Instigator / Pro
0
1537
rating
13
debates
50.0%
won
Topic

Atheism is flawed, God has to exist

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
0
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
1
1736
rating
94
debates
75.0%
won
Description
~ 157 / 5,000

I am a religious person, and it makes no sense to me how atheism is such a thing and why many people follow it. It is clear and evident that God has to exist

Round 1
Pro
Atheism is a flawed concept. Atheists believe in no God, and believe in many theories. My points will be below. 

Can 0=1? No it cannot. Nothing cannot make something. There is no such thing as nothing therefore it doesn't exist. So how can a thing that doesn't even exist make the universe? There are only 2 options, the universe can either be made from something, or can be made from nothing. As I have debunked the theory which mostly theists believe in, nothing cannot make something, the only option left, is the universe to be made from something. 

The Big Bang Theory is a widely known concept of how the universe was created. But there has to be something before it. Matter exploded to fulfil the theory of the Big Bang. But even this theory cannot answer the question, where did the matter come from? The Big Bang Theory is only legible after the explosion occurred and doesn't explain where this matter came from. 

Now, if we look at the universe, we can see every single thing in it, is dependant. Humans are dependant on food, plants are dependant on water etc. The universe in itself is dependant on time and space. There is nothing inside of this universe that is independent of time and space.  Now how could a dependant entity make another dependant entity? Matter is dependant, so before the Big Bang, it needed to be created by an independent entity. This is logical. This argument also throws away theories such as the multiverse as the multiverse is jut a series of universes. And universes are dependant so the first thing is the multiverse cannot be infinitive. The multiverse is also flawed because as there cannot be an infinity of them, there has to be a stopping point. The first or last universe is still dependant on time and space. 

So as we have established, the creator of the universe must be independent and the universe must be created by something. Now if the creator of the universe had a beginning, the entity would still be dependant on time. And as we have already established, the creator cannot be dependant as it is illogical. 

The entire argument of atheism is either 'I don't know how the universe was made' or 'It was made by another universe' or 'It was made by energy' etc. All these theories have been shut down. As we have established so far, the creator of this universe must be independent and not rely on anything (self sufficient). The entity also has to be something, cannot be nothing. In addition to this, the entity must have no beginning and if it has no beginning the it needs to have no end. 

Con can name anything, any theory, any idea, any philosophical thought other than God, and this will be wrong. It is completely illogical that the universe can be made from anything other than God. The creator of this universe must also have the power and knowledge to create everything in it from the lines we have on tree barks to the pets we have at home. These attributes are in direct association with God. 

God is independent, he is self sufficient, he doesn't rely on anything nor anyone. He has no beginning and has no end. He is something, he exists. 

I know from experience that Con will give me a theory other than God, but it doesn't exist. 

I urge the voters to be unbiased, read this entire discussion carefully and take it in. Then decide who's arguments make the most sense. 

Con may argue, isn't God reliant on time? Well no, because the creator of the universe is too intelligent, too powerful and the most knowing than his creation. Time doesn't affect God,  because if God relied on time, he would have been dependant. Then this entire thing would be false. So God is independent of time, he has no beginning and has no end. 

This is one of my first debates so I don't know how to formally put it. I have seen titles like 'rebuttal' and I hope to continue and learn about these things as I go along. But please voters, I urge you to be unbiased. 

I look forward to hearing Con's response


Con
0. What shall I prove today?
God has to exist
Since this phrase is in the title, the anti-proof of said phrase will result in the resolution false which favours CON.

Then, Pro failed to define what "God" is. From what he has stated on this topic, I am pretty sure that in Pro's mind, "God" here means "The creator of all things".

1. Rebuttals
Pro has attempted to prove that God has to exist, and as a result the successful refutation of that, if, will happen to benefit CON.

