The Instigator
the_dark_night
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sunfire315
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

does the god of the bible exist

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 1 vote the winner is...
Sunfire315
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 329 times Debate No: 91107
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

the_dark_night

Con

I believe god does not exist, for the simple reason that there is no evidence that I have ever come across. As it is a logical irrationality to believe in an entity with no evidence to back up the belief, I will not believe the arbitrary belief of some magical benevolent space daddy.
Sunfire315

Pro

I accept.

My stance is that the God of the bible exists, and there is evidence to back it up.
Debate Round No. 1
the_dark_night

Con

Please preset what you consider to be evidence for his existance.
Sunfire315

Pro

Kalam cosmological argument.
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.[1]
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.
sources;
][1] Penrose, Roger. 1989. The Emperor"s New Mind. Oxford University Press. P. 344
Debate Round No. 2
the_dark_night

Con

My refutation:
1) you stated, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause", to this I say, quantum mechanics says otherwise in the case of
"virtual particles".
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.
Sunfire315

Pro

Virtual particles are extremely short lasting, and it would be extremely unlikely for the universe: being 8 billion years old, to be the result of a quantum fluctuation. The quantum vacuum is not nothing, rather it is a fluctuating sea of energy governed by physical laws. [1].

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[2] and the weak force[3] 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. [4]

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.

[1]https://www.youtube.com...
[2]http://library.thinkquest.org...
[3]http://www.is-there-a-god.info...
[4] Susskind2005, pg. 80-82
Debate Round No. 3
the_dark_night

Con

the_dark_night forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
the_dark_night

Con

the_dark_night forfeited this round.
Sunfire315

Pro

Sunfire315 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sunfire315 6 months ago
Sunfire315
Its okay
Posted by the_dark_night 6 months ago
the_dark_night
I'll make up next round.
Posted by the_dark_night 6 months ago
the_dark_night
CRAAAAAAAAP!!!!!!! i missed it!!!
Posted by Sunfire315 7 months ago
Sunfire315
My contention is that there are good reasons to believe in the biblical God, and that there are not comparably good reasons that the biblical God exists.
Posted by Sunfire315 7 months ago
Sunfire315
How so?
Posted by ErectileReptile 7 months ago
ErectileReptile
These cosmological arguments are extremely flawed
Posted by asulabha_sathyan 7 months ago
asulabha_sathyan
Pardon me if I am wrong.
God according to me is not human or a thing and definitely cannot be heard or seen. But god is a force. A force responsible for the creation of almost every single thing existent today.
I believe that the stories said in bible or quran or any holy scriptures were said with partial or complete truth. As we all know it evidence stating the existence of god has been altered a billion times for personal benefits of the people in power back in history. Truth is that the entire existence of god and his miracles has been heard or told by many cause there is a bit of truth in it. I really don't think humans from the past were bored one day and cooked up a whole story.
Everything has a scientific explanation. Even in that 99.9 % scientific reason there is a 0.1% nobody has an answer to. That 0.1% is god. Many seem small bit that 0.% is why it all began
Posted by Sunfire315 7 months ago
Sunfire315
No it didn't. Prior to the initial cosmological singularity, there was literally nothing.

"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."[1]

Furthermore, if the singularity was just this little pellet sitting in space about to explode, why didn't it explode MUCH earlier? An eternity is a long time.

Source: John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 442[1]
Posted by zookdook1 7 months ago
zookdook1
The universe didn't begin (Probably). Pre-BB the universe still existed, it was just a singularity the size of a salt crystal or even smaller.
Posted by the_dark_night 7 months ago
the_dark_night
please hurry up and post your next argument
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 6 months ago
dsjpk5
the_dark_nightSunfire315Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06