The Instigator
mrpilotgamer
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

is god real?

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...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 67894
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

mrpilotgamer

Con

as this is my first debate, lets make this fun.

Topic: is god real?

I will take the position of con.

4 rounds.

round 1 will be agreeing to the terms. round 2 will be opening arguments. round 3 will be refuting arguments from opening.

round 4 will be conclusions for our arguments.

I hope these terms are sufficient. good luck.
1Credo

Pro

Acceptance

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

I assume that the burden of proof will be shared, with my opponent arguing in favor of the position that God is not real and myself arguing in favor of the position that God is real. I will await my opponent's opening arguments against God and will address these arguments in the next round in addition to presenting arguments of my own in favor of God's existence.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
mrpilotgamer

Con

Yes, the burden of proof will be shared for this discussion. keep in mind, I will try to make original arguments, but I don't know if it is. but I hope for original arguments from my opponent as well. but I digress.

so what I would first like to point out, is if the bible is true, why hasn't he continued to talk to us, and make miracles like in the bible, as it says that he cannot change in the bible, in numbers, 23:19, where he says "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, should he change his mind." this verse, according to many believers, assert that he cannot change, yet we see him acting now very different from in the bible. another example is when god destroyed cities of sinners, yet we see that ever since we could record history after the bible, no cities of sinners have been destroyed.

now, this next argument relies on the belief that god knows all. now, most people believe free will exists, and we have it. but, consider this. if god knows all, he knows the future. if god knows the future, he knows our choices, and thus, we don't have free will, because god knows all. now, many argue that god just exists in all places in time, making them all the present to him. this just seems to set back the problem. if god exists in all areas of time, and they are all the present to him, then once we are there, god has seen them already, and they cannot change, thus no free will.

ill make this short for now. good luck.
1Credo

Pro

Thanks, Con.

Rebuttal

"so what I would first like to point out, is if the bible is true, why hasn't he continued to talk to us, and make miracles like in the bible, as it says that he cannot change in the bible, in numbers, 23:19, where he says "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, should he change his mind."

There are multiple questions here, so bear with me through my multiple responses. First, my opponent asks, "If the Bible is true, why hasn't He (God) continued to talk to us?" I think the answer here is quite simple; there are many (perhaps hundreds of millions) of people who believe that God communicates with them. If an individual does not communicate to God, as I assume by my opponent's stance he does not, why should that individual expect any sort of response from God? My opponent's second question has to do with the apparent absence of modern-day miracles. First, I would argue that modern-day miracles are not necessarily absent. Many consider certain events (coming back to life, spontaneously recovering from a fatal illness, etc.) to be miracles. The issue here could very well be the lack of attention to these miracles (if they are indeed miracles) as opposed to the proposed lack of miracles. Second, in response to my opponent's quoted verse, I would leave him with this verse:
"And He did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith." -Matthew 13:58
When considering this verse, it is no surprise if modern-day miracles are not present. This should be expected as a result of the lack of faith in modern societies. My opponent's last question in this paragraph is concerned with God's unchanging nature. But I don't see any reason to think that God has changed, as my opponent seems to imply. He suggests that "God destroyed cities of sinners, yet we see that ever since we could record history after the Bible, no cities of sinners have been destroyed." I think this statement can be easily shown to be false. There are thousands of cities that have been destroyed since the Biblical era. Take a look at these links for examples:
http://www.therichest.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://io9.com...
It's entirely possible (though I don't myself affirm this) that these cities were destroyed by God through various means (natural disasters, wars, etc.) It's also entirely possible that the destroyed cities referred to in the Bible were destroyed through the very same means.

"now, this next argument relies on the belief that god knows all. now, most people believe free will exists, and we have it. but, consider this. if god knows all, he knows the future. if god knows the future, he knows our choices, and thus, we don't have free will, because god knows all. now, many argue that god just exists in all places in time, making them all the present to him. this just seems to set back the problem. if god exists in all areas of time, and they are all the present to him, then once we are there, god has seen them already, and they cannot change, thus no free will."

