The Instigator
1Credo
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Neoman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Which position has better supporting arguments? Theism vs. Atheism

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 3 votes the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,005 times Debate No: 62969
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

1Credo

Pro

1. Introduction

In this debate, I will defend the proposition that theism has better supporting arguments than atheism. My opponent will defend the proposition that atheism has better supporting arguments than theism. As such, the burden of proof will be equally shared. The winner can therefore be selected based solely on which side produces better supporting arguments (as well as grammar, conduct, etc.)

Round 1: Introduction and Opening Arguments
Round 2: Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 3: Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 4: Arguments/Rebuttals
Round 5: Rebuttals/Conclusion NOTE: No new arguments in the final round

2. Definitions

Here are the definitions that will be used in this debate. Any definitions for the following words that do not correspond to these should not be considered.

Theism: The belief that God exists

Atheism: The belief that God does not exist

Supporting Arguments: Arguments that serve as evidence in favor of a position

God: A maximally great being

3. Arguments

I will begin by providing three arguments in support of theism. I will gladly provide more arguments if necessary, but due to space constrictions I will have to start with these three. Each deductive argument consists of a set of premises followed by a necessary conclusion. In order to take issue with the conclusion, my opponent must pick at least one premise to take issue with and refute. If my opponent fails to refute at least one premise in each of the three arguments that I present, then it seems to me that we are left with good reason to think that theism is true.

i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.
Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.
Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C1: Therefore, God exists.

Defense of P1: Here again, premise one is relatively uncontroversial. If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God.
Defense of P2: Each of us have a sense of morality which tells us that certain actions are objectively "good" or objectively "evil". For example, I can clearly recognize that altruism (self-sacrifice in order to further the well-being of others) is objectively good. I can also clearly recognize that raping and torturing a child is objectively evil. I have no more reason to doubt the reliability of these moral senses than I do to doubt the reliability of my physical senses. In other words, for any argument given in an attempt to show that our moral senses are not valid (and objective morality is therefore not valid), I can construct a parallel argument to show that our physical senses are not valid (and the physical world we experience through these senses is therefore not valid). In order for one to disagree with premise two, one must believe that an action like rape is just as "good" as an action like generosity, and that no objective distinction can be made between the nature of "goodness" of the two acts.

iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Defense of P1: In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.
Defense of P2-P6: I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.


4. Summary

I have provided three arguments in support of theism. In order to win this debate, my opponent must refute each of these arguments (by showing at least one premise in each argument to be false) and in their place provide his own arguments in favor of his position that atheism is true. Until my opponent is able to do this, he has failed to carry his share of the burden of proof.

5. Sources
http://now.tufts.edu...

Neoman

Con

I accept. Nice. Let us not lose time.
Pro states "Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality."
Pro does not believe infinity existsts.
Pro's definition of god: "A maximally great being." God is a maximally great being, he can be great in everything but he cannot be infinite since you stated in defense of P2, there can be no such thing as "infinity". Coming into conclusion that god cannot be infinite, we have to assume that he must have a period of existence, and his existence will have to end as we know he cannot be an infinite being. Taking into account that he has to stop existing, or in our terms "die", this can not make him "maximally great" as we may have other life forms in the universe as we know existed before a "god" and will continue to exist after a "god".
Debate Round No. 1
1Credo

Pro

Thanks, Neoman.

1. Rebuttal

My opponent attempts to show that if God is not infinite, then He must not exist:

"Coming into conclusion that god cannot be infinite, we have to assume that he must have a period of existence, and his existence will have to end as we know he cannot be an infinite being."

My opponent's rebuttal to God's existence can be organized in this way:
P1) If God exists, then He must have experienced an infinite amount of past events.
P2) An infinite amount of past events is incoherent.
C1) Therefore, God does not exist.

The problem with this objection is that God transcends space and time. So, God is not constrained by temporal events. He does not have a beginning point or an end point, nor does He exist within an infinite amount of time (as my opponent points out, this is problematic). Rather, God exists outside of time. This is a characteristic that can be derived from His maximal greatness:

P1) It is greater to transcend time than to be constrained by time.
P2) If God exists, He must be maximally great (i.e. hold all maximally great-making properties).
C1) God cannot exist within time.

