1. Definitions
Pro did not cite any reputable sources on what "God" is, and the only statement which sort of resembles a defining statement for said term is:
God is the unmoved mover and the uncreated creator.
Putting oxymoronic descriptions such as this does not help one to prove the existence of something, especially since:
- Pro made it unclear what "unmoved mover" is and did not attempt to prove how or why such thing is possible.
- The same for "uncreated creator".
- Even if the description serves to actually convey a logically coherent and understandable concept, the way it is worded confounds instead of aids the normal method of understanding.
Nor did Pro define what "world" is. Is it Earth, or is it the entire Cosmos?
From M-W:
1a: the earthly state of human existence
b: life after death
—used with a qualifier
the next world
2: the earth with its inhabitants and all things upon it
These are the two commonplace definitions I can find within the site. Upon closer inspection, entry 1b is to be dismissed as nothing in the topic implies the heavens or anything of a similar caliber as there is nothing stated by Pro to be "before" the world other than the supposed "God".
Therefore, "world" shall be equated to the term "earth", in a geological, ecological, anthropological or sociological meaning.
Before moving on, I would like to point out one more discrepancy in Pro's flawed argument.
There are only 2 possibilities:
1) Everything has a cause
or
2) There are things which dont have a cause
or
3) Things go in circle (a causes b, b causes c, c causes a).
In which Pro has listed three hypotheses and above all claimed there are only 2.
2. Eternal Universe Theory
2) There are things which dont have a cause
Pro has admitted that such things could exist, and attempted to put "God" in this category even we don't have a clear idea what "God" is to him at this point. In this case, if an entity such as "God" which is clearly possible to exist to Pro is not caused by anything, so could the world itself or the universe itself. It is not impossible that the Earth just sprung up on its own and spontaneously created animals and plants, it is just so impractical that the chances of that actually being true is close to zero and the possibility is negligible in scientific exploration nowadays.
However, the prompt clearly states:
If the world exists, then there must be a God who created the world
which means that in order for Pro to win, Pro must dismiss all theories regarding how the world came into existence brought up that does not involve a "God" creating it, proving that each one of "those" hypotheses has a likelyhood of exactly zero.
The theory for which the world created itself is not entirely falsifiable, although promising evidence points to others makes this theory as unlikely as it is. The chances of it are never zero, preventing the prompt from being true.
3. The Bible
You may say: "Bible isnt real"
Ooooooh really? Then whats this:
Thats right. Its the Bible.
Pro has presented a source that I can't even click open. Even if I can, I highly doubt that a single imgur page is enough to prove the Bible to be absolutely true.
If all that is required for Pro is this level of proof, then I demand:
- Real witnesses(or at least textual accounts) of Hogwards school of wizardry & witchcraft, since the obviously-popular series Harry Potter says it is real
- The location of Charlie's chocolate factory, since the bestselling fictional book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory says it is real
- Biology backing up how an organism such as Medusa or Kerberos could exist since Greek Mythological stories say they are real
- Fossil evidence of dragons since Chinese, Nordic, Welsh, etc. mythological stories say they have existed
- Infinity stones, since Marvel says they are real.
Just to name a few examples. Note, that all these tales and books do exist, despite that we can't falsifiably prove or disprove absolutely that any of those existed.
Proving something is real in the Bible because the Bible says it is real is circular reasoning.
4. Inheritance
Suppose there IS a "God" that is the origin of everything that is not being created by anything else. That still creates a problem: Is the world DIRECTLY created, or it is formed from something before it?
Formation
When the solar system settled into its current layout about 4.5 billion years ago, Earth formed when gravity pulled swirling gas and dust in to become the third planet from the Sun. Like its fellow terrestrial planets, Earth has a central core, a rocky mantle, and a solid crust.
I would consider NASA a more authentic source, than, for example, Imgur.
Why is this a problem? Let's use another example. Say I made a stool using wood. Obviously, my parents made me from their cells, and my grandparents made my parents using their cells, and my great-grandparents made my grandparents using, you guessed it, their own cells. Using the conclusion of that "God created trees, butterflies, cars, rivers, mountains and HIV", if that were true, it would be equally as true to say, that my great-grandparents, who by this time have all died, made a stool in 2022. And that is not counting what made my great-grandparents.
