps I can make his own position clear to him...

Responses:

>> "Yeah but Quantum events are dependant on time and space. That is why Quantum mechanics can attempt to explain it."

Dependence on the framework of time and space is not the same as causality.

>> "Yeah and you cannot imagine everything exploding from nothing because you have no idea what nothing is. Does that mean that this is impossible to you?'

Something coming from nothing? Only in quantum mechanics, but certainly possible. If you're referring to the Big Bang, I suggest you read up on the theory...

>> "Time will have an end."

No it won't - it can't. Time is not dependent on the existence of space. Everything, even the universe itself could be destroyed, but time would remain. Time is not any sort of physical entity - it is merely a means by which we measure the relativity of two events.

>> "How could time exist in a place that has always been. It wouldnt be possible. "

Again, it surely would. Your own reference above even contains the time-dependent term "always," which, in metaphysical or space-time terms simply means, "at all times" ("times" meaning points of observation, even if only possibilities). There is absolutely no reason for my opponent to make the above claim.

>> "Gravity has no effect on time or space. You misunderstood me."

No - I understood you perfectly. You do not understand astrophysics. Gravity creates a warping of time and space. Gravity has EVERYTHING to do with time and space. The best way to think of it is like a bowling ball (our sun) on a trampoline (spacetime). The trampoline bows inwards towards the object (albeit in all dimensions instead of just 2), representing the curvature of spacetime caused by large objects. This curvature means that objects moving away from the massive object have to "climb" up the gravity well to reach escape velocity.

Since the universe is expanding and trying to race up IT'S OWN gravity well, it will eventually fail and begin to fall (contract).

>> "I know the proposition is self defeating."

The proposition he refers to is my statement: "If one can conceive of an uncaused cause or something that does not need a cause, then one has already accepted acausality. And once this has been done, the need for a first cause entirely disappears. The proposition is self-defeating." Sounds like a concession to me.

**********************************************************

>> "the only way I can make them fit with each other is by introducing a first cause, which unfortunately must have been infinite and must not have had a cause."

I suppose for giggles I'll re-address this, since my opponent didn't understand my rebuttal...

If the first cause is infinite and acausal, you have already committed yourself to something that does not follow the rules of causality. Once you make this move, you abandon one of the fundamental principles that your argument was founded on (causality). The first cause argument cannot stand because it is based on a form of argument that uses a premise only when it is convenient.

When one makes the first cause argument by abandoning causality, the proposition cannot stand. If the first cause had no cause, then my opponent must provide some sort of explanation of WHY it had no cause. Abandoning causality destroys the entire infinite regress notion.

Your argument basically asks the voters to support a notion where the premise of your argument ("Absolutely everything we are capable of observing in the universe around us has had a cause or causes") is suddenly abandoned for one instance of the very thing your premise is in regards to.

Consider:

All E are C.
At least one E is not C.

Your argument does not stand.

NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 2
purplehaze

Pro

"My opponent seems to be egregiously confused about his own resolution. "

Please give me one resolution on this topic that would not be confusing. I find this one the least confusing.

"Dependence on the framework of time and space is not the same as causality."

It is more or less if you dont believe that space and time have always existed. We know that tornados need a lot of condtions too to occur and were not very good at predicting them. I wouldnt say that a tornado was without cause though. Id say quantum events are kind of like the coin landing on its side when you flick it. As in the can occur when the conditions are there but it is highly unlikely.

"No it won't - it can't. Time is not dependent on the existence of space."

What would there be for time to govern without space. Infinity? Time governs finite existence.

"No - I understood you perfectly. You do not understand astrophysics. Gravity creates a warping of time and space. Gravity has EVERYTHING to do with time and space."

Yes that is the best way to explain it. But it is not gravity that warps time and space. It is the planets. And space outside of the planets gravitational pull isnt effected by gravity anyway. The only thing that I understand to be effected by gravity is the objects floating around in space. Not space itself, outside of the distortion from the large object resting upon it.

"Since the universe is expanding and trying to race up IT'S OWN gravity well, it will eventually fail and begin to fall (contract)."

True!! How do we know that space will contract though? Space is a vacuum. You cannot pick out one patch of a vacuum and follow its movement.

"If the first cause had no cause, then my opponent must provide some sort of explanation of WHY it had no cause. "

If you believe that nothing is infinite, then how can you not believe in a first cause? And if this cause was the first cause that would have to mean it was not caused. And if it was not caused then it must be eternal. So it had no cause because it needed no cause.

Look at this and tell me that it doesnt point to a grand designer.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

How could such a simple sequence of numbers govern so much of the beauty around us. All these laws. Do you think this could happen by chance? Well it could but what were the odds of it happening. That the way things look around us, the very thing that is beauty, could be governed by such a simple sequence of numbers. Thats strong evidence of an artist at work if you ask me.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Readers, my opponent delivers a somewhat rambling third argument, which does not touch on the two most fundamental rebuttals I have presented. I will present these again at the end of my argument.

