The Instigator
Jared_Neal
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

There is Probably no God (Aimed at Christian believer)

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...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 28843
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Jared_Neal

Pro

First of all, I would like to define God as an intelligent being, whom humans were modeled after in the supposed creation (The "Christian/Bible God"). As humans have used the scientific method more and more in recent history, it seems this thought process is skipped completely in the belief of a God. Claiming to know god exists is much like claiming that there is a 100% chance that a one billion sided die will land on the number three. The basis of my arguments lies in that we do not know for sure if a god exists, much like we can not predict the outcome of a 1 billion sided die. I believe my thoughts are grounded firmly in logic and I am interested to see what points the CON may argue.
jh1234l

Con

I agree with my opponent's definition of "God". Now, I'll move on to the arguments.

My opponent states that "Claiming to know god exists is much like claiming that there is a 100% chance that a one billion sided die will land on the number three. The basis of my arguments lies in that we do not know for sure if a god exists, much like we can not predict the outcome of a 1 billion sided die."

However, this does not apply if evidence and reasoning are applied to prove the existance of a God. Plus, this does not have a billion possibilities, as there are only 2 possibe states: A God exists or No God exists. Therefore, this analogy does not apply to this case.

My Arguments

1. The Kalam Argument:

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
The universe has a cause of its existence.[1]

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I'll prove that the cause is a God.

The universe is near perfect. The Earth is at a just right distance to the Sun for life to evolve. The Moon stabilizes the Earth's axis. These are all evidence that a God could exist as the chances of these happening by chance is really slim and the chances of it being created is high.

Another argument:

P1: A God could exist

P2: If a God could exist, it exists in some possible world.

P3: If a God exists in some possible world, it exists in all possible worlds.

P4: If a God exists in all possible worlds, then it exits in the real world.

C: A God exists.

As my opponent is Pro, he has the Burdn of Proof to prove it.

Sources:

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Jared_Neal

Pro

I will begin with my rebuttal of the Kalam argument.

Claiming that everything that has a beginning of existence also must have a cause of its existence is an observation based on the confines of existence itself. Based on your assumption that the universe has a beginning, which I agree with under the expanding universe theory, it follows that there was a time before its beginning. There is no proof that the laws of cause and effect apply in this instance or that cause must happen before effect.

As for your second argument;
Even if an intelligent designer did create earth to be just so does not also provide that said creator is the cause of the universe.

However, no designer is needed to create the conditions we find so hospitable. Given the massive size of the universe with its billion of galaxies containing billions of stars orbited by many planets, the conditions needed for life as we know it were almost bound to occur. And given that our universe had a beginning, who is to say that a universe did not exist prior to the one we exist in, offering infinitely more possibilities for perfect life conditions?

As for your final argument, I have know idea how a God existing in one possible world would lead it to exist in all possible worlds.

My Arguments

Throughout history, humans have tended to label any unexplainable phenomena as "The work of God". Seeing as God has a very poor track record in explaining the nature of things better than science, further advancement in scientific research will begin to give God less and less credit for the grand design. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it is the work of God. That admittance of scientific defeat put Western Europe in the dark ages for one thousand years.

I will now state my definition of the scientific method-
The use of repeated systematic observations to draw conclusions and gain knowledge about an observable phenomena

As we can not use this method to prove the existence of a God, this further supports my point that there is probably no God.

As for my billion sided die analogy, I was stressing that there is a tiny chance that there is a God, as there are an infinite number of other possibilities.
jh1234l

Con

Claiming that everything that has a beginning of existence also must have a cause of its existence is an observation based on the confines of existence itself. Based on your assumption that the universe has a beginning, which I agree with under the expanding universe theory, it follows that there was a time before its beginning. There is no proof that the laws of cause and effect apply in this instance or that cause must happen before effect.

"There is no proof" is not a valid argument. You need to prove that what you said is true, as the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, and the Pro is always the one making a claim, thus you have the burden of proof to prove it.

However, no designer is needed to create the conditions we find so hospitable. Given the massive size of the universe with its billion of galaxies containing billions of stars orbited by many planets, the conditions needed for life as we know it were almost bound to occur. And given that our universe had a beginning, who is to say that a universe did not exist prior to the one we exist in, offering infinitely more possibilities for perfect life conditions?

However, big objects,such as planets, tend to form into a round shape due to their large gravity.[1] Our Milky Way galaxy is a barred spiral galaxy, [2] not round, even though it is massive. This is against the laws of nature, and only an omnipotent being could force something that big into a spiral, right?

As for your final argument, I have know idea how a God existing in one possible world would lead it to exist in all possible worlds.

It must exist in all possible worlds, because all the worlds are formed at the start then split into many. [3] If there is a God in an universe, (which there can be, as I proved), then the God must have created the universe, and not that the splittig created a God. Thus, the universe created by a God MUST be the first one.


Throughout history, humans have tended to label any unexplainable phenomena as "The work of God". Seeing as God has a very poor track record in explaining the nature of things better than science, further advancement in scientific research will begin to give God less and less credit for the grand design. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it is the work of God. That admittance of scientific defeat put Western Europe in the dark ages for one thousand years.

Future science is still not known yet. No one knows the future of science. Thus, your claims about science in the future are baseless. As fo the dark ages, it is irrelevent to the existance of God, which is what we are debating right now.

As we can not use this method to prove the existence of a God, this further supports my point that there is probably no God.

Ill use an analogy: you cannot see the air, but you can see the results of the flowing air. (e.g. wind), you can say that air is nonexistant because you cannot see it. That is just like saying you cannot prove God because you cannot observe it.

As for my billion sided die analogy, I was stressing that there is a tiny chance that there is a God, as there are an infinite number of other possibilities.

However, this does not work as:
1. You have no proof that the chances of a God existing is tiny, and you have to have proof because whoever made the claim has the burden of proof.
2. There are only two possibilities in this case:
a) No God
b) A God

Sources

[1]http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Jared_Neal

Pro

Jared_Neal forfeited this round.
jh1234l

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
Jared_Nealjh1234lTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited round 3 so conduct to con. Arguments to con because pro did not meet his BOP and con had better points. Pro also did not use any sources what so ever.