The Instigator
dan564891
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Clash
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is more evidence that God does not exist, than there to is prove that he does.

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: 4/24/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,848 times Debate No: 23129
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

dan564891

Pro

Quite simple, really. Although there is no definitive evidence to disprove the existence of God, there is enough to assume that it is unlikely. On the flipside, there is not even the smallest amount of tangible evidence that God does exist.
Clash

Con

I accept this debate, and I'm looking forward to have a great debate with you.

And of course, welcome to debate.org :)

Pro argues that there is no evidence for the existence of God. I disagree. I think its simply just he who will not accept any. I will today only give one argument for the existence of God, which is the teleological argument.


The Teleological Argument

1: All designs imply a designer

2: There is great design in the universe

Conclusion: Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe (God)


We see great design in the universe which cannot have come by chance or coincidence. let me give some examples:

1) If the rate of expansion that took place following the Big Bang had been just one in a billion billion parts different (1/1018), the universe could not have come into being. [1]

2) If gravity were stronger, excessive ammonia and methane would collect in the Earth's atmosphere, which would have a most damaging effect on life. If it were weaker, the Earth's atmosphere would lose excessive quantities of water, making life impossible. [Ibid]

3) The Speed at which the Earth Revolves: If this were any slower, the temperature difference between day and night would grow enormously. If it were any faster, then atmospheric winds would reach enormous speeds, and cyclones and storms would make life impossible. [Ibid]

4) The Earth’s Magnetic Field: If this were any more powerful, very strong electromagnetic storms would arise. If it were any weaker, then the Earth would lose its protection against the harmful particles given off by the Sun and known as solar winds. Both situations would make life impossible. [Ibid]

5) The Earth’s Distance from the Sun: If this were any greater, the planet would grow very cold, the water cycle in the atmosphere would be affected, and the planet would enter an ice-age. If the Earth were any closer to the Sun, plants would burn up, the water cycle in the Earth's atmosphere would be irreparably damaged, and life would become impossible. [Ibid]


6) The Thickness of the Earth’s Crust: If the crust were any thicker, then an excessive amount of oxygen would be transferred to it from the atmosphere. If it were any thinner, the resulting amount of volcanic activity would make life impossible. [Ibid]

7) The Thickness of the Earth’s Crust: If the crust were any thicker, then an excessive amount of oxygen would be transferred to it from the atmosphere. If it were any thinner, the resulting amount of volcanic activity would make life impossible. [Ibid]


In The Mysterious Universe, the English physicist Sir James Jeans describes the flawless order in the universe:


A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician. [2]

This great fine-tuning of the universe proofs that a designer of the universe must exist. This cannot just have come by chance or coincidence. To say that is very illogical indeed. My opponent need to show us logicaly how these fine-tunings in fact came by chance or coincidence. If he cannot, then we must conclude that these fine-tunings must have been from a great designer.

But why must God be this designer?

Because that's the most logical thing to believe. If the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place. For example, imagine someone who wanted a job as a police man. To get this job, he must speak to the boss. When he speak to the boss, that boss says that he has to speak to his boss, and than the boss of that boss says that he must speak to his boss, and this went on forever. Would that guy ever get his job? No. It must be a boss who himself has no boss. In similar light if we apply this to the universe we would have to posit an uncaused cause due to this rational necessity. That cause must himself be uncaused, and this being is no more than God, who himself is not caused.

Conclusion
I have clearly shown that the universe has great design in it, and that God must be behind it. For Pro to disprove this argument, he have to show us how the universe could in fact have come by chance or coincidence, and at the same time disprove all the clear examples of design which I showed. If he cannot, we must conclude that God exist.
Debate Round No. 1
dan564891

Pro

Thanks very much for your well written and well thought out opening argument. But I do question one thing - you mentioned "There is great design in the universe". I assume that by "great" you mean large and complex, and not that the design itself is good or perfect? Because it is not. Please could you clarify what you meant in your next response.

And thank you for your suggestion that I must show the Universe came into being by chance. However if it's alright with you, I will instead go down another road...

