Instigator / Pro
8
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#598

God Exists

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Type1
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description

Just a simple debate of God's Existence.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Well it doesn't matter if we agree, that's just a trap to make it look like I didn't understand your argument. The only thing that matters is what the argument ultimately amounts to.

It's the Kalam cosmological argument with the God assumption added in.

You can word it however you want. But that is ultimately what you're advocating for.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

@Wrick-It

I want to see if you and I agree on what my baseline premise was. Can you restate for me what you think my baseline premise was?

-->
@Ramshutu

@Ramshutu A few things:

1. I wasn't asking you to explain your vote. I'm trying to understand which parts/points of my argument do you disagree with? You said my argument was bad, implying there were errors (or you disagreed) with certain parts of my argument. What I'm trying to understand (at least gain yoru perspective) is which poitns of my argument did you not agree with, and why? Of course, I won't settle for a general "I disagree with all of it" lol...that's a cop out...you should be able to address the points specifically, otherwise it'll like you disagree for other reasons...

2. Regarding my comment about an “This Entity (God) would be an uncaused Cause”......so you disagree with that statement,-- YOu belive God, too, would require a Cause? If so, then I must ask why? Why do you think the Creator of the universe would require a cause? I ask because I believe you are reading things I didn't say into my arguments, or not fully understanding.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

None of those items on the list were the cause of me awarding your opponent the win.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

“why do you think I exempted God from requiring a creator?”

Because you said “This Entity (God) would be an uncaused Cause”

Hard to have a creator if you had no cause...

-->
@GuitarSlinger

The reason this premise gets kicked to the curb is simple. There's no justification for it. Baseline premises come from induction. This is how we build up to higher conclusions. God cannot be verified via identity (revealing himself) So we cannot justify god via induction. Furthermore, uncaused causes cannot come from induction because they suffer the same problem as god. Basically. Your argument is built on a foundation of quick sand.

-->
@Ramshutu

In simple, terms, why do you think I exempted God from requiring a creator?

-->
@Ramshutu

Which of these points is incorrect or wrong in your opinion?

Why the universe needs a creator:
1. We observe everything around us as having a beginning and end.
2. When things begin, they need a creator-- they need something(s) outside of themselves in order for them to be created. Things do not "create" themselves into being.
3. If you ask this of everything, you ultimately arrive at the question of "matter" itself. What caused matter to exist?
4. "Matter" could not create itself (refer to item 2 above)
5. Therefore, matter needs a creator that is not made of "matter" (if what created "matter" was also made of "matter, then this would contradict what we observe...see item 2).
6. Apply this to universe. Logic would tell us the universe needs a beginning (see item 1.....science and physics has also pointed us to this conclusion too).
Now which of these are you not understanding or questioning?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

A good debate to take a look it is this one:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/452

It’s a good example of a well arguments resolution.

The problem isn’t that I don’t understand your argument, it’s that your argument is bad.

Your whole argument is special pleading - that the universe required a creator, and God doesn’t. Your justification is basically you asserting that the universe needs a creator at some level and God doesn’t. Your list creates a big list of reasons why things must have a creator - then you exempt the creator from the reasoning you just listed to prove he needed a creator. The reason you exempt god from your logical reasoning for why he does not require a creator is because you have arbitrarily defined that there is a difference, and asserted that this arbitrary difference means God doesn’t follow the rules. This is bad logic.

The second point, is simpler, and oddly, a more profound error. You’re trying to prove God exists. You are doing that by trying to prove God is necessary. Your responses below seem to be implying that you were not arguing God is necessary. For god to be necessary, your God must be the only thing that could have created the universe, and by arguing that there could be lots of other things that could exist without a creator - you yourself have just argued away that inherent necessity. Why couldn’t any of those non-God things have caused the universe?

You don’t have to convince me God exists to win my vote - you just have to come up with a better argument. You should review the logic and reasoning you’ve used as it really is not as good as you think it is.