Can 0=1? No it cannot. Nothing cannot make something. There is no such thing as nothing therefore it doesn't exist. So how can a thing that doesn't even exist make the universe? There are only 2 options, the universe can either be made from something, or can be made from nothing. As I have debunked the theory which mostly theists believe in, nothing cannot make something, the only option left, is the universe to be made from something. 
This is not a sound proof. I will begin: If God is the creator of all things, then what created God?
  • In order for something to exist, it must have a cause.
  • At the beginning, there is supposedly "God" who has no causes.
  • As a result, God does not exist because of that.
Exactly. It is either that everything that exist must have a cause, thus rendering the title of "god" utterly meaningless because it has to have a cause too(and everything before it), or that there is no need for God due to that if God supposedly and logically can be eternal, so could anything else, for example, the realm of the universe. Either, based on this part of Pro's proof, "God has to exist" is not yet proven.

So as we have established, the creator of the universe must be independent and the universe must be created by something. Now if the creator of the universe had a beginning, the entity would still be dependant on time. And as we have already established, the creator cannot be dependant as it is illogical. 
Or, there can be a lack of God. If God can be eternal, then the universe itself can be eternal, rendering a God useless and making it possible to remove the existence of "God". Pro did not prove that there is nothing in the Universe can be independent of time. As to "The universe is dependent on time and space", no, that is all Pro puts. If anything, this statement itself is fallacious due to in fact, the universe does not depend on time and space like humans depend on water and food. The universe is not a kind of giant monster that eats timespace fabric, or at least, this cannot be proven to be true as of now. Remember, we cannot "prove" whether if there is a god or not, there is only logical speculation. The dependence argument makes no sense, as of here, as illustrated.

As well, there is no absolute and objective evidence that the Universe can't be eternal. In fact, we do not know that the universe is just a bunch of smart aliens deciding to just move all the galaxies close to us farther and farther away as an illusion of redshift when in reality it is eternal and infinitely large. We just can't prove that is false.

Even then, if everything we know is dependent on something else, then why is it logical for something to be "independent" of all things? If anything, the fact that Pro narrowed "god" down to an entity of a quality we have observed on yet zero entities just makes God LESS likely to exist, not more. The same syllogism can be used here.
  • In order for something to exist, it must have dependence.
  • At the beginning, there is supposedly "God" who is independent.
  • As a result, God does not exist because of that.
And then, if God has dependence, then it would cease to be God, according to Pro.

God is independent, he is self sufficient, he doesn't rely on anything nor anyone. He has no beginning and has no end. He is something, he exists. 
Prove that a self-sufficient, independent entity exists. "God must be self-sufficient and independent" is not enough of a proof, because we did not assume either to be an existing quality with instances. The existance of God is in question, so is one of complete self-sufficiency and independence.

2. Constructive

For one, Hawking has stated, that the universe indeed can exist from nothing, thus rendering God nonexistent if so.
In his new book The Grand Design, he writes: "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.. Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God."[1]
Then, it has been hypothesized that the universe was created by simple quantum fluctuations, or in other words, by nothing. Experimental proof just add to this by proving that this is indeed possible[2]. In other words, since this universe created from nothing, God can be nonexistent, thus not "God has to exist".

Many scientists assume that the universe came from nothing, which is an idea that can only be true in light of quantum theory. Ultimately, quantum fluctuations could allow a universe to spontaneously form from nothing. However, without a mathematical proof, the idea that the universe spontaneously popped into existence has no real substance. And therein was the problem. We didn't have the math to support the "universe from nothing" hypothesis.
This is where Dongshan He and his team from the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics (WIPM) comes in. They have managed to develop the first mathematical proof that the big bang could have been the result of quantum fluctuations. The Wheeler-Dewitt equation and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle are at the heart of this new proof.[2]
3. Semantics

What is the easiest way of making people stop drinking water? Easy, just name everything that is drinkable so "water" is not within the name, and no one drinks water. And that is the "God" argument here. Who told us that "God" should be named this way? Exactly, ourselves. We told ourselves what words mean and defined them. God is one of them, and can be interchanged with other words, and defined any other way because it too is a human term coined and defined by humans. We can change the term "God" with "Allah" or "Spaghetti monster" while not changing its attributes. We can define the term "God" as "An unspecified nonexistent thing", ceasing God from existence. With all these, it is simply not with proof of sufficient precision to say that God has to exist.

