The Instigator
Brando97
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AWSM0055
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

What better explains reality: Theism (pro) or Atheism (con)?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 10/8/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 403 times Debate No: 80703
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Brando97

Pro

Cosmological Argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
C. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Since matter, space, and time came into existence during the Big Bang, the cause of the universe must be immaterial and timeless. Since the universe was created ex nihilo, the cause of the universe must also be very powerful. Sounds like God, doesn't it?

Teleological Argument:
1. The universe is finely tuned [1].
2. The fine-tuning is either due to chance, necessity, or design.
3. It is not due to chance nor necessity.
C. Therefore, it is due to design.

Moral Argument:
1. Every law has a law-giver.
2. An objective moral law exists.
C. Therefore, a moral law-giver exists.

Contingency Argument:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an outside source.
2. If a thing is contingent, then its explanation must be in an outside source.
3. The universe exists, and is contingent.
C. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is in an outside source.
Since this causal chain cannot go on infinitely, something necessary (i.e. eternal and uncaused) must exist.

Transcendental Argument:
1. If laws of logic exist, they are universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal, intentional truths.
2. Intentional entities are best explained as mental products.
3. Therefore, if laws of logic exist, they are best explained as the product of a universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal mind (i.e. God).
4. Laws of logic exist.
C. Therefore, they are best explained as the product of God's mind.

Origin of Life Argument:
1. In all our experiences, the only known cause capable of producing meaningful information is a mind.
2. The information encoded in DNA is meaningful information.
C. Therefore, the best explanation for the origin of information in DNA is that it came from a mind.

[1]: http://www.pbs.org...
AWSM0055

Con

"Cosmological Argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
C. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Since matter, space, and time came into existence during the Big Bang, the cause of the universe must be immaterial and timeless. Since the universe was created ex nihilo, the cause of the universe must also be very powerful. Sounds like God, doesn't it?"

No. This is the most used argument by religious people, and is a good argument, I'll give you that. But the thing is, this argument is self refuting. Your saying that EVERYTHING that happens has a cause, and yet your ignoring the fact that God must of also had a cause for his existence (I will refer to God as a "him", though I am not indicating any specific gender.). If God had a cause, than God isn't a God!

http://infidels.org...

Furthermore, if we admit that not everything needs a cause to exist, then why would the universe also need a cause? you also admit that the creation of time happened at the Big Bang. If time didn't exist before the Big Bang, then that would negate the very existence of past, present and future, making the Big Bang just "happen".

But anyway, the above argument doesn't matter anyway, since the Big Bang was originally an infinitely dense point in the universe called a singularity. A singularity is a point where the laws of physics start to break down, which would make the "Cause/effect" law nullified. Therefore, the creation of the universe would not be dictated by this law.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

On the other hand, the very "cause effect" law doesn't even exist within quantum physics, as it is a regular occurrence of electrons coming into existence in perfect vaccines without any cause or prediction! This is called vacuum fluctuation, and it happens all the time and has been proven many times.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

But let's assume that your right and the Cause/effect law contradicts the Big Bang being caused by (apparently) nothing...then it still doesn't matter since laws of physics are made by scientists to simplify a common pattern in the universe. If the law is wrong, it needs to be changed or replaced. There is no rule that states that all laws must be followed religiously, which is what Christians do.

"Teleological Argument:
1. The universe is finely tuned [1].
2. The fine-tuning is either due to chance, necessity, or design.
3. It is not due to chance nor necessity.
C. Therefore, it is due to design."

Firstly, you state that the universe is fine tuned...which its not. Most of the universe is an unorganised, unorthodox mess, making your argument a factual error. The only thing that remotely keeps galaxies organised and together is gravity, which is not divine at all.

http://www.northwestern.edu...

But let's assume that you actually mean the Earth is fine tuned enough to indicate that it was deigned...then your argument is still a factual error. As I explained in another "Does God exist?" Debate, the universe is made up of trillions of planets, with trillions of stars/Suns to accompany them. This makes the chance of at least one planet being sustainable for life very probable.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

http://www.livescience.com...

Moral Argument:
1. Every law has a law-giver.
2. An objective moral law exists.
C. Therefore, a moral law-giver exists.

Yes, and that law giver is our brain, not God. This argument is ridiculous anyway, since your saying that moral law is objective "without emotions or opinion" which is contradicting. Morals are not universal, which is why evil people exist. Duh!

