The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
wingnut2280
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

god's existence cannot be proven

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,264 times Debate No: 956
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (21)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Depends on the level of proof you want, and how you define God. But ultimately, if you define God in any meaningful terms, or with substantial level of proof, God's existence cannot be proven.

incidentally. I believe in God's existence, but I don't claim it's definitive proof.
(Faith is arbitrary; and the act of faith -- of its very nature -- involves man's free choice (libero arbitrio).)

CAUSATION
everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.

Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it. This is not analogous completely, but it makes an important point. That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random. But, it's still the point that it's arbitrary, like the spaghetti monster, to say intelligence is necessary.

Now, It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. Ultimately this analogy does not fly either though, because a bike is specific, whereas the world is something that could have always been. (if god can alway have been, the world could always have been)
So we have the spaghetti monster on the one side and the bike on the other, ha.

In broader terms, there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian. perhaps as you were saying, if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily. If that can just be, so can God.

Some people insist there's "something" that just "has" to be. As Ronald Knox put it, you can add as many links and as large as you like to a chain, but at some point you have to have a peg to hang it on, reiterating the point of an infinite chain argument. Some people like to hang their argument on this "thing" that must just be.
it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.

now, the big bang actually helps verify the dogma of God's existence as certainty, because we stop talking about the never ending chain as much. But was there anything before the big bang? We shouldn't assume so, it seems sufficient proof to say at least as far as that goes, that there ws nothing before the big bang, and if scientists are allowed to make deductions like this as a degree of proof, deductive while not inductive, the theologian should be able to too.
So, we see empiracally that there was a first cause, the big bang. if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next ones then God? Or if it was random chance, is that God? To make God's existence mean anything, that is not God. If you define God as some abstract first cause, you're not defining him as much if it could just be a bunch of particles or random chance.
So if particles and random chance are possible, then God's existence isn't proven. Even if we assume nothing before the big bang.

you'd just be stomping your foot saying that a first cause, ie God, can just be without a cause, cause he's the first cause and can't have a cause before him. it's like a leap of logic that's not necessarily warrnated or based on anything we've seen as humans empiracally.

definitive proof would be proving either logically that there was a first cause, beyond particles and random chance. proving that there wasn't anything before the big bang that went back on and on. as of now we just have evidence for God. like if you see a dark spot, you have evidence that it's a shadow and thus would need an object causing it, but it could also be a natural dark spot where the sun don't sun. (no i'm not saying in anyone's behind.....) i think it'd be techincally deductive proof, not inductive. i forget the meaning of those words or if they ar teh right words but it's one of those.

ORDER AND INTELLIGENCE
same for intelligence. that there is order to hte universe doesn't prove God.
First of all, you're arguing that something complex, ie existance, was created by something that would be presumably even mroe complex?
where'd that complexity of God come from?
ockham's razor. The simplest solution would be the most probable.

Order could just means that order happened to occur, if we assume random chance and particles.
if you define intelligence as order then sure, but that's not saying much. you have to give the intelligence consciousness to mean anything substantial.

same with somethign complex like a watch. it's just proof, even more proof, but not exhaustive. when you look at something complex like a watch, it didn't spring up out of nowhere. it got here as an end product of earth formation, and evolution, and trial and errors and all that. if it did just spring up, you'd have something.
if life can form from elementary particles, that would eventially give rise to evolution to complexity. as per the world being ordered, it seems like it just follows laws of entropy and order just happened to occur givne gravity and such. it's not an unreasonable argument. but i agree God makes most sense, just isn't proof.

but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. I suppose here it'd be reasonable to say God exists, almost certainly, but I simply cannot see how you could say for sure.the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?

order is indicative of inteligent consciousness but not a proof definitively.

OTHER ARGUMENTS
but it's not without evidence theisitc faith. miracles is one. nderf.org is too.
though, nderf is pretty shaky about who or what God is doeother than many claim he exists.
miracles that can be done over and over would be very good proof in itself but that is lacking.
you could argue that miracles are proof, but, still, why would something complex ie miracles require something even more complex, ie God? This goes with the argument about about order and how it's almost miraclulous…. It's not definitive proof but at least with miracles, it's much closer.

"God as existance". a catharisis so theists can certainly claim God exists. no one would deny existance, rational people anyway. and you can call that God if you want, but it's not saying much of anything.
wingnut2280

Con

Berekley's argument proves the necessity of the existence of God. He argues for the existence of God through abstract idealism.

Basically, there are no such thing as concrete objects. Only perceptions exist in the mind. Therefore, the consistency we see in our perceptions is due to the fact that they must exist in some higher mind (God). I will elaborate on this in the next round, but as none of your preemptive arguments apply to this one, I think we should address the fundamentals.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Berekley's argument proves the necessity of the existence of God. He argues for the existence of God through abstract idealism.

Basically, there are no such thing as concrete objects. Only perceptions exist in the mind. Therefore, the consistency we see in our perceptions is due to the fact that they must exist in some higher mind (God). I will elaborate on this in the next round, but as none of your preemptive arguments apply to this one, I think we should address the fundamentals.

As far as I can tell... your argument is consistency of our perceptions translates into God must exist. That's basically analogous to if there's order, then God must exist. Not so. If God could just exist, then order, or consistency of our perceptions could just exist.
Consistency could just be, because our perceptions all reflect the reality around us. That's simply evolution.
wingnut2280

Con

No, my argument is not an argument for order. Please don't assimilate my argument with one you can answer.