Of course, if you are initiating the argument of a designer, you must also be arguing that the Universe, and indeed, life, had a beginning. Meaning there was a point before it existed. For life, at least life on Earth, that is of course true, but for the Universe? I'm not so sure.

Imagine The Big Bang taking place approximately in the centre of the already existing Universe almost 14 billion years ago. Just a theory, but perhaps caused by the death of a star, or implosion of a galaxy, something of that nature. I think that it's fair to assume and perhaps has already been proven, that a significant amount of outward force was created by The Big Bang. Now imagine any and all of the elements that were around at that time being pushed further out into space by that force.... so far out that their light has yet to reach us and in all likelihood will never reach us. This theory fits in perfectly well with the scientific evidence that the Universe is expanding, thus it has to at least be considered. And, I argue, it makes much more logical and theoretical sense than a "creator".

The point I am trying to make is that with this theory, The Big Bang was not the beginning of the Universe. It would simply have been an event, the likes of which are not too difficult to imagine happening constantly in the Universe. It is just one of a number of theories that aim to prove the Universe is eternal, by which I mean it had no beginning, hence, no creator. It has always been there and quite possibly always will be.

Considering that you cannot definitively prove the existence of God, you must first eliminate all the scientifically plausible explanations before your "designer" argument can be accepted as fact.
Clash

Con

Thank you. And what I meant with great design, is as you said, that its 'large and complex'. And it is, as I demonstrated in my first round.

Now, I can see that Pro makes some claims in his second round. I will like to address them, one by one.

'Of course, if you are initiating the argument of a designer, you must also be arguing that the Universe, and indeed, life, had a beginning. Meaning there was a point before it existed. For life, at least life on Earth, that is of course true, but for the Universe? I'm not so sure.'

I'm indeed arguing that the universe had a beginning. We know scientifically that the universe began to exist with the big bang. As a teacher, you should know that. To say that the universe did not began to exist is both scientifically wrong and absurd.


'Imagine The Big Bang taking place approximately in the centre of the already existing Universe almost 14 billion years ago. Just a theory, but perhaps caused by the death of a star, or implosion of a galaxy, something of that nature. I think that it's fair to assume and perhaps has already been proven, that a significant amount of outward force was created by The Big Bang. Now imagine any and all of the elements that were around at that time being pushed further out into space by that force.... so far out that their light has yet to reach us and in all likelihood will never reach us. This theory fits in perfectly well with the scientific evidence that the Universe is expanding, thus it has to at least be considered. And, I argue, it makes much more logical and theoretical sense than a "creator".

Pro claims that the universe may perhaps have been caused 'by the death of a star, or implosion of a galaxy, something of that nature.' Two problems with this: 1) No evidence 2) What or who caused that star and that galaxy then? Did it just come by itself? 3) We have seen stars die in the universe, and no star creates a universe after it dies. 4) We don't know if implosions can happen with a galaxy. We have never observed something like that. This is most of what he says here. Well, he also says that the universe is expanding, which is true, but this doesn't prove anything.


Basically, Pro mostly just give non-evidenced theories here, and he doesn't disprove my case in any way.


'The point I am trying to make is that with this theory, The Big Bang was not the beginning of the Universe. It would simply have been an event, the likes of which are not too difficult to imagine happening constantly in the Universe. It is just one of a number of theories that aim to prove the Universe is eternal, by which I mean it had no beginning, hence, no creator. It has always been there and quite possibly always will be.'


Pro claims two things here:


1) The Big Bang was not the beginning of the Universe


This is completely wrong. The universe began to exist some 14-16 billion ago by a big bang. This is a scientific fact which you will find in any science textbook.