"Contingency Argument:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an outside source.
2. If a thing is contingent, then its explanation must be in an outside source.
3. The universe exists, and is contingent.
C. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is in an outside source.
Since this causal chain cannot go on infinitely, something necessary (i.e. eternal and uncaused) must exist."

This is an absolutely appalling argument. Everything that exists must have an explanation, either by itself or by an outside source? That is not the contingency argument, that's just something you made up. The contingency argument goes more like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

I explained earlier why this reasoning is wrong anyway, so I'm not going to rehash it again.

I'm going to continue by argument in the comments section, because you made the character limit 5000 words (which is stupid).
Debate Round No. 1
Brando97

Pro

I apologize for the character limit, but I am a newbie here, so I had no idea what a good limit is. My opponent's arguments will be bold and my responses will be normal.

"your ignoring the fact that God must of also had a cause for his existence."
This is simply not true, and I don't even need to appeal to theists [1]. Look at the first premise; it doesn't say that everything must have a cause, but only that which begins to exist. Since God did not begin to exist, He doesn't need a cause.

"why would the universe also need a cause?"
Because scientific discoveries has demonstrated that the universe had a beginning, and therefore must need a cause. Cosmologists Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin used scientific discoveries to show that any expanding universe must be finite [2]. Since our universe is expanding [3], it must be finite. Since it must be finite, it must have had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

"If time didn't exist before the Big Bang..., making the Big Bang just "happen.""
Only event causation requires time; agent causation does not require time.

"the very "cause effect" law doesn't even exist within quantum physics"
Quantum vacuums are actually fluctuations of energy, so quantum particles are actually caused.

"If the law is wrong, it needs to be changed or replaced."
Everyday experience shows us that the first premise is true. What amazes me is that atheists, in order to deny the fact that the universe had a cause, must deny one of the first two premises, even though they are both obviously true.

"you state that the universe is fine tuned...which its not"
It is extremely fine-tuned. Had the gravitational constant varied in just one part in 10^60, either the universe would have collapsed on itself, or no stars would be able to form. Another example is the cosmological constant. Had it varied by just one part in 10^120, life would be unable to develop. These are just two of the many constants that need to be fine-tuned in order for life to exist. This is why Sir Martin Rees says, "Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine-tuning."

"This makes the chance of at least one planet being sustainable for life very probable."
But the only way that life could exist is if stars, elements, and the universe exists, which is what the constants that are fine-tuned affect. Had they been virtually any different, stars, elements, and/or, the universe wouldn't exist.

"that law giver is our brain, not God."
If that were true, then morality would be subjective. Since morality is objective, something outside of ourselves has to be the standard.

"Morals are not universal, which is why evil people exist."
This argument does not argue that everyone follows those morals, but that morality comes from an objective source outside of ourselves. The only way that you could possible call people "evil" is if morals are universal.

"This is an absolutely appalling argument."
Calling it a bad argument doesn't refute it. You must show why it is a bad argument in order for it to be refuted.

"That is not the contingency argument, that's just something you made up."
The contingency argument does exist, and what I provided is the contingency argument. The argument that you think is the contingency argument is really the cosmological argument.

"I'm going to continue by argument in the comments section"
I made the character limit, so you need to respect it, no matter how bad it is. It is very unprofessional to continue your argument in the comments section just because you ran out of characters. If you want to refute those arguments, you are going to have to wait until it is your turn to post another argument.

[1]:http://commonsenseatheism.com...
[2]:http://arxiv.org...
[3]:http://skyserver.sdss.org...
AWSM0055

Con

For your first point, how do you know God doesn't need a cause to exist? You have never studied nor observed God, therefore, how do you know for sure that he doesn't need a cause to exist? Your point that he doesn't need a cause to exist is fully hypothetical, which led me to my second argument that if you think God doesn't need a cause to exist, why would the Big Bang need one also? Beginning and cause are not interchangeable. Simply because the universe has a beginning, doesn't mean it needed a God to cause it. (Which I explained in my other arguments with quantum physics and such)

Also, agent causation theory is still under scientific dispute and analysis, which therefore means you cannot use it as a basis for your argument. Furthermore, you are assuming that God exists and therefore, an agent caused the universe. We don't know if God exists and therefore, can't assume that the beginning of the universe was agent causation. (BTW, I'm not a philosopher, nor a physicist, so many of the terms your using are new to me and require research, so if I'm giving counter arguments that seem off the rails, please forgive me).

http://philpapers.org...

