The Instigator
Wilkins
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
diety
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is evidence that supports that there is a god and evidence that supports the christian God

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,144 times Debate No: 19969
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Wilkins

Pro

Question: Does God exist and what proof is there for your stance?

My View: Yes God does exist

Well I would first like to send out an open invitation and invite whomever wants to discuss this topic with me. This is always a meaty topic and is always fun to discuss.

Round 1- invitation/acceptance
Round 2- opening arguments
Round 3-4- rebuttals
Round 5- closing arguments

RULES
-no plagiarism
-no personal attacks
-provide solid evidence to back up statements

Like I said it should be fun and I'm looking forward to it.
diety

Con

Thank you for posting such a debate. Ontology is one of the many fields of debate that offers great philosophical insight. I look forward to having a fun and intellectual debate. I hope that this debate will be viewed devoid of biases or preconceived stances.

As you stated, the first round is merely acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
Wilkins

Pro

First I would like to thank me opponent for accepting this debate. This truly is a great discussion and like you said great for some great philosophical insight. I welcome the fact that we both agree that this debate should be viewed without biases.�

This is a really broad topic and I would first like to start out by presenting the main three points of the evidence for a creator and that this creator is indeed the christian. �I have quite a few more but I will just leave it at these main three because I don't know if I can fit the others.

1. The Cosmological Argument: This example is the biggest example of a creator. The common theory of how the universe began was that of the big bang theory. This theory states that the universe was originally a single mass that contains huge amounts of energy and matter. Then about 15 million years ago the energy and matter hit a point where it all spontaneously erupted with the energy in the mass finally making too much contact with the matter around it. This would be a sound theory except for two things:- How did all that matter get there?- At what point did this energy and matter spontaneously decide to blow?This is where the idea of a creator comes in. This idea is completely plausible because there are certain truths that are needed in order for this widely accepted theory to be true. The main one is that there can't be one thing from nothing. This is physically impossible because when one thing has a cause there needs to be a first cause to initiate that next cause. Now, we know that the universe had to have had an initial cause because we have observed that the universe is expanding suggesting the fact that it started in a single place with one cataclysmic event; hence the big bang. So, in order to have a big bang you would need a big banger.

2. Argument of design: if you look at life on the macro level on which I discussed above to the micro level the design in which it all fits together is so fine tuned that there has to be some sort of order/meaning behind it. There was a cosmologist by the name of Daniel Page who was one of the best at what he did says "that in order for life to exist, not just on this planet, but anywhere, is highly improbable that it was nearly impossible for it to happen by chance." He concluded that there was a 1/10 billion^120 power that life would exist and continue to flourish. Which means that if the world or cosmos changed in any way there would be no life. This points to a God Because of how all these things work together perfectly. Look at it this way when you look at a watch and all it's pieces you see everything working perfectly with one another, yet when you see this you don't think to yourself well that all came together through chance and time. No, you know that there was a watch maker. Well that is the same basic principle. Then like I said life at the micro level is also so advanced that even just a single cell is so fine tuned that it couldn't have happened by chance. The theory of evolution states that everything evolved from a single organism, but it fails to specify where this living organism cane from. As I stated above there cannot be something from nothing. So, there had to be a creator to make those living beings and and make all things co-exist as they do.

3. Moral law argument: throughout the world there are certain actions that are morally wrong in every culture and we can see that there are similarities between these things. If you really look at it how do we know what is right without someone telling us and how can someone truly know without being objective to a situation? If everything is made by man then why is the law above the man? Why are certain things that you just don't do? Because if there was not God then certain laws would be circular and have no meaning except for control. But why would someone want to control if they don't know what is wrong or right? How can someone know what is right and what they should do in a certain situation without an objective moral law? With no objective moral law we would have no idea what evil really is. We would have no conception of: what you just did was good so here's a reward or what you did was bad here's your punishment. There would be no law to live by because the government law had to have come from somewhere and at what point did we as a race appoint one high and mighty human to make our law for us that the whole world has to abide by. Nowhere that I can see. So, in order to have a moral law you need a moral law giver.

Again thanks to the opponent and I am very interested to see the opening arguments.

http://www.umich.edu...

http://plato.stanford.edu...

http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com...

DOES GOD EXIST: DEBATE BETWEEN THEIST AND ATHEIST. � � � �by J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen�
diety

Con

Alright then. Lets get things moving.

Before I get into my argument I want to make a few observations.

