The Instigator
AKMath
Pro (for)
The Contender
Rivelo
Con (against)

God doesn't exist.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Rivelo has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 111753
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

AKMath

Pro

God can't exist.
Rivelo

Con

My understanding of the statement is that God (as in any supernatural being) does not exist. I will not be attempting to prove the existence of a specific God, but merely a requisite being.

Cosmological Argument:

>Everything finite and contingent has a cause
>The caused entity cannot cause itself
>A caused entity must have a causer

An infinite regress is not possible.

This can be extrapolated to the natural, observable world.

>The natural world is finite and has a cause
>The natural world cannot cause itself
>The natural world must have a causer

The natural world is bound by physical laws.

An entity outside the physical laws that bind the natural world would be necessary to cause it.

The natural world cannot cause itself and must have a causer, so an entity that is not limited to the physical laws that the natural world is must exist.

The necessity of being caused is a physical law of the natural world.

Since such an entity is not bound by the physical law of the natural world, it does not have to have a causer nor be caused.

The definition of a god: A being not bound by the laws that limit the natural world.

Using the transitive property of equality, the entity needed to cause the universe is by definition the same as a god(s).

There must be evidence of a god(s)

The natural world exists

The existence of the natural world is dependent on the existence of an uncaused causer.

A god(s) is an uncaused causer.

Therefore, a god(s) must exist in order for the natural world to exist.
Debate Round No. 1
AKMath

Pro

No, a god or supernatural being can't exist.

1. What is the god made of?

2. How old is he?

3. Is the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc. more compelling evidence than science?

And finally here's a logic question. God can't be all good and all powerful at the same time. If he was, it would mean that there would be no sickness, death, or anything negative on Earth, as he is all good and has the power to take away all bad things being all powerful. But that's not the case. So god contradicts himself.
Rivelo

Con

You have ignored my entire argument, and have failed to disprove even a single point I've made. The statement made to be debated is "God doesn't exist". I argued that, not the existence of a single, specific, virtuous god(s), but merely the existence of a god(s). You even ignored my disclaimer saying that I would not prove the existence of a specific god(s).

"No, a god or supernatural being can't exist."

You haven't validated this in the slightest. In fact, it is circular reasoning stemming from your first claim, and is logically fallacious.

Your first question is ignoring the definition of a god(s) that I presented. A god(s) is not "made" of anything, because to be "made" is a quality of the natural world. God(s) is not part of the natural world. It is not bound by the natural world. To be comprised of matter is a limit of the natural world. God(s) does not fit that description.

Your following 3 questions ignore my initial disclaimer and the statement at hand. I am not arguing for a specific god(s). Nor am I arguing the quality of said god(s). I am simply arguing for the existence of a god(s), as stated in the title of this argument.

You've completely ignored my argument and disclaimer and strayed from the statement at hand""God doesn't exist".
Debate Round No. 2
AKMath

Pro

I'm quite sorry about that.

Here's another logic question.

What if protons and neutrons follow the same principle as this God.

They are simply there. No beginning, certainly no end.

They weren't created or made, they just are.

Technically protons and neutrons have "godly powers".

Protons and neurons could have easily created the universe as we know it. And as far as we know that's all God has done really, besides lounging in heaven. :)
Rivelo

Con

It is remarkable, you have still left my entire argument untouched. Please respond to it

"What if protons and neutrons follow the same principle as this God"

You can make a "What if" comment about literally anything. This proves nothing. This hypothetical proves nothing. You must prove how protons and neutrons follow the same principle as a god(s).

"Protons and neurons could have easily created the universe as we know it."

This is a non-sequitur. You have not proved anything before this, and so they could not have created the universe.

"And as far as we know that's all God has done really, besides lounging in heaven. :)"

This is completely unnecessary and adds nothing to the conversation. It is also incredible that you consider the creation of the universe as such a minute thing.

