The Instigator
Evan_Shad
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jamccartney
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

There exists at least one "god" ie., a creator

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 3 votes the winner is...
jamccartney
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 665 times Debate No: 49149
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Evan_Shad

Pro

"God" for this debate is the creator of the universe, and only the creator. It need not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, or omni- anything. It needn't even be the only one. My thesis is exactly that there exists at least one being which is outside of our physical world and which is the creator or co-creator of it. Nothing else.

I will point to the existence of time as evidence. We live in a world where the "present" state of things is at least partially dependent on the "past" state of things (I say "partially" in order to not exclude free will). The past is likewise dependent on a past that is even farther back. The state of reality at any moment in time, therefore, is dependent on the state of reality at the previous moment. This is recursive. As a mathematician would say it: If, regardless of x, f(x) = f(x-1), then we can never know the value of f(x). But it does have a value. There is a truth about the state of things in the present. So there must be some x, some time value, such that the state of reality at that time does not depend on its state at a previous time. Therefore time cannot extend infinitely far back. There must be a first moment.

At this first moment, the above principle seems to require that reality at that time depends on the moment before, which is impossible since there isn't a previous moment. Therefore the initial state of reality must be determined by something else.

I posit the existence of a realm outside time called eternity, where this law of past-causality does not apply. Here, the present is not determined by the past, there is no past. All things exist there must coexist. Then the beings of this realm will not a causal explanation the way our reality does because in eternity there is no past to speak of. Thus, a being of this realm could have created our temporal realm without recursion.

As a final note, I have the burden of proof.
jamccartney

Con

I will happily accept Evan_Shad's debate and will be taking the side that a 'god' or 'creator' was not needed to create the Universe. Looking at Pro's introduction, it seems he understands the reasoning behind using proper grammar and spelling in his debates, so I will not bother with talking about that. I will also assume that Pro knows about citing sources, so I will not go into detail about that either.



It also appears that Pro is knowledgeable about physics, which is good, for it will mean this debate will be mature and reasonable. Pro goes on to talk about the realm outside time called 'eternity'. Because that is the title he wishes to give that area, I will comply and refer to it as that.



As this appears that is all I have to say, I will leave Pro to start us off with the first arguments, for he has stated that he has the burden of proof. I look forward to this educational debate.

Debate Round No. 1
Evan_Shad

Pro

I already did give my first argument. It was the one about time being recursive and so requiring an eternal being to have created it. Con does not appear to have raised any objections, so I cannot rebut any. With my 1800 remaining characters, then, I shall elaborate on my first argument.

Perhaps it is unclear why an eternal creator would not be subject to the same need for causal explanation. Keep in mind that temporal reality is only recursive because of the way it refers to its own past. In an eternal world, there is only one moment, only one version of existence, and so there is no dependence. If nothing changes, nothing needs an explanation.

Hmm, I still have 1300 characters. Ah, yes. The big bang, this is a likely objection. I should point out a problem with the big bang creation theory: the big bang is an "explosion". That of course is when matter poofs out with great speed. Poofing out implies space, and speed implies both space and time. Thus, an explosion, by its definition, cannot have created matter, space, or time, for it presupposes all three.

jamccartney

Con

Introduction

It seems that because Pro joined 6 days ago, he is not yet aware of the customs of debate.org. Generally, in a debate, round 1 is for acceptance only and arguments are not given. However, Pro was not aware of this, therefore expecting me to give my arguments in the first round. Because of this misunderstanding, I will give my first arguments in the is round and rebuttals will come in round 3.



String Theory

"M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime are identified as 7 higher-dimensions plus the 4 common dimensions."[1] In M-theory, it becomes clear that the Universe can come out of nowhere and does not need a 'Creator' such as God.


One thing I find odd about Theists is that they find it to be quite reasonable for God to be created from nothing, but when told about the Universe being created from nothing, they freak out. If M-Theory is correct, there would be no need for a God because the Universe came into existence on its own. However, if M-Theory is incorrect, there would be no logical explanation for either God or the Universe, meaning the Universe would not have come into existence, meaning we would not be here to debate this very topic.



Conclusion

Now that round 2 is complete, it is time for round 3. In this round, Pro will state his rebuttals, followed by my rebuttals. I apologize for the misunderstanding and hope he understands for his next debate.


I look forward to Pro's rebuttals.



[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Evan_Shad

Pro

Ah, I was indeed unaware of that. I thank Con for explaining.

I read the link on M-theory and it seems to be completely irrelevant. It says essentially that the world is made of vibrating strings and is 11-dimensional. I cannot see what this has to do with the universe being created from nothing.

Regarding Con's objection that God cannot create itself; I find that odd about theists too. No, of course God cannot create itself. It can be uncreated, however, because its present existence does not require it to have existed in the past. Anything temporal seems to have this recursion, but I cannot see it troubling an eternal being.

