The Instigator
annawee
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LightC
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

is there really a god ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 865 times Debate No: 6085
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

annawee

Con

the idea that the entire world has heard of a book called the bible, whereby some believe, and some do not, in this bloke called god actually really frustrates me.
how can someones entire life, moral ideas, and actual opinions be based upon this flimsy idea of god, a god who " created us" who gave us " free will"
where is this proof, where is the evidence would someone please explain :)
LightC

Pro

I will refute my opponents case, then move to present my own:

"how can someones entire life, moral ideas, and actual opinions be based upon this flimsy idea of god, a god who " created us" who gave us " free will"

--> I have two responses:

First, "moral ideas" can be defined as what is right and what is wrong. The concepts of right and wrong could only be valid if there was a higher power so to speak. What is the point of right or wrong if there is nothing to keep us as culpable agents? Furthermore, what is the point of law if the law is subordinate to it's own ends?

Second, the title of god is only a word sued to describe a higher power/supernatural being. Furthermore, the idea of creation is pivotal to the theist position which I will elaborate on more clearly.

"where is this proof, where is the evidence would someone please explain"

--> I will give you the proof. However, proof and evidence can be broken down into two types of warrants:

1. The empirical - i.e. from the senses
2. The logical - i.e. reasoning deducted or inducted

[Case]

I affirm: There is really a god

1. god: a higher power; supernatural being

=Observations=

1. I need only prove that "A" exists, not a specific type of god, e.g. the Christian god

Contention 1: Causation

The most logical reason for the existence of god comes from our existence, and the existence of the universe. To put it into perspective here is a basic example:

I live in my house. This house was built by a builder. However, can I be living in a house that was not built? Obviously not, because my house needs a builder for it to exist.

Apply this example to god. How can there be a universe but without a creator. Furthermore, there can be no substance without a cause before that. For example, I cannot push down a pile of dominoes without actually putting some force against. I.e. there can be no effect without a cause. There can be no universe if there was no cause of the universe. There are two main theories about this:

1. Big Bang Theory
2. Universe Replication (Circle Theory)

Both these theories give substantial evidence for the creation of the universe. However, it still is subordinate to it's own ends. I.e. it still must abide by the law of causation. Therefore, since science is subordinate to it's own ends, something higher then science must be the first cause. Thus, that cause is god.

Summary:

1. Designer
2. First Cause
3. Subordination of laws

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 1
annawee

Con

point 1) i quote your above argument " "moral ideas" can be defined as what is right and what is wrong.
The concepts of right and wrong could only be valid if there was a higher
power so to speak. What is the point of right or wrong if there is nothing
to keep us as culpable agents? Furthermore, what is the point of law if the
law is subordinate to it's own ends? "
i think that moral concepts are muchly swayed by society, i feel that a moral idea is based upon
what a person feels is beyond the realms of acceptable and what is between, not based on a law of
higher authority. For example a moral dilema such as (my friend is in emotional trouble, she needs help but
i am sworn to confidence, what shall i do?) there is no law or higher power to decide
this for us, there is nothing keeping her between or over the line of the invisible morality.
A law is therefore different to a moral because a law is something you have to abide and a
moral is something personal to you, that you may or may not abide depending on the issue at hand my argument was
that many peoples morals are based on the bible which to be honest some are good but some can be bad too ,
take for example the crusades.

Point 2) "Second, the title of god is only a word sued to describe a higher power/supernatural being "
Does this mean then for example a prime minister would be called a god?
a ghost would be called a god ?
or do they have to be both at the same time ? a ghostly prime minister ?

point 3)
"The most logical reason for the existence of god comes from our existence, and the existence of
the universe. To put it into perspective here is a basic example:
I live in my house. This house was built by a builder. However, can I be living in a house that
was not built? Obviously not, because my house needs a builder for it to exist."
I understand your ideas on this point that you cannot get something from nothing as it appears the earth
without a creator came from nothing but consider arguments for the big bang theory
1) galaxies are still moving apart from eachother, stretching into the unknown, suggesting that before the
universe was compacted
2) if the universe was at first extremely hot as the Big Bang implies, we should be able to find some evidenceof this heat 1965, scientists discovered a (-270. degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for.

