Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3496
Does God exist?
Status
Debating
Waiting for the contender's third argument.
The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Religion
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 10,000
- Required rating
- 1500
Contender / Con
1776
rating
404
debates
67.45%
won
Description
~ 163
/
5,000
In monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith. This debate will question whether such a being exists.
Round 1
I would like to thank my opponent for agreeing to debate such a complex topic. In my opening, I will focus on two arguments for a higher being.
1. Kalam cosmological argument
The Kalam cosmological argument focuses on causation and requires only the belief that the universe didn't magically pop into existence from nothing. In logical terms, the argument is stated as follows [1]:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The Universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
The first premise is nearly indisputable by any understanding of modern physics. We do not worry, for example, that some wild beast will suddenly appear and tear us limb from limb. The idea that every event has a cause is an essential premise of solving crimes, in which detectives often narrow down the possible causes of someone's death.
One common counterargument, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of quantum physics, is that some small particles indeed pop into existence from nothing. Quantum fluctuations do indeed exist, but they are hardly uncaused. Rather, particles that seem to "appear" and "disappear" emerge from the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum state can hardly be called "nothing." It is simply the quantum state with the lowest possible energy [2].
As Columbia University Philosophy Professor and theoretical physicist David Albert writes [3].
[V]acuum state—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff . . . the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.
Furthermore, these "poppings" are predictable. Formulas can be used [4] to predict the number of fluctuations, and if they were simply "uncaused" they would not abide by simple formulas. Furthermore, this property only applies to certain types of particles and energy. Molecules cannot pop in and out of existence. None of this is consistent with the idea that something can exist uncaused, but it is consistent with the quantum vacuum acting as a catalyst for some events but not others.
That the universe began to exist is also the inevitable conclusion of many years of scientific research. The Big Bang theory holds that the universe, including time and space, began to exist 13.8 billion years ago [5]. Although the Big Bang remains the prevailing theory regarding the origin of the universe, some physicists dispute this narrative of events and argue that the universe has existed forever.
But scientific analysis shows that the universe almost certainly had a beginning [6]. Edwin Hubble found, for example, that the further an object is from the earth, the faster it is moving away from the earth. This discovery indicates that the universe is expanding from a single point. Furthermore, we can observe background radiation, or leftover heat radiation, from the Big Bang. Cosmologists have discovered "background radiation" consistent with an expansion of the universe beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
According to the University of Western Australia:
The cosmic microwave background radiation(CMBR) that Penzias and Wilson observed isleftover heat radiation from the Big Bang. Today, CMBR is very cold due to expansion and cooling of theUniverse. It’s only 2.725 Kelvin (-270.4 °C), which is only 2.725 °C above absolute zero.Cosmic microwave background radiation fills the entire Universe and can be detected day and night in every partof the sky
Therefore, it seems almost indisputable that something caused the universe. And we can conclude several things about this cause. For one, it must be an uncaused being of unimaginable power to have created the universe. This being must transcend space and time, as it created both. It must be immaterial and not physical. And finally, this being must to some extent be capable of free will. For a being outside of time to cause an event that occurred a finite time ago, it must be capable of deciding to create the universe at a certain point in time.
As philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig argues [7]:
The only way for the cause to be timeless and for the effect to begin a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create a new effect without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up and thus you would have a new effect arise from an eternal cause
These criteria establish that the universe's creator meets the common definition of God. God must exist, therefore, as evidenced by the creation of the universe.
2. Argument from design
It has also been determined, from a wide range of scientific evidence, that the universe is fine-tuned for life [8] [9]. The strength of gravity, for example, must fit into an extremely small, unlikely range of values in order for stars to form. The existence of carbon atoms and the stability of DNA are similarly based on extremely improbable values for universal constants.
As Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, writes:
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Some skeptics, even one linked in the sources above, argue that the possibility of a multiverse answers this question. The idea is that our universe is one of many in which physical constants just happen to meet the criteria necessary for life.
However, Roger Penrose, a mathematician, has calculated that if a multiverse did exist, it would be extremely more likely that our solar system would be formed by a random collision of particles than that a finely tuned universe would exist. If we were part of a multiverse, therefore, it stands to reason that we wouldn't be observing any solar systems beyond our own.
In The Road to Reality, Penrose states [10]:
Life on Earth certainly does not directly need themicrowave background radiation. In fact, we do not even need Darwinianevolution! It would have been far ‘cheaper’ in terms of ‘probabilities’ tohave produced sentient life from the random coming together of gas andradiation. (One can estimate that the entire solar system, including itsliving inhabitants, could be created from the random collision of particlesand radiation with a probability of one part in 10^(10^60) (or probably a gooddeal less than 10^(10^60)). The figure 10^(10^60) is utter ‘chicken feed’ by comparisonwith the 10^(10^123) needed for the Big Bang of the observable universe. Wedo not need a Big Bang to be in its observed uniform configuration.