"Quantum vacuums are actually fluctuations of energy, so quantum particles are actually caused"

Your counter argument doesn't disprove my argument that cause/effect laws don't exist in quantum physics. Your only saying that quantum particles are caused through fluctuations in energy, which is true, but your ignoring the fact that the energy fluctuations are not caused at all, which could explain how matter came into existence within the universe (you know, E=MC^2)

"Everyday experience shows us that the first premise is true"

This is an "argument from omniscience" fallacy. Simply because we see it everyday, doesn't mean that it is true for every part in the universe. Furthermore, because you didn't properly refute my argument that cause/effect law doesn't dictate quantum occurrences, you claim that the first two premises are "obviously true" is a factual error.

In the paragraph where you explain how fine tuned the universe is, could you please give a source or reference for each paragraph so I don't have to open every source below your whole argument to find the source your referring to? Thanks.

Anyway, your assuming that our universe is the only universe that exists, and therefore the coincidences (if in fact are true) are too striking to be by accident. But what if this universe is part of a multiverse? Or what if this universe is one of infinite universes created? That would make the chances of life existing much bigger. Far fetched do you say? Well so is the explanation of God existing for no reason, from nothing, with no purpose other than to create the universe. That ALSO seems far fetched to me.

I also love how you repeatedly saying that morality is objective, and not subjective. There is no standard of morality. My point was that what others find as "Ok", others find is "evil". (E.i. Hitler thought gassing 6 million Jews was completely fine, yet many others would disagree.)

"This argument does not argue that everyone follows those morals, but that morality comes from an objective source outside of ourselves. The only way that you could possible call people "evil" is if morals are universal."

This argument directly contradicts itself. Your saying that morals are objective, which means they are: "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

You then admit that your argument does not mean that everyone follows them, which then means it's subjective. Some people are raised in homes where movies that depict violence is considered "bad", whereas others may be raised in homes that watch violence in movies without second questioning it. If morality was was objective, it would not be influenced by feelings or opinions, yet it is. Your argument that God made an objective moral law for all is hopelessly unsupported and contradictory.

"Calling it a bad argument doesn't refute it. You must show why it is a bad argument in order for it to be refuted."

For the part about the whole contingency/cosmological argument is a bit confusing for me. You have given no source as to where this argument came from, and every time I google "contingency argument", it comes up with the cosmological argument. So I don't know where you got it from.

Finally, your point about respecting the crappy character limit is ridiculous. I cannot debate with you if I haven't got enough room to brake down all of your comments, which makes this debate unfair. Your basically asking me to half load a revolver and yet shoot 6 holes in a target, which is impossible.
Debate Round No. 2
Brando97

Pro

"if you think God doesn't need a cause to exist, why would the Big Bang need one also?"
God is, by definition, eternal. You know this as well; you even said the first round, "If God had a cause, than God isn't a God!" The Big Bang is evidence that the universe is finite and contingent, and therefore, it must have a cause.

"your ignoring the fact that the energy fluctuations are not caused at all"
There is a huge difference between having no cause and having no apparent cause. The burden of proof is on you to show that the energy fluctuations have no cause.

"Simply because we see it everyday, doesn't mean that it is true for every part in the universe."
The only way that science could work is if the first premise is true.

"In the paragraph where you explain how fine-tuned the universe is, could you please give a source or reference for each paragraph"
Here is a start: http://phys.org...

"what if this universe is one of infinite universes created"
That could be true, but there is no guarantee that the parameters of each constant would be set in such a way so that every possible value would be realized. Since there is no guarantee, the process that makes the universes would have to be finely-tuned itself. What's more is that the Borde-Guth-Vilenken Theorem applies to this multiverse as well, which means that the mutliverse could not have been here forever. Since it could not have been here forever, there cannot be an infinite amount of universes. I'll end this section with a quote from Richard Swinburne: "it is the height of irrationality to postulate an infinite number of universes never causally connected with each other, merely to avoid the hypothesis of theism."

"There is no standard of morality. My point was that what others find as "Ok", other find "evil"."
No matter what people claim about the objectivity of morality, we all live as though morality is objective. How do people get the idea of evil if morality isn't objective? The only way that people can know that something is evil is if morality is objective. Whenever someone is accused of doing something wrong, they don't say that wrong doesn't exist, so they couldn't have possibly done anything wrong. The person accused of doing something wrong will always try to defend himself. Why do we all live as though moral objectivity exists, if it doesn't exist?