-->
@Ramshutu

"Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why God - as you define him - is the only possible thing that doesn’t need a creator."

First off, i'm hoping that's not what you based your vote on, because if you did, you misinterpret and misread what I wrote. Tis a pity. Lol I don't need to do that because that is not what I said. I don't think i ever said God is the ONLY thing that doesn't need a creator. What I did say was that the Creator itself would not be created. Again, big difference. Put another way, what I said is this: if "X" created the universe, then "X" itself would not be "created"....could there very well be other things outside the universe, such as "Y" and "Z", that don't need a creator? Sure. Personally, I don't believe that, but again, that's not what I'm arguing (I can argue that later). That wasn't part of my argument, and it's not accurate for you to say or imply that's what I said.. Again, what I said was this: What created the universe would need to be an Uncaused Cause (i.e. uncreated). I never said it was the ONLY thing that was uncreated.

Now what I did say too was that everything we observe in the universe requires a creator, something outside of itself that helps it or is a catalyst for it coming into being. If you disagree with this, then I challenge you to find anything that did not need something else in order for it to exist.

-->
@Ramshutu

Let's take this one at a time. What part of my argument did you not understand or are you questioning? Thought it was pretty clear and simple:

Why the universe needs a creator:
1. We observe everything around us as having a beginning and end.
2. When things begin, they need a creator-- they need something(s) outside of themselves in order for them to be created. Things do not "create" themselves into being.
3. If you ask this of everything, you ultimately arrive at the question of "matter" itself. What caused matter to exist?
4. "Matter" could not create itself (refer to item 2 above)
5. Therefore, matter needs a creator that is not made of "matter" (if what created "matter" was also made of "matter, then this would contradict what we observe...see item 2).
6. Apply this to universe. Logic would tell us the universe needs a beginning (see item 1.....science and physics has also pointed us to this conclusion too).

Now which of these are you not understanding or questioning?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

The issue here is that your whole argument was that God exists because he is necessary to explain the cause of the universe. The only justification for this statement was special pleading - that you make God exempt from the requirements that you assign to the universe.

The justifications you gave as to why God is exempt was arbitrary, and unsupported: the only reasons you gave as to why you can claim God doesn’t need an external creator whereas the universe does appeared to be down to reasons of the immaterial that you simply unilaterally state are exempt.

To have won this debate using the argument you made, you would have had to:

1.) Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why the universe necessitates a creator.
2.) Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why God - as you define him - is the only possible thing that doesn’t need a creator.

You did neither of those things. Instead what you did, is assert that an uncaused cause is required based on your arbitrary discussion about the immaterial.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"Nice to see you."
Don't know why I am here. Maybe because I am not getting content on DDO so now I flip flop between the two.

"What comment specifically do you want me to address?"
Lets start with the basics. What axioms do use that can prove to be true since from another debate I think you stated you believe in objectivity?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Nice to see you.

So what comments specifically are you addressing with the reply "Depends on your logic". What comment specifically do you want me to address?

-->
@Ramshutu

I feel his comments regarding materialism, etc (pretty much most of what he countered with) was a distraction to what the point was.

I provided quite a bit of warrant for the immaterial to exist. I cited things such as "dreams", "ideas", "concepts" of things that exist that are not made of matter (i.e not material, aka "immaterial"). I further clarified and agreed and said that while these are indeed rooted or come from the physical, that does not mean that they themselves are physical (e.g. smoke comes from fire...that doesn't mean smoke IS fire.). If the response (yours or his) is "those things are physical", then my immediate response would be "OK, provide some physical details/dimensions of a dream."

I never said that the immaterial can only be a deity, did I? No. I was starting from a basic position that states, only the immaterial could create the material. As i mentioned early on, other immaterial things exist-- dreams, ideas, concepts. I never said nor implies that these are deities or God.