4. Conclusions
  • Pro's proof of that God has to exist is unsound.
    • All thing that exist have a cause.
    • God, if existent, logically, must have a cause, which ceases God from being God.
    • Thus, either God ceases to be God anymore, or God has no cause which ceases itself from existing.
      • The same is with dependence. If all things are dependent on something else, then God either ceases to be God(if it is dependent) or does not exist(independent).
    • Since all things that we have observed(and possibly imagined) have causes, to specifically make an exception for God is absurd as in the statement "God is independent and eternal", neither is "God" proven already, nor is anything independent or eternal proven to exist.
    • OR the universe started to become of existence from nothing, which renders God nonexistent.
  • The universe could actually be created from nothing.
    • For example, Hawking stated that the universe just sprang out of nothing, due to forces.
    • Quantum fluctuations can also do that, with experimental mathematical data from the Wuhan Insititute to back it up, yes, it is indeed possible.
    • Thus, it is false that God must exist, since the universe can be created from nothing.
  • Semantics makes us able to define "God" as anything.
    • If we define "God" as something that can not exist, which is definitely possible since words and definitions are social constructs, the topic is proven false.
  • As a result, the topic is proven false. Vote CON!
5. Sources

Your move.
Round 2
Pro
Then, Pro failed to define what "God" is.
God is the creator of all things. The heaven and the earth, the entire universe as a whole. He created it and my reasoning was in my first point, I am just going to counter argue and answer some points and misconceptions that Con has delivered. 

This is not a sound proof. I will begin: If God is the creator of all things, then what created God?
This is an illogical question, I expected better from someone who is an esteemed debater winning 73% of his debates and having a score over 1600. The reason why this is an illogical question is because if we keep on saying who created 'such and such' then this would be an infinite argument and is not logical. God is, in my belief, an independent entity which has no correlation to being created. There must be something always to exist, always. There is no such thing as nothing. Asking who created God is not a valid point because an independent entity cannot be created.  God does not follow the rules of this universe, this dimension, a humans perspective. Which means, God does not follow the rules of time, as He has no beginning, as something always has to exist. So again, to reiterate, God cannot be created, only be the creator. 

  • At the beginning, there is supposedly "God" who has no causes.
God has no beginning as an independent entity like Him has to always exist. 

Or, there can be a lack of God. If God can be eternal, then the universe itself can be eternal
There cannot be a lack of God. Because God is one, he is always there are will always be there. A dependant argument makes perfect sense. As Con said, I never stated what in the universe is dependant on time. I said in my previous argument that the universe is dependant on time and space. I will now put, everything in the universe is dependant on something. If Con can find me ONE thing which is independent in the universe of EVERYTHING, then vote Con. There is not a single thing that is independent in this universe. And if Con gives something such as energy, a black hole, these are all dependant. As we know, a dependant thing cannot create another dependant thing, illogical. But if Con gives a thing which he thinks is independent, it is really not. There is not another round after this, so whatever he names as independent, consider it not, because it doesn't exist.  

As well, there is no absolute and objective evidence that the Universe can't be eternal
If the universe is dependant on anything, whether it be time or space or energy or whatnot, then there has to be a beginning. Which dismisses the argument of the universe being eternal. Again, if Con counters this point saying the universe can still be eternal, then it is false, as the universe can in no way shape or form be eternal, this is due to basic logic and intellectual presence. 

n fact, we do not know that the universe is just a bunch of smart aliens 
Atheists will go to extreme lengths to disprove God's existence. Aliens are still dependant on the universe. If there was no universe, there would be no aliens. Nice try. I don't want to be disrespectful here, but this is a fallacy. 

