The Instigator
cherrytree
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1dustpelt
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

it's more likely that God exists than not

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...
1dustpelt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 953 times Debate No: 22887
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

cherrytree

Pro

hey. i am pro in this debate

1st round is acceptance

thanks
1dustpelt

Con

I agree with Pro but I will just debate this anyways.
Debate Round No. 1
cherrytree

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, 1dustpelt. I look forward to an insightful debate on this matter. (Ironically, my actual beliefs directly oppose the stance I am taking in this debate; hence, we are basing reversing roles.)

I will begin by presenting the standard Kalām cosmological argument [1]:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

A common response to this is "If everything that begins to exist has a cause, then what caused God to begin to exist? And if God does not need to be caused, then why must the universe be caused?"

Well, my response is that God did not "begin to exist." Moreover, God is immune to the rules of "cause and effect" that the anti-Kalām argument depends on. There was no "time" before the Big Bang [2], and hence, "cause and effect" does not apply to God's situation, since the concept of causality [3] is founded on the existence of time.

---

Next, we will read through a variation of an argument for Moral Normativity, an abridged version of former Yale philosophy professor Robert Adams' argument. [4]

1. Moral facts exist.
2. Moral facts have the properties of being objective and non-natural.
3. The best explanation of there being objective and non-natural moral facts is provided by theism.
4. Therefore the existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true.

1 can be evidenced through testing. We have an innate disposition to make certain moral decisions, as can be evidenced through simple testing. [5]

2 is evidenced by the argument for Ethical non-naturalism [6]:
(1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion.
4. These moral features of the world are not reducible to any set of non-moral facts.)

3 is true, because if these moral facts are unnatural, they must be artificial. If they are artificial, they are made through unnatural means. The most likely explanation for something being made through unnatural means (not in the sense of "manmade") is the existence of a God.

---

Hence, theism is more justifiable than atheism, and God more likely exists than not.

Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.nature.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[5] http://discovermagazine.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
1dustpelt

Con

Rebuttals
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
P1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence;
P3: The universe has a cause of its existence.

Refuting P1: The thing about this is that is uncomfirmed. We have no examples of things coming into existence that had a cause, only pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged that have a cause.

Example: My laptop did not begin to exist, it was created by pre-existing material.

Refuting P2: My opponent uses the Big Bang Theory as an example. While the universe as we know it did have a beginning, there is no evidenece that the universe began to exist.

Refuting P3: Without P1 and P2, P3 is useless.

The premises may be true, but it may not be. Either way, there is no way to tell and there is no way anyone can claim that the logic surrounding this premise is absolute.

Sources
http://biology.about.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.wisegeek.com...
Debate Round No. 2
cherrytree

Pro

cherrytree forfeited this round.
1dustpelt

Con

Knew that was going to happen.
Debate Round No. 3
cherrytree

Pro

cherrytree forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by cherrytree 4 years ago
cherrytree
;) tehe
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
@cherry lol your a fake account
Posted by cherrytree 4 years ago
cherrytree
guys iv so improoved from my last dibates didnt i?
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
@Johnnyboy Yes I do. Read R1: "I agree with Pro but I will just debate this anyways."
Posted by johnnyboy54 4 years ago
johnnyboy54
Do you believe in God 1dustpelt? You profile says your Christian.
Posted by cherrytree 4 years ago
cherrytree
basically reversing roles*
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
cherrytree1dustpeltTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by kyro90 4 years ago
kyro90
cherrytree1dustpeltTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I would give this debate -500 Kyro Points because of how much a fail it was but I will give it mercy.