Voters, there really is no reason to vote Pro here.
Debate Round No. 3
AKMath

Pro

"This is a non-sequitur. You have not proved anything before this, and so they could not have created the universe."
- They make atoms, and atoms make everything that literally exists. So I think it's highly possible they could have created our universe, and everything out there.

"This is completely unnecessary and adds nothing to the conversation. It is also incredible that you consider the creation of the universe as such a minute thing."
- It is a "minute thing". God is all-powerful, he can do it in a flash (as he is all-powerful).
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gkim 3 years ago
gkim
I couldn't reach the word count but yes
4. Because I have neglected and avoided the use of reason I cannot see what is clear about God.
Please try reading Philosophical Foundation by Surrendra Gangadean. This book will help you answer your question because it looks like you have tons of question to ask. thank you :)
Posted by gkim 3 years ago
gkim
contradictory statements cannot be true and cannot both be false.
The contradiction of "some is eternal" is "none is eternal."
If "none is eternal" then:
all is temporal.
all had a beginning
all came into being
If all came into being then being came into existence from non-being
being from non-being is not possible
therefore the original "none is eternal" is not possible
therefore its contradiction "some is eternal" must be true.

Pro is using Ad Hominem, begging the question, straw man, and complex question.
Because God is all-powerful and perfect being, with our knowledge we cannot know how he looks, his age or anything. That is why we know God is truly greater than us. Does age matter? And lastly, why is there evil in this world if God is good and powerful? that is your question right?
We, humans, are all born with the free will solution. For instance, if I want to eat pizza or hamburger I get to choose what I want to eat because I have the free will to do that. And evil makes the free will possible not actual.God is said to be free without the possibility of evil. And a man, in his final state of blessedness, is said to be free without the possibility of evil. But if evil did not exist was the prophecy to save us confirmable. Because evil existed we are able to sin. And because we are sinners we need a savior who can rescue us and forgive us. If there was no evil there wouldn't have been as sinning but because it is evil therefore there is sin and as a conclusion, we need a savior to forgive us.
According to the Surrendra Gangadean
1. because of all the evil in the world I cannot see how it can be said that God is all good and powerful.
2. Because of all the unbelief in the world, I cannot see how it can be said that God is all good and all powerful
3. because of all the unbelief in me I cannot see how it can be said that God is all good and all powerful
4. because I have neglected and avoided the use of reason I cannot see what is clear abo
Posted by gkim 3 years ago
gkim
If God doesn't exist how did we come into being? Are you saying we just appeared out of nowhere and this is all a coincidence?
Posted by gkim 3 years ago
gkim
All the claimer(pro) said about his side to start of was God does not exist. He isn't giving proofs that God doesn't exist instead like a little child arguing with his parents he's just claiming God doesn't exist and just asking questions to do the defender(con). If you want to debate you need to have your evidences and back up or else your claims would be meaningless :)
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Yes it could be 5000.0000.00000 ++ uncaused causes the size of a proton, (that are actually uncaused), that landed in your soup yesterday, and you pis... them out...
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Even if there is an un-caused cause before the beginning of the universe. There is nothing to suggest that it is the God of classical theism who is the un-caused. So even if the Cosmological argument is proven it cannot be proven that God is responsible.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
No need to create a god for everything you do not know....
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
"A god(s) is an uncaused causer.".. No you invent a uncaused causer when you do not know the cause.

" Therefore, a god(s) must exist in order for the natural world to exist."... No you invent a god if you do not know why the natural world exist.
Posted by Nicholaspanda 3 years ago
Nicholaspanda
@DrAnomaly, I believe he was defining what the kalam cosmological argument is. If you look at @Rivelo second definition of the argument he explicitly states, "The natural world must have a causer." God is that "causer".
Posted by DrAnomaly 3 years ago
DrAnomaly
Lol, Con just redefined God to be a cause. LMFAO. Nice try. God is usually defined at a bare-minimum as the consciousness that created the universe.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.