"You then admit that your argument does not mean that everyone follows them, which means it's subjective"
Just like two people getting different answers on a math problem means that there is no right answer to that question.

"every time I google "contingency argument", it comes up with the cosmological argument."
And you just admitted that you rely on other people to debunk arguments for you, rather than using your own logic to debunk them.
AWSM0055

Con

"God is, by definition, eternal. You know this as well; you even said the first round, "If God had a cause, than God isn't a God!" The Big Bang is evidence that the universe is finite and contingent, and therefore, it must have a cause."

You completely ignored my argument that you yourself have never observed or tested God to know whether he was in fact eternal and didn't need a cause to exist, therefore you can't base paradoxical questions based on uncertainties. Also, God isn't eternal by definition, as there are several accounts of God dying in other religions, including Christianity (Jesus/God dead for 3 whole days). Furthermore, I never said God was eternal, I said "if God had a cause, then he wouldn't be a God" (as we know him). I never claimed that he was eternal. Simply because I say "if A didn't have B, he wouldn't be A" that doesn't mean Im saying "A is therefore C".

Besides, even If atheists didn't know how/if to bing bang was caused, that still doesn't mean a supreme deity did it. History has shown that whenever there has been some unknown factor about nature or physics, religion has almost always said "God did it", only to be proven later as wrong (etc Fire worship, sun worship, star worship, nature worship, etc etc etc.)

"There is a huge difference between having no cause and having no apparent cause. The burden of proof is on you to show that the energy fluctuations have no cause."

I could (and did) say the same basic thing to you regarding God (huge difference between having no cause and no apparent cause, that is). But for the sake of argument, let's say that energy fluctuations have no *apparent* cause. We don't know. Still doesn't mean we should dismiss energy fluctuations as a possible answer to how the universe could have happened. That is why scientists are still studying these phenomenon to better understand them.

(BTW, thank you for that source)

"That could be true, but there is no guarantee blah blah blah..."

Yes, the theory of a multiverse is neither testable, nor provable, and therefore, should not be taken as a fact or usable theory (which I did neither). I mentioned the multiverse theory as a possible answer to the "fine-tuning" of the universe. However, I want to share my own quote though regarding theism "It is the height of irrationality to simply point the finger at God whom came from nothing, for no reason, for no objective purpose other than to create the universe, every time a paradox or unexplained phenomena takes place" - Awsm0077, 2015.

"No matter what people claim blah blah blah..."

*Bangs head violently on brick wall*

Morality isn't objective, we make it up as we go along. What is evil today might be fine tomorrow. Homosexuality used to be viewed as an evil, sexual sin during the dark ages, yet is no longer viewed that way (as much). If evil and morality were constant and objective, the same view of what is evil would continue for generations without second guessing! People have different opinions about what is evil or bad because of different upbringings and opinions, which is not objective but rather, subjective. In my opinion, all religious nuts are evil and the world would be better without them. You obviously would think completely contrary, which proves that morality is subjective.

What sounds more realistic: Morality is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
Or: Morality is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

If you choose the first one, I'm going to rip my head off.

"Just like two people getting different answers on a math problem means that there is no right answer to that question."

If this was on a regular forum, I would be hurling so many insults at you, you wouldn't be able to stand from biological shock.

*sigh*... Maths is always objective and completely factual (I.e. 1 + 1 always = 2!)

Whereas certain moral standards are subject to opinion (I.e. Gambling, homosexuality etc). There is no basis of morality! I think you need a dictionary more than a God!

"And you just admitted that you rely on other people to debunk arguments for you, rather than using your own logic to debunk them."

No I didn't, I simply googled an argument I had never heard of before, so I could better understand the argument itself. If you seriously expect me to rely solely on my own knowledge in a debate with you, I think you have some serious issues. It's called learning.

Nonetheless, you still didn't come up with a source or any information on where you got that argument from. Pulling random arguments out of your hat without sources or evidence is like running on a treadmill. I'm also going to continue some other points of mine in the comments section, professional or otherwise. I really don't care at this point.

(P.s. Bring out some different evidence or arguments concerning God next turn. I'm getting sick of this rehashed evidence we keep correcting.)
Debate Round No. 3
Brando97

Pro

"you yourself have never observed or tested God to know whether he was in fact eternal"
This is a very radical position known as scientism. It is the view that we can only know things through empirical and verifiable observation. This view is self-defeating as there is no empirical or verifiable evidence to support this view. In addition, you might as well say that we can't know anything about logic since it cannot be empirically observed.

