The Instigator
Republican95
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
patsox834
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

There is a God who created the universe

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 9 votes the winner is...
patsox834
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,673 times Debate No: 8502
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (9)

 

Republican95

Pro

God-an all powerful being who presides over all the universe and created it.

Creation-the act of creating. In this case, the act of creating the universe.

**Note: We are not debating about any religion's God, just whether or not the idea of a God is feasible. My opponent will also have to present a theory that explains the creation of the universe without a God, that argument must prove, or he will have lost this debate**

I understand I have the burden of proof on me, but so do you. You have to prove their isn't a God, I have to prove there is. We are both equally challenged.

MY ARGUMENTS:

1) A painting requires an artist. Simply, because the universe exists it requires a creator. The Big Band Theory doesn't explain the creation of the universe, because, it states that everything came from one molecule in space a long time ago. However, the Big Bang Theory doesn't tell us how that molecule got there. How can something come from nothing?

2) The universe is perfect. Our universe is governed by a set of laws that is never changing. Examples of these laws are the laws of motion, the laws of speed and time, etc. Since our universe is perfect, then it must have a perfect creator.

3) There are too many "coincidences" to be chance, a creator must have made these conditions. The Earth is the perfect distance from the sun, the "perfect" evolutionary history of the Earth led to human life, the atmospheric and meteorological conditions on Earth are "perfect" to sustain life, humankind played its cards right and it is now the master "perfect" species. Statistically, the odds of all these "perfect" coincidences are less than one millionth of a percent.

4) Since humankind believes in a God, he must exist. Humankind has believed in a God since the very beginning of time. So the aspect of God is not simply a cultural aspect, but rather a trait that all humans share. Even though several cultures have been isolated from each other, they all believed in the idea of a God or gods. So humankind inherited a belief in God. Who did they inherit it from? None other than God himself.

5) The human body has instructions. And all instructions have intent. Human cells contain a code that consists of chemical compounds that scientist abbreviate as A, T, C, and G. Example: CTGAATGTA. These chemical compounds tell our cells how exactly to work and how to sustain our lives. They act like our instruction manual. Instruction manuals are written by people, our instruction manual is written by God.

6) I love therefore he is. The human being is the only known living organism on the planet that can experience love. Since the human being is the only organism that can feel love, it did not inherit that trait from any other living thing. The human being did not gain love through an evolutionary process. Instead, it was granted love. It was granted love by God.

Thank you for accepting my debate.
patsox834

Con

Firstly, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting a debate which is sure to keep both myself and the readers amused.

And now we begin...

<"I understand I have the burden of proof on me, but so do you. You have to prove their isn't a God, I have to prove there is. We are both equally challenged.">

No. As the claimant, my opponent is the one who carries the burden of proof -- I merely have to negate the arguments he puts forth.

<"1) A painting requires an artist. Simply, because the universe exists it requires a creator. The Big Band Theory doesn't explain the creation of the universe, because, it states that everything came from one molecule in space a long time ago. However, the Big Bang Theory doesn't tell us how that molecule got there. How can something come from nothing?">

I have multiple responses to this:

Firstly, the energy the universe is composed of and its forms have always existed; therefore, the universe has always existed, which consequently means it wasn't created, which clearly means there's no need for a creator, which means that a god creating the universe is entirely nonsensical.

So that all means that there wasn't a "beginning" to the universe, because it has always been around. Although the idea of a creator has already been negated, this is only further helping that idea, because it's impossible to be around before something that has always existed.

<"The universe is perfect. Our universe is governed by a set of laws that is never changing. Examples of these laws are the laws of motion, the laws of speed and time, etc. Since our universe is perfect, then it must have a perfect creator.">

So because we have laws of science, the universe is "perfect"; therefore, a god exists?

Ok...well, we have laws of science, which means the universe is perfect; therefore, the flying spaghetti monster exists.

Clearly, as the little adjustment I made to my opponents argument shows, his premises don't follow his conclusion; the above quote of his is a non-sequitur.(*)

<"3) There are too many "coincidences" to be chance, a creator must have made these conditions. The Earth is the perfect distance from the sun, the "perfect" evolutionary history of the Earth led to human life, the atmospheric and meteorological conditions on Earth are "perfect" to sustain life, humankind played its cards right and it is now the master "perfect" species. Statistically, the odds of all these "perfect" coincidences are less than one millionth of a percent.">

Firstly, my opponents above point is a classic argument from incredulity.(**) Just because you have a hard time buying into it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Secondly, earth's formation wasn't dictated by chance -- rather, by sciences.

