The Instigator
Con (against)
12 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,052 times Debate No: 99490
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




For a word to be added to the dictionary, its primary intentional reference has to be found by the editors. An intentional reference is simply what is intended to be referred to when people use a term; it is a more descriptive way to say the definition for a word. If I were in another country where I didn't know the language very well, and I heard an unfamiliar term, I would want for the dictionaries in that language to explain what is intended to be summarized by that word. Extension is the quality of a word actually referencing that which is intended. But, extension is not required for a word to be added to a dictionary. For example, we know what the word "alien" means. Whether the word has extension by actually referencing that which is intended -- a being native to another planet, we do not know, at this time in history, whether the word has extension.

During this debate, I will be using the term "God." Though, I will not exhaustively say "alleged" before each use, it is implied. For, I merely concede, as dictionaries do, that people intend to reference an assumed creator of the universe with the term "God," which I evoke to debate it. My opponent, by contrast, as a believer, implies furthermore that the word has extension.

This round of debate is for acceptance of the debate and definitions. Round 2 is for initial arguments from both sides. Rounds 3 and 4 are open to rebuttals, new arguments, and clarifications. Round 5 should not have any new arguments presented in it, because it is the final round. But, clarifications and rebuttals should extend to it.

The debate settings have been set to allow for the maximum characters of 10,000. But, if 10,000 characters are limiting to thorough replies, it is permitted that a link to a publicly readable Google document is submitted instead.

God - the creator of the universe, the earth particularly, and the earth's inhabitants.
Exist - to have objective reality or being


Thank you, C_e_e, for requesting this debate with me. By looking at your previous debates, I gather that you're a very intelligent and challenging debater. I hope to be able to provide equally intelligent responses.

I agree with the definitions and am ready to defend the proposition that God exists.

I look forward to a wonderful dialogue; cheers!
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for his kind words. I've since read his debates as well and believe him to be quite perceptive, intelligent, and a formidable opponent.

Initial arguments:
One standard to deem matters true is direct confirmation. There are other standards, such as an assessment of the ability to confirm if time and money were invested. Faith is another, and more risky, standard to deem matters true. But, here, I'll focus on the direct confirmation standard: To deem a matter is true, using that standard, one must first distinguish the subject, and then show that the subject is as stated. To deem a matter is false, with that standard, the first step is the same -- distinguish the subject, then show that the subject is altogether other than what was stated. But, when a subject doesn't exist, no one can do the first step, distinguish it, to even move to either of the second parts. Such is our predicament for the standard of direct confirmation when the subject is "God." And so, another indicator of God's likely nonexistence is our inability to execute this standard of truth, though we know the steps to do so. But, if my opponent knows how to distinguish the subject "God" so that we can move to the other steps of showing that he is as some state about him, or to show that he is not as some state about him, then I will attentively listen to my opponent explain how.

When something is intelligently created, there is often a thrifty management of time, process, or energy. Usually, more than one of those three can be found during the intelligent creation of something. But, when all three qualities are missing, an assumed creator should not be said to be intelligent if he could not thriftily manage time, process, nor energy, and really one should not be said to be involved. We can observe the development of stars, planets, and solar systems. During their development, all three qualities are missing. That suggests to me that an intelligence isn't behind them.

For example, the celestial body which may develope into a star is called a protostar.[1] It takes between 100,000 and 10 million years for a protostar to become a star.[4] After all that time, it still may not become a star. If a protostar's core becomes hot enough to fuse hydrogen, we would then call it a star.[1][2] But, if it's core never becomes hot enough, then we would call it a brown dwarf.[3] So, is the development of a star indicative of well managed time, an assurance of advancement, or a mitigated waste of energy suggestive of deliberate organization? No.

