The Instigator
Merdeci
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Masterful
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It is probable that God exists

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,501 times Debate No: 118505
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (94)
Votes (0)

 

Merdeci

Pro

As Pro, I will affirm the resolution by arguing that it is probable that God exist, Meaning that it is more likely than not that God exist. I would like to note that I will not be arguing for a particular God, Like the Christian, Jewish, Or Islamic God. Rather, I will be arguing for the existence of a maximally great being with great properties such as omniscience, Omnipotence, Etc.

Round 1: Acceptance only

Round 2: Arguments only

Round 3: Rebuttals to arguments given

Round 4: Defending the arguments given



The BOP will be shared.
Masterful

Con

I accept on the understanding that, Djksp cannot vote on this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Merdeci

Pro

I will give and defend one argument for the existence of God. This argument will be the kalam cosmological argument.


The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, The universe has a cause.


Premise 1

Premise 1 is a self-evident truth. It's is a metaphysical principle: A being cannot come from non-being; something cannot come into existence uncaused from nothing. It is thus absurd to say that the universe should pop into being uncaused out of nothing. [1] Common experience and reason confirms premise 1.

Premise 2

This premise is supported by both philosophy and science.


1. Philosophy

Philosophically speaking, If the universe never had a beginning, Then the present moment could never arrive. However, Since the present moment has obviously arrived, It logically follows that the universe is finite in the past and began to exist. [2] Imagine if I were to give you an apple but had to ask permission for the guy behind you, But he has to do the same, And it goes on for infinity. Would you ever get that apple. No. This applies to events too. Therefore, There cannot be an infinite history of past events.

2. Science

Scientifically speaking, We know from cosmology that the universe had a beginning some 14 billion years ago with a cosmic event commonly known as the "Big Bang". John Gribbin, An astrophysicist at Cambridge University, Correctly states:

"…the discovery of the century, In cosmology at least, Was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, And confirmed by Einstein’s equations, That the Universe is not eternal, Static, And unchanging. " [3]

Alex Vilenkin himself, One of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists, Writes:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. " [4]



Why God?

Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Thus, Since the universe began to exist, It has a cause. However, Why should we think that this cause is God? There are several reasons why we should think that this cause is God.

1. This cause must be unimaginable powerful as it bought the whole universe into existence, If not omnipotent.

2. This cause must be timeless, Spaceless and immaterial, Because time, Space and matter began at the "Big Bang" (or at the moment the universe came into being).

3. This cause must transcend both matter and time because it created matter and time.

4. Because it is not in time, This cause must therefore be changeless.

5. This cause must itself be uncaused, Because if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, Then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place. Thus, We have to posit an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, In other words an indefinite chain of causes.

6. Lastly, This cause must be personal; for how else could a impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect? As William Lane Craig rightly states, "For the effect of the universe to begin in time the cause must be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. " [5]

Indeed, This cause is a being which basically everyone takes to be God. Given the kalam cosmological argument, We can rightly conclude that God exists.



Sources


[1]
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Page 274.

[2]
http://www. Leaderu. Com/truth/3truth11. Html

[3]
John Gribbin, In the Beginning: The Birth of the Living Universe, Page 19.

[4]
Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universe, Page 176.

[5]
William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Page 145.
Masterful

Con

My case against God

[Case 1] A claim is being made here by Pro. Now the scientific method takes over. The scientific method is simple, If someone is to make a claim, They must test that claim and present evidence to support it. My opponent will be providing evidence in the form of an argument. That evidence is intended to prove that a Gods existence is probable. My stance is to explain why that evidence is insufficient and thus, Why the God hypothesis is not probable.

[Case 2] I am not claiming something can come from nothing, The only person who could suggest something can come from nothing, Is my opponent. Where else would a God come from? The only retort possible, Would be one suggesting God has always been, But that brings me to my next argument.

My opponent’s philosophical argument, Refutes any attempt to suggest a God could have always existed. He very clearly states,

“If the universe never had a beginning, Then the present moment could never arrive. ”

If we use that same logic and apply it to a God, We know that if a God never had a beginning, Then a God could never arrive in the present.

[Case 3] The conclusion of the argument put forth by my opponent, Does not indicate the need for a God, It only indicates uncertainty. What I will say however is, The claim for a God is unreasonable, Especially if one is defining that God as omnipotent. Aside from the fact that my opponent has talked about the absurdity of ad infinitum [A] and forgot that omnipotence means to have infinite power, We need to talk about the paradox of being omnipotent.

If one has the power to do anything, Can one create a rock so heavy that they can never lift it?