2) The Universe had no beggining and is eternal


By saying this, Pro basically tries to destroy my whole argument. Indeed, if the universe was eternal, there would be no need for a creator. Unfurtanetely, this argument is a 19th-century Atheist fallacy. This argument doesn't stand basically because of this reason alone:



The Big Bang


In contrast to what Atheist's claimed, the universe was in fact not eternal. It began to exist with the Big Bang. This discovery was made by Edwin Hubble, who also discovered that the universe was expanding. Dennis Sciama described the final position they had reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang theory:

'There was at that time a somewhat acrimonious debate between some of the proponents of the steady state theory and observers who were testing it and, I think, hoping to disprove it. I played a very minor part at that time because I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true. When hostile observational evidence became to come in, Fred Hoyle took a leading part in trying to counter this evidence, and I played a small part at the side, also making suggestions as to how the hostile evidence could be answered. But as that evidence piled up, it became more and more evident that the game was up, and that one had to abandon the steady state theory.' [1]

Alex Vilenkin, one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists, writes:
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” [2]


John Gribbin, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University, says:


“…the discovery of the century, in cosmology at least, was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the Universe is not eternal, static, and unchanging.” [ibid]


So, in contrast to what Pro claims, the universe had a beggining and is not eternal. To say that the universe is eternal is anyway just illogical.


Sources

Debate Round No. 2
dan564891

Pro

Thanks for your speedy response. I will first address the problems you had with my argument, before moving on to another.

You claim that The Big Bang Theory is a scientific fact, well actually, The Big Bang Theory is just that... a theory. It is widely accepted and makes logical sense, but it can only ever be applied to the observable Universe and what we have so far learned.

You are also correct that my theory about "the death of a star" or "implosion of a galaxy" has no evidence to support it, but it is a lot more plausible than your theory of a designer.

I see that you have jumped to the conclusion that since I am questioning the existence of a God, I must be an Atheist. I am not. I do not deny the possibility of God. I am arguing that there is not enough evidence the support his existence.

I'd like to go back to your opening argument if I may. You asked yourself, "Why must God be this designer", then answered, "because that's the most logical thing to believe".

I think a better way to state this would be...

"God is a temporary answer that is accepted by some, until definitive evidence can be found to prove his existence is false" .

Not only is this statement true for the origins of the Universe, but it's also true for any form of human or natural behaviour that religion attributes to God.

You included some quotes from famous scientists including Alex Vilenkin and John Gribbin. These quotes however are not relevant to my argument in any way since they are discussing facts available to us only in the observable Universe, without any thought as to what is beyond it, which was the basis of my whole argument.

I would like to repeat one of my statements. Could you please provide me with your thoughts about it -

"Considering that you cannot definitively prove the existence of God, you must first eliminate all the scientifically plausible explanations before your "designer" argument can be accepted as fact."

I hope that I have made my point clear that you cannot simply claim that the universe is designed, as you only have the information currently available to you from which to construct your arguments. Before you can state with any certainty that the universe was created, you would need to be able to travel faster than the speed of light to access the potential evidence. And we both know that this is currently impossible.

Moving on from the "designer" argument, I would like to ask you a question... do you believe that God is omnipotent?

I ask because many religions believe their God is omnipotent, meaning he is all powerful and can do anything. I think that one of the main reasons for doubting the existence of God is that, although he is omnipotent, he does nothing to stop the terrible things that occur on our planet. Things such as floods, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are just a few examples. An all powerful God could surely prevent these things from happening. This leads to only three possible results -

1. God is not omnipotent.

2. God does not care.

3. God does not exist.

If the answer is number one or two, what is the purpose of God? If the answer is only number two, it would almost make him a psychopath who enjoys watching people suffer, which would lead me to ask... why would anyone want a God?

Therefore the only sensible answer is number three... God does not exist.

I want to add that you cannot simply say this is God's Plan, as this provides me with no evidence at all.

Thank you.
Clash

Con

Thank you also for your speedy response.

You said that the big bang is a theory. Indeed, it is a theory, but its a proven one. In contrast to what you said, the big bang can be applied to the observable universe. In fact, the conclusion that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, was due to observing the universe.

You then said that your theory of the star and galaxy stuff, is more plausible than my theory of the designer. Seriously? Let us say that our universe began after a star died or after the implusion of a galaxy, where did that star or galaxy come from then? I said that there is great design in the universe, and all design imply a designer. I clearly also showed some of that design. Now, do you think this design came by chance or coincidence? All design must have a designer behind it. This is a logical fact.