Finally , with regard to "not requiring a cause is limited only to god". I never said that,did I? Re-read my arguments. What I say/imply is this: Material things that are a part of our physical universe require a cause. Why? Because our scientific observation shows us, and supports the idea, that physical/material things require a cause. What I also said is that "God" would need to be an Uncaused Cause. I did not say God is the only Uncaused Cause...but I'm also not arguing that there exists other Uncaused Causes. Do not put arguments into my mouth lol.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

The correct response is:

“I don’t necessarily agree, but thank you for taking the time to vote - I will take this feedback on board”.

The whole point of debate is to elaborate on and justify your position in the face of an opponent doing the same. Your issue here, is that you didn’t do this successfully as you didn’t sufficiently deal with these claims of special pleading. You didn’t provide sufficient warrant for your case that the immaterial exists - and that not requiring a cause is limited only to god, and that the immaterial can only be a deity.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Depends on your logic.
What logic are you using to get God being the start to be logical?

-->
@Type1
@Ramshutu

To be clear, I think both of your are missing the point. my point is pretty simple.

A) Science supports the notion that what we observe in the material world/universe, tells us that everything that is made of matter requires a cause external to itself.
B) Ultimately, you get to the question of "matter" itself-- what caused "matter' to exist?
C) One can logically reason that "matter" needs a cause, and that cause can not be matter, based on item (A) above (matter can not cause matter to exist).
D) Whatever caused matter to exist is NOT made of matter (see (A))

My points were that:

a) Things exist that are made of matter
b) Things exist that are not made of matter (I cited some examples)

Perhaps "property of matter" was a wrong choice of words. Bottom line, "force" is not made of matter. It is the interaction between objects.

You say it is impossible for something to come from nothing. How can you be so sure? Does your mind, does the human capability, know the extent of what is capable within our universe and, dare I say, outside the realm of our universe (if such a thing exists).

I cited a few examples of things that not made of material. Dreams, thoughts, ideas. YOU (Type1) are the ones that are saying these are physical things. I say they are not. So if you say are physical things, then please provide physical attributes of a dream, thought, idea (how much does a dream weigh....what is the length and width of a dream, etc)

Bottom line:

- if you say "matter" has always existed, then that flies in the face of what we observe scientifically in the universe (i.e. all things have a beginning and an end).
- If you say "matter" has not always existed, then you have the additional question of what created "matter"?
If you say "matter" created "matter", then that flies in the face of what we observe scientifically (we do not observe things creating themselves into existence)
What is left?

-->
@Type1

Yeah. Right.

And the fact that see no problem in that particular strategy is how you got to where you are today.

-->
@Ramshutu

"make General statements that only marginally related to the resolution"

This in itself is a general statement that only marginally relates to reality.

"repeatedly ignore the resolution to focus on unrelated points"

No, what happens is I create debates and the resolution clearly implied by the debate title is ignored by intellectually dishonest cunts who seize upon every opportunity to try and change the resolution by playing with words and semantics.

"Degenerate the debate into insults and name calling"

When I call someone an intellectually dishonest cunt, it is not an adhominem but an observation which calls into question the validity of their arguments and debate tactics.

-->
@Type1

You broke your normal strategy:

1.) make General statements that only marginally related to the resolution
2.) repeatedly ignore the resolution to focus on unrelated points
3.) Degenerate the debate into insults and name calling

-->
@Ramshutu

Well it appears you are capable of voting fairly after all, you had me worried for a moment.

-->
@Type1

Sorry...wasn't able to log on this weekend...work got in the way. I'll address your questions here:

Immaterial - means not made from matter...not having physical dimensions. Certain thigns exists that are not made of matter: ideas, dreams, concepts, etc. While yes, abstract things may have their root in the material, this does not mean or imply that they themselves are made of matter. Use the scientific method....tell me how wide a dream is...how muc it ways, etc. You can't, because dreams have no physical dimensions.