We can see from this that God, if He exists, exists necessarily outside of space and time. As such, my opponent's objection has no standing and the first argument holds sound, for now at least.

2. Summary

The objection posed by my opponent seems to attempt to discredit the third argument I presented. As we saw, this objection has no ground due to God's existing outside of space and time as opposed to being constrained by time (therefore not needing to exist through an infinite number of past events, as my opponent seemed to suggest).

My opponent had nothing to say about the first two arguments I gave with respect to the origin of the universe and the existence of objective moral values and duties.

I would remind my opponent that in order to win this debate, he must not only refute each of the arguments I've presented, but also present his own arguments in favor of his position that atheism is true. In other words, even if my opponent is able to knock down all three of my arguments, he has only pushed the debate to a draw. I invite my opponent to bring forward arguments supporting his own position.

For now, then, all three of my arguments hold sound whereas my opponent has 0 sound arguments in support of his position.
Neoman

Con

My opponent stated such: "The problem with this objection is that God transcends space and time. So, God is not constrained by temporal events. Rather, God exists outside of time. This is a characteristic that can be derived from His maximal greatness:
P1) It is greater to transcend time than to be constrained by time.
P2) If God exists, He must be maximally great (i.e. hold all maximally great-making properties).
C1) God cannot exist within time."
According to my opponent's conclusion god cannot exist within time. If god cannot exist within time (we may also consider he is not allowed within time, he does not hold the power to get out of time once he is in etc.), yet we can, this makes us superior from god in a way. If we are superior than god, god cant be all maximally great. If god cant maximally be great, then my opponents definition would be wrong. As we know, a wrong definition cant be used in a debate.
What my opponent doesnt understand here is, if i can manage to refute his definition of god, i dont have to refute his proposals about why is the "god" best explanation of etc.
Debate Round No. 2
1Credo

Pro

1. Rebuttal

"According to my opponent's conclusion god cannot exist within time."

By this I mean to say that God cannot exist solely within time. My apologies if this was unclear. I thought the concept of God's transcendence was self-apparent when looking at my argument as a whole. I see no conflict between the concept of a maximally great being and the concept of a transcendent being. It seems to me that a maximally great being must necessarily be transcendent (in other words, a maximally great being must necessarily not exist solely within time). As such, there is nothing contradictory about the definition I have provided for God.

"What my opponent doesnt understand here is, if i can manage to refute his definition of god, i dont have to refute his proposals about why is the "god" best explanation of etc."

What an incredibly unfounded assumption. Even if my opponent was able to show that my definition (a maximally great being) was somehow incoherent or contradictory, which he so far has not been able to do, this would only count as evidence against the third argument I presented. The first two arguments I provided do not need a maximally great being, only a creator of the universe and a moral law-giver. As such, even if my opponent were to show an incoherence or contradiction in my definition (a maximally great being) he would still be left with two arguments to deal with. That being said, I would like to make it clear that my opponent has not in any way shown that there is anything wrong with God being a maximally great being.

2. Summary

I addressed my opponent's objection to the concept of a maximally great being (which attacks only my third argument) and showed that there is no inconsistency between the argument itself and the concept of a maximally great being. If I am correct, then my third argument remains standing for now.

My opponent has continually failed to even attempt to address the other two arguments I presented at the beginning of the debate. Furthermore, he has yet to put forward a single argument in favor of his own position that atheism is true. We can conclude for now that there are 3 sound arguments in favor of theism and 0 sound arguments in favor of atheism.