Even then, if everything we know is dependent on something else, then why is it logical for something to be "independent" of all things? 
Everything in this universe is dependant. The universe in itself is dependant. There was a beginning for this universe, as it was dependant. Something always has to exist. No such thing as nothing. Therefore, there needs to be something independent that always exists, never created, otherwise this entire string would be illogical. 

In order for something to exist, it must have dependence. 
Thank you, this is my point. However, only in this universe. Because whatever is outside this universe, doesn't follow the laws of this universe. It is that simple. 

And then, if God has dependence, then it would cease to be God, according to Pro.
God is independent.

Prove that a self-sufficient, independent entity exists 
There always has to be something. This universe was created by an independent entity as it would be illogical for it to be created from a dependant one. There are only 2 options. Independent and dependant.  We can rule dependant out, and we only have one left. Self sufficient means that God does not need to rely on anything nor anyone else. If he is omnipotent, then there is no one more powerful than him. This disproves the argument of multiple Gods, so there can only be 1 God, who is the creator. 


For one, Hawking has stated, that the universe indeed can exist from nothing, thus rendering God non-existent if so.
This makes no sense. There is no such thing as nothing, it doesn't exist. How, if nothing doesn't even exist, create the universe? Listen to yourself Con. This is a preposterous theory. That something can come out of nothing. We have established that something cannot come from nothing. We have established that 0 cannot equal 1 even if we wait trillions of years. 

In other words, since this universe created from nothing, God can be non-existent, thus not "God has to exist".
There is no such thing as nothing. Voters, I am encouraging you to just listen to this argument and decide for yourselves. Con has made a point where due to spontaneous creation, something can come from nothing. But there is no such thing as nothing, so how is that even possible? This theory links back to spontaneous generation where they believed living organisms such as flies could come from an underwear. It is the belief that something could come from nothing. But factors like bacteria came into play and this theory got disproved. This can be linked back to Hawkins theory. Something cannot come from nothing, impossible. 

Many scientists assume that the universe came from nothing
Not many. 

We can define the term "God" as "An unspecified non-existent thing", ceasing God from existence
Yet again, another illogical point. I, as a Muslim, believe that God can do everything that is within his attributes. So as God is the most powerful, he can create the universe. It is another illogical point to say, can God cease to exist? Because that would make him non existent, but he is always there, so these things contradict each other. It is also like saying, can God lift a rock that is too heavy for him? Another contradictory statement as God is the most powerful, there is nothing more powerful than him, so if he cannot lift a rock that is too heavy to lift, then it goes against the quality of omnipotence. And it therefore shows his weakness. This is again a contradiction. So saying 'we can define God as a non existent thing' is not only not true, but also an illogical statement, as he always has to exist. 

With all these, it is simply not with proof of sufficient precision to say that God has to exist.
If Con can name me anything that is not God, that is independent of all,  has no beginning, is self sufficient, the most powerful, all the knowledge, and is not nothing because that does not exist, then vote Con. However if Con fails to do so, this is the voters decision, think about it logically, then vote Pro. 

All thing that exist have a cause. 
Not God, as he is the causer. He is the independent entity. 

  • God, if existent, logically, must have a cause, which ceases God from being God.
Illogical. Because if the concept of God is God has no beginning and no end and has no cause and is the most powerful, then there must be no cause from God. So logically, that is untrue, factually, that is untrue and intellectually, that is untrue. 

  • OR the universe started to become of existence from nothing, which renders God nonexistent.
Nothing doesn't exist. 

  • For example, Hawking stated that the universe just sprang out of nothing, due to forces.
Forces? Is forces nothing? As nothing has no existence, forces are something. Therefore, disproves that forces come from nothing. 