To clarify: take a sheet of grid paper with 26 squares, then write the alphabet from beginning to end. The chances of all of the letters appearing in that specific order on the grid are very, very, *very* slim; however, the letters being put into each specific square wasn't dictated by chance -- but by you writing them there. It's the same concept with the earth's formation; it was dictates by science...not math.

Thirdly, the earth didn't adapt to suit our needs -- rather, *we* have adapted to *it.*

<"4) Since humankind believes in a God, he must exist. Humankind has believed in a God since the very beginning of time. So the aspect of God is not simply a cultural aspect, but rather a trait that all humans share. Even though several cultures have been isolated from each other, they all believed in the idea of a God or gods. So humankind inherited a belief in God. Who did they inherit it from? None other than God himself.">

I also have multiple responses to this; for the sake of coherence, I'm going to address it point by point.

<"Since humankind believes in a God, he must exist.">

Non-sequitur.(*) Humans commonly believe in all sorts of wacky things -- that doesn't necessarily make them true.

<"Humankind has believed in a God since the very beginning of time.">

I'd like for my opponent to verify this.

I have a hard time believing it, considering that my understanding is that the concept of the Christian God was brought forth *after* man had existed, meaning there had to be a period of time in which people didn't believe in "him."

<"So the aspect of God is not simply a cultural aspect, but rather a trait that all humans share.">

I'd think the fact that atheism exists is enough to debunk my opponents point. If a belief in the Christian god was something shared by all humans, then atheism wouldn't have came to fruition. And considering that the prominence of atheism generally varies from country to country, then I'd say that the belief in God is, indeed, cultural.

<"5) The human body has instructions. And all instructions have intent. Human cells contain a code that consists of chemical compounds that scientist abbreviate as A, T, C, and G. Example: CTGAATGTA. These chemical compounds tell our cells how exactly to work and how to sustain our lives. They act like our instruction manual. Instruction manuals are written by people, our instruction manual is written by God.">

Yet another non-sequitur.(*) My opponents rationale can be used to support the existence of any of your mock-deities, such as the FSM, who I referenced earlier.

<"6) I love therefore he is. The human being is the only known living organism on the planet that can experience love. Since the human being is the only organism that can feel love, it did not inherit that trait from any other living thing. The human being did not gain love through an evolutionary process. Instead, it was granted love. It was granted love by God.">

Firstly, we don't feel "love" because it's an inherited trait; we feel these profound emotions essentially because of advanced stimuli -- they enhance our range of emotions, and our sentience and sapience. Considering that we have an explanation as to how "love" came about, it's clearly illogical to believe that a god granted it to us.

Secondly, that's *yet another* non-sequitur.(*) As I said previously, my opponents rationale can support the existence of any deity.

(*) = http://mw1.m-w.com...
(**) = skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity
Debate Round No. 1
Republican95

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and so far it seems to be a good one.

In the fist round I proposed six reasons for the existence of God, for me to win, I only have to prove one of them.

In the previous round, I can infer my opponent believes the following things:

(a) Since we have science, we have no need for a God.
(b) It is logical to believe that several chemical building blocks have here for all of time, but illogical to believe that a God has existed for all of time.
(c) The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters.
(d) The aspect of God varies from culture to culture, and is therefore a cultural aspect.

I will take these one by one, starting with A.

My opponent said: "the universe has always existed, which consequently means it wasn't created, which clearly means there's no need for a creator, which means that a god creating the universe is entirely nonsensical"

First of all, the burden of proof falls on my opponent to convince me that the universe has been around forever. Secondly, my opponent holds the belief that because we have science, the belief in God is an outdated principle. This leads me to the very philosophical question: What is science? The Dictionary defines science as: The study of our world and those who inhabit it; and I agree with that definition. The problem is this though: Who invited science? Well, humans were obviously the ones who first tried to explain their world through logic instead of religion, so humans are the creators of science. Humans are flawed. Therefore, science is flawed: I'll make it simplier:

(a) Humans invited science.
(b) Humans are flawed (we don't know everything)
(c) Therefore, science is flawed.

So, since science is obviously flawed because it was invited by flawed things, it lacks credibility. So, unless you prove to me that the science is true, it has no credibility. And even if you were to prove the science true, since you are human and humans our flawed, your conclusion would be flawed. Which would make it not true.

