The Instigator
WrickItRalph
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Christfollower
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

No Gods Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 524 times Debate No: 120742
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)

 

WrickItRalph

Pro

I am making the positive claim that no gods exist. I will debunk every version of god, So long as god has these two qualities:

1. God has agency.
2. God created the universe.

Lets do this.

So lets start with Omni Gods. These are any gods that are omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Etc. Now a god like this would be sufficient to meet the two requirements that I mentioned, But the problem is that this god has been explained in a way that is incoherent. By doing a reductio ad absurdum, We can see that these omni qualities cannot exist in reality. This is because they deal in infinites and infinities cannot exist in reality. Infinities are simply abstracts used as a place holder for the highest conceivable number. When we call something infinite, What we're really saying is that it's too big to count or even estimate. So now all we can have is a really powerful, Really loving, Really far seeing god. Now some people might say that god exist outside of time and space. This is also incoherent. Time and space are also abstracts and nothing can exist with or apart from them. If god cannot exist in physical reality, Then he cannot create the universe because he can't affect reality. So now we're down to a really powerful god that exists in physics. So a god like this could still meet the two requirements I mentioned. But now we have a problem. If god has no omni power and he exists in physics, That means he is in the observable universe. But he's not in the observable universe. Since god has agency, He would need physical matter to exist and therefore could not move beyond the speed of light. So he cannot escape the observable universe. So what if we take away god's matter and just turn him pure agency? Now he might not be observable, So it would make sense that we didn't find him. But wait, Now we have a problem. God can't create the universe anymore. He's just a floating blob of agency sitting ineffectually in our universe. So why is he there in the first place? Let's back it up. So maybe we can go the other end and say that god is just physical and has no mind, Like particles. The problem here is that it's now just an object. No reason to call it God. So by slowing peeling off the layers of impossibilities, We see that while something may have created the universe, There is no reason to think that something is a god. At most, It was some physical thing.
Christfollower

Con

First of all, Since God is all-powerful, Then he is perfectly capable to be outside time, Space and matter. God is all powerful so he is capable of doing things that science, Nor logic, Nor anything else humans can explain. God can do anything.
That debunked everything you just mentioned.
Debate Round No. 1
WrickItRalph

Pro

Assuming that you premises are true, Then yes, You would debunk me. Fortunately, All of your premises are bold claims. Can you prove that:

A) God exist?

B) He is all powerful?

C) Time and Space exist?

D) Anything can exist outside of Time and Space?

I see no evidence for any of the things. That means you have no logical defeater for my argument. I may have the burden of proof on my claim, But any claim you make as a defeater has a burden of proof. For instance, If I tell you that gravity is fake and my evidence is that things don't fall, Your defeater would be a premise that is both true and disproves my conclusion. So if you posited that you can a pen will fall if you drop it, You now have a burden of proof to prove that the pen drops. Therefore you have drop a pen in front of them to fulfill your burden of proof. So your mission now is to prove that the premises of your defeater are true.

Your floor.
Christfollower

Con

A.
Reasons to Believe in God
I want to pick up two observations which I think give us good reason to think there is a God. First, The existence of the universe is better explained by the existence of God. Second, The existence of objective moral values is better explained by the existence of God.

The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence of God.
I will begin by laying out the argument:

1. There are things which come into existence.
Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.
There cannot be an infinite series of past causes.
Therefore, There exists a first cause which did not come into existence. In other words, The first cause always existed.
Let us look at each of the steps in the argument:

Premise 1. "There are things which come into existence. "
Many things have come into existence. This article is coming into existence as I write it. You came into existence and so did I. This premise is not uncontroversial.

Premise 2. "Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else. "
It is obvious that Nothing can cause itself to come into existence. Anything that causes itself to come into existence has to exist before it exists. This is impossible. Perhaps something can come into existence from Nothing without any cause whatsoever. Can a thing just pop into existence with absolutely no cause? This also does not seem reasonable.
I have three children. If I walk into the dining room and see a picture of Pinky and the Brain which is drawn on the wall in Permanent Magic Marker I will ask "Where did this picture come from? " My daughter Elizabeth (who is almost five) might say "It came from nothing, Dad. Nothing caused it. It just popped there. I think it is quite strange " don"t you? " Will I accept this? No! Things do not come into existence from Nothing without cause. So, We have good reason to think that premise two is true. Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.

Premise 3. "There cannot be an infinite series of past causes. "
Is the series of past causes infinite? Can the universe have an infinite past? The answer is that it cannot. First, There are philosophical reasons to think the past cannot be infinite. Second, There are scientific reasons which support this view.

