Instigator / Pro
6
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Topic
#3441
God definitely exists
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
Bones
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
14
1761
rating
31
debates
95.16%
won
Description
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
Round 1
Pro
#1
Argument 1:
1. Everything that happens has a cause. This one is a basic law of logic. There is nothing in nature that has no cause. For example:
* New genetic traits in an animal are caused by mutations
* Dinosaurs went extinct, supposedly by a meteor strike
* The sun radiates due to nuclear fusion
* A solar eclipse is caused by the moon going in between the sun and the earth
If things could happen without the need for a cause, then anything and everything imaginable would happen at every point in time and space, even without logic. If things can happen for no reason then why don't we see this happening all the time? Why can't stacks of $100 bills appear out of nowhere? Why don't blue whales just rain from the sky at random? Why don't magical fairies(if they existed) just appear out nowhere and carry you to the sky? Why doesn't a giant ultra cheesy ultra delicious pizza appear out of nowhere? The reason is because they can't exist without being made by something else to exist.
Cells can only come from cells
Matter cannot be created or destroyed
eggs do not pop from thin air.
I hope that we can agree that this first premise is reasonable.
2. The universe began to exist. How do we know? Well:
* Edwin Hubble discovered redshift in 1929. And then the evidence for the big bang piled on. The bible already predicted redshift before Christ was born as evident in these verses:
Isaiah 42:5 – “This is what God the LORD says—the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out . . .”
Isaiah 44:24 – “ . . . I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens . . .”
Isaiah 45:12 – “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.”
Jeremiah 10:12 – “God . . . stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”
Jeremiah 51:15 – “He founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”
What's even better is that most of these come from the book of Isaiah, from which the oldest near complete copy is the great Isaiah scroll of the dead sea scrolls of which when translated differs nothing from a modern translation(in fact modern bible translators translate from the dead sea scrolls and the oldest manuscripts available)
* The second law of thermodynamics states that everything is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe had always existed it would have already run out of usable energy.
However can't we propose an eternally expanding and contracting universe, a steady state universe, or a multiverse? The answer is no and here are the reasons:
> The steady state universe is the theory in that an "unvarying condition in a physical process, especially as in the theory that the universe is eternal and maintained by constant creation of matter". The problem with this theory are the following:
* It violates the first law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation, which state that matter can't be created or destroyed.
* Second of all if this theory was true then the universe would have been infinitely full and there would be no outer space because everything is already filled with matter and we would be crushed and water would be ice. Even if we could refute this second problem the first problem will still be active.
* This theory was disproven when quasars were discovered.
> The oscillating universe model(eternal perpetually contracting and expanding universe) is not a good model for the following reasons:
* There is no evidence that a universe can crunch up, nor do I believe it can be observed. And anything that can be asserted without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence.
* Every time this universe oscillates it will increase in entropy.
* The universe would become more massive due to particle production
* There would an increase of metric perturbations (appearance of gravitational waves) in the process of collapsing.
> The multiverse doesn't even help either:
* There is no evidence for a multiverse, and scientists have no idea of how to collect evidence for a multiverse.
* Even if there were such thing as a multiverse, it would definitely not disprove the existence of God because for a multiverse to work it would require laws and fine tuning.
* It would multiply the causes of the universe beyond necessity.
* It would be hypocritical to not believe in God because no evidence and yet believe in an infinite amount of things that you can't prove exist.
There are two types of infinity:
quantitative infinity: which is an infinite quantity
qualitative infinity: the quality of infinite, like being infinitely good or infinitely bad or infinitely intelligent.
quantitative infinity does not truly exist in our physical world because it would lead to absurdity(such as in the Hilbert hotel).
Hilbert hotel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3_KqkI9Zo
If you imagine a universe as a hotel that has been under construction since eternity past with the building as a whole then there are 2 problems:
1. If the hotel has been under construction under eternity past then there would have been no original designer or architect or person who conceived it. If there's nobody to first plan it's creation then it may as well have not existed.
2. The amount of rooms that would have been built by now would be infinite but because it is under construction then it is incomplete - but also complete as there would infinitely more than necessary buildings. This whole idea is a contradiction.
Conclusion:
Can't the universe create itself? No because this would be illogical, for something to create anything it has to have existed prior.
If the universe had a necessary substance that created it what properties would it have? Well it would be:
* timeless for it made time
* immaterial for it made matter
* spaceless for it made space
* extremely powerful for it made the universe
* personal for mindless substances can't create information
Doesn't this substance sound a lot like God? Of course it does.
So how do we know that there can only be 1 God? Well:
* Having multiple gods multiply causes beyond necessity
* Having more than 1 omnipotent being would be illogical because if there were 2 omnipotent beings then both beings being omnipotent can block each other's power at will when a disagreement happens - which would make one of them no longer omnipotent.