Secondly, my opponent holds the very outdated belief that: This town ain't big enough for the two of us. He believes that since science exists and it can explain how our universe was created, there is no God. Why can't the two exist simultaneously?

My opponent's next belief is: It is logical to believe that several chemical building blocks have here for all of time, but illogical to believe that a God has existed for all of time.

He proves this when he says: Firstly, the energy the universe is composed of and its forms have always existed AND Although the idea of a creator has already been negated, this is only further helping that idea, because it's impossible to be around before something that has always existed.

So my opponent is basically saying: The universe has been around forever, and he is asking, How could God be around forever?

I'll take his first statement first: The universe has been around forever. So, there was no big bang? No spark of creation? Even, in a scientific sense, the universe couldn't have been around forever. Most scientist even acknowledge that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate each and everyday, so that poses the question: When did it start expanding? That would have to start when the universe was created, and it is impossible to be around forever if you we're created.

Secondly, the question: How was God always? I find that question irrelevant and I will use the following analogy to prove so.

You are sitting in a room with a chalkboard and a piece of chalk. The chalkboard is empty. You go to use the bathroom. A few minutes later you return to the room to find that a drawing of a tree is now on the chalkboard. What can you assume? A logical person would assume that while you we're out of the room, somebody came into that room and drew the tree on the chalkboard. That is what a theist believes. The tree represents the universe, you the human race. An illogical person, also know as an atheist, would believe the following, that while you were out of the room, a series of scientific things happened over several generations and almost *magically* the tree appeared on the chalkboard. Which one is more likely? Now, I have just proved how unintelligible atheism is, but I still have to prove the irrelevancy. The irrelevancy is: Why spend all your time figuring out how the person who drew the tree on the chalkboard got there. The creation (the tree) proves the creator (the artist). Any questions?

My opponent also holds the belief: The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters.

He proved this when he said: Ok...well, we have laws of science, which means the universe is perfect; therefore, the flying spaghetti monster exists.

What my opponent is trying to say is that, my conclusion that a perfect universe requires a perfect creator could actually prove the existence of anything I wanted it to, even flying spaghetti monsters. Well, do flying spaghetti monsters have the ability to create a perfect universe? No. A God is the only one who would have this kind of power, so my statement can only prove that a God exists.

Lastly, my opponent claims: The aspect of God varies from culture to culture, and is therefore a cultural aspect.

He proved this to me when he said: And considering that the prominence of atheism generally varies from country to country, then I'd say that the belief in God is, indeed, cultural.

It is true that the number of Gods, the nature of God, and other religious factor vary from culture to culture and religion to religion, but still no culture has ever walked the Earth and not tried to explain its presence. Even atheists do it! Atheism is just a godless religion. Instead of a God they have science, so are atheists that much smarter than than theists? In my opinion, no. Because, they basically believe the same thing!

My rebutting my opponent's rebuttals, my statements stand, which means, thus far, I am winning this debate!
patsox834

Con

<"In the previous round, I can infer my opponent believes the following things:

(a) Since we have science, we have no need for a God.
(b) It is logical to believe that several chemical building blocks have here for all of time, but illogical to believe that a God has existed for all of time.
(c) The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters.
(d) The aspect of God varies from culture to culture, and is therefore a cultural aspect.">

...my opponent has put forth a series of straw men. (1)

<"(a) Since we have science, we have no need for a God.">

I never said that at all; my opponent is completely misrepresenting my argument. I was saying that since the universe's constituency has always existed, that means there's no need for a creator. I also said it's impossible to be around before something that has always been.

That doesn't equate to "we have science; therefore, we have no need for a god."

<"b) It is logical to believe that several chemical building blocks have here for all of time, but illogical to believe that a God has existed for all of time.">

Yes, it's logical to believe that the energy the universe consists of has always existed -- why? Because energy cannot be created, nor destroyed; it only changes form. Which means that energy has always been.

There's absolutely no reason to believe an omnipotent being has been around forever and created the universe; in fact, I've shown that there's reason to believe that such a being doesn't even exist.

<"(c) The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters.">

No. My point was that the idea that the universe is perfect can't logically be used to prove the existence of any kind of deity. That rationale is, as I've stated, a non-sequitur, which therefore means it's fallacious, which therefore means that it fails.

<"First of all, the burden of proof falls on my opponent to convince me that the universe has been around forever.">

Again, no. The burden of proof lies with my opponent -- not me. I only have to negate the arguments which are brought forth by him.