I urge my opponent to attempt to address each of my arguments and put forward his own arguments to defend his position.
Neoman

Con

My oponent has changed his statement to: "a maximally great being must necessarily not exist solely within time." So now I have to deal with the statemet: god can be within time and be "outside" of time at the same time. marvelous.
Conclusion: It appears to me only another imaginary all-powerful being can fight to this kind of imaginary being. The commanding officers of templars did a great job. An imaginary, all-powerful creature which exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time, created everything, yet never been created. Big bang? god made it (even if science prooves it happened). Time? God created it. Dimensions? god has been in all of them at once. While creating them.
We need to work on time travel in order to sort this out. Or make contact with alien life forms who might have a clue if they exist somewhere within the universe. Untill one of these two events occur, noone on this planet can fight such powerful imaginary concept. As we know, even without the religious books, human imagination has not limits.
Peace, stay cool bro :)
Debate Round No. 3
1Credo

Pro

1. Rebuttal

"My oponent has changed his statement to: "a maximally great being must necessarily not exist solely within time." So now I have to deal with the statemet: god can be within time and be "outside" of time at the same time. marvelous."

I apologize if the statement was not clear. I assumed that when I said God transcends space and time my opponent would not have any misunderstanding. To make it explicitly clear, God is not constrained to space or time. God created and transcends space and time. I'm not sure how to simplify it any more than that, but I hope my opponent is now able to understand what I mean.

"Conclusion: It appears to me only another imaginary all-powerful being can fight to this kind of imaginary being. The commanding officers of templars did a great job. An imaginary, all-powerful creature which exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time, created everything, yet never been created. "

I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to say here. It is clear to me that my opponent does not comprehend the concept of transcending space and time. As I stated earlier, I'm not sure how I can better explain this (I think I've been pretty explicit already). God created time. So, God is not constrained by time. Rather, he transcends time itself. My opponent also brings up God creating everything but never having been created. I'm glad he is able to comprehend my first argument. He seems to imply that there is something wrong with the concept of God creating the universe but not having been created, yet presents no objection to the idea. It is necessary that our finite universe has an uncaused cause. That uncaused cause is God.

"Big bang? god made it (even if science prooves it happened)."

Here, my opponent betrays his lack of understanding of modern science. Science tells us that 13.8 billion years ago, time and space came into existence out of nothing in an event called "The Big Bang". My opponent and I seem to agree so far. Now, what caused The Big Bang? I would say The Big Bang was caused by God; The Big Bang is the name given to the moment of creation. My opponent simply says "science prooves it happened". Science proves what happened? The Big Bang? Of course science shows The Big Bang happened, our very existence is evidence that The Big Bang happened. What science does not tell us is what caused The Big Bang, and rightly so. Science is the study of the natural world. As the natural world did not come into existence until the moment of The Big Bang, it is impossible for science to give a naturalistic explanation for the cause of The Big Bang. A naturalistic cause cannot create nature itself! Surely my opponent can recognize this. So, science doesn't "prove" anything about the cause of The Big Bang. Science wouldn't dare, because it is not the place of science to prove such things.

"Time? God created it."

Now we're getting somewhere!

"We need to work on time travel in order to sort this out."

*Sigh* Perhaps we'll never get anywhere.

"Or make contact with alien life forms who might have a clue if they exist somewhere within the universe."

My opponent spent a seemingly endless amount of time arguing about the existence of aliens in our last debate, so I'm not about to start up on this subject again. Please stick to the debate topic.

"noone on this planet can fight such powerful imaginary concept."

I think my opponent is on to something here. It seems that he recognizes that God is the only rational explanation for the existence of our universe (time, space, etc.) The quote above shows that my opponent has no alternative explanation, even going far as to suggest that "no one on this planet" could have an alternative explanation. With that sort of conviction, I'm surprised to see that he hasn't yet renounced his atheism.

