The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JimShady
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

is there a real 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 1 vote the winner is...
JimShady
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 422 times Debate No: 107173
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

no evidence and no indications of any such being..
JimShady

Con

While no absolute, indisputable evidence has been discovered yet, there's outstanding arguments, such as Saint Anslem's ontological argument:

1. God is thought of as being a perfect being.
2. One of the traits of perfectness is that it has to exist; it is more perfect to exist than to not exist.
3. Therefore, because God is perfect, he must exist.

The cosmological argument also gives an answer as to what exactly created the universe, a God. It states that:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The Universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause. (1)

What can cause the universe/universes? If you argue that the universe(s) caused itself/themselves, then they cold be thought of as God. Many scientists will now turn to quantum fluctuations as a prime mover. Quantum fluctuations are units of energy that fluctuate in a vacuum to produce matter (using gravity). But this only begs the question, where did the energy/gravity come from?

While I do not assert that these are absolute proof of God (if they were, there would be a lot less agnostics and atheists), I think they do make a strong case for God existing, at least more than "no indications of any such being.."

Sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

but without observation of a god you can draw no conclusion..

a god may be claimed to be perfect and yet remains nothing but a claim..

wauw that is some serius drivel, carefull, the keyboard elf dosnt like it one bit

the universe has no beginning and no end, because something cant come from nothing.. or whatever exists is not nothing

proof is proof.. god is an unproven assertion, a claim.. a moon dragon
JimShady

Con

but without observation of a god you can draw no conclusion..

I have not observed Snoop Dogg. I have never seen him. Yet I have drawn the conclusion that he exists. You might say "well other people have claimed to see him!" Well, other people have claimed to see God.

a god may be claimed to be perfect and yet remains nothing but a claim..

By God, I don't mean like a Greek God that can be defeated or killed. By God I mean the supreme being. If "God" is not perfect, than he is not "God" in the ense that I am speaking of.

wauw that is some serius drivel, carefull, the keyboard elf dosnt like it one bit

The keyboard elf loves the truth, and so he loves what I type.

the universe has no beginning and no end, because something cant come from nothing.. or whatever exists is not nothing

So you have asked me to prove God exists, but what is your proof that the universe has no beginning and no end? Also, whatyou basically defined is God. Perhaps you are right, maybe the universe has no beginning or end, and maybe it could be God. Also, something can't come from nothing." A good observation, but what makes you suppose that the universe is the ultimate existing thing? Why not God?

proof is proof.. god is an unproven assertion, a claim.. a moon dragon

Yes, I have not proved God, but I have offered arguments which strongly suppot his existence. You have not countered these arguments, and so thus I urge the voters to vote Con.

Debate Round No. 2
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TraditCatholic 5 months ago
TraditCatholic
By natural order, i literally mean the law and order that the natural world follows, that the whole universe follows. Even the laws of thermodynamics are a part of this order. This is not an order created by an explosion in the universe (order cannot come from disorder, also part of the laws of thermodynamics). Nor it this order created by "highly evolved humans". After all, we would know if we held the universe in order.
Therefore, we only have one choice... the law and order being held in place by a omnipotent being, otherwise known as God.

"What I am saying is that we have not yet, as evidenced by the large amounts of atheists/agnostics"
This is not really a valid argument. Some people still do not believe in gravity, even though you can drop a ball and show it to them.

" the Catechism says 'we CAN', not 'we MUST.'" Indeed we do not have to, but we can.
We can now... not some time in the future. We can know it today. We could know it a thousand years ago. The people before Abraham could know it. That is what the Church teaches, what the Bible teaches, what the fathers taught.

However, at this point, i think we are both set in our own beliefs :D
Thank you!
Posted by JimShady 5 months ago
JimShady
What if highly evolved humans, like you and I, have been the ones who have kept order in our world? How do we know that it is God who keeps the "natural order?" I'm not sure what you mean by natural order, either.

I do not deny that we could absolutely prove the existence of God. One day we may. What I am saying is that we have not yet, as evidenced by the large amounts of atheists/agnostics.