If they can create a rock so heavy that they can never lift, Then they’ve demonstrated they cannot lift this rock, Showing us a restriction in their power and thus making them no longer omnipotent.

Alternately, They can lift the rock and have failed to create an unliftable rock. Thus, Omnipotence has been proven to be illogical and impossible.

Sources

The sources presented, While interesting, Cannot be traced back to a scientific study, Therefore, They do not provide us with a demonstrated and tested proof of a Gods existence. Do not consider them while voting. For this very reason, I will not waste your time by providing sources.

I look forward to my opponents response and hope our debate remains productive.



[A] “Because if the cause of the universe had a cause and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, Then there wouldn’t be a universe to talk about in the first place. Thus, We have to posit an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress”

Debate Round No. 2
Merdeci

Pro

Thank you for presenting your case.


God and Beginning

Con said that if a God never had a beginning, Then a God could never arrive in the present. I used this logic with the universe saying that If the universe never had a beginning, Then the present moment could never arrive. Con tries to use the same logic on God.

Con assumes that since I said the universe must have a beginning because it has arrived in the present moment, God therefore must have a beginning too in order to arrive in the present. This fails to understand that there has to be an uncaused cause because of the absurdity of an infinite regress. Something has to be uncaused which itself caused everything else into existence/being. To equate God with the universe is false. Indeed, The universe must have a cause. But there also has to exist an uncaused being (God) which caused everything else into existence. I made it clear in my round 2 that an uncaused cause must exist.

Omnipotence Paradox

Con said, If one has the power to do anything, Can one create a rock so heavy that they can never lift it?

This paradox tries to show that an omnipotent God cannot exist because it is logically impossible. However, This paradox necessitates an omnipotent being, An omnipotent being can by definition do logically impossible things. Thus, The Paradox has to agree that this omnipotent being (God) can do impossible Things. Omnipotence entails that God can actualize logically impossible situations like creating a stone he cannot lift. Therefore, This Paradox basically debunks itself.



Sources


Con doesn't seem to understand that the Kalam argument is a deductive argument, It is necessarily true. Con seem to assume that something cannot be true if it is not demonstrated and tested. This is merely an assumption without any given justification. There is no reason why the voters should not consider my sources while voting.




--------------

Con has barely touched the Kalam argument. Con has not addressed my scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe. Premise 2 of the Kalam argument stands strong. Premise 1 stands even stronger as there are no objections given to it. Con's case, as I have shown, Is fallacious.


The resolution remains affirmed.
Masterful

Con

Observation 1: Pro makes it clear that he believes God does not have a creator. He makes this claim while also claming something had to create the universe, If it is possible for something to exist without needing a creator (God), Then why does the universe need a creator?
Pro has committed a fallacy known as 'special pleading' wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. His logic used, Does not apply to God.

O2: Considering we know the universe is expanding, It's more likely to assume the universe undergoes a constant expansion and contraction cycle, It could therefore be the cause of the big bang.
It would be more logical to say this cycle has been going on for an infinite amount of time, Rather than, To suggest a God has existed for an infinite amount of time. Arguing for an uncaused cause does not demonstrate the existence of a God, It only introduces more questions, The question here is simple, Why does an uncaused cause have to be a God?


O3: If there was no time and only God before the creation of the universe, Then what was God doing before creating the universe?


Omnipotence Paradox


My opponent who considers himself a rational man, Has responded to the rock paradox with this,
"God can actualize logically impossible situations"
This is a neat way of saying God is magic. This is where our debate is going. Pro cannot rationally answer a simple question and has to resort to the magic argument.

[1] Omnipotence is logically impossible, As we both agree.

[2] To believe a God to exists, One must believe logic is not always necessary.

[3] To not use logic, Is to be illogical.

[4] Pro is illogical and believes in magic.


God can create an unliftable rock and still lift it, Because he's magic? Then he's failed at creating an unliftable rock.
Pro has shown he does not understand the paradox presented and shown his reasoning is illogical.

My opponent’s science argument

I didn’t respond to this section because there was nothing of substance to respond to. I agree that the big bang occurred. I could not find an argument detrimental to my stance in this section.

Deductive reasoning

If deductive reasoning is all the Kalam argument offers, Then I am thoroughly disappointed.

God is an extraordinary claim to which we require extra ordinary evidence, Deductive reasoning is not extra ordinary evidence, Therefore the resolution was never met.



In summary

Even if an uncaused cause is needed for the creation of the universe, Pro has not demonstrated that such a cause is omnipresent, Omnipotent and a God.

I am disappointed that Pro had to resort to the magic argument and in doing so, Ignored logical and rational thinking.

