Return to CreateDebate.comacrd • Join this debate community

A Civil Religious Debate


Debate Info

10
5
Arguments for Arguments against
Debate Score:15
Arguments:15
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Arguments for (8)
 
 Arguments against (5)

Debate Creator

Vaan(167) pic



A proper debate for the existence of God

There are far too many biased and emotionally heated debates floating around so here is where those who wish to have an informative debate on the existence of God may discuss their vggarious evidences for and against.

Other points/rules -

-If you are presenting a point for a particular religion then note that at the begining, if not then it will be assumed to be an argument regarding God as a concept

 

 

 

 

 

Arguments for

Side Score: 10
VS.

Arguments against

Side Score: 5
3 points

At the very least as an idea, god exists. Then of course there is my somewhat famous "ontological argument from worship" that has yet to be seriously refuted.

Side: Arguments for
1 point

This is a copy and paste argument I wrote quitesome time ago, it represents a creator God but not neccesarily an involved one.

(This is a response to an argument made by someone that God is not the creator of the universe, due to the Omniverse theory)

This particular topic was one which I had a really hard time with when I was not a believer as I could not find any other logical solution to this very issue, and as such I shall now expand upon that initial thought process which is more or less a more wordy form of the Cosmological argument.

Now to begin with we must first look at the issue of a single universe (ours). Now the idea is that there was no such thing as time before the big bang which of course makes sense, just as one could say that there are no timings before a race because the stopwatch has not been started yet. Now the issue I have with this is the fact that matter is a physical element and is thus subject to time and it would also need some method of creation, namely forces. So what we get is a situation where time is dependant on the matter to begin and vice versa. Then we also have the forces which are dependant themselves on matter to exist and the matter would need the extreme forces to exist (assuming that is how they are created according to the theory). So if we look at the analogy of the race we have a three way paradox in that the stopwatch cannot begin until all of the swimmers are at the blocks and the swimmers cannot get to the blocks because (in this case) there is no existence before the stopwatch begins. On top of this the starter’s gun cannot fire until all of the swimmers are at the blocks and at the ready and likewise the swimmers cannot start the race until the starters gun has fired. So what this means is that the swimmers would all have to be put into their positions all at the exact same time that the starter’s gun and the stopwatch go off. These both in terms of the analogy and reality are completely impossible.

There is however a theory known as the “pop” theory which more or less means that matter can pop into being from nothing aka has no cause. This is impossible on both logical and rational levels because matter, as a physical element, must have a cause. It would be like saying a table has no cause which is clearly nonsensical as it must be made before it can be a table. However on top of this there is no evidence to show that matter just appears out of nowhere. Also if matter just pops into existence without a cause then in reality there should be nothing that governs how or in what quantity it comes into being. Assuming this, then the moment the universe began it should have instantly filled up with new matter and thus the universe should be one infinite block of compact matter with no room for anti-matter etc. Now as a final point if pop theory is indeed true then if a physical element can pop into existence without cause then it would be likewise possible for a non-physical being to be uncaused.

Now what we call the universe is merely the perimeter with which matter is pushing it out, just as a balloon grows as the air molecules push against the sides of the balloon. We must assume that as matter does not exist outside of these universal “bubbles” that space is indeed a necessary property with which to create matter. In terms of our analogy space would be the pool. This adds another element to the issue in that the swimmers would need to be in the water already, but the pool needs to be filled with water by the swimmers. However the swimmers cannot fill the pool as time does not exist. So in other words they would need to fill the pool, be at the blocks and start the race all at the exact same time as the stopwatch is started and the starter’s gun goes off. If this point is argued against by saying that space is not dependant upon matter’s existence then the concept of an “Expanding universe” is illogical as the universe would already be infinite. As well as this the idea of an omniverse would also be impossible as it would all be one universe, just spaced apart like our galaxies are.