Responses:

>> "Id say quantum events are kind of like the coin landing on its side when you flick it. As in the can occur when the conditions are there but it is highly unlikely."

Quantum events may be unlikely, but they DO happen.

>> "What would there be for time to govern without space. Infinity? Time governs finite existence."

Time doesn't GOVERN anything - it's just a measuring tool. Would you say that if there's no longer anything to measure that the concepts of height and width simply disappear? If everything disappeared, there would be nothing, but we would still be able to say there has been nothing for a long time.

>> "But it is not gravity that warps time and space."

Spacetime is warped by the presence of mass; the warping itself is gravity. Spacetime itself is curved such that any object entering the curve is affected. As the universe begins to contract, it will begin to fold up as it becomes more and more curved.

>> "You cannot pick out one patch of a vacuum and follow its movement."

Sure you can - all movement is relative since there's no "center" of the universe. If I pick out a specific patch of space I can easily describe how it's moving...

>> "If you believe that nothing is infinite, then how can you not believe in a first cause?"

Why can't I believe that the universe has just always existed? You haven't presented an argument that describes why the universe cannot be an infinite phenomenon. Your first cause argument has failed...

>> "So it had no cause because it needed no cause."

But what makes it different from other causes such that it needed no cause? THAT'S the point you have failed to address and why the first cause argument has failed.

>> "Look at [the Fibonacci sequence] and tell me that it doesnt point to a grand designer."

We're discussing first cause, not intelligent design... But the intelligent design argument fails on its own irreducibly complex statement - remove God and the argument becomes less complex. If it points to anything, it points to the fact that the building blocks of life are all similar. Which really isn't that surprising, considering everything on the planet shares common pieces of DNA.

******************************************************************
Readers, here is the point my opponent has failed to address concerning his first cause argument:

If the first cause is infinite and acausal, you have already committed yourself to something that does not follow the rules of causality. Once you make this move, you abandon one of the fundamental principles that your argument was founded on (causality). The first cause argument cannot stand because it is based on a form of argument that uses a premise only when it is convenient.

When one makes the first cause argument by abandoning causality, the proposition cannot stand. If the first cause had no cause, then my opponent must provide some sort of explanation of WHY it had no cause. Abandoning causality destroys the entire infinite regress notion.

Your argument basically asks the voters to support a notion where the premise of your argument ("Absolutely everything we are capable of observing in the universe around us has had a cause or causes") is suddenly abandoned for one instance of the very thing your premise is in regards to.

Consider:

All E are C.
At least one E is not C.

Your argument does not stand.

NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
GodSands? Where did you go?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
There are no higher dimensions.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
Time for us is moving forward, look into the higher dimensions, then you might find out that time is not as simple as, "It moves forwads"
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Time is constantly moving forward and it required for change to occur in the physical universe.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
Why am I wrong? Not really explain why I am.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "Time is not physical but it affect matter."

False.

>> "Time allows space and matter to react together. Without either space or matter there is no time."

That's backwards - your argument supports the conclusion that without time there is not space or matter... which is also false.

>> "So thoughtless."

You are hardly an authority on thinking.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
"Wrong yet again. Space and matter need each other. Time needs neither." Think! If there is no space or matter no time can exist. What is time? Time is not physical but it affect matter. And space affect matter because space contains matter. Time allows space and matter to react together. Without either space or matter there is no time. So thoughtless.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
You entirely miss the point.

Seeing something art-like does not guarantee an artist. A fractal looks art-like... yet it has no artist - just a mathematical equation.
Posted by purplehaze 7 years ago
purplehaze
Im sure you would consider a painting proof enough of an artist.

"Of course it looks like art"

Justified.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> ""Time is not dependent on the existence of space." No space = no time. Time needs space to flow through. Time, space and matter and all need at one for them to all coexist."

Wrong yet again. Space and matter need each other. Time needs neither.

>> ""Of course it looks like art" so im justified in my belief that there must be an artist?"

Only if you feel that being preconditioned to believe something makes it a justified belief.... the only way the artisan belief is "justified" is if there ACTUALLY IS an artist.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by sorrylol 7 years ago
sorrylol
purplehazeJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
purplehazeJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Projectc9 7 years ago
Projectc9
purplehazeJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Chase_the_Bass 7 years ago
Chase_the_Bass
purplehazeJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Molokoplus 7 years ago
Molokoplus
purplehazeJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
purplehazeJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
purplehazeJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
purplehazeJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:15 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
purplehazeJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06