Instigator / Pro
7
1525
rating
23
debates
58.7%
won
Topic
#4938
Is god real?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
SethBrown
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1233
rating
403
debates
39.45%
won
Description
In this debate the 2 contenders will debate over if god is real
con - god isn't real
pro - god is real
1st round will be the opening arguement
pro - present evidence for god
con - present evidence against god
2nd round will be the rebuttal stage
pro - respond to con's evidence
con - respond to pro's evidence
3rd round will be the closing speech
pro - respond to con's rebuttal stage & address how they thought the debate went
con - respond to pro's rebuttal stage & address how they thought the debate went
I would prefer that con is a gnostic atheist instead of a agnostic.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Hello Korea, I would first like to thank you for coming for this civil discussion and I hope it is productive and may perhaps change your mind.
The burden of proof of the atheist
First of all, I would like to point out the burden of proof that Korea has. I'm going to give 5 arguments for the existence of God, and Korea has to tear down each argument and then build an argument against God to prove that God does not exist, otherwise we are left with agnosticism, which neither proves nor disproves God. During the arguments I provide, I ask Korea to identify which premises he/she might disagree with and why he/she disagrees with them.
Argument 1: The cosmological argument
1 - Everything that exists has a cause, either found in a external cause or by the necessity of its own nature
2 - If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
3 - The universe exists
Therefore:
4 - the cause of the universe is God
5 - God exists
So this argument is extremely simple, yet powerful and problematic for atheism. I feel the need to support premise 2 and why it would point to God. When we speak of the universe, we speak of space, time, and matter. And when the universe was created, so was space, time, and matter. So it follows that whatever caused the universe to come into existence is space-less, timeless, non-physical, and immaterial. This cause must also be immensely powerful because it must have been powerful enough to create space and time, a 4D construct.
Argument 2: The improbability of atheism
This argument does not follow any premises, but rather shows how improbable atheism is. There are several events that had to happen to create the universe as we know it that were extremely unlikely, yet they happened. This points to an intelligent & personal cause. [2]
1: If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible.
2: Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible.
3: Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10^40, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.
4: If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons, or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible.
5: The chances of evolution resulting in humans were 1 in 10 to the power of 40000. That's a 1 followed by 40,000 0s, yet it happened; isn't that miraculous? [2]
quote for the evolution number:
"...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."
Believing that the universe happened by pure chance is quite irrational and can be reasonably dismissed with the principle of parsimony.
I would also like to build on the previous descriptors of the cause that I provided earlier. It must be intelligent as well as personal because it must have chosen to create, it's unreasonable to say this happened by accident. So this is the cause of the universe:
non-physical
immaterial
space-less
time-less
immensely powerful
intelligent
personal creator of the universe.
This is the traditional understanding of god & god is the only thing that can fit this description.
Argument 3: The transcendental cause of the laws of thought
1 - The cause of the laws of logic existing is God
2 - The laws of logic exist
3 -God is the cause of the laws of logic.
In order to think rationally you must use the laws of thought. [3] In order for your world view to be rational you must be able to account for the laws of logic, otherwise how did you come to that conclusion? Well science pre-supposes the laws of logic so to use science to prove the laws of logic would be circular reasoning. Therefore its impossible to prove the laws of logic empirically so therefore it must be transcendental, which is what a god is.. Think of it as arguing against the existence of air, you must use air to argue against the existence of air, which is absolutely absurd. Similarly the atheist must be wrong because he's using a principle of God to disprove God
Argument 4: The ontological argument
1 - Its possible that a Maximally Great Being, namely god exists
2 - Actually existing makes something greater than if that same something existed in the mind
3 - A Maximally Great Being posses all the properties that are considered great
4 - A Maximally Great Being therefore posses the quality of existing
5 - A Maximally Great being exists, therefore god exists.
The ontological argument attempts to prove God based on the premise that God is maximally great. For example, the only thing greater than a "maximally great" island in your mind is a "maximally great" island that is real. Therefore, if God is maximally great, He would exist because He is maximally great., therefore posses the all the qualities of being great.
Argument 5: The resurrection of Jesus.
1) If the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth happened, then it must have been from God.
2) The resurrection happened.
3) God is real.
I first feel the need to justify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth; there are multiple writers from the time of Jesus who talk of him and Christians.