For the universe to simply 'exist' and have no explanation is mysterious and unsatisfying. Because in the universe, not everything is logical. You could not have predicted it. The universe is contingent, and there are things in it that do not seem possible given a purely cemetrical beginning and a deterministic evolution process. But in the case of God, if you suppose that there is only one and give it the omni- attributes, it becomes on par with an empty universe (possible world where nothing exists) in terms of simplicity and comprehensibility.
jamccartney

Con

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding so quickly and am glad he now understands the format of debates on this site. I will now begin my rebuttals:



"I read the link on M-theory and it seems to be completely irrelevant."



It seems that Pro has not read enough about M-theory to know that it is irrelevant. According to space.com: "M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist."[1]


Furthermore, according to dummies.com, "our universe is created from the collision of branes. The matter and radiation of our universe comes from the kinetic energy created by the collision of these two branes.[2]" This theory works very well with M-theory.



"No, of course God cannot create itself. It can be uncreated, however, because its present existence does not require it to have existed in the past."



Nothing can be uncreated, for if it is, it has not been created, therefore not existing. Contingent beings have never been proven.



For the universe to simply 'exist' and have no explanation is mysterious and unsatisfying.



God simply existing and having no scientific explanation is also mysterious and unsatisfying. However, I have just stated that the Universe does have an explanation.




Unfortunately, I do not have any more room to write another argument, for Pro only gave me 2,000 characters instead of 10,000. It seems this is the end of the debate and I ask one thing of the viewers: Vote Con.



[1]http://www.space.com...
[2]http://www.dummies.com...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 3 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
I would vote this as a tie because both of you a making nonsense arguments........the god pro is trying to invent is less than God, and actually would be the Star Wars "force" behind evolution........, and Con is making himself to be his own god, and we all know Con is less than god.............So really, both of these debaters are saying God is not Omnipotent, Onnipresent, or Omniscient.....and by that argument, Pro's god cannot be God.....................so Pro negates his own argument, and Con agrees with the negaiton of it, and both are wrong and both lose, so it's a tie.........hahaha
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 3 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
There is only one logical explanation for God, and that is that He (yes, He, created things are its, God is the Creator, He is self-existant, always has been, and always will be. He is the only One who had no beginning. Him creating the universe and us is the only logical explanation for our own existence or for the existence of matter or for the Star Wars Force that evolutionists insist gave birth somehow to matter.

Atheistic and agnostic physicists have to perform huge leaps of faith to ignore the super-astronomical mathematical odds of improbability that things as they are....including us......came into existence by random chance without intelligent design. If the Creator is not omni-potent, how can He be the Creator? If He has the power to create, then He must also have the power to destroy.........a god that is not omnipotent is not god......and you know that. If you are trying to reason for yoruself a God who is less than omnipotent, less than omniscient, and less then omni-present, you are inventing for yourself a God who is not in control of His creation, and you are inventing excuses for yourself to be disobedient to God, and God is not going to buy your reasonings against Him and He is not going to buy your excuses for your behaviour.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 3 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
this is a lot of puffed up silliness posing as intelligence..........the debate here is about the eternality of matter/energy or the creation of matter/energy by the Eternal Creator who is self-existent, not created.

Either side of the argument is based on faith..........and faith is based on evidence. you believe what you believe because of the way you have interpreted observed facts. One thing you have not observed is where you are going when your death is finalized. You better be sure of where you are going, because if you are wrong and you find out too late that God cannot have imperfection in His presence, where do you think you will go to get away from God? I know I am going to heaven....I have no doubt......God Himself paid for my imperfections, my wrongs, with His own blood, and rose from the grave to save me from my sin, death, and fire of hell. If you will confess with your mouth the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. He took your death so He can give you His life if you will only believe and receive Him, your God, your Creator, as your Saviour......admit you are a sinner and deserve to die and burn in hell, believe God paid for your sins with His own blood as Jesus Christ, Call on Him to save you.......easy as A. admit B. believe. C. call
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Evan_ShadjamccartneyTied
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 had a stronger argument, that was backed by sources.
Vote Placed by MartinKauai 3 years ago
MartinKauai
Evan_ShadjamccartneyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Although this wasn't a very stimulating debate, CON gets the meat of the points for actually providing evidence for why there simply does need to be a god, and likewise why god is not an explanation in the first place. Con used good sources and gave much better arguments.
Vote Placed by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
Evan_ShadjamccartneyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, the conduct points are tied. Both candidates had great conduct. I will give the "spelling and grammar" to neither candidate. Both had great grammar and spelling. Finally, the "convincing arguments" and "reliable sources" points go to Con for he made longer, more complex arguments and actually used sources, unlike Pro.