God most definitely exists
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I am Pro and I accept that God exists. He has to. There is no other logical explanation other than God for the universe to exist.
Every thing is in motion and has been put into motion by other things. If we keep on going back, there needs to be a point in time where there is an unmoved mover (an entity that puts something into motion but has not been put in motion by another thing). This cannot be refuted because if there was not an unmoved mover, there would be an infinite regress of dependency as each thing would put another into movement and it would carry on forever. Many argue why isn't an infinite regress of dependency logical? The reason is, there cannot be an infinity of dependant things as something that is dependant, relies on something else for its existence. Lets say a computer. A computer relies on its components to exist, the components rely on the maker to exist. The maker relies on his parents to exist and so on. Now we are at the first humans on earth, where did they come from? Many will say evolution, even if that is true, where did the monkeys come from? Many will again say evolution but if we keep on going back and back, where did the first bit of matter come from? The one that exploded due to the big bang. It didn't come from nothing because that would be stupid to assume. So there must be an unmoved mover to put that in motion for the big bang to occur.”
Every thing has a cause. It is the exact same argument as the unmoved mover but this is related to causation, not movement. If we keep on going back, an infinite regress of dependant things cannot occur so we are left with one option. An independent entity. What can Con think of that is independent of everything? Energy? The Sun? Humans? Nothing is independent, except God unless Con can give me something that is independent of everything. There also needs to be something that is necessary for us all to exist, something that has to exist, for us to exist.”
God is uncreated. He has to be, this is his nature. If God is the creator, and the question is who created Him, that question itself is illogical and does not make sense. God does what is within his attributes and if someone created Him then his attributes would be a contradiction plus He would not be God anymore therefore needing another God. There has to be an uncreated creator. That is the only logical explanation.”
Interesting theory, if it actually contested God. Religious believers can also believe in the big bang, this doesn't disprove God's existence. Matter exploded and the universe is still expanding. This is the Big Bang. My question is, where did that matter come from, this was before the universe existed, so the universe never created it.”
“The book is the Quran.Con may be thinking, how does a book prove God's existence? It is not just a book, it's a miraculous book.The book contains many miracles which have been discovered within the last 50 years. The book has never been changed and has been memorised by millions of humans on this very earth. The book does not contain any contradictions whatsoever, so the question is, how did a man who lived in the desert 1400 years ago, know miraculous things that science and technology was not around to figure out?There are going to be a few things that Con will mention, you heard it here first.Con will mention 'contradictions of the Quran' He will either send a link to a website or copy and paste Quran verses that are 'contradictions'. Let me tell you this, every single verse that Con will send has already been answered by scholars of Islam, by Muslim debaters etc. Every single verse. No matter what verse he sends, there will be an answer and once I answer all of them, Con will swiftly move onto something else or use a strawman to deflect the original argument.Another thing that Con will mention is that the Quran has been changed. I will refute this as well.The reason why I am stating what Con will send, is because I know the non Muslim argument to this anyway. What the opposition do is give already answered questions and elongate the conversation until they think I forget what their claim was. I am not saying Con will do this exactly, I am saying this happens.Also the reason why I have included the 'no contradiction claim' for the Quran, is because the Bible and Torah are full of them, numerical contradictions and copious errors. The Bible and Torah are examples of how books got corrupted and the Quran is the opposite. The clear contrast to each of them is shocking.”
- Can you provide irrefutable proof of the divinity of the Quran?
- What makes the Quran more special than The Bible, The Torah, The Book of Mormon, or even The Iliad?
My answer is there is certainly a possibility. But then again, there is also the possibility that he doesn’t exist.
Currently, humans have not found any evidence that would conclude a creator as the explanation for existence.
It should therefore not come as a surprise that these arguments are not proof.
The cause of the universe’s birth is unknown. When an answer cannot be given, people will settle for an absurd one. Given the limitations of science and technology, there can be limitless possibilities and hypotheticals to consider.
Why would a complex creator somehow be exempt from the logic that he too has a creator? Why couldn’t there be a line or heritage of predecessors which spoke this hypothetical creator into existence? This also defeats Pro’s own argument that he uses next.
The Big Bang is not an explosion. The Big Bang refers to the rapid expansion of the universe from the form of a mere singularity. When explored in depth, the idea is that when the universe was infinitesimally small, it contained lots of thermal heat and gasses. But as it expanded, this heat would separate and form stars which would eventually birth galaxies and so on and so forth. The Big Bang is still happening too, as science has proven that the universe is still expanding. This ultimately proves that the size of Outer Space is not infinite, as originally believed.