The first non-Christian author to mention Jesus is thought to be the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism in about the year 93, the famous Antiquities of the Jews
In the Antiquities, Josephus writes: [4]
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned
Scholars point to the Roman historian Tacitus for confirmation that the crucifixion of Jesus actually took place. In his Annals, he records the death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate: [5]
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
It is also worth mentioning what Tacitus wrote about the torture of Christians. [5]
Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
My point is, why would you lie about a resurrection if you got tortured for it and got nothing in return? This isn't some ill-conceived spaghetti monster; this suggests that the people who claimed to see the resurrection, genuinely believed in it. If these people were mistaken they would've been easily corrected by being shown the body of Christ.
sources:
[1] - THE FINE-TUNING DESIGN ARGUMENT By Robin Collins From Reason for the Hope Within
[2] - Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).
[3] - The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1998, July 19). Laws of thought | Definition, Theories, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought
[4] - The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus. (n.d.). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link182HCH0003
[5] - Wikipedia contributors. (2023). Tacitus on Jesus. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
Con
#2
The poor design argument
There are only two options:
1. World can be better
2. World cannot be better
If 1 is true, then God doesnt exist. God, being the all powerful, smartest and most perfect, would create a perfect world. As long as world can be better, perfect creator doesnt exist.
If 2 is true, then God doesnt exist. God, being the all powerful, smartest and most perfect, would not think that all the suffering in the world is the best possible thing that can happen. He also would be able to create a much better world than this one.
Therefore, the only way 1 or 2 can be true is if God doesnt exist.
Since 1 or 2 have to be true, it follows that God doesnt exist.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Adressing the arguement
This sorta reminds me of the epicurean paradox, which has majorly failed because it makes assumptions. I believe this argument too makes some assumptions.
A Maximally Great Being exists
The world isnt perfect
When you look at these two statements, they are not contradictory; a contradictory statement would be a married bachelor.. I suggest these assumptions are:
1 - If god existed, he would prefer the world to be perfect.
2 - It would be logically coherent to make a "perfect world"
Lets address assumption 1 first. It is a good thing that the world is not perfect, if it was perfect there would be no suffering, no evil, no natural disasters, etc. But The Lord can make good things from bad things. Take for example in the bible, Joseph son of Jacob was sold into slavery by his brothers, Jacob rose to a position of power and saved Egypt from famine. That's one example of good things coming from bad things but there are tons of others just look around you.
As for assumption #2 I don't think it'd be logically coherent to make a "perfect world", its not that God lacks the power, the task is just absurd and god being the logos wouldn't do it. God respects moral agency, meaning that people can make bad or good choices and it'd be impossible to make a "perfect" world with moral agency, you cant make someone freely make a choice, thats contradictory.
Genesis
Id also like to add god did create a perfect world, the garden of Eden. People didn't die in the garden of Eden, there was no famine or natural disasters. It was quite literally heaven on earth, yet humans messed it up. God intended a perfect world for us, one without suffering and eternal life.
Con
#4
Adressing the arguement
This sorta reminds me of the epicurean paradox, which has majorly failed because it makes assumptions. I believe this argument too makes some assumptions.
Hope you can list those assumptions.
A Maximally Great Being existsThe world isnt perfectWhen you look at these two statements, they are not contradictory; a contradictory statement would be a married bachelor..
I dont see what does a married bachelor has to do with my arguments.
Sadly, you cannot have infinitely smart perfect God and an imperfect world created by that same God.
1 - If god existed, he would prefer the world to be perfect.2 - It would be logically coherent to make a "perfect world"
None of these are assumptions. God as perfect being creates perfection. And yes, it would be not only logically coherent, but morally desirable to create a perfect world. God, with perfect morality, cannot create something so immoral as this world.
Lets address assumption 1 first. It is a good thing that the world is not perfect,
Now this is a contradiction. Perfect means most good.
To claim that it is good that world is not most good is absurd.
if it was perfect there would be no suffering, no evil, no natural disasters, etc.
Yeah, are you saying suffering is good?
But The Lord can make good things from bad things.
Sadly, no, he cant. As perfect all powerful being, he wouldnt need bad things to create good things.
Take for example in the bible, Joseph son of Jacob was sold into slavery by his brothers, Jacob rose to a position of power and saved Egypt from famine. That's one example of good things coming from bad things but there are tons of others just look around you.
This is a classical example of excuses. Considering that God was the one who created famine, it is absurd example.
Also, you are entering another contradiction.
If you say that every suffering is good and results in more good than bad, then all actions are moral actions and evil doesnt even exist. So your God cannot punish anyone for evil, and you cannot label any action as evil since all actions are good.
Now, we all know that you dont really believe this in your daily life, nor do your Christians teach it.
But of course, the fact that you want to justify perfect God by labeling all evil as perfect is indeed a contradiction, another stain on your perfect God.
A perfect God would not need to create evil to create good.
Morally perfect, by definition, excludes evil.
Yet in your definition, every evil is morally perfect. Therefore, every rapist is actually a morally perfect being.