<"(a) Humans invited science.
(b) Humans are flawed (we don't know everything)
(c) Therefore, science is flawed.">

Going by the premises my opponent has asserted, then he has no basis to say that a creator exists. If everything we (humans...clearly) conceive is flawed because we as people are flawed, then the idea of a creator has to be flawed, as well.

Furthermore, my opponent says science in general is flawed -- but doesn't specifically address anything I said. I'd like him to show me the flaws in the science I've mentioned.

Lastly, I believe that my opponents syllogism is...well, flawed. It can essentially state that *anything*which comes about as a result of humans has zero credibility.

<"And even if you were to prove the science true, since you are human and humans our flawed, your conclusion would be flawed. Which would make it not true.">

The above point put forth by my opponent is, uh, a few superheroes short of a comic book -- a logical mess. Let me explain.

So, something that is objectively true cannot be true, because we're human? Let me ask you this: is that true?

My opponent's human; he has drawn conclusions, so by his own logic, his arguments can't be true. My opponent is essentially refuting himself.

My opponent is saying that humans are flawed, which means our conclusions are flawed, which means our conclusions aren't true. So...every conclusion drawn by an individual human is "flawed," and therefore, "not true," according to my opponents logic.

By my opponents logic, his own resolution cannot be true. Just thought I'd put that out there.

<"He believes that since science exists and it can explain how our universe was created, there is no God.">

No. My opponent is correct that I think there is no god -- but his reasoning which attempts to explain why is wrong. To be more accurate, I believe that since science and logic negate the idea of a creator, then a creator doesn't exist.

<"I'll take his first statement first: The universe has been around forever. So, there was no big bang? No spark of creation? Even, in a scientific sense, the universe couldn't have been around forever.">

The idea of the universe being around forever and the big bang aren't mutually exclusive; they can both be true.

<"Now, I have just proved how unintelligible atheism is, but I still have to prove the irrelevancy. The irrelevancy is: Why spend all your time figuring out how the person who drew the tree on the chalkboard got there. The creation (the tree) proves the creator (the artist). Any questions?">

My opponent is again using a straw man argument. Nobody's assuming that something came from nothing. I know I didn't, so my opponents whole analogy is both fallacious and irrelevant.

<"My opponent also holds the belief: The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters.

He proved this when he said: Ok...well, we have laws of science, which means the universe is perfect; therefore, the flying spaghetti monster exists.

What my opponent is trying to say is that, my conclusion that a perfect universe requires a perfect creator could actually prove the existence of anything I wanted it to, even flying spaghetti monsters. Well, do flying spaghetti monsters have the ability to create a perfect universe? No. A God is the only one who would have this kind of power, so my statement can only prove that a God exists.">

Ok, I'll address this first: <"My opponent also holds the belief: The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters.

He proved this when he said: Ok...well, we have laws of science, which means the universe is perfect; therefore, the flying spaghetti monster exists.">

Yet another straw man argument put forth by my opponent. I already addressed this; however, I'll repeat myself for the sake of clarification:

"My point was that the idea that the universe is perfect can't logically be used to prove the existence of any kind of deity. That rationale is, as I've stated, a non-sequitur, which therefore means it's fallacious, which therefore means that it fails."

<"What my opponent is trying to say is that, my conclusion that a perfect universe requires a perfect creator could actually prove the existence of anything I wanted it to, even flying spaghetti monsters.">

Again, no. I addressed that just above this, and once at the start of my post; I'm not doing it again.

<"Well, do flying spaghetti monsters have the ability to create a perfect universe? No. A God is the only one who would have this kind of power, so my statement can only prove that a God exists.">

So, god has the power to create a supposedly perfect universe because god exists, which proves god exists. My opponents reasoning is very circular, and is therefore, invalid. (2)

<"It is true that the number of Gods, the nature of God, and other religious factor vary from culture to culture and religion to religion, but still no culture has ever walked the Earth and not tried to explain its presence. Even atheists do it! Atheism is just a godless religion. Instead of a God they have science, so are atheists that much smarter than than theists? In my opinion, no. Because, they basically believe the same thing!">

Most of that is irrelevant to the debate. But yeah, I think my opponent is saying the inquisitive nature of man essentially proves that a god exists, because that proves that the belief in a god is inherited. That is *another* non-sequitur.