    • Thus, it is false that God must exist, since the universe can be created from nothing.
Yet again, Con really admires and likes this point of something coming out of nothing. But if nothing doesn't exist, then how is this possible. Even with Quantum fluctuations, it doesn't make sense whatsoever. Flawed theory. 

  • If we define "God" as something that can not exist, which is definitely possible since words and definitions are social constructs, the topic is proven false.
Not possible as it goes against his attributes and nature. Allah is just another name for God. Same with Yahweh. 


So in conclusion, Con has given nothing and added nothing to the debate, just more justification that God has to exist. Nothing cannot bring about something. So the option is for the universe to be created by something. Illogical to be created by a dependant thing, as this will be an infinite loop, so by logic, has to be independent. Then it goes from here. If it is independent, it is not affected by time nor space. So doesn't have a beginning. This proves the logic by saying something always has to exist. There is nothing that can exist always other than God. Unless Con says nothing exists always, Con will not be able to give anything that can exist always, because everything that Con thinks of, has a beginning. All comes back to the universe. 

Voters. Please be unbiased. There will be an advantage to Con, as he has the last argument so people will remember his better, but voters I urge you to come back to this and see if he has answered my points with conviction and justification. If not, you know who to vote. 

Nothing cannot come from something, no matter who challenges this, it is a known fact. Do not be manipulated by Cons lies that nothing can make something, no matter how long you wait, no matter how  much you try, nothing cannot make something. 

Your move Con. 


Con
0. Reiterating what I am supposed to Prove
God has to exist
From how this phrase is worded, what Pro is in fact trying to prove, as his in-debate wordings illustrate and reinforce this interpretation, is that there is a 100% chance of God existing.

1. Rebuttals
God is the creator of all things. The heaven and the earth, the entire universe as a whole.
This definition only makes the topic statement harder to defend than easier, considering there is yet to be a mention of an existent heaven. If there is no heaven, there would simply be no being that satisfy what "God" is defined to be. I would argue that there is no empirical nor logical proof on that a heaven exists, and scientists do not believe in a heaven, as human evolution and life simply needed none. Meanwhile, Pro has wasted the entirety of 10,000 characters not proving a heaven exists. The failure of that means the possibility that a heaven exists is not 100%, or that God doesn't have to exist.

That is not saying that if God created all things, he must have created himself, unless God does not exist. From how this definition is worded, God in reality has an origin, which conflicts with Pro's description of God that is supposed to be "independent".

This is an illogical question, I expected better from someone who is an esteemed debater winning 73% of his debates and having a score over 1600. The reason why this is an illogical question is because if we keep on saying who created 'such and such' then this would be an infinite argument and is not logical.
"Because I can't resolve it, that must be illogical!" No, that would mean Pro's route of reasoning is illogical. If there is an infinite recursion on "What created that", that would seem that eventually something is eternal. What if the universe itself is eternal? Pro failed to disprove this case in which the universe itself is eternal and has no need for a God. The best rebuttal Pro has for this job is:
If the universe is dependant on anything, whether it be time or space or energy or whatnot, then there has to be a beginning. Which dismisses the argument of the universe being eternal. Again, if Con counters this point saying the universe can still be eternal, then it is false, as the universe can in no way shape or form be eternal, this is due to basic logic and intellectual presence. 
Pro is putting a supposed statement beginning with "if" then lining reasonings after that, while not presenting basic logic or intellectual presence that amount to the proof that the universe has a beginning and is thus not eternal. This point is dismissed. Saying there is proof while not presenting them is as impactful as if there is no proof.

There is no such thing as nothing. Asking who created God is not a valid point because an independent entity cannot be created.
Pro still hasn't proven that an independent being could logically exist other than to fill the top niche which hasn't been proven to be needed. Keep in mind, Pro has not rebutted this:
  • Since all things that we have observed(and possibly imagined) have causes, to specifically make an exception for God is absurd as in the statement "God is independent and eternal", neither is "God" proven already, nor is anything independent or eternal proven to exist.
I extend this point. Basing off that "God must exist" therefore something must be eternal or that an independent individual must exist because God must exist is simply fallacious as neither are sufficiently justified to logically exist as of this point.