Con
#2
Thanks Conservallectual,
Rebuttal: Arg 1
PRO presents the Kalam Cosmological Argument. By virtue of how syllogism work, CON needs only to disapprove a single premise in order to fault conclusion. As such, premise 1 will be analysed in this round.
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.
Thus as the 1st premise of PRO's argument is negated, the conclusion is unfounded.
-
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.
p2. is also verified by truism. To assert otherwise is to dictate that every single bit of suffering that exists is necessary. Take, for example, the victims of the holocaust. The Nazis systematically murdered an estimated six million Jews and an additional 11 million people during the war, totally a rounded 17 million people. PRO's position is that at least 1 of these deaths was not necessary. CON's is that every single one was necessary. On top of them all being necessary, CON's position further entails that every second of suffering was also necessary - God could not have jumped in even a mere second to alleviate a sliver of the agony, as that would suggest that gratuitous evils exist.
Round 2
Pro
#3
The problem with retrocausality is that it is just a concept. We don't even know of retrocausality is even real, it is just hypothetical. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without any evidence. And I will dismiss retrocausality cause it can't be proven to exist just as the multiverse.
If the present can affect the past, then why can't we see this happening all the time, there is no time machine and no time traveler. According to wikipedia: " 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.[6] A more complex discussion of how free will relates to the issues Black raised is summarized by Newcomb's paradox".
What's even more is that retrocausality has to happen within time, but there was no time before the big bang so retrocausality can't therefore happen.
Thus the retrocausality argument is invalidated
"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. "
Ah yes the problem of evil. Haven't I heard this one before? Oh yeah, It has been refuted hundreds of times and both atheists and theists agree that this isn't a good argument against the existence of God. And here are the reasons to refute you:
* First of all, if there is no God what objective moral standards do you have to justify God as being evil? And if you give moral standards do you have any scientific evidence that they are true? Well no atheist has ever been able to answer these 2 questions.
you: "1. If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils (GE). Wrong, God gave Adam and Eve free will, and Adam misused the free will to listen to the satanic serpent and eat the apple therefore causing all the evils to come into the world.
you: "The Nazis systematically murdered an estimated six million Jews and an additional 11 million people during the war, totally a rounded 17 million people. PRO's position is that at least 1 of these deaths was not necessary. CON's is that every single one was necessary. On top of them all being necessary, CON's position further entails that every second of suffering was also necessary - God could not have jumped in even a mere second to alleviate a sliver of the agony, as that would suggest that gratuitous evils exist.".
Me: I will agree that gratuitous evils do exist, but if there is no God what kind of objective moral standards to say that the holocaust was evil.
I - as a radical theist - can objectively say that the holocaust was evil(and I do).
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).
There may seem that there is no good reason for God to allow evil but we humans are limited in intelligence and perception, God on the other hand is omnipotent and all knowing and he will have all the reasons. There may be laws that we don't like and we think are dumb because we can't understand the whole reasoning behind creation of the law.
The concept of an evil omnipotent being falls flat for the following reasons:
* An omnipotent creator will create all the laws and have all the power to will himself into following them. And thus any objection would be evil
* A maximally selfish omnipotent being would be so selfish that it will not create any other beings to share the universe with.
* If God hated anyone then he would have made turn into dust immediately, which of course doesn't happen because God does not hate anyone.
* If God was a dictator then any rule breaking would result in immediate death out of the blue, which does not happen because God respects free will.
* If an omnipotent being hated everything then it would hate itself and will itself to no longer exist.
I have therefore given my rebuttal.
Con
#4
Thx Conservallectual,
Rebuttals: First premise of the Kalam.
Affirmation: Retrocausality
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.
This falsely equates macroscopic retrocausality with microscopic retrocausality. The studies cited regard atomic particles - it is erroneous to employ there conclusions into what is possible in the macroscopic world.
retrocausality has to happen within time, but there was no time before the big bang so retrocausality can't therefore happen.
The reference to retrocausality was to falsify the stipulation that all events must have causes, not to provide an account for the origin of the universe.
Arguments
A further rebuttal to the first premise of the Kalam
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
Defense: PoE
First of all, if there is no God what objective moral standards do you have to justify God as being evil?
PRO misunderstands the PoE. It aim is to draw a reductio ad absurdum by first conceding that God exists and then proposing that there is a contradiction with the position. Even if atheism does not account for why evil is evil, the PoE can show that, under the Christian worldview, there exists a contraindication and therefore the thesis is untenable.
Wrong, God gave Adam and Eve free will, and Adam misused the free will.
PRO's assertion is entails kin punishment - the practice of punishing an individual for the crimes of a relative. It is utterly immoral and stands as no justification for the evils of the current day.