When statements are true, further conclusions can be reliably made considering them. When statements are false, conclusions made while considering them often lead to failed expectations. We can assess, then, the likely truth or falsity of a position by whether it leads to failed expectations or by whether reliable conclusions can be made considering them. The Abrahamic religions purport a God who is personally concerned with the affairs of humans. Those religions' religious books foster the expectation that a God cares enough to intervene on people's behalf. But, 911 operators, police, and firemen all fill important roles given the unreliability of any God intervening on people's behalf. So, what do the believers do? They imagine, not discover, extenuating circumstances as reasons for which the expectations built by stories of God's intervention are undependable. They imagine, "only when it's in God's will, would he intervene," "only if he's not testing people, as he tested Job." These revisions to the belief that a God intervenes actually render it uninformative. But, what prompted the re-imaginings in the first place, was the awareness that if a statement were true it ought to be able to be foundational for further conclusions, and that since the position wasn't, it couldn't be true without supplementary addendums.

When the topic is "God," people often converse as though existence were a question of "conceivability." But, to exist is to have objective reality or being. Of course, objective entails being fact based. And so, conceptualization is not the proper domain to explore on an issue of a fact based scope of actuality. Instead of a relation of ideas, a question of existence ought to be resolvable by a confirmable list of a subject's fact based scope of actuality.

The theory of evolution tells us a process by which diverse life can come about without a god. Savvy god believers have said, "Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive," which is another way to say that they can conceive of a god who uses evolution as his means to create things. But, as I explained in the previous paragraph, conceptualization is not the proper domain to explore in a discussion about a fact base scope of actuality. Nor is it my task to disprove every tweaked conception of god; instead, it is the believers' task to show that what they believe is more than a concept -- that it is a matter of fact. Evolution occurs. That is a matter of fact. Whereas, "a God who uses evolution" is a renovated conceptual claim.




Thank you, CON, for allowing me to debate you in this topic.

I will attempt to use sound arguments to justify the belief in God.

The Existence of God- A Priori Arguments

Mind Over Matter

This universe consists of matter and energy. In the theistic understanding of the universe, mind is the originator of matter, as opposed to an atheistic and evolutionary stance- matter causes mind.

Before arguing for a mind to the universe, allow me to enter a third principle to the universe- information. To prove that information is separate from matter and energy, allow me to present an analogy:

If I write a certain collection of letters, like, "elhlo," then the reader should not be able to make an understanding of those letters. However, if I rearrange the letters to "hello," the reader should then understand the collection of letters as a word that conveys the meaning of a form of greeting someone. As you can see, matter was the medium used to convey the information. I would form the word "hello" on a computer, on a chalkboard, or on pen and paper. The material used would be different each time, that is, the medium to convey the information would be distinct, but the information would still be the same.

When dealing with information, there are two proponents needed. First, a sender, to form the information. Secondly, the receiver must be able to obtain and understand the information. To clarify "understanding the information", imagine a Chinese person reading the word "hello." If that person has no understanding of the English language, then they will not be able to understand the word "hello." So, the sender must have an intention when delivering the information- that the message will be received and be understood.

Information, not matter and energy, is the underlying principle of the universe. From genetics, to language, to the physical laws of the universe, information is the critical component. Given our knowledge of information systems designed by humans, it is reasonable to conclude that the information in the universe, like genetics, was created by an intelligent mind.

The Prime Mover



Prime Mover

To understand the significance of boundaries, refer to the text image. The cat is higher up on the form of complexity. A cat cannot be both a cat and dog at the same time. It is limited to being a cat. However, cells are not limited to cats, and can be formed to exist in other animals. However, cells are limited to exist in that form. Atoms are not limited to animals- they form all parts of the universe.

As we travel farther down the simplicity of existence, the less boundaries exist, and the more forms can be created from these states of existence.

So, the prime mover must be free from all boundaries. It is necessarily limitless. Also, because it is at the lowest point in the chain of existence, it can interact with all of reality. Not only does this prime mover interact with all of reality, all of reality is continuously depending on it.


Imagine that you are sitting at a table, and you notice a cup. You intend to grab the cup, so two possible scenarios ensue: 1) You pick it up and take a drink. 2) You attempt to pick up the cup and accidentally spill it over the floor.

