The Instigator
ganky6
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JesusChrist4Ever
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

There is a 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  
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: 11/14/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 118988
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

ganky6

Con

Theists believe that there is a god and atheists reject the claim. As an atheist I remain unconvinced due to a lack of evidence from the theists where the burden of proof lies.
Is there any good evidence for a God?
JesusChrist4Ever

Pro

Hello there. I hope you will debate fairly and respectfully, Unlike other atheist users on this site (ahem. . Backwardseden. . . Ahem). You are welcome to present reasons and proof why you believe what you believe.

I just want to tell you that I am a Roman Catholic and will try to be fair and reasonable without too much bias. I would also like to say that God loves you and wants you to be with him in paradise.

Here are several reasons why God must exist:
1. Existence Argument
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.

2. The Design Argument
-The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, Both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end"for example, The organs in the body work for our life and health.
-Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
-The chances of this being left up to chance are 456 quadrillion to 1.
-Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
-Design comes only from a mind, Or the designer.
-Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

3. The Argument From Conscience
-Now where did conscience get such an absolute authority"an authority admitted even by the moral subjectivist and relativist? There are only four possibilities.
-From something less than me (nature)
-From me (individual)
-From others equal to me (society)
-From something above me (God)
-Let's consider each of these possibilities in order.
-How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me"for example, By animal instinct or practical need for material survival?
-How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, Even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out, Thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise.
-How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is "society" God?
-The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will, Morally, With rightful demands for complete obedience.

4. The Common Consent Argument
-Belief in God"that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due"is common to almost all people of every era.
-Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
-It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
-Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.

The capacity for reverence and worship certainly seems to belong to us by nature. And it is hard to believe that this natural capacity can never, In the nature of things, Be fulfilled, Especially when so many testify that it has been. True enough, It is conceivable that this side of our nature is doomed to frustration; it is thinkable that those millions upon millions who claim to have found the Holy One who is worthy of reverence and worship were deluded. But is it likely?
It seems far more likely that those who refuse to believe are the ones suffering from deprivation and delusion"like the tone-deaf person who denies the existence of music, Or the frightened tenant who tells herself she doesn't hear cries of terror and distress coming from the street below and, When her children awaken to the sounds and ask her, "Why is that lady screaming, Mommy? " tells them, "Nobody's screaming: it's just the wind, That's all. Go back to sleep. "

5. The Truth Argument
This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness.
-Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
-Truth properly resides in a mind.
-But the human mind is not eternal.
-Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

This proof might appeal to someone who shares a Platonic view of knowledge"who, For example, Believes that there are Eternal Intelligible Forms which are present to the mind in every act of knowledge. Given that view, It is a very short step to see these Eternal Forms as properly existing within an Eternal Mind. And there is a good deal to be said for this. But that is just the problem. There is too much about the theory of knowledge that needs to be said before this could work as a persuasive demonstration.

6. The Argument For the Origin and Idea of God
This is an argument made famous by Rene DesCartes, The brilliant thinker.
-We have ideas of many things.
-These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
-One of the ideas we have is the idea of God"an infinite, All-perfect being.
-This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, Because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, And no effect can be greater than its cause.
-Therefore, The idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
-But only God himself has those qualities.
-Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
-Therefore God exists.

Consider the following common objection. The idea of God can easily arise like this: we notice degrees of perfection among finite beings"some are more perfect (or less imperfect) than others. And to reach the idea of God, We just project the scale upward and outward to infinity. Thus there seems to be no need for an actually existing God to account for the existence of the idea. All we need is the experience of things varying in degrees of perfection, And a mind capable of thinking away perceived limitations.

But is that really enough? How can we think away limitation or imperfection unless we first recognize it as such? And how can we recognize it as such unless we already have some notion of infinite perfection? To recognize things as imperfect or finite involves the possession of a standard in thought that makes the recognition possible.
Does that seem far-fetched? It does not mean that toddlers spend their time thinking about God. But it does mean that, However late in life you use the standard, However long before it comes explicitly into consciousness, Still, The standard must be there in order for you to use it. But where did it come from? Not from your experience of yourself or of the world that exists outside you. For the idea of infinite perfection is already presupposed in our thinking about all these things and judging them imperfect. Therefore none of them can be the origin of the idea of God; only God himself can be that.

backwardseden will not be allowed to vote during the voting process.

Sources:
http://www. Peterkreeft. Com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence. Htm#11
http://gradresources. Org/evidence-for-gods-existence/
Debate Round No. 1
ganky6

Con

thanks for accepting. Of course I will be respectful

"Cosmological argument" (or existing argument as you state it)
P1: everything that exists has a cause of existence
Here I already disagree. Because we have no data of something coming into existence without a cause, Doesn't mean it can't happen.
What I also can do is the same thing about God.
Because we have no data or evidence that a God exists, Doesn't mean he is not there. It's the same argument.
I'm not claiming "God doesn't exists". All I'm saying is that I am unconvinced because of a lack of demonstrable evidence.

P2: There cannot be an infinite series of past causes
This is a positive claim where you claim that it is impossible to be an infinite series of past causes. How did you come to this conclusion and where is your evidence for that?