Philosophical Reasons
Why can"t the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, No matter how long you count, You will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite. , That is, If it had a beginning, Then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

Scientific Reasons
I will not develop these. Rather, I will simply point them out.

Big Bang theory does not prove that the universe had a beginning, But it supports this claim.
The second law of thermodynamics does not prove that the universe had a beginning but it also supports this claim.
We can see that we have good philosophical and Scientific reasons to reject the idea that the Universe has always existed.

About the Universe, There are only three alternatives:
1. The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past.
2. The universe was popped into existence from nothing with absolutely no cause.
3. The universe was caused to exist by something outside it.

We have strong reason to reject the first two alternatives.

Alternative Three is the most reasonable. There was a first cause. This cause existed eternally. It initiated the big bang and created the universe. Now what can we know about this cause? Why think the cause is God? I will briefly sketch a few implications.

First, The first cause is not a part of the space-time physical universe because it caused the space time universe to begin. Therefore it is outside of space and time. It is not physical. Second, It has a great deal of power. Third, It is a personal agent. This means it is not an inert force but it must have aspects of person hood; namely, That it wills. How do we know this? This is because it is the best answer to the question of why the Big Bang happened when it did. Why not sooner? Why not later? All of the conditions for producing the Big Bang existed from eternity. The only kind of cause we know of that can initiate an effect when all of the conditions are already present is the will of a personal agent.

I have not argued that it is logically impossible that the universe popped into existence from nothing without cause. I have argued that it is more reasonable to hold that it has a cause and that this cause is a non-physical personal agent " God.

So it seems that the first argument is fairly strong. The existence of the universe is better explained by the existence of God.

The Existence of Objective Moral Values is Better Explained by the Existence of God.
People experience a sense of morality that leads them to hold strongly that certain things are right or wrong for all people in all cultures. For example, It is wrong to torture another person just for fun. It is wrong for me today. It is wrong for a citizen of the Philippines and it was wrong for someone living in 500 BC. Our moral sense provides strong reason to believe in a personal God.

It will help clarify what I am saying if we put it into the form of an argument.

If there is no God, There are no objective moral values.
There are moral values which are objective.
Therefore, God exists.

Before I discuss this argument, I must make it clear that I am not claiming that one must believe in God in order to be moral. I am not claiming that statistically those who believe in God are more moral than those who do not. I am also not claiming that our knowledge of morality depends upon God. This argument is to the effect that objective moral values themselves are foreign to a universe without God. They do not fit.
I have briefly presented two arguments for the existence of God. These show that it is more reasonable to believe that God exists than that He does not exist.

A. The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence of God.
B. The Existence of Objective Moral Values is Better Explained by the Existence of God.

So we see that some of the things we observe about the natural world ground a strong inference to the claim that God does exist. This gives us reason to consider with renewed openness the possibility that God has entered the space-time universe and revealed Himself through the person and life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

I have not claimed to prove with mathematical certainty that God exists. I have, However, Provided good reasons to think that He does. If someone wishes to argue successfully that God does not exist. He must first, Provide an answer for each of my arguments and second, He must offer arguments that God does not exist. Until He does this, We can conclude that we have good reason to claim that God does exist.

B. The definition of God proves that he must be. God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

C: I know Time and Space are there, So they must exist.

D. Your question for D asumes that Time and Space exist. Since God is all powerful, He can exist outside of Time and Space

Your Turn!
Debate Round No. 2
WrickItRalph

Pro

Ahh! You made a robust argument! Now we have a debate! Lets dive in.

Okay, We so you're two jump off points are:

1. God is best explanation for universe

2. God is best explanation for morality

For the first point, You presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Before I get to the premises. I would like to address your use of the phrase "come into existence". As far as science and the world has observed, All things that have existed have always existed. For instance. Lets say you have a table. Now you might be inclined to say that the table came into existence when it was crafted, And this would be true in a colloquial sense, But it's not the same thing is coming into existence. Every particle used to craft that table has always existed, The table didn't come into existence, It was formed from particles that always existed. The reason I bring this up concerns your premises.

So I reject the soundness of premise 1 and all premises that are contingent upon it due to a problem of language. I submit that I will accept the first premise, If you change the phrase "come into existence" into "formed" or some functional equivalent. When you say come into existence, That is functionally identical to saying popped into existence.