Both scenarios, the intentional and accidental, are explained by a preceding intentional action. Intentionality can lead to either intentional or accidental effects. However, no purpose can ever derive from contingent accidental causes. This example is to show that all outcomes of life refer back to an earlier intentional action. This causal chain cannot go backwards into infinity, so there must have been a first intentional action- God intentionally creating the universe.

If God doesn't exist, and the universe came into being unintentionally, then the only contingent actions are necessarily unintentional. If my opponent concedes this, then my opponent concedes that they are just an accidental collocation of atoms, and any argument they give has no inherent meaning. Given that their argument is meaningless, I win by default. If they don't concede this, then they must concede that God exists.

The Rationality of Christianity- A Posteriori Arguments

The Historicity of Christ.

There are 12 historical facts that most secular (non-christian) critical scholars agree to. They are (1):

-Jesus died by crucifixion.
-He was buried.
-His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
-The tomb was empty (the most contested).
-The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
-The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
-The resurrection was the central message.
-They preached the message of Jesus" resurrection in Jerusalem.
-The Church was born and grew.
-James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
-Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

There are two possible scenarios: The early disciples all had hallucinations of Christ at different times and places and were convinced that it was real, or Christ was resurrected by God and this is what the apostle's saw and preached.

Given that there are no historical accounts of mass hallucinations, it is more likely that Christ actually was resurrected. The best explanation for a small group of disciples that convinced all the societies around them of Christianity, and that it spread to the biggest religion of the world, is that the religion is true.


Craig S. Keener (2) is received his Ph.D in New Testament Studies from Duke University. He has published a book (3) on miracles. Here is a brief, few minute interview (4) and a longer lecture for viewers of this debate who are interested (5).

The author researched the credibility of miracles from various cultures all around the world. There are over one thousand accounts in his book (he was very extensive and it took him many years to accomplish).

In the book, he provides examples of everything from simple medical healings to people being raised from the dead, all by people praying in the name of Jesus.

Genetic Entropy

Dr. John Sanford is a geneticist who created the gene gun (6). He has written a book entitled: Genetic Entropy (7). As the primary argument for evolution is that we are slowly evolving and improving, this book demonstrates that there is no scientific evidence to corroborate that, rather, we are de-volving. Not only does this attack the evolutionary dogma of the current day, but it emphasizes a very scary and devastating point- all species are heading towards extinction!

Now, I would love for my opponent and any interested to read the book, but I recognize that it is asking people to spend money and invest a decent amount of time, so I will also reference a lecture on this topic, summarizing his thesis and main points: (see reference 8 for a shorter one, and 9 for the full lecture).

To briefly summarize:

The genome is subject to decay. With every new generation, new mutations are added. Species can only contain so many mutations before they reach the threshold and become extinct. Natural selection isn't good enough to weed out all of the mutations. Even "beneficial" mutations are subject to decay. Therefore, evolution is impossible, and perfect creation with decay fits the model.