Pro has not made a single argument from science and has thus far failed to meet his burden of proof. The existence of a God remains improbable.




Debate Round No. 3
Merdeci

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his response and for this debate.


-------------


Con: If it is possible for something to exist without needing a creator (God), Then why does the universe need a creator?

Rebuttal: Con assumes that it is possible for something to exist without needing a creator. However, Since the big bang occurred (the universe began to exist) it must have a cause given self-evident metaphysical principles. Therefore, Any existent thing which came after the big bang and is within the universe owes it's existence to the creator/causer of the big bang which brought the universe into existence. In other words, Nothing could exist without the need for a creator/causer which caused the big bang and therefore the whole universe into existence.


Con: Considering we know the universe is expanding, It's more likely to assume the universe undergoes a constant expansion and contraction cycle, It could therefore be the cause of the big bang.

Rebuttal: This contraction cycle came after the big bang and could therefore not be the cause of the big bang. To say otherwise goes against the big bang itself. The universe began to expand after the big bang so that doesn't say anything about it being the cause of the big bang. It's simply not possible. Furthermore, As this cause brought the whole universe into existence it has to be extremely powerful. It also has to be personal because an impersonal cause cannot give rise to a temporal effect. To propose that this cycle has any of those properties is ridiculous. It could not have caused the big bang.


Con: It would be more logical to say this cycle has been going on for an infinite amount of time, Rather than, To suggest a God has existed for an infinite amount of time. Arguing for an uncaused cause does not demonstrate the existence of a God, It only introduces more questions, The question here is simple, Why does an uncaused cause have to be a God?
'
Rebuttal: Con cannot possibly show that this cycle has been going on for an infinite amount of time as he cannot even show that it existed before the big bang. Even if it did, This cycle had to be timeless, Spaceless and immaterial because time, Space and matter began at the Big Bang. So Con would argue that a timeless, Spaceless and immaterial cycle has been going on forever. This is Beyond laughable.

As for why the uncaused have to be a God, This needs some clarification. I am arguing for the existence of a maximally great being with great properties. You can call this God. An uncaused causer is not what makes it God alone, It also has to have those other properties which I have shown in my 'Why God' premise.


Con: If there was no time and only God before the creation of the universe, Then what was God doing before creating the universe?

Rebuttal: It doesn't matter what he did before creating the universe. This has no bearing on his existence or non-existence.


Con: God is an extraordinary claim to which we require extra ordinary evidence, Deductive reasoning is not extra ordinary evidence, Therefore the resolution was never met.

Rebuttal: This assumes that God is an extraordinary claim in the first Place. It is not. If the Kalam argument is sound, Then God is not an extraordinary claim. I'm arguing that since the universe began to exist and since everything which begins to exist must have a cause, It follows that the universe had a cause. As I showed in my 'Why God' premise, This cause must be timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, Changeless, Uncaused, Personal, And unimaginable powerful. This cause must also transcend both matter and time. God is therefore not an extraordinary claim, God is the most sensible explanation for the cause of the universe.


Con: Pro has not made a single argument from science and has thus far failed to meet his burden of proof. The existence of a God remains improbable.

Rebuttal: How do you know your great great great great grandmother existed? Have you ever seen her? No, But you know she existed because you are here now. Scientifically, We have no clue. However, We rationally and logically came to this conclusion. Not because of the physical world, But because of neccesity. The Kalam argument is necessarily true if the premises are sound and the conclusion follows from the premises.


Con: Even if an uncaused cause is needed for the creation of the universe, Pro has not demonstrated that such a cause is omnipresent, Omnipotent and a God.

Rebuttal: I said I would be arguing for the existence of a maximally great being with great Properties. I gave those Properties in my second round. It doesn't matter much if we Call this being God or not. The important point is that such a being exists and is the cause of the universe as I have shown. Most would take this being to be God, There is also no problem With that. As for being omnipotent, I think everybody would agree that whatever caused something as the universe must have been omnipotent. What else could it be? Weak?



Omnipotence Paradox

Con made some points here. Let us look at them.

[1] Omnipotence is logically impossible, As we both agree.

A: Omnipotence is not logically impossible because omnipotence entails actualizing logical impossibilities. Remember that this Paradox necessitates omnipotence for this dilemma to work. It tries to show that omnipotence is logically impossible and at the same time must admit that omnipotence by inherent definition entails the ability to actualize logically impossible situations.

[2] To believe a God to exists, One must believe logic is not always necessary.

A: Logic is not always necessary. Do you need to use Logic to know that you love somebody? Etc etc

[3] To not use logic, Is to be illogical.

A: Not necessarily.