So on premise 2, If you were to say "everything that is formed is formed by something else" then I would agree with it. Either way, This argument is not a necessarily true premise. It's a strong probabilistic premise, Which is not a bad thing, But it necessarily means that the conclusion is not 100% verifiable. I would argue that it's above 99% though since literally everything every formed was formed from something smaller.

I agree with premise 3

I didn't see a formal conclusion from these premises. I can infer one, But I'd rather have you state it formally. I'm guessing it would be something to the effect of an uncaused cause, I would agree with this conclusion, However, You'd have to go further to get me to god and you still have to fix the language problem I mentioned earlier for me to accept this conclusion. Let's continue

So on your comments about the past being infinite. I don't believe that infinity exists as an actual thing. It's an abstract used as a place holder for any number that the mind could conceive. It's not even a number, But rather a mathematical concept, Much like the concept of zero. Furthermore, Time is also an abstract. There is no physical time, But rather a concept of time. Furthermore, The past does not exist either, It's just an abstract concept of what used to be. Once we understand this, We can also understand that time did not "begin" the universe just "is" and humans perceive time through the experiencing of relative motion. While the universe may have began, That would only be to say that it was formed of things that already existed, Therefore, There would be no absolute beginning. Everything just always was and always will be. That's not the same as infinity. This also means that saying the past is complete is vacuous because you're just saying that an abstract concept is complete, It doesn't say anything about the physical universe. The universe doesn't care about our perception of time.

Concerning your scientific reasons

the big ban supports that the observable universe had a beginning, Not the entire cosmos, So I agree with you, But there is also no evidence that the big bang is the first event to ever happen. For all we know, This could be the millionth big bang. There could be universes that we can't see beyond the reach of light and we have no way of knowing if ours was the first. This makes it very likely that something natural started the big bang long after other things had already been moving around in the cosmos.

thermodynamics prove that the universe is experiencing entropy, But it doesn't necessarily imply a formal beginning because it's only entropy if our count of the matter in the universe is correct, And since we can't see beyond the observable universe, We have no way of knowing if entropy will happen the way we think it will happen.

when you speak of the good philosophical and scientific reasons, That only applies to the observable universe and when they say beginning, They're not talking about the universe being created, They're talking about it being formed.

Concerning your three alternatives. You said 3 was the most likely. I think 1 is more likely and the part about the an infinite past is trivial because time doesn't matter in relation to something existence since things can exist in a static state that would make time look like it wasn't happening. Number 2 is possible but all of our evidence points away from it. Number 3 actually causes a logical paradox because the outside source would require something to cause it. An uncaused cause would necessarily have to be contained physically within the universe, Otherwise it's a logical paradox and cannot be. Furthermore, I assert that an uncaused cause could happen in the first alternative as well, So you can't rule out 1 against 3 unless you can prove that A) the uncaused cause cannot be internal and B) The external uncaused cause somehow formed itself. Without proving these things, The first alternative become more likely due to the facts of Occam's razor and the infinite regress caused by an outside creator if it cannot form itself.

So you assert that line about the first cause being outside of space time. Space time doesn't exist so nothing can be outside of it. This applies to all abstracts. One cannot exist apart from the number 2 for instance, Because the number 2 is not a thing that you can compare your existence to or contrast it from. This is why I say the uncaused cause has to be internal. I reject the notion that the first cause necessarily has agency. It could be the case, But it is not a requirement. The only thing required for the first cause is motion. Motion starts the whole universe. Period.

You say that only personal agents can initiate a cause when all conditions are already present. This is actually not true. Particles are able to do the same thing and, As far as we know, They have no agency. Even if they did, It would not be the kind of agency that you're thinking of. It would be more like a fuzzy consciousness that could only make guess decisions because it has no sense. To us, This kind of agency would be identical to random behavior. So particles are actually a better candidate for the first cause than anything else, Because they're the only known things that can do this.

So on the first point, You've got me to the point of uncaused cause if you change the language of the premises and you're gonna have to give me something better if you want me to accept that cause as a god, Because you haven't convinced me that agency is a necessary piece and if god has no agency, Then it's not god.

On your moral argument. The first thing I want to point out is that morals might be purely subjective and that would be okay, Because they're still pragmatic. But lets just say for a second that morals a necessarily objective so I can steel man this. How do you prove that objective morals are true because of god? How do you know they aren't true on their on merit? This is a problem, Because you have to show a connection for this to be acceptable. You could just say that god's opinion is what makes them true, But that's fallacious. An opinion is subjective, Even if it's god's opinion. God could know everything about the universe, But that's just data, If data was enough to prove morality, Then humans could do it. So god can't make an ought statement even if he knows everything. He would have to make If Ought statements, Which are subjective, So edict is out the window. You could say it's part of his nature, But that's incoherent, Natures are abstracts and don't exist, So now were back to using logic.