I am currently taking a Philosophy class, and one of my professors said "Believe and know are not synonymous." While I would very much like to know that God exists, I can't say that I know for certain. I certainly believe, but unless I see undisputable evidence for myself, I do not truly know. Also, the Catechism says "we CAN", not "we MUST." While I would very much like to use my natural reasoning to know that God exists, I can not rule out the possibility of a universe without God just yet. Hopefully the truth will be revealed to me in full. Until then, I'm not a Knower, but a Believer.
Posted by TraditCatholic 5 months ago
TraditCatholic
Yes, the increase is my point! It increases, and yet the natural order remains.
My point is...
**Order tends to disorder unless held in order**
This is clear in pretty much every aspect of life.
The Summa explains this too. However, that is not why I mentioned the Summa. I mentioned the Summa because the root of this argument started with you denying that we could absolutely prove the existence of God, and I think Thomas does a good job of saying you are wrong.
Maybe he doesn't, but I thought he did.
Since you are also Catholic, I will also add...
BALTIMORE CATECHISM 22
"We can know by our natural reason that there is a God, for natural reason tells us that the world we see about us could have been made only by a self-existing Being, all-wise and almighty."
It does not say we can assume, it says we can know.
Posted by JimShady 5 months ago
JimShady
You do realize that the total entropy of the universe IS always increasing. Although it may not seem like it, the universe is becoming more and more disordered, and eventually, all energy will be evenly displaced.

The Five Proofs for God are good, but I find them irrelevant in explaining how God keeps order in the universe.
Posted by TraditCatholic 5 months ago
TraditCatholic
"ALSO:
The SUMMA THEOLIGICA also..."
Oops, bad double use of also :D!!
Posted by TraditCatholic 5 months ago
TraditCatholic
Relying on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Here is good statement of the law.
The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, by Henry Morris: (p. 14) "All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
ALSO:
The SUMMA THEOLIGICA also gives 5 proofs (at least that is what i would call them) that there is indeed a God.
http://www.newadvent.org...
Posted by JimShady 5 months ago
JimShady
@TraditCatholic: How is it impossible? Do you have math equations or some way of showing me that it would fall into disorder without God? Don't get me wrong, I agree with your point of view, but skepticism is healthy.
Posted by TraditCatholic 5 months ago
TraditCatholic
@JimShady
The proof lies in that it has remained orderly. It is simply impossible for it to have remained in order without an outside force holding it in order. That is what many call God.
Posted by JimShady 5 months ago
JimShady
@TraditCatholic: The chances of an "orderly" universe (while there may be some order to this universe, there are large amounts of entropy) might be incredibly small, but you can't count it as a proof for God, because there is a small possibility that it was conceived this way without God. Although it does make it highly unlikely that there isn't a God.
Posted by TraditCatholic 5 months ago
TraditCatholic
Consider this.
If there is no intelligent God, then the universe happened by chance.
The idea that all the matter that exists exploded from a small blob to our organized and orderly universe is mathematically... well impossible. (Such low odds that the human brain cannot comprehend it).
The number of atoms in the universe is around 10 to the 78th power. Then you take that number and multiply it by the number one smaller (10 to the 78th power minus one), take the product and multiply it by 10 to the 78th power minus two. Take that product and multiply it by 10 to the 75th power minus 3... and so on until you reach 1 times the product. So the odds are 1 to a number that is so huge it is totally unimaginable. That is the odds the universe exploded into an orderly universe.
(Okay, so lets ignore that math and pretend it actually happened)
The orderly falls into disorder unless held in order by an outside force, we have thousands of years of experience with that (and scientific proof). Therefore, that the universe could stay orderly is completely, utterly, and totally impossible! :D
So yes, there is absolute proof of an intelligent God... order.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Arganger 5 months ago
Arganger
vi_spexJimShadyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: "wauw that is some serius drivel, carefull, the keyboard elf dosnt like it one bit" -Pro Arguments; Pro failed to properly address Con's points, Con did and did so point by point. Spelling: Pro misspelled a lot, and continuously didn't capitalize sentences, as seen in the quote already stated.