Does God Exist?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Thank you for agreeing to debate this topic with me.
Resolved: It is probable that God exists.
1. Opening Arguments
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.
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.
"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."
You are both simply wrong.
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.
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.
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."
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.
1. Did Pro respond to the claim that any action considered by him to be moral is reducible to homeostasis?
2. Did Pro ever answer the question, without time how does Pro know the universe didn't create god?
3. Did Pro ever counter that without spacetime, creation is impossible?
I'm going to let you know that he didn't, and these are all resolution-impacting points.
You have to analyze Pro's performance for what Pro did, and because of the forfeit and the mispost, Pro did not fulfill his entire burden which was to show:
1. an entity not limited in power, in terms of number, quantity, or extent i.e. has all powers
2. an entity not limited in knowledge i.e. has all knowledge
3. an entity not limited in goodness, in terms of extent
4. an entity that used the process of creation to bring about the origin of the universe and therefore spacetime
5. an entity that exercises dominion over said originated universe
6. an entity that serves as a source of the principles concerning right and wrong with respect to the ways in which one acts towards others.
If Pro did not counter any of the charges that Con brought up for each of these, then you cannot vote Pro.
I mean this is ridiculous that I have to explain this when it's obvious from the forfeit and mispost that this debate goes to Con.
Stop voting your opinions.
In your reading of the arguments, did Pro drop any arguments...be honest
I know what the monotheistic God is.
The Supreme Being
The Ultimate Reality
If that helps.
But I stand with my vote. As I said, your ignorance of what God means does not shift the burden of proof. I did read all the arguments. I also took points away from instigator for forfeiting which I believe was appropriate. Many words don't make the better argument.
Much love. God exists, it is a surety.
"You not understanding what God means does not shift the burden of proof to instigator."
My understanding of god is irrelevant, what do the definitions of god in the debate say?
That's the definition of god to be talked about, no other definitions.
"Sorry, I found instigator more convincing."
It's ok to find the instigator more convincing, but to say that Pro met their burden without showing how they met their burden, you're voting in how YOU would counter these arguments, not the debater.
Also, you ignoring the obvious drops by Pro is unfair.
Are you aware of Pro's drops, or no?
"You said there could be objective morality without God, but that doesn't make sense because there is no objectivity without God."
Ok, while it may not make sense to you, you need to show HOW Pro countered this, not how you think it should have been countered.
The truth is, that Pro never countered my homeostasis examples and you simply ignored that.
" I find it much more difficult to believe that everything began to exist out of nothing for no reason than to believe that everything came into being because of a cause."
While it's nice to know how you perceive things, it's irrelevant to HOW the debater countered my quantum fluctuation argument and the argument of temporal creation.
Did you consider these things when you voted?
You not understanding what God means does not shift the burden of proof to instigator.
You said there could be objective morality without God, but that doesn't make sense because there is no objectivity without God.
Instigator presented evidence began, which is what created means. It came into being. I find it much more difficult to believe that everything began to exist out of nothing for no reason than to believe that everything came into being because of a cause.
Sorry, I found instigator more convincing. Good show.
I know, but the rules of the debate have voters considering all resolution impacting points. As it stands, you've mentioned none of them. Again, thank you for your vote, but if you could analyze points like the creation of the universe, omnipotence, and objective morality, you can put up a solid vote to show how Pro's burden, to prove a creator of the universe, was met or not met. Rewrite it and include all resolution-impacting points. Otherwise it might get removed.
It was based on the debater performance I believed you conducted yourself better if the votes cannot be opinionated then no one can vote period. The two of you made good points however I found you were able to ask harder and better questions for PRO and that PRO could not answer them.
While I appreciate the vote, and realize it's for me, it is in no way thorough enough or addresses all of the resolution impacting points. Also, you can't vote your opinion, you have to vote on debater performance.
Looks like I'm gonna need those argument points bud.
A forfeit and a misposted round are not enough to fend off theist voters.
Look at the comment below for Mopac's vote please.
