The Instigator
hashtagmugger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tala00131
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

does god exist? (cont)

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  
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: 10/13/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 38845
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

hashtagmugger

Con

ill let you have the first spin since i got the last last time.
tala00131

Pro

Hi, I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. There are logical, and sound reasons to think that God exists, here they are:

The kalam cosmological argument:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe had a cause

P1: Have you ever seen anything come into existence without a cause? A horse? Root beer? Pepsi? Computers? No. Why? Because this doesn't happen in reality. It defies all of logic to think that something can come into existence without a cause. Now, Lawrence Krauss has said that subatomic particles come into being without a cause. However, this just isn't true. They are caused from energy in a quantum vacuum. Krauss is re defining nothing to mean the quantum vacuum. Nothing in the English language is non existence. The quantum vacuum is a pool of energy and matter, and particles, and light. That isn't nothing.

P2: Atheists have attempted to say that the universe is eternal, however, this just isn't possible anymore. We have pretty strong evidence that the universe began to exist. For example, the universe is expanding, which means it had to have come into being from a point in the finite past. Now, many atheists have said that the universe came into existence from a huge explosion 13.7 billion years ago, in an event known as the big bang. Now, what makes the big bang so interesting is that it says the universe came from nothing and by nothing. But that doesn't make sense, out of nothing, nothing comes. After all, premise one shows that whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

Conclusion: Now that we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and the universe did begin to exist, it follows that the universe had a cause. What must that cause be? It must be: timeless, and spaceless, since time and space didn't exist before the origin of the universe. It must be immaterial, since anything beyond space can't be physical. It must be powerful, since it created the universe with no materials, it must also be personal, since the only things which can exist outside of time and space are minds, or abstract objects. But, abstract objects can't cause anything.

A fine tuned universe: Scientists have been shocked by the fact that the conditions of the universe have been finely tuned for life to exist. To give an example of this, if the rate of expansion of the big bang was changed by as little as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 life wouldn't"t exist. If the atomic weak force was changed by 2% life wouldn't"t exist. This fine tuning can only be due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. Now, it can"t be due to physical necessity, because the physical constants are independent of the laws of nature. Now, could it be due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds of the fine tuning occurring by chance is so incomprehensibly great that they can"t be reasonably faced. It is more likely that the stars will arrange themselves tonight to spell your name, then for the fine tuning to have occurred by chance. Thus, this gives us a designer of the universe.

Humans have the ability to see and appreciate beauty in all areas of life. This ability does not have its roots in evolution, for evolution is driven by survival, and the ability to see and appreciate beauty is not necessary for survival. Since the origins of beauty are not to be found in nature, we must look above and beyond nature (to the divine) to explain it.

Humans have the ability to behave morally. Scientists have put this down to our genes behaving selfishly, doing things because of such tactics as the belief in reciprocal benefits the subject and the object helped by the subject, good behavior towards one"s family to ensure the survival of one"s genes. These theories fly in the face of evidence that this is not what encourages most decent people to behave morally. Moral behavior of humans cannot be explained in evolutionary terms, so we must again look beyond the natural world to find our answer for it. Also, moral behavior is exactly what we would expect if God existed.
Debate Round No. 1
hashtagmugger

Con

i would firstly like to say that my opponents arguments have already been used in the original debate Does god exist click on one of our name and scroll down to find it but here are some facts that god doesn't exist, here are 50 reasons why he doesn't exist

Try praying

Statistically analyze prayer

Look at all historical gods

Think about science

Read the Bible

Ponder God's plan

Understand religious delusion

Think about Near Death Experiences

Understand ambiguity

Watch the offering plate

Notice that there is no scientific evidence

See the magic

Take a look at slavery

Examine Jesus' miracles

Examine Jesus' resurrection

Contemplate the contradictions

Think about Leprechauns

Imagine heaven

Notice that you ignore Jesus

Notice your church

Understand Jesus' core message

Count all the people God wants to murder

Listen to the Doxology

Ask why religion causes so many problems

Understand evolution and abiogenesis

Notice that the Bible's author is not "all-knowing"

Think about life after death

Notice how many gods you reject

Think about communion

Examine God's sexism

Understand that religion is superstition

Talk to a theologian

Contemplate the crucifixion

Examine your health insurance policy

Notice Jesus' myopia

Realize that God is impossible

Think about DNA

Contemplate the divorce rate among Christians

Realize that Jesus was a jerk

Understand Christian motivations

Flip a coin

Listen when "God talks"

Realize that a "hidden God" is impossible

Think about a Christian housewife

Consider Noah's Ark

Ponder Pascal's Wager

Contemplate Creation

Compare prayer to a lucky horseshoe

Look at who speaks for God

Ask Jesus to appear

and done
tala00131

Pro

My opponent did not address my arguments, nor did he provide any real reason to think there was not a creator of the universe.
Debate Round No. 2
hashtagmugger

Con

the kalam cosmological argument explains that
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.