It seems to me that there is no contradiction (as my opponent seems to assert) between (1) the existence of an all-knowing God and (2) the existence of free will. Consider this: God exists outside of time. We, as humans, are like a raft floating down a river (time) whereas God is overlooking the river entirely. We are constrained by time; God transcends time. As such, He is able to see our past, present, and future choices simultaneously. So, my choice as to what I will eat for dinner tomorrow night is a completely free choice. Nevertheless, God knows what I will eat for dinner tomorrow night because for Him there is no past, present, and future.

Arguments for God

I will now present three arguments in favor of God. In order to win the debate, my opponent must successfully refute each of these arguments (by showing a specific premise of each argument to be false) in addition to presenting sound arguments of his own.

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 successfully refuted my opponent's arguments against God. Moreover, I have provided three sound arguments in favor of God. As such, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that God exists.

Sources

http://www.usccb.org...
http://www.therichest.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://io9.com...
http://now.tufts.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
mrpilotgamer

Con

Rebuttals:

Okay, so yes, my first argument I now see was a bit flawed, so applause for you. good job.

But, in my second argument, I see something want to point out. first, you say time is like a river, and we are flowing down this river. but would like to focus on this:

" We, as humans, are like a raft floating down a river (time) whereas God is overlooking the river entirely. We are constrained by time; God transcends time. As such, He is able to see our past, present, and future choices simultaneously. So, my choice as to what I will eat for dinner tomorrow night is a completely free choice. Nevertheless, God knows what I will eat for dinner tomorrow night because for Him there is no past, present, and future. "

now, here I see you say that he can see past, present, and future choices simultaneously. if god sees us at all different times, he must see the choices he makes, as you said in your argument. So from this, I can see you make the case that we still make choice. I want to say, choice does not always mean free will.

For example, lets say I shut off my computer. I made that choice. however, if god saw me make this choice in the future, but present me still has yet to make it there, I still make that choice, but present me hasn't gotten there yet, but god is. so, he knows what choice I make, before I make it. anyway, no more time will go into that for now.

Now, for your first argument, you claim god is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. I want to say we don't know what happened to cause the current model of the big bang. however, if you make the claim it was god, I must ask. which god was it? I don't deny it could be a god, but what god is it? it's an important question, because different gods and religions have different ways of handling things. was is Yahweh, the Christian god? Allah? Horus? Zeus? we don't know, if at all, what god it could have been.

Now, for your second argument, I wouldn't say morals are objective. take killing for example. in multiple religious texts, we see it says something along the lines of, do not kill. But what about self-defense? if you kill someone defending yourself, did you do something wrong? I would say no, because you were simply acting to preserve your own life. also, we take the military in for an example as well. they kill. a lot, actually. more than the average person, at least. so, are they doing something wrong? some would say yes, but I think there isn't really anything wrong, if its for a good reason.

now, my explanation for morals, naturally? when you do something we consider "morally bad", most of the time its something that directly or indirectly harm someone. as we evolved into our current selves, anything that could lower the population was bad. anything that could increase the population was good. so, we created "morals" not objective ones, but ones that would work for the time being, and still work today.

So, this last argument was confusing and complicated, so I will go bit by bit, and correct me if I get something wrong.

"P1: it is possible that a maximally great being exists"

I do not deny this, I just see no empirical evidence that is not better explained by a natural means.

"P2: if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world"

so you said in your argument, that you meant:

"this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been"

I assume (and again, correct me if it's wrong.) that this means if the earth could have formed by a maximally great being, it did, as you said " a way the world could have been". first, this would imply that you have a knowledge no one else possesses, besides possibly a religious text, which isn't much.

But you also say:

"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").

Now I would argue, what if it didn't exist? does that mean that the world could have never formed? if it exists in every possible world, then you have not considered the possible world of "not formed by a god", but then by your reasoning, it did. see the contradiction? now, if it is " every possible world." I must ask, again, which god was it that was maximally great? all of them? it would have to be, if they are all maximally great.

so, again I through it over to you. please read everything, to get a firm understanding.
1Credo

Pro

Thanks, Con.

Arguments Against God

My opponent provided two arguments in attempt to show that God is not real. In my last rebuttal, I refuted both of these arguments. Let's see what my opponent has to say by means of a response:

"Okay, so yes, my first argument I now see was a bit flawed, so applause for you. good job."

