The Instigator
KD208043
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Existence of 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
09days07hours14minutes36seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 173 times Debate No: 120258
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

KD208043

Pro

One can arrive, Through reason, At the conclusion that a higher being, Whom we shall call God, Exists.

One of the most hotly debated topics of debate is how the world came into existence. Those who are against the existence of God refuse to address the causation of existence, Including how creatures and the universe were created.

In our lives, We know that nothing can be moved without first being moved by another thing. If we touch something, We transfer energy that allows it to move. Similarly, If we look at creation as a whole, In order for the planets to be orbiting around the sun, Something must have caused them to move. The "Big Bang" is the term used by scientists for the moment the world was created. Even if the big bang was an explosion, That explosion would have been caused by something else.

Thus, It follows that at some point before the creation of the universe, Something existed which did not have a beginning of its own - that is outside of time itself. This something is the being that we will call God.
omar2345

Con

I will counter your claim by saying the universe just existed. This reduces the amount of questions required to be answered. For a being outside time it requires a purpose for why it created life and how it was able to do so. If Time just began we can move on and focus on more important issues.

I will address your claims in the next Round.
Debate Round No. 1
KD208043

Pro

I would address your claim by stating that scientists know that the universe had to have a beginning. I am basing my arguments off of an acknowledgment that the universe had a beginning.

As for a being outside time requiring a purpose for creating life and how it was able to do so, That is a mystery. A large aspect of belief in God is that God is the name for a being which is outside time, And created life for a reason and in a way that we will never fully understand. We are not required to know the purpose for its creation of life nor how it was able to do so; just that such a being exists.

The point I was trying to make that there would have to be something that wasn't created itself that set everything in motion. Feel free to challenge me on other aspects of God's existence, However, If that would suit you better.

I will address your counterclaim or new claim in the next round.
omar2345

Con

I am sticking by time started and put everything in motion. Time does not require a purpose a God does. I can simply say how universe started and that would be the end of it. With God I require why. God poses more questions than time starting it.
Just a few questions:
Why does God intervene when it likes?
Why did God create us?

And created life for a reason and in a way that we will never fully understand.
I do appreciate your honest here but I highly doubt countless theists would see it from your perspective. They think they know what God is right and what is the right Religion. This has allowed for many Religious battles and immoral acts made moral when God came into the picture. (Slavery, Rape etc. )

We are not required to know the purpose for its creation of life nor how it was able to do so; just that such a being exists.
Yes we do if we cannot state how a being like this exists people will make infalsifiable claims that are illogical or that they or the opposer cannot even prove or disprove. This does not help in finding truth instead leaves people believing infalsifiable ideas which does lead to believing more infalsifiable ideas.

I would address your claim by stating that scientists know that the universe had to have a beginning. I am basing my arguments off of an acknowledgment that the universe had a beginning.
I do not know where you got that from and would like you to quote and tell me how you got to that conclusion.

Those who are against the existence of God refuse to address the causation of existence, Including how creatures and the universe were created.
I can't really speak for others but I can speak for myself. I am not going to take a leap of faith and believe in a Religion because then a leap of faith can make any Religion true so why am I picking Christianity? I don't refuse causation instead wait until we have evidence or something tangible instead infalsifiable claims. If you think causation of existence does end with God why is that the case?

We know that nothing can be moved without first being moved by another thing.
So God is the first mover? How is that the case?

The "Big Bang" is the term used by scientists for the moment the world was created. Even if the big bang was an explosion, That explosion would have been caused by something else.
You are on right track but missing a few details. The Big Bang is just a big bang. It makes no claims that there was a universe before this one or this was the start of the universe. With that in mind God can still be in the equation but if that is true where was this in any of the Religious books?

I will leave it at that and await a reply.
Debate Round No. 2
KD208043

Pro

Let me begin my counterclaim by stating this. God in no way requires a purpose. You are thinking of this being we call God in the sense of a human - because everything that humans do, They do for a purpose.

This being, While similar to humans, Is different, Because a human could not create a universe. Because it is different in that sense, We can in no way assume that that being requires a purpose to create. That is the main part of your claim that is questionable.

You stated that "if we cannot state how a being like this exists people will make infalsifiable claims that are illogical or that they or the opposer cannot even prove or disprove. " I don't quite know what you mean by this - as I stated in round 2, I am only defining that the being exists and that everything else is a mystery. Does it need a purpose to create? We don't know. I am simply stating, And attempting to prove, That such a being exists.

