The Instigator
Pro (for)
11 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The God Debate

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,150 times Debate No: 90206
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




Hello! In the mood for a good debate on the existence of God. If you are interested in participating, comment your interest and post a link to a previous debate showing your credibility. ACCEPTANCE OF DEBATE OTHERWISE IS GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE FORFIEGHTURE

Definition of God: a personal entity (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. (the greatest conceivable Being)

*I will not be arguing for any specific God (I.e Yahweh, Allah, etc...) but God as defined above.

Round 1- Acceptance

Round 2- Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)

Round 3- Rebuttal Period

Round 4- 2nd Rebuttal Period

Round 5- Concluding Remarks



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Greetings! I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate (although it seems they didn't read the requirement for accepting...). This debate will be focused on the existence of a transcendent Creator, The BOP will be shared between my opponent and I in which, my opponent will need to display why it is more evidently clear that God does not exist and vice versa for myself.

Before I begin, I want to clarify one important thing. I will be providing a cumulative case for God's existence. Most people claim: "there is no evidence for God!' without really understanding the double standard their placing on their beliefs. Evidence for God is much like evidence for 'quarks' or 'strings.. things that cannot be seen or proven directly but is widely accepted as existing because it's useful to explain observations that might be difficult to explain otherwise. Keep this in mind as we dig through one of the most controversial topics in human history.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1). Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2). The universe began to exist
3). Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence
4). This cause is God (as defined above)

The first premise is the most obviously true. It would be ridiculous for anybody to claim: "this bag of cocaine just appeared in my backpack" when being investigated by the police... Notice that this fundamental principle doesn't change with the universe, merely increasing the size of any 'thing' does not change its need for a cause. Now, according to the Big Bang model (that is most widely accepted by contemporary physicist), the universe exploded into existence from literally nothing. Of course, there are other highly speculative theory's that are all fraught with various issues.. but it goes to show that our best explanation for the origin of the universe is Ex Nihilo (out of nothing). This is simply against all logic and we are forced to admit that the 3rd premise is true.

Setting the stage with the first 3 premises, it follows that the 'cause' for the universe must be timeless (eternal), omnipotent (Since it created everything), omnipresent (since it created space), and causeless. Lets remember that this 'cause' must be a personal consciousness rather than an abstract number or idea because abstract quantities do not hold any causal relationship with anything. We are then left with a literal definition of 'God'. A very powerful argument indeed.

Argument from Design:
1). the universe appears fine tuned for sentient life
2). the fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design
3). Therefore it is due to design

I would like everyone to take a step back and look at these constants:

Speed of Light: c=299,792,458 m s-1

* Gravitational Constant: G=6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

* Planck's Constant: 1.05457148 x 10-34 m2 kg s-2

* Planck Mass-Energy: 1.2209 x 1022 MeV

* Mass of Electron, Proton, Neutron: 0.511; 938.3; 939.6 MeV

* Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark: 2.4; 4.8; 104 MeV (Approx.)

* Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass: (1836.15)-1

* Gravitational Coupling Constant: 5.9 x 10-39

* Cosmological Constant: (2.3 x 10-3 eV)

* Hubble Constant: 71 km/s/Mpc (today)

* Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value: 246.2 GeV

When we look at these various quantities, we see that they have very specific values.. so specific in fact, that any change in their numbers down to a fingernails breadth would not permit life, chemistry, stars, or planets. In order to fully understand the magnitude of this, lets take the gravitational constant for example: G=6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.. If this number was changed by any one in 10^60th parts nobody would exist.. Do you understand how crazy narrow that is? Take for comparison the number of cells in your body (10^14) or the number of seconds that have ticked by since the beginning (10^20). Any single change in this constant would not allow any amount of matter to coalesce, and this is only 1 of the 50 or so constants! Take it from Stephan Hawking himself: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"

This leads us to 3 explanations of this phenomenon, Physical necessity, chance, or design. Lets deal with these individually:

Physical necessity -

This hypothesis is essentially the idea that the universe needed these values to be set the way they are. The issue lies in the simple fact there are no fundamental principles or laws of nature that demand these values be set to these specific properties, there is simply no rhyme or reason to think that these constants are a physical necessity.


Of course, somebody always chimes in "didn't we just get really lucky?".. Although being a highly intelligent response *wink wink.. it cannot be reasonably faced. The chance that all of these values would be set in these specific quantities can best be likened to an orchestra in which, any 'out of tune' value would result in the complete failure of the ensemble. Pulling the luck card in this situation is just not a viable option

It then follows, that the universe was set in these specific values by an intelligent designer.

Argument from Objective Morality:
1). If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
2). Objective moral values exist
3). Therefore, God exists

In speaking of 'objective morality', I am speaking of moral values and ethics that are true regardless of others opinions. Just as 2+2=4 is 'objective' truth. Now according to the first premise, 'objective' moral values cannot exist in a naturalistic worldview, withought a moral law giver, there is no moral law. Morality withought God is nothing more then varied opinions, walking into a schoolyard and unloading the clip on any toddler in sight is not really wrong, its just not benificial to society...

Now according to the second premise, moral values are objective. There are certain actions and behaviors that are not only socialy regressive, but are moral abominations across all cultures, races, and orientations. Raping a little child is one such action, another would be cheating on another mans wife. There is a specific standard by which, all humanity judges eachother actions.. C.S Lewis puts it perfectly:

'The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about."

It then follows exactly, that God exist due to our sense of an objective moral standard by which, we judge the world.

Let me lay out the main takeaways that should remain fresh in your mind:

1). God is the best explination for the origin of the universe
2). God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe
3). God is the best explination for objecitve moral values and duties

It will by opponents job throughout this debate to either completly reject the validity of these contentions or display a better explanation altogether. I happily await my opponents opening arguments.




missbailey8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


missbailey8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


missbailey8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Well I think Con did an awesome job in this debate... Thats sarcasm btw ;)

Vote Pro


missbailey8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iTruthSeeker 2 years ago
SoulTech.. I'm currently in the middle of 2 debates, I will challenge you when i'm done
Posted by SoulTechNameIII 2 years ago
I would really like it to debate you, please challenge me
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
Aw. This would have been a good debate, too. I would have used some different arguments though.
Posted by iTruthSeeker 2 years ago
Bound_up, it seems that my opponent has accepted with ought asking like I stipulated, I'd be glad to hold another debate with you on this topic. Let me know if your interested.
Posted by Vict0rian 2 years ago
There's no way to say for sure, I'm in the position of a skeptic as in I don't believe something until it is 100% known to be real... and even then I question it, but there's simply no way to prove or disprove a god.
Posted by Bound_Up 2 years ago
I'll take it.

A debate in which I argue FOR God:

A debate in which I argue AGAINST God:
Posted by Nivek 2 years ago
Good luck m8 :P Because I've worked with you, you know you have my support lmao. Anyway, enough clutter. :P
Posted by iTruthSeeker 2 years ago
I will need to see a link from a previous debate in which, you participated if you guys are interested...
Posted by iTruthSeeker 2 years ago
I will need to see a link from a previous debate in which, you participated if you guys are interested...
Posted by Dragon_of_Christ 2 years ago
I may take this just for devil's advocate.

Attacking god's existence: easy as pie, just have to know how to spot weaknesses

Proving god's existence through some king of logic: OH MY GOODNESS what a pain

BTW i can't accept.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SoulTechNameIII 2 years 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The con did nothing to defend his position.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro. Com was also the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Pro by default.