My opponent has conceded his first argument.

"So from this, I can see you make the case that we still make choice. I want to say, choice does not always mean free will."

My opponent acknowledges that the existence of an all-knowing God is consistent with human choices. This seems to be another concession to me, although my opponent argues that free will is not necessary for human choices. I'll leave it to my opponent to provide justification for this assertion, and I'll address it when adequate justification is provided. For now, it seems reasonable to assume that free choices entail free will.

Both of my opponents have been conceded and/or refuted. As such, there are (at this point in the debate) 0 sound arguments against God.

Arguments for God

I provided three arguments in attempt to show that God is real. I'll now address my opponent's response to these arguments:

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.

"I want to say we don't know what happened to cause the current model of the big bang."

My opponent acknowledges that the big bang (and therefore the universe) has a cause. My first argument, then, is affirmed by my opponent. Now let's turn to his objection: "we don't know" what the cause was. When considering possible candidates for the cause of the universe, I think we can work through a process of elimination. So, if we take this cause to timeless, spaceless, and immaterial (as it must necessarily be in order to cause the Big Bang) then I can think of two possible candidates: an abstract object (like a number or a shape) and an unembodied mind. As abstract objects don't stand in causal relations, we can deduce that the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind (one that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful) which is what is meant by the term "God". If my opponent wishes to propose an alternative candidate for the creator of the universe, I'd be happy to take it into consideration. Until such a proposition is made, we can conclude that God caused our universe to exist.

"which god was it? I don't deny it could be a god, but what god is it?"

This is a perfectly legitimate question. However, it is not a question within the scope of this debate. Here, we are concerned with whether or not God caused the universe, not with whether or not a specific God caused the universe. I'd be happy to give my opinion on this question (if my opponent is interested in this, I'd ask him to send me a private message or post in the comments section of this debate) but it's not relevant to this debate, as we are merely arguing whether or not some sort of God is the cause of our universe.

My first argument remains unrefuted (furthermore, my opponent has affirmed it's soundness).

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.

"I wouldn't say morals are objective. take killing for example. in multiple religious texts, we see it says something along the lines of, do not kill. But what about self-defense?"

This is a common question that arises as a result of a misunderstanding of what objective morality entails. Saying that morals are objective does not mean that a given action (i. killing) is either right 100% of the time or wrong 100% of the time. Rather, saying morals are objective means that a certain action is right or wrong independent of our opinion. So, for example, if the Nazi's had won WW2 and brainwashed everyone into thinking the holocaust was "good", the holocaust would still be evil on objective morality (whereas it would be "good" if morals were subjective).

"anything that could lower the population was bad. anything that could increase the population was good."

To refute this point, I'll give two examples: the first will show that there is at least one action that lowers the population but is moral while the second will show that there is at least one action that increases the population but is immoral.
Example 1: Two parents sacrifice their lives for their child. This is an action which decreases the population. On my opponent's view, then, it is an "evil" action. I think it is clear, however, that self-sacrifice is not immoral.
Example 2: A psychopath rapes 10 women, impregnating each of them. This is a set of actions which increase the population. On my opponent's view, then, it is a "good" set of actions. I think it is clear, however, that rape is immoral.

My second argument remains unrefuted.

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.

"Now I would argue, what if it didn't exist?"

In order to refute this argument, my opponent would need to show that a maximally great being is incoherent. It's not enough to say "what if" it didn't exist; my opponent needs to either affirm or reject the statement: "it is possible that a maximally great being exists". If he affirms this statement, then the conclusion follows logically and necessarily. If he rejects the statement, then he needs to show that a maximally great being is incoherent in the same way that a square circle or a married bachelor are incoherent.

My third argument remains unrefuted.

Summary

I successfully refuted and/or my opponent conceded his two arguments in favor of his position that God is not real.
My opponent failed to refute my three arguments in favor of my own position that God is real.
As it stands, we are left with 0 sound arguments in favor of my opponent's position and 3 sound arguments in favor of my position. For now, then, we can reasonably conclude that God exists.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
mrpilotgamer

Con

Okay, last round.

So, in my second proof, I did not concede. if you go back, you clearly see I made a case you did not refute. id recommend not using one sentence for a rebuttal.

in that proof, I said :

" now, here I see you say that he can see past, present, and future choices simultaneously. if god sees us at all different times, he must see the choices he makes, as you said in your argument. So from this, I can see you make the case that we still make choice. I want to say, choice does not always mean free will.

For example, lets say I shut off my computer. I made that choice. however, if god saw me make this choice in the future, but present me still has yet to make it there, I still make that choice, but present me hasn't gotten there yet, but god is. so, he knows what choice I make, before I make it. anyway, no more time will go into that for now. "

Please, make an argument to against this.

now, in your first rebuttal, you say:

"I want to say we don't know what happened to cause the current model of the big bang."

"My opponent acknowledges that the big bang (and therefore the universe) has a cause. My first argument, then, is affirmed by my opponent. Now let's turn to his objection: "we don't know" what the cause was. When considering possible candidates for the cause of the universe, I think we can work through a process of elimination. So, if we take this cause to timeless, space less, and immaterial (as it must necessarily be in order to cause the Big Bang) then I can think of two possible candidates: an abstract object (like a number or a shape) and an unnumbered mind. As abstract objects don't stand in causal relations, we can deduce that the cause of the universe is an unnumbered mind (one that is timeless, space less, immaterial, and powerful) which is what is meant by the term "God". If my opponent wishes to propose an alternative candidate for the creator of the universe, I'd be happy to take it into consideration. Until such a proposition is made, we can conclude that God caused our universe to exist."

You use one sentence from my argument in an attempt to refute it. here, again, is my full statement.

"Now, for your first argument, you claim god is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. I want to say we don't know what happened to cause the current model of the big bang. however, if you make the claim it was god, I must ask. which god was it? I don't deny it could be a god, but what god is it? it's an important question, because different gods and religions have different ways of handling things. was is Yahweh, the Christian god? Allah? Horus? Zeus? we don't know, if at all, what god it could have been."

my point in my argument was that we need to know which god it was, but with your first arguments logic, all maximally great gods exist, as they are all maximally great. Again, refrain from using a small bit of my argument to refute the entirety of it.

For my second argument, I never said religions are 100 right or wrong with morality. But I was arguing that if we cant know it 100%, we have to draw the line somewhere. and in religious texts, we don't draw a line, beyond "do not kill"

now, you give two examples against my lower population/increase population explanation. here are why those are moral/immoral.

Example 1: Two parents sacrifice their lives for their child. This is an action which decreases the population. On my opponent's view, then, it is an "evil" action. I think it is clear, however, that self-sacrifice is not immoral.

This is moral, and here is why. the parent sacrificing themselves are almost too old to have more children. however, the kid they are saving has potential to increase the population, when he has children. thus, increasing the population.

Example 2: A psychopath rapes 10 women, impregnating each of them. This is a set of actions which increase the population. On my opponent's view, then, it is a "good" set of actions. I think it is clear, however, that rape is immoral.

With rape, women can be harmed. in previous experiences, being harmed gives the possibility of death. with this, the rapist was risking 10 lives, lowering the population. that is why it is immoral.

With the last argument, you say:

"Now I would argue, what if it didn't exist?"

"In order to refute this argument, my opponent would need to show that a maximally great being is incoherent. It's not enough to say "what if" it didn't exist; my opponent needs to either affirm or reject the statement: "it is possible that a maximally great being exists". If he affirms this statement, then the conclusion follows logically and necessarily. If he rejects the statement, then he needs to show that a maximally great being is incoherent in the same way that a square circle or a married bachelor are incoherent."

You fail to see my argument again. And you again use a one sentence refutation to defeat my full argument. So again I will say this. The purpose of this argument was to say that because of the possibility of it all coming naturally is there, it is possible that we came about naturally. This does not interfere with the "god is all powerful" argument made, because if it all came about naturally, and he didn't exist, he he would never have been all powerful.

Now, as to god being incoherent, first: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...

Second, why would he have to be incoherent? You seem to commonly make the claim that something has to come from something, because we have never seen something come from nothing. however, just because we have not observed something, does not mean it doesn't happen or exist. example: dark matter. never been observed, only its influence, so we know it is there. With the big bang, there is no evidence to what caused it, or why, but we know it happened, as evidenced by gravitational waves detected.

Now, my conclusion.

Here is why I believe I had the upper hand in this debate. my opponent is allowed to this too,

1: I did not make claims as to who won or if god existed or not. Example of my opponent doing so:

"I successfully refuted and/or my opponent conceded his two arguments in favor of his position that God is not real.
My opponent failed to refute my three arguments in favor of my own position that God is real.
As it stands, we are left with 0 sound arguments in favor of my opponent's position and 3 sound arguments in favor of my position. For now, then, we can reasonably conclude that God exists."

"I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments against God. Moreover, I have provided three sound arguments in favor of God. As such, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that God exists."

In normal debates I have witnessed or participated in, it was looked down upon for coming to conclusions before the debate has come to an end.

2: I did not shorten my opponents arguments. examples of my opponent doing so, all from round 3.

"So from this, I can see you make the case that we still make choice. I want to say, choice does not always mean free will."

"I want to say we don't know what happened to cause the current model of the big bang."

"which god was it? I don't deny it could be a god, but what god is it?"

"I wouldn't say morals are objective. take killing for example. in multiple religious texts, we see it says something along the lines of, do not kill. But what about self-defense?"

"anything that could lower the population was bad. anything that could increase the population was good."

"Now I would argue, what if it didn't exist?"

In literature, this is called dramatic irony. In real life, this is called a straw man fallacy. I do not say this means he is wrong, but it does undermine his arguments a bit.

Thank you for the debate, 1Credo. it was fun
1Credo

Pro

Thanks, Con.

Arguments against God

My opponent originally provided two arguments in attempt to show that God is not real. In the last round, both of these arguments were refuted and/or conceded by my opponent. For example, with regard to his first argument, my opponent stated:

"Okay, so yes, my first argument I now see was a bit flawed, so applause for you. good job."

I'll now proceed to address the single point made by my opponent in attempt to resurrect his argument:

"I want to say, choice does not always mean free will."

As I stated in the last round, this is an assertion by my opponent which requires justification. As no justification has been provided for the assertion that choices are not free, there isn't much I can (or need to) do by means of a response. I will, however, note that the Merriam-Webster dictionary provides definitions for the terms "free will" and "choice" that seem to contradict the point my opponent has attempted to make:

Free will: "the ability to choose how to act"
Choice: "the act of choosing"

I think these definitions make it very clear that no case can be made by my opponent (even though no case has been made) for arguing that "choice does not always mean free will".

Both of my opponents' original arguments have been conceded and/or refuted. As such, we are left with 0 sound arguments against God.

Arguments for God

I provided three arguments in attempt to show that God is real. I'll now address my opponent's response to these arguments:

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.

"my point in my argument was that we need to know which god it was"

For the purposes of this debate, I am arguing only in favor of the position that "God is real". So we don't, as you say, need to know which God. If you'd like my personal opinion on this, then I'd be happy to discuss this with you outside of the debate. As for this debate, however, the important piece is that the arguments' premises (which have been affirmed by my opponent) holds and its conclusion is therefore sound.

My first argument remains unrefuted.

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.

Pro: Example 1: Two parents sacrifice their lives for their child. This is an action which decreases the population. On my opponent's view, then, it is an "evil" action. I think it is clear, however, that self-sacrifice is not immoral.

Con: "This is moral, and here is why. the parent sacrificing themselves are almost too old to have more children. however, the kid they are saving has potential to increase the population, when he has children. thus, increasing the population."

You're making the assertion that the parents won't again reproduce, which isn't necessarily true. Moreover, there are several examples that avoid this objection. For example, what about two siblings (both capable of reproduction) sacrificing their lives for another sibling? On my opponent's view, acts of self-sacrifice like this one are "evil".

Pro: Example 2: A psychopath rapes 10 women, impregnating each of them. This is a set of actions which increase the population. On my opponent's view, then, it is a "good" set of actions. I think it is clear, however, that rape is immoral.

Con: "With rape, women can be harmed. in previous experiences, being harmed gives the possibility of death. with this, the rapist was risking 10 lives, lowering the population. that is why it is immoral."