And I'm sorry for believing that you where a Atheist. Questioning the existence of a God doesn't of course mean that you are a Atheist, but in your profile you said that you was an Atheist, so that's why I tought you was a Atheist.


Indeed, the most logical thing to believe, is that God is the designer. I clearly explained why, and you clearly didn't answer me. You only said that 'God is a temporary answer that is accepted by some, until definitive evidence can be found to prove his existence is false'. Okay? How does this prove my case of the designer? There are no definitive evidence which can disprove God, and I think its almost impossible to really disprove something like God. So until strong evidence is put forward, your argument is basically nothing. Also, I would like to give you a better understanding of why I said that the most logical thing to believe is that God is the designer.

You may say that it was not God who created the universe, but for example a alien or something. The question which arises then is who created the person who created the universe. If you continue like this, this is what will happen: Creation itself would go on in infinity. There have to be a being which was not himself created but who created everything, so the creation itself would be possible. Creation cannot just go on in infinity. The only logical answer to all of creation is God. You may say that it was someone else than God who created the universe, but than the question as to who created that person arises. And so comes the question as to who created the one who created the universe. And so comes the question as to who created the one who created the one who created the universe, and it would go like that in infinity. Creation itself would be... impossible. If you say God, then you cannot ask who created God, because God by his by his own definition, non-created.

Now, we know that the universe had a cause, because everything which begin to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist with the big bang. If that wasn't the case, you would see things pupping out here and there non-caused. But that does not happen. We see complexity and a great order in the universe and everything in it. This is a metaphysical prinicple: A being cannot come from non-being; something cannot come into existence uncaused from nothing. It is thus absurd to say that the universe should pop into being uncaused out of nothing. [2]

Even if we say that God did not cause the universe, but a alien or something, that will only prove that a uncaused being must exist, because of the absurdity of an infinite history of past causes This being is God, who by his own definition is uncaused. But of course, to say that a alien or something created the universe anyway, like Atheist Richard Dawkin says, is itself a illogical and non-proven 'idea'.

'You included some quotes from famous scientists including Alex Vilenkin and John Gribbin. These quotes however are not relevant to my argument in any way since they are discussing facts available to us only in the observable Universe, without any thought as to what is beyond it, which was the basis of my whole argument.'


These quotes may not be relevant to your argument, but its to mine. I was quoting these scientists to prove my point that the big bang is true, and thus refuting your claim. That's all.


You said that we cannot know certainly if the universe was created. I disagree. We can know with certainly that the universe was created, and you don't give any good reasons as to why we cannot. We can know with certainly that our universe was created, by simply opserving the amazing universe, and I gave clear examples of design which must have a creator behing. I can give many more, but time and space doesn't allow me that. We can conclude by what we know today of the universe, that a designer must be behind it, because we see great design in the universe. Simple as that. If not certainly, at least, without a doubt, probably.

Concerning your question if I believe that God is omnipotent. Yes, of course I do.

Now, Pro made a argument against God. He said that a omnipotent God cannot exist, because he let's terrible things happen like floods and earthquakes. This argument is pretty much like the problem of evil argument. First of all, this argument cannot prove that God doesn't exist. You cannot say that X doesn't exist because X let's Y happen, when Y will still be there after you have taken X out of the picture. If you say that its X which let's Y happen, then you are basically saying that X exist. If X doesn't exist according to you, then you cannot say that X is the cause of Y happening, because X doesn't exist. If you say that X exist, then your whole argument in the first place, is not valid. I hope you understood what I meant. By the way, 'X' is for God, and 'Y' is for terrible things like floods and earthquakes.



So, you cannot say that God doesn't exist because he let's terrible things like floods and earthquakes happen. However, you can say that God is cruel or evil because he let's terrible things happen. To solve this problem, some people have two gods. The one is good and the other is evil. Some have also said that its not God who causes all this evil and suffering, but the devil.


