The Instigator
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points
The Contender
atheistman
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,872 times Debate No: 8623
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (12)

 

wjmelements

Con

I do hope that my opponent accepts this debate.
He was chosen because he is an atheist and because his arguments against the existence of God in other debates are (in my opinion) flawed.

God is defined as a conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient creator of the universe.

My opponent will present 1-4 separate arguments against the above God's existence, and they will be discussed in rounds 2-4.

Existence- the state or fact of existing http://dictionary.reference.com...
Valid- so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. http://dictionary.reference.com...
atheistman

Pro

1. If a god is conscious, all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful, then it must be a living thing. A law of science states that all living things die, therefor an immortal god is impossible.

2. A god would have to somehow have time to listen to prayers (which would requires ears, which only living things have), judge people, (which would require eyes which only living things have) and maintain order all at the same time.

3. A god would have to be on earth to hear prayers and see people sin, so that disproves the idea that a god might be far away or in another universe.

4. The bible and other religious books have many false claims such as the earth being young, creationism, homosexuality being unnatural, a heaven in the sky, a hell underground, and a global flood, among many things. A more logical explanation for these books is that they were ideas of the earth and universe's creation from the minds of primitive man.

5. A god could not exist on nothing before he supposedly created the universe, and a god would be far too complex to happen from nothing.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Con

My opponent's arguments are all logically invalid, as I will show.

1. My opponent claims that something with qualities that are not qualities of life is living. This is obviously false.

One of the properties of life is having boundaries. http://findarticles.com... (Property Number 3)
However, God is defined as omnipresent. Therefore, God is not considered to be a living thing. Therefore, it cannot die, as living things do.

2. My opponent's second claim, that God does not have a physical body (therefore it cannot function) is false, as an omnipotent God would not need a physical body to function. Further, "listening" to prayers is not a defined property of God, and judgement was not specified as something God does.

3. My opponent states (again) that God must have a physical body to function. An omniscient and omnipresent God would not exist in a particular location and would not need to be present in a particular location to percieve (as it is omniscient).

4. My opponent's third argument attacks specific religions. However, this is irrelevant to the debate.

5. My opponent's final argument is that God would need a cause. This seems the most justified argument yet, and so I will take some time to answer it.
This question creates a trilemma:
Either:
1. God existed eternally and the universe did not.
2. There is no God and the universe existed eternally.
3. There is no God and the universe did not exist eternally.

When compared to the first possibility, the second is eliminated, as it would be foolish to assume that the physical could exist eternally yet the metaphysical could not.

When compared to the first possibility, the third is eliminated as well, for it assumes that the universe exists definitely (so there would need to be a cause for its existence). However, nothing exists outside of the universe to cause the universe to exist. Therefore, the universe should not exist. However, it does, so the third option is eliminated.

There exists a fourth case, though it was eliminated by logic:
4. God and the universe existed indefinitely.
This seems even more unlikely than 2 or 3, as God has already been defined as the creator of the universe; therefore, if God exists, then the universe did not exist indefinitely.

I await my opponent to reinstate his points.
atheistman

Pro

The thing is, if something is a conscious creator, then it HAS to have a physical body. As for your 4 scenarios, I have fifth one. The one atom, or fragment of an atom that caused the big bang always existed, and a god has never existed. A god would be too complex to have always existed, so an atom always existing is a lot more probable.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Con

My opponent has dropped his first 4 arguments.

5.
My opponent is basically arguing for the second option in the trilemma.

Basic laws of science prove that if an atom had existed eternally, then nothing could cause any more to come into existence. This is because matter can never be created or destroyed by physical interactions. This is called the Law of Conservation of Mass.
If a single atom had existed indefinitely, then it would have had to hold all of the mass that is currently in the universe. Such an atom would have a ridiculously small half life.

So, this atom would only exist for 0.00000(etc)1 seconds. This is not eternity.

