The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
36 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: 5/1/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,342 times Debate No: 3862
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (15)

 

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 would go back indefinitely, 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. An illusion still exists.

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.

Premise 12: Only a being(s) that fits my definition of a god could have created the Universe.

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

Con

I THANK my opponent for extending this debate to myself. I will be taking up argument with many of his premises.

Premise 1: My opponent states that logically everything must have a beginning. This conclusion is flawed as this would indeed prove that there is no beginning to everything. For example if we find that the universe must have a beginning then before the universe there was something else (perhaps nothing) which must have also had a beginning. And before that there must have been something else which must have had a beginning. Many people feel that nothing existed before the universe but if this was the case it would still have to have a beginning somewhere.

Premise 2: Perhaps. If we are going to assume that an intelligent being must have caused the universe to exist though we might as well just assume that the universe was powerful enough to create itself.

Premise 5: A being that was powerful enough to create itself. In other words this being created itself from nothing. First off this falls outside of time, thus it isn't logical. Secondly nothing still existed before this being which means nothing must have had a beginning. Third creating something from nothing denies the logical idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Thus it is illogical. Finally I ask my opponent what kind of power he speaks of.

Premise 6: Why can't the universe just create itself?

------------
Disclaimer: The above premises interest me and I will doubtlessly dedicate a great deal of the next three days thinking about the correlation of time and the human mind. However the premises below this will be the ones that I take the greatest deal of my time attacking because I believe them to be philosophically unfounded.
------------

Premise 7-9: Not necessarily, in all reality I may just be viewing a predestined thought process. Our brains are made up of a great deal of complex switches that determine how to react in all situations. In other words we are designed in effect in the likeness of a complex computer our thoughts, emotions, feelings etc are all products of many if-then statements. If I am driving and my car flips off the road then adrenaline is pumped throughout my body. If I see a good friend then I am happy. In all reality you and I may have no actual control over anything that is happening, this of course includes our thoughts.

However this still means somewhere on some level I likely exist.

Premise 11: No definitely not. The idea that I exist does by no stretch of the imagination mean that the world does exist. In fact outside of my own existence (a proof that I will continue to consider throughout this debate as I do not believe it to be entirely sound) I cannot prove that anything else exists. Everything else could be for all I know entirely fake, a faulty perception of my mind, could be a reflection of something else. In fact now that I think about it, I could have possibly created my own existence which is within my mind and mandated how it flows.

There is no definite way to prove that the universe exists.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

First, thanks to Yraelz for accepting. Now, onto the debate. I will just refute my opponent's qualms with my premises.

His attack on Premise One: "My opponent states that logically everything must have a beginning. This conclusion is flawed as this would indeed prove that there is no beginning to everything. For example if we find that the universe must have a beginning then before the universe there was something else (perhaps nothing) which must have also had a beginning. And before that there must have been something else which must have had a beginning. Many people feel that nothing existed before the universe but if this was the case it would still have to have a beginning somewhere." He says that there could have been nothing before the Universe, and if so, t would have to have a beginning as well. This is false. The Universe could only begin if time begins, because without time, there is no beginning, no here, no then, no now, etc. So, we must conclude that the Universe began when time began, and that before time, there was literally nothing. If you made a time machine, you could not go back to before time began. This would not have to have a beginning, because it never was a reality. Effectively the Universe has existed forever, as before time, there was literally nothing, no space, no existence, no nothing (not meant as bad grammar, simply saying there wasn't a thing or concept) When time started, the Universe began, as time has to exist for the universe to exist, and the Universe is the culmination of all that exists.

His attack on Premise Two: "Perhaps. If we are going to assume that an intelligent being must have caused the universe to exist though we might as well just assume that the universe was powerful enough to create itself." If the Universe created itself, than I win this debate, because that would entail that the Universe is a god. In a way, like a human body, where we are the little molecules in the many cells. The Universe would be a god. I never said the god(s) had to be intelligent, it simply must have been something beyond nature, or supernatural. The Universe creating itself trancends the laws of physics, making it supernatural (superserious wow [Bad REM joke, sorry]).