As a Muslim, I can only give you the Islamic view point as to why terrible things happens. According to Islam, God is the creator of everything, even evil. Muslims completely knows that, but we don't deny him for that, because we know that this life is only a test, and that terrible things, evil, and suffering is a part of that test. How can you have real test without this? So to a Muslim, this argument is not valid at all. This argument only proves the belief of Muslims that evil and suffering exist, and that its from God, but that's because this life is only a test, and it rationaly follows that a real test should have suffering, evil and terrible things in it. I can give you many other reasons, but I think this reason alone is enough to completely refute this argument.

You also asked me if I could give my toughts on this:

"Considering that you cannot definitively prove the existence of God, you must first eliminate all the scientifically plausible explanations before your "designer" argument can be accepted as fact."

I don't agree that you cannot definitively prove the existence of God, and thus this whole argument in the first place, is not valid. The designer explanation is the best one. Its you who have to give another explanation, and tell us why that explanation is better. If you cannot, we must conclude that the designer argument is the most plausible explanation. And in concern to all the design in the universe, it indeed is. What other explanation will you come up with? Chance?



Sources

[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... From William Lane Craig's book, Reasonable faith.
Debate Round No. 3
dan564891

Pro

Thanks again.

I think you misunderstood something I said. You wrote... "In contrast to what you said, the big bang can be applied to the observable universe."

I'm aware of this fact... that is exactly what I said. I tried to make the point that The Big Bang Theory can ONLY be applied to the observable Universe. You have to admit that it's possible for matter to exist beyond what our most powerful telescopes can see and detect. That was my argument, I apologise if I didn't make it clear enough.

Also, I need to make an apology. My profile did indeed say I was an Atheist, but I have since changed that to Agnostic. That was my own mistake, as I failed to see Agnostic listed in the options.

You went on to say... "and I think it's almost impossible to really disprove something like God."

I totally agree with you. But at the same time, you have no choice but to agree with me, in that it's equally almost impossible to prove that God DOES exist.

Then you said... "until strong evidence is put forward your argument is basically nothing."

The same is true for argument.

I still maintain that it will be impossible to know how the Universe really began, or if it was created, until we are able to travel faster than the speed of light. Until we reach that point, I think it's best to agree that no one knows. It is cheating to say, "of course, it was God.". Anyone who says that they definitely know how the universe began is lying.

I'd like to add this... you keep saying that God is the logical answer. Just because something is logical, does not make it true. Just like me, you have no evidence.

Have you heard of M theory? M theory suggests The Big Bang was caused by the colliding of two other Universes, of which there is an infinite amount. You cannot say a designer is responsible for this, as infinite means they go on forever, as does the creation of additional Universes.

One final thing thing concerning the "designer" argument. I'd like to ask a question, and please think carefully about it before responding. Is it not at all possible, even by the smallest margin, that the Universe was created by chance?

My algebra was never very good, so I'm afraid you confused me a little bit with all your Xs and Ys. I'll have to skip that bit, I'm sorry.

As you are a Muslim, you must know that Jesus Christ is part of your religion. But he is also the central figure of Christianity. This confuses me. Christianity was formed after the death of Christ. You must also know that Islam was created after Christianity. This leads me to believe that the views of Islam are completely man made, fictional and could not even exist without Christianity.

Can you explain this?

A few more questions I'd like you to answer -

Why does God create people who do not believe in him?

What about people who are born in places such as the rainforest, who don't have access to holy books, or the teachings of others? Will they be punished, or sent to Hell? What exactly is the point of their existence if they are not even aware of the concept of religion?

If God is almighty and really so powerful, can he make 2 and 2 add up to 5 ?

What about the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks? How could they possibly know about Jesus Christ, and therefore Islam (which contains Jesus) if he was born thousands of years later? How could they know about the God of Islam and Christianity?

If life is a test, and God really does know everything, why does he bother creating the people that he knows will fail?

I have lots more questions, but if you could answer these, I'd really appreciate it, thank you.
Clash

Con

I'm sorry for my little late response. I have been a little busy these days.

You said 'I'm aware of this fact... that is exactly what I said. I tried to make the point that The Big Bang Theory can ONLY be applied to the observable Universe. You have to admit that it's possible for matter to exist beyond what our most powerful telescopes can see and detect. That was my argument, I apologise if I didn't make it clear enough.'