Can you provide irrefutable proof of the divinity of the Quran
- What makes the Quran more special than The Bible, The Torah, The Book of Mormon, or even The Iliad?
All of the arguments Pro is using to endorse Islam are the same arguments Christians make for the Bible.
How do I determine which is the truth?
But ultimately, the resolution of this debate doesn't require me (Con) to be an atheist. I could very well be a Muslim, Jew, Catholic...Whatever
Since theistic religions are based on faith
God is absurd yet something coming from nothing is not? God is absurd yet the universe existing forever is not? God coming from something yet saying I don't know, there are limitless possibilities is not? God is not just a limitless possibility, He is the answer as I have demonstrated in round 1. Given the advances in science and technology, scientists still haven't figured out a legitimate secular approach the the causation of the universe. The only answers given are God and I don't know.Also Con, if you don't mind, please give us some of those 'hypotheticals'. I really want to hear some.
- Long time ago there was a velociraptor sized chicken who pooped out an egg that would magically start to grow and expand as years went by. This miraculous phenomenon would be the source of our current universe and everything in it, responsible for even human life.
1. The Big BangHave those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and then We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? 21:30
2. The Expansion of the UniverseWe built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺. 51:47
Logical evidence which I have given you in the forms of arguments. Cosmological, teleological, ontological, opposite force to evil=good therefore there has to be a greater good, the Quran as a divine book. I have given many evidences. You should name your criteria. If you're criteria is 'I want God to reveal himself in front of me and then I know He is real' is a farce. Why would he want to show to you that he is real when all the signs are around you. The fact that we are on this earth right now living, breathing in such formality is proof of God's existence altogether.
This challenge to find a contradiction in the Quran has not been fulfilled for 1400 and counting. All the top Arabic speakers that existed during the golden era couldn't even spot one.
- “Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (96:2).
- “We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
his is proof of a divine chicken who inadvertently made these creatures in his image
Long time ago there was a velociraptor sized chicken
The Five Ways, I have presented irrefutable arguments that cannot be disproven
Many astronomers already understood a lot of things about the universe, even if they lacked the technology to really explore them in depth
2. The Expansion of the UniverseWe built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺. 51:47Extend my answer from above. ^ (The exploration of Space from Earth is nothing new.) Especially considering it was happening long before Christ walked the Earth.
I don't need God to prove himself to me, I need you to. As I've stated in the previous round, logical arguments based on the assumption that God/Allah exists is not a substitute for proof. You need concrete, empirical evidence that God exists.
- I retorted each of The Five Ways by explaining the inconsistencies and poked holes through the logic by using one of its own laws to contradict the other.
- Pointed out that Pro's argument is self-refuting on the basis that any of his justifications for a God can be used to strengthen the credibility of my own testimony of the Almighty, Omni-Chicken.
- Corrected Pro's misunderstanding of the Big Bang.
- Pro fails to provide adequate proof of the Quran's divinity.
- Pro also attempts but fails to explain the contradictions in the Quran.
This entire argument is invalid to the actual subject which is God. A chicken/dinosaur cannot compare to the creator of the universe because a chicken/dinosaur is created.
The chicken example is like saying why can't monkey's or humans create the universe? All parties are limited. The only unlimited entity is God, the most powerful, transcendent, independent and self sufficient being.
Your argument has been refuted very easily sir. Chickens don't exist forever, God does. We know this because chickens are born and dead. And then when it comes to the first chicken, it needed to be created. Chickens rely on food, water, air to exist etc. God doesn't rely on anything. So to answer the first question, the chicken came first otherwise there would be an infinite regress of chickens are therefore this is an illogical concept.Moreover, Con has not proved any of the 5 ways to be incorrect, nor any of my logical arguments to God's existence but has just jumped straight to the Quran section.
Not at all. The expansion of the universe was not talked about at all in that article. So it was useless. The expansion of the universe was theorized less than 100 years ago and it would be stupid to think that this verse in the Quran was not of divinity.