His attack on Premise Five: "A being that was powerful enough to create itself. In other words this being created itself from nothing. First off this falls outside of time, thus it isn't logical. Secondly nothing still existed before this being which means nothing must have had a beginning. Third creating something from nothing denies the logical idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Thus it is illogical. Finally I ask my opponent what kind of power he speaks of." Well, it is illogical because it trancends the laws of physics, therefore only a supernatural being could do this. Then he says that the nothing must have had a beginning, which as I showed, it doesn't. Third he says it breaks the laws of physics; so, that only means that it is supernatural.

His attack on Premise Six: "Why can't the universe just create itself?" It can, but all that does is win me this debate, as I showed earlier.

His attack on Premises 7-9: "Not necessarily, in all reality I may just be viewing a predestined thought process. Our brains are made up of a great deal of complex switches that determine how to react in all situations. In other words we are designed in effect in the likeness of a complex computer our thoughts, emotions, feelings etc are all products of many if-then statements. If I am driving and my car flips off the road then adrenaline is pumped throughout my body. If I see a good friend then I am happy. In all reality you and I may have no actual control over anything that is happening, this of course includes our thoughts.

However this still means somewhere on some level I likely exist." That still means that either we exist, or even if we don't our thoughts do. Even under his scenario we exist in a way, and so do our thoughts. Although this is a fun metaphysical quandary, it does not seriously affect this debate. I might start a debate on it (maybe).

His attack on Premise 11: "No definitely not. The idea that I exist does by no stretch of the imagination mean that the world does exist. In fact outside of my own existence (a proof that I will continue to consider throughout this debate as I do not believe it to be entirely sound) I cannot prove that anything else exists. Everything else could be for all I know entirely fake, a faulty perception of my mind, could be a reflection of something else. In fact now that I think about it, I could have possibly created my own existence which is within my mind and mandated how it flows.

There is no definite way to prove that the universe exists."
AS long as anything exists, the Universe exists. That is what the Universe is, everything that exists. If something exists, even if as a hallucination.
Yraelz

Con

Won't it be nice when we can simply transcribe our thoughts into written essays? Forget the hours taken of writing, forget the messy typos. Some day soon....

Anyways, time to examine each attack my opponent has made.

Premise one: Time. My opponent states that time must have had a beginning and before time nothing else could have existed. What my opponent perhaps doesn't realize is the fact that time in itself does not exist. Time is in effect an idea created by man in order to measure the duration of our life.

Furthermore to expound a bit on time. Even if my opponent could somehow prove the existence of time he would not be able to prove that it flows, or even moves. This of course stems from the fact that my opponent would be completely unable to prove that he has existed apart from NOW. And even at that my opponent has no way to prove to me that he exists.

Which brings me back to the main premise. Time, being a human idea does not necessarily exist and therefor never necessarily had a beginning. Thereby it is entirely possible that everything is already occurring outside of the human idea of time.

Premise 2: No, not necessarily. There have been various theories on how exactly the universe could have logically created itself. Many such theories stem around the idea that the universe is slowly moving outward from one focal point. Status quo however we have not located that point or been able to travel there, which of course means that we do not entirely know. This however does not mean that we should just assume something completely illogical, the idea of anything transcending the laws of physics would of course be deemed illogical. Which brings me to my turn, if we are to accept that a being of great power somehow managed to transcend the laws of physics we are to accept an illogical occurrence which directly contradicts my opponents entire case.

Premise 5: While doing minor amounts of research for this I entertainingly enough ran across matter antimatter annihilation a phenomenon that doesn't appear to stay true to the laws of matter conservation.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thus my point is simple. There is a great deal that we have not yet discovered about this world or even know about. Stating that I do not know the answer is perfectly reasonable. However to assume that a being that transcends the current laws somehow exists is completely illogical.

Premise 7-9: Actually no, it is just as possible that our entire lives are completely determined by everything that happens. In other words it is just as possible that we are simply robots that process information. Or that I am simply a robot processing information. Your idea that I must exist only works under a duality, which may not necessarily be true.

Premise 11: It is possible that the universe exists but that doesn't mean we see any part of it. For instance the universe could be A, but because of my viewpoint I see it as C instead. Furthermore even if I was viewing the universe as is then I am not necessarily viewing all of the universe.

