Argument 1:
1. Everything that happens has a cause. This one is a basic law of logic. There is nothing in nature that has no cause. For example:
* New genetic traits in an animal are caused by mutations
* Dinosaurs went extinct, supposedly by a meteor strike
* The sun radiates due to nuclear fusion
* A solar eclipse is caused by the moon going in between the sun and the earth
If things could happen without the need for a cause, then anything and everything imaginable would happen at every point in time and space, even without logic. If things can happen for no reason then why don't we see this happening all the time? Why can't stacks of $100 bills appear out of nowhere? Why don't blue whales just rain from the sky at random? Why don't magical fairies(if they existed) just appear out nowhere and carry you to the sky? Why doesn't a giant ultra cheesy ultra delicious pizza appear out of nowhere? The reason is because they can't exist without being made by something else to exist.
Cells can only come from cells
Matter cannot be created or destroyed
eggs do not pop from thin air.
I hope that we can agree that this first premise is reasonable.
2. The universe began to exist. How do we know? Well:
* Edwin Hubble discovered redshift in 1929. And then the evidence for the big bang piled on. The bible already predicted redshift before Christ was born as evident in these verses:
Isaiah 42:5 – “This is what God the LORD says—the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out . . .”
Isaiah 44:24 – “ . . . I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens . . .”
Isaiah 45:12 – “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.”
Jeremiah 10:12 – “God . . . stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”
Jeremiah 51:15 – “He founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”
What's even better is that most of these come from the book of Isaiah, from which the oldest near complete copy is the great Isaiah scroll of the dead sea scrolls of which when translated differs nothing from a modern translation(in fact modern bible translators translate from the dead sea scrolls and the oldest manuscripts available)
* The second law of thermodynamics states that everything is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe had always existed it would have already run out of usable energy.
However can't we propose an eternally expanding and contracting universe, a steady state universe, or a multiverse? The answer is no and here are the reasons:
> The steady state universe is the theory in that an "unvarying condition in a physical process, especially as in the theory that the universe is eternal and maintained by constant creation of matter". The problem with this theory are the following:
* It violates the first law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation, which state that matter can't be created or destroyed.
* Second of all if this theory was true then the universe would have been infinitely full and there would be no outer space because everything is already filled with matter and we would be crushed and water would be ice. Even if we could refute this second problem the first problem will still be active.
* This theory was disproven when quasars were discovered.
> The oscillating universe model(eternal perpetually contracting and expanding universe) is not a good model for the following reasons:
* There is no evidence that a universe can crunch up, nor do I believe it can be observed. And anything that can be asserted without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence.
* Every time this universe oscillates it will increase in entropy.
* The universe would become more massive due to particle production
* There would an increase of metric perturbations (appearance of gravitational waves) in the process of collapsing.
> The multiverse doesn't even help either:
* There is no evidence for a multiverse, and scientists have no idea of how to collect evidence for a multiverse.
* Even if there were such thing as a multiverse, it would definitely not disprove the existence of God because for a multiverse to work it would require laws and fine tuning.
* It would multiply the causes of the universe beyond necessity.
* It would be hypocritical to not believe in God because no evidence and yet believe in an infinite amount of things that you can't prove exist.
There are two types of infinity:
quantitative infinity: which is an infinite quantity
qualitative infinity: the quality of infinite, like being infinitely good or infinitely bad or infinitely intelligent.
quantitative infinity does not truly exist in our physical world because it would lead to absurdity(such as in the Hilbert hotel).
If you imagine a universe as a hotel that has been under construction since eternity past with the building as a whole then there are 2 problems:
1. If the hotel has been under construction under eternity past then there would have been no original designer or architect or person who conceived it. If there's nobody to first plan it's creation then it may as well have not existed.
2. The amount of rooms that would have been built by now would be infinite but because it is under construction then it is incomplete - but also complete as there would infinitely more than necessary buildings. This whole idea is a contradiction.
Conclusion:
Can't the universe create itself? No because this would be illogical, for something to create anything it has to have existed prior.