Debate Round No. 2


"The material used would be different each time…. Information, not matter and energy, is the underlying principle of the universe.":
While it is true that the matter used as a medium to convey information can change, there being some sort of matter to do so is a necessary precondition. Additional prerequisites to information are terms which can serve as subjects, and language structure such as predicates to attribute states of being to those subjects. What indicators do we have that these prerequisites were present before the universe began? We have no such indicators -- just assertions that it was the case.
"Cat, cells, molecules, atoms, quarks, Prime Mover":
My opponent listed components of a cat in an order of increasing simplicity. He then suggested that a more basic constituent to all those levels of simplicity is a Prime Mover. But, a Prime Mover would not be simpler than atoms or quarks; it would be the furthest most complex. So, somehow trends of increasing simplicity leads to the furthest most complex agent, in that viewpoint.
"This causal chain cannot go backwards into infinity":
I'm not sure how infinite regressions became so trendy to dismiss. I've heard many conversations where someone has said, "That would be an infinite regression. And so, that can't be the case." It is not that common events do not have infinite regressions also; it is that we shorten the explanations of common events to describe the most consequential contributors. For example, if someone knocked over a vase, the most consequential contributor to that event would be the moment a person moved close enough to the vase to push it over. So, if we were asked how the vase ended up on the floor, we would likely just mention that moment. But, there are infinite, contributive, preceding events for that event as well. Many of which must have happened as they did for the vase to be knocked over as it was by whom it was. The owner of the company who made the vase would have still had to design it and price it in a way that appealed to the purchaser. The owner's parents, grandparents, and great grandparents still all had to reproduce as they did never being prevented by wars that happened along the way. So, it is not that there aren't infinite, contributive, branchings with crucial parts that needed to happen in the same way. Why do people think so differently when the subject is the universe? It shouldn't matter if there are infinite preceding moments of contributive, but little, consequence to the Big Bang; it should matter, instead, which conditions were most consequential to the explosion we call the Big Bang.
"If God doesn't exist, and the universe came into being unintentionally, then the only contingent actions are necessarily unintentional.":
Since humans came about, a means by which intentional contingent actions can still happen in the universe came about as well. We should not say it is the case that "all contingent actions are unintentional" because the source of those providing the intention isn't a God.
"If my opponent concedes this, then my opponent concedes that they are just an accidental collocation of atoms…":
I believe my parents made some deliberate steps to bring me here. My opponent is too quickly disregarding other sources of intentional actions during his consideration of what would be the case if a god didn't provide the intention.
"The resurrection was the central message":
It is easy to determine the falsity of the resurrection, because the alleged result of it is that Jesus is alive now. We know that we can assess the truth or falsity of things said to be true now by whether they lead to failed expectations or whether they can serve foundationally for further conclusions. An expectation that can result from the belief that Jesus is alive presently, is that thousands of faithful believers ought to still be able to be fed from two fish and five loaves of bread. Leprous people, who pray to Jesus, ought to show a statistically significant rate of getting better more so than those who don't pray. Storms ought to be calmed by Jesus' requested intervention. People blind from birth ought to have a dependable means of seeing involving prayer to Jesus. Do any of those things lead to failed expectations? Or, do they reveal statistically significant matters about the reality we all share? If they reveal statistically significant matters about the reality we all share, then they should be candidates for additions to school books.
"The Historicity of Christ":
I believe a historical figure existed who began a religious movement which ultimately developed to be known as Christianity. I don't believe, however, that all the miraculous events attributed to him happened as stated. Presently, there is a man known as Michael Travesser whose followers believe him to be Christ returned. There are 50 - 70 such followers, which is more than twelve.[1] Imagine, then, if any of them were to earnestly write what they interpret to be God's work in their lives through Travesser. Those writings could serve as some future religion's Newest Testament. This religious movement is happening now. And, most people haven't heard of it. Most of those who have deem it unexciting enough not to join it. So, people existing at the same time predominantly think that other things are more important to their lives. I think those are what the circumstances were like during Jesus' religious movement; consecutive lives were mainly uninformed about it or apathetic if informed.
Forty years after Jesus' death is when the book of Mark is said to be the first gospel book written.[2] Like during the game called Chinese Whispers, during oral traditions, people embellish stories. We have forty years of oral traditions before Mark was written and we are to believe that there were zero enhancements made to the stories of Jesus during that time? Mark is also the shortest gospel, with fifteen chapters. Even if it is believed that zero embellishments were acquired to the stories of Jesus before the book of Mark was written, the book of Matthew, with 27 chapters, John, with 20, and Luke, with 23 certainly have inclusions that Mark doesn't have.
"Craig S. Keener (2) is received his Ph.D in New Testament Studies from Duke University. He has published a book (3) on miracles. Here is a brief, few minute interview (4)":
During the interview video, Keener asks skeptics, "If you hold your philosophical premise so tightly because you haven't experienced it, that you doubt everybody else has experienced it, you're willing to call hundreds of millions of people liars, ...wouldn't it be worth rethinking?"[3]
Lying is not the default alternative to something not being true as stated. Lying entails the intent to deceive. So, it would be a more sinister reason than other reasons people purport falsity. But, it is not necessarily the case. For example, people who pray believe that as long as what they've prayed for eventually happens that it would be an answer to their prayers. It is not a rigorous standard of truth to believe that as long as something eventually happens following a prayer, no matter if it is a week after, or years after the prayer, that it is a fulfillment of the prayer. But, such a standard of truth is employed by believers, who if asked how a loved one recovered from a coma might answer, "By God answering my prayer."
Most people haven't heard of David Hume's comments about miracles. So, it is very doubtful that his comments are chief reasons for people's nonbelief in them. Keener kept mentioning Hume's input about miracles on pages 1, 7, 13, 28, and 36 of his book. He also admitted that his "book is … a study of one aspect of miracles in the Gospels and Acts, and not a study of those miracles themselves," on page nine.[4] That is disappointing, because the central issue is not whether historical claims can be compiled that people deemed to be miracles, but whether what they deemed to be miracles were actually supernatural interventions.
We live in a time where cameras are commonplace on people's cell phones, where it is popular to use social media to announce any eventful occurrence in someone's life. Considering those circumstances, documentation of alleged miracles are infrequent, highly interpretive, and ambiguous.



