Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#4078
God most definitely exists
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Con
7
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
The only possible reason for the existence of the universe, me and you is because of God. God according to me and my religion is the creator of all things, there is not like Him and He is deserving of worship. God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and also has many other qualities. He is the supreme being and has given humankind a choice. Obey Him and go to heaven or disobey and you've landed yourself a place in the hellfire. This is according to my belief.
The reason why he has to exist is down to many, many reasons. Let's get started.
Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological argument was introduced by Thomas Aquinas and critically thinks about the causes of the universe eg. The Big Bang etc. The argument goes like this.
Unmoved Mover-
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.
First Cause -
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.
Teleological Argument
The universe is too complex for there not to be a creator. The human eye is very complex, imagine the universe. There are strict laws and order for the universe to be, if it was one degree too hot, we would be burnt and one degree too cold, we would be frozen. A watch has a designer, its maker, the universe also has a designer with it being much more complex and extraordinary. That is God, has to be, no other explanation.
Who created God?
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.
Illogical theories
Nothingness-
The universe cannot come from nothing because nothing does not make something. Vibrations are something, matter is something, humans are something. Nothingness is the absence of everything. Can 0=1? No it never can. This theory is illogical.
Big Bang-
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.
Universe existing forever-
Another illogical theory. The universe is dependant, relies on time and space. If the universe relies on something for its existence, it could not have existed forever because something created it.
'We don't know'
I do.
The next half of the argument for God's existence is a book.
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.
Conclusion:
An independent, self sufficient, immortal, necessary being must exist for the universe to exist.
The Quran is a miraculous book, never been changed, no contradictions, will show the miracles in the next round, will refute the contradictions in the next round
God is the only possible explanation to the universe.
Con
#2
Thank you, Pro, for creating this debate.
BoP:
Since the resolution is “most definitely,” this implies 100% certainty that God exists. Pro is therefore required to establish concrete evidence to confirm this claim, no other logical argument can substitute it. If Pro is indeed right, then this will be an easy victory for him.
Now there are two things to consider when we think about Theology.:
1. Is there a possibility that God exists?
My answer is there is certainly a possibility. But then again, there is also the possibility that he doesn’t exist.
2. What is the likelihood that God exists?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, for sure. Currently, humans have not found any evidence that would conclude a creator as the explanation for existence. Pro’s starting argument is borrowed from “The Five Ways.” Thomas Aquinas’s argument was designed with the specific intent of amplifying the faith of theists, not to convince skeptics or non-believers. It should therefore not come as a surprise that these arguments are not proof.
Rebuttals:
“Unmoved Mover-
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.”
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.
“First Cause -
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.”
If we invoke the law of Cause and Effect as a supporting argument, then we have to consider for a moment that this is an inconsistency. 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.
“Who created God?
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.”
Let’s talk about the Big Bang.
“Big Bang-
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 Big Bang was never intended to refute the existence of a God, even if atheists frequently defer back to it in arguments. The Big Bang was started by a Catholic scientist.
Pro’s misunderstanding of the Big Bang is fairly common. People tend to liken it to a “cosmic explosion.”
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.
Up next, Pro mentions the Quran.
“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.”
Here is where Pro attempts to guess what arguments I’m going to make. He predicts that I’m going to point out contradictions and attempt to point out errors.
But I don’t need to do either of those things. All I need to point out are two things.:
- 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?
If Pro can answer both of these questions and prove to me the truth of these claims, I will convert to Islam. So far, I have not witnessed any conclusive evidence that would substantiate any of these claims. 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, the resolution addresses certainty. Which is why entertaining the idea of God's non-existence doesn't mean I have to be atheist.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Lets get to it.
My answer is there is certainly a possibility. But then again, there is also the possibility that he doesn’t exist.
And my answer is he HAS to exist. There is no reality in which God can't exist. Con said, there is a possibility that he doesn't exist. No there isn't. If there is, please explain. If you can't name that possibility in something else creating the universe other than God, then it is as if you shan't make that claim.
Currently, humans have not found any evidence that would conclude a creator as the explanation for existence.
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.
It should therefore not come as a surprise that these arguments are not proof.
What? Of course these arguments are proof. If something was intended for a different purpose, it doesn't matter what the purpose was if that something contains valuable information. It doesn't matter what the intention of his argument was for, it matters about what the argument is. It can be used for theists and non theists. This is not accurate from Con.
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.
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.
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.
As I stated, God is the creator. I don't see where my argument gets defeated. The reason why there cannot be a line or heritage of other god's before God is because it doesn't make any sense logically and logistically. Each time you go back, each God will be more powerful than the other. Isn't God the most powerful? Therefore this is just another contradiction with the question. Plus, it will also lead to an infinite regress which I have expressed in round 1 that it isn't logical. So to get at Con's claim that my argument gets defeated, not so fast.
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.
Inaccurate. That mere singularity, where did it come from? The thermal heat and glass, that is something. Where did that come from? I don't think I mentioned outer space and it's infinity, I just mentioned the universe is expanding.