Thank you, this is my point. However, only in this universe. Because whatever is outside this universe, doesn't follow the laws of this universe. It is that simple.
If said rule does not apply in an existent location, that implies it could also apply here. Remember that Pro's proof that a universe cannot be eternal is illustrated to be unsound. If other universes outside of ours can be eternal, this one also can be, removing the need for a God.

In fact, since God is supposed to have created everything and external locations, while still counting as "things" could be eternal and independent, then there is simply no need for a God here. Pro has essentially stumped himself with a rock here.

This is a preposterous theory. That something can come out of nothing. We have established that something cannot come from nothing. We have established that 0 cannot equal 1 even if we wait trillions of years. 
Quantum fluctuations. I don't think the universe is created by a state of nothingness but actually from a state of nothingness to a state of something, as the scientific field agrees that the universe could have popped out from nothing. Pro has dismissed this as absurd, while offering no sources or even anything similar to disprove this theory. The only contention was that "There was not many scientists that agree with this theory", which is simply disproven by the article itself.
  • Many scientists assume that the universe came from nothing.
In conclusion, this theory still stands as of here. The universe still can pop out of nothing without the need of a God.
Atheists will go to extreme lengths to disprove God's existence. Aliens are still dependant on the universe. If there was no universe, there would be no aliens. Nice try. I don't want to be disrespectful here, but this is a fallacy. 
Without the logical proofs and intellectual presences needed to prove that this universe is not eternal, this theory is not falsifiable. Aliens could be just pulling galaxies in an eternal universe to create an illusion, rendering "God" obsolete.

Not God, as he is the causer. He is the independent entity. 
See? This is another example of an attempt to proof solely because a top niche that has not been proven to be always existent is thought to exist and needs an individual that has not been proven to able to exist.

Forces? Is forces nothing? As nothing has no existence, forces are something. Therefore, disproves that forces come from nothing.
God is something, so I see no point in this very rebuttal. Where did God come from? If God is independent, the universe also could be rendering God obsolete, or there is none.
Yet again, Con really admires and likes this point of something coming out of nothing. But if nothing doesn't exist, then how is this possible. Even with Quantum fluctuations, it doesn't make sense whatsoever. Flawed theory. 
You have been born in a hospital. Does that mean your mother is a hospital? No. You are just born within the settings of a hospital. The universe is not created by nothing, it merely is created IN a state of nothingness and gave the nothingness something.

Not possible as it goes against his attributes and nature. Allah is just another name for God. Same with Yahweh. 
Of course, that is just a man-made definition of a word. Pro has yet to prove why a word cannot be redefined.

Conclusions
  • According to Pro's definition, God has to create the heaven, a place that has not been sufficiently proven to exist.
  • Pro did not give sufficient proof to why the universe cannot be independent and eternal. This means, there is a nonzero change it IS, negating the topic statement that a God HAS to exist definitely.
  • Neither a God nor a truly independent being is proven to be existent, so the usage of one intending to proving the existence of the other is unsound as neither was sure of existence. 
  • The theories of quantum fluctuations and gravitational forces have not been sufficiently proven to be false.
    • The universe is not created by nothingness, but it spranged out inside the nothingness, giving it something. "Nothing" cannot create the universe, but the universe can be created AMIDST nothing.
  • Just because Pro uses 1 practical definition of a term does not mean the term cannot be redefined. If we define "God" to be "something that does not exist" or "(insert inherently contradictory definition resulting in it non-existent)", then it doesn't exist by then, thus rendering "God Has to exist" false, as this is indeed possible.
  • The topic statement is wrong, vote CON!
I advise voters to vote fairly. Thank you for reading.