Point 4) "something higher then science must be the first cause. Thus, that cause is god."
i think science is inescable, if you are aruging for the creation of the world because it is in the bible,
does that mean that because the theory of gravity is not in the bible you can accept this ?

a few points of my own
1)evil : evil exists therefore god cannot be all loving and all powerful at the same time,

2) if god is all loving and all powerful why would hit allow the innocent to suffer from pain (emotionaly and physically), disease and poverty, why would natural disasters happen, does this mean that the earth is more powerful than its " creator"

3)there are many gods of many religions all possessing many different characteristics therefore only one or
none of the religons and ideas can be right about god.

4) god is considered a sex neutral word,neither masculine or feminine why is it then that god is spoken as " he "
and " lord" when really it is neither, wouldnt you consider this sexist a suggestion that " he" believes men superior to women ?

over and out my friends
:)
LightC

Pro

"i think that moral concepts are muchly swayed by society, i feel that a moral idea is based upon
what a person feels is beyond the realms of acceptable and what is between, not based on a law of
higher authority."

--> Yes this is true. However, there are some actions like killing and rape that we know are intolerable. However, how can that idea of an action being intolerable exist if there is no binding force?

Does this mean then for example a prime minister would be called a god?
a ghost would be called a god ?
or do they have to be both at the same time ? a ghostly prime minister ?

--> I'm sorry my definition was somewhat vague. God is just the general term for the being which created the universe. God for the Christians, Allah for the Muslims, Brahman for the Hindus, etc...

"understand your ideas on this point that you cannot get something from nothing as it appears the earth
without a creator came from nothing but consider arguments for the big bang theory
1) galaxies are still moving apart from eachother, stretching into the unknown, suggesting that before the
universe was compacted
2) if the universe was at first extremely hot as the Big Bang implies, we should be able to find some evidenceof this heat 1965, scientists discovered a (-270. degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for."

--> you have just proved my point. We can both agree that the Big Bang started the universe. You even provided proof for it. Ok, just extend that logic to my point. The Big Bang could not have occurred if nothing exists, because that's saying that the big bang just happened but that's impossible because science is subordinate to itself. for example the 2nd law of thermodynamics state that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, since science is bound by this law it is impossible for the big bang to have occurred without come above science source. This my whole point (follow the logic)

The universe is in existence --> The Big Bang --> Big Bang, since it happened, is subordinate to it's own ends --> However the universe exists --> Therefore, something atmeporal and aphysical needed to have been the cause of the big bang --> I.e. God

"i think science is inescable, if you are aruging for the creation of the world because it is in the bible,
does that mean that because the theory of gravity is not in the bible you can accept this ?"

--> I agree, and look at my previous logic.

"if god is all loving and all powerful why would hit allow the innocent to suffer from pain (emotionaly and physically), disease and poverty, why would natural disasters happen, does this mean that the earth is more powerful than its " creator"

--> This is wrong for two reasons (extend this logic for all of her "evil/suffering" points:

First, in my observation I already explained that i didn't need to prove that a specific god exists just a god exists. Not all ideas of god make him loving. You are specifically talking about the Christian God.

Second, to make a clashier debate I will refute it anyway.

A. God can still be loving and let evil exist because by abolishing it he is not loving it, thus be hypocritical. It's because he let's evil exist that he is loving

B. Evil exists not as a substance but as an absence. I.e. evil exists because good exists. For example, what is life if there is no death?

For these reasons you can affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
annawee

Con

annawee forfeited this round.
LightC

Pro

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by jason_hendirx 7 years ago
jason_hendirx
>Followed by the good ol' Problem of Evil argument.

Hey, nothing wrong with that.
Posted by fo-shizzle0855 8 years ago
fo-shizzle0855
This is a great quote LightC. i am so writing this down :) "First, "moral ideas" can be defined as what is right and what is wrong. The concepts of right and wrong could only be valid if there was a higher power so to speak. What is the point of right or wrong if there is nothing to keep us as culpable agents? Furthermore, what is the point of law if the law is subordinate to it's own ends?"
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Followed by the good ol' Problem of Evil argument.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Ahh, the good ole' First Cause argument.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
annaweeLightCTied
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 DiablosChaosBroker 7 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
annaweeLightCTied
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 TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
annaweeLightCTied
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