The Instigator
narmak
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Jordeef
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

god does not exist logic version

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 4 votes the winner is...
Jordeef
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,112 times Debate No: 27876
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)

 

narmak

Pro

Ok so i would like to thank anyone who accepts this debate.
I have a couple of rules the con may not ignore any logic presented in this argument as i wil not.

Con must define their version of omnipotent as the ability to do anything even logically absurd or the ability to do all things logical.

The god in th debate is basically an all powerful being that created everything.
Jordeef

Con

If God has created reality, our notion of absurdity in that reality is inherently dependent on his creation of reality. Ergo, he does not have to operate within that reality. The concept of God allows for Him to operate outside the existence of this universe or creation. Anything outside of this universe is also outside the laws of reality as we know them.

The concept of God is an infinite being. One all powerful and outside time and space as we experience them. Everything is possible for this God.
Debate Round No. 1
narmak

Pro

Ok con suggest that god is capable of doing anything and by stating god is all poweful but this is where the problem is. If god is all powerful and able to do anything then that would suggest that he could create a new being that surpasses his power but if that were true that would mean god couldnt be all powerful as he has the ability to create somthing stronger than himself. That being said logically omnipotent must refer to the ability to do all things logically. For example creating a square circle is impossible that is not a matter of power both shapes contradict each other squares have 4 equal and straight sides and 4 corners circles have no corners and no straight lines.Such a shape can never exist. so that would not count against gods power.

As in round 1 i stated this is the god who created everything. That being said i will go back to some basic math for a second does 0=1 the answer being no only 1=1. So what we can gather here is that somthing can not be created from nothing which is what god suppposedly does. If we take a look at the first law of physics it states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed which we can prove with the math we just did. If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed then logically the two must have always existed. Both matter and energy exist within time and space so time and space have always existed. The univere is made up of matter energy space and time ergo the universe has always existed. now it says that god created everything but tell me how do you create somthing that always existed?

Yes odds are somone is going to bring up that it is impossible for somthing to have always existed but then i could say the same for god. either way somthing had to have always existed resulting in an infinite past. nothing can exist outside of time as every action requires x amount of time to perform even if x is very very small. And if you refer to the existance of somthing you refer to their existance within time. You cannot say somthing exised before time because that would make no logical sense as you are reffering to a time before time.

Just as you cannot exist outside of time you cannot exist outside of space every objet takes up some part of space. lets just picture a cardboard box that can fit 5 cubes now that is our universe. if the box is full can anymore objects exist within the box? no because there is no space for them.

Ok so back to the definiton of god the one who created everthing and is omnipotent.
I proved the univrse has always existed ergo god could not have created it.
The definiton of omnipotent as proven must be that god is only capable of doing anything logical.

That being said if god can only do things logically then he must a be made of matter or energy in order to influence our universe for example moving an object requires kinetic energy and mass. Ek=1/2mv^2 if one is missing an object cannot be moved. But if god is made up of mass and energy he would not be able to do everything logically possible as he would have limits based on the matter and energy he is made up of.

So logically an omnipotent creater cannot exist as everytng already existed and one cannot be omnipotent beccause there are limits on every thing
Jordeef

Con

First of all I thank you for responding.

"For example creating a square circle is impossible that is not a matter of power both shapes contradict each other"

This does not exist within the confines of common logic. The concept is absolutely illogical. It is logically impossible to create a square circle. God is defined logically. Your definition of omnipotence relies on the ability to do the illogical, and this is fallacious. God is defined, and therefore limited by logic: Hebrews 6:18 states that God can not lie for example. God is limited by his properties - God cannot "lie" because he is necessarily all-good. The ability to create a being more powerful is inherently absurd because it suggests that one can be more powerful than omnipotence. God can not create a rock bigger than He can lift because liftening an unliftable stone is as absurd as creating a square circle.

"If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed then logically the two must have always existed."

"either way somthing had to have always existed resulting in an infinite past"

You are correct in asserting that some-"thing" had to exist eternally for all to exist as it does now. For time to be a reality in our own universe, there must be an infinity outside of this creation. The infinite property of God allows Him to be the spark of all creation including the matter and energy of our own. You are limiting God to spatiotemporal reality, when in actuality, He obviously must exist outside of our own universe in order to create it. In a multiverse view, this is absolutely possible.

"That being said if god can only do things logically then he must a be made of matter or energy in order to influence our universe"

Again, God does not exist within our universe. This may come as a surprise, but the laws of matter and energy are a part of this universe. All physics exist in this universe, and we have no means by which to suggest than anything outside of our own must exist within these same confines of physics.

God is non spatiotemporal, ergo, He is not necessarily composed of the matter and energy, and bound by the same time that we observe in our universe.

I again thank you for the response.
Debate Round No. 2
narmak

Pro

I Gave two definitions of omnipotent the first having the ability to do anything which is the one you agreed with in round 1 and the 2nd one being god can do anything as long as it is logical.