(1) = http://www.nizkor.org...
(2) = http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Republican95

Pro

Thank you Patsox for taking almost three days to respond. Let's continue:

My opponent: I never said that at all; my opponent is completely misrepresenting my argument. I was saying that since the universe's constituency has always existed, that means there's no need for a creator. I also said it's impossible to be around before something that has always been.

My opponent is saying that there is no need for a creator. He justifies his belief that there is no creator by saying the universe's constituency has always existed, and it is impossible to be created if you were around forever. However, he believes that it hasn't been in its current form for all of time. So, if nothing else was around, what caused it to change forms? A God?

My opponent: Going by the premises my opponent has asserted, then he has no basis to say that a creator exists. If everything we (humans...clearly) conceive is flawed because we as people are flawed, then the idea of a creator has to be flawed, as well.

What I was trying to say is that any way of trying to explain our universe through logic is truly, not logical. I mean, what do we know? We're only human. So, any attempt of a human trying to explain something is flawed. However, a theist doesn't need to explain, a theist has faith. Faith triumphs logic any day of the week.

My opponent: My opponent is saying that humans are flawed, which means our conclusions are flawed, which means our conclusions aren't true. So...every conclusion drawn by an individual human is "flawed," and therefore, "not true," according to my opponents logic.

If something is flawed then it isn't true. Well, its not 100% true. It can have elements of truth in it, but, ultimately, it will be flawed and contain only some truth. It's called a gray area. Humans are smart enough to figure out some things, but dumb enough not to figure out everything.

Science, ultimately, makes theories and laws based on half-truths. Science is very "circumstantial". Take for example evolution, evolution is established like a pyramid, with each idea relying on others. If one idea comes crashing down, then the whole theory is wrong. Science is too "iffy" to explain our universe.

My opponent: "My point was that the idea that the universe is perfect can't logically be used to prove the existence of any kind of deity. That rationale is, as I've stated, a non-sequitur, which therefore means it's fallacious, which therefore means that it fails."

Our universe is like a filing cabinet. Everything is in its place. We have the laws of motion and time, which keep the universe steady and never changing. Something with so much order must have an organizer. If our universe was created by chance, then it would be too unstable to sustain life.

Thank you.
patsox834

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his response.

<"However, he believes that it hasn't been in its current form for all of time. So, if nothing else was around, what caused it to change forms? A God?">

Again, the big bang and the ideas I put forth aren't mutually exclusive. They can be both be true -- actually, they both offer a very feasible and logical explanation. Just because the universe's constituency has always existed doesn't mean the universe couldn't have further developed, expanded, etc., due to the big bang.

<"I mean, what do we know? We're only human. So, any attempt of a human trying to explain something is flawed.">

My opponent is essentially rehashing an argument I already negated -- but I'll do so again. To quote myself:

"Going by the premises my opponent has asserted, then he has no basis to say that a creator exists. If everything we (humans...clearly) conceive is flawed because we as people are flawed, then the idea of a creator has to be flawed, as well.

Furthermore, my opponent says science in general is flawed -- but doesn't specifically address anything I said. I'd like him to show me the flaws in the science I've mentioned."

<"Science, ultimately, makes theories and laws based on half-truths">

No. Science makes laws based on undeniable evidence and proof. There are absolutely zero "half truths" -- but I'm curious; I'd like to see some of specific "half truths" my opponent has mentioned.

As for theories, a scientific theory is much different from the general idea as to what a theory is -- a scientific theory isn't merely a conjecture or speculation; it's an explanation for something which is based on strong evidence.

Neither laws nor theories are based on "half truths." My opponent seems to have been very misinformed.

<"Our universe is like a filing cabinet. Everything is in its place. We have the laws of motion and time, which keep the universe steady and never changing. Something with so much order must have an organizer.">

My opponent is yet again bringing up arguments which I negated.

Me: "My point was that the idea that the universe is perfect can't logically be used to prove the existence of any kind of deity. That rationale is, as I've stated, a non-sequitur, which therefore means it's fallacious, which therefore means that it fails."

And the whole "order needs someone to organize it" stuff was addressed, too, when I rebutted the "painting needs a painter" argument. Instead of rebutting the arguments I've put forth, my opponent has chosen to repeat his "points," which means my arguments stand.

Just for the sake of coherence and clarification, here's what I said:

"the energy the universe is composed of and its forms have always existed; therefore, the universe has always existed, which consequently means it wasn't created, which clearly means there's no need for a creator, which means that a god creating the universe is entirely nonsensical.

So that all means that there wasn't a "beginning" to the universe, because it has always been around. Although the idea of a creator has already been negated, this is only further helping that idea, because it's impossible to be around before something that has always existed."