"I never said God was eternal, I said "if God had a cause, then he wouldn't be a God""
Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, something that was caused must have a beginning. This is known as an identity; A=B and B=A. If God didn't' have a cause (A), then He didn't have a beginning (B). This means that God is eternal. If God isn't eternal, then He isn't God.

"Besides, even if atheists didn't know how/if to bing bang was caused, that still doesn't mean a supreme deity did it."
First of all, if you don't know, then you cannot claim that God could not have done it, as that would refute your claim that you don't know. Second, if you don't know, then you can't claim that science will one day find the answer, as that would also refute your claim that you don't know.

"It is the height of irrationality to simply point the finger at God whom came from nothing, for no reason, for no objective purpose other than to create the universe, every time a paradox or unexplained phenomena takes place."
You are, again, assuming that God is a created being. God is a necessary being that always existed and had no beginning.

"Morality isn't objective...What is evil today might be fine tomorrow."
Since morality is completely subjective, then I guess you wouldn't get upset if I win the debate just because people like my avatar better than yours. After all, there is no such thing as right or wrong. This means that what Hitler did wasn't wrong or evil; it was just his opinion. If objective morality doesn't exist, then we cannot call anything evil, for evil would not exist. Just because people violate the Moral Law, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

"People have different opinions about what is evil"
The only way that evil could exist is if morality is objective. How do people know what is evil if everything is just subjective opinion?

There are many good reasons to think that God exists, and hardly any good reasons to think that God doesn't exist. The universe had to have had a cause since it had a beginning. Since matter, time, and the laws of nature came into being at the Big Bang, the cause must be immaterial, timeless, and must not be governed by the laws of nature.

Since the universe is very finely-tuned, it must have an explanation. The only two explanations are design and the multiverse. Since the multiverse cannot be infinite, there cannot be an infinite amount of universes in the multiverse. Postulating the multiverse is contrary to Occam's Razor, since it is unnecessary to postulate an infinite number of universes that cannot really be infinite and requires an external cause itself.

Everybody knows has a moral sense that morality is objective. If you think that morality is subjective, then imagine what would happen if I threaten to rape and kill your family. You would say that what I threatened to do was evil, but evil can only exist if morality is objective. The only objection on this argument that I heard was that we have different interpretations, so morality cannot be objective. However, as I pointed out, if that were the case, then there wouldn't be any objective answer to a math question whenever two people disagreed on the correct answer.

Another reason to think that God exists is that the universe is contingent. Since the universe is contingent, it had to be caused. But it cannot go on infinitely, as that would be an infinite regression, which is logically and philosophically absurd. Since there cannot be an infinite chain of contingent things, something necessary must exist.


In other words, there has to be something necessary (contingency argument), powerful (cosmological argument), timeless (cosmological argument), immaterial (cosmological argument), moral (moral argument), and intelligent (teleological argument). This thing sure sounds like God, doesn't it?
AWSM0055

Con

Firstly, scientism is not radical, religion and irrational beliefs are. I could claim that Santa Clause is a big mean baddy who loves to steal people's watches. Do I have evidence for such a claim? No? Then my claim is dismissed. If you can't prove or give sufficient evidence that God (if there is one) is eternal other than the hypothesis that he is, will be likewise dismissed.

And no it's not self defeating, and the Santa example proves that. (Also, verifying the existence of logic is far more probable than God).

Moreover, your other arguments rely on this estimated guess to be taken seriously. We have no evidence he exists in the first place, far less any evidence he is actually eternal or cause-less. Your trying to make me accept too different and improbable theories:

1. There is a God
2. He is eternal and without cause.

Why should I believe either?

"First of all, if you don't know, then you cannot claim that God could not have done it, as that would refute your claim that you don't know."

Bollocks. I said "If atheists don't know...that doesn't mean [God] did it."

If A (atheist) doesn't know fully about B (Big Bang), that doesn't mean that C (God) did it. Easy to understand. This is not an all-or-nothing statement. You are just making the assumption that if atheists don't know, then it OBVIOUSLY points to God. I'm basically saying that if atheist don't know, it doesn't always necessarily have to be caused by God.

"You are, again, assuming that God is a created being. God is a necessary being that always existed and had no beginning."

