Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
5
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#5193

God Exists Le Triosieme

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

YouFound_Lxam
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
2
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Description

Pro
As a proponent you are declaring the statement of a god existence to be true. This debate will request that you provide evidence of this claim. The proof have to be verifiable and cannot be based on faith. A "prove he does not exists" will not be accepted as the basis of the debate is validation of a claim and not invalidation of a claim.

Con
This person is one who does accept the statement. This person will provide their reasoning for not accepting the claim and reasoning for not accepting the claim. The focus of this person is to provide understandable reasons for not believing in the existence of a god.

Round 1
Con
#1
I will be arguing against the claim.

I have not seen an explanation for the existence of a god. Many times it is indicated that belief is a faith based conclusion. This is not satisfactory to me. I require something concrete that I can understand and presents explicit proof of the existence of a god.
Pro
#2
Thank you to my opponent  PeterSimard for creating this thought-provoking debate. I hope we will have an interesting discussion. 

Now as PRO, according to the description provided, I am not required to prove God's existence. Instead, I am required to provide substantial evidence for a God. 

Introduction:
There are two options. Either God exists, or he doesn't. In this debate I will be trying to use overwhelming evidence to try and convince CON that God exists. CON never required it to be a specific God, so we will be going with God in general.

But first, let's define God:
I think it is fair to define God as:
Supernatural (above nature)
Omniscient (all-knowing) 
Omnipresent (everywhere all at once)
Omnipotent (can do anything) 

So, God (as defined by me) is a supernatural, all-knowing mind, who is everywhere, and can do anything. 

So, what evidence of God do we have?


1. Math

Math and science. Science helps us humans to explain the natural world, but it cannot help us explain things that are outside of the natural world. How do we know that there is something outside of our natural world? Well, it is pretty obvious that the natural world had a beginning, (whether or not you believe in the multiverse might I add). And in order for something to have a beginning, it has to have a cause. And in order for something to create the natural world, it has to have supernatural abilities. So, we do know there is something outside of our natural world. Supernatural would be the definition of that.

So, science cannot tell us if there is anything supernatural, but it can explain the natural world.

Math is about numbers, and information about those numbers, and ways that these numbers connect with each other.
But where do we find math, in the natural world?  We can’t see math, we can’t touch math, we can’t taste math, we can’t smell math, and we can’t hear math.
Math is only in the mind. We find math simply by thinking about it and finding more and more things out. 

Math also explains things. Math can explain things varying from simple counting to the movement of planets.

For any “thing” you can think of, there is a bunch of math that explains what's going on, even down to the atomic level. So, if math is only in our minds, yet it explains the natural world, then where does it come from? 

There are 2 possibilities: 
  1. Math is something that humans invented to explain what we observe in the natural world. 
  2. We discovered math because it controls the universe.
The first option would define math a natural thing, and the second would define math as a supernatural thing. 

Here is why the second option is correct:
Math contains infinite information. There are an infinite number of numbers, each with their own individual properties.
And there are an infinite number of numbers in between those numbers. And we continue to discover things.

Pi, (3.14) which is the number that explains the area of a circle. Pi has an infinite number of digits that we can discover by using calculations. If we were just making this stuff up, we could just make Pi be whatever we want it to be, but we can’t do that because we know that that is not true. 

We know that all this information is out there somewhere, but it cannot be inside our physical universe because our universe is finite, and math is infinite. That means math contains every possible combination of numbers. If we use numbers as code for letters, then math contains every possible combination of letters as well. 

This means that every book that has ever been written already exists encoded in math somewhere, and in fact every book that could possibly ever be written already exists in math. And if we use numbers as code for particles and their locations, then you could theoretically say that there is an exact copy of our universe encoded in math, but there are even more things in math, so that is why math cannot be contained just within our universe. 