My opponent's argument is invalid.
Further, my opponent's claim that a conscious, omnipotent God would be complex is irrelevant, as complexity can exist in reality.

So, my opponent has not refuted the existence of an omnipotent God.
atheistman

Pro

First of all, I didn't drop my first 4 arguments, I proved them further with my second post. The Law of Conservation may disprove the atom idea, but it also disproves god. According to almost all religions, god created the universe. That would mean that a god created matter, which is disproved by the Law of Conservation. So maybe I was wrong about that part, maybe the matter in the universe was always there. But because of the lack or proof or even evidence, the impossibility, and the sheer ridiculousness of the idea, there is no god.
Debate Round No. 3
wjmelements

Con

I see what my opponent was referring to:
"if something is a conscious creator, then it HAS to have a physical body"
I merely have to again state that something that is omnipresent cannot have a physical body. In fact, because God is metaphysical, he by definition does not have a physical body.

My opponent asserts that the Law of Conservation of Mass disproves God. While this is irrelevant to the debate (because my opponent has now dropped all five of his original arguments by saying "the Law of Conservation may disprove the atom idea"), I will still answer it.

The Law of Conservation of mass states that "The mass of the reactants must always equal the mass of the products." http://www.iscid.org...
It concerns reactions in the physical universe, as I have stated before. However, a metaphysical god could still create matter and energy because The Law of Conservation of Mass concerns interactions in the physical universe.

My opponent then turns back to the second option entirely, which has already been refuted.

"But because of the lack or proof or even evidence, the impossibility, and the sheer ridiculousness of the idea, there is no god."
My opponent drops in a new argument again in the 3rd round. I will still answer it, though this argument does not pertain to the debate.
-The existence of God is not disproven deductively due to lack of proof (and I am not required to provide proof in this debate).
-My opponent has not shown how the existence of God is an impossibility. He has merely stated it over and over again.
-I may think that the idea of gravity is ridiculous. That does not deduce nonexistence.

So, my opponent's original 5 original arguments were refuted and ultimately dropped. His additional arguments (conjured in the 3rd round) are also invalid in attempting to disprove God.

Therefore, the resolution is negated. I urge a CON vote.
atheistman

Pro

The point I was making is that it would be impossible for a god to not have a physical body, and to have a physical body. Because of that, the idea of a god is contradictory, and impossible. The only argument I dropped was the atom theory, which I replaced with the Law of Conservation disproving god. A god is not immune to this law, because it applies to anything and everything in the universe. Actually you don't even need scientific arguments to disprove god, all you need is logic. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
Whoops... yeah, I meant Pro. I keep thinking of the Instigator as Pro and the person who accepts the debate as Con. Sorry about the confusion.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
You mean PRO?
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
This debate is a waste of time; all of Con's arguments are old clichés against the existence of God. I can't believe some people still believe them.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
How come you haven't accepted by challenge o.O?
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
How come you haven't accepted by challenge o.O
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Wow, pro gave himself seven points ... how original. Con did very well in this debate and upon review I did not find one supported argument for Pro. Con properly showed how all the contentions fail upon examination. Con wins easily.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Correction: 5.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
It doesn't matter. My opponent dropped 4 of them.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
"[I'm to stupid to follow the rules, so that means that I should win]"

No, it doesn't.
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
That basically proves that the evidence against a god is too great to be compressed into 4 ideas.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by twmazer 7 years ago
twmazer
wjmelementsatheistmanTied
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 KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
wjmelementsatheistmanTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by jack_samra 7 years ago
jack_samra
wjmelementsatheistmanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
wjmelementsatheistmanTied
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
wjmelementsatheistmanTied
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 mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
wjmelementsatheistmanTied
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 KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
wjmelementsatheistmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Dense 7 years ago
Dense
wjmelementsatheistmanTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
wjmelementsatheistmanTied
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 sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
wjmelementsatheistmanTied
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