Instigator / Pro
4
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Topic
#1298
God does not exist
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...
semperfortis
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1684
rating
15
debates
100.0%
won
Description
I am going to waive the first round and Pro would have to wave the final round.
Pro: God does not exist
Con: Yeah he does and I can prove it
Burden of proof is on Con.
I don't really want to add rules since I know they ain't going to be enforced and think if the previous rules are going to be broken I still think I can win if I do post arguments as well.
Thanks for reading and participating in whatever way you see fit.
Hopefully this is worthwhile.
Round 1
Con
#2
Many thanks to Omar, for instigating this debate.
Preface
The definition of God I will be advocating for isn’t one belonging to a Theistic interpretation -- I will be advocating for a God pertaining to the notion of an Efficient Aristotlian Cause. Moreover, for the first time on this site I will be defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument, that shows the universe’s contingency upon an efficient cause and by extension that cause is therefore God.
Terms
Efficient Aristotlian Cause: A cause that produces the effect of something coming into existence e.g “the sculptor is the efficient cause of the statue”.
Universe: All space-time, matter and energy pertaining to our universe.
God: The efficient cause of our universe
A1. Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
A1.Premise One
A1.1 a posteriori hypotheses and scientific
induction
Prima facie intuition provides initial veracity for the first premise – we experience and observe causation on a daily basis and prima facie we never observe the opposite to be true. Whilst it is true that prima facie intuition is not always substantial, I assert that it should be affirmed until more tenable evidence is presented.
In the scientific method, every theory is predicated on a
hypothesis or sets of hypotheses that have withstood scrutiny. A hypothesis is an initial “guess” based on prior knowledge or observation that can allow for testable predictions
to be made [1]. These predictions ought
to be falsifiable, e.g if antithesis is true, then the hypothesis fails.
If we are to treat the first premise as a hypothesis we
observe its confirmation all of the time, since we never observe acausality.
Thus, we can conclude the veracity of the first premise
inductively, based on the repeated confirmation of the hypothesis.
A1.Premise Two
2.1 Finite Universe
A refutation to a caused universe is that the universe has existed infinitely, without need of causation. However, this premise is affirmed by the standard model and due to the fallacy of reductio ad infinitum and can be presented in three parts:
i) The Big Bang Cosmology
ii) The incoherence of an actual infinite in Cantorian Mathematics
iii) Entropy
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, specifically with Einstein’s
field equations (FLRW metric) predict the expansion of the universe. This was confirmed by cosmic red shifting
(due to relative motion (similar to the Doppler Effect)) showing the recession
of galaxies observed by Edwin
Hubble. This was extrapolated to the
beginning of the universe at t=0 and indicates that all space-time, matter and
energy was once condensed in an infinitesimal locality, 13.8 billion years ago, at t = 1x10^-36 seconds. This implies the
universe has existed finitely, rather than existing infinitely. Furthermore,
before this incredibly small timeframe, Einstein’s equations begin to break
down. When physicists talk of the “size” of the universe, they refer specifically to what is known as the scale
factor [3] – a relative value, measuring the geodesic (the shortest
distance between two points in space-time), relative to another reference
moment (typically the current moment). As
we rewind towards t=0 (for instance, halving the scale factor), all points in
space begin to get closer towards each other – this can occur for a potentially
infinite amount of times, but actually rewinding to t=0 would infer that all
space-time, matter and energy are contained within an infinitesimal singularity
where density is infinite and 3-dimensional space becomes 0-dimensional. General relativity can make successful
predictions up until around 1x10-30s of the universe’s creation, but cannot make
successful predictions prior to this, because of its incongruence with quantum
mechanics. Thus, without a unifying theory reconciling these conflicts, there
aren’t tenable predictions that can be made insofar as the nature of the
universe before the big bang.
Regarding actual infinities, since the universe as we can
understand it ‘began’ (for lack of better term) 13.8 billion years ago,
there are a series of temporal events that have been occurring since then and
will occur from now. If we are to quantify
these temporal events as ‘n’, we would observe that n is equal to the total
amount of temporal events from t=0, to t=k where k is the current moment in
time i.e Ntotal = (n1 + n2 + n3… +nk). However, this cannot result in an actual
infinity. If I could count to
infinity, it would imply that there is a number that precedes infinity, but infinity
– x (where x is in the set of real numbers) equals infinity. Thus, no matter how many times Ntotal is
added to, it will never reach infinity. Thus, this also corroborates the fact that it is impossible for the
universe to exist infinitely.