First of all, the resolution asks not only if the existence of any types of gods or god is evident, but if this is true in the context of a Christian god. This is not merely a stance of a deist, who simply argues that a creator is evident due to natural phenomena and leaves it at that. This is a theistic argument, by which the god aforementioned is personal, intelligent, has certain features and constantly intervenes with human affairs. Therefore, with that responsibility, it is PRO's job to prove that this SPECIFIC god exists, and has to reaffirm all the assertions and claims that religion makes.

Second, we must make it clear where the burden of proof lies. I've gotten in trouble in the past for simply sticking the burden of proof on the theologian so I'm going to do a little bit better than that. I'm going to say as your job is to give evidence and make your point. My job is to negate your evidence, and possibly give counter evidence. That's it. HOWEVER, it is not my job to PROVE the non-existence of the god you define, as these kinds of premises are usually inherently unfalsifiable. Thus, you can't use a lack of proof argument offensively towards me, rather you need to worry about stating your case and defending your evidence. Other types of arguments against me are fine, just not ones where you say that the premise can't be disproved.

Now I'm going to state my case and, if I have time, rebut your case.

1) Many religions

There are many religions all throughout history. Christianity was obviously not the first. In fact, most religions preceding Christianity were in fact polytheistic, meaning that they believed in the existence of many gods. There are many, many religions predating Christianity that supposedly explain how the universe was created and mankind's purpose on Earth. Yet, as they are very different from one another, you know that all assertions made by all of these religions cannot be simultaneously true. Why should I believe you claiming that some sort of god exists when a few thousand years back, Greeks were claiming that Zeus and his pals we're dominating the current heavens, while a large amount of gods preceding him we're responsible for his creation? Not to mention there is Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Aztec, Roman, and Norse mythologies. There is also Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and Confucianism. For PRO to support their god, they must at the same time deny the truth of all these other gods and explain why his religion is exclusively plausible and correct.

2) Nature of religion implies it was man made. For what other reason would there be so many religions other than the fact that they we're man made. Most religions were created by humans that lacked understanding in physics, cosmology, biology, and its environment. Assertions made by religions reflect this. Greek mythology claims that there is a god that carries the Earth, as is there a god with a chariot that pulls the sun across the sky. The Aztec mythology claims that the world went through various stages of creation and destruction, with four gods interchangeably becoming the sun and recreating the Earth as they saw fit. The Christian creation myth says that the Earth was created in 7 days and that man was created from dust, and woman from the rib of a man. Why are these claims so different? Nowadays, these claims are deemed absurd by the scientific community, and the religious euphemize these claims as being "metaphorical". Furthermore, most religions depict their gods as malevolent, egotistical, narcissistic jerks who, despite being perfect and almighty, demand worship and obedience. Such matches the imagination of savage, imperfectly evolved primates.

3) Theistic explanation. You seem to be arguing from the perspective of a deist. You're not going to get by that easily, my friend. As a theist, you have to do more than just argue that cause by the hands of a god is rational. You have to argue that this same being directed all of the events in the cosmos with us in mind.... or rather with YOU, ME, and every INDIVIDUAL in mind. You have to argue that this god is personal and constantly intervenes with our little human affairs. You have to argue that this god picks sides in our little tribal/religious conflicts, and that he suspend the laws of physics to give way to the miracles that your religion favors. You also have to argue that your god is an eternal judge, that either grants people eternal happiness in heaven or condemns people to eternal suffering in hell, and that these places exist in the first place. Also, you have to argue that this is a god that cares about our actions and morals, and that their are supernatural consequences for our actions here on earth.

The reason I'm doing a rebuttal this round is because it is necessary due to the circumstances of this debate. My argument is pretty much a counterargument.

Rebuttal:

1) Cosmological Argument
There are like four flaws in this argument. First, the big bang is supposedly 15 billion years ago. Second, you are arguing in the terms of a deist. You were supposed to make a case for the christian god right? Whatever happened to creation myth, and the 7 days god created the earth? Also, you make assumptions about the nature of the big bang as well as causality. For the big bang to occur, why would this need to be the doing of a being? Many events in nature occur on their own, so why can't the big bang? And if there was indeed some creator, who created the creator? Who made the banger of the big bang? Why can't the big bang itself be the first cause?

