Does God exist?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
Pro makes a sold case with the cosmological argument and the fine-tuning argument, both are solid arguments in their own right, especially with the pre-rebuttal to quantum fluctuations. Con takes a slightly unorthodox venture and creates two traps for pro's arguments each with two respective pincers. The first one posits a dilemma between the universe having an origin which would create doubt with existing theories such as the big bang, or having always existed which would lead to an infinite regression of causality. Secondly, in his trap concerning quantum randomness, he stipulates that there is no reason for quantum fluctuation in a designed universe and subsequently that pro's God requires a God of creation. Con did say "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." The description states that "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," so con is somewhat correct about this.
In round one alone the traps are fine but the issue is that the resolution is "Does God exist?" In an open question debate, the burden is shared and so while pro must prove God exists con must prove that God does not exist. The lack of a constructive places con on the defensive, not the offensive where ideally the atheist should be.
First pro suggests "define a supreme being and creator as a being capable of controlling the universe." Pro then deals with both traps by correctly pointing out that the first one is indeed an appeal to authority. Concerning the quantum, trap, christianm is right to observe that pincer one is really more of a question about phenomena and it does not refute the arguments for the existence of God. Pincer two is less clear but pro argues that the value of the gravitational constant is not required for God to exist but is evidence of the plausibility of design.
In the next round, con just drops all the traps. I thought there were still some sound counterarguments in them and as someone who followed the debate I was pretty surprised they were not followed up on. He does however reject pro's proposed definition. Goof move because con at this point of the debate has to halt pro's solid offense. He makes the case that God, defined in the resolution, is of a specific religion, which seemed like somewhat of a weak objection to me. I'll quote the next aspect of his round two:
> "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."
So the main argument here is rational madman pressing pro to propose a metaphysically relevant factor that would remove God from the infinite regression of causality. It seems like this was done in the cosmological argument previously, especially with the William Lane Craig quotes, and pro doubles down on that in response to this objection
I didn't really buy con saying the God in the description was religion-specific. Many religions capitalize God and no specific religion was mentioned. Pro argues that if God is indeed capable of creating and controlling the universe that would fit the criteria of a supreme creator. Pro is correct that co has dropped both pincers, but con is still broadly trying to counter the cosmological argument so there is still a debate here.
Here is an analysis of the final stretch, pro proves that desists can believe in a capitalized God as shows Merriam Webster's definition of God that doesn't specify a religion so he wins the sematic point with respect to religions and thus renders all the religious text portions invalid. The polytheism objection came much too late, but pro argues that the very definition of God would refute polytheism because only one entity can be supreme.
At this point...I think I have to agree that con dropped the pro's arguments, I don't really think this is disputed. The burden of proof goes both ways here and pro's arguments stand unrefuted. I think con could have attacked intelligent design much more strongly and I think the output from him was pretty low. The religious point never really stood a chance so pro takes the win.
Roger !
That is a flawed reason for voting. Vote based on what the debaters argued, don't argue the case yourself.
I'm working on my 5 page argument supporting your position.
please vote if you have time
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
FLRW
Added: 2 days ago
Reason:
Instigator would have had a better chance if he titled the debate, Did God Exist. The Does God Exist requires irrefuteable proof that God currently exists. Pro makes a poor case with the cosmological argument and the fine-tuning argument, which many scientists have refuted. He no where provides an argument that God presently exits. Con says why would God would cause quantum fluctuations? This is a reason why Poor Design would exist. The debate does not provide any irreputable proof that God exists.
You can also get permissions by having a certain ammount of forum posts
Don't you need to be in three debates to vote? It doesn't look like FLRW has done any.
FLRW is trolling, again.
I am so tired of these people who purposely cast incompetent votes.
"Goof move" is supposed to say good move. I don't really know if I should remove the vote and edit it again just to chnage that mistake because it will notify everyone again
I have voted now obviously. I also want more people to vote
Welp, still got a month for voting
If any of you have time, plz vote
> 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.
bingo
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.