Can you provide irrefutable proof of the divinity of the Quran
Yes I can. Miracles are a way of doing this. I argued how can a man 1400 years ago know how and what will happen and be discovered at modern times? Con has not answered this question.
I will give a list of miracles and what they are a miracle as.
1. The Big Bang
Have 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
This verse states that the heavens and the earth were joint (singularity), they got separated (Big Bang) and made from water every living thing (What do astronauts look for on new planets to see if there is any life? Water).
2. The Expansion of the Universe
We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺. 51:47
This is an explicit verse showing the universe was created and then it is expanding. Scientists have discovered this within the last 50 years.
3. Embryology
Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging. Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators. 23:13-14
Again, a verse showing detail on how a human is made with accuracy. This could not have been known 1400 years ago. It was actually known less than 50 years ago.
4. Mountains
and ˹made˺ the mountains as ˹its˺ pegs, 78:7
Now you see the mountains, thinking they are firmly fixed, but they are travelling ˹just˺ like clouds. ˹That is˺ the design of Allah, Who has perfected everything. Surely He is All-Aware of what you do. 27:88
Here it clearly shows that mountains stabilize the earth which again scientists have found out recently. As well as this, the second quote states mountains are actually floating. Yet again, scientists have found this out recently as well.
This is not all, there are tens and tens of these, I've only showed a few because I am limited on time but this shows the divinity of the Quran showing that is is from God.
- What makes the Quran more special than The Bible, The Torah, The Book of Mormon, or even The Iliad?
All the books mentioned other than the Quran are confirmed not to be the word of God due to the many contradictions whether it be numerical, copious errors etc. Therefore, a book with many contradictions is not the word of God.
God even gives a challenge to non-Muslims.
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 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.
If a book has contradictions, it is not from God as God does not make mistakes. The Quran has none making it already different. Including the miracles, it is a divine book altogether.
Realistically, 3 options. The Quran could have been written by humans, the devil or God. Can't be written by humans due to the miraculous things being said plus there is no contradictions. Can't be written by the devil due to the Quran condemning and highlighting the devil as an evil force. Only option left is God.
The Bible, the Torah, basically all religious books except the Quran have been proved not to be from God. If Con wants me to show him the contradictions of these books, I will in the next round. Otherwise, Con concedes this point and these two questions.
All of the arguments Pro is using to endorse Islam are the same arguments Christians make for the Bible.
Big difference is, Christians don't even know that they accept that their book is not from God. They say it is the inspired word of God, the gospels are written by anonymous authors. The book has many a contradiction in. Same with the Old testament.
How do I determine which is the truth?
By studying the books. Same way to determine the truth when studying religion.
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
Realistically speaking no. If you don't believe that God exists in any way shape or form, you cannot be a Christian, Jew nor a Muslim.
Since theistic religions are based on faith
Islam is based on faith and reason.
Conclusion
Con has not refuted any of my points. The cosmological argument still stands, the teleological argument still stands, the Quranic argument still stands. None of my points have been answered in a correct manner.
Con
#4
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.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
- 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.
We know this event to be true because we have proof that chickens, roosters, and birds of all kinds exist. We also have evidence that dinosaurs, velociraptors, and reptiles of exotic kinds exist. This is proof of a divine chicken who inadvertently made these creatures in his image. Now extending Pro's own arguments, The Five Ways, I have presented irrefutable arguments that cannot be disproven. It is certain that the divine chicken exists. And who is Pro to tell me my own conclusion is wrong when we know chickens and birds exist?
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
Many astronomers already understood a lot of things about the universe, even if they lacked the technology to really explore them in depth. This verse is not as profound as some might believe it to be. Nor is this proof of a sentient creator.
2. The Expansion of the UniverseWe built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺. 51:47
Extend my answer from above. ^ (The exploration of Space from Earth is nothing new.) Especially considering it was happening long before Christ walked the Earth.
"The first documented records of systematic astronomical observations date back to the Assyro-Babylonians around 1000 BCE."
I believe my interpretation of creationism is more accurate. Just read below.:
"The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth."
Pro asks me to list my criteria.:
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.
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.
None of the explanations so far have concluded anything beyond a reasonable doubt nor proven the existence of a God.
Now Pro gives a challenge to atheists and skeptics, to find one contradiction in the Quran.
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 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).
Conclusion:
The resolution requires Pro to establish that God exists which Pro has not yet done. Listing verses in the Quran that don't necessarily refute science is not proof of its divinity. Nor are the logical arguments of The Five Ways proof of a divine being. As I could use any of those arguments to substantiate my conclusion of the almighty, divine chicken.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
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.
his is proof of a divine chicken who inadvertently made these creatures in his image
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.
Long time ago there was a velociraptor sized chicken
Also, Con said 'long time ago', there was a 'chicken'. One must ask, where did this chicken come from? This argument is the one I have been making for many rounds. Whilst the chicken cannot exist forever because of its nature and incapacity, God is the opposite. Gods very nature is to be immortal, is the chickens? Gods very nature is to be all powerful, is the chickens? Clearly, Con has not thought this through.