Thank you, Con, for your rebuttals.


I'm not quite certain I understand my opponent's rebuttal, but I'll try and respond to it as best as I can.

In our particular universe, we have matter. As best as our current knowledge shows, the universe is made up of atoms, which are in turn made up by protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. Theoretically, another universe could exist where matter is made up by something different. It is not a necessary condition what the state of matter is. However, a necessary condition for matter to have meaning is how it is organized. So, information is a necessary condition for the universe to exist in any sense.

If you want to refute my argument, you would need to show that a universe could exist without information.

The Prime Mover

My opponent made a conclusion without presenting an argument. He stated that the Prime Mover is more complex, but didn't explain how. Yet, with my argument, I did explain how the simplest form of existence is necessarily the Prime Mover.

If you want to refute my argument, you need to explain how the Prime Mover is complex, and how my argument for the simplest part of existence isn't the Prime Mover.

Infinite Regression

My opponent seems to believe that infinite regression is possible. This is logically impossible. If there was an infinite amount of preceding events prior to this one, then we wouldn't exist right now, as it would need to take an infinite amount of time to get to this time.

If you want to propose infinite regression, you need to refute that it isn't a logical impossibility.


My opponent wants to believe that he indeed does have intentions, but fails to explain how this is possible on his paradigm. If the initial cause of the universe (or, according to my opponent, an infinite amount of causes) was unintentional, then no intention can ever derive from it. Imagine starting with the amount of zero- no number can ever be derived from it.


My opponent argues that most of the parts of the Christian tradition are based off of myths. I can understand the possibility of people at later generations adding and embellishing elements to a supernatural figure, but this doesn't disprove that something extraordinary didn't happen. Myths are created to explain things that actually happened in history, and later embellishments to stories need an initial remarkable origin. So, it is possible that Jesus was actually resurrected, and over time mythologies were built around that, like the virgin birth, etc. Now, I am not arguing that the Gospels do contain mostly mythologies, I am merely stating that even if I concede my opponent's argument, it still doesn't disprove the initial remarkable event that caused other people to desire to add mythological attributions to Jesus.


It appears that my opponent spent some time looking at the videos and reading some of the book by Dr. Keener. Thank you very much for being committed to this debate.

My opponent argues that lying isn't the alternative, rather, it could be well meaning people who incidentally use supernatural explanations merely because of their superstitious belief systems. I can grant that, but that still leaves the issues of millions of claims where a healing and miraculous event are happening directly after a prayer to a Christian God. So, my opponent may want to argue that it is just the coincidence that these happen, and I concede that it is indeed a possibility. However, given that there are millions of these “coincidences”, I don't see how that is the more probabilistic explanation.

