God definitely exists
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
Definition of God:
The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God of the bible.
Rules:
* Avoid commiting these fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
* respond as fast as possible
* do not offend or insult anyone
(Note that I will also be held up by these rules
Everything that happens has a cause.
- Falsifiable on via the principle of retrocausality. Experiments such as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser designed by Yoon-Ho Kim aim to prove the existence of backwards causation. Said experiment is a rather complicated construction - it is set up to measure correlated pairs of photons, which are in an entangled state, so that one of the two photons is detected 8 nanoseconds before its partner. The result indicates that the behaviour of the photons detected 8 nanoseconds before their partners is determined by how the partners will be detected. Undeniably, this should act as proof of backwards causation, in that the effect has affected the cause.
- Moreover, quantum entanglement further affirms this point, and shows that when a particle is observed and its wave function collapses, the entangled particles interact with each other retrocausally.
- Furthermore, revisitation of the famous Bell Theorem, which was once under great scrutiny finds that the quantum non-locality observed in nature in the form of statistical correlations violating Bell’s inequality can be understood as the signature of retrocausal effects.
- Another issue is PRO's application of this premise - they assert that as all things seem to abide by laws of causation, therefore the entire set of entities must also abide by causation. This is akin to asserting that, as each bird in the flock has a mother, the collective flock also has a mother.
- p1. If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils (GE).
- p2. There are gratuitous evils in the world.
- c1. God does not exist.
The problem with retrocausality is that it is just a concept.
" Black's "bilking argument" held that retrocausality is impossible because the observer of an effect could act to prevent its future cause from ever occurring.
retrocausality has to happen within time, but there was no time before the big bang so retrocausality can't therefore happen.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
- Free will
- If the first premise of the Kalam is true, this will nullify free will.
- p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
- p2. Any specific brain states began to exist.
- c1. Any specific brain state had a cause.
- p3. The cause to a specific brain state can be causally linked to a factor prior to my existence.
- p4. One does not control factors prior to their existence
- c2. There lacks free will.
- Quantum Mechanics
- The first premise of the Kalam forbids randomness in any ways. The existence of randomness nullifies this condition.
- Radioactivity
First of all, if there is no God what objective moral standards do you have to justify God as being evil?
Wrong, God gave Adam and Eve free will, and Adam misused the free will.
Me: I will agree that gratuitous evils do exist
Although we can't see the good in this horrible event, we sometimes have to suffer to for a better future. Characters in every great story have to go through hardships to achieve their goals. And the Jews did get a better future after the holocaust. When the holocaust was discovered many people saw how horrible it was and the evils of dictatorship. Then after ww2 the UN was formed to keep world peace, and the rise of philosemitism(the opposite of antisemitism) that began after the holocaust. Anne Frank's diary became famous, a country was formed for Jews to live in and escape antisemitism(Israel).
p1. It is logically possible that a maximally great being(MGB) exists. A
p2. If it is possible for an MGB to exist, then it exists in some possible worlds: We can all imagine a possible world for a maximally great being to exist
- That if the first premise of the Kalam is true, we would not have free will ergo, a contradiction to an all loving being.
- Radioactivity, which stipulates a truly random ionizing of particles
- Quantum number generators, which create truly random numbers.
I will start by saying that retrocausality is basically just - in my words and from what I have read - a cause traveling back in time to cause something else, which doesn't violate the first premise and is still a cause.
- Suppose I clap my hand and emit a sound.
- Suppose I roll activate a quantum number generator.
This debate was ultimately flawed in its execution and rule set, the inclusion of both the term 'definitely' and the definition of God ("The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God of the bible.")
Contention 1: Kalam Cosmological Argument
In R1, PRO brings up the Kalam Argument, which states:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
In rebuttal of the first point (Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence), CON brings up retro causality and quantum entanglement, in which the effects can affect the causes. PRO argues that it is just a hypothetical concept and not visible with evidence, and further states that it's impossible by Black's Bilking Argument, which CON correctly catches as a mistake between macroscopic retro causality and microscopic retro causality. PRO then makes an incorrect assumption about the term, so this argument is given to CON
Since the BOP for PRO was to make sure no contentions were arguable...
