The Instigator
purplehaze
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

The Existence of God

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: 6/1/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,350 times Debate No: 8497
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (7)

 

purplehaze

Pro

Care for a bit of thinking material?
RoyLatham

Con

Welcome to debate.org. I will do my best to give you a good debate.

Pro clarified that the resolution is "There must be a god that created the universe."

Pro bears the burden of proof. He must show that there is no possible alternative for the creation of the universe. I intend to show that there are several possible alternatives.

One alternative is that the universe always existed. This is the explanation that is preferred by Western thinkers such as Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells, and by Eastern religions including Buddhism:

"In the eyes of the Buddha, the world is nothing but Samsara -- the cycle of repeated births and deaths. To Him, the beginning of the world and the end of the world is within this Samsara. Since elements and energies are relative and inter-dependent, it is meaningless to single out anything as the beginning. Whatever speculation we make regarding the origin of the world, there is no absolute truth in our notion. " http://www.buddhanet.net...

Hinduism:

"According to Hindu Philosophy, the universe (or multiverse) never came to be at some particular point, but always has been, always will be, but is perpetually in flux. Space and time are of cyclical nature. This universe is simply the current one, which is influx and constantly changing, when it finally ceases to manifest, a new one will arise." http://en.wikipedia.org...

Jainism:

"Jainism believes in a cyclical nature of the universe. Jains believe in a universe without beginning, end or creator, hence Jains will refer to the present cycle of the cosmos." http://www.jainuniversity.org...

The point of citing these enduring beliefs is not that they are authoritatively true, but rather that they are readily conceivable. Some argue that that it is obvious that everything has a beginning, and inconceivable that something always existed. Clearly that is not true, because hundreds of millions of people have no difficulty postulating a universe that has always existed.

Modern science has reached no conclusion as to whether the universe always existed or not. The Big Bang Theory is now well accepted as the start of the universe that is now visible, but there is no consensus theory as to what preceded the Big Bang. One theory is that of quantum fluctuation:

"Cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the Big Bang. And the thing about quantum fluctuations is that they can happen anywhere, any time. And if our universe was born out of a quantum . . . There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe "fine-tuned" for our existence." http://www.space.com...

Science has taken us far enough to know that our concepts of space and time developed in the everyday world break down in the extremes. For example, there is nothing in our everyday existence that allows us to understand that the speed of light cannot be exceeded or that gravity distorts space. Current cosmology postulates that as the universe expands new vacuum is created and the new vacuum possesses energy that is detectable by its gravitational field. The whole concept of "new vacuum" is inconceivable in our ordinary experience; there is nothing in a vacuum, so how can there be any expanding vacuum? Even though we cannot hold the concept in our minds, the equations indicate that is the case, or at least that it might be the case.

Thus is may be that we currently do not have the conceptual apparatus to understand the true origins of the universe. Perhaps it can be explained as a mathematical theory, or perhaps it is unknowable to humans.

Whatever the problems with explaining the origins of the universe, the problems are greater explaining the origins of God. God is far more complex and mysterious than the universe. It must be so for God to have created the universe. Therefore, if God always existed or somehow transcends space and time, it is simpler to suppose that the universe always existed or somehow transcends space and time. If God arose spontaneously, then it is simpler to suppose that the universe arose spontaneously. A postulated God makes the problem of origins worse. If one says, "We just do not know the origins of God and are in no position to speculate," then we might as well say the same thing about the origins of the universe.

God is not a simpler explanation. Consider the problem of forecasting the paths of hurricanes. Our very best science, despite complexities modeled in our largest computers, does not do a very good job of forecasting hurricane tracks. So why don't we postulate the existence of a hurricane God that guides hurricanes according to the God's wishes? The hurricane God is easier to understand and the hypothesis agrees with everything that happens to hurricanes. If one thinks carefully about the hurricane God, one first realizes that it really isn't simpler. We have to explain how the God came into being, how it got its powers, and how it interacts with the observable world. Second, we realize it isn't a useful explanation. It tells us nothing about how future hurricanes will behave. An explanation with no predictive power, in fact, is really not an explanation at all.

For these reasons, the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
purplehaze

Pro

First of all let me say that my only belief in God is that it is eternal. And that it caused everything that is not it. And I like to think it is an artist but im not going to argue that.

And I thought you were going to give me a good first argument.

"He must show that there is no possible alternative for the creation of the universe."