P3: Therefore, There exists a first cause which did not come into existence. In other words, The first cause always existed.
Because this is a "There is a God" debate, I'm assuming that your end conclusion (the first cause) is God. How do you know it is not a rainbow colored unicorn?

"Argument from Design"
We recognize design by contrasting it with that which naturally occurs.
A building requires a builder, A painting requires a painter, Creation requires a creator. I agree on all point.
How did you determine it was a building? How did you determine it was a painting? How did you determine it was a creation?
When you talk about the universe, Labeling it a creation in order to claim that there is a creator, Is a dishonest apologetic. It is a circular argument, Where you are injecting the very thing you are trying to proof, Right in the beginning.
When you say "This had to have been designed", What you are saying is, It is not possible or not probable for this particular set of circumstances, To come about by natural means.
How did you determine that?

The "What are the odds" argument
With respect to the universe. . . What are the odds?
When we are talking about odds and probability we are talking about a ratio (or comparison) of favorable results to possible results.
As far as I can tell, This is something you can't calculate.
How do you know that this isn't the only possible universe?
How do you know that the mechanisms by which universes come into being, Can produce anything other that the universe we are living in?
You have to assume that there are other possibilities in order to calculate the odds other than 100%.
We don't know enough about the universe and how it was formed to be able to make a determination about what other universes are possible. What other universes can be produced by the mechanism because we don't fully understand that mechanism.

What about the multiverse?
Maybe there are billions of universes where there are intelligent beings trying to calculate the odds that a universe like theirs would come into existence? But the mistake there is that they also think that their universe is the only favorable result when in reality there are billions of universes that are the favorable result that produce intelligent life that are capable of asking the question, What are the odds that a universe could exist.
But for the sake of argument let's say you are able to calculate the odds.
No matter what number you come up with, What you are saying is that the odds of a universe like ours coming to existence by natural means, Is so improbable that it is more probable that the universe came into existence by supernatural means.
How did you calculate that. How did you determine the probability of supernatural means?
If you are going to calculate the probability of something based on the possible outcomes and its relationship to the favorable outcomes, How many possible supernatural causes do we know of? None
How could you say that the supernatural cause is more probable than a natural one? No matter how improbable it seems, It's still on firmer footing than a supernatural cause

"The Argument From Conscience"
I don't really have a long answer for this, But it looks like an argument from ignorance.
"The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will, Morally, With rightful demands for complete obedience. "
There you are basically saying. . . Because everything else was not applying to me, Therefore the only thing left is god.

4. The Common Consent Argument
-Belief in God"that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due"is common to almost all people of every era.
Just because a lot of people believed something. . Doesn't make it true. Some odd years ago people also believed the earth was flat.

-Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
Yes they were or could be proven by my flat earth line

-It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
No its not

-Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.
No its not

that last part I don't understand so I'm gonna ignore that part so my apologies for that
JesusChrist4Ever

Pro

JesusChrist4Ever forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ganky6

Con

Maybe the time ran out. I'll let you try again
JesusChrist4Ever

Pro

JesusChrist4Ever forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ganky6

Con

Hmm. . . Given up?
JesusChrist4Ever

Pro

JesusChrist4Ever forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ganky6

Con

Thnx for the great debate
JesusChrist4Ever

Pro

JesusChrist4Ever forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ganky6 3 years ago
ganky6
@guitarslinger

There is something very defining in your watchmen case.
You walk in a secluded forest and all of the sudden you see a wristwatch.
That"s what you kinda said.
The problem with that analogy is that you only took notice of that watch. You don"t say "you walk Ina secluded forest and you see a tree"
This should basically be the same statement with the same amount of value.
But it isn"t. And here is why. . .

We recognize design by contrasting it with what naturally occurs.
In a secluded forest. . . Everything is naturally occurring. Except the watch. It"s next to naturally. . . It"s design.
The problem for you is that you claim God created the universe. . . Therefore everything is designed. So you are unable to distinguish between design and nature. Everything is design.
So in your scenario. You are not walking in a secluded forest and find a wristwatch. . .
If God designed everything. . . You are walking on a field of millions of wristwatches and you pick up a wristwatch and say. . . Wow look at its design, With millions of the same wristwatch laying beside you
Posted by ganky6 3 years ago
ganky6
Hi vlink
I do wonder from time to time if he exists. . . But I still have no answer to that.
I have prayed in the past. Often.
And I"ve heard it often. . . Sometimes God says yes, Sometimes you have to wait. . . And sometimes it is no.
Which is no difference than any claim about anything made in the future. For everything those are the only three outcomes
It will happen now, It will happen somewhere in the future, Or it won"t happen.

