The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

god is false

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 1 vote the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 424 times Debate No: 71669
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

only know is true, and i dont know god

know=physical experience
1Credo

Con

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

Arguments for God


I will present 3 deductive logical arguments in favor of God's existence. If each premise of a given argument is more likely true than its negation, then it follows logically and necessarily that the conclusion is true. So, in order for one to reject the conclusion (God exists) one must knock down at least one of the premises. If, at the debate's conclusion, there are any arguments in which the premises remain standing, then the argument is sound and its conclusion follows necessarily.

i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1:I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.
Defense of P2:There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.
Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C1: Therefore, God exists.

Defense of P1:Here again, premise one is relatively uncontroversial. If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God.
Defense of P2:Each of us have a sense of morality which tells us that certain actions are objectively "good" or objectively "evil". For example, I can clearly recognize that altruism (self-sacrifice in order to further the well-being of others) is objectively good. I can also clearly recognize that raping and torturing a child is objectively evil. I have no more reason to doubt the reliability of these moral senses than I do to doubt the reliability of my physical senses. In other words, for any argument given in an attempt to show that our moral senses are not valid (and objective morality is therefore not valid), I can construct a parallel argument to show that our physical senses are not valid (and the physical world we experience through these senses is therefore not valid). In order for one to disagree with premise two, one must believe that an action like rape is just as "good" as an action like generosity, and that no objective distinction can be made between the nature of "goodness" of the two acts.

iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Defense of P1:In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.
Defense of P2-P6:I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.

Summary

I have presented three arguments in favor of God's existence. In order to win this debate, my opponent must refute each of these arguments (by knocking down at least one premise in each argument) and successfully put forward sound arguments in favor of his own position. Until my opponent is able to do this, we can conclude that it is at the very least as reasonable to believe in God's existence as it is to believe that God does not exist.

Thank you.

Sources

http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

i dont know god, therfore god is false, as only know is true
1Credo

Con

"God does not exist" does not follow from the statement "I don't know God". This would be like saying "Barack Obama does not exist because I don't know him". Moreover, there are billions of people who know God.

No response was given to any of the three arguments I presented, so extend arguments.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

god exist, lies exist

i dont know Obama is Word play, know=physical experience

Obama might be an animated program, i dont know, therfore Obama is false, false is imaginary, as any false answer is imaginary
1Credo

Con

My opponent has failed to address any of the arguments I presented in favor of God's existence. Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

my argument stand undefeated and defeats all of your possible arguments, until my claim is proven false your claims are false, as mine is true

Con, you are not pro, i am not con on your arguments, but i can counter them in another debate if you like
1Credo

Con

My opponent has failed to address any of the arguments I presented in favor of God's existence. Extend arguments.

My opponent's reasoning is unsound. As I stated in the second round: "God does not exist" does not follow from the statement "I don't know God". This would be like saying "Barack Obama does not exist because I don't know him". Moreover, there are billions of people who know God.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

Again i am not con on your arguments.. its really simple m8

and god is false, not non existent, lies exist

as i said, its a fallacious way of using the Word, you do not know Obama, by looking at a screen, i know the light on the screen, thats it

being alone, the true size of the human population is 1

know=physical experience
1Credo

Con

I can't very well respond to an argument which doesn't contain coherent sentences.

My opponent has failed to address any of the arguments I presented in favor of God's existence. Extend arguments.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
lies are true?
Posted by Hello1647583 1 year ago
Hello1647583
Hello, If Lie exist and God exist, your opposition about 'God is False' contradicts to your posting. Press the brick wall contradiction, Prove it.
I Enter P roc on bro.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
sry creado but read what im saying.. you are not pro
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
sure, go for it
Posted by LaughItUpLydia 1 year ago
LaughItUpLydia
Can I play?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 1 year ago
Sojourner
vi_spex1CredoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Con as Pro's opening support for the resolution was gramtically incorrect. "only know is true" makes no sense. Arguments to Con. Con effectively refuted the resolution an Pro did little to address Con's arguments. Sources to Con as Pro had none.