Why would I argue that. That statement is idiotic. Of course there is a possible alternative. I will argue why mine is the best theory, but not that there are no possible alternatives.

Im just going to pick through a bit of your story because im not arguing that what you have listed are not possible alternatives.

"Jainism believes in a cyclical nature of the universe. Jains believe in a universe without beginning, end or creator, hence Jains will refer to the present cycle of the cosmos."

Yeah fair play to them. I believe in the big bang. Let them believe what they want to believe.

"Cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the Big Bang."

Quantum fluctuations are dependant on space and time to occur. I do not believe that space and time have always existed.

"or that gravity distorts space."

Gravity does not distort space. Extremely large objects distort space causing gravity.

Science does not contradict with my definition of God.

"Whatever the problems with explaining the origins of the universe, the problems are greater explaining the origins of God."

Yet again you make a stupid statement. First of all you can not explain the origins of God because God is eternal.

"If God arose spontaneously, then it is simpler to suppose that the universe arose spontaneously."

The big bang theory shows that the universe did arise spontaneously if you ask me.

I have two main beliefs.

1. That nothing is infinite.

2. That everything has a cause.

Now unfortunately these two beliefs contradict with each other seeing as if everything has a cause then we could go back infinitely through the causes, and if nothing is infinite then everything cannot have had a cause. The only way I can piece them together is by believing that there is one thing outside of these beliefs.

One thing that has always existed and is the first cause.

Hurricanes are caused. The depend on conditions to occur. We are trying to explain the very beginning. When there was no conditions for anything to occur. How could there have been a first cause unless it always existed.

"We have to explain how the God came into being"

God would not be God if he had an explanation.
RoyLatham

Con

The resolution to which Pro agreed is "There must be a god that created the universe." That God "must be" implies there is no alternative. Pro in this round states, "Of course there is a possible alternative. I will argue why mine is the best theory, but not that there are no possible alternatives." The concedes that the resolution is negated, which concedes the debate. We are now chatting for Pro's amusement, not for mine.

"Quantum fluctuations are dependent on space and time to occur. I do not believe that space and time have always existed." Upon what authority do you base your belief? If quantum fluctuation in space and time is conceivable, then some other spontaneous fluctuation may have caused space and time.

"Gravity does not distort space." According to General Relativity, the gravitational field distorts space:

"General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It is the current description of gravity in modern physics. It unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, and describes gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. " http://en.wikipedia.org...

My point was that many things are true that defy everyday experience. General relativity is one of them. Quantum fluctuation, multiple dimensions, and other explanations may similarly be true, even though not able to be related to our everyday experience.

"Yet again you make a stupid statement. First of all you can not explain the origins of God because God is eternal." So if there is no problem with God being eternal, there is also no problem with the universe being eternal. The universe being eternal is a better explanation than God being eternal, because the universe is much simpler.

Pro says, "The big bang theory shows that the universe did arise spontaneously if you ask me" this again concedes the debate, by acknowledging that God need not have created the universe.

Pro states beliefs without giving any reason why the beliefs are true. He asserts that "1. That nothing is infinite. 2. That everything has a cause." but gives no reason why either is true. In fact, he previously acknowledged that quantum fluctuation exists provided there is space and time, but quantum fluctuation has no cause. therefore even his beliefs are inconsistent with his assertions.

Finally, Pro claims "God would not be God if he had an explanation." If Pro is justified in defining God as not having an explanation, then it is equally valid to define the universe as having come into existence without having an explanation. Since the universe is simpler, an unexplained universe if preferable to an unexplained God. Less is thereby left unexplained.

Pro explicitly conceded the debate. Pro gave no reasons why what he believes is true, and since he bears the burden of proof, he fails to establish any point in the debate. Whatever Pro claimed without proof, i.e., that God is an uncaused cause, is eternal, and needs no explanation, can similarly be said directly of the universe and thereby removes the unnecessary complexity of adding in a God. Pro violated conduct and the conditions of site use.

I thank Pro for teaching me patience.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
purplehaze

Pro

"The resolution to which Pro agreed is "There must be a god that created the universe." That God "must be" implies there is no alternative."

I apologise but from your comment. I thought you were only trying to find out whether I was christian or not. This is my first debate after all. Clever little trick by you there.

"Upon what authority do you base your belief?"

On these beliefs

1. That nothing is infinite.

2. That everything has a cause.

And Quantum fluctuations depend on conditions to occur. How would the conditions occur before time and space.

