The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
MDHarris08
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

The existence of a god is a logical certainty

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: 4/24/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,663 times Debate No: 3773
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (14)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

First, to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I would prefer that an atheist or agnostic accepts this debate, as I would like to see them uphold their beliefs.

Now, defining terms:
Existence is defined by Merriam-Webster as "actual or present occurrence" to clarify, this means that there is or once was (for the purposes of this debate) a god (at least that's what I have to prove)

a god for this debate, to limit the parameters of this debate is a being or a group of beings that are powerful enough to create the Universe. Examples would include the Judeo-Christian God, the Greek and Roman gods, etc.

Universe: (This will be important) the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated

I don't think I need to define other terms as my opponent can present his or her own definitions if necessary.

My case will be presented in a syllogism form: I will list premises and conclusions.

Premise 1: Logically the Universe must have had a beginning, everything must start a some point. (Not geometrically)

Premise 2: Something must have caused the Universe to be created.

Premise 3: That something must also have had a beginning.

Premise 4: This would continue infinitely, as all somethings must have had a beginning, and must have been created.

Premise 5: Only a being(s) that was powerful enough to create itself could stop this logical impossibility.

Premise 6: This being(s) would then have to create everything else in order to create the Universe.

Conclusion: Therefore, only a being(s) that fits my definition of a god could have created the Universe.

Premise 7: I think. (Or you think, in your case, I can only prove to myself that I think, not to anyone else, same goes for you)

Premise 8: In order to think, I must be able to think.

Premise 9: In order to be able to think, one must occur, or exist. Not necessarily physically mind you.

Conclusion: I exist. (Or you exist)

Premise 10: I exist. (Or you exist)

Conclusion: The Universe (as defined) must exist.

Premise 11: The Universe (as defined) must exist.

Conclusion: It is certain that a god(s) once existed.
MDHarris08

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic, you don't realize how much this actually means to me as an atheist.

Therefore I will precede with my arguments.

First to set up my fundamental framework for the purpose of this round

I think you forgot the resolution "The existence of a god is a logical certainty"

Your resolution explicitly says that God has to be a logical certainty. So that automatically sets you up to lose. In order for you to win this debate you must prove that without a shadow of a doubt that god exist. That means if one person even doubts the existence of god, You Lose.

The way in which the resolution is framed does not grant you the ground to assume that even if God had once existed that he still exist. Your burden in this round- according to the grammaticism of your sentence- makes you obliged to prove that God is in existence presently. But if God were still in existence would he allow so much suffering or wouldn't he make himself transparent. There are two specific reasons why I brought this up

1. In the Judeo-Christian religion, god is supposed to be this caring being. So that means if he still existed he wouldn't let all of his children suffer. Now I know your next argument will be about freewill and sin, but that doesn't explain why an omnipotent being would allow children to suffer or cause natural disasters in a place. For example, If I'm parent that just had a child and I'm a "saved" person and tried to live my life right. Isn't it kind of cruel for my child to come out with a broken arm, considering that my newborn has committed no sin. Why would an onipotent caring being allow for this to happen. It makes no sense.

2. In your example about Greek gods, you disprove there existence by even mentioning them. I'll ellaborate

In ancient Greece the Gods always came in contact with humans and it was always visible to a large sum of people. So my question is, if those gods were still in existence wouldn't they still be in contact with there creations. And since we have no account of people contacting those gods now. They surely can not still exist. And since you must prove according to your resolution that God( or Gods) still exist you lose.

Now to refute your weak syllogism:

Majority of your premises are just ridiculously ambiguous.

I will grant you 1-3 three. Something must have sparked the creation of the universe, but there is no logical evidence indicating that any of the supreme beings will live for infinity. Especially if there has not been a clear way of telling if a God is undoubtedly real.

Furthermore, you can't make the argument that the beings/Gods will live forever until you prove infinity. Every natural concept that mankind knows according to science must come to the end. In fact, even in the bible, God says himself "I am the alpha and Omega". Thus proving your premise four wrong. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out once one of premises are gone in syllogism, then your entire argument is destroyed. So you have to prove all f your premises

Next on to Premise five:

You also have no evidence proving that any being was ever powerful enough to create itself! And you assume that that being had to create itself, which to mankind is impossible to believe with certainty.

Next on to your existence arguments,

I concede that you must exist to think but that works agains't your argument for a God to. Because we're able to think we have doubt, and if doubt occurs about God. Then he can't be all powerful because he would not let you doubt him. We would know for sure that he exists as a result of fully thinking a God out, But the opposite occurs. We come to the conclusion that we can never know for sure if God exist.

Oh and just for clarification about your definition of existence, defined by Merriam-Webster as "actual or present occurrence"

Present means that it must still be and since I have disproved your assumption that God still exist. Then you lose.