The only explanation for such an unlikely event is intelligent design. Again, we are left with a being of unimaginable power that exists outside the universe. This being must also be capable of free will, in order to design the universe with intelligent life in mind.
I wish to create 2 traps simple traps, let's not waste your time or mine.
The traps are BoP pincers, you run from one and end up trapped by the other.
I ask that Pro concede Round 2 and the debate to save us all time and effort.
Anti-Kalam Trap
Pincer 1: If Pro justifies the universe and our reality as having a beginning rather than having always existed, Pro ought to equally consider the same physicists backing the big bang theory and secular/agnostic takes on the origins of physical spacetime and matter.
Pincer 2: If Pro drops Pincer 1 by conceding that the universe and reality may actually have always existed, Pro's Kalam argument is then applicable to God, generating a paradoxical infinite regression in necessitating a creator.
Quantum Randomness vs Patterns trap.
Pincer 1: If the idea behind Pro's logic is that the randomness is an illusion and in fact it runs on complex algorithms, what is the purpose of the quantum particles in the first place popping in and out of existence if there is a God designing us? I am asking Pro to realise that in a truly structured, intelligently designed reality, there exists absolutely zero conceivable purpose to have particles coming in and out of existence, since the organiser and creator need only make and transform the end product, not fluctuate the core level.
Pincer 2: The proposed God itself is not random, in fact everything about the allegedly existent God appears to imply that if consistency and severely consistent patterns in our reality necessitate a God, Pro's own God requires a God to have created him/her/them/it.
Please note Pro is yet to define God in a falsifiable manner, this means I cannot prove it wrong as it is not defined how we would prove its existence true and correct.
Round 2
Thanks to my opponent for his response.
God was defined in the description of this debate as "the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith". An object of faith is something that people have a religious devotion to, but this is not an objective property of a being. If a supreme being and creator does exist, it's clear that they are the object of many people's faith, so the third criterion is fulfilled de-facto from the first two.
I suggest that we define a supreme being and creator as a being capable of controlling the universe. Surely a being capable of creating the universe is capable of controlling it, and it is this being that I argued for in my opening.
Now I will focus on the two objections to my argument. The Anti-Kalam trap forces me to choose between the universe having always existed or having a beginning. In my opening, I showed that the universe does have a beginning, which nullifies Pincer 2.
Pincer 1 is effectively an appeal to authority. My opponent argues that some scientists accept a beginning to the universe but don't accept the existence of a creator, suggesting that one conclusion does not necessarily lead to the other. If we're going to appeal to authority, we could just as easily say that some philosophers believe that one conclusion does lead to the other: namely, those who accept Kalam.
Whether a beginning to the universe proves a creator is the subject of debate: specifically, the debate we're having. Many scientists who believe in a beginning to the universe but not a creator have not studied the Kalam. Regardless of what these scientists believe, my opening has shown how a beginning to the universe does prove a creator. If my opponent wishes to argue against this premise using arguments from the physicists they are appealing to, they are welcome to do so.
My opponent's second pincer trap deals with quantum randomness.
Pincer 1 asks why God would cause quantum fluctuations. This is more of a question than an objection. While I can only speculate as to the motives of a supreme being, I would like to point out that everything is made of atoms, which rely on electrons. Perhaps quantum fluctuations are a necessary property of electrons. Light is divided into small packets called "photons" [1], and these photons may be necessary to construct matter. It stands to reason that a being capable of creating the universe and with an interest in human life would be a creative being capable of knitting together each detail of the universe. Quantum fluctuations, rather than being an objection to a creator, rather serve to show the creativity and attention to detail such a creator would have.
Pincer 2 asks whether or not God is random. I personally believe that God is capable of free will, but my personal beliefs are not the subject of this debate. As I read it a second time, I'm not sure whether it objects to the Kalam or the argument from design. The Kalam argues that everything with a beginning has a cause, and so far I have argued for a God that exists outside of time. The argument from design states that very specific values are required for constants such that life can exist. These constants have not been shown to require specific values for God to exist.
My opponent states:
everything about the allegedly existent God appears to imply that if consistency and severely consistent patterns in our reality necessitate a God, Pro's own God requires a God to have created him/her/them/it.
"Severely consistent patterns" is a vague term, and I'm not entirely sure what my opponent is referring to, but I will attempt to clarify my position. The gravitational constant must be a very specific value to allow that the universe exist. This specific value is not required for God to exist. Therefore, my argument as stated in the introduction does not necessitate that God was himself designed by a higher being.
I reject Pro's definition scope wholesale.
The resolution said God as a proper noun, meaning a specific individual of a specific religion.
God has to be defined as one religion's God so that I can critique further and so that Pro can prove it exists.
If Pro solely means a creator, no other aspects attached this is not God, that is just a being that shares the creative ability with God.
Absolutely nothing necessitates a creator in our reality that cannot be applied to God itself.
If God is the original, supreme creator, it cannot be viable to say it was created itself in an infinite regression.