I'm not saying just because something exists outside our material university does not make it exempt from causality. By no means am I saying that. But if you don't have an Uncaused Cause, then by definition you would have a series of infinite causes, which in and of itself isn't logical

Consider: If you agree that A caused B, then consider this. Now without an Uncaused Cause, you are basically stating that there is an infinite number of Causes, stretchign back infinitely. But if that were the case, then Cause B would never be reached....why? Because you would have an infinite number (without number) of causes occurring before B would even B caused.....likewise A....likewise whatever caused A, ....it boggles the mind, but those are the implications. Logically, you just can't have a series of infinite causes.

Imagine an infinite number of dominoes lined up. Consider Domino X somewhere in the middle.....in order for Domino X to topple, the one before it would need topple...But in order for that one before it to topple, the one before IT would need topple...and so on....but if you avhe an infinite number of dominoes (i.e. causes), then you would never get to domino X....

-->
@Alec

The story of the rich young man and Jesus stating one cannot serve God and mammon (it was Jesus by the way, and not the Pope who first said it ;-) ) is teaching the idea of "do not make money your god". Scripture say money is evil. What does it say? Money is the ROOT of all evil. Big difference. it's the disordered love of money that is wrong. That is why Jesus says why it's hard for someone that is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven....why? because they often make money their "god" and lose focus of what is REALLY important.

Jesus knew what was in the rich young man's heart. Perhaps if the rich young man valued God way more than his possessions (money), God may not have said for him to give away everything. Jesus didn't tell Zaccheus to give his possessions.

Sure, GOd could make a realm where all people all go to Heaven. But that would require him to basically remove our free will. Let's return to the analogy of my son. What if instead I said, "Look, Son. YOu can not go out. I forbid you. I know what you need, and so I'm going to require you to stay here with me and get what you need." How happy do you think my son would be? Trust me, it's not fun lol.....I think we've all been in situations where we are "forced" to do what we don't want (even though it may be the best thing for us).

I think removing people's ability to choose is more in line with what a Stalin would do....

-->
@Alec

Parenthood is often a good analogy to the relationship of God with people (I"ve heard it said a man's relationship with God is a reflection of his relationship with his father).

I have a teenage son. Sometimes he doesn't have money. He usually wants to hang with his friends. Naturally, I want to spend time with him, so I'd rather he be with me and the family. Do I force him? Nope. On the weekends I usually cook out (smoke some brisket or pulled pork- it's what we do). But he wants to go out with his friends. Again, do I force him to stay with me? Nope. But I do tell him "Look son, if you stay here, you can eat all you want and have your fill. Heck, bring your friends along, too." But he'll choose to go out. Now, he doesn't have money, so he won't be eating when he goes out and he gets hungry. In fact, you may hear him lament that "he's starving". Would you accuse me of starving him, of causing him to suffer? I would hope not. He doesn't get what he needs (or wants) due to the choices he makes.

But then...what if he reconsiders and wants to return back home. He says "Wow, I could really eat good if I just go return home." Would I say "Nope, not gonna have it. Sorry, you can't come back." Nope. I would welcome him back with open arms and give him what he needs. That's exactly what God does. He shows/tells us the path. Whatever path we choose, God honors it. If we choose the right path, he lets us do what we want. If we choose the wrong path, he lets us do what we want. If we choose the wrong path, but later what to return to him, he welcomes us back. Something tells me Stalin would have not have been so kind lol.

-->
@Alec

I still think you have it wrong.

God doesn't PUT or SEND people to Hell. People go there of their own accord. Another analogy (albeit an imperfect analogy) would be this....imagine you want to go from San Antonio to El Paso. And really, those are the only two places you can go. And I tell you "Ok Alec, to get El Paso you want to go take I-10 West......That is the path that will get you to West. BUT PLEASE DO NOT TAKE I-10 EAST . I-10 EAST WILL NOT TAKE YOU TO EL PASO!! And please, don't be deterred by the fact that I-10 West is just lonely boring path...it's long, desolate and boring with nothing interesting along the way. But trust me, when you get there you will be rewarded." And yet, despite all best efforts to help you, guide you, and warn you, you get in your car, and you start driving down I-10 East. I'm not the one getting in the car, directing you....YOU are the one making these decisions to get in the car and go down the path.