My opponent's last criticism is that, given our current technological age, we should be able to document miracles.

Miracles are, by definition, improbable events. It is difficult to anticipate when they might occur. Given the nature of the situations, people are losing their loved ones. They are dying, and they're hoping a prayer will save them. At that moment, they aren't concerned with recording the death. So, I would be surprised to see very many recorded miracles.

Debate Round No. 3


You have asked the readers to consider the development of our universe. Were terms existent before or during the early development of our universe? For, terms serve as subjects of statements of information. Were predicates existent before or during the early development of our universe? We know that predicates are how we posit states of being about subjects in statements of information. If neither were existent then, information could not have been existent then.
"He stated that the Prime Mover is more complex, but didn't explain how.":
When people suggest a God, they usually suggest a distinctive individual of high intelligence. That alone is more complex than the atom level of existence. If a person posits the Christian God, we can add to the suggestive complexity suggestions of wisdom, omnipresence, interventionism, justice, power, and holiness in their upmost forms.
"If there was an infinite amount of preceding events prior to this one, then we wouldn't exist right now, as it would need to take an infinite amount of time to get to this time.":
First, I want to apologise, for I may have purported a falsity by saying infinite events precede common ones. I take great care not to purport falsities. And so, I am grateful for there being an additional round here to have the chance to clarify the interplay of infinite and finite events.
Imagine a song that is only three notes in length. Imagine the highly inefficient method of someone playing the first note, waiting a year to play the second note, and then waiting a month to play the third. If asked how the song was played, we would mention the time, but we would also mention the three moments of highest consequence to the song being played. Human events are somewhat like that song, when we consider all the prerequisites that must have happened for human events to take place. It is believed that the earth is 4.54 billion years old.[1][2] But, the universe is much older. So, the "note" following the expansion of the universe and the earth having formed is 9.23 billion years.[3] And, the "note" following the earth having formed and human beings walking around is 4.5398 billion years.[1][2] All of which had to happen for any events involving human beings to have happen. But, do we typically concern ourselves with the long stretches of prerequisite events which must have happened for human events to take place? No, we typically only mention the moments of highest consequence to a considered event.
Now, let's consider the universe. The Big Bang Theory purports that from a state of hot, highly condensed, matter the universe began to expand.[4] We do not know how many preceding moments were contributive to the instant the universe began to expand. And, if we are consistent to converse about the universe in the same way that we converse about common events, all that should matter are the moments of highest consequence to the universe expanding. That is, while we should imply, as a given, that there may be moments that were indispensable and preceding, with long stretches of inconsequential time between them, we should curtail our considerations to only mention the moments of highest consequence. If we do that, then our depiction of relevant factors for the universe expanding would be like our depictions of common events. But, if we don't do that, it is as though we are suddenly considering relevant how long the stretches of time were among all contributive events.
"My opponent wants to believe that he indeed does have intentions, but fails to explain how this is possible on his paradigm. If the initial cause of the universe...was unintentional, then no intention can ever derive from it.":
Maybe the confusion here is what the intentions apply to. Are we implying intentions to the universe, or are we implying intentions to things like parents coming together with the intent of starting a family? It seemed as though you were saying that because an intention was not believed to be behind the universe then there could never be a means by which intentional acts could occur and that even my existence should be called "an accidental collocation of atoms." But, that would not be correct, because humans eventually resulted after the expansion of the universe. And, humans can be agents of intentional acts.



Thank you, Con, for your rebuttals.


I think that my opponent is attempting to argue that information requires a medium, and cannot be existent without a medium (like matter). Sure, I grant this, as this is completely in line with my argument. But, this fact is not a rebuttal to my argument, so I don't see what the relevance of it is. Any universe without information would be meaningless.