If the universe had a necessary substance that created it what properties would it have? Well it would be:
* timeless for it made time
* immaterial for it made matter
* spaceless for it made space
* extremely powerful for it made the universe
* personal for mindless substances can't create information
Doesn't this substance sound a lot like God? Of course it does.
So how do we know that there can only be 1 God? Well:
* Having multiple gods multiply causes beyond necessity
* Having more than 1 omnipotent being would be illogical because if there were 2 omnipotent beings then both beings being omnipotent can block each other's power at will when a disagreement happens - which would make one of them no longer omnipotent.
I may have lost but at least I had fun and gained experience.
Can you specify what you mean by narrow-minded?
I will say this, I agree that Bones won, I just think the votes casted were very poor in quality and extremely narrow minded.
I don't agree with the votes cast, but good job to both debaters.
You have restated what he said. Gratuitous evils can't exist if there is no objective moral standards - which don't exist if God didn't exist.
The point FLRW was making is that God cannot be:
The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God of the bible.
Since you would have to prove all these points, and you conceded the "gratuitous evils" point, he wins by default.
I personally don't care if I win or lose. I only care if I tried my best.
The gratuitous evils do not do away with the existence of God.
Even worse my opponent may as well have been shooting himself in the foot with this argument as he doesn't give any objective standards for judging good or evil.
From: Bsh1's Guide to Voting using the 7-point System
Now, that doesn’t mean you need to write pages upon pages for your RFD. Oftentimes a lengthy paragraph will suffice. As long as you touch upon everything you need to, your RFD is long enough. And, remember, longer doesn’t mean better. Long RFDs can be just as bad as RFDs that are a sentence long; quality should be emphasized over quantity.
A little...short? Especially for a three round 10k character debate.
At least respect all the other arguments by adressing them
In this debate this is the definition of God: The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God of the bible. Con shows that a omnibenevolent God does not exist. Con states: Contention I: Gratuitous evils
p1. If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils (GE).
p2. There are gratuitous evils in the world.
c1. God does not exist.
p1. is true by virtue of truism. By definition, a GE is a type of evil of which creates no good. A GE does not lead to virtue, does not teach a lesson, and is completely unjust. A GE definitionally cannot be cannot be justified by "free will" or "compensation in a latter life", for such would be a God justified good. By definition, a GE is inexcusably immoral. Thus, as God is omnibenevolent (all loving, infinitely loving) he would not allow gratuitous evil to occur.
Pro states: Me: I will agree that gratuitous evils do exist.
This alone shows that God does not exist.
Some votes would be good, considering how this debate will close in 5 days.
vote now!
okay.
Pleasure. Word of advice: In your next debates, avoid the word "definitely". Rarely anything is definite in life.
It has been a pleasure debating with you,
stop arguing and enjoy the debate.
ComputerNerd...do you understand what a joke means?
Also, Conservalectual wasn't even talking to you, he was responding to the unexpected nature as it seems...?
That was more directed towards Novice... I don't appreciate full-blown arrogance in a debate you are not a part of.
I have to agree, bones is the fast responder I have wished for
Okay, that was unexpected
I don't care about experience, I am not debating to win but to have fun. I know he's experienced, but I am just a humble debater only doing the best I can.
Also,, your BOP is lopsided due to him just having to find one flaw, and then it's not "definitely".
Bones is an experienced debater, rising to 7th on the leaderboards in a year, specializing in religious debates and abortion.
Knowing the lengths he goes to prove his arguments, I would not be so confident in anything debating him.
I would be happy to debate you again sometime. I'm an atheist and certainly not like backwardseden. That guy has some problems.
Thank you for accepting this debate.
I pray that this guy will be reasonable and logical unlike other atheists I have seen on the internet. But seeing as this website is moderated I can expect that this guy won't be a backwardseden. As long as this guy respects me just as I respect him then I am fine. I am not debating here to win or loose but to have fun.
Now obviously I am taking the opportunity to (as some would say) "mess around," given that I am making my new account in a few days, I will be happy to follow this debate with some level of interest.
Say goodbye to your undefeated streak my friend