Your floor.

n
Christfollower

Con

Thanks,
I ran out of characters in the last round so here are my conclusions/backups for my arguments. For some reason " is appearing all over my arguments. Don't know why.
Defending the moral argument.
Defending Premise 1. "If there is no God, There are no objective moral values. "
I have to admit that this claim is quite controversial and many philosophers disagree with me. I think, However, That objective moral values are not sufficiently explained in a universe without God. Many have agreed with this claim. For example, Dostoevski had Ivan Karamazov claim, "If there is no God, Everything is permitted. " Sartre wrote of Dostoevski"s statement, "That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, Everything is permissible if God does not exist, And as a result man is forlorn, Because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. " [see his essay Existentialism] John Mackie "" probably the best philosophical atheist of the twentieth century recognizes this: "[Objective moral values] constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, Without an all-powerful god to create them. If, Then, There are such intrinsically prescriptive objective values, They make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them [The Miracle of Theism, Pp 115-116. ]

Mackie recognizes that these objective values do not fit in the universe if there is no God. His answer, Since he rejects God, Is to claim that there are no objective moral values. His book on ethics is appropriately titled Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. I agree with Dostoevski, Sartre and Mackie. If there is no God, There are no objective moral values.

Defending Premise 2. "There are objective moral values. "
We know there are objective moral values. By this I mean that the content of morality is not determined by the individual, Or by culture. Rather some things are objectively wrong. Other things are objectively obligatory. Actions such as rape, Racist discrimination and torturing an innocent baby to death for no reason are really wrong. Furthermore, It is wrong for me to do these no matter when I live and no matter from what culture I come.

Now many people believe that morality is not objective. This view comes in three basic varieties.

1. The individual determines morality.
If the individual determines morality, Then if I believe it is morally permissible to steal your stereo and beat up your girlfriend, It is permissible for me to do it. But it is not permissible for me to beat up your girlfriend. Therefore, The individual does not determine morality.

2. Society determines morality.
If I lived in a completely racist society, Would racism be right for me? Not at all. When an American university student protests against South Africa"s policy of apartheid, He is assuming that morality is not determined by society. It is transcendent of cultures. All of our greatest heroes have been men and women who have stood up to society"s wrongs and appealed to a morality that is transcendent to society in order to demand change. If society determines morality, It is always morally wrong to criticize society. There is no morality outside of society which can form the basis of a moral critique.

3. Morality has survival value.
Some people claim that the reason we have this moral sense is that it helped the human race survive. Those individuals with moral sense grouped together for mutual protection and these did better than those without the moral sense. This is a kind of prehistoric social contract theory of morality. The problem with this is that we do not need morality to survive today. In fact, If you and I know that morality has no objective validity and the rest of our culture still thinks it is valid, We can take advantage of this to get the most we can. There is no moral reason to refrain from rape, Robbery and murder.

These inadequate objections show that our sense is that there is a morality that is trans-personal, Trans-cultural and trans-temporal The existence of a personal God is the best explanation for this. It is not up to the individual or the culture whether it is permissible to rape simply for fun. Any individual who believes it is morally permissible to rape for fun has a false belief. Any culture whose moral guidelines include the claim that it is permissible to rape for fun has simply got it wrong.

If it is true that Hitler was morally wrong, It is true that there are objective moral truths which are trans-cultural. If it is true that it was wrong for Romans to leave baby girls to die on the trash heaps "" simply because they were girls, Then morality is not determined by culture. If it is true that Martin Luther King was a moral hero because he criticized his own culture by appealing to objective morality, Then it is true that morality is not determined by culture.

Now, It is true that Hitler was wrong. It is true that the Romans were wrong. It is true that Martin Luther King was right "" heroically right. So, We know there are objective moral truths. But objective morality makes no sense in the Universe if there is no God. Objective moral values point to the existence of a moral being who created the universe. His moral character is the standard for objective right and wrong.

You criticized the phrase"come into existence"
Perhaps I may have used the wrong word, But that is the best way I can describe it.
Debate Round No. 3
WrickItRalph

Pro

I will start by showing why your moral argument is both wrong and irrelevant. We'll start with irrelevant.

