The Instigator
OverLordSandwich
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Generic: There is no God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 873 times Debate No: 65229
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

OverLordSandwich

Pro

I will be bringing up a well known argument:

Is there a God?

My stance is that No, there is no God.

1st round is acceptance.
Next few rounds will determine who wins.

Let's make this debate fun! Be serious but please don't rage (especially if you are really religious)


1Credo

Con

1. Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

2. Burden of Proof

My opponent has stated that he will defend the view that there is no God. I, on the other hand, will be defending the view that there is a God. The burden of proof will thus be shared between my opponent and I in this debate. As I'm sure is common knowledge, the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved to a certainty. Thus, my opponent must bring forward arguments and evidence in attempt to show that it is more likely that there is no God, while I will bring forward arguments and evidence in order to show that there is a God. I invite my opponent to justify his position and I will address any arguments he presents in the following round. For now, I will present arguments in favor of the position that there is a God.

3. Arguments

I will begin by providing three arguments in support of the position that there is a God. I will gladly provide more arguments if necessary, but due to space constrictions I will have to start with these three. Each deductive argument consists of a set of premises followed by a necessary conclusion. In order to take issue with the conclusion, my opponent must pick at least one premise to take issue with and refute. If my opponent fails to refute at least one premise in each of the three arguments that I present, then it seems to me that we are left with good reason to think that there is a God.

i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.
Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.
Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C1: Therefore, God exists.

Defense of P1: Here again, premise one is relatively uncontroversial. If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God.
Defense of P2: Each of us have a sense of morality which tells us that certain actions are objectively "good" or objectively "evil". For example, I can clearly recognize that altruism (self-sacrifice in order to further the well-being of others) is objectively good. I can also clearly recognize that raping and torturing a child is objectively evil. I have no more reason to doubt the reliability of these moral senses than I do to doubt the reliability of my physical senses. In other words, for any argument given in an attempt to show that our moral senses are not valid (and objective morality is therefore not valid), I can construct a parallel argument to show that our physical senses are not valid (and the physical world we experience through these senses is therefore not valid). In order for one to disagree with premise two, one must believe that an action like rape is just as "good" as an action like generosity, and that no objective distinction can be made between the nature of "goodness" of the two acts.

iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Defense of P1: In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.
Defense of P2-P6: I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.

4. Summary

I have provided three arguments in support of the position that there is a God. In order to win this debate, my opponent must refute each of these arguments (by showing at least one premise in each argument to be false) and in their place provide his own arguments in favor of his position that there is no God. Until my opponent is able to do this, he has failed to carry his share of the burden of proof.

5. Sources
http://now.tufts.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
OverLordSandwich

Pro

"Thus, my opponent must bring forward arguments and evidence in attempt to show that it is more likely that there is no God, while I will bring forward arguments and evidence in order to show that there is a God."

I will do what I wish, thank you for the offer of though.

"God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe."

No it isn't. Saying that a being with unlimited power created the Universe, it the same as saying that the Big Bang (thing with unlimited power) created the Universe. Therefore you must agree in both for one to be true...

http://www.cnet.com...:

Stephen Hawking makes it abundantly clear that there can be no God since time did not exist for a God...
Let me explain:

If the post-Universe was a plain, and you wanted to create a Universe, you need to dig a hole and make a pile. The pile is the matter that makes us up, the hole; the vacuum of space. Makes sense right? And time must start after the initial pile. Since we started off with a flat plain, there was no time! God couldn't exist!

"God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties."

What about people that truly believe that something that is bad, is good? Like rapists. They don't rape unless they think it is good (at least based on your argument). But we have normal people that think rape is bad. Two different people. Two different ideologies. Who has God and who doesn't? My case rests. Either God is bad at his job, or he doesn't exist...

"It is possible that a maximally great being exists. In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle."

I will do just that:

If God created the Universe (which he didn't), don't you think he would have better control over the the world's problems? Wouldn't there be more miracles? How does the Bible anwser that?
And who read my opponent's argument and actually understood what he was implying?

"...Until my opponent is able to do this, he has failed to carry his share of the burden of proof."

Will you? Your source: http://now.tufts.edu......, it shows math that the Universe had a starting point, it doesn't say that God was there. Thus, your arguments for round one has no source. You have just violated your own rules... LOL





1Credo

Con

Thank you.

1. Rebuttal


"Saying that a being with unlimited power created the Universe, it the same as saying that the Big Bang (thing with unlimited power) created the Universe."