Thus I will leave with a final thought. It is possible that we are indeed computers programmed into a specific system in which we have been programmed to not be able to think certain thoughts. For example, how we came to be. =)
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

As this is the final round I'll go line by line.

First, he says, "Time. My opponent states that time must have had a beginning and before time nothing else could have existed. What my opponent perhaps doesn't realize is the fact that time in itself does not exist. Time is in effect an idea created by man in order to measure the duration of our life."
Time is the measure of change in existence. When something exists so does time. As long as we accept that the Universe has changed we accept time. The way we know that existence has changed is because before there was existence, there wasn't. The fact that something came into existence proves time. Another example that can be accepted is that our (or at least my) perception has changed. Originally I only perceived my round 1 argument, but then I perceived yours as well. Whether they or I exist is irrelevant, it is certain though that the perception existed, and that it changed, therefore there is Time. If there is time, the Universe had to have a beginning, as I have shown.

For my second premise he says that, "No, not necessarily. There have been various theories on how exactly the universe could have logically created itself. Many such theories stem around the idea that the universe is slowly moving outward from one focal point. Status quo however we have not located that point or been able to travel there, which of course means that we do not entirely know. This however does not mean that we should just assume something completely illogical, the idea of anything transcending the laws of physics would of course be deemed illogical. Which brings me to my turn, if we are to accept that a being of great power somehow managed to transcend the laws of physics we are to accept an illogical occurrence which directly contradicts my opponents entire case." For the Universe to stem out from a focal point, something would have to create the focal point. Example: The Big Bang theory requires something to create the particle that exploded. There is no logical explanation for the particle, except that it came from something else. He then says that I am contradicting myself because breaking the laws of physics is illogical. If he claims that it is impossible for something to a) create itself and b) for something to come from nothing, his argument that the Universe could have self0created doesn't work, unless the Universe broke the laws of physics. Now, something breaking the laws of physics seems illogical, but it is necessary for creation. As it is impossible to break the laws of physics only a being that cam do impossible things could create the Universe. That means only a supernatural thing could do so.

"Thus my point is simple. There is a great deal that we have not yet discovered about this world or even know about. Stating that I do not know the answer is perfectly reasonable. However to assume that a being that transcends the current laws somehow exists is completely illogical."
I have just shown that a) it is not an assumption, but logic, and b) I have shown that creation depends on this conclusion

"Actually no, it is just as possible that our entire lives are completely determined by everything that happens. In other words it is just as possible that we are simply robots that process information. Or that I am simply a robot processing information. Your idea that I must exist only works under a duality, which may not necessarily be true."
Yes, it is possible, but there is still some existence if not in the conventional sense.

"It is possible that the universe exists but that doesn't mean we see any part of it. For instance the universe could be A, but because of my viewpoint I see it as C instead. Furthermore even if I was viewing the universe as is then I am not necessarily viewing all of the universe.

Thus I will leave with a final thought. It is possible that we are indeed computers programmed into a specific system in which we have been programmed to not be able to think certain thoughts. For example, how we came to be. =)"
Regardless of the first point, my argument stands. Second, maybe I'm special because I have just shown how the Universe came to be. If my opponent is right and you can't see my perfectly clear logic, then he has an unfair advantage, but I trust that all of y'all can see my logic and will vote for the best debater.
Why vote PRO?
Because I have upheld all my premises, and no fallacies were found in my logic.

I sincerely thank my opponent for a deep and very abstract debate. Metaphysics is always exciting.
Yraelz

Con

Alright, I will also be going line by line.

1. Time.

My opponent states that time is simply the measure of change, he says that this is a logical certainty because before this there was nothing. So let me point out the circular reasoning here. My opponent is arguing that *before time existed there could not have been anything* and then *time must have started somewhere because nothing could begin before it*. It is readily apparent that the premise in his first argument is the conclusion of the 2nd argument and visa versa. Thus it is logically flawed.

Furthermore my opponent argues that he can sense time because in his perception things have happened. However this does not mean time flows in any manner at all or even exists. I can perceive a phantom this does not make it true. It is rather possible that I am experiencing a hallucination right now. Furthermore there is no way to verify that anything that I believed to have happened in my past actually happened. In fact each instance I believe myself to exist could be the only instance.

