I'll start off with negating Pro's case before constructive due to the conciseness of Pro's case, I feel this works best as an intuitive structure for voters/readers to follow.
==
Occam's razor is self-defeated via this debate description's premise.
This debate is not what the title says, it is instead that if we irrationally assume there has to be a god, then it is certainly case that it is only one. Conversely, if we followed Occam's Razor, this debate would be able to be attacked by the atheistic and/or agnostic Kritik that Pro cannot prove the unnecessary god itself as real. To further negate Occam's Razor as a valid premise for Pro to attack Con, let's see that to presume a god as logically necessitated is to presume the god as needing a god entity to have created itself in the first place, making the infinite loop support Con via Occam's Razor, not Pro.
==
Note: A YouTube Video is not a valid reference to back an argument up and anybody watching it should negate its contents in their votes, it is up to Pro to fully justify via the contents of the video.
==
The absolutely irrational Premise 2 of Pro is to be negated on sheer lack of any logic connecting each point to the other(s).
all of the elements usually represented by different gods in a polytheistic religion are highly interconnected and ultimately based on the same subatomic particles.
There is no element of polytheistic gods that I as Con will purport that relies on particles, the gods are metaphysical and were there before and after particle creation, they are essentially auras and souls that can pass through reality's spacetime fabric with ease. Pro has to provide the lore which requires the God to be made up of atoms or similar particles in order to then Kritik like this.
If everything is interconnected, then there can be a god for everything, and that god of everything is very similar to the monotheistic god.
Can be and is are two very different things. This is arguing that there can happen to be 1 god, not that there is only 1. This actually works backwards against Pro.
Pro's case is asserting that 1 god is necessitated and that multiple gods are absurd but this very part of his Premise 2 enables Con to back-funnel the equation of equal likelihood to state that Pro has just conceded that 1 god is equally absurd and likely to multiple, pushing very hard back on other notions Pro is laying out regarding absurdity and likelihood.
==
The 2 gods paradox... Is dependent on what 'god' is defined as, it is an illegitimate truism-oriented semantic play not a rational one.
The first premise of Pro relies on us adhering to a definition of 'god' that makes all demigods and god entities involved in the reality as infinitely ancient, powerful and invulnerable to the effect of the other's powers. Of course this would be paradoxical but that is because that definition of 'god' is specific to the Abrahamic religions that are all monotheistic.
The definition of 'god' that Con will be using is:
one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. Compare
goddess (def. 1).
an image of a deity; an idol.
any deified person or object.
a nebulous powerful force imagined to be responsible for one's fate
There is no way for Pro to assert the monotheistic definition of 'god' and parameters for god's powers in this debate, that is abusive semantics and absolutely against the dynamic of debating the topic which the description lays out. Pro did not define 'god' in the debate description' but made it clear this debate opens up polytheism to be viable, meaning the only definitions of 'god' available should include ones that don't render Con's side paradoxical, which I have just provided for us.
==
I will write my whole case as an essay
Contention 1: No clear morality in reality
Contention 2: Physics implies randomness at core of reality with organisation as we 'zoom out' of quantum level
Contention 3: Combining contenions 1 and 2 a as well psychology/psychiatry imply that if there is a singular God, he/she/it suffers from dissociative identity disorder.
As Con, I would like to take note that reality does not seem structured on any moral code whatsoever and if it is, it appears to be multiple colliding with each other. In fact, even Christianity and Islam have the '
devil' (or '
iblis') character in them which is somehow able to defy the moral code and agenda that this supposedly monotheistic all-encompassing 'God' or 'Allah' has in mind for reality. The dynamic between Satan/Iblis and God/Allah is not directly akin to that of equal gods and their underling demigods but there are certainly parallels. Therefore, as Con I assert that the scapegoat of the Devil and 'god is testing us in ways we cannot imagine' to justify each and every way that reality seems to defy a morally concerned god-entity which monotheists use is simply a crutch they use to avoid the more likely explanation; multiple gods with varying agendas at play.
It would make sense how one or multiple gods are perhaps concerned with saving life while others are concerned with balancing them out via destroying it, this fits very nicely in with the dual nature of entropy at the core of reality. In fact, it's not just about entropy having core particles be in 2 places at once or come in and out of existence, it is the fact that reality at its core appears random as opposed to strictly stratified yet outside of the core, quantum level it appears to follow consistent laws, such as Newton's. What I am going to explain will come after the science introduction.
Generally, entropy is defined as a measure of randomness or disorder of a system. This concept was introduced by a German physicist named Rudolf Clausius in the year 1850.
Apart from the general definition, there are several definitions that one can find for this concept. The two definitions of entropy that we will look at on this page are the thermodynamic definition and the statistical definition.
From a
thermodynamics viewpoint of entropy, we do not consider the microscopic details of a system. Instead, entropy is used to describe the behaviour of a system in terms of thermodynamic properties such as temperature, pressure, entropy, and heat capacity. This thermodynamic description took into consideration the state of equilibrium of the systems.
Meanwhile, the statistical definition which was developed at a later stage focused on the thermodynamic properties which were defined in terms of the statistics of the molecular motions of a system. Entropy is a measure of the molecular disorder.
Other popular interpretations of entropy are as follows;
- If we talk about quantum statistical mechanics, Von Neumann extended the notion of entropy to the quantum domain by means of the density matrix.
