Does God exist?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Firstly, before we begin, I would like to thank my opponent, OntologicalSpider, for this debate today. Without further ado, let’s get into the arguments.
For this debate, as noted by my opponent’s opening round argument, we will be arguing over whether or not a monotheistic god (like the ones found in Abrahamic religions) is real or not. This monotheistic god will, for this argument, be referred to as God. Before we get into whether or not God is real, we first need to know what God is.There are many characteristics that are ascribed to God (such as aseity, immutability, and self-sufficiency), but the ones I will be focusing on are the “Omnis”:
- Omnipotence (having unlimited power)
- Omniscience (knowing everything)
- Omnibenevolence (being always good)
- Omnipresence (being everywhere at all times)
If the answer is no, then he is not omnipotent, for he can’t create the stone.
- God exists.
- God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
- An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
- An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
- An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
- A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
- If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.
- Evil exists (logical contradiction).
It is stated in the bible that God granted man free will [2]. This supposed fact has been used by philosophers and apologetics as the basis to address many problems in theology, including Plantinga’s response to the Problem of Evil. However, if it is indeed the case that free will is true, then God cannot be omniscient.
Now, I will address my opponent’s opening round arguments.
1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. Either in something else or in the necessity of its own being.2. The universe exists.3. The universe has an explanation for its existence. That explanation is God.
1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. Either in something else or in the necessity of its own being.2. God exists.3. God has an explanation for His existence.
In pro's first round, he directly references the "the law of non contradiction," and insists the god with a capital G is the necessary cause; and pretty much immediately raises a problem of "The universe does not have to exist the way it does," and never really connects God in there other than some slight of hand with the didit fallacy.
Con counters with the the fallacy of Composition, which pro defends by saying his argument isn't based on causality (the whole God is the necessary first cause thing he argued... very weird). Con also counters with an infinite regression loop, which pro fails to defend, merely proclaims any random thing can be the first cause without explanation for why that would be necessary; which leaves the question of why would it be God just hanging.
I will say that pro did a decide job with con's own arguments on the subject...
I should first say that pro's insistence "it is not in the scope of this debate to discuss Biblical doctrine" is false. When you argue something based on biblical doctrine instead of just /the universe had some cause/ you can't then throw it out when it's no longer convenient. That runs dangerously close to moving the goalposts.
On rocks, pro successfully defended. God can theoretically do anything otherwise impossible with all matter in the universe, and it would be a logical contradiction to then change the rules against itself to not. ... Not grading based on this, but a glaring weakness con could have exploited was that the spontaneous creation of matter is impossible, so God existing and creating things would be a violation of the limits pro has stated.
On omnibenevolence, pro begs the question of what if an omnibenevolent being isn't really omnibenevolent. This challenges if the creator is really the capital G God or not, so greatly harms pro's case.
On omniscience, pro does manage to defend by throwing out free will. Con likely would have extended it with further explanation for why, but this was not done. Of course, this likely would have done even greater harm to the omnibenevolent point as evil people have no power to not choose otherwise.
Con was the only one to use sources, but with so few, I do not feel they had enough impact on the debate. I am however learned on these theologies, so the sources offered no surprises for me.
Conduct for forfeiture.
In the end, this debate doesn't lean much in con's favor, but pro was the one with the primary BoP.
Con FF the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct.
Debate is largely incomplete, all other points tied.
Here's a handy guide to help your future debates. With just a little formatting, people will be able to see at a glance if you addressed the opposing case.
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Yes, it's great. It was pretty easy to guess with that rant about what would happen if being evil meant you didn't exist.
Yes, in fact I am. Even though I am Roman Catholic, I agree with most of the points in that YouTube series.
Con left the site, so he won't be able to answer your question.
This is pretty random, but are you a fan of the LutheranSatire YouTube channel?
So let me get this straight. Con's argument against the existence of God is that he is "evil?" Why, if being evil made you cease to exist, all wars would end the moment they start, Adolf Hitler would've gone up in a puff of smoke when he formed the Nazi party, and Joseph Stalin would've vanished before he sent a single person to the gulag. Your argument makes no sense.
Just as a side note, after further research, it appears to me that Leibniz, the founder of this argument, did not actually argue for the finitude of the universe, but formulated this argument to work even with an eternal universe.
I have enjoyed our debate and discussions on the forum. I would like to debate you again in the near future. Do you have any ideas on potential topics we could discuss?