Me: I will agree that gratuitous evils do exist
If there is Gratuitous evil, which is tautologically unjustified evil, an all powerful God can therefore not exist, for such evils is not compatible with omnibenevolence.
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).
PRO goes down the line of showing that the holocaust brought about some good. I hesitate in casually linking this stipulation to the assertion that because there was some good (Anne Frank's diary, opposition anti semitism), therefore the Holocaust was justified, as that would be an absolutely terrible argument.
Round 3
Pro
#5
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.
And the problem of evil is answered here:
but anyway here's my second argument
argument 2:
definition:
MGB: Maximally Great Being
God: A maximally great being. If anything was greater than God then that being would be God.
A maximally great being is all powerful, all knowing, morally perfect, and necessary in every possible world.
Possible world: A possible world is a complete and consistent way the world is or could have been. To say that a being exists in a possible world is to say that if the world were that way then the thing would have existed.
God is an MGB(Maximally Great Being)
In this argument there are 3 types of entities:
Necessary entity: A entity that has to exist in every possible world for because it would be illogical if it didn't exist. A good example of necessary entities/beings would be numbers/quantities and shape definitions.
contingent entity: An entity that only exists in some possible worlds because it is logical for it to either exist or not exist. A good example would be a unicorn
Impossible entity: An entity that cannot exist in any possible worlds because it is logically incoherent. Good examples would be: married bachelor, squared circle, smell of blue, a polygon with 2 sides.
examples:
* Although unicorns don't exist in reality, they are logically sound enough to exist in a possible world. We can say that unicorns exist in a possible world.
* A married bachelor on the other hand, cannot exist in any possible worlds. This is because the idea of a married bachelor is a complete oxymoron and logically incoherent.
The argument:
1. It is logically possible that a maximally great being(MGB) exists. A
2. 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
3. If an MGB exists in some possible worlds, then an MGB exists in every possible world: If a maximally great being only existed in some possible worlds, then it wouldn't be maximally great.
4. If an MGB exists all possible worlds, then an MGB exists in the actual world: Our world is a possible world, if God exists in all possible worlds, then God can exist here.
5. If God(MGB) exists in the actual world, then God exists. This should be common sense.
but can't we parody this argument to prove anything? Well let's try a maximally great pizza. What are the logical problems with a maximally great and metaphysically necessary pizza?
The first problem is that there are no objective values that make a pizza great. Everyone's taste is different. I like a very cheesy pizza with thick crust and ham toppings, but I know your tastes might be different.
The second problem is that if a pizza was metaphysically necessary(Meaning it can't not exist) then it wouldn't be pizza, since it can't be eaten. Why can't it be eaten? Well since it cannot not exist, and when you eat something the food ceases to exist, a metaphysically necessary pizza cannot be eaten.
So the maximally great and metaphysically necessary pizza is about as coherent as a square that doesn't have 4 sides and a married bachelor. In other words a maximally great and metaphysically necessary pizza is not a logically coherent idea.
But an MGB is a logically coherent idea.
links:
Con
#6
Thanks for the quick replies Conservallectual,
Rebuttal: The Ontological argument
PRO then provides an argument in the last round. Though this is usually frowned upon, I'll still respond to it.
p1. It is logically possible that a maximally great being(MGB) exists. A
The PoE is a problem in all possible worlds and as it has not been too responded to in any possible world by PRO, it stands as an issue in all possible worlds. There is no world in which evil is not a contradiction to an all powerful God.
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
This falsely equates existence with powerfulness. My idea of a "perfect island" includes all sorts of commodities, however, it doesn't actually exist in reality.
-
Affirmations: The first premise
PRO doesn't reply to three arguments
- 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.
PRO makes a very subtle error here which is best exposed through an analogy.
- Suppose I clap my hand and emit a sound.
- Suppose I roll activate a quantum number generator.
In the first scenario, the clapping of my hand is a direct cause of the emitting of my sound. In the second, I initiate the process in which a number is generated, but I never cause a specific outcome to actualise. Yes, there is a cause which actualises the process, but the number which appears has no causal explanation - it is truly random.
PRO responds to the PoE with two videos. Submitting videos as an substantive is generally not acceptable - I could easily reply with 30 videos highlighting the extent to which the PoE falsifies God, but doing so neglects the integrity of debate - I as a participant ought to present with voters compelling arguments, not redirecting them to other sources.
Conclusion
Let us examine the resolution of this debate, that “God definitely exists”. Has this insurmountable burden been met by PRO? Even if all their arguments were yielded successful, God does not “definitely” exist - at best, be probably exists. Nonetheless, the arguments of PRO have been refuted, and the ones of CON stand largely uncontested.
VOTE CON.
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:
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