"My point was that many things are true that defy everyday experience. General relativity is one of them."

I do believe General Relativity. And did you not read the last part of it. Ok what causes gravity. So im wrong to say that the planets and suns cause gravity? How could I not believe in General relativity. Such a beautiful truth. Im amazed how people dont see art when they look at the universe.

Yeah you could probably say that the universe has always existed. But then Id probably have to go back to worshipping suns gods and all whatever in the universe has existed forever. And I dont think God would live in his master piece.

Do you see how beautifully everything works in the universe. A lot of planning went into this. And how do you know that the big bang isnt Gods beautiful way of painting?.

"but quantum fluctuation has no cause. "

If something requires conditions to occur then it has a cause.

"Pro states beliefs without giving any reason why the beliefs are true. He asserts that "1. That nothing is infinite. 2. That everything has a cause."

At the very start of this argument you listed out many alternative beliefs. How come these people can have their beliefs and I cant. Nothing exists forever. Do you not agree that the universe is not infinite or that time can have no meaning in something that has always existed. Im sure you share my beliefs,but if you dont can you prove me wrong?

"an unexplained universe if preferable to an unexplained God."

Yeah but I dont believe in things popping into existence from nothing. Preferable to the man how cowers before the question "how did all this come to be" Have you ever seen any quantum fluctuations creating a universe. I mean how can you deny God when it allows you to see its method.Simple as this if you walked up to a book that contains all the laws that govern our universe without knowing what it was you would think it was designed.

http://en.wikipedia.org... I dont know If thats going to be a link or not but you can copy and paste anyway.

I mean the Fibonacci spiral is an amazing thing showing us how so many shapes in the world around us fit into curves mapped with using so simple a sequence of numbers. If that doesnt look like design I just dont know what does. How could this law possibly exist by coincidence and have such simple numbers in its sequence at the same time. Proof of design If you ask me but of course that is just my opinion.

"Pro violated conduct and the conditions of site use."

Dont be a baby.
RoyLatham

Con

A debate is about whether a resolution is true. Pro proposes the resolution and tries to convince the voters in the debate that they should act to approve the resolution. Pro has the burden of proof. It is like a trial in that the default condition is that the resolution is not proved, similar to a "presumption of innocence." If Pro fails to prove the resolution, then the resolution fails. This is done according to rules of debate. The rules of debate and the methods of judging are explained in the debate.org HELP menu. Generally, logical arguments are considered more compelling than unsupported statements of belief, and insults are conduct violations lose points and may eventually result in the debater being banned from the site. The place for unsupported statements and insults is on a personal blog, not in a debate.

The mutually agreed resolution for this debate is "There must be a god that created the universe." In the second round, Pro conceded that the resolution is false.

Pro states two beliefs: 1. That nothing is infinite. 2. That everything has a cause. Pro does not say why he holds either belief. We are left to suppose that he thinks they are commonsense.

The belief that nothing is infinite is not commonsense, because we know that hundreds of millions of people, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jains, do not subscribe to it. Beyond that, the scientific consensus embraces the concept of things being infinite. Until relatively recently, the Steady State Theory was the predominant scientific theory of the universe, and that theory supposes that the universe always existed. Scientists who now believe in the Big Bang theory largely refrain from asserting what happened before the Big Bang. The possibility remains in science that the universe always existed. Thus Pro's belief is neither commonsense nor supported by science.

Pro's belief that "everything has a cause" is commonsense, because that is what we see in the everyday world around us. However, science has already proved that many things occur which defy the expectations build from everyday experience. One example discussed is curvature of space and time caused by gravity, as described by General Relativity. Other examples, well proved, are wave-particle duality, time dilation described by Special Relativity, and quantum theory. Each of these is true, and each defies our everyday experience.

Consequently, it is not safe to rely upon everyday experience in supposing that everything has a cause. Quantum fluctuation is a scientific theory that embraces the possibility that there are events without causes. The theory is unproven, but to my knowledge no scientist rules it out on the grounds that that it violates a principle of requiring a cause. Similarly, a current theory of dark energy supposes that new energy "pops into existence" in the form of vacuum energy as the universe expands. There is reasonably strong evidence for vacuum energy. The point is not that it is proved, but rather that scientists do not rule it out. Pro's belief that everything has a cause is not ruled out.