2) Argument of Design
Once again, this is a somewhat deist argument. Even then, it assumes that because life is assumed to be improbable, it couldn't have happened by chance. Could you cite the source on this please, because those are EXTREMELY slim and exaggerated odds. I can't think of ANY other phenomena with even remotely similar odds, or how you could justify assigning those kinds of odds.

http://www.science20.com...

Keep in mind that odds can only really be assigned based on what is observed. We have yet to observe most of the universe. We've barely discovered 500 planets. Even if another distant planet does have life on it, it would take years, if not eons for the light to reach Earth.

Also, you cannot relate a watch to that of an organism that evolves over time. Unlike a watch, which doesn't modify itself through its offspring, life constantly changes through its generations. Even a humble, primitive microscopic life form, over billions of years, can become a massive, complicated, "fine tuned" creature.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Organic matter can indeed derive from inorganic matter.

Also, I've read your sources, and I don't see how they pertain to your case or the debate, especially the Stanford one about quantum mechanics.

Since your arguing as a theist, instead of arguing with philosophical/pseudo-scientific reason, why not argue with scripture and revelation?

Since I don't have enough space to refute your 3rd argument, I'll do so in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Wilkins

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for those thoughtful arguments. He has given me a great deal to ponder and check into. Now, before I get started I would like to address a few things.

First off is your observation that I am arguing as a deist instead of a theist. This is not actually true because a deist is someone who believes that a god created everything and just let it loose. Well I never said that in any of my arguments. What I was doing was simply giving certain evidence for first a god that has to exist in my first two arguments. Then, in my third argument, I addressed that indeed there is a god that intervenes in our lives because he was the one who gave us the moral standards on which we live our lives.�

Secondly, is your question of arguing with scripture. The reason why I did not open the argument with scripture is because, as you know, atheists don't believe the bible is true anyways. So, to use scripture against someone who doesn't believe it's true is kind of irrelevant. It would be like a US citizen who is being tortured by someone from a different country say that they can't torture him because he is protected by the eighth amendment. This law has no influence on the way the torturer acts.

Now for my rebuttal.
1. Many religions: first I would like to mention that all the examples of religion you gave are all dead religions. The only ones you gave that aren't dead are Buddhism and Hinduism which, by definition, aren't religions at all they are ideas or ways in which you live your life. According to Dictionary.com a religion is the belief in a God or other superhuman agencies. Now, you could argue that Buddhism and Hinduism have this because they believe in karma. This is just a small part of the way these religions are because these religions deal more with the enlightenment of answers. Which really isn't a superhuman event. Now, as for the the existence of the other religions, yes these religions existed, and yes they were man made. Now the question is why did the Greeks, who prided themselves so much in their logic and philosophies, abandon their religion, that they had so creatively thought up, for the Christian faith? Why would they throw away all their ideologies for this "new" faith that was coming over the land? Simple answer would be Jesus of Nazareth. The history of the Greek/Roman gods lasted even up until the time of Jesus. Which means that a short time after the death of Jesus the whole religion that dominated the world changed. Now, in order to have this type of change their had to be a massive shift in the reason and evidence that people had to abandon their faith and adopt a new one that they didn't know anything about. Just the fact that we are having this debate right now shows how hard it is for people to do that. So the evidence that had to be put forth to sway so many people's views had to be so tremendous that it was almost miraculous. Hence the miracles done by Jesus. This faith didn't just impact the Romans and Greeks but the world around too.

2. Nature of religion: I'm not going to spend much time on this because most were answered above. However, I will say that just the fact that their is a universal "need" for a God proves that there has to be one out there. If there is a need for something then shouldn't it be there? Otherwise why would humans have a need for it in the first place? Next you say that the "myths" of religion are completely implausible because science has deemed them absurd, yet science cannot come up with an answer in which life got here. If thought about the notion in which life existed from a single cell is itself just as absurd as a creator creating everything. We have not observed a single cell mutating into a totally different organism. So, because science hasn't observed this the notion on which it lives by is just as absurd as an intelligent designer.

3. Theistic explanation: you say that I must prove that the God intervenes with us and our lives and that it is all for us. Well, I thought that was pretty clear. The fact that we live on the only planet out of the 500 or so planted that we have searched that is perfectly hospitable was in itself proof that He had us in mind. The thought was that if I prove God created the universe then yes he has us in mind because of the earth we live on. Now, when it comes to heaven and hell again it is kind of self proven that if God exists, specifically the christian God then heaven and hell would exist.

