The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
MrCarroll
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

god does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,298 times Debate No: 14856
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

socialpinko

Pro

I will be taking the pro side for the argument that a supreme deity does not exist. This is because there is no evidence to support this position and because all evidence available points to a godless universe.

My definition of god will be:
"The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe."
http://dictionary.reference.com...
My definition will also include the deity having the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolvence. This is because the gods of Christianity and Islam all have these attributes and these are by far the most popular deities.

Because the claim of god's existence is being made by the theist, the burden of proof is on him/her. However, since I am the one posing this debate it would seem prudent of me to list some arguments in my favor.

1- The problem of supreme qualities
The basic outline of this argument is that there is an inherent contradiction in the definition of a god who is all powerful.
ex.) Can god create a stone which he cannot lift?

2-The problem of evil
The argument goes that an all powerful and all loving god would have both the want and the means to extinguish evil. However, evil is still all around us. He either does not care(which makes him malevolent, thereby disproving the existence of at least the Abrahamic god) or he does not exist.

3-Who created god?
This is by far the most simple argument.

4-Parsimony
Naturalism supplies adequate explanations of the creation of religion and the idea of god.
ex.)religion and god were created to satisfy the need to explain natural phenomena

5-Problem of omniscience
This argument states that a deity cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent.
ex.)Can god's actions detour in any way from what he already foresaw that he would do?

These are simply my favorite five arguments against the existence of a supreme deity.
MrCarroll

Con

My friend, the evidence is all around you. I will gladly accept this debate.

The burden of proof is certainly not on the theist. Just because you can only see evidence for no God does not mean that evidence of the contrary exists. The way I see it, the two positions are equal. Neither Christianity nor Atheism can ultimately be proved or disproved.

1. The problem of supreme qualities
You do not fully understand what omnipotence means when applied to God. Omnipotence entails that God can do whatever He wills. He would never will or do anything contrary to His nature. This excludes sinning and committing absurdities. He cannot do something retarded such as create a bolder that he cannot lift, something that in definition makes no sense.

2. The problem of evil
First of all, evil is the absence of good. God is good itself so you could say that evil is the absence of God. Now, God created a universe with the possibility of sin. Why? Because this was necessary for his creation to have free will in order that they might love Him. This creation is also temporary. Another point is evil can positive affects as well as negative. "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." (James 1:2-4) Another point is, "...God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28) Don't forget, there are many cases where we don't understand evil, however, this does not mean God does not exist or is manevolent. [1]

3. Who created God?
This is the simplest argument to make and the simplest to explain. God has existed infinitely, even before time. In fact, He created time. If he is not constrained by time, which is finite, then God can logically exist forever and needs not to be created.

4. Parsomony
There is no argument here. Reverse statement: Christianity supplies adequate explanations of the creation of naturalism and the idea of no God. ex.) atheism arose from the idea that all we see and feel is all that exists.

5. Problem of omniscience
Invalid argument since God is not constrained by time. He does not "foresee" he knows.

Ontological arguments:

1. The Lewis Argument
If there was no God to create the universe, then the universe must have been an accident. If the universe is an accident, so is our thinking. If our thinking is an accident, we have no reason to believe it. This is absurd because it contradicts the premise that the universe exists. The only "way out" is to modify the first premise. Tertium non datur. Therefore there was a God to create the universe. Invented by philosopher and writer C.S. Lewis. [2]

2. Time is Finite
If a series of past infinite events is infinite, then an infinite number of events would have to elapse before the present moment could arrive. But it is impossible for an infinite number of events to elapse. Therefore, if the series of past events is infinite, the present moment could not arrive. But the present moment has arrived. Therefore, the series of past events cannot be infinite.

Given the additional premiss that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, one concludes to the uncaused first cause of the temporal series of events. [3]

This means time must have a cause. God is the only logical cause for time.