Pro rebuts that space and time must exist for quantum fluctuation to occur. That space and time must exist first is Pro's contention, it is not to my knowledge a scientific contention that is part of quantum fluctuation. If it is, then Pro should provide a reference that it is part of the theory.

The theory of vacuum energy http://en.wikipedia.org... clearly does not require that space and time exist. It specifically requires that they do not exist outside of the defined universe. The theory claims that as the universe expands, the new space that is created has energy in it. The energy is detected by is gravitational field that acts to make the universe expand at an increasing rate.

Pro carves an exception to his beliefs of nothing being infinite and everything having a cause. Pro believes that God is the exception. My question was then, if God is an exception, why cannot there be other exceptions? In particular, if the universe were an exception it would be a better theory, because the universe is much simpler than God. The universe is only energy and relatively few physical laws. God has infinite inexplicable powers.

All of the arguments for God being an exception, such that it is the nature of God or the definition of God to be an exception, can equally well be applied to the universe. We can say that it is the nature of the universe to be an exception.

Pro asks, "At the very start of this argument you listed out many alternative beliefs. How come these people can have their beliefs and I cant. Nothing exists forever. Do you not agree that the universe is not infinite or that time can have no meaning in something that has always existed. Im sure you share my beliefs,but if you dont can you prove me wrong?"

You are entitled to your beliefs and they are entitled to theirs. The issue is whether you can prove the resolution of the debate. You may have many other beliefs, I don't care. The debate is solely about the resolution.

Personally, I have no firm belief as to whether the universe is infinite or whether time began or whether things can pop into existence. I suspect that the answers lie in some broader understanding that invalidates the questions, perhaps a multi-dimensional theory like membrane theory, but I don't know. I like the answer the Buddha gave when someone insisted upon being told whether or not God existed. It was along the lines of, "If you have been shot by a poisoned arrow, would you refuse to remove it until you know who shot it?" In other words, it's best to get on with meeting the challenges of life and not worry about how the universe was made. It really isn't important.

Pro says, "Yeah you could probably say that the universe has always existed. But then Id probably have to go back to [worshiping] suns gods and all whatever in the universe has existed forever. And I dont think God would live in his [masterpiece]."

It is not necessary to worship anything. If Pro wishes to worship something, that is his choice. It is not even clear why God would want to be worshiped. Benjamin Franklin was troubled by that question for most of his life. But that's a different debate topic.

Pro says, "Do you see how beautifully everything works in the universe. A lot of planning went into this. And how do you know that the big bang isnt Gods beautiful way of painting?."

I do see how beautifully everything works in the universe. I don't know it was a result of planning. It is possible that the Big Bang was God's work; that is one alternative. In Round 1, I cited the quantum fluctuation theory which provides "According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe "fine-tuned" for our existence."

The idea is that we only get to see one of an infinite number of universes, and the fact that we see it means that it is suited for our seeing it. Compare it to dealing out a hand of bridge. The probability of any hand be dealt is so small it would not occur in a trillion trillion lifetimes of perpetual card dealing. Yet the cards are delivered and we look at them, despite the infinitesimal odds. Perhaps there are creatures in a different universe pondering why their universe was so well suited to them.

"Pro violated conduct and the conditions of site use." Pro: "Dont be a baby." Hate to tell you, but spelling and grammar count as well. Cruel universe here.
Debate Round No. 3
purplehaze

Pro

"Hate to tell you, but spelling and grammar count as well. Cruel universe here."

Not looking for votes with this argument bud.

"A debate is about whether a resolution is true. Pro proposes the resolution and tries to convince the voters in the debate that they should act to approve the resolution."

I would have thought it would have been clear that I wished to debated the existence of God, as that is the name of the debate and all.

"The belief that nothing is infinite is not commonsense, because we know that hundreds of millions of people, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jains, do not subscribe to it."

These people are so lucky to think that ignorance is bliss. Not me. I wish to know all I can, and im sure you are the same. And I cant see how you would think that the universe always existing would be easier to grasp than God. I mean with God all there is to it is that we all came from one thing. So that leaves one unexplainable thing. If you believe the universe is infinite then you are leaving yourself with complete confusion. Why is it so hard to believe that we all came from one thing? Like life probably evolved from one thing.

And quantum events need conditions to occur. Even if they dont need a direct cause the conditions are more or less the cause.

"if the universe were an exception it would be a better theory, because the universe is much simpler than God."