For the rest of us, moral perfection excludes evil, and evil excludes moral perfection.
Therefore, evil excludes a morally perfect being.
Since God is morally perfect being, existence of evil excludes God.
As for assumption #2 I don't think it'd be logically coherent to make a "perfect world", its not that God lacks the power, the task is just absurd and god being the logos wouldn't do it.
I dont see any reasons here listed why perfect world is absurd. But if you think that perfection is absurd, then God as perfect being too would be absurd.
God respects moral agency, meaning that people can make bad or good choices and it'd be impossible to make a "perfect" world with moral agency, you cant make someone freely make a choice, thats contradictory.
This is another nonsense argument of free will.
First, people do not make choices freely. I dont choose what makes me happy, what makes me sad. I dont choose to feel hunger.
Also, I dont choose my thoughts. Free will is impossible because choosing choices is impossible.
I dont create my toughts. They come on their own.
Since the source of my choices cannot be a choice itself, it follows that I do not choose my choices.
But even if free will could exist, perfect God would not bring it into existence.
Would it be moral for me to release a monster into world that will devour children alive? Obviously not. Even if I say that I simply respect monster's free will and letting it exercise it by releasing such monster, it would not be a moral action.
No sane individual would claim that such action is moral.
Id also like to add god did create a perfect world, the garden of Eden.
Garden of Eden has nothing to do with this imperfect world.
It was quite literally heaven on earth, yet humans messed it up. God intended a perfect world for us, one without suffering and eternal life.
This is quite literally pure nonsense.
First, you claim that God, an all powerful being, failed to do what he intended. A logical impossibility.
Second, you claim that humans messed up. God could have created perfect humans who wont mess up, or he could have prevented the imperfect ones from messing up.
Also, your God is illogical because he punishes babies today because of what Adam did 6000 years ago.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Korea you didnt follow the format of the debate. You were suppose to respond to that next phase.
I think the main issue with your argument and the main one I want to continue with is that you said god didn't create a perfect world. But he did intend for humans to live in a perfect world, the garden of eden.
You said in response to this:
you claim that humans messed up. God could have created perfect humans who wont mess up, or he could have prevented the imperfect ones from messing up.Also, your God is illogical because he punishes babies today because of what Adam did 6000 years ago.
And as I pointed out, god respects moral agency (not free will) to define moral agency: (at least how I define it, for lack of a better word)
The ability to do right or wrong, as long as its in your potency
If he created perfect humans who couldn't mess up then that would be violating their moral agency.
You also mentioned that he's punishing babies because of what Adam did 6,000 years ago. First off this was likely munch more than 6,000 years ago but decides that, the reason he drove them out of the garden of Eden was so they wouldn't eat of the tree of life, for if man ate of the tree of knowledge & the tree of life then they would live forever in their sins, and therefore forever in the suffering you described.
So god by "punishing" the babies in your eyes made sure they could live for eternity in the garden of Eden once more. Is that not a good thing? Giving babies the opportunity to live in a place without suffering for eternity?
Nobody would say its a bad thing to give babies the opportunity to live some place wonderful.
So to conclude, you said that god didn't make a perfect world, therefore doesn't exist. But he did, and therefore your argument collapses.
Now I also ask that you address my arguments in my opening arguement
conclusion:
My opponent has yet to fulfil the burden of proof I pointed out in my opening argument and therefore in my eyes failed in disproving the existence of god.
Con
#6
I bet my God can beat up your God in a 1 vs 1 fight.
I will summon my God.
Great beast of the sky
I beg of thee hear my cry
Awaken from your orb of light
And bring me victory in this fight
Envelop the deserts with your glow
And cast your rage upon my foe
Unlock your powers from deep within
So that together we may win
I beseech thee grace our humble game
But first I shall call out thy name!
Winged dragon of Ra!!!!!!!!
Eh sure, but dont make it so strict with rules. I am terrible at following rules.
I forgive ya man dw about it. you want to continue this debate after the next phase? I could make another debate with 10 rounds.
I am sorry 🥺
I didnt read description ☹
Hope you can forgive me one day 🤗
You were suppose to respond to my rebuttal in the next round, not this one.
I am just debating the side which was offered, and that is "God doesnt exist". So no, I am not allowed to be uncertain in this debate.
Sorry Willy I didn’t see this, the definition me and Korea are going to cover is a Christian god, so all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, etc.
Hello there Korea, I want to clarify your stance on this. Are you a gnostic atheist(meaning you have evidence god doesn’t exist) or a agnostic atheist meaning your uncertain?
I’m personally a gnostic theist and I’ll will be debating this from a Christian perspective
What’s the set definition for god in this debate?