Based on the references below (and other research), I've assembled the following list of objections:

1. Everything that any human being has ever directly observed to be "created" was actually created by re-arranging atoms or energy. That's what our word "created" means. Therefore we cannot extrapolate from our observations to any assertion about how one creates energy and matter ex nihilo. Therefore the universe did not "begin to exist" in the same sense that physical objects "began to exist". The words mean two different things in the two different parts of the "proof".

2. We could fix the first problem and say that the universe was created from pre-existing material. If so, where did that material come from?

3. Quantum physics allows so-called "virtual particles" to "begin to exist" with no cause that is discernable by science so-far. So premise 1 fails again.

4. IF the universe has a cause, it could also be a natural cause, like a "parent universe". There is no particular reason to believe that the creator of the universe has a "will" or "mind". It could be purely natural and mechanistic.

5. Infinities come up often in physics (e.g. the future of the universe, the probable size of the universe), so there is nothing intrinsically impossible about the universe being the "child" of another universe which is a child of another universe and so on infinitely. It's no different than a point being "just beyond" another point which is "just beyond" another point infinitely in a direction -- which is what physicists believe our universe is like (no, the universe is not believed to wrap back on itself anymore).

6. If the creator of the universe does have a will or mind, there is no reason to believe that it cares about the humans who take up a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the space in it. Earth is a small planet around a small sun in an unexceptional arm of a medium sized galaxy in an unexceptional galaxy group in an infinite universe.

7. If it does care about us, there is no reason to believe that it is the CHRISTIAN god and not, for example, Tonacatecutli the Aztec creator god.

8. Scientists believe that the Big Bang was the start of both matter and also time. A discussion of what happened "before time" or was the "cause of time" is potentially paradoxical or at the very least not amenable to our common definitions of the words "begin" and "cause".
tala00131

Pro

tala00131 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
hashtagmugger

Con

hashtagmugger forfeited this round.
tala00131

Pro

tala00131 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
hashtagmugger

Con

hashtagmugger forfeited this round.
tala00131

Pro

My opponent says the following:
1. Everything that any human being has ever directly observed to be "created" was actually created by re-arranging atoms or energy. That's what our word "created" means. Therefore we cannot extrapolate from our observations to any assertion about how one creates energy and matter ex nihilo. Therefore the universe did not "begin to exist" in the same sense that physical objects "began to exist". The words mean two different things in the two different parts of the "proof".

Response: There is NO law of causality that states everything must begin to exist from pre-existing materials. It just says that whatever begins to exist must have some cause behind them.

3. Quantum physics allows so-called "virtual particles" to "begin to exist" with no cause that is discernable by science so-far. So premise 1 fails again.

Response: These particles don't come into being without a cause; they're caused by the energy in the vacuum.

4. IF the universe has a cause, it could also be a natural cause, like a "parent universe". There is no particular reason to believe that the creator of the universe has a "will" or "mind". It could be purely natural and mechanistic.

Response: There's no evidence for this 'theory'. Also, we have good reasons to think that we're not the product of a black hole in another universe. The reason being, is, inside a black hole, the information is lost. So, how could you ever get the information to build another universe? Also, the second law of thermodynamics says this could not go on for an infinite amount of time.

6. If the creator of the universe does have a will or mind, there is no reason to believe that it cares about the humans who take up a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the space in it. Earth is a small planet around a small sun in an unexceptional arm of a medium sized galaxy in an unexceptional galaxy group in an infinite universe.

Response: Irrelevant.

8. Scientists believe that the Big Bang was the start of both matter and also time. A discussion of what happened "before time" or was the "cause of time" is potentially paradoxical or at the very least not amenable to our common definitions of the words "begin" and "cause".

Response: The big bang supports the second premise.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by fnarkchang 3 years ago
fnarkchang
hashtagmugger, you're not good at debating at all
Posted by fnarkchang 3 years ago
fnarkchang
hashtagmugger, you're not good at debating at all
No votes have been placed for this debate.