Regarding your claim that if God would reveal himself to me. . . I would acknowledge him and believe in him. If I would worship him is indeed a different story. He has a lot to explain
Posted by vlink 3 years ago
vlink
ganky6, If you truly are wondering if God exists, You will not be led to the supernatural by logic. First you have to ask yourself that if you get "proof" that there is a creator are you willing to follow the owner's manual that was left for us?
Next I want to ask you to run a simple experiment. For someone that believes in only facts there is no danger to you. I want you to do to a quiet place and pretend for awhile that you do believe in Jesus Christ. Say out loud "God if you are there, Show me that you are real, I want to know the truth. I ask for this in Your son Jesus' name" And when you ask for him to show you that he is real ask for something specific that can only be done through a miracle, Something not selfish, And give it a time frame to happen in.
Do this and see if any proof will be delivered to you.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Humans, Like eyes and watches, Evolved. How it all started, No one knows for sure, And science readily admits it's ignorance on this point, But science takes its best guess anyway without contradicting our back ground knowledge. Not knowing would be better then jumping to a supernatural conclusion that has no reality check. The scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn't provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, But investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach. Without belief, I can question a proposition before arriving at a conclusion.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
How likely is it that anmials that never lived in the light would have eyes, Its adaptation
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
An eye is used with intent
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
Here's a cute little scenario to ponder.

Consider a simple wristwatch. It's a simple object with one purpose-- to tell time. Suppose you are walking in the middle of a secluded forest. Lo and behold, There, Underneath some leaves, You spy a wristwatch. .

Would you think "Wow! Somehow, The universe in it's grande random and chaotic way, Over millions of years and with evolution, Somehow brought all the required elements together in just the right way to create this watch and place it here in the forest"

Or would you think "Hmmmm, My guess is this wristwatch, An object created with a purpose, Was left here, Either intentionally or by accident, By someone else. "

Which is the more probable answer?

Now consider the human eye. The eye is an object that is used to see. I hope we can agree that the eye is more complicated then a watch. Science, In all it's wonder, Has yet to create a human eye. But the eye, And it's optical system, Is just one part of the human person, Which consists of multiple complex systems in addition to the eye/optical system (respiratory, Nervous, Cardio systems, Etc).

Now, Explain our existence. How do you think the human person got here:

Would you think "Wow! Somehow, The universe in it's grand random and chaotic way, Over millions of years and with evolution, Somehow brought all the required elements together in just the right way to create this complex creature made up of complex integrate systems and placed it right here on this rock hurtling through space". This would be akin to nature somehow placing a much less complicated wristwatch in the forest.

Or would you perhaps be open to the possibility that perhaps something created MAN and placed him here? AGain, This would be akin to someone (a) creating the watch and then (b) placing is in the forest (by accident or intention).
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@missmedic. Actually, I have to rethink my comment. Your "Existence" argument/example, Is flawed-- it breaks down at premise 2 (premise 2 is false).

** Existence Argument
1. Premise: physical things exist now
2. Premise: there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence
3. Conclusion: therefore the universe"s is non-physical **

Premise 2 states "There must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence".

Sorry, I mis-interpreted this in my previous post. This premise is FALSE. Mi abuelita (grandmother) makes the best enchiladas. She clearly is a physical thing. The enchiladas are a physical thing. Therefore, That is evidence that something physical can bring another physical thing into existence (i. E. Or put another way there doesn't need to be a non-physical something to bring a physical something into existence).

Because premise 2 is false, And breaks down, The argument would end there.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
@missmedic

"You can conclude anything with logical arguments". True, But only if the arguments are TRUE and one can move from argument (premise) to argument (premise) in a logical, Unflawed fashion. Isn't that what reasoning is all about, Using logic and science (observation) to come to conclusions?

The problem is, If your premise(s) is not (are not) TRUE, Then you can't use that as a launching pad for the rest of your arguments. You must first arrive at a conclusion that the premise is a TRUE. Also, You can"t just leap from premise to conclusion, You have to move logically from the premise to conclusion.

Your first example (from existence) is flawed.

Premise 1. Physical things exist now.

I agree with this. Why? We can observe this with own eyes. Science helps confirms this. So, Logic (reason) would tell us this is a True statement.

Premise 2. There must have been seomthing non-physical to bring them into existence

Ok. Why is this True (I"ve not seen it worded this way, But if you are saying what I think you are saying, Iwould believe this premise to be True). But one must be able to show, Using logic and reason, And perhaps science, That this is True.

Conclusion. Thererfore the universe is non-physical.

You can"t make this leap from premise 2 to Conclusion. You are basically skipping over another premise, Let"s call it premise 2. 5

Premise 2. 5 The universe created physical things (brought them into existence).

Before you proceed to the next step (either a premise or conclusion), You must first prove, Again using logic/reasoning and/or science that this statement is TRUE.

Without doing this, The reasoning/logic is flawed.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Look at from a historic perspective, Humans have invented thousands of gods over thousands of years and all have been myths. Gods are by default invisible, Inaudible, Intangible entities that exits in the mind on belief alone. These two facts should give believers pause in embracing the god idea but it does not. Does rational thinking require the adherence to beliefs at all? Does productive science, Ethics, Or a satisfied life require any attachment to a belief of any kind? One need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, Observe and enjoy nature, Or live a productive, Moral, And useful life.
No one can know for sure if any gods exist and, Even if they do, They don't seem to care about us enough to justify worrying about them.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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