The Instigator
Now_you_do
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

The existance of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 924 times Debate No: 86718
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (36)
Votes (3)

 

Now_you_do

Con

I know this a very VERY touchy subject (So please BE AWARE), but I'm going to use this as a way to understand the views of Christianity better. I have always though that the existence of god seemed kind of like a fairy tale. So even now I still believe that god may or may not exist, but I will argue against the existence of god. Again, THIS IS HIGHLY RELIGOUS. I AM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE WAY YOU THINK. Opponent will argue for the existence of god. Please use outside sources, and not only direct excerpts from the bible. Stories are welcomed, but have some information to go with it.
ssadi

Pro

I would first like to thank the Instigator, who will be called as Con from now on, for instigating this debate.


NOTE 1: “Rn” denotes nth round

I think this is one of the most important topics to be discussed with attention and seriousness.

I will not be arguing for God according to Bible in particular. Rather I will argue that there exists a Personal Intelligent Being who is the Creator and the Ruler of, at least, everything we know.

Since the Instigator hasn’t set the rules, structure of the debate and hasn’t provided any definition in R1, I will do instead before starting the debate.


DEFINITIONS


God: “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.”[1]

Argument: “a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point”.[2]

Argue (v): “to present reasons for or against a thing” OR “to show; prove; imply; indicate”.[3]

Exist (v): “to have actual being; be”.[4]

Existence: “the state or fact of existing; being.”[5]


STRUCTURE


Round 1

Acceptance, rules, definitions etc.

Round 2

Opening Arguments. No rebuttals.

Round 3

Con: Rebuttals to Pro’s opening arguments in R2. No new arguments are provided.

Pro: Rebuttals to Con’s opening arguments in R2. No new arguments are provided.

Round 4

Con: Defense of their arguments against Pro’s rebuttals in R3. May provide further explanations for their opening arguments in R2, but no new arguments.

Pro: Defense of their arguments against Con’s rebuttals in R3. May provide further explanations for their opening arguments in R2, but no new arguments.

Round 5

Closing Arguments (summary). No new arguments or rebuttals.

Debaters may readdress their arguments in R2 and/or rebuttals in R3 to show that their arguments and/or rebuttals are still valid, but no new rebuttals and/or arguments. They may also provide (only) clarifications for their arguments, rebuttals and/or defense of their rebuttals if they think there is something that was/can be misunderstood.


BOP


Con: “… I will argue against the existence of god… Opponent will argue for the existence of god.”

From this we understand that Con suggests that BoP should be shared. Fair enough!

Con has to provide arguments that God doesn’t exist.

Pro has to provide arguments that God exists.


RULES


The definitions and debate structure MUST be followed. We can discuss and reconsider the definitions under comments, if Con has any objection, before they post their arguments in R2. They can directly post their Opening Arguments if they agree with all rules and definitions defined here. Anything posted that violates the rules must be ignored by voters.


CONCLUSION


I hope this debate will be fruitful and wish Con best of luck.

Debate Round No. 1
Now_you_do

Con

Now_you_do forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

Due to some disagreements between me and Con under comments, we waived round 2 to re-establish definitions, structure etc. Now I will do so without introducing any argument (due to structure I will waive this round).

I suggested the following changes to Con, but they didn't reply and the time is ending for me to post (less than 30 minutes is left). Therefore, I assume that they agree.


The following changes should be made to what I provided in round 1, the rest is the same:


Resolution: Does God, as defined, exist?


God: The Personal Intelligent Creator and Ruler of everything who is not bound to laws of nature.

Note that the debate is about God as defined, not about God according to some scripture etc.



BOP


Con argues that God (as defined) doesn't exist.
Pro argues that God (as defined) exists.


The structure of the debate is as follows:



STRUCTURE

Round 1

Acceptance, rules, definitions etc.

Round 2

Edition of definitions, structure etc.
Both Con and Pro waive this round.

Round 3

Opening Arguments. No rebuttals.

Round 4

Rebuttals to opponent’s opening arguments in R2.
No new arguments are provided.

Round 5

Defense of opening arguments against opponent’s rebuttals in R3.
May provide further explanations for their opening arguments in R2.
Conclusion and Closing Statements. No new arguments or rebuttals.