False. A being with unlimited power and the Big Bang are clearly not the same. It is entirely possible that the Big Bang is the mechanism through which a greater being created the universe, but to say that the two are the same is blatantly incorrect.

"Therefore you must agree in both for one to be true..."

I'm not really sure what you're referring to here.

"Stephen Hawking makes it abundantly clear that there can be no God since time did not exist for a God..."

I do not believe that God exists within time. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who believes such a thing. By His very nature God must necessarily transcend time. As such, time presents no issue to God's existence.

"What about people that truly believe that something that is bad, is good? Like rapists."

What about them? If you ran into someone one day who said that the world is two-dimensional, would that make you doubt what you know to be true (through physical senses) about the world? Of course not. In the very same way, those who have an erred sense of morality ought not present an issue for those who can "see" just fine.

"They don't rape unless they think it is good (at least based on your argument)."

This is false. My argument does not in any way suggest that if an individual thinks a given act is good, then it follows that the act truly is good. This is a simple misunderstanding of objective morality. The argument says that certain acts are objectively right or objectively wrong, independent of human opinion or feelings toward them.

"If God created the Universe (which he didn't), don't you think he would have better control over the the world's problems?"

This seems like an honest enough question. One answer would be that God has given each of us free will, and what we do with that free will is our decision, not His. It's entirely possible that the only way to take away the world's problems would be to take away our free will, which would leave us as nothing more than puppets.

"Wouldn't there be more miracles?"

One could argue that there are plenty miracles in the world today, but that they are simply ignored. Also, this verse from the New Testament may be relevant to this question:

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." He said to them in reply, "An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it." -Matthew 12:38-39

"it shows math that the Universe had a starting point, it doesn't say that God was there."

Exactly. The universe had a starting point. Thus, there must be a cause that brought the universe into existence. That cause must transcend both time and space (as time and space came into being at the moment the universe began), have immense power (in order to bring about a universe), and be personal (otherwise the dilemma of why anything at all exists rather than nothing could not be overcome). The being that holds these properties is the being I call God. I'd be interested in seeing your rational as to what it was that caused the universe.

"Thus, your arguments for round one has no source. You have just violated your own rules... LOL"

You seemed to agree with my source when you acknowledged that the universe had a beginning, so I'm not sure why it is you think that my source ought to not count. Also, in what way did I violate my own rules? I'm not sure I set up any "rules" to begin with.

2. Arguments

Recall that in the opening round, I presented three arguments in favor of the position that there is a God. My opponent has thus far failed to knock down any of these arguments. On the contrary, he has seemingly agreed with both premises (and therefore the conclusion) of the first argument. I will continue to address any objections that my opponent brings forward regarding the arguments I've presented, but as for now it seems to me that each argument remains standing, giving us good reason to think that there is a God.

3. Summary

At the beginning of the debate, I challenged my opponent to refute each of my arguments and in their place put forward arguments of his own in order to win the debate. My opponent has yet to refute any of the arguments I've presented and has failed to produce a single argument of his own in defense of his contention that there is no God. This is surprising, as there must be at least some sort of reason that my opponent holds the belief that he has. I invite my opponent to share this reasoning so that we might discuss it and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. For now, we are faced with 3 sound arguments in favor of God and 0 sound arguments against God.

4. Sources
http://www.usccb.org...
Debate Round No. 2
OverLordSandwich

Pro

"False. A being with unlimited power and the Big Bang are clearly not the same. God has given each of us free will, and what we do with that free will is our decision, not His."

I don't see what is so different between the two (Big Bang and God)...
If God gave us a "free will" and doesn't care what we do, then all he is, is a being that created a Universe. Since the Big Bang created a Universe and doesn't govern how we live an everyday life, wouldn't God and the Big Bang be of equal value?

"I'm not really sure what you're referring to here."

I am simply saying that if you believe God created a Universe with his unlimited power, then the Big Bang (with unlimited power) must also have created the Universe. Saying otherwise would be short-minded and ignorant.

"I do not believe that God exists within time. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who believes such a thing."

In a real debate, no one cares about what you think. Your statement is a straight up opinion (as is most of your statements). I presented a credible source and a theoretical scientific explanation of the Universe's creation. You tried to refute it with an opinion. Your claim is flawed.

" The argument says that certain acts are objectively right or objectively wrong, independent of human opinion or feelings toward them [...] those who have an erred sense of morality ought not present an issue for those who can "see" just fine. "

Are you suggesting that people who can't tell right and wrong don't have God? Therefore, is God even with us? Or is right and wrong simply a result of evolution? Evolution seems to make more sense is this argument.