[4] Pro is illogical and believes in magic.

A: This doesn't follow.

Con continues and says: 'God can create an unliftable rock and still lift it, Because he's magic? Then he's failed at creating an unliftable rock. '

Again, God can actualize logically impossible situations, Like creating an unliftable rock. Let me show my counterargument to this Paradox again. I said, This paradox tries to show that an omnipotent God cannot exist because it is logically impossible. However, This paradox necessitates an omnipotent being for this dilemma to work, An omnipotent being can by definition do logically impossible things. Thus, The Paradox has to agree that this omnipotent being (God) can do impossible Things. Omnipotence entails that God can actualize logically impossible situations like creating a stone he cannot lift. Therefore, This Paradox basically debunks itself.

Con doesn't seem to grasp this. An omnipotent being can defy Logic and therefore Logic is irrelevant. Logic is irrelevant to a God With omnipotence in the first place. In other Words, to say that God can create an unliftable rock, Although illogical and self-contradictory, Remains within his power to do so.



-------------


Con has agreed that the universe had a beginning, He also agrees that something cannot come out of nothing. I showed why the cause of the universe is a maximally great being with great Properties (God). Only omnipotence was questioned by my opponent on this matter. As I have shown, The stone Paradox necessitates omnipotence for it's dilemma to work, Therefore it assumes that God ought to be able to actualize logically impossible situations. It's self-debunking.

I urge the readers to vote Pro.
Masterful

Con

Thanks for the debate Pro, In truth, I see very little in your argument that has not been already covered.

I have in every instance refuted Pros claims and in every instance, I have been met with unreasonable and ill applied logic, Including but not limited to-

[1] “God can actualize logically impossible situations” -Why bring magic into this?

[2]An uncaused causer is not what makes it God alone” -Your premise is the universe is uncaused and your conclusion is 'therefore God' You have now just told us, 'therefore not necessarily God'

[3]This assumes that God is an extraordinary claim in the first Place. It is not. ” -An almighty universe creating, Impossible-doing being is very extraordinary. I’ve never seen one.

[4] “This cause must be timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, Changeless” -Pro claims to know what exists outside of the universe. Do I claim to know? I wouldn’t be so stupid as to make such a claim with 0 evidence.

[5]Logic is not always necessary. Do you need to use Logic to know that you love somebody? ” -Awful analogy, We can use logic to work out why we love somebody because we can feel love, Unlike love, You don’t feel God.

[6] “Nothing could exist without the need for a creator” -Except for God right? Thus, Such an argument is self-debunking.

Words have been put into my mouth

[1] “Con would argue that a timeless, Spaceless and immaterial cycle has been going on forever. ” -I never came to that conclusion. I don’t claim to know which of many hypothesis and theories are true, That’s reserved for people who can’t stand not knowing.

[2]He also agrees that something cannot come out of nothing” -I never agreed to that, We don’t have an example of nothing so I wouldn’t know what that would be. I of course remain skeptical.

As you can see, I have remained patient in the face of overwhelming and ruthlessly fallacious logic, But my patience draws thin.

The omnipotence paradox is where any hint of intelligent discourse breaks down. This is not a case of Pro using poor logic, This is a case of Pro using NO logic.

Pro constantly uses the sentence “God can actualize logically impossible situations” this means exactly, God is magic.

Pros defends his argument by claiming, God is magic and doesn’t abide by logic.

A man who claims to be a rational man has admitted to believing in magic and admitted that logic is not always necessary.

How does one communicate an argument without logic? How can Pro expect to win over voters when he refuses to use logic?

To believe my opponents absurd claim of a God, One must violate what they know about creality and believe magic is real, Logic is not necessary and unliftable rocks can be lifted. This is a terrible case for a God.

I conclude there is insufficient evidence for the claims that,

-God exists.

-God is omniscience.

-God is Omnipotence.

-God is a maximally great being.

Therefore Pro has failed to meet their burden of proof.

Debate Round No. 4
94 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheRabbiFromJerusalem 2 years ago
TheRabbiFromJerusalem
@Mosc, Not a real Jew, Real Jews aren"t racists.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Based upon that last 'preamble', Please stop the absurd lumping together all religions under ONE GOD. That's utter and total hogwash. The Gods whom the Xtians and Muslims worship - different Gods from whom the Hindus and Chinese worship. The vague One God perversion, Hides the fact that the people who spew this monotheism crap - they possess virtually no knowledge of discernment what so ever.