Lastly, the second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, pressure, density and temperature naturally reach a state of equilibrium over time [4], for example, a glass of cold milk will eventually become room temperature, (the milk gets hotter and the room gets colder (slightly)), so that both are the same temperature. The same can be said for our universe – it is in a state of disorder that, given enough time, will asymptotically reach a state of equilibrium where all energy is evenly distributed, resulting in the heat death of our universe [5]. We currently live in a universe where this isn’t the case, yet if the universe were infinite would mean that an infinite amount of time has passed, inferring that the universe cannot be in a state of disorder. This also alludes to the idea of a finite universe.
A1. Conclusion
Thus, the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
A2. The Incoherence of Impersonal Causes
Now that it has been established that the universe is
contingent upon an efficient cause, I assert that the only a personal cause (i.e
an agent of volition) could be the only rational explanation.
2.1 Causal Inefficacy Criterion
It is noted that entities can be identified as either concrete or abstract concepts [6]. Thus, the efficient cause of our universe is either concrete or abstract. However, abstract concepts like shapes and numbers, have no causal efficacy and only concrete concepts can possess properties for causation [6]. This begs the question to why an impersonal cause would create the universe? There is no understanding to what exists sans space-time as we cannot measure it or observe it. We cannot ascribe our empirical knowledge to a static place, as such is nonsensical. Therefore, it would be most rational to believe that the universe was created from agency – attempting to explain an impersonal cause is inexplicable in a context sans space-time and without physical properties.
Conclusion
Thus, it has been conveyed that the universe exists finitely and contingently upon an efficient cause. Moreover, since we cannot ever measure or attempt to explain a static place the notion of an impersonal cause is inexplicable. Thus, the only rational alternative is that the universe was created by a willing agent.
Over to Pro.
References
[1] https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_of_a_system
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
[6] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/
Preface
The definition of God I will be advocating for isn’t one belonging to a Theistic interpretation -- I will be advocating for a God pertaining to the notion of an Efficient Aristotlian Cause. Moreover, for the first time on this site I will be defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument, that shows the universe’s contingency upon an efficient cause and by extension that cause is therefore God.
Efficient Aristotlian Cause: A cause that produces the effect of something coming into existence e.g “the sculptor is the efficient cause of the statue”.
Universe: All space-time, matter and energy pertaining to our universe.
God: The efficient cause of our universe
A1. Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
Prima facie intuition provides initial veracity for the first premise – we experience and observe causation on a daily basis and prima facie we never observe the opposite to be true. Whilst it is true that prima facie intuition is not always substantial, I assert that it should be affirmed until more tenable evidence is presented.
This prima
facie intuition would be deemed a synthetic a posteriori hypothesis. Note, that this is not an a priori justification for the first premise, but a derivation from empirical synthetic
a posteriori observations.
A refutation to a caused universe is that the universe has existed infinitely, without need of causation. However, this premise is affirmed by the standard model and due to the fallacy of reductio ad infinitum and can be presented in three parts:
ii) The incoherence of an actual infinite in Cantorian Mathematics
iii) Entropy
Lastly, the second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, pressure, density and temperature naturally reach a state of equilibrium over time [4], for example, a glass of cold milk will eventually become room temperature, (the milk gets hotter and the room gets colder (slightly)), so that both are the same temperature. The same can be said for our universe – it is in a state of disorder that, given enough time, will asymptotically reach a state of equilibrium where all energy is evenly distributed, resulting in the heat death of our universe [5]. We currently live in a universe where this isn’t the case, yet if the universe were infinite would mean that an infinite amount of time has passed, inferring that the universe cannot be in a state of disorder. This also alludes to the idea of a finite universe.
A1. Conclusion
Thus, the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
It is noted that entities can be identified as either concrete or abstract concepts [6]. Thus, the efficient cause of our universe is either concrete or abstract. However, abstract concepts like shapes and numbers, have no causal efficacy and only concrete concepts can possess properties for causation [6]. This begs the question to why an impersonal cause would create the universe? There is no understanding to what exists sans space-time as we cannot measure it or observe it. We cannot ascribe our empirical knowledge to a static place, as such is nonsensical. Therefore, it would be most rational to believe that the universe was created from agency – attempting to explain an impersonal cause is inexplicable in a context sans space-time and without physical properties.
Conclusion
Thus, it has been conveyed that the universe exists finitely and contingently upon an efficient cause. Moreover, since we cannot ever measure or attempt to explain a static place the notion of an impersonal cause is inexplicable. Thus, the only rational alternative is that the universe was created by a willing agent.
Over to Pro.
References
[1] https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Entropy_of_a_system
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
[6] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/
Round 2
Pro
#3
I thank
Con for posting an argument.
I would like to mention here Con is engaging in a truism.