3. Anslem's Argument
The concept of God is "a being than which no greater can be conceived." Since existence is possible, and to exist is greater than to not exist, then God must exist (if God did not exist, then a greater being could be conceived, but that is self defeating—you can't have something greater than that which no greater can be conceived). Therefore, God must exist. [4]

[1] http://www.godandscience.org...
[2] Thanks to larztheloser for this argument. I really want to know where you found this.
[3] Julian Wolfe and infinite time; William L. Craig
[4] http://www.gotquestions.org...
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

A If I were to tell you that I can breathe underwater, had the ability to fly, and could bend time and space would the burden of evidence be on me to prove these claims or on you to disprove them. I hope this analogy adequately explains why the burden of proof is most certainly on the theist.

B You also said that Christianity could not be disproved. I believe on the contrary. Christianity makes some very bold claims which have never been verified(ressurection, miracles, noah's ark) and until they have been verified, may be discarded.

c God either CAN or CANNNOT create a bolder which he cannot lift. It's one or the other and according to your quotation he cannot. " He cannot do something retarded such as create a bolder that he cannot lift". Glad to get that out of the way.

d "evil can positive affects as well as negative." Looking past the grammatical mistakes could you please explain to me what positive effects come from rape, incest, or senseless murder? Unless you just take it on faith that some good things come from bad things in which case your argument is invalid and illogical.

e As to who created god, you cannot prove and I cannot disprove his/her existence on this alleged fact so I will move on from it.

f As to parsimony, you equate mere religious speculation with the fields of evolutionary psychology and religious anthropology. They are not equal. Psychology and anthropology are based on the scientific method and verifiable evidence and not on speculation and faith.

g With the problem of omniscience I will change the question slightly. Can god change his actions which he KNOWS he will do or can't he? If he can then he was never omniscient and if he can't then he was never omnipotent.

h As to the Lewis argument, it makes too many presuppositions. For example it is subjective to say that because the universe did not form on purpose then it must have been an accident. Those two scenarios presuppose that there was a creator who either purposely or accidently created the universe.

i You said.. "Given the additional premise that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, one concludes to the uncaused first cause of the temporal series of events. [3]
This means time must have a cause. God is the only logical cause for time."

If one were to follow your premise that everything must have a cause then we cannot exclude god form that premise. In that case the question of who created god comes back into play.

j As to Anslem's argument consider the reverse if only to spell out the ridiculousness of the argument. Consider that if god were to be able to create the universe without ever existing, he would be even more powerful then another god who needed to exist in order to create the universe. Therefore god does not exist.
MrCarroll

Con

A There is zero evidence of you breathing underwater and whatever else you argued. There is tons of evidence for God.

B "Christianity makes some very bold claims ... and until they have been verified, may be discarded." Discarded? Or you could say until they have been disproved they may be accepted. What about evolution? It too makes bold claims. would you discard the entire theory? Abiogenesis has never been proven possible in a lab let alone in nature. No one has ever witnessed macro evolution taking place. None of this has been verified.

C I hate repeating myself. With your arguments, you are trying to set God up with a illogical thing to do and if he cannot do it he is not omnipotent. I already explained the whole deal that He does nothing outside of His nature. Logic is part of His nature. So he does nothing illogical. Also, I think you do not understand what omnipotence means. If He WILLS something, it will happen. Your argument is no good.

D Forgive me for the error. Depending on the person's reaction, even murder and rape can be positive. If you're raped, you can learn to forgive. Forgiving someone who raped you may be the hardest thing possible. If you're murdered, there is a negative possibility and a positive one, if you know what I mean. Those are just two examples. Of course it all depends on how perceive the situation.

F My faith is not "mere religious speculation."

G Like I said, He lives outside of time. There is no "He will do" because that implies the future.

H If it wasn't an accident, then what was it? I'm not sure about what you are saying.

I You forgot that "everything that BEGINS to exist must have a cause." My argument still stands.

J How does a being exist that does not exist? This makes no sense and I don't understand why that being would be more powerful. Anyway, I agree that this argument is not the best one conceived.

So far I have refuted all of your arguments that God doesn't exist. I don't even need to prove God exists to win. I'm not sure where this debate will be heading, but I'm not thrilled about it so far. Remember not to look at everything from one perspective.