God singular represents a gross over generalization and exposes the stupidity of the morons who lack the basic brains to discern the differences between one faith from another faith. A black n*gger or a mexican spik -- they exist as completely separate peoples who have and follow their own unique cultures and customs, Just as do the towel headed sand n@ggers of the Middle East follow their own unique traditions and mannerisms. Chinese do not interchange with Jews.

In like and equal measure the God which one society calls upon, This culture has its own special way by which it worships the God which rules upon "that" people. The ONE God monotheism bs ignores the blatant obvious!
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
Science aint the Messiah. Science made mustard gas in WW1 and Agent Orange in Vietnam, And Genetically modified foods which grow tumors in the people who ingest these GMO foods - brought to you by the same monsters who produced Agent Orange!

All human beings pass crap through our mutual butt *'s. We can detest the faith theology propaganda's as fit to compare to what out body expels out of our butts. But we can not confuse, Much less replace science for faith or visa versa. B/c at the end of the day both compare to a gun. Guns don't kill, The vile SOB who pulls the trigger kills.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
@mosc
What does that prove?
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@Masterful

Faith most essentially requires knowing how ancient cultures holy books define the terms they repeatedly employ. You can not use a Daniel Webster dictionary to define terms in the Xtian bible nor the Muslim koran. What you can seek to learn, How these holy books which these alien foreign religions worship their Gods. Neither bible or koran ever once calls upon the Name of the God of Israel. Proof that the faiths of these foreign alien religions call upon Gods which the Torah does not command much less teach. Neither Jesus nor Allah brought Israel out of Egypt. Consequently, The faith of the Jews worships a different God than worships either Xtianity or Islam.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@Just-Call-Me-PK

The first word of the Torah contains the term: brit. You do not know what this word means. You do not know the Name of the God of Israel. You do not know how the Torah commands Israel - we have a brit. . . [confusing 'brit melah/circumcision' with the term 'brit', Confuses the cart for the horse] - to do service to HaShem.

Goyim to not obey the commandments which Moshe the prophet commanded the brit people to do and keep. If circumcision represents the cart of the brit so too do all other commandments which Moshe the prophet commanded in the name of our God - whose Name you do not know. The prophet Yehoshua, The student of Moshe, At the brit of Sh'Cem set the preconditions by which the brit people can keep the commandments. Its a simple how much more so -- logical argument. If the Cohonim of the House of Aaron had to be tohor to do service to HaShem. . . Then how much more so does brit Israel have to be tohor to keep the commandments.

You do not fool anyone. You do not know what tohor means and you likewise do not know the definition of what all commandments which the prophet Moshe commanded, What all these commandments universally teach. Why? Because you do not know how the Torah defines this key term prophet. You profane the term and define it as foretelling the future. Ewwwwww utter tuma trash.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 3 years ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
@mosc i agree with you on some points and i certainly wouldn't limit God at all as he is logically omnipotent (to most). As i showed though, God is simply one and is existence itself and logically cannot be more than one. @masterful and yet science cannot prove that statement to be true. Or explain love or consciousness or miracles which you can go and see for yourself, Which still wouldn't be enough for some people.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@backwards Homo,

I am an athiest praise God. LOL
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@Masterful

Belief systems define their theologies as "faith". Your criticism holds water on this score. But faith as defined by the Torah -- the obligation of the Courts to uphold righteous justice from rich to poor, Widows & orphans to kings. This definition of faith, Righteous Courts of Law, Your criticism peels of this definition of faith like water off the back of a duck.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@mosc - The idiot of them all trying to lump a slice of coal into a diamond that stems from his rocket skyientist brain and pretends he's a uterus sponge cake.
"Another example of Losers with a Capital L. . . The christian church. " Duh. Well snoozers the barking jaw in aluminum fool, You can tack on your sad pathetic religion that you seem so fond of, Judaism, And scrape it off the chalkboard and neatly p**s on it and scuttle it into the trash just as christianity deserves because its god, The same as yours is all about hate and hates children like you for jeez sakes which is truly unforgivable. Yeah there's lots of other stuff as well such as idiotic "faith" in which the host of this debate pulverized you with, In which you have no answer to because YOUR god would never use faith instead of evidence to blab his self righteous blabbering blundering ego in which you have no proof your god even exists.

Oh and another thing dearly departed droplet of poo "You assume that only your opinion contributes to this debate? HaHaHaHa LOL now that's funny. " Its HIS debate. Its not YOURS. YOUR opinion doesn't matter one f--king bit if he doesn't want it to. And the same is damn right true of me. Got that you stillbirth rectal itch who has no genuine friends or loved ones?
I'm so very glad I made your eon better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say. Regardless, This will be my only post unto you in this debate. I get when I'm outdone by a very gracious host. You don't.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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