2. Summary

Unfortunately, the majority of this debate has been spent by my opponent arguing about the definition of God and misinterpreting the concept of God transcending space and time. This is regrettable, as I had hoped my opponent might attempt to propose arguments in favor of his position, or at the very least produce a decent objection to one of my arguments. However, as we have seen, all three of my original arguments have gone unrefuted and are thus still standing. Furthermore, my opponent has not even hinted at the idea of putting forward any arguments in favor of atheism, which is required if he would like to win the debate. For now at least, we can conclude that there are 3 sound arguments in favor of theism and 0 sound arguments in favor of atheism.
Neoman

Con

"I think my opponent is on to something here. It seems that he recognizes that God is the only rational explanation for the existence of our universe (time, space, etc.)" statement of my oponent.
What my oponent did not understand here is I stated god exists only in his imagination. The only reason he is not locked up deep inside an asylum is because there is an ancient book written on skins of animals.
Considering he thinks god (assuming there is one) is all powerful, I can assure you he is not stronger than my free will.
You have quite an imagination to believe in some all-powerful thing, yet you just choose not to believe time travel can be possible (it is only because you have never seen someone who can do it, yet you have never seen god either). Its fine you dont want to believe in my theories, then again, you cant expect me to believe in yours.
Debate Round No. 4
1Credo

Pro

1. Rebuttal

"What my oponent did not understand here is I stated god exists only in his imagination. The only reason he is not locked up deep inside an asylum is because there is an ancient book written on skins of animals."

It's a shame that so many atheists feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of bringing serious logical argument to the table. I also find it quite ironic that my opponent (who has failed to bring forward, or even attempt to bring forward, an argument to defend his position, even when provided with four 10,000 character rounds to do so) suggests that I (who have provided 3 sound arguments which have thus far gone unrefuted) ought to be locked up inside an asylum. Which one of us is really the irrational one? I'll let the readers decide that.

"Considering he thinks god (assuming there is one) is all powerful, I can assure you he is not stronger than my free will."

I'll have to disagree with that, as it seems to me that God is the only reason you have free will at all. Nothing about you, or me, or anyone could possibly be stronger than God, as we depend on Him for our very existence.

"You have quite an imagination to believe in some all-powerful thing, yet you just choose not to believe time travel can be possible (it is only because you have never seen someone who can do it, yet you have never seen god either)."

I don't recall ever stating that I believe time travel is not possible. I "time travel" every time I look at the stars in the night sky, if you'd like to count that as time travel.

"Its fine you dont want to believe in my theories, then again, you cant expect me to believe in yours."

Your theories are aliens and time travel (which I haven't said I disagree with) are not the subject of this debate. The subject of this debate revolves around "Which position has better supporting arguments? Theism vs. Atheism".

2. Conclusion

In the opening round of this debate, I stated that in order for my opponent to win he must refute each of the arguments I provided in defense of theism and in their place provide his own arguments in defense of atheism. As we have seen, each of my arguments have gone unrefuted and as such hold sound for now. On the other side, my opponent has been unable to bring forward a single argument to support his position that atheism is true. Thus, he has failed to carry his share of the burden of proof.

When the debate began, I expected to see some kind of arguments supporting atheism. As I have not seen any such arguments, I can only conclude that my opponent has no warrant for his belief that atheism is true. You might even say he believes atheism to be true "by faith alone". Because of this, I would like to invite my opponent to consider becoming a theist. He seemingly has no disagreements with the theistic arguments I have brought forward in this debate, and so I think that given some thought, he might decide to follow the evidence where it leads. I'd like my opponent to know that he can always message me with any questions or concerns regarding theism and/or religion, as I'd be happy to help out in any way I can his journey on answering this most important of questions.

I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate and wish him the best of luck.
Neoman

Con

My oponent states: "It's a shame that so many atheists feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of bringing serious logical argument to the table."
He thinks that an all mighty all powerful all knowing "being" which created the entire universe, yet never has been created himself, is "logical". Which of course he cant prove his own "logic" (nor can anyone) becuase, he cannot be felt, nor he can be seen.
My oponent states: "Nothing about you, or me, or anyone could possibly be stronger than God, as we depend on Him for our very existence."
I dont depend on him, I never did. He has nothing to do with my existence, nor he has anything to do with yours.
My oponent states: "Your theories are aliens and time travel (which I haven't said I disagree with) are not the subject of this debate"
They bring an entirely new perspective to any debate. E.g: travel back in time, ask jesus performs a miracle, save the humanity when he cant. About aliens: they can be our creators yet they dont have to be so "spiritual" like the god you described with using your own/someonelse's imagination.
Conclusion: Pro uses his own plus everyonelse's imagination to make his statement, yet he wont allow me to use my own. Which is unfair.