For one instead of actually defending a specific theistic God Con decides to simply label God with the efficient cause to our universe. This goes against the commonly agreed upon use of the word.
I instead will challenge the assumptions laid out as in the definitions used because sp has defined himself to win. Essentially a truism. You can even see here that sp has made it clear that KCA states there is a cause and since he has defined God to be a cause it links “that shows the universe’s contingency upon an efficient cause and by extension that cause is therefore God.” An efficient cause is God under sp’s definition yet he still decided to make it seem like there is a difference. There is no extension they are the same thing under the definition. Given this the definition is not meaningful since the majority of people use the one I will just mention it is invalid.
God
If we go by the current definition of God it states “a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being:”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god
Another definition states: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
Another definition states: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/god
These are the most popular searches I found and none of them come even close to the way sp defined God. Supreme ruler, source of all moral authority is clearly missing from sp’s mention of God.
KCA
The most common use of the KCA is to show there is a prime mover or unmoved mover. This fits in line with Con said given this is Aristotelian. The problem of course is that it is used to show evidence for God. Not Con’s definition the more agreed upon. KCA can’t make an argument for God because it only states as it concludes “therefore the universe has a cause of its existence”. Cause is not the same as God because when I see a video online of a tree growing it is not a sign of God it is a sign of a tree growing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
What I am going to do
I will now rebut the claims brought forward by Con by using the generally agreed upon definition not the definition Con brought up given the more popular version of the use of God.
A1. Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
I would like to mention here Con is engaging in a truism.
For one instead of actually defending a specific theistic God Con decides to simply label God with the efficient cause to our universe. This goes against the commonly agreed upon use of the word.
I instead will challenge the assumptions laid out as in the definitions used because sp has defined himself to win. Essentially a truism. You can even see here that sp has made it clear that KCA states there is a cause and since he has defined God to be a cause it links “that shows the universe’s contingency upon an efficient cause and by extension that cause is therefore God.” An efficient cause is God under sp’s definition yet he still decided to make it seem like there is a difference. There is no extension they are the same thing under the definition. Given this the definition is not meaningful since the majority of people use the one I will just mention it is invalid.
God
If we go by the current definition of God it states “a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being:”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god
Another definition states: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
Another definition states: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/god
These are the most popular searches I found and none of them come even close to the way sp defined God. Supreme ruler, source of all moral authority is clearly missing from sp’s mention of God.
KCA
The most common use of the KCA is to show there is a prime mover or unmoved mover. This fits in line with Con said given this is Aristotelian. The problem of course is that it is used to show evidence for God. Not Con’s definition the more agreed upon. KCA can’t make an argument for God because it only states as it concludes “therefore the universe has a cause of its existence”. Cause is not the same as God because when I see a video online of a tree growing it is not a sign of God it is a sign of a tree growing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
What I am going to do
I will now rebut the claims brought forward by Con by using the generally agreed upon definition not the definition Con brought up given the more popular version of the use of God.
A1. Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
A1.Premise
One
This prima facie intuition would be deemed a synthetic a posteriori hypothesis.
Intuition
is using the available information you have in order to have a knee jerk
response to something. This is of course bad because this is influenced by many
factors during the quick decision. This can be you are having a bad day and are
reacting negatively to most things around you. Having a negative mindset does
influence your intuition which does make it different to using reason to come
to a conclusion. An evidence based hypothesis as in scientific hypothesis is
antithetical to intuition.
I disagree that a first impression without reason is information derived from evidence. This goes against having standard which applies strict measures of validity put in place in order to make sure findings are not influenced by irrationality as in feelings.
I disagree that a first impression without reason is information derived from evidence. This goes against having standard which applies strict measures of validity put in place in order to make sure findings are not influenced by irrationality as in feelings.
Note, that this is not an a priori justification for the first premise, but a derivation from empirical synthetic a posteriori observations.
I also
disagree with empirical evidence being the same as deriving information without
reason. For example, in the link below Alex collects qualitative data in order
to find out if Singapore banking system are efficient and competitive. Just
these two words cannot be achieved which just intuition alone. It requires
measurements to determine what is effective and competitive.
A1. Conclusion
Thus, the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Yes, there is a cause to of the universes’ existence. It’s not an argument for God.
A2. The Incoherence of Personal Causes
God is a being that is perfect. What does a being like that do with its time? Create life. An aim for a perfect being is to carry on operating like a machine which goes against the agency of a such a being instead goes more into the direction of it being a mindless robots obeying commands. If God had free will with that amount of power it had, we would be seeing drastic change sporadically but that doesn’t occur. Nothing observable has not followed the cause and effect principle so it is best to assume God doesn’t have free will instead does things it is programmed to do. This also goes into what created God since given the principle that has yet to not work cause and effect God must also have a cause of its existence. People have used began to make an exception to God but have yet to justify that exception given that exception is only given to 1 thing and can’t be compared to other things to bolster the point.