I'm sorry, my fault. I agree that it's possible for matter to exist beyond what our most powerful telescopes can see and detect. But that doesn't prove anything. At least not my case.

You said 'I totally agree with you. But at the same time, you have no choice but to agree with me, in that it's equally almost impossible to prove that God DOES exist.'
I disagree. Its much easier to prove something, than disproving it. I gave a argument for the existence of God which I believe prove the existence of God. You have yet not refuted it.

You said that 'it will be impossible to know how the Universe really began, or if it was created, until we are able to travel faster than the speed of light.'
Just because we are not able to travel faster than the speed of light, that doesn't mean it will be impossible to know how the universe began.

You then said 'I'd like to add this... you keep saying that God is the logical answer. Just because something is logical, does not make it true. Just like me, you have no evidence.'
I gave a argument which I believe proves the existence of God, and you have not refuted it. Instead, you begin talking about other things, like the universe being eternal and asking questions of why God lets this and that happen.
You also said that the Big Bang may have caused by the colliding of two other universes. Evidence? And how can the colliding of two universes create another universe? Anyway, I suppose you are talking about the Multiverse Theory, right? If so, this theory cannot disprove God, the design argument or that the Big Bang was caused by some other universes, because of these two reasons:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever for this theory, and thus its not valid.

2. Even if it was true, it would not disprove God. If you say that our universe came from a another universe, then that just arises the question as to who created the universe that our universe came from. And so we come to the infinity thing. No matter how much universes it exist, something must have caused the absolute first universe, of which all the other universes came from. The other universes didn't just come by itself. The universe, or universes, didn't either just exist by itself at infinity time. That's absurd! The only logical answer to the universe existence, or universes, and all creation for that sake of the matter, is God. In other words, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. And the first cause have to be God. Everything must have a cause. It is impossible to continue backwards to infinity with causes, therefore there must have been a first cause which was not conditioned by any other cause. That cause must be God, because the cause or creator must be uncaused due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes. And God is by his own definition, uncaused.

Now, Pro has asked some questions here. I would like to answer them, and I hope my answers will satisfy you.

1: You asked me if the universe could have come by chance. The chance is of course always there, but its extremely small. Will you believe in what is probable or improbable?

2: Concerning your question about Jesus and Christianity etc. First of all, according to Muslims, Islam was not a new religion, invented after Christianity. According to Muslims, there are only one religion of God, and it has always been. This religion is Islam, which simply means submiting your will to God. From the first humens, this is what God told them to do. He told them to submit yourself to God (Islam). This is what all prophets did and told their people to do. Mosa, Jesus, Noah, Abraham, Muhammed and all prophets of God (Peace be upon them all) submited their will to God. They all came by one message: Submit yourself to God and to him alone. So there are just one religion and it has always been so, but people corrupted the true religion of God and created their own. People added and took away from the teachings of the true prophets, and after a while the whole true teaching was corrupted.
And even if Islam was invented after Christianity, how would that make Islam man-made and fictional? And yes, Jesus exist in Christianity and Islam, but that doesn't mean anything. Also, could you explain me how Islam could not exist without Christianity?

3: You asked, why does God create people who do not believe in him? God created us to test us if we will believe in him or not, and he gave us a free will to do that. Its not God who makes you to disbelieve, its you by your own free will who don't believe in him.

4: According to Islam, all people of all time was given a prophet from God which told them to submit and worship God alone (Islam in other words), but if some people never hear this mesagge their whole life, they will be given a second chance in the afterlife.

5: If God is almighty and really so powerful, can he make 2 and 2 add up to 5? Yes, because he is omnipotent. But you are saying that since God is almighty, He can do anything which includes failure and absurdity. This is irrational and is like saying “an almaghty being cannot be an almaghty being”. What must be understood is that failure and absurdity is not an aspect of omnipotence. This goes also with the stone paradox.