Perceptions form ideas in our minds. There are NO concrete objects. This means, in order for us to access ideas external to our mind, not only do we have to interact with others, but, when others are not present, there must be some kind of higher mind that holds every concept at once. We exchange perceptions with this mind which gives us the perceptions that we perceive. More simply put, we perceive the world. In order for us to perceive anything, God must be the higher mind that contains all of these ideas that we perceive.

I argue that nothing exists but perceptions. In order for the mind to be stimulated, these perceptions are put in front of us. The only way for those things to be there is if some higher mind contains them simultaneously and we are able to access them. The existence of God is necessary to explain our empirical data and perceptions.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

I did not say your argument was for order. I said it was analogous. But that the same arguments taht refute order also refute perception.
You explicitly say" there are NO concrete objects". What's your basis for this? empiracally speaking, things deductively must be concrete, that's how our perceptions are all the same. You can't just assume randomly that things are not concrete and random and God is the only way our perceptions are the same. That's not the simplest solution or most obvious; the most obvious is that things are concrete and we each perceive it same only because the things we perceive are the same. Your idea is like saying... we can't prove what a shadow is from, so we'll assume it's an alien space ship.... your argument is random. actually, the argument that it's an alien space ship has more merit because aliens could exist, than does saying that reality is unordered, because that's contra our perceptions but aliens is not necessarily.
our perceptions are the only way we can tell things about the world. it's like you're saying.... we don't have to abide by what logic tellls us? why do we have to? since logic is the only way you could convince me, I choose not to abide by it, and so we don't have to abide by logic?

your argument is at best a possibility. not a definitive proof.
wingnut2280

Con

wingnut2280 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Whiplash 8 years ago
Whiplash
God's existence can be proven, as it were. But don't listen to me, I'm just a Deist.

You see, the only current viable explanation for the creation of the universe, which implies that an extremely large amount of energy, which later condensed to matter, came from a singularity, or essentially nothing.

As the First Law of Thermodynamics tells us, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Logically, the Law cannot have violated itself, can it?
Posted by radiogirlz7 8 years ago
radiogirlz7
Duh God's existence can't be proved, if it could we wouldn't call it faith. But can't you also say that the beauty and love of the world and people is an echo of God's beauty and love, so essentially, the world is proof for those who need it.
Posted by wingnut2280 8 years ago
wingnut2280
Sorry, I missed the deadline by about two min. Hopefully my below post will apply. Nice debate. I would have liked to had more time to dedicate to it and develop the argument, but it was good anyway. Thanks.
Posted by wingnut2280 8 years ago
wingnut2280
We know that there are no concrete objects because our perceptions are flawed. We can not rely on our perceptions and senses to provide us with knowledge of the world because they are inherently and unknowingly flawed. You have vivid dreams and mirages as well as optical illusions which all appear real. How are we to know that this isn't true of all things? Also, my percptions are different depending on my position. For instance, a chair appears larger when I am "closer" to it. How does a change in the perceiver cause a change in the object if they object is perceiver independent? You might say that it is simply my perceptions that are changing, but the fact is that I have no other way to access these things or prove your "logical and simple" solution because I am forced to know these things empirically. Simply put, the things I perceive CAN NOT be concrete and mind-independent, because the only accessible data of them (perception) is inherently flawed. Therefore, a change in me indicates a change in the object, meaning the object is dependent on my perception of it. We CAN NOT know any different, no matter how convenient or "simple" you may think it is. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

How does God come into play? In order for all of us to function within similar perceptive realms, there must be some higher mind that these "objects" are dependent on so that I am able to perceive them as such. For instance, the reason I see the chair in similar ways or the reason things happen when my perception stops (when I close my eyes) is because they exist in a higher mind. This is not a radical solution. This is the ONLY solution. The only reason your argument sounds more plausible is because that logic is entrenched in us. We always think that way and don't realize the inherent flaws in our mental processes. So, the existence of a God, in this sense, is the simplest because it is the only possible way in which things can function perceptually.
Posted by SperoAmicus 8 years ago
SperoAmicus
I don't understand how wingnut's argument equates into a proof of God. Following the underlying assumption, that only perceptions exist (which I reject), then at most you might prove that something unknown is putting something in front of you. You would have a proof of the Matrix, not of God. Specifically, you would only prove "total external experiential control," a god-tyrant who is in direct conflict with every definition of every God I have ever heard of.

"If God's existence could be proven, it already would have been."

Proving something, and convincing someone to accept the rationality behind the proof, are different things. You may easily and often have one without the other.
Posted by Advidoct 8 years ago
Advidoct
Dude that isnt a point of argument. Thats a fact. If God's existence could be proven, it already would have been.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
dairygirl4u2cwingnut2280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 8 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cwingnut2280Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
dairygirl4u2cwingnut2280Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Gao 8 years ago
Gao
dairygirl4u2cwingnut2280Tied
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 
Vote Placed by HwangJongWon 8 years ago
HwangJongWon
dairygirl4u2cwingnut2280Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by mariahsaywhaaa 8 years ago
mariahsaywhaaa
dairygirl4u2cwingnut2280Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by NapoleonofNerds 8 years ago
NapoleonofNerds
dairygirl4u2cwingnut2280Tied
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 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 8 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cwingnut2280Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by SperoAmicus 8 years ago
SperoAmicus
dairygirl4u2cwingnut2280Tied
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