The Five Ways, I have presented irrefutable arguments that cannot be disproven
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.
Many astronomers already understood a lot of things about the universe, even if they lacked the technology to really explore them in depth
What is to come of Con, is an absolute joke in my opinion.
He asked for divine proof in the Quran.
No one and I mean no one believed that the heavens and the earth was a 'joint entity' and no one believed that they were separated just as the big bang describes. No one believed that water was the requirement for life. The big bang was only theorized less than 100 years ago and it is stupid to think that this verse along with many are not proofs of divinity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Answering the misconceptions Con has given
Not only will I answer all the the misconceptions that Con has written, but also the ones inside the article.
1. “Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (96:2).
Where is the contradiction? This is talking about a blood clot. When an embryo is made, a human is no more than a mere blood clot. No contradiction.
2. “We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
Where is the contradiction? I am guessing that Con wants to make the point that 2 verses state different things. In that case, this is the answer. Our bodies are made from mostly water and organic matter. This is not even a contradiction, its a miracle, another example of how the Quran is divine.
Now the article.
1. What was man created from: blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
First 2 I have already given an answer to. Only Adam was created from dust and if you look at the context, it only speaks about Adam. And by nothing, it means before humans were created, there were no humans. Very simple to understand. Man doesn't even know he existed before creation and this my argument is backed by this verse also.
“Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?” [Quran 52:35]
2. Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur’an?
No there is no compulsion in religion. It is haram to force someone to convert. The other verses in the article are in context of war. Still haram to force someone to convert though. No contradiction.
3. The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?
A Muslim means to submit their will to the creator. In fact, Adam was the first Muslim as he did just that. Every Prophet was the first Muslims of that generation, they were sent by God to also spread the message.
4. Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
Allah forgives all sins if one repents sincerely. This may be done by praying, worshipping God, giving charity etc. If one dies as a disbeliever, they will never be forgiven. However if they worshipped false God's and then reverting to Islam and worshipped the one God, Allah will forgive them as long as they are sincere.
5. Are Allah’s decrees changed or not?
Allah's word is the Quran. The verses that talk about it cannot be changed, talk about the Quran. Both the Bible and Torah were changed and corrupted and Allah sent a new book down to correct the mistakes. And as we know, the Quran has not been changed for 1400 years and therefore this is another miracle.
6. Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?
Pharaoh was killed by drowning however his body was saved.
7. Is wine consumption good or bad?
Wine in this life is alcohol and therefore forbidden. Wine in the next life will not be an intoxicant and therefore be allowed.
Realistically, these 'contradictions' are pitiful. I didn't even go in depth and that shows that. I think even Con agrees these are rubbish arguments.
Anyway,
My claims about the Quran being divine have not been answered.
Conclusion.
In this debate,
Con has not refuted the 5 ways
Con has not refuted the argument that we exist as an argument that God exists
Con has not refuted the Quran is the word of God
Con has incorrectly given misconceptions and passed them off as contradictions
But still, Con will end up winning by the voters saying that he had better arguments etc. I don't believe this but it is what it is.
Con's example of the Chicken being God has also been refuted.
I have successfully won the debate even if it doesn't show on this site.
Thank you.
Con
#6
As I've pointed out, the criteria for Pro to win this debate is to provide irrefutable proof for God and he has not done so.
Overview
- 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.
In conclusion, Pro has not fulfilled the burden of proof where he asserts that God 'most definitely' exists. The Five Ways are a logic system for theists to comprehend, as it was intended to amplify the faith of a believer. To skeptics however, this does nothing and it does not substitute proof.
Rebuttals
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.
Oh? Then how is it that God does not have a creator? How can we presume to understand how the chicken came to be? For all we know, the chicken is eternal.
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.
Because monkeys and humans didn't create the universe, the chicken did according to my example. Why can't the chicken be omnipotent and independent?
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.
No, no, no.
Not chickens
THE Chicken.
Your first mistake is assuming that the OG Chicken is mortal.
And I have refuted the 5 ways, but even if I hadn't, they still do not prove the existence of a God. All the 5 Ways do is attempt to reaffirm the existence of a God through making assumptions. That's not proof.
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.
Even if the Big Bang Theory had yet to be conceptualized, my point is that the universe was already being explored by astronomers, so even if verses in the Quran are not necessarily scientifically inaccurate, it is still underwhelming to use that as a claim that the Quran is 100% divine.
Before the Theory of Evolution came into being, a lot of scientists possessed an understanding of it. And it was still being observed before Charles Darwin took a fascination in the subject.
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.
Not even close.
As stated before, The Five Ways are arguments based on assumption. How is it illogical that there couldn't be an infinite source of universes? If we go by that argument, then how on earth can Aquinas be so bold as to assume that a creator can exist independently of this law? Because it's an assumption.
You have provided a verse of the Quran which may not necessarily contradict science, but it doesn't establish proof of the Holy Book's "divinity."
Vote CON!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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