The Big Bang model is a theory upheld by most scientists as well as atheists. I am using this as the basis for my claim. My information, From www. Livescience. Com, Is as follows, "According to the standard Big Bang model, The universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13. 7 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, It swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second. " Based on this theory, That electron would have come from somewhere; it's impossible for something to just exist.

Let me explain why causation of existence ends with God with a new claim.

This is a claim in the sector of possibility and necessity. Each thought has its own dash.

-We find in nature things that are possibly to be and not to be; that come into being and go out of being. These are known as contingent beings.

-We will assume every being is a contingent being, Because assuming otherwise is what some may call, A "leap of faith. "

-For every contingent being, There is a time that it did not exist. This follows from dash one.

-Therefore, It is impossible for these beings to always exist.

-Therefore, It follows that there could have been a time when no things existed.

-Therefore, At that time, If no contingent beings existed, There would have been nothing to bring the current contingent beings into existence.

-If that were the case, There would have been no contingent beings in existence now.

-We have reached an absurd result from assuming every being is a contingent being.

-Therefore, It follows that not every contingent being is a contingent being.

-Therefore, Some being exists of its own necessity, And does not receive its existence from another being. This is the being which we speak of as God.

I will address your claims in the next round. I appreciate your conduct during this debate; thank you for taking it seriously.
omar2345

Con

God in no way requires a purpose.
God is a being. Beings require purpose. Simple. If God has no purpose it has no reason doing what it does. If God is not a being then it must be a morally good robot programmed to be so. Guessing you would say self programmed.

We can in no way assume that that being requires a purpose to create.
Every single being has a purpose yet God does not. I find your position less based on reality than mine.

That such a being exists.
For such a being to exist. It requires evidence. You have used causation of existence. The problem with this is that Did God not exist? If not how is God a being? This is the last Round so I don't think you can answer my questions. If God does exist it requires a cause for its existence. If God is not a being then I don't know what it can be. Since you have already stated God to be a being I doubt you state that.

That electron would have come from somewhere; it's impossible for something to just exist.
Yes but that does not mean it was God. A more reasonable theory would be that there was another universe before us that inflated and caused the Big Bang.

Therefore, Some being exists of its own necessity, And does not receive its existence from another being. This is the being which we speak of as God.
I would instead use time. Everything eventually decays or dies a part of the cycle of life. If Time was the non-contingent thing it does not require purpose whereas God does. Time would also help us understand we cannot find meaning in a supernatural power instead find it in ourselves. Religious violence would stop if everyone believed it to be so. Not an argument for why time is the cause of everything but practically it would bring people together rather than create conflict.

I will address your claims in the next round. I appreciate your conduct during this debate; thank you for taking it seriously.
I guess you didn't realise this was the last Round. I appreciate your conduct as well. I hardly saw you straw man instead specifically talked about your argument at hand. That is appreciated because more time was spent on the argument instead of straw manning which would have taken away from your argument. I mostly take every debate seriously. Don't worry about.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by KD208043 4 days ago
KD208043
@omar2345

I didn't realize that. Whoops. Also, Sorry for the short word count. It was a good debate. I enjoyed it.
Posted by omar2345 4 days ago
omar2345
@KD208043

Did you not realise it was the last Round?
Thank you for the great debate. Would have hoped we both had more time to flesh out our ideas.
Posted by KD208043 4 days ago
KD208043
@omar2345

Yes I will do so. Sorry about that
Posted by missmedic 4 days ago
missmedic
The concept of a creator god is problematic - for this 'creator of everything' must have inherent traits that it itself did not create. It must be intelligent and rational (therefore, It can't have created intelligence nor logic). It must have desire, Drives, Motivations, An amazing omniscient thinking mechanism, And it can't have created itself. So it seems impossible and untrue to say that "everything must have a cause, Therefore there is a god". Each property of god is itself a contradiction of the idea that god is the sole creator. All those uncreated self-traits lead to an impossibly unlikely situation where a complicated and multi-faceted being is invoked in order to explain a Universe that is said to be too complex to have self-created. The very concept of a creator god contradicts itself, And is impossible and incoherent. The First Cause of everything is not a god at all, It is merely the natural laws of an atheistic universe.
Posted by omar2345 4 days ago
omar2345
@KD208043

Next time can you increase the word count?
No votes have been placed for this debate.