If my opponent wants to win this debate, then my suggestion would be to rebut the arguments I put forth, instead of restating ones which have been negated already.

<"If our universe was created by chance, then it would be too unstable to sustain life.">

...another non-sequitur. My opponents conclusion yet again does now follow his premise.

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to make any rational retorts to the arguments I've brought to the table; he's simply rehashing arguments which I've already negated. I know it's a round early, but even so, I'd still like to urge the readers to vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
Republican95

Pro

My opponent seems not very open minded. He fails to understand that by challenging his negations I can win this debate. He somehow thinks that simply because he negated them means that his negations are set in stone and cannot be disproved. Yeesh...

Okay, let's continue:

"Again, the big bang and the ideas I put forth aren't mutually exclusive. They can be both be true -- actually, they both offer a very feasible and logical explanation. Just because the universe's constituency has always existed doesn't mean the universe couldn't have further developed, expanded, etc., due to the big bang."

This is what I gather from what my opponent has said, at least of how I see it.
(a) The energy that created the universe has always existed.
(b) Since this energy has always existed, the universe has always existed, but not in its current form.
(c) The changing of this energy is what caused the universe to come into its current form (The Big Bang)

Going on this premises (which is what I can assume CON believes) then this energy has always existed, but one day for some unapparent reason decided to change forms (the big bang). Well, if only the energy itself was around, what caused it to change forms? The only logical answer I can think of is: A God.

My opponent: "Going by the premises my opponent has asserted, then he has no basis to say that a creator exists. If everything we (humans...clearly) conceive is flawed because we as people are flawed, then the idea of a creator has to be flawed, as well."

Not exactly. The idea of a God is one based on faith. It is not based on things we cannot prove because faith requires no proof whatsoever. Therefore, faith isn't flawed.

My opponent: "No. Science makes laws based on undeniable evidence and proof. There are absolutely zero "half truths" -- but I'm curious; I'd like to see some of specific "half truths" my opponent has mentioned."

Okay, here is one example. As recent as the 1700s (which is a relatively minuscule amount of time compared to the geological history of Earth) it was widely accepted in the scientific community that rotting meat/flesh produced flies. They were able to draw this assumption because if you left out meat or a corpse flies would seem to emerge from it. This is due to the fact that many species of flies lay their eggs in rotting meat/flesh and when those eggs "hatch" they emerge from the rotting meat/flesh. However, it was tested and was found that rotting meat/flesh didn't produce flies. So, the big bang theory has never been tested and neither has evolution, or even Global Warming, so how can you base arguments off of something that might not even be factual?

CLOSING ARGUMENTS:

Okay, peoples, I may be down but I'm not out and this is my last chance to offer evidence that supports my cases (I hope it works).

Reason One: Motion
There is motion in this world. Everything that is in motion was put into motion. Or, as Newton said, "An object that is not moving will not move until a net force acts upon it". Motion is the actuality of potential. The only way something can be moved from the potential to the actual is by something in the state of actuality. For example, fire is hot. Wood is potentially hot, fire makes wood potentially hot. Therefore fire (which is actually hot) makes wood (which is potentiality hot) actually hot. This world is in motion, and therefore must be put into motion by something actually (already) in motion. Something that puts something else into motion must likewise be put into motion, and that must be put into motion, and so on, and so on. This cannot go on forever because that means that there is no first mover. And without a first mover, no other mover can move, for they can only move because they were moved. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, God.

Reason Two: The Efficient Clause
The efficient clause is the actual action, or the causer of change. The sculptor chiseling marble, the painter painting picture, etc. Nothing is its own efficient clause. It is clear that it is not possible for something to be its own efficient clause because it would have to exist before itself (remember, my opponent hasn't proved the universe has been around forever). If there be no first cause among efficient causes, then there will be no ultimate, nor intermediate clause. Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient clause, God.

Reason Three: Possibility and Necessity
There are things in this world that exist and do not exist. Nothing can exist forever. Therefore if all things could not-be then it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. This is clearly absurd, since things exist now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. That is to say, there is a necessity for a being's existence. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having itself its own necessity and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in other their necessity. That would be God.

Reason Four: Value
There are values to certain things, such as hot, hotter, and hottest. The maximum of a given value is the cause. The maximum heat is fire. Therefore fire is the cause of hot things. Therefore there must be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection. That would be God.