Defense
1. During my argument for this I didnt say that I believed in �all the facts of the big bang. I was simply pointing out what the common theory was, and then afterwards talking about the big holes within it. Dealing with the timeline of it would take entirely too long so I stuck with the main points. Now, this has to be the doing of a being because of time. We know that there is time because of the rotation of the earth and so because the earth has time, then, therefore, the universe in which the the earth is in must have time too. So, as we know with all time it has a beginning and end. So, under that notion the universe had to start somewhere. So, at what point would a universe create itself? That is highly impossible because this would suggest a mind to conceive what it was going to do which suggests an intelligent being. So, to answer your question is that to assume the universe created itself would be to assume that the universe has an intelligent mind, and to assume that would be to assume that the universe itself is a god. Which now goes on to your next question of who created God. Now, if God is an ultimate supreme being that is fully omnipotent why couldn't this God speak himself into existence. This theory originally came from St Anselm that stated that if he has unlimited power than this being could speak out of nothing and put himself there. In fact in John 1:1 it says "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God." So, taking that, it suggests that not only was the earth spoken into existence but that God himself had the word and He is made up of the word and His word made Him. So, he spoke himself into existence. Also I would just like to conclude that you said that there are many events that occur in nature without any cause to them. I would like just a few examples if you could.

2. I would like to say on this that you were right on the odds of human life existing, which was concluded by Dr. Harold Morowitz, was 1/10236. When I originally checked my source, which was a book that I have by the way, I had misread what that number had been referring to. Now, Dr. Morowitz concluded that at those odds it was nearly impossible for those kind of odds to happen. He also concluded that in order for those odds to happen there would need to be trillions and trillions of more years in the universe. Now, what I was referring the watch to was not the complexity of a cell, but the symbiosis of the world, and how perfectly the cycles work together.�

I am looking forward to your next thoughts.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://ontherightside.wordpress.com...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
http://m.dictionary.com...
diety

Con

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Wilkins

Pro

Wilkins forfeited this round.
diety

Con

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Wilkins

Pro

Wilkins forfeited this round.
diety

Con

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
good luck pro
Posted by Doppelgaenger 5 years ago
Doppelgaenger
Do you intend to
a) argue the fact that there is a God or some form of creator.
Or
b) that God exists and is in fact the christian God.
If B then I will accept.
Posted by Wilkins 5 years ago
Wilkins
That is why I made it so that in essence the topic of the debate is that of the question of does God exist or not? So that is why I made it so that round one was just them accepting the debate and letting me know we can get it started. Then after that we both open with why we each believe what we believe and thus begins afterwards the rebuttals of a debate. But I do understand what you are talking about and I just chose to do a different way.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
: @Wiploc No the way I set it up was the way anyone would have a public debate.

That's a little strong.

When I argue the problem of evil, I have to go first so that my opponent will know what he's responding to. If he tried to argue in the abstract, instead of responding to my argument, I would wind up dismissing his arguments as not relevant to the case I presented.

When I argue the moral argument for the existence of god, my opponent has to go first, so I have something to respond to. There's no point in me inventing a moral argument in order to refute it, only to have my opponent wave my opening post away as not having to do with the case he presented.

There are, of course, debates in which both sides agree to have the burden of proof. If we debated whether Obama or Rice should have the next presidential term, for instance, both sides would have a case to make without depending on the other to present something to discuss.

I don't see your proposed debate falling into the latter category. But that's okay, you may find an opponent who agrees with your format.
Posted by Wilkins 5 years ago
Wilkins
@Wiploc No the way I set it up was the way anyone would have a public debate. The way in which people debate publicly is that each side presents their own argument then each person engages the persons belief after that. There is no point in setting it up in such a way where only one persons presents their argument and then that starts the debate. If that makes sense.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
no because con needs to have arguments too
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Con's job is to refute Pro's argument, but you've set it up so he doesn't get to do that in round two.

Con needs to be able to refute as soon as Pro gives him something to refute.
Posted by Wilkins 5 years ago
Wilkins
@buckethead you are right in the fact that evidence is not much debatable topic but what I was saying was that if someone would make a statement that it's not a blatant statement without fact. Thanks for pointing that out I should have worded that better.
Posted by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
Fudge, I will debate you, but i'm a core Christian. I feel as if I would be sinning if I accept. Plus its a waste of your time if I agree because I obviously won't feel too passionate about my position.
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
Lol Wilkins I like your profile pic lol. I have actually been using that as my iphone wallpaper lolz
No votes have been placed for this debate.