Let me recall the rules:


RULES

The definitions and debate structure MUST be followed. We can discuss and reconsider the definitions under comments, if Con has any objection, before they post their arguments in R2. They can directly post their Opening Arguments if they agree with all rules and definitions defined here. Anything posted that violates the rules must be ignored by voters.


CONCLUSION


I look forward to Con's opening arguments. Round 3 is the only round that we can introduce our arguments, therefore if we fail to do so, then we automatically loose points for arguments since BOP is shared!

I wish Con best of luck!

Debate Round No. 2
Now_you_do

Con

Now_you_do forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited the only round they could present their opening arguments.


I.
KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (KCA)


P1: Everything that begins to exist necessarily has a cause.

P2: The universe began to exist.

C: The universe necessarily has a cause.


P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Nothing comes into existence from nothing without a cause. It is completely unreasonable and nonsense to claim otherwise.


P2: The universe began to exist.

1. It is well-known that the Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe has a beginning.

2. The laws of thermodynamics suggest that the universe has a beginning.


According to laws of thermodynamics, heat always transfers from hotter regions towards cooler regions until it reaches thermal equilibrium (i.e., temperature is the same in all regions). If the universe didn’t have a beginning, then it would be expected that the temperature was the same in every point of the universe. Since there are regions in the universe which are hotter (e.g., stars and galaxies) than other regions (e.g., regions that are far away from stars and/or galaxies), then the universe didn’t exist for sufficient time for all regions of the universe to have same temperature. Therefore, the universe has a beginning.[1]


C: Since P1 and P2 are true, then it necessary follows that the universe has a cause.



II. CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE (from KCA)


Let’s now further discuss this cause of the universe.



1) It Must be uncaused and supernatural



Think about an event of beginning to exist. There necessarily exists a cause (C1) for this event to happen. There necessarily exists another cause (C2) for C1 to happen. … There necessarily exists another cause (Ci) for C(i-1) to happen (where Ci and C(i-1) are the ith and (i-1)th causes, respectively). There are only two options (a and b) for this chain of causes:

a) This chain stops in Ci if and only if (iff) Ci doesn’t need another cause to happen, i.e., iff Ci is an uncaused cause,

b) Otherwise this chain goes to infinity.

c) Since option b is impossible, then a must be true.

If option b is impossible for a chain of causes, then there necessarily exists a cause Ci which needs no other cause to happen, i.e., there is necessarily an uncaused cause.

For a real chain of causes option b is physically impossible, since there is no such thing as infinity in physics (note that a quantity of infinity in physics is used to exaggerate the greatness of the quantity, not literally to literally mean infinity). There are many examples that show that the infinity in reality (of the universe) is paradoxical, such as Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel, and therefore impossible. Scientifically speaking, we cannot show any example for it in the universe. So, at least we can say that, it is scientifically impossible.


1. Since the universe, according to the Big Bang Theory, has a beginning (i.e., option b above is not the case) then there necessarily exists an uncaused cause responsible for emergence of the universe (option a is the only option).

2. According to cause-effect principle there exists no uncaused cause in the universe (space-time).

3. Since both 1 and 2 are correct (according to materials discussed above), then the uncaused cause in 1 MUST be beyond the universe (not bound to space-time), hence supernatural.


We call this uncaused cause as the Creator of the universe, i.e., God (since He brought the universe from nothing, hence created it). If you ask what caused God to exist, then the answer would be that He doesn’t need a cause to exist, since he is uncaused cause, as shown above.



2) Further clarification for this cause to be uncaused


Imagine a moving train with 80 wagons (except of locomotive).

- Since the 80th wagon is moving, then what is pulling it (pulling is the type of cause in this case)?

- The 79th wagon.

- What is pulling the 79th wagon?

- The 78th wagon.

- What is pulling the 1st wagon?

- The locomotive.

- What is pulling the locomotive?

- What?? The locomotive doesn’t need to be pulled by something else in order to move. It is able to move without being pulled.


Even if one argues that there is no need for a locomotive, another moving wagon is enough for the 1st wagon to move, the same question would be asked again for that wagon. This chain of questions will never end unless there is a locomotive (or something that can move without being pulled and capable of pulling all the wagons connected to it). Therefore, we can say that for a moving train (or chain of wagons) since a never-ending chain of moving wagons is impossible to exist, then there necessarily exists a locomotive that pulls all the wagons and can move without being pulled by something else (outside and independent of itself).


