The Instigator
YoungWisdom
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cdot28
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

There Is No Rational Argument for the Existence of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
cdot28
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 833 times Debate No: 8840
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

YoungWisdom

Pro

First I'll allow the contender to present his or her supposed evidence that God does, in fact, exist.
cdot28

Con

Arguments for the existence of God are an attempt to justify God's existence by rational or scientific means, and are usually expressed in the form of, 'If this... then' statements. For example: If there is evidence of design in the world, then this is evidence for a designer. There are two arguments for the existence of God that I will be presenting to you; design arguments and cosmological arguments.

Design arguments suggest that the world has been set up and ordered in such a precise way, that it only only could have been done by some higher force and not just simply by chance. In theistic religions, this 'higher force' is known as God. Design arguments are also known as teleological arguments. The word telos in Greek means 'purpose', and so teleological arguments suggest that there is evidence of purpose for why the world is how it is.(1) For example, eyes and ears are said to have been precisely made for seeing and hearing, the seasons are ordered so as to cause plants to grow year after year. Shown in all design arguments is the notion that the world and the universe are complex, yet everything seems to fit together in a precise and ordered way, and that this could not have happened by chance but instead by a 'higher force'.
William Paley's created an argument in which he compared God and creation to a watchmaker and a complex watch:
"If you came across a watch in an uninhabited place, you could not say it had been put there by chance. The complexity of its mechanism would make you say it had a designer. The universe is far more complex than a watch and so if a watch needs a watchmaker, the universe needs a universe maker and that could only be God."
Paley's analogy suggests that complex and ordered things do not occur by chance. Instead, rather like the complex mechanism of a watch they have to have been made by someone, and for a specific reason.

Cosmological arguments seek to argue for the existence of God based on what we experience of the world and universe we live in. The central aim of cosmological arguments is to establish what caused everything to be here, or how the world and the universe began. Cosmological arguments are attempting to address the problem of an infinite regress. This occurs when we have no starting-point for something. For example, in terms of the origin of the world we might ask where everything came from. If we are told that everything came from x, we would then ask where x came from. If x came from y, then we would logically want to know where y came from, and so on and so on. Therefore, in order to stop this never-ending sequence we would need to find the "uncaused"-cause of everything else.

The theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-74 AD) proposed several cosmological arguments. In one he argued that every event has a cause, and that this leads us to seek the first cause of everything. In another version he argued that things only move because they are moved by something else, which leads us to seek the first mover of everything. Aquinas' cosmological arguments were basically intended to show that in order for anything else to be here, it required the presence of something that existed before anything else did. This, of course, can be taken as a bias for he was a Christian speaking on the existence of God.

Lastly, I would like to add that if you take The Bible as a creditable and reliable resource, you should not have created an argument that totally refutes what most researchers believe is a creditable source.

(1)."Greek Words." Explorecrete.com. 2007. 30 June 2009 <http://www.explorecrete.com...;.

(2)"Paley's Watch Analogy." Http://thejourney.typepad.com.... 2008. 30 June 2009 <http://thejourney.typepad.com...;.
Debate Round No. 1
YoungWisdom

Pro

YoungWisdom forfeited this round.
cdot28

Con

cdot28 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
YoungWisdom

Pro

YoungWisdom forfeited this round.
cdot28

Con

cdot28 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Nags almost got another one. The instigator must, must define God or he will get the Nags rebuttal.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
St. Thomas Aquinas = win; I'm not exactly religious, but I do love a few aspects of Aquinas' philosophy; I use Synderesis in my LD rounds all the time.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
"P.S.--- You should probably define God."

Yes, and FAST! Quick, before mongeese sees! Edit, edit!
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
I'm tempted to easily win this debate with semantics, but I don't feel like being mean right now...

P.S.--- You should probably define God.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
YoungWisdomcdot28Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05