"For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you." (Acts 17:23)
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

A My point was that since it would be my responsibility to provide evidence of my superpowers it is your responsibility to provide evidence of your god. Also there is the same amount of evidence for my claims of superpowers as your claims of a big magic man in the sky as neither of us have provided any.

B "you could say until they have been disproved they may be accepted." You don't understand my point I just made. It is your job to provide evidence for your ridiculous claims. Just like it is not your job to disprove that I have superpowers, it is not my job to disprove the authenticity of your mythological claims. And were not debating about evolution so I'm not going to respond to your ignorant claims about abiogenesis or macro evolution.

C I am not arguing that your god will do something illogical, I am arguing that he either can or cannot. I'm not saying that he will choose to create a stone which he cannot lift. I'm saying that he either has the ability to or does not. It is a mere example of showing that omnipotence is logically impossible.

D And I think it's terrible that in an effort to hold on to your fairy tales you would think of defending a despicable act like rape. And didn't god supposedly know form the beginning of time that person x would be raped and that he planned for things to unfold that way. Wow, I didn't know our holy father was a rapist.

F And yes, your faith is mere speculation. I can say that I have faith that he world will end tomorrow but that does not make it any more then speculation. Faith is simply believing in something crazy in spite of evidence to the contrary.

G If he lives outside of time then why did he supposedly create Adam and Eve already knowing that they would eat the magic fruit thingy? Didn't he know even before he created the world that Eve would eat the fruit and he would damn his entire creation?

H I'm saying that it doesn't have to be an accident because an accident implies going against a purpose. Things that happen in nature are not accidents or necessarily acts of purpose. Things happen according to certain laws of nature and it is mere subjective speculation to assign hem as accidents or not.

I "everything that BEGINS to exist must have a cause." What about the theory that the universe is actually cyclic and the big bang was merely a rebirth? This would mean that the universe never had a beginning and therefore according to you does not need a cause, making god an unnecessary explanation.

J Being able to create and govern the universe without existing would make that being more powerful then one who needed to exist in order to create and rule because your deity would not be able to create an entire universe withut existing. I'm not actually seriousely saying that such a being created the world, I'm just saying that to point out how ridiculous your ontological argument is.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Since you decided to put down some meaningless babble from the Bible I figured that I would follow suit. All must obey the word of god!!
MrCarroll

Con

I am forfeiting this argument, certainly not on the basis that I cannot refute your arguments or give evidence for God, but because my opponent have shown utter disrespect.

My God is not a "big magic man in the sky," my claims are not "ridiculous," nor are they "mythological," nor "ignorant." My God is not a "rapist," if you would have listened, I explained why. If you believe "Faith is simply believing in something crazy in spite of evidence to the contrary," then I pity you. My faith is not "mere speculation."

To voters, the verse in Leviticus applied only to God's people. Homosexuality is wrong and the punishment for the Levites, because they were God's priests and had to live by a strict set of laws, in this case was death. Jesus has since overwritten this law. That is the only thing I will defend.

I'm sorry this ended on such a sour note. Socialpinko, even though I am new to Debate.org, I know this website is not meant to be used in such manner. You disrespect your opponent, while ignoring all of what your opponent has said in his arguments. It pointless to continue if you are not willing to listen. This is disgraceful conduct. I hope readers understand me forfeiting.
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

I wish you would not think that I meant you any disrespect personally. I described your ideas in the way that I think they deserved to be. The did not possess any intellectual merit in my opinion. Your opinions are most certainly mythological and please do not try to describe faith as anything more then speculation. I could say that I have faith that I will grow a third foot but that does not mean that you must respect that position. And your little bit about it being wrong for the Levites to be homosexual offends me deeply as I happen to be gay. There is absolutely no justification for a deity to try to sexually repress his/her followers. You are born gay or you are born straight and the fact that the people who wrote the Bible believed that being gay could ever be wrong is simply further testament that the men who wrote the Bible were just as ignorant as everyone else and was by no means divinely inspired.
MrCarroll

Con

MrCarroll forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
socialpinko

Pro

You forfeited so I guess there's no point in posting my argument.
MrCarroll

Con

MrCarroll forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
If I were in a debate and believed like con that pro's conduct was innapropropriate, why not simply finish the debate and get the free conduct vote?
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
"Abiogenesis has never been proven possible in a lab let alone in nature."