6: Concerning your question about the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks. God does not punish any people until He has first sent a warning to them and unless there is evidence against them. God says in the Quran: “… And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning).” (al-Israa’ 17:15)

Again, the message of Islam was sent to all people and time, so the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks probably got a messanger. We know God sent Moses to the ancient Egyptians, and it was probably at least one that told the Greeks to worship God and him alone. However, if that didn't happen, then they will get a second chance in the day of resurrection. If they obey, they will enter Paradise and if they disobeys, they will enter Hell.

7: If life is a test, and God really does know everything, why does he bother creating the people that he knows will fail? God can, if he wants, choice not to know something. He knows it and can know it, but choses not to. And so he can choice not to know if we will believe in him or not. Of course, believing in God and you pass. Not believing in God, and you fail.
Debate Round No. 4
dan564891

Pro

As this is my last round, I want to thank my opponent for a great debate. I look forward to debating with him many more times in the future and I wish him luck.

On my theory of infinite Universes, you argued that God must still have created the very first Universe. But the whole point of an infinite number of Universes is that there was no "first" Universe. Just like I can count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.... etc, I can also count -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6 and go on forever. Do you see? There is no first number, just as there would have been no first Universe.

Also on the theory of a Multiverse, you said, "There is no evidence whatsoever for this theory, thus it is not valid."

Well the exact same can be said for the theory of God.

I was very glad to read that you agree with me that there is a possibility that the Universe was created by chance. That was my point.

You then asked me if I believe in what is probable or improbable. Well, it is highly improbable to me that the Universe was created and is controlled by an eternal being who has the power to do anything, then spends his time doing nothing.

You have asked me to explain how Islam could not exist without Christianity. Well, the complete Bible was finished several centuries before the Qur'an was. And the Qur'an mentions passages from the Bible a few times. Islam is therefore a follow up religion. Imagine that you made a film about a man who swims around the world. Then imagine that hundreds of years later, I made another film about a different man who also swims around the world. Who would you say had the original idea?

I asked you why God creates people who do not believe in him. You replied, "It's by your own free will who don't believe in him". This is nonsense. If God is omnipotent, then we have no free will, do we?

You said, "if some people never hear this message (meaning the concept of religion), they will be given a second chance in the afterlife."

I don't wish to insult you or your religion, but it seems that Islam, quite conveniently, has all the angles covered, just in case one day, someone might challenge it. Your answers are not convincing me, sorry.

When I asked if God could make 2 and 2 add up to 5, you answered, "Yes, because he is omnipotent."

I don't really have much to say about this, except that everybody knows that this is impossible to do. There is no mathematical or scientific way to achieve it. To say "yes" is a laughable answer.

Your answer to my question concerning Ancient Egyptians and Greeks is also unacceptable. You are telling me that people went back in time, thousands of years to spread the word of God as he is known in Islam? Impossible to prove. I also question your remarks about the Greeks, didn't they worship Zeus, among others? How can you be sure that Zeus is not the real God?

As for your final answer, " God can, if he wants, choose not to know something", I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous answer, that suggests even if there were a God, he is useless and pointless.

It comes down to this... I am openly saying that I don't know whether or not there is a God. My opponent is saying that he KNOWS there is a God. As he is the one making the claim, it is up to him to provide the evidence. So far he has not provided me with enough to convince me of God's existence. My opponent has provided, just as I have, opinions. Nothing more than guesses and estimates, even though he is saying that he knows God exists. He clearly does not know. He believes. A belief is not a fact.

I want to leave you all with this final thought, which I made in one of the earlier rounds -

God is a temporary answer that is accepted by some, until definitive evidence can be found to prove his existence is false.

Thank you.
Clash

Con

Pro argues that a infinite number of universes exist, and that there was no "first" universe. As I said, this is absurd. There have to exist a uncaused being which caused the absolute first universe of which all the other universes came from, because if the cause of the universe had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place. Basically, if the universe 1, followed another temporal cause (2), and universe 2 followed another temporal cause (universe 3), and this went on ad infinitum, we wouldn’t have the universe 1 in the first place. So a uncaused being have to exist because of this rational necessity, and this being is no more than God himself, who are uncaused. However, this theory is not proven anyway, and thus I don't even have to try and refute it.