YOU are, again, assuming has no cause or beginning. Why should I believe he does or doesn't?

"Since morality is completely subjective, then I guess you wouldn't get upset if I win the debate just because people like my avatar better than yours."

Consider my head ripped from my neck...

Your twisting my words! I'm not saying there is no such thing as right or wrong, but what we define as right or wrong is up to each individual!

What hitler did was wrong in my (and many others) opinion. Obviously though, it was fine for the Nazi regime and the Neo-Nazis of today! Moral law does not exist.

In Australia (where I live), Aboriginal tribes used to have ceremonial battles with other tribes, which often led to lots of spilt blood. In Ancient Rome, making criminals fight each other to the death in an arena was entertaining and sporty. In Sparta, Spartan parents often left their babies out on mountains to test their strength and resilience.

Today, the above actions would be viewed as appalling...immoral in fact! This is why morals aren't objective! There is no universal view that certain things are bad, and other things are good. Right and wrong is up for debate and opinion. If morality was objective, then we wouldn't need to fill out those opinion checklists on our debate.org profile about abortion, gays, etc, as everybody would know abortion and such is wrong/right!

"hardly any good reasons to think that God doesn't exist" I have many, but I'm not going to list them as its taking up precious character limit on my argument...

"The universe had to have had a cause since it had a beginning." Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. We don't know, and we may never know for sure. But blaming it on God is not rational at all.

"Since the universe is very finely-tuned, it must have an explanation. The only two explanations are design and the multiverse." They aren't the only theories, but they are the ones we brought to the table.

Anyway, how do you know that a multiverse cannot be infinite? On what evidence are you basing that on? And Occams Razor states that the simplest of two explanations is *often* the truth. Neither of our explanations are anywhere near rational or simple (to say the least), so items *unlikely* either of our beliefs are true (which I admit). But like I said before, blaming any apparent paradox or mystery on God without evidence is absurd and the most offensive form of foolishness one can invent.

Back on morality, maths dictates that 2+2=4. Whether you disagree on this is irrelevant, it will always equal 4. Morals however, are much different. There is no justifiable or complete undeniable evidence that, say, abortion is wrong, whereas maths does. One is a fact, and the other is open to debate.

"Another reason to think that God exists is that the universe is contingent blah blah blah..."

Again, simply because we don't know why the universe is, doesn't mean God did it.

"In other words, there has to be something necessary (why is God necessary?), powerful (doesn't support existence of God), timeless (how do you know?), immaterial (again, how do you know for sure?), moral (why?), and intelligent (doesn't support Gods existence, only hints at some coincidences in the universe) This thing sure sounds like God, doesn't it?"

No, sounds like grinding chalk on a 50 year old black board.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
That*
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
No thanks. I'm going to have a break for a while. Good debate nonetheless, at least you used some semi-realistic arguments for your position (except for the objective morality one....path at was a shocker lol.)

Bye
Posted by Brando97 1 year ago
Brando97
I saw that you said that there is evidence that God doesn't exist, but you said that because of the character limit, you had to skip it. If you are willing, we could do another debate on the topic of evidence against God's existence.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
Actually, never mind, I have nothing more to say...
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
"Transcendental Argument:
1. If laws of logic exist, they are universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal, intentional truths.
2. Intentional entities are best explained as mental products.
3. Therefore, if laws of logic exist, they are best explained as the product of a universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal mind (i.e. God).
4. Laws of logic exist.
C. Therefore, they are best explained as the product of God's mind."

I'm trying so hard not to gag right now...*swallows spew*
I don't really understand your argument very well, and to be honest, I don't think you do either, so I'm going to show you a link of a so one that does understands and disproves this logic: http://rationalwiki.org...

Origin of Life Argument:
1. In all our experiences, the only known cause capable of producing meaningful information is a mind.
2. The information encoded in DNA is meaningful information.
C. Therefore, the best explanation for the origin of information in DNA is that it came from a mind.

This is so moronic, everyone is standing in awe of your infinite absurdity.

What the bloody hell does "meaningful information" mean? You are basically saying that the only the mind can produce "important intelligence". Meaningful information is subjective, which makes your argument invalid. Computers can also produce information in forms of code as well as DNA. What makes the code in DNA important or meaningful? How meaningful? Why is source code such as HTML not meaningful, yet DNA code is?

[1]: http://www.pbs.org......

Wow, thank you so much for your totally not biased single source for all of your information!
No votes have been placed for this debate.