See http://www.debate.org... for a discussion of this exact point.
Posted by Republican14 5 years ago
Republican14
Of course god exist, i am with you MrCarrol
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"At MOST, you could attempt to prove that "A God who is bound by natural laws of physics cannot exist in what we know of this universe."

Very true, I have not seen anyone attempt this semantic defense, but it is perfectly valid to attack the definition of exist unless it has been clearly defined.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
But that's the point... you commented on another debate of mine "Debates are technical, language is important."

The debate "God does not exist" does not limit it to this localized reality. In fact, if God existed according to Christian Theology, the fact that he "cannot" exist according to physical laws is moot... since according to Christian Theology, God is able to circumvent those physical laws as he sees fit (the nature of a miracle is to circumvent a physical or natural law). I understand that those circumventions cannot be submitted in a debate (unless allowed for by definition of the debate), however that doesn't prevent him from existing. At MOST, you could attempt to prove that "A God who is bound by natural laws of physics cannot exist in what we know of this universe."
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"What about in alternate universes (Most quantum theory posits multiple universes, hence the term multi-verse) that may have developed with different physics? What about in other dimensions?"

In other universes etc. we have no idea what is there or even if they exist that is true. Generally when people say that something exists, they mean now in our universe. Thus if someone was to say God does not, or even could not exist they mean now, here, not that there could be a universe somewhere and God exists in that.

Just consider if someone asked you did you commit a crime, would you say yes because somewhere in someone universe of the infinite possible, there would obviously be a you that did it? No.

Now you could defend God as being not in a logical contradiction by arguing that God exists in a singularity of which we do not know the nature (we do not have a theory which unifies relativity and quantum theory) but that is only true if he exists ONLY in those places and does not manifest out of them.

So yes, I would accept something like there could be a God like thing in another universe, or in black holes, but if they tried to manifest in our universe - the same argument then applies to prevent them from existing.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Are you saying that it would be legitimate for me to pose a debate where I say "Pro automatically gets Conduct and Spelling points regardless of his actual conduct and spelling?" and expect those rules to stick?"

There is nothing in the ToS from actually making a debate which has the rule that your opponent must forfeit all rounds, and can only post I Forfeit. There has been discussion pretty much continuously about debate rules, and in the comment sections of various debates private wars can rage about it, but there is no consensus which has been reached, though I agree it would be a good thing. If you feel passionate about it why not make a thread and start a lobby to try to get some kind of standard format/conduct for debate resolutions.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You may be right that there is nothing against the rules of the site that say you can't define alternate rules. And it was probably imprudent for Pro to accept that burden in this debate (under those terms). It still seems improper to post a formal debate and redefine how the rules of debate work.

Are you saying that it would be legitimate for me to pose a debate where I say "Pro automatically gets Conduct and Spelling points regardless of his actual conduct and spelling?" and expect those rules to stick?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Cliff,

Your example of electrical charges and the laws of electricity...

What about in the center of a black hole? What about in alternate universes (Most quantum theory posits multiple universes, hence the term multi-verse) that may have developed with different physics? What about in other dimensions?

In fact, Big-Bang theory asserts that at the initial moments after the big bang, the 4 great laws of physics were different (Gravitation, Weak and Strong Attraction, and Electromagnetism). It's very possible that the configuration that you say is impossible existed during those moments (or could have existed).
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"You cannot just assign Con burden of proof, that's not how formal debate works."

There is nothing in the ToS which says debates on this site follow the protocol of any established debating league/competition. In the opening post rules of the debate you can define anything, there are in fact some debates here which have very odd rules. Some require you to make certain actions or you automatically lose and forfeit all 7 points regardless of the quality of your argument. There is nothing in the ToS stopping anyone from setting rules in the opening and once you accept them you either follow them or at least lose conduct, at at worst lose the entire debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Green_Man 5 years ago
Green_Man
socialpinkoMrCarrollTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkoMrCarrollTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40