does the god of the bible exist
Debate Rounds (5)
My stance is that the God of the bible exists, and there is evidence to back it up.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
The first premise is frankly common sense.
The second premise is supported by the big bang theory, and the second law of thermodynamics
If the universe, all of space time and matter, has a cause, then that cause must be spaceless timeless and immaterial, as if it were not it would have to effectively cause itself. There cannot be a "natural cause" of the natural world: as there must be a natural world in the first place for there to be natural causes.
Fine tuning of the universe for life
1. The fine tuning of the universe is due either to chance necessity or design
2. Neither chance nor necessity
3. Therefore design.
The sheer fine tuning of the universal constants required for even the possibility of life is incredible. If the level of entropy in the early universe had been different by even a single part in 10^10^123, there wouldn't even be the possibility of life.
Chance is not a valid explanation, as the odds are too astronomical for it to have been due solely to chance.
Jesus tomb was found empty by his women followers 3 days after his death: Had the tomb not been empty, it would have been highly unlikely that the jewish rebuttal to this claim to be that the disciples stole the body. Instead they could have just checked the tomb. Secondly, women were not regarded as valid witnesses during this time, and thus it would be highly unlikely that they would write it so the women were the ones to discover the empty tomb.
I will elaborate in my next round. I would like my opponent to state which premises he rejects and why.
] Penrose, Roger. 1989. The Emperor"s New Mind. Oxford University Press. P. 344
1) you stated, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause", to this I say, quantum mechanics says otherwise in the case of
2) you stated, "The universe began to exist", why are you so certain.
Thus William Craig's conclusion is not "frankly common sense".
Unfortunatly your second premise falls to pieces after this.
you did not refute the possibilty of chance or necssity for the fine tuning of life, therefore the claim of intelligent design is irrational. plus this argument does not support the existance of god.
if roger penroses claim is correct we are very lucky indeed, but alas this doesn't prove that god exists.
for your final argument you did not present any sources so these are just empty claims being made.
If the universe, the entirety of space time and matter, had a cause, then that cause must exist independently of time and space: immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. There are 2 things which could fit into this conceptual category: abstract objects like numbers, and a disembodied mind. Numbers cannot cause anything, so it must be a mind. Furthermore: there are problems with an timeless and spaceless impersonal cause: the cause would have to have the necessary and sufficient conditions to create its effect existing timelessly with it, and if the right conditions for the effect exist coexist timelessly with the cause: why isn't the effect also timeless and spaceless as well?
Chance fails as an explanation because it is far too improbable that we would just randomly have a life supporting universe. Odds of 1 in 10^10^123 is There are more constants than just the level of entropy which would have needed to be adjusted: the gravitational constant and the weak force constant each must be fine tuned to a degree of 1 in 10^60. The cosmological constant must be fine tuned to one part in 10^120 in order for life to exist. 
The reason why necessity is not a valid explanation is because these values are independent of the laws of nature: they are entirely arbitrary. It is perfectly conceivable and possible for there to be a universe which had different constants and quantities.
Time limitations and classwork have prevented me from going over the evidence for the resurrection in this post.
 Susskind2005, pg. 80-82
the_dark_night forfeited this round.
the_dark_night forfeited this round.
Sunfire315 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.