So you say that secular morality doesn't explain morality objectively, But god does. This is false. When you're arguing for Christian morality, What you're actually saying is that God defines morality. This is just God's opinion. His opinion is no different than any other opinion. . So even in Christianity, Your morality would still be subjective, Because it's only an opinion.

Now onto why it's also wrong. The truth is, That if objective morality does exist, Then science explains it way better than god. See the problem with the god claim is that it has exactly zero explanatory power. That is to say that while it might be sufficient to account for things, It doesn't actually tell us why or how anything happened. It's exactly the same as if I had said that the moral objectives were created by magic. Sure, Magic accounts for morality, But it doesn't explain it and now I have to explain where the magic came from, So I have more questions now.

Now first of all, The word value, Necessarily implies subjectivity, So all moral values are indeed subjective. However, Some moral values, While subjective, Have objective reasoning behind them. These objective reasonings make the acts immoral regardless of opinion and therefore, Have more explanatory power than god. Some examples of these types of actions are: incest, And cannibalism. These actions automatically lead to destruction of the species, Therefore, No animal can participate in them and live, It then logically follows, That everyone living person has to adhere to these values, Because if they didn't, They'd be dead.

You say that Christian morality stops people from raping and murdering. But the thing is that rape and murder are universally rejected by the whole of society. Even in countries that don't have god.

What really nails down the coffin on biblical morality is that fact that you can't even prove god's existence. This one is painful for you because you're trying to use morality to prove his extistence, When you should be doing it the other way around. Fun fact, Most apologetic arguments use this upstream type of logic where the start at the end of the logic and work backwards.

So after taking a look at things. We see that morality actually holds up better under a secular worldview.

You said "Now, It is true that Hitler was wrong"

Hitler believed in the Christian god, You're not helping your case by brining this up.

"If it is true that Martin Luther King was a moral hero because he criticized his own culture by appealing to objective morality, "

Martin luther king fought for black rights, But he was also racist against certain black people, This was due to the political landscape at the time. He was ALSO a Christian. All you're proving is that citing biblical morality turns you into a bad person.

"Perhaps I may have used the wrong word, But that is the best way I can describe it. "

That's cool, But I gave you a better word "formed' that is scientifically accurate to what is actually happening and if you're being intellectually honest, I suggest you use that instead of "came into existence" which adds unnecessary confusion to the argument.

So it seems we're on the same page of the bad wording in the premises, So I'll grant the revised wording, Which means the only thing standing in your way is.

1) proving the validity of Premise 2

and

2) showing correlation between your conclusion and the Abrahamic god.

Your floor :)
Christfollower

Con

1) proving the validity of Premise 2

and

2) showing correlation between your conclusion and the Abrahamic god.

I will prove both in this argument.
"His opinion is no different than any other opinion. "
uhhh, No. He is God. What the true God says is the TRUTH. Not an opinion.
I am saying, Raping is wrong just because it is wrong. PERIOD.
"You say that Christian morality stops people from raping and murdering"
Not doing something is different than being opposed to it.

"Hitler believed in the Christian god, You're not helping your case by bringing this up. "
He did not believe in a Christian God. Why would he have killed the jews? He was an atheist.

"All you're proving is that citing biblical morality turns you into a bad person. "
This is not a debate about biblical morality. You can still do things wrong even when you are a Christian

I am going to stop here.
Your floor. :)
Debate Round No. 4
WrickItRalph

Pro

While it's true that the topic is not specifically bout biblical morality, You brought up biblical morality as a defense for logic. So I am justified to talk about it because your are too.

Killing Jews does not make you an atheist. It makes you psychopath. You and I both know that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god and that's it. If you don't believe me about Hitler, Then you can look into history and find out that he subscribed to the Christian religion. He worked with churches and even made religious quotes in his speech. What you're really saying is that he is not a Christian by your standards. Which is fine, But that doesn't make him an atheist because he still believed in The Christian God.

You said: "I am saying, Raping is wrong just because it is wrong. PERIOD. "

Here, You are arguing for a moral absolute. Morals are not absolute, But rather particular. Even if I granted you moral absolutism, It still wouldn't prove any god, Let alone the Christian god. For all we know, Naturalism could produce moral absolutes through evolution. In fact, Science has good evidence that at least some of our morals do come from evolution.

You said: "uhhh, No. He is God. What the true God says is the TRUTH. Not an opinion. "

That's a bold assertion, You have to provide evidence that this is the case. The problem with this is that you're trying to use morals to prove god and at the same time, Using god to prove morals. It's a circular argument.