Now to deal with the Omniverse theory itself. The basic idea is that the Omniverse is an infinite expanse of universes that can give birth to new universes. This is based on the idea of two universes “touching” each other, the force of which would initiate a big bang. Now the issue with this is that a universe cannot touch another universe if that other universe does not exist. As mentioned earlier the universe is dependant on the matter to exist and so on so forth. This means that a separate universe could not start another universe as there is no other universe to be started. In terms of the analogy think of the separate universe as being a helper who pushes you off of the blocks as you start to give you extra force, however they cannot push you off until the pool is filled.

The only possibility then is if the other universe starts off another universe by fulfilling all of these factors meaning that it would have to split off from the main universe much like bacteria. The issue with this is that this is not a violent process and would not initiate a big bang as the matter is already within the space that has separated. But assuming that it did create a big bang then that particular universe would have to be immensely huge to be able to start a new universe with as much matter as ours. Another issue with this however is the problem that if it can split off then so should ours, and we should be creating more and more universes just as it would, meaning that eventually our universe would have petered out into nothing and we would essentially have in the end an omniverse full of single atoms.

However the only way the Omniverse theory could be feasible as a creator is if it is infinite. Now this is impossible as matter can degenerate which means that on an infinite scale the omniverse should have either expanded out and eventually dissipated into nothingness or fallen back in upon itself due to gravitational pull and been destroyed (assuming there is gravitational pull between them which there shouldn’t be because the forces would be limited to the matter which are limited to the universe, just as a starter’s gun cannot be used to start a race the next town over).

So as a result of the above statements we must conclude that there was indeed time before the big bang, just in another universe or dimension. Now these times themselves are dependant on the times of their creator universe, resulting in an infinite regression. However the Omniverse cannot be infinite due to the aforementioned points so eventually there must be a point of origin. This point of origin is in the exact same position as our universe, just several steps back and with nothing to appeal to.

This leaves us with only one rational option. That is that there is another separate universe/dimension that is not physical in nature (heaven) which was created by an uncaused entity that is also not physical in nature (God). This uncaused entity would have to be immensely powerful (Omnipotent) and not subject to physical laws such as time (Omnipresent). This being would thus be able to create space and matter at exactly the same time using its immense power (forces) and Omnipresence which in turn would start the universe.

Side: Arguments for
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Your flaw is toward the very beginning.

no such thing as time before the big bang which of course makes sense

You are speculating on what happened before the first moment of the universe. We don't do that for anything else. We are satisfied with the first moment being the first moment for EVERYTHING else.

Side: Arguments against
Intangible(4933) Clarified
1 point

Thwacked.

Side: Arguments for
zephyr20x6(2386) Disputed
1 point

Now to begin with we must first look at the issue of a single universe (ours). Now the idea is that there was no such thing as time before the big bang which of course makes sense, just as one could say that there are no timings before a race because the stopwatch has not been started yet.

Actually I have to admit the Big Bang might not have necessarily been the origin of time, nor the origin of existence. The origin of the universe? Yes, in a similiar sense that the origin of a rock was natural force, referring to the existence of its form rather than the existence of all the parts that made it. Before the big bang everything did exist as a singularity (which may mean time Still existed). The analogy is wrong because with the race time didn't literally start when the race did, the particular measurement of time did, the analogy comparing the race with the universe would merely show how the formation of the universe has a time span but not beginning of time itself. I don't know if this is going to help or hurt my case but I don't think the big bang was the beginning of time necessarily. There is also the cycle theory where we are going through a cycle of crunches and bangs. The big crunch theory is contained inside this theory, the big crunch theory would be... Think of the big bang, but backwards call this the normal flow of time at the end of time... Basically the universe becoming a singularity again.

Now the issue I have with this is the fact that matter is a physical element and is thus subject to time and it would also need some method of creation, namely forces. So what we get is a situation where time is dependant on the matter to begin and vice versa. Then we also have the forces which are dependant themselves on matter to exist and the matter would need the extreme forces to exist (assuming that is how they are created according to the theory). So if we look at the analogy of the race we have a three way paradox in that the stopwatch cannot begin until all of the swimmers are at the blocks and the swimmers cannot get to the blocks because (in this case) there is no existence before the stopwatch begins. On top of this the starter’s gun cannot fire until all of the swimmers are at the blocks and at the ready and likewise the swimmers cannot start the race until the starters gun has fired. So what this means is that the swimmers would all have to be put into their positions all at the exact same time that the starter’s gun and the stopwatch go off. These both in terms of the analogy and reality are completely impossible

That is because the big bang wasn't the beginning of time, merely the beginning of the universe's formation lifespan. Just like with the race, your analogy is flawed.