I appreciate you voting, but if Pro did not respond to all of Con's contentions that directly impact the resolution and show how Pro has not met his burden, you can't give Pro argument points because of YOUR thoughts on how there is absolute truth, or there must be a creator. You have to vote based on debater performance, and even Pro in this case has mentioned that he did not meet his burden.
I ask that you reconsider your vote to reflect debater performance instead of your own opinions about it.
God loves you. You are not going to burn in a fiery pit regardless of what any fire and brimstone preacher has told you
What does the bible say about hell "sheol" ? What part describes it I. The way you describe. Google the translated word sheol to find out what he'll really is
God is pretty mean. He decided to burn most of the world's population in hell forever with no chance of escaping. No one deserves to burn in hell forever.
Batman's vote will likely get removed, so you should still have a comfortable lead even if I fail to follow through
I have to go to work shortly. I don't want my vote removed for not providing a thorough RFD. I plan to give a more thorough RFD when I clear up some time
You stated in your RFD that I won arguments because the burden was not met, but you didn't award me points because you need to analyze it further?
You said tri omni was not met, you can't just give me the points?
"Why is it nonsense when the claim is that god is UNLIMITED?
That's the nonsense part."
Language is imperfect and impercise, it is also short hand for much broader concepts. If I tell my wife she can do whatever she wants after she divorces me, I'm not telling her she can grow wings and fly. I am saying she is unrestricted by me personally. Julius Caesar was often referred to as omnipotent, and somehow the definition of that has been twisted. When they called Caeser omnipotent they were aware he had human and natural limitations (despite being declared a God later). I think more time needs to be taken to hash out semantics before any religious orientated debate happens, so many terms have different interpretations by different participants. If you think omnipotent means that God can pie a triangle (a nonsense statement) and your opponent thinks he is all powerful in respect to how much power he has not in his ability to do anything, than it is not going to be a productive debate. Let's do 5 rounds where nothing is voted on and me and you just hash out some semantics on a God debate, so we have a common understanding of words we can agree on
1. Is the ability to fly a power that god has?
2. Is the ability to fly "triangling a circle?"
3. Birds can fly and are not limited by unnatural means yet to admit that god could fly, would be to admit his utter submission to the laws of gravity and aerodynamics and that he needs to maneuver around them to travel distance in the air, so is god still omnipotent given this natural lack of an ability to fly?
""having power in terms of authority and as well as the ability not limited or restricted, by any unnatural means in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything, that is not a logical absurdity like to triangle a circle."
This definition makes you and I both omnipotent just like that definition of golf made baseball golf.
"Nobody can violate logic, even god. He is still omnipotent, it is just nonsense to ask if he can do shit like "make a square octupus rectangle himself blu in the basketball" nonsense,"
Why is it nonsense when the claim is that god is UNLIMITED?
That's the nonsense part.
"no less sensible than trying to refute omnipotence by asking if he can make a rock even he can't move or hwatever lame scenario kids are talking about these days."
Why is it not sensible, if the claim is that god is able to do anything, as nearly every definition of all powerful i.e. omni-potent corroborates, for god to be UNABLE to violate logic would be a direct contradiction and if he does violate logic then the power to infinitely remain logical is not possessed by him and thus is limited in the number of powers...it's not omnipotence, period.
Just read the debate, your definitions are descriptive not prescriptive and the definition of omnipotent is incomplete. Here is the definition "having power not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything."
Definitions are kept short in dictionaries on purpose. Here is the definition of golf "a game in which clubs with wooden or metal heads are used to hit a small, white ball into a number of holes, usually 9 or 18, in succession, situated at various distances over a course having natural or artificial obstacles, the object being to get the ball into each hole in as few strokes as possible."
I could take a bat and start smacking baseballs into ten random holes I dug by tossing the ball into the air and batting it in those directions, but we all know that isn't golf. A more proper but yet still incomplete definition of omnipotent might say the following:
"having power in terms of authority and as well as the ability not limited or restricted, by any unnatural means in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything, that is not a logical absurdity like to triangle a circle."
Look at you run away...you run funny!
Hahaha ethang5 submitted to me.
He has no answer to the flaws of his vote that will be removed anyway...