"One could argue that there are plenty miracles in the world today, but that they are simply ignored. Also, this verse from the New Testament may be relevant to this question:"

Miracles are simply statistical coincidence. Example: If you were to flip a coin over and over, eventually it will land on its side. (https://www.youtube.com...) If humans were to die over and over, eventually someone will beat the odds. God has no play in this. Not only that, there is no proof that God spiritually helped write the Bible.

"The being that holds these properties is the being I call God. I'd be interested in seeing your rational as to what it was that caused the universe."

I already gave an analogy:
If the post-Universe was a plain, and you wanted to create a Universe, you need to dig a hole and make a pile. The pile is the matter that makes us up, the hole; the vacuum of space. Makes sense right? The digging of the hole/making of the pile is what scientists call the Big Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

"You seemed to agree with my source when you acknowledged that the universe had a beginning, so I'm not sure why it is you think that my source ought to not count."

Because:
It works both ways... You may have proved that God was there at the beginning. But you also proved that the Big Bang is a real possibility; and a better possibility than God. Thus, you provided nothing to help your argument.

"My opponent has thus far failed to knock down any of these arguments."

In what way did I not manage to knock off your arguments? If this was true (which it isn't), you wouldn't need a refuttal; but you have one anyways... Your statement is negated. And you say:

"I'm not sure I set up any "rules" to begin with."

Yet you just accused me for not doing what you told me to (which I did anyways but you were too ignorant to realize)!:

"I challenged my opponent to refute each of my arguments and in their place put forward arguments of his own in order to win the debate."

This is America! I can do what I want! I provided facts, explainations, and refuttals. Even if I didn't do it the way you wanted it done, I still refuted your arguments and provided my own!

"0 sound arguments against God."

Yeah right....




1Credo

Con

1Credo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
OverLordSandwich

Pro

Just moving the debate forward a round...
1Credo

Con

1. Rebuttal

"I don't see what is so different between the two (Big Bang and God)..."

The big bang was an event, whereas God is a being.

"If God gave us a "free will" and doesn't care what we do, then all he is, is a being that created a Universe."

Who says God doesn't care what we do? That's certainly not an opinion of mine. Nevertheless, your quote acknowledges that God is a being, and is therefore different than the Big Bang.

"I presented a credible source and a theoretical scientific explanation of the Universe's creation. You tried to refute it with an opinion."

This is a false accusation on your behalf. You presented an objection that would hold if and only if I asserted that God exists solely within time. As I do not believe this to be true, the objection you raised has no standing.

"Are you suggesting that people who can't tell right and wrong don't have God?"

Where do you get this idea? I haven't implied this in any way; these are your words, not mine.

"Or is right and wrong simply a result of evolution? Evolution seems to make more sense is this argument."

The fact that you try to assert evolution as the cause of morality betrays your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution, whether you're talking about natural selection or neutral evolution, says absolutely nothing about what is "right" and "wrong". Evolution is only concerned with selecting the most fit organisms so that they are able to reproduce; evolution does not care in the slightest whether the means necessary to achieve the goals of survival and reproduction are "right" or "wrong". Please don't blindly assert a theory that you clearly have no knowledge of.

"Miracles are simply statistical coincidence. Example: If you were to flip a coin over and over, eventually it will land on its side. (https://www.youtube.com......) If humans were to die over and over, eventually someone will beat the odds. God has no play in this."

You can't possibly be serious, can you? Do you really mean to suggest that if humans die over and over, eventually a human will "coincidentally" be resurrected? That's worse than magic.

"I already gave an analogy:
If the post-Universe was a plain, and you wanted to create a Universe, you need to dig a hole and make a pile. The pile is the matter that makes us up, the hole; the vacuum of space. Makes sense right?"

No, it doesn't make sense. Not in the slightest. First of all, you don't seem to understand that before the universe there was nothing. No matter, not even space or time for matter to exist. So your trivial analogy comparing the Big Bang to "digging a hold in a plain" doesn't make sense at all.

"It works both ways... You may have proved that God was there at the beginning. But you also proved that the Big Bang is a real possibility; and a better possibility than God."

Is this a concession? Also, with regard to the Big Bang, there's no reason to think that both God and the Big Bang are true (I hold this view). God was the cause of the event called the Big Bang. Therefore, it is God that created the universe, the Big Bang was merely the mechanism through which this creation occurred.