P1: Definitely implies there is no contention
P2: There is a contention
C: The resolution is false.
GGs Bones
I may have lost but at least I had fun and gained experience.
Can you specify what you mean by narrow-minded?
I will say this, I agree that Bones won, I just think the votes casted were very poor in quality and extremely narrow minded.
I don't agree with the votes cast, but good job to both debaters.
You have restated what he said. Gratuitous evils can't exist if there is no objective moral standards - which don't exist if God didn't exist.
The point FLRW was making is that God cannot be:
The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God of the bible.
Since you would have to prove all these points, and you conceded the "gratuitous evils" point, he wins by default.
I personally don't care if I win or lose. I only care if I tried my best.
The gratuitous evils do not do away with the existence of God.
Even worse my opponent may as well have been shooting himself in the foot with this argument as he doesn't give any objective standards for judging good or evil.
From: Bsh1's Guide to Voting using the 7-point System
Now, that doesn’t mean you need to write pages upon pages for your RFD. Oftentimes a lengthy paragraph will suffice. As long as you touch upon everything you need to, your RFD is long enough. And, remember, longer doesn’t mean better. Long RFDs can be just as bad as RFDs that are a sentence long; quality should be emphasized over quantity.
A little...short? Especially for a three round 10k character debate.
At least respect all the other arguments by adressing them
In this debate this is the definition of God: The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God of the bible. Con shows that a omnibenevolent God does not exist. Con states: Contention I: Gratuitous evils
p1. If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils (GE).
p2. There are gratuitous evils in the world.
c1. God does not exist.
p1. is true by virtue of truism. By definition, a GE is a type of evil of which creates no good. A GE does not lead to virtue, does not teach a lesson, and is completely unjust. A GE definitionally cannot be cannot be justified by "free will" or "compensation in a latter life", for such would be a God justified good. By definition, a GE is inexcusably immoral. Thus, as God is omnibenevolent (all loving, infinitely loving) he would not allow gratuitous evil to occur.
Pro states: Me: I will agree that gratuitous evils do exist.
This alone shows that God does not exist.
Some votes would be good, considering how this debate will close in 5 days.
vote now!
okay.
Pleasure. Word of advice: In your next debates, avoid the word "definitely". Rarely anything is definite in life.
It has been a pleasure debating with you,
stop arguing and enjoy the debate.
ComputerNerd...do you understand what a joke means?
Also, Conservalectual wasn't even talking to you, he was responding to the unexpected nature as it seems...?
That was more directed towards Novice... I don't appreciate full-blown arrogance in a debate you are not a part of.
I have to agree, bones is the fast responder I have wished for
Okay, that was unexpected
I don't care about experience, I am not debating to win but to have fun. I know he's experienced, but I am just a humble debater only doing the best I can.
Also,, your BOP is lopsided due to him just having to find one flaw, and then it's not "definitely".
Bones is an experienced debater, rising to 7th on the leaderboards in a year, specializing in religious debates and abortion.
Knowing the lengths he goes to prove his arguments, I would not be so confident in anything debating him.
I would be happy to debate you again sometime. I'm an atheist and certainly not like backwardseden. That guy has some problems.
Thank you for accepting this debate.
I pray that this guy will be reasonable and logical unlike other atheists I have seen on the internet. But seeing as this website is moderated I can expect that this guy won't be a backwardseden. As long as this guy respects me just as I respect him then I am fine. I am not debating here to win or loose but to have fun.
Now obviously I am taking the opportunity to (as some would say) "mess around," given that I am making my new account in a few days, I will be happy to follow this debate with some level of interest.
Say goodbye to your undefeated streak my friend