Now you may offer all sorts of arguments....."Everybody is saying that if I take I-10 East I will get to El Paso...." or "Driving down I-10 East is so much more fun!".....I just shake my head and say "Yes, but that is not the path to El Paso."

Now let's relate this to God. What is Hell? Hell is the absence of God-- pure and simple. In simplest terms, that is how my faith defines Hell. People "suffer" because they choose not to be with Him. In effect, they are imposing the suffering on themselves.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Sorry I forgot to add your name to the below comment. I know your Christian, but what denomination?

"Stalin FORCED people to do his will. God doesn't. " Stalin told people to be communist and act it or he would torture the in Gulags. God told people to be Christian and act it or else he would torture them in hell.

"Where does God say we must sell everything and give away our possessions?" Mathew 19:21(https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm). The pope said that you cannot serve both God and money. He probably supports this passage.

"God does show us what Heaven and Hell are like." You know how some people claim to have visited hell and tell us to accept Christ? They visit hell. This is what I mean by (showing people what hell and heaven are like)

If most people are going to hell, aren't God's standards too strict for heaven? Can't he create an Earth like realm for everyone who would have gone to hell to inhabit instead of inhabiting hell?

You argument is flawed and I'm assuming by your statements you do not understand what the Church teaches about Free Will, following God, etc.

1. Your Stalin argument is flawed in it's comparison vs. God. Stalin FORCED people to do his will. God doesn't.
2. Where does God say we must sell everything and give away our possessions?
3. God does show us what Heaven and Hell are like. He explains it ot us in the Bible, through revelation, and through His Church.

You are on the right track though. The path is wide and easy that leads to destruction. More people will follow that path then the what that leads to Heaven.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

"How do people end up in Hell?"

People go to hell because God sends them there. Denying this on the basis of free will is just like saying, "Stalin didn't send the Right wing Russians didn't go to the gulags. The Right wing Russians deserve to go there for choosing to disobey Stalin".

"Do people have a choice on where they end up?"

They have to pick from 2 terrible options; sell all you have and give to the poor, as what Jesus commanded, or to burn in hell forever. They are both terrible options.

"You want the reward (heaven), but not want to have to do the work (live a good life), is that correct?" I don't want to go to heaven. I merely want to avoid hell and if that means going to heaven, so be it. God doesn't judge the standard by if you live a good life. He judges it by how well you follow his word, including doing things that the majority pf people won't do, such as selling all you have and giving to the poor. His standards are so tough, I'll be surprised if over 10% of the world population meets them.

In your desert analogy, if all god does is tell us in our head to travel east, we might confuse that for our own thoughts. If God showed us what heaven and hell were like before we got there, I imagine more people would go to heaven out of "free will". Yet he does not do this.

-->
@Alec

A few questions for you

1. How do people end up in Hell?
2. Do people have a choice on where they end up?

Let me make sure I understand your position: You want the reward (heaven), but not want to have to do the work (live a good life), is that correct? That's sort of like saying, I want to get paid money, but I don't want to have to work for it. Sounds kinda selfish don't you think?

God doesn't "send people to heaven." God gives people a choice-- you can choose either Heaven or Hell. The choices you make in your life get you either closer to, and ultimately in, Heaven...or Hell.

It's like you're in the middle of nowhere....20 miles to the East is a lush oasis with everything you would ever want or need, you would have an abundant life.....20 miles to the West is a barren desert, with no food or water. The path to the East looks hard and difficult. But the path to the West looks fun!
However, God tells you "Travel East, my son. You'll have everything you ever want forever. But if you travel West, death and destruction await." If you choose to travel West, who's fault is it when you arrive and there is death and destruction? Not God's....YOURS.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I hate God because he said most of us will burn in hell forever. A God that burns his creation in hell forever just for sinning a few thousand times does not deserve my respect.

-->
@Type1
@GuitarSlinger

"I absolutely agree with you" by type 1.

This is a concession.