There is however a theory known as the “pop” theory which more or less means that matter can pop into being from nothing aka has no cause. This is impossible on both logical and rational levels because matter, as a physical element, must have a cause. It would be like saying a table has no cause which is clearly nonsensical as it must be made before it can be a table. However on top of this there is no evidence to show that matter just appears out of nowhere. Also if matter just pops into existence without a cause then in reality there should be nothing that governs how or in what quantity it comes into being. Assuming this, then the moment the universe began it should have instantly filled up with new matter and thus the universe should be one infinite block of compact matter with no room for anti-matter etc. Now as a final point if pop theory is indeed true then if a physical element can pop into existence without cause then it would be likewise possible for a non-physical being to be uncaused.

I don't know the credibility of that theory, it doesn't sound very credible. I don't necessarily think all matter existed eternally, but it makes just as much sense as a God does.

Now what we call the universe is merely the perimeter with which matter is pushing it out, just as a balloon grows as the air molecules push against the sides of the balloon. We must assume that as matter does not exist outside of these universal “bubbles” that space is indeed a necessary property with which to create matter. In terms of our analogy space would be the pool. This adds another element to the issue in that the swimmers would need to be in the water already, but the pool needs to be filled with water by the swimmers. However the swimmers cannot fill the pool as time does not exist. So in other words they would need to fill the pool, be at the blocks and start the race all at the exact same time as the stopwatch is started and the starter’s gun goes off. If this point is argued against by saying that space is not dependant upon matter’s existence then the concept of an “Expanding universe” is illogical as the universe would already be infinite. As well as this the idea of an omniverse would also be impossible as it would all be one universe, just spaced apart like our galaxies are.

Well this is also based on your assumption of time being finite, being a conclusion of that analogy that I have argued is flawed. Also the universe's expansion (and I could be wrong) is merely meaning that all the matter, stars, galaxies, etc are moving outward into space. As well as the omniverse, we don't know if an omniverse exists, but maybe they could be different realms sort of idea. Maybe exist in different dimensions that never overlap.... Like planes.

Now to deal with the Omniverse theory itself. The basic idea is that the Omniverse is an infinite expanse of universes that can give birth to new universes. This is based on the idea of two universes “touching” each other, the force of which would initiate a big bang. Now the issue with this is that a universe cannot touch another universe if that other universe does not exist. As mentioned earlier the universe is dependant on the matter to exist and so on so forth. This means that a separate universe could not start another universe as there is no other universe to be started. In terms of the analogy think of the separate universe as being a helper who pushes you off of the blocks as you start to give you extra force, however they cannot push you off until the pool is filled. The only possibility then is if the other universe starts off another universe by fulfilling all of these factors meaning that it would have to split off from the main universe much like bacteria. The issue with this is that this is not a violent process and would not initiate a big bang as the matter is already within the space that has separated. But assuming that it did create a big bang then that particular universe would have to be immensely huge to be able to start a new universe with as much matter as ours. Another issue with this however is the problem that if it can split off then so should ours, and we should be creating more and more universes just as it would, meaning that eventually our universe would have petered out into nothing and we would essentially have in the end an omniverse full of single atoms.

Never really heard of this theory, I'm intruiged. Still whether or not you really disproved this I don't know. However the big bang isn't disproved.

However the only way the Omniverse theory could be feasible as a creator is if it is infinite. Now this is impossible as matter can degenerate which means that on an infinite scale the omniverse should have either expanded out and eventually dissipated into nothingness or fallen back in upon itself due to gravitational pull and been destroyed (assuming there is gravitational pull between them which there shouldn’t be because the forces would be limited to the matter which are limited to the universe, just as a starter’s gun cannot be used to start a race the next town over). So as a result of the above statements we must conclude that there was indeed time before the big bang, just in another universe or dimension. Now these times themselves are dependant on the times of their creator universe, resulting in an infinite regression. However the Omniverse cannot be infinite due to the aforementioned points so eventually there must be a point of origin. This point of origin is in the exact same position as our universe, just several steps back and with nothing to appeal to.