You said that 'it is highly improbable to me that the Universe was created and is controlled by an eternal being who has the power to do anything, then spends his time doing nothing.'

That's your opinion, and thus I don't need to say more than that. But I gave clear examples of design which must have a creator behind, and clearly showed that a uncaused being must exist, because of the absurdity of a infinitive regress of past causes. Also, you don't know what God did after that or this, and so you cannot say that he spend his time doing nothing. He probably does something.

You said 'Well, the complete Bible was finished several centuries before the Qur'an was. And the Qur'an mentions passages from the Bible a few times. Islam is therefore a follow up religion.'

Just because the Bible was finished several centuries before the Quran was, and the Qur'an mentions passages from the Bible a few times, that doesn't mean that Islam could not exist without Christianity. Also, Islam is not a follow up religion. As I said, Islam is not a new religion which was invented after Christianity. Islam has always been and will always be. And even if Islam was a follow up religion, that would not prove that it could not exist without Christianity. You answers to my question as to how Islam could not exist without Christianity, is a failure.
You asked 'If God is omnipotent, then we have no free will, do we?'.

According to Islam, even due God is omnipotent, we have a free will. God knows everything, including if we will believe in him or not, but our choice of believing in God or not, is completely ours. God knows if we will believe in him or not, from our free will. Let me give a example: You made a choice to disobey God. God did of course not force you to disobey him. You made that choice. But God knew that you would make that choice, because he is all-knowing. Just because God knew that you would disobey him, and the fact that He permitted you to do so, does not change the fact that you had free will and made the choice yourself. What you did, is just confirming what God already knew.

You said '..but it seems that Islam, quite conveniently, has all the angles covered, just in case one day, someone might challenge it. Your answers are not convincing me, sorry.'

I didn't understand what you meant with that. Anyway, I'm sorry my answer wasn't convincing for you.

You said 'I don't really have much to say about this, except that everybody knows that this is impossible to do. There is no mathematical or scientific way to achieve it. To say "yes" is a laughable answer.'

That was not all I said. What I said after that is basically that God can do everything, but to say that God can do anything which includes even things which is impossible, is irrational and absurd, because what must be understood is that things which is impossible, is not an aspect of omnipotence. Its like saying “an omnipotent being cannot be an omnipotent being.'

Concerning the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks. You said that I said that people went back in time, thousands of years to spread the word of God as he is known in Islam. This is not what I said at all. You are making a straw man here. Please, read again what I said, carefully. Islam is NOT a new religion. God sent prophets to all people of all time whith the message to submit to God and him alone (Islam). However, if some people never heard this message, then they will get a second chance in the afterlife. And in my opinion, Zeus was not a real God. He was just one of hundreds of other pagan idol gods which the Greeks worshiped.

You then said 'As for your final answer, " God can, if he wants, choose not to know something", I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous answer, that suggests even if there were a God, he is useless and pointless.'

I really don't see why God is useless and pointless just because he choses to not know something. If I chose not to know if Barcelona will win against Real-madrid, would that make me useless and pointless? I can, by simply just seeing it at TV, but choses not to.


Summary

Pro has failed to refute my argument in my first round, which was the teleological argument. He also failed to refute my argument that a uncaused being must exist because of the absurdity of an infinite history of past causes. The closest he came to refute my arguments, is saying that the universe is eternal and thus doesn't need a creator, and giving the multiverse theory. I refuted both of these.

Also, a lot of what Pro said doesn't have anything to do with my case. He for example started to ask questions about God and Islam. These questions doesn't disprove God or my case, and I don't know why Pro started making arguments against God which he thought disproves God, when he said in his first round that there is no definitive proof that God does not exist. It was me who should give evidence for God, and when I gave them, he completely failed to refute them. I on the other hand refuted every claim Pro made, like the universe being eternal and coming from another universe (The Multiverse Theory). I also answered all the questions which Pro gave. Pro also gave zero sources. I strongly urge a vote for Con.

Thank you and thank you Dan for this great debate. I'm also looking forward to exchange other views with you in the future.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.