You agreed god can do illogical things in round 1 but then change in round 2?????

and you cant consider god t o be all good when you pay attention to the story of noahs ark he sends a flood that wipes out the population of the earth. The act of killing is evil and in this case shows wrath which is a sin. And again creating a being that surpasses god is impossible due to the laws of logic which you clearly stated was within gods ability.

And then you go to say that the universe was created when i just proved it always existed???
Jordeef

Con

You seem to forget the reason that God sent the flood in the first place. It wasn't to mindlessly kill everyone, but to preserve the pure life on the Earth, being Noah, his family, and the animals.

The very credible theory of the Big Bang states that matter was created from nothing. I already explained in detail how this fits with the concept of God. I explained how your "proof" of the universe always existing only applies to this universe, and I delineated how God exists outside of it.

The burden of proof has been on you to explain how He can not exist. I explained how He can exist in both the logical and absurd views. I also thoroughly refuted all of your arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
yes we are sooo treasured sooo much to the point where we can kill millions of people and have him sit up there and watch the shosw like a dumb *** good job belive in that malevolat bastard
Posted by alvarezd41 4 years ago
alvarezd41
Hi everyone,
I would like to give you hope and tell you what I have been revealed by our creator. 1st let me start by saying that we are our creator's most treasured and beloved creation. We are all extremely valuable and we all hold the knowledge of creation inside each and everyone of us.

God is inside everyone of us. We are all eternal beings, this means we have always been and will always be. When in doubt look inside of you and you will find the truth. It has always been there. Our true self exist beyond this existence. If you truly want to know god all you have to do is remember and let the truth come out and embrace your true self for we already know god and have always known him.

Don't get caught on the lies of this materialistic world.

We are already closer to our creator than anything else in existence but we must learn to look inside and trust for he exist within you.

Peace and love be with you my eternal brothers. I truly love you all.

We are all connected.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
That parent particles generate gauge bosons out of nothing (massless or not massless) is a scientifically explained phenomenon. I'm not quite sure what your point is in typing these posts where you ramble on about what you search on Google, but I'm telling you that paricle physics demonstrates matter is created out of the nothingness of spacetime when particles interact. Massless or not, it's still matter, and it's still created out of nothing. Honestly, this is getting boring, as you're just repeating your finds on Google which continue to confirm what I'm telling you.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
there is nothing to say they are created from nothing
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
Can't matter just inherently have mass without the Higgs boson confusing things? Not according to the standard model. But physicists have found a solution. What if all particles have no inherent mass, but instead gain mass by passing through a field? This field, known as a Higgs field, could affect different particles in different ways. Photons could slide through unaffected, while W and Z bosons would get bogged down with mass. In fact, assuming the Higgs boson exists, everything that has mass gets it by interacting with the all-powerful Higgs field, which occupies the entire universe. Like the other fields covered by the standard model, the Higgs one would need a carrier particle to affect other particles, and that particle is known as the Higgs boson.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Thanks for correcting yourself, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but I'm not mistaken about this.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
The Higgs boson is the last undiscovered component of the Standard Model and theorized to give fundamental particles mass. The upcoming results for the Higgs hunt combined with this new measurement of the W boson mass will provide the strongest test yet of the accuracy of the Standard Model. ignore the last comment did some more digging
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
Actually, gauge bosons should be massless, which is true for photons, gluons and probably gravitons. W bosons and Z bosons,
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
narmak, gauge bosons are particles that mediate all of the fundamental forces. They are created out of nothing "by" a parent particle -- these are called *virtual particles*. The gluon, photon, and hypothetical graviton (mediator of the strong interaction, electromagnetism, and gravity) are all massless, but the W +-, the mediator of the weak interaction, has mass. However, as a gauge boson it is still created out of the nothingness of spacetime. I'm sorry, but your entire case rests on Laws that simply have no meaning anymore.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
il do some more research on them but they are definately not made from nothing that is impossible regardless of what universe it is.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
narmakJordeefTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter iamnotwhoiam vote below. He states, Con rebutted all pros arguments and voted Pro.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
narmakJordeefTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con rebutted all pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
narmakJordeefTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G to Con because he had less mistakes in his syntax and diction, and because his arguments were overall better organised and easier to read. Arguments to Con, because, unlike philochristos, I feel Con actually did successfully rebut God's lack of causal power by showing that the only justification Pro gave (concerning the conservation of matter) was false in that it assumed physical laws also applied metaphysically. Pro's round 3 response dropped just about everything from the debate, and Con finally secured a victory.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
narmakJordeefTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to deal with Pro's argument against the possibility of God having causal influence in the world. His response amounted to a mere assertion without dealing with the argument. Con waited until the last round to offer a rebuttal to Pro's argument for a beginningless universe, which made it impossible for Pro to defend his argument.