Nice talking to you mate, wish you best of luck as well :)
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
Actually lemme ask you guys something: God has plans for each and every one of us right? yet he knows everything. If he knows everything he cannot be making plans. because he would know if his plan will work or not. Assuming that his plan of creating us works, lets take a close look on us: we are a specie that kills, rapes each other (sometimes in that order) with or sometimes without a reason. Why did he create us, already knowing all of these would happen?
Now the "free will" bubble pops up in your mind. This is basically saying: god gave us free will and he wanted to observe what would happen. That would make the god a "curious" being. still, curiousity means not knowing, yet god cant be not knowing something.
Conclusion: He is the one responsible for all murders/rapes/public urinating etc.

Here comes a nice paradox:
1) God can do anything.
2) God can make an unliftable mountain (because of fact 1).
3) God can lift anything (because of fact 1 makes fact 2 false and therefore fact 1 also false)
4) God cannot lift the mountain. (makes fact 2 true and fact 3 false therefore fact 1 false)

This is a paradox involving gods omnipotence (infinite power) and can only be solved by god not being absolutely omnipotent.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Due to the difficulty in implying tone through text alone, you misinterpreted what I said.

Defense of P2-P6: I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.

In the common parlance of this type of topic, referring to "multiple worlds" typically also means multiple universes. If this is not the case for your argument, then it was I who is at fault for not asking you to clarify what you meant by multiple worlds. There exists an argument for the existence of god based on the idea of infinite universes (in which there is bound to be at least one where he does exist, leading to the possibility that he exists for them all). I assumed it was that argument you were referring too and I was offering up a counter point to what I thought you were discussing. A god cannot be Omnipresent if they do not exist in all possible worlds. Also, your argument is more based on a Deistic god rather than the Theistic one. A Deistic god could exist, but they would have to be a higher dimensional being, otherwise they would be subject to the physical laws that rule this universe.

If you would like to have a debate with me about this, I would gladly accept. I don't have nearly enough characters in this comment section to cover the many points I could make.
Ending this comment, I will say that gathering evidence must be done from a bottom up approach, not a top down one.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@Atmas

No sooner did you get through requesting that I do not make assumptions than you make your very own outrageous assumption:

"We must first assume that multiple universes exist"

This assumption is not backed by a shred of evidence. The idea of a multiverse is pure speculation. That being said, the existence of a multiverse would present no solution to the problem of the origin of our universe. It only pushes the "problem" further back. Rather than asking, "What caused our universe?" We would then ask, "What caused the multiverse?"

You betray your lack of understanding of the ontological argument in saying that given a large quantity of universes, there must be at least one in which God does not exist. If it is even possible that God exists, which you do not seem to disagree with, then it follows necessarily that God exists in every possible world. Take a look at the third argument I presented in the debate for more detail.

You then go on to say that atheism has evidence and theism does not. After discussions with numerous atheists, I have yet to hear a single argument or a shred of evidence in favor of atheism. So, please enlighten me if you have any sort of evidence or argument in atheism's favor, I'd love to hear it. As for theism, there are over a dozen sound arguments that are unrefuted today. For three examples, look at the arguments I give in the debate.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@Atmas

I agree that humans attempt to invent their own "morality". This does nothing to show that there is no objective morality, it only shows that some humans are ignorant of its existence.

If morals were objective, there would be no reason to think they would need to apply to wild animals, as you assert.

In your own reasoning you hint at objective morality, indicating that natural rape, killing and eating, etc. are all "bad" acts that wild animals commit regularly. But where does this notion of "bad" come from, if morality is not objective? On your view, things like rape and killing are just as good as they are bad, yet your comment betrays a contradictory view.