Reason Five: Governance of the world
Unintelligent beings in the world act for an end. They act almost always in the same way to get this end, or greatest good. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore someone intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; God.

Thank you. Vote PRO.
patsox834

Con

"He fails to understand that by challenging his negations I can win this debate. He somehow thinks that simply because he negated them means that his negations are set in stone and cannot be disproved."

I think my opponent is the one failing to understand -- I never, ever, not even once said nor implied that negations are "set in stone" -- he's using another straw man argument.

What I said was that the arguments he did being up were recycled; they're the same ideas and arguments he used before in a different form, and, considering that I had already debunked those ideas, it was inherently useless for my opponent to bring them up again. If they didn't work the first time, then they weren't gonna work the second time. And, well, they didn't.

"Going on this premises (which is what I can assume CON believes) then this energy has always existed, but one day for some unapparent reason decided to change forms (the big bang). Well, if only the energy itself was around, what caused it to change forms? The only logical answer I can think of is: A God."

God? Logical? A being that's logically contradictory is hardly a reasonable explanation for anything.

Also, just because my opponent can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one. He's hardly qualified in any area of science, so I wouldn't expect him to be able to think one up.

However, the best explanation seems to be that a phase transition occurred, which consequently resulted in inflation. That's irrelevant, though, because if the universe's constituency was around, then there wasn't a creator; what caused the universe to expand doesn't matter in this debate, which is, as the title states:

"There is a God who created the universe."

If this were an argument about the existence of god, then the above excerpt from his argument would be relevant, although still not the most logical piece of writing in the world. But it's not, so it isn't.

"The idea of a God is one based on faith. It is not based on things we cannot prove because faith requires no proof whatsoever. Therefore, faith isn't flawed."

That's another non-sequitur. Having no proof doesn't in any way make faith flawless. It seems to be the opposite to me; the fact that religious faith equates to believing in something without proof nor evidence in and of itself makes faith illogical, and therefore, flawed.

"However, it was tested and was found that rotting meat/flesh didn't produce flies. So, the big bang theory has never been tested and neither has evolution, or even Global Warming, so how can you base arguments off of something that might not even be factual?"

My opponent used this as an example to show me that there are "half-truths" in scientific laws (and, I'm assuming, theories) -- but the example he gave hardly constitutes a law, nor a theory. Not even in the same ballpark. It couldn't even pass through the scientific method. Also, I don't think he knows what a half truth is:

"a statement only partially true, or which gives only a part of the truth." (1)

The flies coming from rotting meat thing is just blatantly false; no truths involved.

And lastly, uh, in order to clime up to the rank of "theory" or "law" in the scientific method, something has to be tested, so evolution, climate change (I don't call it global warming), and the big bang had to go through tests.

"And without a first mover, no other mover can move, for they can only move because they were moved. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, God."

This is another rehashed version of the "order needs an organizer" argument. The "mover" isn't necessary, because things were always "in motion." It sounds weird when put that way, but yeah, here's a quote from my last argument, which applies here, as well:

"And the whole "order needs someone to organize it" stuff was addressed, too, when I rebutted the "painting needs a painter" argument. Instead of rebutting the arguments I've put forth, my opponent has chosen to repeat his "points," which means my arguments stand.

Just for the sake of coherence and clarification, here's what I said:

"the energy the universe is composed of and its forms have always existed; therefore, the universe has always existed, which consequently means it wasn't created, which clearly means there's no need for a creator, which means that a god creating the universe is entirely nonsensical.

So that all means that there wasn't a "beginning" to the universe, because it has always been around. Although the idea of a creator has already been negated, this is only further helping that idea, because it's impossible to be around before something that has always existed."

If my opponent wants to win this debate, then my suggestion would be to rebut the arguments I put forth, instead of restating ones which have been negated already."

"If there be no first cause among efficient causes, then there will be no ultimate, nor intermediate clause. Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient clause, God."

The above point is just another way of putting forth the "the universe exists; therefore, a creator exists" argument, which, considering they're the same argument, is debunked by the response I gave to the "painting = panting; order = organizer; movement = mover" stuff. The point I copied and pasted from an earlier post of mine above my opponent's quote negates this argument, and its many variations.

"There are things in this world that exist and do not exist. Nothing can exist forever. Therefore if all things could not-be then it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. This is clearly absurd, since things exist now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. That is to say, there is a necessity for a being's existence. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having itself its own necessity and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in other their necessity. That would be God."

