The Instigator
gahbage
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
CJ
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

To be chosen.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,067 times Debate No: 4828
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

gahbage

Pro

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. Here's how the debate will work:

Contender R1: Propose 3 resolutions of varying topics.

Instigator R2: Choose a resolution to debate.

Contender R2: Choose "PRO" or "CON", and first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal.
CJ

Con

I, also, accept this debate and propose the following topics:
-God exists
-We were justified in starting the war in Iraq and staying there now
-We should not have a progressive tax.
For whatever chosen topic, I will take an affirmative position.
Debate Round No. 1
gahbage

Pro

I will go CON for "God exists". First or second?

100 characters
100 characters
100 characters
100 characters
CJ

Con

My first argument is a form of the Cosmological Argument. It has three simple, deductive steps:

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
A) This claim is easily verified. EVERYTHING that we see come into existence has a cause. No one reading this is afraid that a ravenous lion is going to just appear in front of them. Why? Because we all know that the lion would have to be put there; the lion would have to have a cause for beginning to exist there.

2) The universe began to exist.
A) My first way of verifying this claim is going to be philosophical (so read attentively). If the universe didn't exist, it would have an infinite amount of past events, an infinite amount of past things would have happened. However, an infinite amount of things cannot happen. Why? The easiest way to explain why is to show the contradictions that arise when working with infinities. Pretend that I have an infinite amount of marbles. I give you all my marbles. I have none now. Therefore, infinite minus infinite equals 0. Now pretend that I get another infinite amount of marbles. I give you half (half of infinite is infinite). Now you have an infinite amount and I have an infinite amount. Infinite minus infinite equals infinite. Earlier infinite minus infinite equaled 0. Therefore, an infinite amount of things can't exist in reality because it creates contradictions. David Hilbert,the German mathematician, sums this point up when he said, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." Therefore, the universe could not have had an infinite amount of past events. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning.
B) My second way of verifying this claim is scientific. This way is easy. The most prevailing model of the universe for the past 75 years, the Big Bang model, shows that the universe must have had a beginning, with that beginning being called the Big Bang.

3) The universe had a cause.
A) this claim follows logically from the past two premises.

Having said this, I will explain the properties that this cause would have. It would exist outside of the universe, thereby being immaterial. It would be extremely powerful, in order to make the universe. It would be personal, in order to decide to make the universe (this personal, extremely powerful, and immaterial creator of the universe would be God, in case you missed that).

My second argument is the Teleological Argument. The teleological argument is typically in a biological form (evolution, life, etc.). However, debating evolution is very...well...I find it too long, difficult, and unnecessary. I've found that the physical form of this argument, specifically the fine-tuning argument, is much easier and convincing. This argument has two steps.

1) The universe shows signs of extreme, extreme, extreme, literally incomprehensibly extreme fine-tuning for supporting life.(many examples of this can be shown, but I will limit myself to 2.)
a) My first example will be the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is a term in Einstein's equation that, when positive, acts like a repulsive forces and, when negative, acts as a contracting force. The cosmological constant must be extremely small in order to have the correct amount of repulsion in the universe. Robin Collins (an Associate Professor of Philosophy) states that the odds of the cosmological constant falling into a life-permitting range are 1 to 10^53. That may not look that massive, but, for comparison, recognize the fact that the number of seconds since the beginning of the universe is 10^18. The odds that the cosmological constant would permit life, written in its full form is 1 to 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
B) My next example of fine-tuning is gravity. I'm sure that we all know what gravity is so I will not explain it. Robin Collins also estimates that the odds of gravity being in the life-permitting range are 1 to 10^36. This, written in full form, is 1 to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000.

2) This extreme fine-tuning requires a designer.
A) This fine-tuning obviously requires a designer. For anyone to claim that this degree of fine-tuning occurred by chance is ridiculous.

Now, I will examine some of the properties of this designer. These examples of fine-tuning occurred at the creation of the universe. The fact that this designer existed to design them at the beginning of the universe shows that this designer exists outside the universe. This designer would also have to be extremely powerful, in order to design the universe. This designer would also have to be personal, in order to want to design the universe to such an extreme level to support life (this immaterial, powerful, and personal designer would be God, by the way).
Debate Round No. 2
gahbage

Pro

I'll address my opponent's claims, then provide some of my own.

My opponent's argument is in the form of a syllogism:

p (existence) -> (implies) q (having a cause)
p (the universe exists)
Therefore, q (the universe has a cause)

This is agreeable, and does not support his position; of course the universe had a cause. However, as I am not familiar with quantum physics and the like, I will unfortunately have to refer to Wikipedia for evidence of the Big Bang.

Big Bang: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Quantum mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org...

^Those are your causes for the universe existing.

"It would exist outside of the universe, thereby being immaterial. It would be extremely powerful, in order to make the universe. It would be personal, in order to decide to make the universe (this personal, extremely powerful, and immaterial creator of the universe would be God, in case you missed that)."

Just as Puck said [I already knew this, so don't accuse me of taking help from commentators], nothing can exist outside of space, and even if it was possible, it could not interact with our universe. So this point is false.

My opponent's next argument relies on the BELIEF that, essentially, something had to design life's complexities. Not only is this merely an assumption, giving no valid evidence, but it is slightly absurd. If a philosopher was able to discover these ridiculous chances, then they are obviously not too complex for human, which means they could not be supernatural[ly designed] in any way.

"The fact that this designer existed to design them at the beginning of the universe shows that this designer exists outside the universe."

See "nothing can exist outside of space", etc.

===============================================================================

Now I will provide some common syllogisms as to why God, logically, cannot exist.

1)
a. If God exists, he is immutable.
b. If God exists, he is perfectly loving.
c. An immutable being, by definition, cannot be affected by events.
d. To be all-loving, a God must be affected by events.
e. But it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from c and d)
f. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from a, b, and e).

2)
a. If God exists, he is omnipotent.
b. An omnipotent being, by definition, is capable of performing ANY action.
c. So, God can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it (from a and b)
d. But if God cannot lift the stone, then he is not omnipotent (from b)
e. Furthermore, if God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (from b)
f. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from a, b, c, d, and e).

3)
a. If God exists, he is perfectly loving.
b. If God is perfectly loving, reasonable non-belief does not occur.
c. However, reasonable non-belief does occur.
d. So, God is not perfectly loving (from b and c).
e. Therefore, God does not exist (from a and d).

That will be all for now.
CJ

Con

CJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
gahbage

Pro

Extend all my points...

100 characters
100 characters
100 characters
100 characters
100 characters
CJ

Con

CJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
gahbage

Pro

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring. Extend all my arguments...

Screw you grammar check!
CJ

Con

CJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by lillunchboxbandit 9 years ago
lillunchboxbandit
?????????????????????????????????
I'm very confused. VERY confused.
?????????????????????????????????
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
"It would exist outside of the universe, thereby being immaterial."

*Tsks* Contradiction. You cannot exist outside of space, space being the set universe and entirety of everything.

Even if we ignore that, a being outside of space removes any possibility of interaction within space (no dimensions). Our universe is 4D, 3 dimensions of space, 1 of time. Any being therefore outside of space is also by necessity static (no time).
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
I expected to have an opponent who I was not already debating in a similar manner, but whatever...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
gahbageCJTied
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 whitesoxfan450 9 years ago
whitesoxfan450
gahbageCJTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
gahbageCJTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
gahbageCJTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30