We have no reasons to believe God exists that do not themselves undermine God's supreme viability.
Round 3
The resolution said God as a proper noun, meaning a specific individual of a specific religion.
The description states, "In monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith. This debate will question whether such a being exists." Con has accepted this definition by participating in the debate.
Muslims believe in God. Jews believe in God. Deists believe in God. The resolution does not specify any particular religion; it only asks whether God exists. J.J. Thomson, Ernest Rutherford, and Neils Bohr each believe in atoms even though they held different views regarding them [1].
Con states:
God has to be defined as one religion's God so that I can critique further and so that Pro can prove it exists.
This is false. Deists believe in God but don't adhere to any particular religion [2].
CON lists three additional objections. I will deal with each of them.
(1) If Pro solely means a creator, no other aspects attached this is not God, that is just a being that shares the creative ability with God.
Any being capable of creating and controlling the universe meets this debate's definition of God. God is defined by his creative abilities, so a being that shares creative abilities with God would meet this debate's definition of one.
(2) Absolutely nothing necessitates a creator in our reality that cannot be applied to God itself.
Except for the argument from design and Kalam. God doesn't have a beginning, so he doesn't need a cause. He also doesn't rely on extremely unlikely values of universal constants.
(3) If God is the original, supreme creator, it cannot be viable to say it was created itself in an infinite regression.
I never suggested that God was created in infinite regression.
CON appears to have dropped both pincer arguments for the time being. There have also been no further attempts to dismantle the Kalam or argument from design.
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
There are several weaknesses in the Cosmological Argument, which make it unable to “prove” the existence of God by itself. One is that if it is not possible for a person to conceive of an infinite process of causation, without a beginning, how is it possible for the same individual to conceive of a being that is infinite and without beginning? The idea that causation is not an infinite process is being introduced as a given, without any reasons to show why it could not exist.
Clarke (1675-1729) has offered a version of the Cosmological Argument, which many philosophers consider superior. The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God. Even though this method of reasoning may be superior to the traditional Cosmological Argument, it is still not without its weaknesses. One of its weaknesses has been called the “Fallacy of Composition”. The form of the mistake is this: Every member of a collection of dependent beings is accounted for by some explanation. Therefore, the collection of dependent beings is accounted for by one explanation. This argument will fail in trying to reason that there is only one first cause or one necessary cause, i.e. one God .
There are those who maintain that there is no sufficient reason to believe that there exists a self existent being.
COUNTER ARGUMENTS:
1. If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause (god).
2.If the first cause can be thought to be uncaused and a necessary being existing forever, then why not consider that the universe itself has always existed and shall always exist and go through a never ending cycle of expansion and contraction and then expansion (big bang) again and again!!!
If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms.
What the counter argument does is to indicate that the premises of the cosmological argument do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe.
3) Further, even if a person wanted to accept that there was such a being there is nothing at all in the cosmological argument to indicate that the being would have any of the properties of humans that are projected into the concept of the deity of any particular religion. The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic.
So the cosmological argument is neither a valid argument in requiring the truth of its conclusion nor is it a satisfactory argument to prove the existence of any being that would have awareness of the existence of the universe or any event within it.
When a person asks questions such as :
1 What is the cause of the the energy or the force or the agent behind the expansion and contraction of the energy?
These questions are considered as "loaded questions" because they loaded or contain assumptions about what exists or is true that have not yet been established. Why is it that the idea of a "force " or agent" is even in the question? Why operate with the assumption that there is such or needs to be such?
We do not know that there is a force "behind" the expansion and contraction. Energy might just expand and contract and there is no force at all other than those generated by the energy-gravitational force, electro magnetic, strong and weak forces.
In another form this is the "who made god?" question or the" who made the energy question?" question. Such an approach to the issue of an explanation for the existence of the universe assumes that there must be an agency. When the idea of an eternal and necessary agency is introduced it was done to provide a form for describing a being that some people wanted as the ultimate explanation- a deity. The point of the counter arguments to the cosmological argument is that the idea of an eternal and necessary agency can as logically be expressed as energy rather than as a single being or entity. If the uncaused cause can be thought of a a single entity then the uncaused cause can be thought of a a single process-energy.
Exactly.
The "begins to exist" variation has been essentially replaced by the causal finitism version by prominent philosophers because of its strength. Grim Reaper Paradoxes make arguing for causal finitism so much easier in comparison, and from there you already can easily establish the existence of the uncaused cause(s). Going from there to said cause(s) being god(s) is not too dissimilar than what is used in the old Kalam.
For some reason, however, it is philosophers that spend their time dealing in apologetics that are taking the longest to pick up the new Kalam, which is disappointing.
Newer variations of the cosmological argument are inherently stronger.
There is no way yall doing God debates without me.
It is always disappointing to see people use the old Kalam and not the new one. It acts as an indicator of looking at apologetics instead of philosophy.
change the argument time to a week then I can accept.