2. My opponent is once again arguing that a super natural being must have created the universe. I will concede that I do not know how the universe was created, yet on the same card neither does my opponent, nor anyone to my knowledge. We lack the research, we lack the understanding of quantum physics, we lack the technology, we have very little understanding of the concept of nothing and we do not understand time at all.

Until we have these things no one is gong to be able to come up with a definite answer. My opponent however feels that the best answer lies outside of the laws of the universe. An assumption on my opponents part and a totally illogical one.

3. My final point was dropped by my opponent and I think it probably holds equal merit with my second point.

I stated that it is possible that we are some sort of robot that has been programmed not to understand how we came to be.

The idea is simple rather and on a broader scale looks something like this.

Some beings (being A) creates some other beings (being B) but makes it impossible for (being B) to ever understand how their existence came to be, no matter how simple or complex it was.

Something that is rather easy to do in computers today, as we can easily make it so that a computer does not understand a certain number or line of text etc.... In other words, how we came to be simply will not process through our brains.

This scenario is just as likely as any scenario my opponent has given and still falls within the realm of logic. =)

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
I'm always up for a debate, I'm just thinking on how to make my time point stronger.
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
In may ways it has, and in many ways it has helped.
Posted by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
Religion does not hurt humankind. What does NASA have to do with religion? Did Jesus say, 'no don't go to pluto, or you will rot in hell with hitlor'...? XD We may be sitting on a rock, but the question is: are we content with the rock or do we WANT to get off?

In my religion, Jesus will come down-I don't know where or when-and end life as it is and we, the people, will be judged. Will we live with our Father or die in the deepest pits of Hell?
Posted by Chaotiklown 8 years ago
Chaotiklown
Many religions assume an apocalypse. This assumes that everything will end, and that humans as a species cannot extend into space. I disagree. We have all the capability in the world, just not the common goal of people. It would be nice if we would all take that instinct of survival to the next level and get off this rock. Maybe even eventually find out where this universe is all about. In that way, religion in general unfortunately hurts humankind.
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
How am I being negative? All I said was considering how long it is said to be before the sun explodes we probably won't be in this galaxy anymore. What's negative about that?
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I'm actually going to have to agree oddlogic. I do not think this was one of my better debates at all.

LR4N6FTW4EVA, I may challenge you to this debate again at some point down the road, if you're up for it.
Posted by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
Don't be negative! :D How do you know we'll never be there? How can you prove it? See what I mean? We can't actally know whether we'll still be there billions of yrs later unless we SEE it. To really love God, you must believe in Him and know without SEEING Him that He is with us.
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
'so when the Sun explodes, we will all end--unless we are so technilogically advanced that we have moved out of our galaxy'

Considering how long from now that is estimated to be, we probably won't even be here anymore, or anywhere near.
Posted by Oddlogic 8 years ago
Oddlogic
Both of you are vastly undereducated on the current principles and theories of space, time, and reality. As far as I'm concerned, this debate is null and void until you two take the time to read up on modern theoretical physics.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Circular reasoning? I said that time was necessary to have a beginning. I then said that because of this, time had to start at some point for the Universe to start. Because as time is change, the beginning of the Universe, the change from nothing to something requires Time. The second statement meant that because time was needed for the Universe to begin, it had to start, because under my definition of Universe if anything exists the Universe exists. That's not circular reasoning.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bipasha 8 years ago
bipasha
LR4N6FTW4EVAYraelzTied
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 jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
LR4N6FTW4EVAYraelzTied
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 sillycow 8 years ago
sillycow
LR4N6FTW4EVAYraelzTied
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 SteamPunk 8 years ago
SteamPunk
LR4N6FTW4EVAYraelzTied
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 iloveher666 8 years ago
iloveher666
LR4N6FTW4EVAYraelzTied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
LR4N6FTW4EVAYraelzTied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
LR4N6FTW4EVAYraelzTied
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 left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
LR4N6FTW4EVAYraelzTied
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 draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
LR4N6FTW4EVAYraelzTied
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 Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
LR4N6FTW4EVAYraelzTied
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