I don't know of any Christian who would disagree with God being "a maximally great being". The only reason I use this definition is to be clear in my third argument; this definition is consistent with any mainstream definition of the Christian God.

To be omnipotent is to have the greatest possible power. To be maximally great involves having the greatest possible power. These two concepts clearly do not contradict as you suggest, and so there is no issue with a maximally great being holding the characteristic of omnipotence.

You are correct in saying "science does not say the universe popped into existence." Science has nothing at all to say on the subject. The origin of nature itself cannot of course be natural, and thus is outside of the bounds of science. Science is the study of the natural world, and as such, science has nothing to say about the necessarily supernatural origin of nature. I agree that the Big Bang was a process. However, at one point there was nothing, and at another moment there was something (the beginning of the Big Bang). Something cannot come from nothing. There was a point in which space, time, and matter did not exist. To deny this is to go against mainstream science and elementary logic.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
@atmas a true fellow atheist ive seen on this site so far. Nice.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Morals are a human invention. If they were objective, they would apply toward wild animals as well. Many mating rituals in nature require the male to mount and hold down the female until he is finished; natural rape. Predators kill their prey, sometimes with vicious aggression, and will kill baby/sick prey for an easy meal. If a predator killing is not immoral because they are eating their kill, shouldn't this apply towards human killers as well? As long as we eat the person we kill, it is not immoral.

There's no reason to try and change the popular description of the christian god. The deity is supposed to be omnipotent which is different from a "maximally great being". As maximally implies the god has reached the maximum possible greatness, indicating that there is a max, and thus cannot become any better, it limits the gods powers. Omnipotence means you have all the powers to an infinite degree, even though there are logical problems to any Omni power.

Science does not say the universe "popped" into existence in the manner you describe, the Big Bang was a step by step process beginning with a singularity, and after an extremely long time, resulted in our universe through pure logic. Please do not make assumptions or attempt to summarize what science has found without confirming the truth.

We must first assume that multiple universes exist before we can talk about what may exist within those outside universes. If there are multiple universes, then there are likely an infinite number of them. If there are an infinite number of universes, then at one point, eventually, there will be a universe where that god does not exist and thus has no influence. Assuming the god you talk about is maximally great.

The simple answer is, Atheism has evidence, Theism does not. Theism doesn't need much evidence to be proven true, and we are waiting patiently for you guys to provide some.
Likely, a Deistic god instituted the universe, the Theistic god has too many problem
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@Neoman

Hope I cleared this up in my last argument. My conclusion is meant to show that God's transcendence implies He cannot exist solely within time (as this would present a constraint that would be inconsistent with the concept of a maximally great being).
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@GoOrDin

I couldn't agree with you more. In this debate, both sides are expected to bring forward arguments to defend their position. So far, only one side has even attempted to do so.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
@pro you used word "cannot" in your conclusion. so even if we assume god can trascend the time, why can't he get "inside" the time? If he cannot do one thing, imeans he cant maximally great. hope this helps you to have a better understanding on my statement.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
@Goordin, do you understand now? or should i simplize it more?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
1CredoNeomanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate very clearly goes to Pro; it appeared as though Con was in a hurry. I would have given Pro conduct points as well, because I thought that Con became rather distasteful at one point, but I thought that his comment on so many atheists resorting to ad hominem attacks was an unnecessary and unpleasant generalisation. Sources to Pro. Pro made a very compelling case.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 2 years ago
Sojourner
1CredoNeomanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con's apparent lack of effort in forming cogent rebuttals attacking Pro's premises, and his ad hominem criticism. Arguments to Pro as Con's argumentation was on the verge of trolling. Con's rebuttals were lazy and incoherent. Con offered no significant supporting arguments for atheism as outlined in round 1. Sources for Pro as Con had none.
Vote Placed by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
1CredoNeomanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I noticed con didn't support his side at all therefore i deem that 1Credo wins. I fell the arguements were equally strong but since 1Credo has sources i also award him that.