Again you have.t proved time didn't exist before the big bang so irrelevant. Cartmans argument really did get you spot on...

This leaves us with only one rational option. That is that there is another separate universe/dimension that is not physical in nature (heaven) which was created by an uncaused entity that is also not physical in nature (God). This uncaused entity would have to be immensely powerful (Omnipotent) and not subject to physical laws such as time (Omnipresent). This being would thus be able to create space and matter at exactly the same time using its immense power (forces) and Omnipresence which in turn would start the universe.

Well assuming that the rest of your argument didn't break down, I am curious, why does their have to be an entity? Why couldn't this realm have created our universe with no entity at all. It would be less presumptuous.

Side: Arguments against
Vaan(167) Disputed
1 point

You were refering to the big bounce theory. As for time it has been very difficult thus far to prove that there was time before the big bang.

The link helps evidence that time did start at the big bang. Thus all points reset and my argument stands.

Why God? Because it makes the most sense as my argument shows.

Supporting Evidence: Stephen Hawkings on the origin of time (www.hawking.org.uk)
Side: Arguments for

I would argue for the existence of God simply due to the fact that nothing currently attributed to God is definitively impossible.

Several of the key things that have been attributed to God's supernatural abilities in the past have been, to some extent, replicated ourselves by technology.

We are, at current, able to prepare elements in a laboratory setting that do not, to our knowledge, exist in nature. Admittedly, this is not the same as creating matter from nothing, as we're merely assembling parts that already existed. But conceptually, this is certainly not impossible.

We've also demonstrated that the laws of conservation can be broken, albeit briefly and in a localized sense. Admittedly, this is not the same as calling all the matter in the universe into existence- but again, at the conceptual level, the small scale, certainly not impossible.

We've manipulated the genome of multiple organisms to create altogether new ones- some are hybrids, others are altogether new, able to reproduce, and fundamentally incompatible with their predecessors. Admittedly, this is not the same as creating new life from scratch- but again, at the conceptual level, certainly not impossible.

We can create and manipulate matter at the subatomic level. We can assemble elements, and also molecules that did not previously exist. All DNA is, is an extremely complex molecule. The ability to assemble DNA from scratch, while a staggering undertaking, is not beyond us by any stretch of the imagination.

Our technology is merely a set of tools designed to accomplish specific tasks; as such, given sufficient time, energy, et al, there is no reason to think that anything currently attributed to God is impossible. As such, the idea that God himself is impossible is a non sequitur.

I'll grant that I consider God, as presented in the Bible and many other works, is very unlikely given what we can see. But even that God has done nothing that we can demonstrate to be impossible.

To be fair, possible is not necessarily probable, and probable is not necessarily factual.

Edit: Predecessors. WTF is a Predessor anyway?

Side: Arguments for

I don't see or hear him anywhere. The Bible says he talked to people. Why doesn't he do that now?

Side: Arguments against
Vaan(167) Disputed
1 point

Serious arguments only and most theists will say that he does speak to them.

Side: Arguments for
1 point

Serious arguments only

This is a serious argument. If he's real, why is he now completely mute and invisible?

most theists will say that he does speak to them

I mean with an actual voice that we can hear, not dreams.

Side: Arguments against
WassupDAWGIE(1) Disputed
1 point

Much like we do not know the majority of what is in our waters, that doesn't mean that whats there is non-existent. God could very much be real as the possibilities of this world are endless. For example our planet is the only one with living beings (that we know of).

God is a supposedly superior being, why must he? it is up to him to do as he pleases, he has a much free will as we do. If he chooses not to talk to the ones he has created and feels that they should be allowed to make their own choices and choose what to believe then by all means he can do just that.

Side: Arguments for
1 point

Is he in the witness protection program? Why is he hiding now, when he didn't before? If he's totally hands-off, he might as well not exist.

Side: Arguments against