Atheism is flawed, God has to exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
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
God has to exist
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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]
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]
- 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!
Then, Pro failed to define what "God" is.
This is not a sound proof. I will begin: If God is the creator of all things, then what created God?
- At the beginning, there is supposedly "God" who has no causes.
Or, there can be a lack of God. If God can be eternal, then the universe itself can be eternal
As well, there is no absolute and objective evidence that the Universe can't be eternal
n fact, we do not know that the universe is just a bunch of smart aliens
Even then, if everything we know is dependent on something else, then why is it logical for something to be "independent" of all things?
In order for something to exist, it must have dependence.
And then, if God has dependence, then it would cease to be God, according to Pro.
Prove that a self-sufficient, independent entity exists
For one, Hawking has stated, that the universe indeed can exist from nothing, thus rendering God non-existent if so.
In other words, since this universe created from nothing, God can be non-existent, thus not "God has to exist".
Many scientists assume that the universe came from nothing
We can define the term "God" as "An unspecified non-existent thing", ceasing God from existence
With all these, it is simply not with proof of sufficient precision to say that God has to exist.
All thing that exist have a cause.
- God, if existent, logically, must have a cause, which ceases God from being God.
- OR the universe started to become of existence from nothing, which renders God nonexistent.
- For example, Hawking stated that the universe just sprang out of nothing, due to forces.
- Thus, it is false that God must exist, since the universe can be created from nothing.
- 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.
God has to exist
God is the creator of all things. The heaven and the earth, the entire universe as a whole.
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.
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.
There is no such thing as nothing. Asking who created God is not a valid point because an independent entity cannot be created.
- 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.
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.
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.
- Many scientists assume that the universe came from nothing.
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.
Not God, as he is the causer. He is the independent entity.
Forces? Is forces nothing? As nothing has no existence, forces are something. Therefore, disproves that forces come 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.
Not possible as it goes against his attributes and nature. Allah is just another name for God. Same with Yahweh.
- 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'll keep this short.
Given how this debate is structured, Pro has given himself a hefty burden: prove that god must exist in some form. Pro goes about this largely by arguing that how the universe came into being is unexplainable in the absence of a deity that exists independent of space and time. That argument relies on being absolutely correct, i.e. Con must have no alternative explanation for what Pro says only god can explain. To that end, there are a number of individual arguments I could cover that may lead me to a similar conclusion, but the simplest one is quantum fluctuations. Con presents evidence that quantum fluctuations could explain the origins of the universe. So we have another potential means by which the universe could have begun. Pro's responses largely entail dismissing the theory on the basis that it has been disproved (and... I think mixing it up with abiogenesis? Kind of hard to tell) and arguing that what we conceive of as "nothing" cannot exist so quantum fluctuations wouldn't explain something coming from nothing. The former argument is an assertion without evidence and doesn't demonstrate where the flaw is in the theory. The latter may start down that road, but it is only a start. Pro doesn't explain why "nothing" cannot physically exist, though if that is true, that just invites more questions, e.g. if "nothing" cannot exist, why couldn't "something" have always existed? It bites back into another point Con made with regards to the eternal existence of the universe. If you're going to make this point, you have to be careful to explain it in full and not just assert that "nothing" cannot exist. Moreover, it's not an abject dismissal of quantum fluctuations. They could still explain the origins of the universe based on Con's evidence. If the argument is that they themselves must be caused, then Pro has to make that point, but I don't see it in his arguments.
That gives me one other means by which to explain the origins of the universe, and as Pro's argument relies on God being the sole possible means by which the universe could have come into existence, letting that point through means Pro fails to meet his burden. I vote Con.
But for it all to have a beginning, there must be something before this. As there is no such thing as nothing. If you imagine 0 cannot make 1. So this option of nothing making something is false. The universe needs to be made from something and this something needs to exist always and never have a beginning or end. Independent from all dependencies
For cosmologists, the origin of the universe is clear. They can see that galaxies are accelerating away from each other and when they play this motion in reverse, the universe contracts to a single event. This suggests it all began some 14 billion years ago in an event we now call the Big Bang.
By contrast, cosmologists are less clear how it will all end. One possibility is that the expansion of the universe will continue to accelerate, driven by a mysterious force called dark energy. In that case the expansion will be infinite and forever.
But another option is that the role of dark energy will lessen over time, causing the accelerated expansion to stop and transition smoothly into a slow contraction. This possibility dovetails neatly with the idea that the universe is continually expanding and contracting in an ongoing cycle.