- While discussing the information theory, it is a measure of the efficiency of a system in transmitting a signal or the loss of information in a transmitted signal.
- When it comes to dynamical systems, entropy defines the growing complexity of a dynamical system. It also quantifies the average flow of information per unit of time.
- Sociology states that entropy is the social decline or natural decay of structure (such as law, organization, and convention) in a social system.
- In cosmology, entropy is described as a hypothetical tendency of the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity. It states that the matter should be at a uniform temperature.
In any case, today the term entropy is used in many other sciences very much distant from physics or mathematics and we must say that it no longer maintains its rigorous quantitative character.
Now, I will explain the duality at play and what this implies for the controllers (I assert) or single controller (Pro asserts) in charge of reality.
For a demonstration that overturned the great Isaac Newton’s ideas about the nature of light, it was staggeringly simple. It “may be repeated with great ease, wherever the sun shines,” the English physicist Thomas Young told the members of the Royal Society in London in November 1803, describing what is now known as a
double-slit experiment, and Young wasn’t being overly melodramatic. He had come up with an elegant and decidedly homespun experiment to show light’s wavelike nature, and in doing so refuted Newton’s theory that light is made of corpuscles, or particles.
But the birth of quantum physics in the early 1900s made it clear that light is made of tiny, indivisible units, or quanta, of energy, which we call photons. Young’s experiment, when done with single photons or even single particles of matter, such as electrons and neutrons, is a conundrum to behold, raising fundamental questions about the very nature of reality. Some have even used it to argue that the quantum world is influenced by human consciousness, giving our minds an agency and a place in the ontology of the universe. But does the simple experiment really make such a case?
In the modern quantum form, Young’s experiment involves beaming individual particles of light or matter at two slits or openings cut into an otherwise opaque barrier. On the other side of the barrier is a screen that records the arrival of the particles (say, a photographic plate in the case of photons). Common sense leads us to expect that photons should go through one slit or the other and pile up behind each slit.
They don’t. Rather, they go to certain parts of the screen and avoid others, creating alternating bands of light and dark. These so-called interference fringes, the kind you get when two sets of waves overlap. When the crests of one wave line up with the crests of another, you get constructive interference (bright bands), and when the crests align with troughs you get destructive interference (darkness).
But there’s only one photon going through the apparatus at any one time. It’s as if each photon is going through both slits at once and interfering with itself. This doesn’t make classical sense.
What that article tells is that at the core or quantum level of reality things are much further from common sense and rational rules. To further highlight this, I'd like to not focus specifically on entropy but on quarks and what they mean and are:
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.
But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.
Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.
If particles at the core of our reality are able to behave in two contradictory ways at once, even be in 2 places at once and defy laws that Newton suggested for reality, it similarly links to lack of morality in our reality. Rapists and frauds can thrive while the honest victims perish and suffer, even killing themselves due to the debt. There very blatantly is something wrong with our reality if it is a monotheistic God with a moral code... What if it isn't? I say it's unlikely it is.
The same God preaching about saving lives and being kind to thy neighbour is not likely to be making storms, having infants die or suffer to unbearable diseases and domestic abuse or neglect without setting things right.
Asingle God would need to be having multiple personalities in order to justify reality...
My only error, in my eyes is I said greek paradigm when it was Norse.
Something interesting is that desert climates lead to monotheism while more cryptic climates with a lot of nature and caves etc, lead to polytheism.
I do think it was too much of an uphill battle that it was extremely unlikely that it could be turned around, but I don't discount the possibility of turning it around. There was just too much wasted potential in the first 2 rounds though.
I do not agree that Pro could win in round 3 but thanks for the vote, it was a solidly reasoned vote.
Thank you for your vote.
The devil actually always struck me as odd even as a child. There is something about the devil that implies either God has an alter ego or there is a being literally able to defy God, neither made proper sense to me but I assert that Satan is not Lucifer and instead is an alter ego of God if the Bible is true.
That website you love has made an expansion for bias types, such as:
https://yourbias.is/just-world-hypothesis
there's only 3 days left to vote.
I'll try to look at this in the next couple days.
In Hinduism, Shri Krishna showed Arjuna his Celestial appearance (Vishwa-swaroopa) and proved that he was God. Lord Rama had legendary powers, but chose not to use them. He defeated evil as a mortal and not as a God. They both showed that the real power comes from within and belief in the Para-Brahman.
Lord Shiva is the most powerful God in Hinduism, not because he has the third eye. It is because he IS Para-Brahman. He is infinite. He controls the flow of time. He is master of death. He is the very breath that we take and give out. He is the cosmic destroyer.
“Ananta koti Brahmandanayaka “ Literally means ‘O Lord of infinite crore Universes.’ Someone who is existent yet non-existant and who is capable of taking out an infinite number of universes by just opening his third eye is kind of hard to beat, don't you think?
I will get around to voting within the next few days, a little busy today and tomorrow so don't expect it immediately.
you can now vote.
Feel free to vote on this. Thanks in advance.
very well kid, Ill do it if I can.
have your own debate with him and make it a masterpiece then
Have to say, this could have been an interesting debate but it is just so disappointing...
If you want to do this debate a second time then I would be game. Just let me know when you would like to give it a shot.