No it isnt. If you want to say that the universe is infinite then you have lost us in nothing. If you believe that God created the universe then at least we do not have to believe that we are living in the unexplainable.

"It is not necessary to worship anything. If Pro wishes to worship something, that is his choice."

I agree completely. If God had wanted me to worship him he would have told me. I suppose I wouldnt call it worship. I suppose you could say I am in awe of him.

"Perhaps there are creatures in a different universe pondering why their universe was so well suited to them."

Perhaps there are, but are you happy with that as an explanation to why everything works so beautifully? When you look at something like Fibonaccis sequence you must see it as evidence for design. Evidence does not mean that it must be the answer of course, but its still evidence.

I apologise for violating whatever......but im not debating to win.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro wants to debate the existence of God. His original contention was that God is necessary to explain the existence of the universe. That contention is dead because Pro admitted that there are alternative explanations. Pro further argues:

1. God is necessary to explain the suitability of the universe to human existence. I rebutted that with the argument that there may be an infinity of universes, a theory advanced in science, and so the one we observe is the one suited to us because we could not be in any of the ones unsuited. It is comparable to the situation that we are always dealt a hand of cards despite the vanishingly small probability that we will get the one we got. If Pro has a counter-argument other than that he disagrees, I missed it.

2. Pro asserts that everything has a cause except God. I argued that (a) science allows for spontaneous events without preconditions and (b) making God the exception is less justified than making the universe the exception, because God is more complex and, (c) explanations involving magic are not really explanations.

(a) Pro just reasserts that no events can occur without preconditions, and all that science allows is events that have preconditions. I challenged Pro to produce a scientific reference supporting his contention that science says preconditions are required. My understanding is that quantum fluctuation theory has no such requirement. Pro has not produced a reference. Secondly, I challenge Pro's assertion that having preconditions amounts to causation. Thus if the universe exists, it is then acceptable to have things pop into existence whereas the universe itself could not have popped into existence. Why? Anything popping into existence contradicts our everyday experience. We know that there are true things that happen that contradict our everyday experience. So why one and not the other?

(b) Pro argues that God is simpler than the universe, so it is more likely that God always existed or popped into existence than the universe having done so. God only appears simpler because "God can do anything" is a short sentence. The universe is simpler because the universe obeys physical laws. Despite the complexity of the universe the number of physical laws is small. God however, is unconstrained by physical laws and can perform magic. God can not only know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, He can simultaneous comprehend the states of all the particles but command any to new states.

Since each particle in the universe has no intelligence of its own, the complexity of God to know and control each particle must be many times greater. Imagine trying to build a computer that just keeps track of all the particles in the universe. There would have to be a tracking device and a datalink for each particle, then there would have to be memory to store the data and software to recognize the particles position relative to other particles. The computer power needed for each particle would be millions of times more complex than the particle. For God to perform the task for each particle, God must be many millions of times more complex.

(c) If having a god is a better explanation than a natural one, then we should accept gods (or a God) as controlling the paths of hurricanes and controlling the stock market. For hurricanes and the stock market, and many other things, our understanding is at best incomplete. For those things we assume that there are natural explanation, but that we just don't know what they are. Pro's logic is that if a natural explanation is unknown, we should accept a god explanation as the simplest alternative, so therefore we should accept god explanations for these things as well. It could be argued that the difference is that there are natural explanations for hurricanes and the stock market, but not for the universe. However, we do not know with certainty that there is no natural explanation for the universe. Pro admitted that alternative natural explanations were possible. So our status with respect to hurricane paths, the stock market, and the universe is factual the same: we have at best partial explanations with the rest unknown. Therefore if the logic is to accept a god explanation for one, the same logic logic should compel accepting it for all.

We do not leap to god explanations for everything unknown. The reason we do not is that a god explanation is not really an explanation. We want to be able to precisely predict the paths of hurricanes to aid disaster preparation. Claiming that a hurricane god controls the path does nothing but cause as to stop looking for a natural explanation. It doesn't help to suppose that a hurricane god exists up until the point that we have a better explanation. An explanation that gains nothing in understanding the physical world is pointless.

4. Pro claims, "If you believe that God created the universe then at least we do not have to believe that we are living in the unexplainable." What is the problem that is living in a universe that is unexplained? Most people do not understand how their cell phone, television, or computer works and they continue using them without any difficulty. People walking on a beach may notice that wet sand is firmer than dry sand, and so easier to walk upon. This was first explained by Einstein as being due to capillary action. Prior to that explanation, people had walked on beaches for a million years without a problem. People still do so while being oblivious to the explanation.

