The Instigator
BAIN27
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points

god

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,082 times Debate No: 17509
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

BAIN27

Con

is there a god?
thett3

Pro

I will defend that a God exists. I will not be arguing for a specific religious God, rather one that is defined as: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Since God cannot be proven or disproven, this will be a logical debate.

I look forward to my Opponents presentation of his case and will present my arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
BAIN27

Con

so lets jus say there is one and we are supposed to be his children, why would a parent let their childern suffer? why does there have to be a higher power? many ppl have predicted the end of the world but no dice. how can god be disloyal to his own creation? why? if god was here little girls and boys would not get raped. as humans (childern of god) we would have equal everything. we all need the same thing to survive, food, shelter, love, air, water,etc. but a gangster/criminal can have more than a person that does actually goes to church. yeah right.
thett3

Pro

=My case=

Argument one: The Kalam cosmological argument.

1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.

2. The Universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

All three premises of this argument are relatively undisputed in the scientific community, what is disputed is that the cause of the Universe was God. So why is it logical to believe God to be the cause of the Universe? For one, it is impossible in our Universe for something to arrise from nothing, and since prior to the Universe's existence nothing that we can understand existed. Matter, energy, and even the time that our Universe is constructed with does not merely pop into being, to believe so is insane and scientifically inexplicable. However, unless we believe the Universe to have always existed, than that's exactly what happened. How does this all lead to God? Well since the ability of something to come into nothing is impossible using scientific law, the only logical explanation is through a power that has the ability to undermine scientific law, such as God.

Argument two: Objective Morality.

1. Objective morality can only exist if a divine power mandates our morals.

2. Objective morality exists.

3. Therefore, a divine power exists.

In order to prove this argument, I must support the 1st and 2nd premises, and the thrid logically follows.

Explanation of premise one:

Morality is not something that can be properly explained through evolution and natural selection. While some moral facts have practical purposes, this does not explain the moral aspect of it. Yes, animals will avoid killing a member of their own species if possible, but if they must do so they will not feel guilt afterward like humans would. This begs the question, why does humanity have morals? They do not help our success as a species, they in fact weaken it. Objective morality is not something that would survive natural selection, and thus the only rational explanation for their existence is God. Objective values such as "do not murder" or "do not lie" are not mere instinct, rather they are direct commands. A command can only come from an intelligent being, thus for morality to truly be objective, there must be a supreme being who issues the commands for our morality.

Explanation of premise two:

I look at history in order to prove this. For my example, I will use the brutal war between the Teutonic Knights and the pagan Lithuanians[1]. The Teutonic knights (along with many other Christian kinghthoods/groups at the time) had a strong desire to purge the world of all people non-Christian. After failing to destroy Islam during the crusades, they turned to the weaker pagan powers such as Lithuania. The Teutonics won their war, forcing the Lithuanian nobles to convert to catholicism. From there, the Catholic church forcefully imposed it's doctrine and worldview upon the peastanty[2], thus ending Paganism in Lithuania, and forever destroying an ancient culture.

This relates to Objective Morality, because although all the pagans had been destroyed, we still know that acts such as these are immoral even though they didn't effect us. If Objective Morality did not exist, such acts would not be viewed as immoral because all of the dissenters were killed or exiled.

More examples can be found in successful genocides all around the world and all over history, if objective morality did not exist, under what basis could we condemn these actions?

Premise three logically follows the other two.

Argument three: Plantinga's modal argument.

1. Its possible that God exists

2. If its possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world


3. If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world


4. If God exists in every possible world, then God exists in the actual world


5. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists


6. Therefore, God exists

In order to disprove this argument, my Opponent must show that it is not possible for God to exist because these premises logically follow premise one.


Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org......
2. http://en.wikipedia.org......

=His case=


"
so lets jus say there is one and we are supposed to be his children, why would a parent let their childern suffer"-Where in my definition of God does it say that we are Gods children?

"many ppl have predicted the end of the world but no dice"- What does this have to do with the existence of God?

"how can god be disloyal to his own creation?" Perhaps it is because man is responsible for the evil in this world, not God. However again this has nothing to do with how we defined God.

"we would have equal everything" That makes no sense what so ever.

Vote Pro, I look forward to my Opponents rebuttal.


Debate Round No. 2
BAIN27

Con

if all what u jus posted is supposed to hold water, then why does he not make him self seen? no, not via a select chosen few (prophets) but us everyday. why hide? why does man have to explain what we dont know and cant describe have to give credit to a god? why cant it jus be? its easy to say what god has done for u (not u per say) but u cant say what god has done for others. if there was a god i'd rather go to hell for something i am then to go to heaven for something im not.
thett3

Pro

=Defense=

"then why does he not make him self seen?" Why would he make himself seen? Remember in most religions, our time on Earth is just a test for our afterlife. If God was to show himself, than we would not do evil acts out of fear and thus could not have proper judgement rendered on us.

Voters:

Spelling/grammar: Vote Pro, because my Opponent made a huge amoung of spelling and grammar mistakes.
Arguments: Vote Pro, because my Opponent did not refute or even attempt to refute any of my arguments.
Sources: Vote Pro, I actually used sources.
Conduct: Tie, we both had fine conduct.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
BAIN27thett3Tied
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: Only one debater presented arguments. Arguments go to that person (Con).
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
BAIN27thett3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I sign as I give thett3 a point for conduct since Con's case amounted to a series of questions, with no coherent argument within...and for arguments as well....
Vote Placed by jayjay 5 years ago
jayjay
BAIN27thett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted this way cause I do believe in god and nothing will change that
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
BAIN27thett3Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con does not attempt an argument, all he does is ask questions. SG goes to Pro for Cons constant failure to use the CAPS lock key. Sources and conduct are obvious.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
BAIN27thett3Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not even mount a defense. He also made copious S
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
BAIN27thett3Tied
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: Con made claims but did not really back them up with anything. Spelling and grammar, and sources go to pro. Pro made good arguments that weren't refuted by con.
Vote Placed by Kung-Fu_Action_Jesus 5 years ago
Kung-Fu_Action_Jesus
BAIN27thett3Tied
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: Even though I'm all for Con, I have to say Pro did some major work. However, I could have won had I argued against Pro.