Similarly, for an existing universe with a beginning there necessarily exists an Uncaused Cause that has started the universe and doesn’t need any cause to happen/exist. We call (i.e., define) this Uncaused Cause as the Creator of the universe or the God.


This conclusion is also consistent with common sense and logic. A food is cooked by someone. We can ask who cooked the food. But it is absurd to ask who cooked the person that cooked the food. It is absurd because the cook is not something that is cooked. He has a totally different nature than the food. It is absurd to think of a direct similarity between something made and its maker. The same should be considered about the Creator of the universe. Similarly, since the Uncaused Cause we discussed above is the creator of everything, then there is nothing like Him in His creation.



3) This cause must be Personal


Since the universe began to exist, then its cause has free will that has made a choice between creating and not creating the universe. Since the uncaused cause of the universe has free will, then it must be personal.



4) This cause must be Intelligent



Very precise constants and precise properties of particles and of laws of universe and their precise outcomes show that these constants and properties are not chosen arbitrarily and for arbitrary outcomes. So, their existence and preciseness in the universe cannot be explained by coincidences or an unintelligent being. Then the cause of the existence of those precise properties (a part of the universe) must be intelligent.

Fine-tuned constants and properties and very precise relationships between these constants, properties, laws of the universe and events surely imply the existence of intelligence. Therefore, the uncaused cause of the universe must be intelligent.




5) This cause is the Ruler of the universe



There are events happening all the time in the universe that require an intelligent ruler. For example, the Earth could have a different orbit which would make it impossible for life to exist (as far as we know from other planets etc. and about life forms). Having the orbit it has today is not enough for Earth to make life possible. The tilt of the rotational axis of Earth is also very precise to make life possible. This is also not enough. We can list also atmospheric properties, magnetic field of Earth, the existence and characteristics of the moon etc. etc. each of which is very precise and closely depends on other parameters which make life possible. It is impossible that all of these met the precise requirements for life to be possible on Earth. The preciseness of such parameters happening all the time everywhere in the universe shows that someone is constantly ruling the universe. Who can this be other than the Creator of the universe? Therefore, the uncaused cause of the universe is also the Ruler of the universe.



CONCLUSION



I showed that since the universe exists, then there necessarily exists a Personal Intelligent Creator and Ruler of the universe who is above laws of nature.

I will look forward to Con’s rebuttals to my arguments above.

I would like to remind Con that they cannot provide any new argument to show that God doesn’t exist (to fulfill their BOP) in succeeding rounds, as per rules established.

I wish Con best of luck!

Debate Round No. 3
Now_you_do

Con

Now_you_do forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

Extend.

Correction to round 2:

Under Structure

1) R2 must be R4 and
2) R3 must be R5.
Debate Round No. 4
Now_you_do

Con

Now_you_do forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

Extend.

I was expecting a good debate where we both struggled in refuting each others' arguments etc. But unfortunately my opponent didn't provide any argument or rebuttal to my arguments.

Vote Pro please!
Debate Round No. 5
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
@famousdebater,

Thanks for vote!!! :)
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
@tejretics,

Thanks for vote, I appreciate it!! :)
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
Will you post anything? You are running out of time.
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
You forfeited again?
Will you at least provide rebuttals to my arguments, if I provide some?
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
Sorry!

Dear Con, ***
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
Dear Pro,

Will you post your arguments? About 16 hours is left... I don't want to win this debate for your forfeiture. I really want a good debate..

Just a kind reminder!
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
Do you agree?
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
...or until tomorrow.
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
I will make the below revisions tomorrow if you don't say anything..
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
Hey, do you agree on below definitions, structure etc.?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
Now_you_dossadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro. Pro was also the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Pro by default.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 9 months ago
famousdebater
Now_you_dossadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
Now_you_dossadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit. Con doesn't argue anything in Rd. 1, and Pro sufficiently proves via the KCA that God probably exists, thus fulfilling Pro's burden. The KCA is dropped due to Con's forfeits, and Con has no offense except to claim "God is like a fairy tale" since God doesn't have evidence. But on Pro's providing evidence, it's obviously a win for Pro.