It is human nature to want explanations. I think this is a product of survival instinct, because figuring out how the world works helps one survive in it. In the case of the creation of the universe, a God explanation is of no help in surviving in it, beyond the personal emotional satisfaction that may come from holding an unfounded belief. That is not a rational motivation.

5. People have postulated the existence of many thousands of gods, with as many hypothesized powers. Pro has not raised any argument for the existence of a god other than to explain the existence of the universe. Because there are alternative natural explanations for the creation of the universe and its existence as it is, and because it may be that there is a natural explanation yet to be discovered, there is no need to postulate a god for this purpose. A magical god is less understandable than a natural universe. Therefore, there is no proof of the existence of God based upon the existence of the universe.

Deists like Jefferson believed that God created the universe and will return one day in judgment. In the interim, according to the Deists, obeying God's will amounted to being reasonable. The did not believe in prayer, revelation, or miracles. If a God is believed solely based upon a need to create the universe, that says nothing about the nature of God with respect to anything else. Consequently, even if a proof were to be made, it would still be pointless.

Pro must prove the existence of God. He has not done so. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 4
purplehaze

Pro

purplehaze forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro seems to have run out of steam. It is just as well, as Pro was mainly reasserting his own beliefs rather than addressing by counter arguments or providing reasons for his beliefs. The summary I presented in the previous round stands unrefuted. Pro had the burden of proof in establishing the existence of God. He admitted that he failed under the subject of the resolution, and other arguments he presented were no more than unsupported beliefs.

Pro exhibited bad conduct through his insults (calling me "stupid") and ultimately by forfeiting. He didn't pay too much attention to spelling and grammar "Ok what causes gravity. So im wrong to say ..." These are not only technical violations, they are distractions from the clear exposition of arguments.

In this debate I never claimed that the existence of God according to some concept of God could be disproved. In my opinion, some God concepts can be disproved, others cannot. The debate was about whether Pro could prove his particular concept of God as necessary for creating the universe. He did not.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Pro: "1. That nothing is infinite."

You've already contradicted yourself. And lost my vote.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
CON won.
Posted by purplehaze 7 years ago
purplehaze
balls
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
baggins, Just look at my icon. Is that the kind of guy who would let comments pass casually? :)
Posted by brittwaller 7 years ago
brittwaller
Beautifully-written arguments by CON, even if he didn't need them. PRO beat himself, more or less.
Posted by baggins 7 years ago
baggins
Errr... OK. I was not planning to debate you through comments. Just pointing out a factual mistake.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
baggins, Agreed. Buddhism in particular has adapted to local religious beliefs, so it has many variants including a variety of local Gods. Nonetheless, the point at issue is whether it is conceivable that the universe always existed. That responds to Pro's apparent claim that the universe always existing is inconceivable. There is no doubt it is conceivable because many millions of people conceive of it. I claimed hundreds of millions, out of perhaps a billion Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains. (Jains are handy in debates as counter-examples, because they are atheists, ultra-devote, and ascetic. They are the ones in India who will not harm even insects.) Separately, I argue that it actually doesn't matter if it is conceivable, because many true things are not conceivable.
Posted by baggins 7 years ago
baggins
@ RoyLatham

You are only partially correct about Buddhism and Hinduism. These religions have multiple concepts about God and origin and they debate among themselves regarding it. I am not completely sure about Jainism - but I suspect it is true there also.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
"Yet again you make a stupid statement. "
"Dont be a baby."

Conduct is a voting category for a reason. Keep debates civil and everyone benefits.
Posted by purplehaze 7 years ago
purplehaze
There must be a God that created the universe. I apologise for my lack of experience.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
purplehazeRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't entirely agree with Con that Pro conceded the resolution by saying that there are no alternatives. However, Con negated the resolution by refuting Pro's round 3 arguments by showing that science has proved unexpected phenomena. Pro mostly just stated his assertions and offers no proof.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
purplehazeRoyLathamTied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
purplehazeRoyLathamTied
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 Harlan 7 years ago
Harlan
purplehazeRoyLathamTied
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 Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
purplehazeRoyLathamTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
purplehazeRoyLathamTied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
purplehazeRoyLathamTied
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