The Instigator
JamesCroft
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
RandomTruth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Who created God?

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 1 vote the winner is...
JamesCroft
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 103144
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

JamesCroft

Con

"Who created God?" Is a popular argument made by Atheists to attempt to disprove God's omnipotence. I strongly disagree and will argue that God (philosophically) does not need a Creator. Happy debating!
RandomTruth

Pro

A couple of issues:

1. Atheists do not attempt to disprove God; it is the burden of Theists to prove their claims!
2. Atheists do not believe in any deity (not just yours) and they don't need to disprove any of his purported qualities. Again, it's s up to theists to prove that God is omnipotent.
3. If you are going to merely argue that God philosophically exists then that is no more pertinent than arguing that Communism exists. Atheists don't disbelieve ideas exist! And if all you're doing is that the idea of God exists then I have no disagreement with you.

Those points aside, please plead your case.
Debate Round No. 1
JamesCroft

Con

Thanks for accepting the debate!

1. "Atheists do not attempt to disprove god"? Of course you do! If you have nothing to disprove than why are you here!
2. I never made the claim that Atheists believe in God.
3. I say philosophically because I will be using the philosophers description of what God is. God is a title given in the philosophical world to describe the deity which possess both unlimited power and has no limits. It doesn't matter if it is Islam or Christianity but if your "God" had a creator than guess what? Your God is no longer a God at all because he's in fact limited to a higher power which itself would be God. See what I mean?
4. I think there is some confusion on what it means to "disprove" something. For example I do not believe evolutionism is true but I can still disprove it by pointing out its errors. In the same way an Atheist can in fact attempt to disprove God without believing in God.
5. One last point. This is not a debate about if God exists. It is a debate over whether or not God needs a creator. Again in no way are you accepting God's existence by questioning my claim that God has no need of a creator.
RandomTruth

Pro

Thank you for clarifying your position. I do indeed understand that you are attempting to argue that God doesn't require a creator but I have yet seen your argument for that position. Just declaring it an axiom is just circular (much like most religious arguments, I have to say).

If you're claiming God is *by definition( something that doesn't have a creator then your debate is pointless and you're just setting up a straw man argument, purportedly from atheists, in order to say, "Ha, by definition, God can't have a creator". Which again, isn't really a debate either: an atheist doesn't really care how you define God and what properties he/she/it may have - it's up to you to defend the claims you purport God to have.

Your position is to claim that a being exists that created the entire universe and also that this being somehow, unlike our universe, has no creator. That's two levels of speculation: the first that our universe was created, and the second level speculation about the creator's universe. Not only is it absurd to speculate in such a grand counter-scientific manner about the origins of our universe, of which we know little about, you're now claiming additional conclusions base upon someone you can't prove exists! It's turtles all the way down!

You are apparently covering up your lack of argument and proof by just declaring that "proper Gods" are also "not limited unto a higher power". Here you introduce that there could be other claimants for supernatural creators but somehow they can't be God if they have creator; you introduce the notion of "power" whatever that means with no clear idea of how this "power" is supposed to work in the external universe you can't prove exists.

Your argument is indeed just speculative turtles all the way down! It is a presuppositionalist circular argument so full of holes that it is practically a God shaped hole with no clear arguments and just bald-faced declarations.
Debate Round No. 2
JamesCroft

Con

Speculative turtles huh? Well from your point of view as an atheist everything related to God's existence or non existence IS speculation. You LACK belief in God so you have no real claim or argument. For you it is just speculation. Now back to the main debate point. It is a fact that if a GOD exists he would have to be unlimited and without need of a creator. If in fact for example it turns out God had a creator it is only logical that the Rank of "GOD" passes to the creator rather than the created. It is not logical to say something/someone is God when it's very existence is dependent upon a more powerful deity (GOD). I think you understand these concepts and are shaking your head thinking "Well if GOD logically is without need of a creator than what is the point of this debate?" The point of this debate is to show that the question "who created God?" which is posed to Christians very regularly is in fact a flawed argument. Because you are the one in favor (PRO) of the "who created god" argument I am still waiting to hear you attempt to defend it. Instead all I have heard is you explaining exactly why the "who created God" argument is in fact ridiculous because there is no way you can change the fact that the concept of God naturally includes that he has no need for a creator! The one good thing this argument gives us is information on the utter lack of knowledge the opponent has on the concept of God. Thank you very much for debating me and good luck!
RandomTruth

Pro

> You LACK belief in God so you have no real claim or argument. For you it is just speculation.

