Instigator / Pro

Does god exist?


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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Minimal rating
Contender / Con

Affirmative Argument: The affirmative side will argue that there is evidence, whether philosophical, emperical, or otherwise, to support the existence of God.

Negative Argument: The negative side will argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of God and that atheism or agnosticism is a more rational stance. (They can also try to provide evidence against it if they like)

Round 1
Id like to thank Sum1hugme for this debate, now ill move into my opening argument

The fine tuning argument
Premise 1: There are finely-tuned factors in the universe
Premise 2: These finely-tuned factors are either from necessity, chance, or design (feel free to add any other possibilities)
Premise 3: Its not of chance, or necessity
conclusion: The universe was designed

Lets define what finely-tuned is; 
Premise 1 seems more plausibly true than false, to justify it i'll point out 2 examples 

1 - If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible.
2 - Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10^40, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.

[1] for source

2 follows logically, and the conclusion follows 3 logically, the justification for 3 is that there is no good reason to believe it was so by necessity, the cosmological constants I sourced arent determined by any laws of nature or anything of the sorts.

As for why its not by chance, to say its by chance is a irrational position that no one could reasonable hold.

Argument from change
Premise 1: change is real
Premise 2: Change is the actualization of a potential
Premise 3: A thing cannot actualize itself
Premise 4: Actualizes that need to be themselves actualized cannot ultimately account for change
Conclusion: So, a pure actual actualizer must exist to account for change, this actualizer is god

I dont think any reasonable person would deny premise 1 or 2, take for example a coffee cup it is real that it could change, and that change is because its a possibility, for example if it was on a magical heater that made it impossible to get cold, then it could not change as that's not a possibility for it, so it seems as if 1 & 2 are more plausibly true innit of itself

Premises 3 & 4 also seems reasonable, take for example there is a giant bolder and there is a possibility that it could be on top of a MT, it wont actualize that potential itself, as its just a potential, no you must push it up there, and the reason premise 4 can be affirmed through this is what actualized you? Your parents, so there's a chain (possibly infinite chain, although id disagree with infinity) that leads us through your ancestral line, through Darwin's evolutionary tree all the way back to what caused the potential of the big bang to actualize, the reason the conclusion follows logically from premises 1-4

Argument for the resurrection of Jesus
Premise 1: There has been many theories to explain what happened after an alleged resurrection, without reference to the resurrection
Premise 2: All of these theories have failed
Premise 3: The most rational theory to accept because of this is that the resurrection actually happened
Premise 4: If a resurrection happened god is real
Conclusion: God is real

In premise 1 what I mean by many theories is for example the hallucination theory, the conspiracy theory, the swooning theory, etc, so what I want you to do is point out which theory you think happened according to the facts we know of the early spread of chrsitianity

Premise 2 will be explained in my closing argument, according to the theory you present

Premise 3 & 4 follow logically

The conclusion follows the premises.

Argument from logic
Premise 1: Laws of logic exist
Premise 2: Atheism cant account for the laws of logic
Premise 3: You must be able to account for the laws of logic to be rational
Conclusion: Atheism is not rational

Premise 1 is nearly undeniable, there cant be true contradictions for example. Premise 2 seems more plausibly true than false since the laws of logic are transcendental

Premise 3 seems logical, you need to be able to account for your views to be rational.
[1] - THE FINE-TUNING DESIGN ARGUMENT By Robin Collins From Reason for the Hope Within (1999)
Round 2
I forfeit my round as well
  I apologize for the forfeited round; I have been extremely busy at work.

  Thank you for this debate. As per the resolution and debate description, my burden is to demonstrate that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that a god exists, and that atheism or agnosticism is a more reasonable stance.

  My opponent neglected to define what he means by "god," but I presume he is content that the god we are talking about is a being, with a mind, and the qualities of omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence, commonly attributed to monotheistic gods. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, because the prefix "a" means, "without," or "not."(1) So, to be an atheist is to simply not be a theist. Theism is the belief that a god or gods exists. (2)

  In order to propose that a god exists, one must first demonstrate that the supernatural exists. There is no evidence to suggest the existence of anything non-natural, let alone a being with the qualities commonly attributed to gods, such as rationality or intention. My argument can be summed up by the claim: there is no true argument where the conclusion is, "therefore, god exists." I will seek to demonstrate this by refuting my opponent's arguments.

  My opponent's first argument assumes that the Universe's constants are not due to chance, but he makes no attempt to justify this claim other than stating it is "irrational". More importantly, opponent's argument rests on the false belief that improbability implies intention. Furthermore, we are subject to confirmation bias as to what exactly would constitute a universe where life could exist since we only know this one can support life due to the fact that we are here, alive, to observe it. Our sample size is still one, and my opponent flatly excludes the possibility of another arrangement of constants in any infinite number of possible life-having universes.

  The second argument could be accepted in its entirety and still not imply the existence of a god as defined above. The only thing the argument implies the existence of is an unactualized actualizer, which could be literally anything with sufficient ability. Nowhere does the argument attempt to justify the leap from this conclusion to prove the truth of theism. In addition, the argument is one based on the macro-physical cause and effect relationships we observe, but whose laws and relationships do not necessarily apply to the quantum realm, who's laws would have governed the pre-expanded universe. Fundamentally, this argument is a god of the gaps fallacy, and attempts to plug god into a gap in our understanding of what came "before" the universe's expansion, assuming the concept of "before" is even coherent.

  The third argument rests on my acceptance of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, and outright rejects all alternative viewpoints on the event without explanation. In other words, my opponent assumes the truth of Premise 2, without justification. This could be a whole debate in itself, so I will simply take the position that there was no resurrection, and there are no reliable sources to justify the belief that a man rose from the dead.

  The fourth and final argument presented states that atheism cannot account for the laws of logic. While atheism makes no claims about the laws of logic in and of themselves, my opponent assumed that theism is the only grounding for these laws. In reality, the laws of logic are implicit in the structure of thought, language, and argumentation, and can be demonstrated to be valid without reference to the existence of a god. 

  In conclusion, there is no true argument that can conclude that god exists. All of my opponent's arguments have failed and rest on assumptions and presuppositions of the validity of theism. 

Round 3
This debate has been moved.