I will happily be awaiting your response
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

First, my opponent claims that if there is a shadow of doubt that a god(s) exists I lose. This is false. I said "logical certainty," that means under the rules of logic it is certain there is or once was a god(s). Then (s)he claims that the god(s) must also currently exist, which is false. Merriam-Webster's definition of existence is "actual or [emphasis on the "or"] present occurrence"
That means that a god(s) either is occurring presently, or occurred actually. So it does not mandate the present existence of a god(s).
Then (s)he says that the Judeo-Christian God can't exist because there is evil in the world. First off, (s)he shows complete ignorance of scripture, about the fall of man, but that is irrelevant. I merely must prove that there was once a god(s). This doesn't have to be the Judeo-Christian God. Next, (s)he says that the Greek and Roman gods can't exist because they are supposed interact with people, and they don't. Okay, so, I was merely using them of an example of gods, I don't believe they exist either.

Then, (s)he says that although (s)he agrees with premises 1-3, I must prove that the god(s) will live forever, which I already proved false. Anyways, if you take the interpretation my opponent gave of existence, the god(s) would still exist, if only as a legacy of creation. Oh, sorry, I see now, my opponent misunderstood my fourth premise. I meant that unless there was a being powerful enough to create itself, there could be no beginning. i apologize if that was poorly phrased. Then, in response to premise 5, where I state that a being must have created itself, (s)he says I have no evidence. This is false! If (s)he agrees with my first premise, then (s)he agrees that something must have come first. It must have not been created by something else. (that was what premise 4 meant), and if nothing created something, it must have created itself. that's all the evidence I need.

Finally, (s)he says that my existence argument works against me. I merely used this to prove that the Universe exists, because if I exist, the Universe does. Without this, my argument fails. (s)he also assumes that the god(s) is all-powerful, so he wouldn't allow doubt. Again, the god(s) could be gone now, or only capable of creating the Universe, or evil, etc. This argument holds no weight.

Vote PRO!
MDHarris08

Con

MDHarris08 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

As my opponent forfeited a round, I really have nothing to say except to tell you all my rebuttals stand, and at this point, my opponent has no unrefuted argument. Anything he says in the last round is irrelevant, as I can't rebut him after thAt. The choice is clear, vote PRO. If you disagree with me, debate me, don't just vote CON.
MDHarris08

Con

MDHarris08 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
Or you're just...retarded.

That generally has to do with it.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Come on one vote. I have told people not to be dumb and treat this like an opinion poll. My record is tainted because I happen to disagree with 80% of the voters on this site.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Realistic you should challenge me to something. Also LR4N6FTW4EVA has challenged me to this same debate if you're interested in the topic.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Although it was never warranted, it was never challenged either
Posted by realistic 9 years ago
realistic
What a fun topic! A few questions. Why must there be a beginning and an end? This statement has no supporting facts. Also, it seems that many arguments on this site revolve around symantics. i'm new to this site and will not vote again until I begin to debate but will not debate until I understand the process.
Posted by realistic 9 years ago
realistic
What a fun topic! A few questions. Why must there be a beginning and an end? This statement has no supporting facts. Also, it seems that many arguments on this site revolve around symantics. i'm new to this site and will not vote again until I begin to debate but will not debate until I understand the process.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
That was lame.
But I gave it to pro because con intentionally conceded the first three premises that Pro established, making the con side have no chance in proving correctness. If the first three premises were attacked instead of let be, then it could have became an interesting debate.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Anyone who votes against me, say why! If I did poorly, give me criticism. Don't just vote against me because you disagree. If you disagreee, debate me.
Posted by sarsin 9 years ago
sarsin
All I have to say, is a quote by a man much smarter than I:

"The argument goes like this: ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' ‘But,' says Man, ‘The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' ‘Oh dear,' says God, ‘I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic."

--Douglas Adams
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
LR4N6FTW4EVA PLEASE challenge me to this debate! I would really really like to debate this!
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
LR4N6FTW4EVAMDHarris08Tied
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:13 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
LR4N6FTW4EVAMDHarris08Tied
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 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 SteamPunk 9 years ago
SteamPunk
LR4N6FTW4EVAMDHarris08Tied
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 gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
LR4N6FTW4EVAMDHarris08Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
LR4N6FTW4EVAMDHarris08Tied
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 Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
LR4N6FTW4EVAMDHarris08Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
LR4N6FTW4EVAMDHarris08Tied
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 ecstatica 9 years ago
ecstatica
LR4N6FTW4EVAMDHarris08Tied
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 Spamfests 9 years ago
Spamfests
LR4N6FTW4EVAMDHarris08Tied
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 CP 9 years ago
CP
LR4N6FTW4EVAMDHarris08Tied
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:30