Yes I agree to an extent. I think that logic is needed however I did need to put references in.
I think the main reason why you lost this debate in my opinion is on display in that last comment. You argued several times in response to Intelligence_06 that certain arguments of his have already been debunked, and largely assumed that it was obvious why that happened. I don't see any links in either of your rounds, so you're relying on the logic you provide to support statements that his arguments were either irrelevant or lacked support. I've seen debaters manage to defeat evidence with logic before, but doing that requires specific responses directly addressing the evidence presented. Voters aren't just going to take your word for it that these points are invalid - they need to see the specifics of why they're invalid, and assertions about the state of the universe (e.g. the existence of what can be called "nothing" and what that means for quantum fluctuation theories) cannot stand alone without meaningful support, either logical or evidence-based.
Very well stated.
In my perspective, I think that it's untrue as it has been debunked many times and it's just a theory. It doesn't disprove that God exists but only makes claims about the universe which are simply not true in my opinion
I likewise disagree with that static universe theory, but it is one route to denying the absolute requirement of God.
The static universe theory still doesn't even make sense. This isn't me trying to get you to vote me, just want to use common sense. The universe is expanding, not static
I did read this debate, but due to the definitions in play I'm torn. Leaning toward con due to the cleverness of pulling the old static universe theory; but it's pretty close for me. I don't think I'll be voting.
No, he is saying God is Gravity.
> general
ok, so you're basically advocating for DEISM
https://mythoslogos.org/2014/10/13/einsteins-judeo-quaker-pantheism/
Einstein definitely did believe in a monist/pantheist God, he was talking about the Abrahamic God, as i said pantheistic Gods can be much more impersonal. Simply give Einstein a google along with the term pantheist.
The letter in which Einstein made those comments is pretty famous. In January 1954, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Jewish philosopher Eric Gutkind, in which the physicist responded to Gutkind's book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. Gutkind's book, as this Commentary review explains, sought to reconcile religion, science and humanism, by drawing upon scripture to urge people to bring about a better world. Einstein, who had read the book at the urging of a friend, wasn't buying it. In his letter, Einstein dismissed the concept of God and religion altogether. "The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this," he wrote. The letter sold in an auction in 2018 for $2.9 million..
Einstein, a Jew, was harsh in his view of Judaism, which he wrote in the letter was "like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition."
general
I'm unsure of where you got that quote from, but he definitely was a pantheist. Maybe he was talking strictly in terms of the Abrahamic God? pantheistic interpretations of God are generally much more impersonal.
> I am Muslim
are you creating your argument to be "muslim specific" or are you constructing a more general argument for "some sort of logically-necessary first-cause" (aka "god") ?
I also think like Stephen Hawking.
Einstein said in 1954, one year before he died, "The word 'God' is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses; the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish,"
So yes, I think like Albert Einstein. Maybe that's why I got into Harvard and MIT.
> "I think like Albert Einstein" that's funny because Albert Einstein did believe in a God, a pantheistic form of God derived from Spinoza.
bingo
> I am am atheist, and it makes no sense to me how religion is such a thing and why many people follow it.
https://youtu.be/8FcW2l-GL74
"I think like Albert Einstein" that's funny because Albert Einstein did believe in a God, a pantheistic form of God derived from Spinoza.
I am Muslim
I'll try to get through it over the weekend.
I am am atheist, and it makes no sense to me how religion is such a thing and why many people follow it. It is clear and evident that God does not exist anymore.
Well, I think like Albert Einstein and religious people think like Tammy Faye.
did you happen to get PRO to explain exactly which specific "god" they believe "must exist" ?
because many "christians" seem to magically become DEISTS when attempting to debate this particular topic
How about some votes?
Nice link.
There is no such thing as nothing. Also for the universe needs to exist, it needs to be made by something which is independent. Otherwise we would not be here. You can give all the theories in the world, this point cannot be refuted
Unfortunetly, nothing exists independently of human sense and/or perception.
GOD = NOUMENON
Unless I have been misinformed by the council, most things the current system of American churches preach outside of the Bible either commit the Didit fallacy or are related to that.
You may wish to study the following:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
My bad for making it quite short, I was impatient because I wanted to get it over and done with quickly
Well, it is a 1-day round for a topic I have long forgotten how to do. I am literally typing this in between my math classes.
It has been 2 years since I did anything close to this sort of debates.
I actually agree to this topic heading but not to most of the reasoning given inside it other than the 'something from nothing' angle.