A rebuttal sp might have
I said “okay” in the comment section. My stance on what you said was an acceptance or understanding of what you are doing. That is all. I didn’t agree to your phrasing nor did I disagree. I accepted it.
Okay:correct, permissible, or acceptable; meeting standards:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ok
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/OK
Okay: used to show that you agree with something or agree to do something:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ok
Conclusion
I applied a more agreed upon definition. State the problems of sp’s definition. Used the more agreed upon definition to speak about Con’s arguments.
Over to Con
Con
#4
== Defence ==
Semantics
Pro’s counter is insubstantially pedantic. Pro opines that
my definition of “God” goes against the “commonly agreed upon use of
the word”. He states that I specifically “defined myself to win”. However,
nowhere did Pro specify that God must pertain to a Theistic denotation. My interpretation of “God” fits
perfectly with Deism i.e “belief in the existence of a supreme being,
specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe” [1]. Moreover, it is intellectually dishonest to assert that I am arguing a
truism – if my opening case is true, we are to accept that our universe was
created by a conscious entity that “willed” our universe into existence.
I am sure if this were a truism, Atheism wouldn’t be such a popular position.
Pro doesn’t really justify why we ought to prefer a Theistic
denotation over a Deistic one outside of the fact that he would rather rebut
the former. Pro chose to leave the
resolution undefined and ambiguous – unless he can show that my interpretation of “God” is inconsistent or incorrect, he is unjustified in disputing it,
especially when I carry the full burden of proof; I should be the one to define
what I am making the positive claim for as long as it accurately pertains to
the resolution.
Pro’s Definitions
Pro cherry picks three, albeit common, definitions of “God”, but to assert that I need to abide by these definitions is nothing short of moving
the goalposts. Pro misconstrues and over
extends the burden of proof by stating that these are the correct definitions
to use. There are many definitions and
interpretations of “God” which is why there exist many religions that
possess many different deities.
The wholly veracity of Pro’s definitions would entail that
the Egyptian, Greek, Norse, Hindu and Buddhist interpretations of “God” are
incorrect. Given that Pro failed to narrow
the scope of the resolution, he is unfair to state that a Deistic
interpretation (which is more than fair) is inapt.
A1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
As it stands, the rebuttals forwarded by Pro that refer to a
different denotation of “God” are irrelevant and can be dismissed.
Premise One
Pro attacks the veracity of intuition and its synonymity
with scientific hypothesis. He states
that one’s intuition is fallible given that it is temperamental and that it is “antithetical” to a hypothesis. Pro fundamentally
misunderstands what a hypothesis is. I noted
in the previous round that a hypothesis is an “initial guess” that
allows for testable predictions to be made. This was corroborated with sources (Cf. R1 [1]). A hypothesis is prima facie intuition
which, by itself, isn’t compelling. However, a hypothesis that remains to be true after thorough testing is compelling. For example, I can hypothesize
that “whatever goes up, must come down”. It can predict that no matter what is thrown in an upward vector, must
eventually come back down. I can test
this by throwing a ball in the air. If I
test this 100 times on Earth, I see that the hypothesis holds true and thus makes
successful predictions. Since the hypothesis
was well tested, its conclusion is to be held with veracity, until
eventually proven false given empirical data. Suppose, the hypothesis was tested in outer
space, the ball goes up… and never comes back down. Thus, the hypothesis fails. Without the knowledge that the hypothesis would
fail in this specific circumstance, its veracity is ostensible. This is how scientific proofs begin – the hypotheses
that withstand scrutiny eventually graduate to become part of scientific
theories.
Pro effectively concedes this premise, given that he states “nothing observable has not followed the cause
and effect principle”. Pro, therefore unknowingly justified
the first premise by stating that no observable occurrence has violated this
hypothesis. Hence, until we are faced with an occurrence that violates this
hypothesis, we are to hold it in high regard.
Moreover, how one feels does not affect the result of the hypothesis. The hypothesis either withstands scrutiny or it doesn’t – the factor of
one’s personal feelings at the time of pondering the hypothesis is extraneous.
Premise Two
Pro does not contest the
second premise.
Preliminary
Address
I have a feeling that
Pro might contend that the fact that “God” was uncaused would invalidate
the hypothesis. However, this is simply
untrue. Our hypothesis would pertain to
what we can measure and observe i.e our universe. If “God” exists sans our
universe it would be unjustified to extrapolate our self-pertaining laws and
inferences to encompass non-universe. For example, it would be inexplicable to assert that a builder must be
red, because the builder built a red house.
A2. The
Incoherence of Personal Causes
Pro doesn’t address
anything specifically. Pro baselessly contends
that the cause is impersonal as it most likely doesn’t have free will. Pro’s assertions aren’t grounded with any
solid reasoning or sourcing. Pro hasn’t explained
why this cause would be operating like a machine, or that the cause would have
to impose its power ad hoc. An
agent could simply “choose not to” interfere with our universe (as such
pertains to Deism). Moreover, the fact
that there must exist one uncaused cause is to prevent the fallacy of reductio
ad infinitum viz. there ought to be an entity to begin the causal chain of
contingency, else the purpose and explanation of the ontology of the causal
chain is never actually demonstrated. I
can assert that X exists, because Y, because Z… ad infinitum, but this
doesn’t actually provide any coherent value, because I can continuously just add
another cause to the chain to avoid grounding an axiomatic explanation for the causes
[2]. With the notion of a personal cause, there eixst no such qualms.
Conclusion
Since I must waive the
following round, I will sum up the debate here. The resolution is affirmed through the idea of an efficient cause existing as the universe’s contingency, validated via Kalam’s Cosmological
Argument. Moreover, I have advocated
that this efficient cause is most likely an agent that “willed” the
universe into existence.
Pro commends that my
interpretation of “God” is unsubstantial, but since it pertains to Deism
– a renowned and popular position – Pro’s justification for preferring any
other definition is reduced to moving the goalposts. Pro then disputes the tenability of using prima
facie intuition to derive facts, which I agree with, but Pro doesn’t
contend the potency of hypotheses that have not been observed to fail (what
underpins scientific theory). Pro
finally asserts that granted an efficient cause, it need not be personal –
however, his argumentation to prove this is lacklustre and unwarrantedly assumes
the necessary behaviour of a personal cause.
Since there are no explicit
rules, I would propose that since I cannot respond to anything stated in the
final round, I ask Pro to refrain from including any new rebuttals that weren’t
previously mentioned.
I thank TRN for instigating
this debate and I look forward to reading his final round.
References
[1] Google “define Deism”
Round 3
Pro
#5
I thank semperfortis for a worthwhile debate.
Semantics
insubstantially pedantic
My substance was the definitions I gave that were the most popular results I found. Sorry for being pedantic for the very thing we were arguing about. Next time I'll argue the definition of chocolate instead in a God debate.
He states that I specifically “defined myself to win”. However, nowhere did Pro specify that God must pertain to a Theistic denotation.
If you look closely. semperfortis did not in anyway defend himself over the truism claim. I don't need to state that the most common use of the word should be used. If that was the case why are we using the same words while we speak? Why aren't you using attack instead of defense?
My interpretation of “God” fits perfectly with Deism i.e “belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe”
Nowhere did you specify that we ought to use your definition and a rule was created that enforced that in a debate rule so I am well within my agency to have a problem with it. This quote is directly from the first. Instead of stating why we should ought to deny my definition or use his he simply states well my definition goes align with Deism. Bearing in mind the amount of people calling themselves Deists. 49,000? That is minuscule. Just comparing the Christian population which is 2.4 billion. There is a giant difference comparing just one Religion. More compared would simply increase the Religious population.
Moreover, it is intellectually dishonest to assert that I am arguing a truism – if my opening case is true, we are to accept that our universe was created by a conscious entity that “willed” our universe into existence
Note that semperfortis didn't actually defend the claim instead stated what would likely occur. Since the defense gave is not even in the same ballpark a defense of the truism it is a non-sequitur. It is more persuasive than anything else. If you can clearly see a person with biases before this debate would either find the non-sequitur to be negative because how possibly can an entity will something into the universe whereas another would just simply see this as what it is. Not a defense just persuasive rhetoric aimed to appeal to the crowd instead of defending himself which he did title this entire round as.
I am sure if this were a truism, Atheism wouldn’t be such a popular position.
Another if position. Con doesn't understand there is a cause of the universe and having God defined as a cause means both are the same thing. The reason why atheism is popular is because people don't use the same definition you do instead a more charitable version which gives people to work with not a less charitable and less agreed upon definition which I have clearly stated to be in the earlier round.
Pro doesn’t really justify why we ought to prefer a Theistic denotation over a Deistic one outside of the fact that he would rather rebut the former.
I guess my opponent didn't read this: "Given this the definition is not meaningful since the majority of people use the one I will just mention it is invalid." Do I need to an ought or should for it to be consider an ought claim? I don't think I do because I can't force anyone to do anything simply state what is like the majority don't use your definition and what it should be considered which is invalid.
unless he can show that my interpretation of “God” is inconsistent or incorrect, he is unjustified in disputing it
Inconsistent with majority of people around the world define it therefore being incorrect if we ought to care about speaking the same thing to one another.
especially when I carry the full burden of proof
So I ought to let you win because you have the burden of proof? If I didn't contest the truism I would've lost this debate because the flaws found in the KCA are very few but the more important ones is when people use this as an argument for God as in the general agreed upon definition. You essentially said since I was giving full burden of proof you should let me win. No that isn't how debates work. We contest an idea and we come to a resolution given to us by our voters.
I should be the one to define what I am making the positive claim for as long as it accurately pertains to the resolution.
The resolution was God does not exist. If it wasn't clear already the generally agreed upon use of God was not followed. You instead disingenuously changed the definition to suit your narrative.
Pro’s Definitions
Pro cherry picks three, albeit common, definitions of “God”,
Cherry-picking is a fallacy that is picking out data to suit your narrative. I didn't. I instead like you stated picked out a common definition. The greater question would be how am I cherry picking from a commonly agreed upon definition of God? It is rhetorical since it wouldn't be consider cherry picking if the majority agree with this definition.
but to assert that I need to abide by these definitions is nothing short of moving the goalposts.
Nowhere did I state you had to abide by my definition nor was I to abide by your definition. We are arguing about the existence about God and if I don't feel it is fair I will question it and I am allowed to.
Pro misconstrues and over extends the burden of proof by stating that these are the correct definitions to use.
I stated we ought to value my definition because it isn't invalid due to it being commonly agreed upon. You already agreed with the commonly agreed part. You are now assuming I expected you to respect my definition. No I didn't like how I didn't respect your definition because of how unfair it is.
There are many definitions and interpretations of “God” which is why there exist many religions that possess many different deities.
Yeah and I am using the most common one.
The wholly veracity of Pro’s definitions would entail that the Egyptian, Greek, Norse, Hindu and Buddhist interpretations of “God” are incorrect.
A definition doesn't make an idea correct or incorrect. It is the arguments you use around it. It just so happens you labelled God as the cause of our existence instead of what is commonly used.
Given that Pro failed to narrow the scope of the resolution, he is unfair to state that a Deistic interpretation (which is more than fair) is inapt.
More fair in terms of giving you essentially truism debate like in the ones here?
Now I just found out sp is not consistent with his own definitions of God.
In the link above he uses "the creator of the universe" but in this one he uses "the sentient, eternal. efficient cause of the contingent universe" and in this one he uses ""God" is defined as "being the creator of the universe and possessing the following attributes:
-Omnipotence (has the power to do anything)
-Transcendence (outside space-time)
-Omniscience (has unlimited knowledge)"
If it wasn't clear my opponent definitely doesn't like being consistent. If he used one of these definitions he is being incorrect on the other two. His very argument about interpretations about God would mean he is incorrect if people actually think that was a good enough argument.
A1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
As it stands, the rebuttals forwarded by Pro that refer to a different denotation of “God” are irrelevant and can be dismissed.
I have shown the opposite to be the case.
I noted in the previous round that a hypothesis is an “initial guess” that allows for testable predictions to be made.
The initial guess is a very small part of a hypothesis. The more important and the one you clearly missed was collecting data. If your measurements are wrong or you don't know how to use it, it doesn't matter how good your guess is. It is still a guess.
Hence, until we are faced with an occurrence that violates this hypothesis, we are to hold it in high regard.
You base yours on intuition. I base mine on evidence. I have clearly show before this how mine is superior to yours.
the factor of one’s personal feelings at the time of pondering the hypothesis is extraneous.
Loss of time. Loss of funds. Given the situation it varies of the amount lost. Personal feelings do matter which is why scientists try to remain objective not clouded by biases and feelings.
Premise Two
Pro does not contest the second premise.
Neither needed too nor wanted too.
Preliminary Address
An un-caused being goes against the very principle I didn't reject in premise one yet you are so adamant to forget about it here.
A2. The Incoherence of Personal Causes
Given my interpretation is more fair your entire points breaks down which gives me very little to rebut given the foundation was invalid.
because I can continuously just add another cause to the chain to avoid grounding an axiomatic explanation for the causes [2].
Yes that can happen but you have yet to justify that given that this exception is only offered for God you can't compared this to another entity.
Conclusion
I thank my opponent again for a worthwhile debate. I think I have done to show my side is better than my opponents and hope it shows in the voting period. Thanks again semperfortis.
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:
Interpreting the resolution:
Definition of God (seriously, this debate moved to that).
Gist:
So a lot of bandwagon appeals… A couple decent Ks… Got to say it, this is a fine example of why three rounds is preferable to two… Final thing, pro let con control the debate, not introducing any of his own contentions (which is fine to do, but is also risky).
1. Definitions
Con wants to just say God is the name for whatever willingly created the universe, pro wants God to be the usual Christian definition.
The debate description did define God as he, but that is very ambiguous. Were con to have not engaged in the contention about Incoherence of Impersonal Causes, I would be more sympathetic to pro. More rounds also might have helped, as this was effectively a two round debate, and demanding such a large change and retooling would reduce it down to basically a single round debate.
I don’t understand pro’s final round bit about “Next time I'll argue the definition of chocolate instead in a God debate.” As for the truism claim, it had been countered by the bandwagon appeal to atheism.
2. KCA
Usual KCA, but with the definition in use it side-steps the usual problem that the KCA does not indicate any particular God (nor even an intelligent deity involved… which he goes on to address under the next contention).
The strawperson “when I see a video online of a tree growing it is not a sign of God it is a sign of a tree growing” failed to refute this argument line. Also pointing out the flawed way the KCA is normally used also fails to refute.
3. Incoherence Problem
I was not moved by this, but it bridged several gaps.
Reductio ad infinitum (/but what created that first cause?/ That actually agrees with con’s definition for God as skipping to the first cause instead of any number down the chain) does not counter this; and I should mention that con brought this up R1.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
Conduct:
This took a small hit in the final round, when con could not respond anymore pro did large scale direct rebuttals on the definition. Not enough to lose the point, but worth noting.
This is interesting. Semperfortis looks like my kind of debater. Its a shame he's no longer active. I would of loved to debate this with someone who has such a good grasp of philosophy.
There is no god.
Things beyond human reasoning have always been drafted into a greater thing than us in order to understand ourselves and control others, most of all.
yeah sempor won
This was a pretty close one. I believe the debate largely moved in goalpost to definition of God, and under that I found con's chosen definitions more reasonable, especially since he had BoP and it was a two round debate to which he would not have the last word (I think I explained in my RFD that forcing him to restart with another would reduce it to a single round debate, which would be extremely unfair). That some definitions are more commonly used, doesn't mean they are better; and con did include a whole contention linking his definition to being an agent of volition rather than just chance (which was challenged under pro's definition, not cons).
Comparing the strength of the contentions for and against, and then the refutations for each, that God exists (at least within the stated definition) seems true. I was not left in question of the validity nor soundness of con's case (https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/), and his pre-refutations took the major sting out of the offense (things like mentioning the infinite regression problem).
Can you tell me how semperfortis won?
It wasn't clear in your vote.
No worries.
Thanks for taking the time to vote!
I won’t be voting here; as a comment I made to TRN made it into his debate argument - I wasn’t intending it as coaching or an argument suggestion, nor offered any further advice; but Given that the comment was made, I won’t be voting and I’m going to avoid any impression of impropriety; and recuse myself from vote moderation on this debate too.
Looking at SFs definition, my first thought was that we know the universe is caused, and an atheistic explanation would qualify as God under SFs definition, so I inherently agree with TRNs objection, and I made a comment along those lines - and my comment to him seemed to have spurred this round. I won’t comment further on whether he made a good defense.
Hi, if any of you have time to spare over the next two days could you please vote on this debate?
Good luck as well.
No, I now must prey to my very specific, uncommon, incorrect, unfair definition of God -- thanks for the debate and good luck.
Guess you deleted your blatant vote influencing.
Do you want to carry on speaking or is this it for you influencing voter decision?
Why are you telling me this now?
Are you trying to influence voters?
I didn't start this in the comment section you did.
Are there other things you would like to tell voters to influence their decision?
Not going anywhere and don't want to talk about it.
Please make another debate which puts an unfair burden on your opponent if they don't decide to challenge your assumptions.
Again, purely pedantic. Theism differs -- so slightly -- from Deism insofar that they believe that the creator intervenes in the universe. Craig might believe that the amalgamation of "uncaused, timeless, supreme etc. being" represents a theistic interpreation, even though the properties don't directly imply that -- this part is purely up to personal opinion.
How does there exist a 'most' common definition? Christianity represents a mere 30% of the religious population -- Hinduism has a multiplicity of Gods which wouldn't match your definition. Allah and the Christian God might prima facie have the same definition yet posit different things about our universe which would render them as different interpretations -- if one were to choose one interpretation over the other they are burdened with the scripture that comes with it.
>>I literally stated the KCA as William Lane Craig would argue it
How about the definition of God?
Oh wait they are different meaning both of you actually meant different things when referring to God. Okay.
>>remarking upon the theological implications of this union of properties."
Oh so Craig meant it with the theist perspective but you meant it with the deist perspective as in 49,000 people vs a lot more.
>>Would you personally, not consider a conscious cause of our universe to be God?
Why does what I personally think matter? You changed the definition to make the KCA pretty much align with it even though it doesn't. God is defined one way and you changed that majority definition which made the KCA different given the change in meanings.
>>There is no socially agreed upon definition of "God" as there exists hundreds of different "God's" pertaining to different religions.
I don't know what you are doing here but you are not convincing me of there isn't a consensus of the word God.
>>Many argue that they, themselves are God in a framework of solipsism -- the fact that they are not omnipotent or omnibenevolent wouldn't refute that.
How many people?
>> If our universe were simulated by a greater intellgence, we would ascribe them as being God. If we were to simulate a universe identical to ours and create life -- we would consider ourselves the "God" of that universe, yet we don't match the definition of God you provided.
What if it isn't? I would like concrete examples how the Abrahamic version of God is not the consensus. Even Hindus also call God the supreme being which if we total all of them up would mean a majority of the population have the same definition of God. Even excluding Hinduism just Christianity and Islam is more than 50% of the population. Hinduism agreeing just makes my case even better.
I literally stated the KCA as William Lane Craig would argue it; appending his additional premise of a personal cause. Please observe:
"Craig concludes that the cause of the existence of the universe is an "uncaused, personal Creator ... who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful"; remarking upon the theological implications of this union of properties." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)
I am still very unsure why you find a personal cause of our universe to be an unsubstantial view of God. Would you personally, not consider a conscious cause of our universe to be God?
>>But my argument wasn't just the KCA
That was the main argument. The other argument required the first because of how the ideas link. Cause and effect was again used in the second argument but was more important in the first given the KCA was the one that actually fulfilled the burden of proof if I followed your definition. You even mention it here as an addition "Now that it has been established that the universe is contingent upon an efficient cause, I assert that the only a personal cause (i.e an agent of volition) could be the only rational explanation."
>> If that were a truism we would be faced with the fact that our universe was caused by a conscious being.
It is a truism because you defined God differently to fit in the KCA argument basically removing the most important gripes when using the KCA as an argument for God. I called you out in the debate for using different definitions of God when I am guessing you know the commonly agreed definition of God.
>>That's why I stated that Atheism wouldn't be very plausible if it were a truism.
This was about whether or not God exists. Not about atheism.
>>Moreover, the idea of a caused universe is certainly not a truism, the KCA is heavily criticized.
Yeah because it is link to God as in the perfect being not the efficient cause to our universe. Please see my arguments again for a run down on why I challenged the assumptions and how I went about it.
There is no socially agreed upon definition of "God" as there exists hundreds of different "God's" pertaining to different religions. Many argue that they, themselves are God in a framework of solipsism -- the fact that they are not omnipotent or omnibenevolent wouldn't refute that. If our universe were simulated by a greater intellgence, we would ascribe them as being God. If we were to simulate a universe identical to ours and create life -- we would consider ourselves the "God" of that universe, yet we don't match the definition of God you provided.
But my argument wasn't just the KCA, i also provided that the cause was an agent of volition (i.e consciousness). If that were a truism we would be faced with the fact that our universe was caused by a conscious being. That's why I stated that Atheism wouldn't be very plausible if it were a truism.
Moreover, the idea of a caused universe is certainly not a truism, the KCA is heavily criticized.
That isn't my position.
The resolution was God does not exist.
KCA is an argument for a cause of its existence.
You decided to call God the cause of its existence.
I called it a truism because of that.
You used a very different definition to God essentially make the KCA be an argument for God when it never was if we care about using the socially agreed upon definition of God.
By the way, I forgot to ask why you think that Deism is a truism?
:1
There is a small typo in my second round, it should read "A2. The Incoherence of Impersonal Causes"
Thanks. Good luck to you as well.
Thanks for instigating the debate. I enjoyed how the resolution was left ambiguous and required justification throughout. Good luck in the final round.
semper
Has a temper
His opponents whimper
When he posts his arguments
Okay.
I'm defining God as like an efficient cause of the universe -- I will formally define it in my round.
I think that in this debate, the burden of proof should be shared and not only on Con, since you're making a claim as well. It's the job of the person making a claim to prove that claim, not the job of the opponent of the claim to prove that claim wrong. It would be wrong for your claim that God does not exist to win simply because Con could not provide sufficient evidence. As I'm sure you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and just because we cannot prove the existence of God does not mean that God does not exist.