Prime Mover

My opponent argues that God is a being of high intelligence and states that this proves God is complex. Again, my opponent is making a claim without justifying it. Why would an infinitely intelligent being be more complex? If you follow the argument I made, you will see that God is necessarily less complex.

Infinite Regression

I'm not following how my opponent's explanation of evolution and big bang cosmology has to do with infinite regression. What is important is that, even if we assume that Big Bang cosmology is accurate, there still needs to be an explanation as to how that highly condensed form of matter came to be and how it came to create the universe. Something caused that matter to act the way it did. And, if you follow my argument, eventually you find yourself at the prime mover itself, the uncaused cause.


My opponent seems to argue that because he perceives he, and others, are able to make intentional actions, that must prove that humans do indeed have intentionality. However, perception is not proof.

Under the paradigm of a universe where the original act was unintentional, there can never be any intentional action.

Under the paradigm of a universe where the Prime Mover is an intentional agent, intentionality can be derived.

If my opponent wants to assume that he has intentionality, he must concede the theistic concept of reality.

Debate Round No. 4


"Information: Any universe without information would be meaningless.":
When people ask "what is the meaning or purpose of the universe," I sometimes ask them, "what is the earth's favorite color?" They see that even though we can quantify how many greens, blues, and browns there are, an essential matter is whether the earth has a nature such that it could have a "favorite" anything. Similarly, is the universe of a nature such that it necessitates having a purpose or meaning behind it?
We know that things are not true by assertion, unless the issue is "what was asserted." You've asserted that information is a basic constituent of the universe just like matter and energy. That's not true by assertion. And, unlike matter and energy, things indicative of information, such as language, are not found in our assessments of the early universe.
Though we have information about atoms and we know how to interpret the structures atoms comprise, that does not mean that anywhere we find the structures atoms comprise that we also find a suggestion of communicated knowledge. Information is a suggestion of communicated knowledge, and requires terms, predicates, or their equivalents to exist.
"Something caused that matter to act the way it did. And, if you follow my argument, eventually you find yourself at the prime mover itself, the uncaused cause.":
The meaning of "cause" can be "an intentional agent," as well as, "a natural unguided process." So, something being a cause, even the first cause, does not necessitate it meaning the intentional agent type. The time and process that transpired for the universe is not indicative of well managed time, nor energy. That is suggestive of the unguided process type. Something does not have to be "uncaused" nor a prior-event-less event for it to be the reason something happened. So, it may be that the reason the universe expanded from that volatile state had preceding contributive moments. But, the restrictive consideration that the universe had to have a prior-event-less event is unnecessary for something to be the reason the universe expanded.
"Intentionality: My opponent seems to argue that because he perceives he, and others, are able to make intentional actions, that must prove that humans do indeed have intentionality. However, perception is not proof.":
The type of proof that is maximally achievable is dependent on the nature of a subject. That is sometimes overlooked as people fault others for the type of proof they've provided. Perceiving or interpreting intentionality is the best we can do, and is the same implemented standard of proof that you've employed when you interpreted intentionality to be behind the universe. But, my interpretation of intentionality to be behind parents starting a family has the unbiased facts of deliberate steps taken by parents, and the expressed reasoning of parents to support it. Whereas, your interpretation of intentionality being behind the universe has no such analogous support.
I thank my opponent for a civil debate.


Thank you, Con, for you final round.

“Information: Any universe without information would be meaningless.:

My opponent attempts to argue that information is not an inherent principle of the universe, and that it exists in the abstract, like with language, but doesn't exist within the principles of the universe.

However, without information, the universe would not have atoms, or planets, or solar systems. Without the specific order of the universe, there would be no life. Life requires information.

“Something caused the matter to act the way it did. And, if you follow my argument, eventuall you find yourself a the prime mover itself, the uncaused cause.”

Again, my opponent attempts to argue that the universe could have an unlimited amount of antecedent causes, which is impossible.