Again, you're making the assertion that each rape victim will die as a result of the action. In this scenario, not a single victim dies. Thus, the population is increased, and the rape was a morally "good" action on my opponent's view.

I think these two examples clearly demonstrate the absurdity of my opponent's moral system; a system where self-sacrifice can be considered an "evil" act but rape can be considered a "good" act.

My second argument remains unrefuted.

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.

"The purpose of this argument was to say that because of the possibility of it all coming naturally is there, it is possible that we came about naturally."

Aside from the fact that this has nothing at all to do with my third argument, this point was never established. What justification does my opponent provide for his assertion that "because of the possibility of it all coming naturally is there, it is possible that we came about naturally"? It seems that here again my opponent fails to back up his claims with any sort of reasoning. Furthermore, recall my first argument (affirmed by my opponent) which showed that our universe must have had a non-natural cause. My opponent contradicts himself by affirming that argument (by agreeing with both its premises) and then arguing that "everything came about naturally". I won't spend any more time on this point, however, as no justification was provided.

"Now, as to god being incoherent, first: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...;

Once again, my opponent makes no attempt at providing justification for his assertions. It's certainly not enough to make a radical claim like "God is incoherent" and then provide no sort of reasoning or argument other than a link to an atheist blog. I'm not debating the author of that blog, I'm debating my opponent, so I won't respond to assertions that he himself has failed to try to justify.

"we have never seen something come from nothing. however, just because we have not observed something, does not mean it doesn't happen or exist. example: dark matter. never been observed, only its influence, so we know it is there. With the big bang, there is no evidence to what caused it, or why, but we know it happened, as evidenced by gravitational waves detected."

Again, this has nothing to do with my third argument, but I'll address the point anyway. The Big Bang, according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, was the beginning of the universe. This means that time and space came into being at the point of the Big Bang. My opponent agrees that the Big Bang caused our universe, but then argues that something like dark matter might have existed before the Big Bang. This is simply a misunderstanding of Big Bang cosmology. As I stated, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that the Big Bang was the origin of space and time, so that nothing could have existed before it.

My third argument remains unrefuted.

Opponent's Conclusion

"1: I did not make claims as to who won or if god existed or not."

In the very first round of the debate, I made sure that the burden of proof was clear: "I assume that the burden of proof will be shared, with my opponent arguing in favor of the position that God is not real and myself arguing in favor of the position that God is real." My opponent responded in the beginning of round 2 with, "Yes, the burden of proof will be shared for this discussion."

So, my opponent and I both are in agreement that there is a shared burden of proof. The debate winner, then, ought to be selected based on the criteria of the validity of his argument(s).

"2: I did not shorten my opponents arguments."

I have not misrepresented my opponent's arguments at any time throughout this debate. Many of my opponent's responses (as with my own) have been paragraphs long, so I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to quote the entire length of such a lengthy response when trying to address the key points. Even if I wanted to do this, the character limits wouldn't allow me to. This ought not be used against me, as I successfully responded to each of the points my opponent made (even if it meant not having to copy and paste entire paragraphs into quotes).

My Conclusion

I successfully refuted and/or my opponent conceded his two arguments in favor of his position that God is not real.
My opponent failed to refute my three arguments in favor of my own position that God is real.
As it stands, we are left with 0 sound arguments in favor of my opponent's position and 3 sound arguments in favor of my position. For now, then, we can reasonably conclude that God exists.

I'd like to thank my opponent for creating and participating in this debate. I'd also like to thank any readers for taking the time to read the debate through.

Sources

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://now.tufts.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 1 year ago
o0jeannie0o
mrpilotgamer1CredoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: points to pro: had sources that where adequate, looks nice. Points to con: proving the universe has a cause is not proof of god, nor is proving morality. You did not convince me of god just that the universe and morals are here.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
mrpilotgamer1CredoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's S and G was troublesome. No capitalization was used, and words were ommitted and/or misspelled. Pro had more sources. Finally, Con conceded his first argument to Pro, and in round three, Con conceded the possible existence of God as the creator of the universe. So arguments, S and G, and sources to Pro.