Logical arguments are proof that only God could create the universe. I have presented many, the 5 ways and refuted many, the argument from nothing etc. These arguments prove that God is the only entity powerful enough to create the universe but still physical proof is what Con wants. Then I have given him physical proofs such as the universe being here, the earth, me and you and your family and your mom and your dad and the animals and grass and the water and computers and watches and bridges and mountains yet he still will deny. On top of that, I have given a third proof which was the holy Quran. He denies this as well. 3 proofs have been denied for no reason and therefore, I have already succeeded in this debate.
This debate kind of went off topic from proving a Gods existence, to talking about the Quran, which has nothing to do with just simply proving "a" God, so I will not be using any part of the argument, where a specific religion, or the Quran, was brought up for proof, or part of the argument.
Pro uses 3 main arguments to prove the existence of God. The debate title infers that Pro is trying to prove the existence of God, and not give reasons for why he "might" exist. Pro argues that 1. The Universe has to have a creator or something that created it. 2. Con argues that the universe is too complex for there not to be a God. 3. Disproves illogical theory's that say otherwise.
Con rebuttals these arguments by saying they are evidence of the possibility of a God, but not definitive proof, which to I would agree with Con on. Pro never provides any evidence that is definitive proof of God, because if he did, he would be on the headlines of everywhere.
But to give Pro some credit, Con never states what exactly he is arguing. If he was arguing that a God most definitely doesn't exist (which would be the opposite of Pros argument), then he would be wrong also, given there is a grey area, where Con argues is the existence of a God.
But Pro never points this out, therefore Con is the one that disproved Pro, giving Con the point.
Neither provided a lot of evidence.
Both had adequate spelling and grammar.
Both had good conduct.
And I am a religious man as well, but I am also non-biased when it comes to voting, so I had to give the win to Con here, because Pros argument did not live up to what he claimed.
Yes I agree, people have an inate understanding of God when they are born, a study was actually done on this. If you left a child on an island with no knowledge his first response would be that there is a higher power
I think your goal his is to convert people. Most of your opponents will be atheists so just helping them find God might be the best path. After you prove God than defending your faith with theists and changing their mind might help the best.
I personally think people would be better off by presupposing a God exists, but the west is so fucked up, that we are basically presupposing the opposite.
I hope you'll find more people here who can at least consider your arguments as well.
Thank you very much, I appreciate it
Probably one of the first people since I joined this site that actually commended me
I think you did a great job defending your position in the debate and I would agree with you that not all perceived contradictions are actually contradictions.
If you compare the Quran with the Bible and co you can see the difference. Loads of books have no contradictions, correct. Loads of religious books and scriptures however? No, that is where it stops. Isn't explaining that something is not a contradiction the right thing to do? If the opponent accepts that explanation then job done right?
"4:82-Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction"
This is a silly statement. For two reasons. One is that contradiction doesn't mean it's from God. Lots of books have zero contradictions.
Another is that even if contradictions are pointed out than they'll just be explained away by apologists, typically in a stupid way that leaves some doubt as to whether it is contradictory, until a normal person applies Occam's Razor
First mover is a stronger argument than first cause. You should have stuck with that just FYI
I am going to vote on this
Why would his opponent not believing in the Koran, mean he can't use it in an argument?
God is the creator of the universe. The Islamic God is also the creator of the universe. Unless there is a different definition to God, I conclude that they are both the same.
Fact of the matter is that the Title of the Debate is does God exist, not the Islamic God, therefore any arguments pertaining to that are unusable.
The same way I used those arguments, is the same way the Quran argument is. The opponent does not need to believe in it for me to use it. That's like saying, he needs to believe in the Big Bang for me to use that.
BOP has to be shared and if your opponent does not believe that the Quran is legit, than you can't use that as proof.
If the debate was about the Quran, then yes you would be correct. But it had nothing to do with that topic.
My argument about the Quran was a fair one. Con wanted physical proof of God and the Quran is the physical proof. It is from God, that is my claim. If the Quran is from God, then God exists.
I'm an atheist;
Pro used every outdated (and long-being debunked) textbook argument for deism, then converted that to theism with a gross reinterpretation of the Koran.
But with my personal tenets aside, I don't think Con did a good enough job to convincingly refute Pro. Con did a better job representing his camp.
The concept of God came from the fact that all humans have fathers.
I just don't like things going off this platform into the public view etc, I don't know why it's just a preference for me. You do you, if my username is in it, it is what it is
Is this debate fine to have your username on YT?
Will probably vote on this in the coming days
That was quick