...I'll go point-by-point:

"Nothing can exist forever. Therefore if all things could not-be then it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. This is clearly absurd, since things exist now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary."

So because we exist, something exists which needs to exist? That's...the biggest non-sequitur yet. It makes no logical sense.

"That is to say, there is a necessity for a being's existence. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having itself its own necessity and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in other their necessity. That would be God."

Considering I've already showed the fallacious nature of my opponents third argument, I needn't address this, but meh. The premise that there's a need for the existence of something doesn't match the conclusion that a being exists which is its own "necessity," which means his logic is, yet again, non-sequiturial.

"Therefore there must be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection."

So because certain things possess a degree of a certain characteristic, a god therefore exists? My opponent's not matching his premise and conclusion again. Same old story. I guess all the readers can figure out the fallacy used my my opponent in his fifth point, eh?

"They act almost always in the same way to get this end, or greatest good."

Beings acting a certain way doesn't at all match with the conclusion that they're being "directed" -- they act to please themselves -- not because of an "end," but because it's inherent in them.

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to fulfill the burden which he possessed. Not only that, but I've negated his arguments and shown that they're fallacious. So yeah, vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Good man patsox, i will unconditionally support you, even when your debates are irrational or I disagree with them.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
I really ought to read all the comments before I respond to someone.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
KRFournier:

I might not agree with your rationale, but even so, I like that you objectively voted. Too bad more people don't.

<"I would have still given him this point except that Con starting repeating himself in the final rounds when countering Pro's new arguments,">

That's because they weren't new arguments. Though I probably should've just rephrased what I said, instead of just saying it over.

Either way, I think iamadragon and Conor gave me the conduct points because I wasn't as much of a douche, the grammar points because...well, my grammar was better, and sources because I used a decent number of them, when he didn't use any. Granted, a lot of his points were constructed so that sources were unnecessary -- but there were some instances were he could've used them, but didn't. Like the whole rotting meat and flies thing.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
Thanks iamadragon and Conor for humoring me. I think everyone benefits when we can see why a vote goes a certain way. Agreement on who won is not the goal. The goal is to give people insight into their debate--what worked and what didn't. I encourage you guys to post an RFD (Reason For Decision) in all your votes whenever possible. Granted, it's not always feasible (I don't do it every time myself), but it really is valuable to the debaters... even if they're unhappy with the turnout.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
patsox834 had far better arguments–I don't think you're questioning my judgement on that. I also believe he had better grammar and spelling. Republican95's S/G weren't egregiously bad, but they weren't as good as patsox834's. I also think that the use of a source to illustrate what a fallacy is should count as using sources.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
I got slaughtered in that debate. I just wanted to make friends, and then nags started smacking me left and right.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
No disrespect intended. If you notice, in my debate with TheSkeptic, no one submitted an explanantion of their vote. If you were to do so, I could gain insight into what didn't work for me and TheSkeptic could learn what worked well. I extended you the same courtesy in your first debate (http://www.debate.org...). Though I voted for you opponent, I carefully explained what convinced me and what didn't.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
"kindfully request?"
Dude, slow down on the offensive language.
Because I'm intimidated by your command of the English language, and I don't know what that means, I'm gonna take it as disrespect. I'm from Brooklyn.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
I was quite clear regarding my motives. I want to encourage a spirit of thoughtful, fair voting practices. I called you out and you responded. You chose to give all points to Con, and I accepted your choice. I honestly hope iamadragon does the same.

Honestly, TheSkeptic is a very worthy debater and my debate with him was one of my favorites. Losing to him would not upset me in slightest assuming the votes were conducted fairly. I would, of course, be upset to find out I lost due to votes given in spite. But as you've said, this was not the case for you. You voted on my debate in complete fairness and honesty and I appreciate that. Thank you.

Might I kindfully request a more detailed explanation of your vote? I'd like to learn from the errors I've made, and I'm certain TheSkeptic would like to know what worked in his favor. Such feedback is both rare and valuable on this site.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Whoa whoa whoa. I was interested in your intuitive debates, so I decided to read one, dude. And I found that he did in better job in all aspects.
And also, do you pride yourself in taking debates personally?
When people vote against me, I don't take it personally at all!
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Lt.Zubin 7 years ago
Lt.Zubin
Republican95patsox834Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
Republican95patsox834Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Republican95patsox834Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 7 years ago
Scyrone
Republican95patsox834Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Republican95patsox834Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Republican95patsox834Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Republican95patsox834Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
Republican95patsox834Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Republican95patsox834Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12