Instigator / Pro
11
1468
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2730

Is there a God?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
15
Better sources
4
10
Better legibility
3
5
Better conduct
1
5

After 5 votes and with 24 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
35
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

Is there enough evidence that God, or gods, actually exist. Many people hold the belief that some "higher-power" exists, but often the evidence for such a claim is rather lacking. Theists, as far as I'm aware, have failed to meet their burden of proof. Do you disagree?

Atheist- disbelief or lack of belief in a god or gods.
Theist- belief in a god or gods.
Exist- have objective reality or being.
Evidence- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Burden of proof- the obligation to prove one's assertion.

-->
@fauxlaw

I read that to mean that a 100 percent perfect vacuum doesn't exists which I agree with. But that's what I was responding to

-->
@Sum1hugme

Isn't that exactly what my #14 says?

-->
@fauxlaw

The point is that even in a 100% perfect theoretical vacuum of empty space there would still be virtual particles popping in and out of existence creating a vacuum energy.

-->
@Death23

That you do not see an apparent cause does not translate to "there is no cause," but only that it has not yet been observed. Come on, that logic should be clear.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Already aware of the Casimir Effect. Are you. This article, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/
contains some interesting information, such as that "empty space," i.e. a 100% vacuum condition, isn't really a known factor; that all space has "stuff"" in it, such as energy, which can be converted to matter, and, therefore, as I've argued, both here and in other debates, "nothing comes from nothing." Ex nihilo does not exist. the casimir effect, in fact, supports this contention.

-->
@fauxlaw

Look up the "Casimir effect"

-->
@fauxlaw

Well, I would say that the observation is sufficient to disprove the premise that happenings require causes, which appeared to be central to your III a.2/a.3 R1 arguments. I mean, here we have observed this happening, that seems to happen within nothing for no discernable reason. And, I think, when we look at quantum mechanics, that is how a lot of it is going. Why do electrons repel other electrons? Why do the strong and weak nuclear forces happen? What causes gravity? We sort of get backed up to the wall where something is happening and there is no apparent explanation for why it is happening. Of the foregoing cases, quantum fluctuation is the most powerful example because it really is something that happens in the middle of nothing.

-->
@Death23

And you want to hang your idea of spontaneous happenings on the nail of such brief existence, it does not have a cause? Aberrations exist, but they do not endure for there to be a cause. You expect, as I advised Sum1, that God created perfection? No, he did not. Therefore, aberrations do occur, but it does not deny the existence of God, who, in my debate, I argued that just because he is omnipotent does not mean that he must act with 100% omnipotence to accomplish his tasks if omnipotence is not a necessary factor.

-->
@fauxlaw

That's weird, the links work for me, but I'm on mobile so maybe that's why they don't work for you. While the energy fluctuations don't stay long, they do exist, and they do come from seemingly from nothing. Whether or not they "endure" isn't really relevant.

-->
@fauxlaw

It was intended more as a rebuttal than as an argument on its own. The purpose of drawing attention to the phenomenon is to open the mind to possibilities it may have dismissed as contrary to common sense. Specifically, one of the premises within the cosmological argument is that happenings require causes when, apparently, that isn't always the case.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Your first video says exactly what I said to Death23; that your "matter being created spontaneously" is destroyed just as spontaneously. It is an anomaly of existence, not an enduring existence. Again, like a natural selection change that does not endure; an evolution failure. The net effect is a demonstration that God did not create perfection as a starting point. Proof: we are not perfect, were never intended by be perfect at our beginning, but are intended to become perfect by our own efforts, just as God became perfect in his time.
Your second link does not link to a single video, but to a string of videos. which?

-->
@fauxlaw

It's my understanding that the relationship between a particle's energy and it's lifespan are interdependent, meaning if a particle has lots of energy it will decay quickly, or if a particle has little energy it will decay slowly. Since quantum fluctuations are changes in vacuum energy, and matter and energy are interchangeable, then this is equal to matter being created spontaneously.

Here are some helpful videos on the subject:
https://youtu.be/Dd0r85dJdaw
https://youtu.be/FBeALt3rxEA

-->
@Death23

Your post #4, while demonstrating an interesting phenomenon, also demonstrates that your virtual particles are not enduring phenomenon, and, in fact, self-destruct readily. It's an argument that is virtually identical, over a longer period of endurance, of an evolutionary mutation in a species that fails to sustain itself, and may, in fact, lead to the extinction of the species.

-->
@FLRW

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [FLRW] // Mod action: [Removed]

>Reason for Decision: String theory shows that there is no God.

>Reason for Mod Action: Pursuant to the Voting Policy, full-forfeit debates fall under moderation only when a user votes for the forfeiting side. Unfortunately, the argument and source point allocations are not adequately explained. Moreover, the vote contains information from outside of the debate. To access the Voting Policy, scroll to the bottom of the site and click on "Code of Conduct" and then navigate to the Voting Policy section or use the link I've included at the bottom of this post. I apologize for the inconvenience, but feel free to cast your vote again when the RFD conforms with the Voting Policy standards.

https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
************************************************************************

Sometimes something from nothing happens, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Added verses of James 1. The following is verses 2 - 6, with verse 5 included for continuity:
Holy Bible, James 1: 2 – 6
2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

-->
@SLYDebate

I accept your debate. Your resolution is a question [that makes your position confusing] and you do not stipulate your position but by personal reference alleging theists fail in their attempt at BoP. Therefore, by your taking a Pro position by default [you can, by you own designation, make your position, which is your stated personal opinion Con], my Con position will argue that God does exist, and your Pro position is that God does not exist. Try to make that more clear in your next instigated debate.

Which position are you arguing?