If person A who is skilled in only making hammers, and another have purchased his hammers to make a wood sculpture, this does not mean person A made the sculpture. No matter how many examples are given, the line of reasoning stands: What what the thing I created created, cannot be assumed to be created by me. Replacing "me" the last sentence with "God", which Pro assumes to be an entity conceptually, and we arrive at this conclusion:
- Unless we can prove that God DIRECTLY created the world, the topic is not proven true.
- If we have any evidence that something that is not God created the world, the topic is not proven true.
Because we have solid evidence that the world is created via gravitational pull of minerals around the Sun, which isn't God, the conclusion is that, it is false that it MUST be God who created the world.
4. Misc. Rebuttals
HIV is the proof that God exists. God punishes immoral people and rape victims with it.
That is kind of shooting randomly first, then putting up a target over where the bullet ends up and call it a bullseye. Additionally, this is one of the reasons why rape is seen as bad, besides other social implications such as a lack of consent. Rape is an activity that is likely to transmit STDs, you are correct, because HIV viruses have evolved to thrive and maneuver in conditions where people have sex.
Surely, HIV is a thing and rape is bad, it is just this still fits in the evolutionary narrative that requires no God at all.
God is all powerful, but that doesnt mean he wants to create a perfect world in which no one starves or gets raped.
"All powerful" is impossible for any plausible individual, as if we define a moment t1, it is impossible for "Eating steak and only eating steak at t1" and "Not eating at t1" to be both fulfilled. The inability to any action would negate an entity from being "all-powerful".
Its not like God could have designed your brain so that you dont have to suffer or drown or get hit by a car to feel his love.
This alone negates God from being all-powerful, and does bring no constructive evidence that our brain is directly designed as opposed to evolved for billions of years.
I think I have proven beyond an unreasonable doubt that God exists.
I think Pro has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists(or even "can" exist)
Conclusions
- "God" is not clearly defined using any authentic sources and the only claim resembling a definition gave it oxymoronic qualities which should not be taken as actual definitions of said term.
- "World" is not defined by Pro, so I used M-W to define it as the planet Earth.
- It is logically possible that the universe itself is eternal if God can be eternal, and if the universe is eternal, it removes the need for there to be a God.
- Just because the Bible exists and says God is real does not really prove God is real, especially since Pro made no connection between his idea of what "God" is and the biblical God, citing nothing.
- The problem with inheritance results in that unless we can prove that God directly participated in the creation of the world and there is no other explanation for the world's origin, the topic is automatically false.
- Pro's R1 case has been dismantled. Vote CON!
I agree with your vote.
Still, I did post a photo of a Bible to prove its existence.
I would like if you wrote a little more on how I proved the existence of the Bible. But whats there is there. Too late now.
"THen what created the world??"
If you understand what a debate topic is, you will understand that this question is not needed to be answered for Con to win.
As for my own opinion, yeah, the big bang theory. It is the most plausible as of yet. I don't have more opposing evidence than the most advanced research agencies so I will not propose anything else.
"wow you are younger than me!
how can you be so smart?"
And Terence Tao was smarter than the average college student at 13. I am far from his level of intelligence.
I want to debate with you
wow you are younger than me!
how can you be so smart?
I know that bigbang is just a theory but it is considered to be the most agreeable theory.
And the theory that most people think it is right becomes a fact.
THen what created the world??
There has been no location where I intended to mention the Big Bang theory, because it would be grouped with the set of theories in which God didn't "create" the world as the big bang theory would first have a milky way, then a solar system, then having rocks collide with each other to form a giant ball of rock for billions of years.
con- it is created by the bigband theory
pro- i am catholic
You wouldn’t, and that is good.
Why the fuck would I forfeit?
At least you are efficient. You don’t forfeit.
Its bad to annoy people. They can die from it. I really care about them more than I care about myself.
Not as much as purposely making fallacious topics and annoy people, I guess, lol
Yes, I should care a lot about winning debates. It will make me a millionare and increase my virtual penis.
Sounds like you should care, because at this point I don't even think that you think this topic is right for yourself.
As long as I am right, I dont care who wins the debate.
At this point, your recent few debates are literally set up for failure lol.