The Instigator
CAHAL101
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lola228
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

is there a god

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Lola228
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 319 times Debate No: 76368
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

CAHAL101

Con

like always i will listen to my opponent first then state why and like always good luck to you my friend
Lola228

Pro

Thanks, Con, for the chance to debate this topic! :D I accept, and appreciate the opportunity to support my God and look forward to a fun debate. :D

I'm going to run a few arguments at this time as to why there is a God. Con didn't provide any definitions in his Round 1, so I think it's fair that I reserve that right. I will be arguing not for the God of any particular religion, but for a transcendent creator being (i.e., a deist formulation, as opposed to Tri-Omni.

The burden of proof in this debate should be evenly split. I should have to defend the existence of God, and Con should have to negate his existence as oppose to neutralize plausibility. You vote for the person who best proves his or her position.

With that, I'll move onto my arguments! :P

C1) Kalam Cosmological Argument

The argument goes as follows:

P1) Anything that begins to exist has a cause
P2) The universe began to exist
C1) The universe has a cause

P1 follows from the fundamental law of cause and effect - every action constitutes some change in the environment which is driven by a change within the universe. For instance, the universe isn't going to pop into existence from nothing.

P2 again follows logically. The universe can't cause itself because that would mean it needed to exist in order that it may act as its own cause.

C1 follows from P1 and P2, and the reason we know that this is God is because that one cause, or that Prime Mover, would need take on the characteristics associated only with God: transcendent, immaterial, timeless, spaceless. Therefore, some God exists.

C2) Ontological Argument

This is an argument that the existence of the mere idea of God is sufficient for the actual existence of God. If the idea of God exists, then the possibility of a maximally great, transcendent being exists. That idea is either true or false, and if it's true it implies existence. However, the idea cannot be false because to be false would mean that it's imagined. Because the idea of God cannot be broken down into further component parts, it is thus not imagined, so it must be true. Therefore, God exists because he can exist.

C3) Objective Morality

The only way to account for objective moral wrongs (and I don't think Con would deny that it is objectively wrong to murder or to steal or to pillage is with God. Otherwise, there is no way to set up a standard for good and bad, and anything at all would go. The morality of actions would be entirely dependent on whether we subjectively believe that an action is right or wrong, which would lead to as many different definitions of morality as there are people. That we know for a fact that certain things are objectively wrong is evidence enough that God exists.

To summarize:

P1) If objective morality exists, God must exist.
P2) Objective morality exists
C1) Therefore, objective morality must exist.

C4) The Argument from Free Will

Few people would deny that we have some free will. If Con would, then he need only look at Heinsenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This states that we cannot simultaneously know both the position of momentum of a particle. It can even be in multiple places at the same time. Because of this degree of randomness, it's impossible for causal determinism to be true. But how could a world without God account for free will? It's impossible, because the notion of a God-free universe can only be explained by reductive materialism. The existence of a mind is evidence enough that it's separable from the brain and liftoffs upon death.

That concludes my arguments! Back to Con :D
Debate Round No. 1
CAHAL101

Con

ok im done you win by default
Lola228

Pro

I thank Con for his concession! I hope I was able to sway his opinion. :D
Debate Round No. 2
CAHAL101

Con

CAHAL101 forfeited this round.
Lola228

Pro

Extend, and thank you to Con for this debate! ^_^

Vote Pro! :D
Debate Round No. 3
CAHAL101

Con

CAHAL101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Lola228

Pro

Thanks ^_^
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CAHAL101 1 year ago
CAHAL101
then i submit
Posted by thewiseguy1 1 year ago
thewiseguy1
I agree with pro...

Morality answers all. Right an wrong.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
CAHAL101Lola228Tied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by AngelofDeath 1 year ago
AngelofDeath
CAHAL101Lola228Tied
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: Concession and ff plus con used improper capitalization and punctuation
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
CAHAL101Lola228Tied
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: CON concedes. Therefore, PRO wins.