I think you have made my point for me! If the ONLY reason why your arguments make sense is that you already believe in God then all your successive comments are begging the question: circular, self-referential to your pre-existing beliefs and therefore, logically invalid.

On the second point, as I have already stated, your OP is nonsensical since it requires an atheist to argue the qualities about something that they don't believe in! I don't need to argue to "Pro" side directly since the OP is flawed in pointing out the straw man atheist "argument". It is also flawed because you offered no real proof that God has no creator - it's just a bare assertion.

In summary, this is a poorly written OP that mischaracterizes the atheist arguments, offering no facts or evidence, and defended by circular arguments. This is typical of many religious arguments and stands as a good example as to why religious "philosophy" is merely used to justify pre-existing beliefs rather than convince others!

Good luck in future "debates"!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason non-removal*] The voter is not required to post an RFD on this debate. Moreover, the debate is over 5 months past the end of the voting period, and therefore well past the statute of limitations for moderation.
************************************************************************
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
Con wtf you're meant to be explaining why God doesn't need to have a creator, instead you just say "CUS HE GOT UNLIMITED POWER FACT."

That's not an arguments that's just shite. Hold up I'ma check your age, woah 27 so you should be able to provide arguments like a reasonable adult, but you don't.

Quote from con-
"Because you are the one in favor (PRO) of the "who created god" argument I am still waiting to hear you attempt to defend it."

Who created God is not an argument it's a question and you're too dumb to understand it.

It's a logical question that Thiests can't answer and what it does is prove that it's possible for something to be created without a creator. Therefore the argument of "something can't come from nothing" is flawed.

Con is shite.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
If a God has unlimited power then a God can create a God therefore a God can have a creator.

A God can't create a God? Therefore a God doesn't have unlimited power, if a God doesn't have unlimited power then it's not a God.

Con get rekkt.
Thiest logic will never prevail.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Humans created gods. Whitout our own creations we would have absolutly nothing...0.00.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Humans create gods, and have created thousands over thousands of years and all have been myths.
To believe God created this world is to go against the character of an immutable God, because that means he changed his mind from being the sole being of existence to many beings of existence.
If god is immutable, he never changes, then how can he change his mind and create.
The only thing needed for gods to exist is belief and an imagination. The only place we know a supernatural realm to exist is in the imagination of the human mind, the same place that creates gods.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Humans create gods, and have created thousands over thousands of years and all have been myths.
To believe God created this world is to go against the character of an immutable God, because that means he changed his mind from being the sole being of existence to many beings of existence.
If god is immutable, he never changes, then how can he change his mind and create.
The only thing needed for gods to exist is belief and an imagination. The only place we know a supernatural realm to exist is in the imagination of the human mind, the same place that creates gods.
Posted by MrDelaney 1 year ago
MrDelaney
This 'debate' is rather poorly conceived.
You don't want to debate the existence of God but want to debate whether or not a God (as a concept) requires a creator?

The discussion of infinite regress in regards to the creation of the universe (and God) only makes sense within the context of a discussion of the existence of a creator God. Outside of that you are merely 'debating' a definition of a concept. That isn't a debate, that's simply citing a definition.

When this debate is finished, let me know and we can debate whether or not a Flurdypoof requires a jiggledurum.

(In case you were wondering, a Flurdypoof is a creature that exists outside of space and time and does not need a jiggledurum to exist).
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
It could very well be a "what" that created god because how can you or anyone define a "who" or even a "what" from something in which you know nothing about and in which nobody knows anything about because this supposed god hides behind his christmas tree. Or the very best bet is that god does not exist. And really as an atheist, who would ever want to believe in this god according to the bible when he knowingly hates children and wants to cannibalize them, causes massive genocides, loves war, bloodshed, greed, loves raped women, loves slavery, loves anger, loves wrath, loves evil, loves rage, loves fury, loves jealousy etc etc etc. And this god has freely admitted to many of them thus proving that at the very least he's incompetent and certainly not perfect. So who would want to worship that? And then even worse is this supposed god guy guy sends down these emotions down to man so we can thus learn to hate. Great going god. Teach us more! We really want to learn from you. So do--you--really--think--god--exists?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
JamesCroftRandomTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30