3. Conclusion

My opponent has failed to knock down any of the arguments I presented at the beginning of the debate. In addition, he has failed to provide even one sound argument in defense of his own position. Furthermore, in his last rebuttal he conceded that I "proved that God was there at the beginning". I think that as a result of this concession, along with the unrefuted arguments in favor of theism and the lack of arguments in favor of atheism, we can reasonably conclude that my opponent has failed to carry his shoulder of the burden of proof in this debate.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
What will shock all is that we are also eternal. We are spirit beings. We have souls, ( mind, will, and emotions), and we live in these physical bodies. Our earth clothes.That is why all of us have this sense that we will never die. We mentally ascend to the fact that 100% of us die. But that does not take away this inside knowing that it will never end.And that is this drive to find out what we are made of and where we go from here.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
@1Credo

I don't think 'completed numbers' is a term in mathematics. If you meant a complete set of numbers, then it sounds like you're talking about a finite set, and not an infinite set. An actual infinity would be an infinite set of numbers. For example, if time is continuous, then there is an infinite number of times between now and yesterday.

The answer has not yet been determined and mathematicians and physicists are still arguing about it. As such, it does not seem reasonable to me to assert that one answer is true and/or clear.

Hilbert's hotel is an example of how an actual infinity over an infinite distance seems paradoxical according to our intuitions. It does not disprove all categories of actual infinity, or even any category of infinity. It does not actually contradict or falsify the concept of that class of infinities. It is merely a valid argument that is has a paradoxical, or counter-intuitive, conclusion. It won't serve you well if you're looking to contradict or disprove actual infinities.

The strange thing is that you then seem to be asserting a being who represents certain instances of actual infinities.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
fiet.. Atheists claim matter has been around magically for eternity.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@flet107

God had no beginning, He is eternal (transcends space and time).
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@UndeniableReality

http://sites.middlebury.edu...

An actual infinity implies an actual set of completed numbers. As found in examples such as Hilbert's Hotel, the concept of an actual infinity is paradoxical. As such, it does not seem reasonable to me to hold an agnostic view on the subject, the answer is quite clear.
Posted by flet107 2 years ago
flet107
Could someone tell me the origin of god ? I am curious if this supposed all powerful being was created by something or has merely been in existence magically for eternity.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
@1Credo

I disagree. What I am saying is that we can't yet be certain whether these values represent actual infinities or potential infinities. It seems reasonable to remain agnostic about whether actual infinities exist until we can answer at least the questions I have posed.

Actual infinities would still not be numbers. I'm not sure how you would prove this assertion.

So you don't believe in actual infinities, even though you believe in a god? So your conception of god is not eternal, limited in power, etc?
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@UndeniableReality

You seem to be confusing an actual infinity with a potential infinity. Yes?

The examples you provided (i.e. points of space between me and my monitor) are examples of a potential infinity. I can half the numbers and then half those numbers and so on. But this never actually reaches an infinite number; rather, the maximum is continually growing (as is the case for our universe). So, this is more of an "indefinite" scenario because infinity is never reached. I have no issue with this potential infinity; my issue is with the concept of an actual infinity existing within reality.

You state that "the major problem with how you used this argument is that you mistake infinity for a number." But this is the very point. An actual infinity would be a number. Even you seem to acknowledge that this does not exist. I think your misunderstanding lies in the confusion between an actual infinite and a potential infinity.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
@1Credo

That may apply to objects in the universe and to many physical quantities. But it is not necessarily the case for all physical quantities.

How long has time existed? What is the diameter of space, or possibly hyperspace? How many points of space are there between you and your monitor? How many points of time where there between this post and my last post?

You believe in god, right? How long is the lifespan of God?

Mathematicians are still arguing about whether there are actual infinities. You may not want to speak for all mathematicians, especially if you are not one. I've had this discussion with mathematicians who believe there are actual infinities.

The major problem with how you used this argument is that you mistake infinity for a number.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@UndeniableReality

This is not the case. My argument is that infinity does not exist within reality. The only place that infinity holds is that of an idea, as in mathematics. Your suggestion displays your lack of understanding. I think you would be hard pressed to find any mathematician who would tell you that infinity exists beyond an idea.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
OverLordSandwich1CredoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, but Pro was rude on a couple of occasions, so that's a tie. Pro seemed confused about some of cons arguments, and never offered evidence to support his contention that God does not exist(only attempted rebuttals of con's claims), so arguments to con