There is also a lot of evidence showing that math has a designer. A great example of this is the Mandelbrot Set. The equation looks like this:
z=z(squared) + c
Now this little equation makes a very interesting shape when you graph it in the complex plane. People have analyzed this shape and have found some very scary things about it. 
The amazing thing about the Mandelbrot Set is that you can keep zooming in infinitely and keep finding new things, like more copies of the Mandelbrot set shown here:

You can zoom in infinitely and find new and different shapes, and patterns, sometimes ones that no human has ever seen before in this one shape. This is why it is so scary. We didn’t invent this because we discovered it by accident, but we didn’t discover it in our universe, because it has infinite complexity so it can’t possibly be in our universe, because the universe doesn’t have infinites. We discovered it just by calculating it. So where did this thing come from? 

Basic common sense would say that someone designed this, but no human designed it. Like we said: 

  • Math only exists in the mind so its origin must also be a mind.

  • Math contains infinite information, so this mind must be all knowing.

  • Math controls the universe and must also be all powerful.

  • Math is beyond and outside of our natural world, so this mind must be supernatural. 

And right here, we have just described God. 



2. The Principle of Causality 
According to the Soviet Philosopher Alexander Spirkin (who was an Atheist):
Causality is universal. Nowhere in the world can there be any phenomena that do not give rise to certain consequences and have not been caused by other phenomena. Ours is a world of cause and effect or, figuratively speaking, of progenitors and their progeny. Whenever we seek to retrace the steps of cause and effect and find the first cause, it disappears into the infinite distances of universal interaction. But the concept of cause is not confined to interaction. Causality is only a part of universal connection. The universality of causality is often denied on the grounds of the limited nature of human experience, which prevents us from judging the character of connections beyond what is known to science and practice. And yet we know that no scientist restricts his reasoning to what he can immediately perceive. The whole history of humanity, of all scientific experiment knows no exception to the principle of determinism.
The principle of causality says that everything that has a beginning must have a cause.
You can't get something from nothing. 

Now science and logic has proven that the Universe does have a beginning. 
(Scientific proof)

(Logical Proof)
Here is an example of why an infinitely existing universe is implausible:
Suppose the universe had an infinite number of past days. That would mean that we would have had to of traversed an infinite number of days in order to get where we are today. 

And obviously that's illogical. So, the universe logically cannot go back infinitely. They had to have had a beginning
And with the Principle of Causality, everything with a beginning has a cause. So, the Universe, must have a cause. 

What kind of cause though? 


3. Intelligent Design:
It is crystal clear, that the Universe is purposefully designed or caused to be a certain way.

Let's say you and me are walking along the beach. You see ripples in the sand. You ask, "What caused that?". I respond with "The waves crashing against the shore." 
That seems pretty logical right?

Well think of the same situation, but instead of ripples, now you see A+J written in the sand. You turn to me and ask, "What caused those letters?". I respond with, "The waves crashing against the shore." 
Now that's not logical. Why? 

Because it is clear that the writing in the sand has some sort of intelligent source. Humans are great at detecting things that came from intelligence vs. non-intelligence. 


Same thing with the universe. It is clear that the design of the human mind (a part of the universe that we use every day that we don't even fully understand) is a sign of an intelligent creator.

I mean it's not proof. But its more logical than saying, "This hump of matter and energy, that doesn't contain a speck of life in it, evolved to become something so complex, that we don't even understand or comprehend it."

Intelligent minds have to have an intelligent creator.


Those are my arguments. Thank you for making the debate. 





Round 2
Con
#3
I have never been provided with concrete  evidence of the existence of a god. I request evidence that can be validated.
Pro
#4
So.........thank you to my opponent for responding.

I really have nothing to say about my opponent's response, to my long, thought out, introduction. 

One thing I do have to say is that I did provide you (my opponent) with multiple concrete evidence of Gods existence. 

Can you at least address them and explain to me why this evidence isn't sufficient? 
Round 3
Con
#5
Forfeited
Pro
#6
Extend.