My opponent attempts to argue that perceiving or interpreting intentionality is the best we can do. However, even if this is true, which I disagree with, it still doesn't prove that intentionality exists. All my opponent can maintain is that he perceives it, but it can't be true.

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Derek.Gunn// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Better base logic.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply provide a vague assessment of the logic used by each side. The voter must assess specific arguments made by both debaters.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: medv4380// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: This debate lacked structure and was a bit too long. A strong structure goes a long way for helping readers parse and understand your argument. For this reason, I'm giving Con S&G. Pro had spelling issues like "Intenionality" and several formatting issues. The Prime Movers text graphic is an eyesore that should be better or an image. After reading this three times, I'm ready to decide. Pro's argument hinges on Christion Theology. Con's argument would be meaningless if you were a witness to the resurrection. It's a poor argument since it relies on faith, and becomes circular without evidence. If there where evidence faith wouldn't be needed. I feel con's argument isn't strong enough for me to change my Agnostic views to Atheism, but it is good enough to beat a faith based argument. The Cosmological Argument, Conway's Freewill Theorem, or even Leibniz would have been a better than leaning on faith. Which all are related to the Prime Mover argument that wasn't flushed out well enoug

[*Reason for removal*] While S&G is sufficiently explained, arguments are not. The voter appears to spend most of this RFD examining Con"s argument, but is required to specifically assess Pro"s as well. Merely stating that Pro"s argument "hinges on Christion Theology" is not sufficient " at least some points must be analyzed.
Posted by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
Thankfully, the concept of Jesus and individual denomination was dropped, I feel as though that could have chewed up a LOT of space and have been worthless.

Just as a side not, something that went uncalled, the assertion that if you concede it to be true you are are random atoms, you lose the debate. This bugged me, because its asking the opposition to concede a where ultimately the argument originated from as a truism, robbed the opponent of the validity of the argument, then some how forced a win for Pro... however if their proposition was true, Pro would have the same complications and the debate would be moot., regardless of the position taken.

With regards to a prime mover as an argument, I feel Con adequately dismantled that as to demonstrating that in the chain provided, the ability for agency dropped off as complexity dropped off meaning that if there was a "Prime Mover" it could not be God, at least as identified a creator in this debate.

I am not confident how an "information exists" therefore God argument holds, nor could I really follow it through the two's exchanges.

After re-reading the unintentional action cannot cause intentional action arguments a few times, I don't see any immediate necessity that God does exist based on the fact we have intentional motive now.

The proverbial nail in the coffin (as the most convincing argument) came in the last round in rebuttal form, where Con makes the note that everything about Con's individual existence can be traced and have intentionality behind it, such is not the case for the universe, and that a perception of intentionality is really all that Pro has with regards to the universe's creation, there are no constituent parts such that can be brought to the table.

Regarding conduct, grammar, sources, etc, there was no reason to choose one over another.
Posted by dalir.kosimov 1 year ago
This is my favourite debate.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
Anything would exist if it was just a matter of words and thoughts..
Posted by Mkakee 1 year ago
If you prove that god exists, I can prove unicorns exist.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Kylie.Cunningham 1 year ago
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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I do believe in God but Con have a convincing way and it was a great debate on both sides :)
Vote Placed by subdeo 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: No reason to choose one over the other for reasons of conduct, both comported admirably. Same with spelling and grammar. I gave sources to C_e_e because many of Lupricona's led to nowhere (e.g. Wikipedia home page, or Amazon home page), so can not be counted as adequate sources. For arguments, I believe that Lupricona did not adequately address the point of a prime mover having to be more simple than the organism higher, meaning that (theoretically) it could not be God. This was not addressed well. in addition, Lupricona used faulty logic when he said that if there was no God, C_e_e's brain was just random atoms and could not be trusted. However, the same predicament would apply to him if there was no God. C_e_e addressed each of Lupricona's points, in addition, he did it in a way that I found easy to understand. Both made relatively strong arguments, that is why I determined this vote based a lot on rebuttals, since these are part of any good argument.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments