Does God Exist?
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 4 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Philosophy
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 10,000
Thank you for agreeing to debate this topic with me.
TERMS
Resolved: It is probable that God exists.
Rounds:
1. Opening Arguments
2. Rebuttals
3. Rebuttals
4. Closing arguments/Rebuttals
For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, I am not referring to any specific deity. Hence religious-specific doctrines such as the incarnation, Sinaic revelation, and the trinity are irrelvant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.
The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable. It is thus not enough to simply refute my arguments. My opponent must also erect his own case against the probability of God's existence.
Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.
All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.In the case of the universe, the fact that the microwave background has such an exactly thermal spectrum indicates that it must have been scattered many times. The universe must therefore contain enough matter, to make it opaque in every direction we look, because the microwave background is the same, in every direction we look. Moreover, this opacity must occur a long way away from us, because we can see galaxies and quasars, at great distances. Thus there must be a lot of matter at a great distance from us. The greatest opacity over a broad wave band, for a given density, comes from ionised hydrogen. It then follows that if there is enough matter to make the universe opaque, there is also enough matter to focus our past light cone. One can then apply the theorem of Penrose and myself, to show that time must have a beginning.The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth.
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Exodus 21:20 + Exodus 21:21
"no proof of the young woman"s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing...by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you." Deuteronomy 22:13 - 22:21
C2 "Because the universe began to exist, this cause...must exist necessarily...this is exactly what we call God." -Pro
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause. From nothing comes nothing. This is a metaphysical truth and it would be absurd to deny it."
"P1: If objective moral facts exist, then God exists.P2: Objective moral facts existC: Therefore, God exists"
"If atheism and naturalism is true, then all things are morally permissible."
"If the atheist says that evolution can account for morality, then the atheist needs to answer the question when did these moral facts exist. If we could go back in time before this evolution, would it be morally permissible to commit genocide or torture babies for fun?"
As for this round of rebuttals, the KCA is invalid and unsound because of circular reasoning and virtual particle pairing respectively, and the moral argument ignores atheistic objective measures of morality like homeostasis.
2. Bu
3. Cu
Pro, could you explain the mechanism by which god accomplishes this exemption?
If you can't, then how do you know that this exemption has occurred?
"The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes.""Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos," said panelist Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute. "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it."
Consider now an oak tree. Let’s say we have one oak tree that has strong roots and sinks its roots deep into the ground, and the other has weak roots and doesn’t sink its roots deep into the ground. Which one is the good oak tree? Which one is the bad?
Obviously, the former is the good oak tree, since it does what an oak tree is supposed to do given its nature—that is to say, it achieves the ends its nature directs it toward (e.g., sinking deep roots into the ground, taking in nutrition, and growing). Notice once again nature determines what is a good or bad instance of a thing.
The oak tree’s nature also helps us determine what is good and bad for the tree. If we were to spray the tree with poison, would the oak tree achieve its natural ends of sinking roots deep into the ground, taking in nutrition, and growing? Of course not! Therefore, we can say that poison is bad for the tree given its nature. And notice that what is bad for the tree is independent of what you are I think; it is an objective fact.
---
The same reasoning applies to human beings. Human beings have a nature or essence with various capacities and ends the fulfillment of which is good and the frustration of which is bad, as a matter of objective fact.
As we see, there are many things God cannot do, many "limitations" He cannot bring upon Himself. But this is because these "limitations" are not really limitations at all, but rather the necessary result of being unlimited.In other words, the resolution of the omnipotence paradox is that God's inability to make Himself finite is not a lack or flaw on His part at all. This limitation is not testimony to His imperfection. On the contrary, it is actually the ultimate expression of His perfection."
The greatness of an infinite, unlimited being is that He can never lose His unlimited nature. God can never go against logic and make a round triangle, expend too much energy and become tired, nor compromise His perfect memory and forget things. God can never become bound by finite terms. It is an error to view this inability as a limitation that reflects a weakness on God's part. It is really the exact opposite. What makes God so infinitely powerful is that He cannot do the things we mortals can do.85 It is only because of our finitude – our natural weakness and restrictions – that we experience limitations such as sickness, depression, immortality, or the inability to lift a heavy rock. For the Infinite One, however, His all-powerful nature simply does not allow for such weaknesses.
1. http://www.aish.com/atr/Who_Made_God.html
2. https://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html
3. https://www.britannica.com/science/homeostasis
4. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-natural-law-a-guide-for-how-to-be-human
5. http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Can-God-Create-a-Rock-He-Cant-Pick-Up.html
"Con argues that the argument inherently separates things into the category of things that begins to exist and things that does not begin to exist. This is a gross misunderstanding of the argument!"
"Con completely drops the argument that the universe is finite."
"God, however, is infinite (per the definition). Because God is infinite, He did not have to be created (1)."
"Whatever created the Universe must be, by logical definition, exist outside the realm of creation (transcendent). This cause also had to be infinite and causeless because of the very fact that God is infinite."
"Do you agree that an infinite regress is impossible? If so, you must accept that there is a first cause."
"these fluctuations are causally conditioned in that they depend on the existence of a pre-existing quantum vacuum."
"So we see here that the laws of physics pre-dates the universe."
"Con concedes several major points: (1) that objective moral facts exist; (2) that these facts can be known through reason and logic; and (3) these laws are rooted in natural law."
"why should we act morally from an atheistic point of view? As I pointed out in the first round:"
"These commands must come from a competent law giver for these objective commands to be binding on all of humans throughout all of time."
"Why should humans act morally?"
"What should be/are the consequences for acting immorally?"
"As we see, there are many things God cannot do, many "limitations..."
1. God cannot create a square triangle.2. God cannot sin.3. There are things He cannot bring upon Himself.4. God's inability to make Himself finite.5. He can never lose His unlimited nature.6. God can never go against logic.7. God can never expend too much energy.8. God can never become tired.9. God can never forget things.10. He cannot do the things we mortals can do.
"As we see, there are many "limitations" He cannot bring upon Himself. These "limitations" are not really limitations at all, but rather the necessary result of being unlimited. This limitation is actually the ultimate expression of His perfection."
Pro responds:"Easy. How does one distinguish an inventor and an invention?"
"The answer to this question is that the Creator is an infinite and eternal being and the creation is finite in nature."
'In my survey of the abortion debate, the question of whether a zygote, embryo or fetus is alive is one of the most crucial. Frequently those who are pro-life argue, as Rubio did, that science is clear on this issue. Human life begins at conception. The pro-choice folks then question this and say there is debate about it. Although I am pro-choice, there should be no debate about this issue. The facts are clear and with the appropriate definition of terms we can unequivocally conclude that human life begins at conception."
It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being; and the same is true of the most profoundly and irreparably intellectually disabled human being, even of an infant who is born anencephalic - literally, without a brain.
Thanks for the debate Pro; it's been real.
I’m still waiting for you to give me a reason why you think my interpretation of the code is conduct is wrong.
The fact that a couple of fools does not take me seriously does not bother me.
Ya'll are the ones who are going to suffer, not me.
It’s stuff like this that shows why no one takes you seriously, and sometimes wonder whether you have genuine issues in either communication or intelligence:
I am simply wrong? What part specifically, and why? What I said is close to verbatim what the code of conduct says about how you should vote and what ways it is valid, so not only am I not wrong, your vote got removed because you’re wrong.
I get the feeling that you are not capable of even comprehending that people don’t agree with you, and you appear to be resorting to the eroneous conclusion that your utter inability to present a reasonable argument is a problem with all the innumerable people who find your argument irrational, rather than in the one person who made the argument.
Your response to your premise being flawed is:
"you are wrong."
Noted.
You are both simply wrong.
Look.
You're running a circular argument, almost an argument tautology, that is just saying:
P1 God is the truth.
C1 If you claim truth, then you claim god.
The problem is that no one's buying that god is truth, i.e. your P1 in your circular argument is not automatically made sound by adding truth to the definition of god in the debate.
Neither debater indicated god is truth, so saying that if we accept truth or agree with truth then we necessarily accept god's existence or agree with god's existence is irrelevant.
Your P1 is rejected sir.
You can’t vote based on the arguments you would have made, of the reasons you are thinking of for why one side is wrong. You vote based on what both sides argue.
Con conceded the moral argument when he admitted objective morality existed.
Neither con or moderator realize this because they don't understand the conception of God. If they did, they wouldn't identify as atheists, because anyone who holds a believe that literally means nothing is ultimately real is crazy.
Virt shouldn't have to say that God is The Truth because that is what God means.
It says in the description we are talking about judeo-christian monotheism.
I know what my God is.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Batman485 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro had a way better argument, and there is definite proof in his arguments. Con has provided a list of fantasies that he tells himself to justify not being in a religion.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to justify all of their non-argument points, and their argument point justification is insufficient. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments and how the played out in the debate, and then weigh those arguments to identify a winner.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Purple // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: CON had the more convincing arguments and was able to conduct himself much clearer as well as being able to ask questions that PRO could not answer which pushed me towards CON.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the points awarded. To award argument points, the voter must survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments and how the played out in the debate, and then weigh those arguments to identify a winner. To award Conduct points, the voter must either identify a forfeit, unfairness, or excessive misconduct.
************************************************************************
Mopac's RFD:
I thought that both debaters used good sources and there wasn't anything that stuck out enough in the spelling and grammar department to warrent anything other than a tie. Even though pro apologized for forfeiting a round, I still think that is bad enough to sway conduct in favor of con.
As far as the arguments themselves...
When it comes to the cosmological argument, I don't buy into con's claim that God is special pleading, because it makes eense to me that there had to always be some form of existence, and that is what "supreme being" means. We are talking about God after all.
As far as the moral argument, it seems to me that con concedes that there is objective morality, which couldn't be the case if there wasn't an "Absolute Truth". We are talking about God after all. That said, I think instigator's argument seems to be contingent on revealed scripture, and the description says we are not talking about that... either way, con claims that there can be objective morality which is nonsense because without Truth there is no objective anything.
The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford. It seems to me that this is simply con's interpretation of what that means, which I can say is not really correct. I think instigator addresses this satisfactorily.
In the end, I think instigator argued better, but I must admit he is pretty much representing William Lane Craig's case. I don't think he is trying to hide this.
In the end, what is the question? Is it probable that God exists? Not only does it seem probable, it really seems necessary.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mopac // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct, 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: [posted above]
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter sufficiently justifies awarding conduct points by pointing to the forfeit. What is problematic about the vote is that the voter seems to insert analysis external to the debate into his vote, namely, that nothing can be objective without the "Truth." Nowhere does this seem present in the debate, and indeed, the voter fails to consider any counterarguments along the lines of objective morality at all. The voter must, per the site policy, assess both the main arguments and counterarguments in their RFD. As this is not done, the argument point justification is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Yes - among other things it means omnipotence - which means limitless power - which both pro and con argues does not exist.
Judeo-christian monotheism
I know what that means.
It's in the description.
Actually Mopac - OED defines omnipotence as “(of a deity) having unlimited power.” This is exactly what con was arguing, and it was pro who was attempting to argue a different position. Both pro and con were effectively arguing that omnipotence as defined can’t exist.
Your RFD appears to be pulling much information from outside of this debate, including from your own beliefs - as you appear to be justifying your RFD based on argument from some sort of “absolute Truth”, which is an argument pro didn’t make. You should be making voting decisions based on whether pro and con made a better argument, not whether con didn’t refute information you have in your head.
The way that he addressed your argument was satisfactory and the way the William Lane Craig would debate this. Instigator is pretty much arguing straight William Lane Craig.
I would recommend the book Reasonable Faith for you to read, it is pretty interesting.
"The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford."
Did Pro make this point, that the definition or the argument was silly because it wasn't backed up by some source?
If you answer no to this, I urge you to remove your vote.
I will do no such thing.
And I have been voted against on sources for using my opponent in a debate's sources which I don't think is fair.
It's a good thing that an arbitrary panel of judges doesn't determine what truth is, eh?
Ok, well I urge you to urge the mods to remove it.
"The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford."
Did Pro make this point, that the definition or the argument was silly because it wasn't backed up by some source?
If you answer no to this, I urge you to remove your vote.
"It seems to me that this is simply con's interpretation of what that means"
Which was unchallenged by Pro, right?
"which I can say is not really correct."
Are you voting on what Pro says is not really correct or are you voting on what YOU say is not really correct?
" I think instigator addresses this satisfactorily."
Really?
Give an example.
"In the end, I think instigator argued better:"
Because of what YOU thought of or what the debater brought up?
Even if I wanted to, I cannot change my vote.
Can you chime in on this being the debater in this silly vote.
Please tell Mopac what's up.
Ok, please respond to my questions first.
I don't always address every argument someone might address toward me. That doesn't discredit my position. lf that was the case, the person who comes up with the most convoluted arguments would always be the best debater.
The Standard model of physics that is accepted and even believed on b ly those who out of ignorance of the subject matter deny God agree that there was a beginning of the universe.
Steven Hawking, who the instigator referenced spent his whole life trying to get around this, and despite his cleverness couldn't. People are still trying to work their way around this.
I'm not really interested in debating you on the comments section though, Instigator made a better case imo.