So I want to take a moment to formally frame your premises. Because you never formally drew a conclusion from them. So technically, I don't know what your conclusion is verbatim. I just know it end up at god somehow. This vagueness is troubling.

Premise 1. "There are things which come into existence. "

Premise 2. "Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else. "

Premise 3. "There cannot be an infinite series of past causes. "

Conclusion? "Something must have come into existence that was not brought into existence by something else"

I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. However, As I mentioned before, The premises need to be reworded due to their lack of soundness, So lets adjust that.

Premise 1. "There are things which are formed. "

Premise 2. "Everything which is formed is formed from something else that was formed "

Premise 3. "There cannot be an infinite series of smaller formations "

Conclusion? "Something must exist that was not formed from smaller formations"

This format says the same thing as before, But it takes out the confusing language and present the argument using a proper scientific description of what is going on. I accept this conclusion because all of the premises are sound and contain no false equivocation. However, Nothing in this argument leads me to god. So now I must use this conclusion as another premise to form a conclusion about god or the Christian god. If I only get to god, Then I must assume the further conclusion to the Christian god.

So the problem here is that your work is not done yet. You need to connect this conclusion to the Christian god. You can't use your morality argument, Because it relies on god existing. Furthermore, Your initial rebuttal of my argument in round 1 relied on your proving god. So if you're not going to prove a god, Then you need to at least pose a secular rebuttal to my argument.

In my humble opinion, I think the only way to connect the Christian god to your conclusion is to rule out naturalism and every other religion that has a candidate god that could do this. You would also have to rule out fringe things like: Magic, Pixies, Collective Universal Consciouness, Etc. This is a tough task.

I've tried to present your argument in the best light possible and I even offered ways for you to beat me, So I think I've been fair in my assessment.

Your floor.
Christfollower

Con

I would like to say that my opponent has not trash talked me like backwardseden and other idiots. I am thankful for that. I have enjoyed this debate very much and would enjoy debating you again.

Because I slightly disagree with your redoing of my premises, I will re-word them myself.

Premise 1. "There are things which come into existence(formed). "

Premise 2. "Everything which comes into existence(formed) is caused to exist by something else. "

Premise 3. "There cannot be an infinite series of past causes. "

Conclusion: Since there cannot be an infinite series of past causes, The universe must have had a starting point. Therefore, Something outside this world must have created or formed this world. That is better explained by the existence of a God.

"I've tried to present your argument in the best light possible and I even offered ways for you to beat me, So I think I've been fair in my assessment. "
You have been more than fair. Thank you.

"You need to connect this conclusion to the Christian god. "
Although I have used the God to prove my points, I just need to show that it is more reasonable to believe that a God exists than that He does not exist.

I have not claimed to prove with mathematical certainty that God exists. I have, However, Provided good reasons to think that He does. If someone wishes to argue successfully that God does not exist. He must first, Provide an answer for each of my arguments and second, He must offer arguments that God does not exist. Since my opponent has not done this, We can conclude that we have good reason to claim that God does exist. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
Thanks @ ralph
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
I agree with the conjoined reformation of your premises in the last argument of the debate. I had a problem with the extra conclusion you drew about god after the fact. However, You rightfully disclaimed at the end that it was a probabilistic proof not to be taken as absolute evidence, So I felt you acted with intellectual honesty on this front.

Good Debate.
Posted by Country-of-dummies 3 years ago
Country-of-dummies
HA HA HA HA HA LOL no one else does either Ralph. . .
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
You example has 1 creator with a subjective opinion. Then the creator makes two robots with subjective opinion and then one malfunctions and develops a different subjective opinion. I guess this seem objective to you because you think god's beliefs are objective.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@melcharaz. I don't get your example
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
Ill give an example that maybe will help clarify the concept of objective reality. A man creates 2 robots with free will and installed in them rules in how act and what to do and how to it. One day 1 of the robots malfunction and disobeys the laws. The creator sees this as wrong, But the robot sees no inherent error, Only the difference between himself and the other robot and does what it sees as right.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
I just told you. They're abstracts. Abstracts don't exist and they're true by tautology. You're not going to get a different answer than that because that's the answer.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking you how do you know that "Infinites" do not exist?
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Space, Time, And infinites are abstracts. They don't have physical existence. I'm not supposing anything. It's categorically true. If you don't believe me, Look up what an abstract is. You can't deny the accuracy of a tautology.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
That's a pretty big supposition that "infinites" can not exist in reality. . . . . How do you know they can't?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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