THBT: God exists
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
THBT: God exists
Definition:
God - the Creator of the universe
Rules:
No kritiks
- The Modal Ontological Argument for God’s existence (MOA) first conceptualised by St. Anselm of Canterbury, postulates that the possibility of God’s existence necessarily entails his actual existence. The standard argument runs as follows:
- P1. There possibly exists a perfect being.
- C1. Therefore, a perfect being exists.
- The term of perfect being is usually understood as a metaphysically necessary being that possesses all perfections, whilst an imperfect being is merely any being that is not perfect. The conclusion of the argument follows from the premises via systems S5 of modal logic, an axiom which prunes unnecessary qualifiers in a given statement. The principle holds that if it is possibly the case that something is necessarily true, then its possibility is ultimately necessary. To say that p is possibly necessarily true is to say that, with regard to one possible world, it is true at all worlds; but in that case it is true at all worlds, and so it is simply necessary. A major critique of the MOA is the reverse MOA (RMOA):
- P1. There possibly does not exist a perfect being.
- C1. Therefore, a perfect being does not exist.
- Both renditions of the MOA seem epistemically symmetrical, yet, they render entirely opposite conclusions. Which argument ought we adopt? It seems that, to pursue either argument, there must exist some separate principle which breaks the symmetry and preferences of one rendition over the other. Here, I will argue that there exists a symmetry breaker which favours the existence of God and thus establishes his existence as necessary.
- This argument largely focuses on what can be known as Existential Facts, that is, true propositions regarding the existence of concrete things (concreate things merely being any existent thing e.g., table, chair) which contains within it some active description and a concrete thing. The statement “turtles exist”, is an Existential Fact which contains an active description (existence) and a concrete thing (turtle). We can observe around us that Existential Facts exist and possess, in most instances, an explanation which contains a concrete thing which is other than itself. The existence of turtles, for example, is explained by some concrete thing which is not itself a turtle - some evolutionary ancestor, for example. This idea seems trivial, the explanation for the existence of turtles cannot itself be a turtle, for that would presuppose the very thing that is being questioned. I call this principle the Principle of Explanation (herein after PE), which can be formally understood as the postulation that every existential fact X is explained by a fact which includes the existence of a concrete thing that is not among the concrete things included in X, all else being equal. More precisely:
- PE: "f1 $f2 (Explains(f2, f1) & $z ((z ≺ f2 ) & ~(z ≺ f1))), ceteris paribus.
- Two clarifications of the principle are in order. It may seem, at this stage, that PE is sneakily similar to Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason, which asserts that everything must have an explanation, cause, or ground. However, there exists one crucial difference. The PE is defeasible, whilst the Principle of Sufficient Reason is not. The PE operates under the assumption of ceteris paribus, that, if all else is equal, an explanation is expected, and we are justified in taking there to be one - unless some positive reason says otherwise. The PE can, in layman terms, be understood as a rule of thumb which, when all else is equal, can be applied to our lives.
- Why ought we accept such a principle? On top of an abundance of inductive and a posteriori support, this idea is congruent with both philosophical and scientific thinking - when interlocutors engage with an existential fact that they do not understand, even if there is no explanation readily available, it is typically acknowledged that there is some undiscovered explanation which is itself not the initial mysterious existential fact.
- Despite the PE already assuming a rather plausible stance, I will propose a variant which is logically weaker yet dialectically superior, to prune unnecessary burdens from my argument. This variant can be understood as the Principle of Possible Explanation (PPE) - that every existential fact X is possibly explained by a fact which includes the existence of a concrete thing that is not among the concrete things included in X, all else being equal. More precisely:
- PPE: "f1 ◊($f2 (Explains(f2, f1) & $z ((z ≺ f2 ) & ~(z ≺ f1)))), ceteris paribus.
- The reasons favouring PE plausibly favour PPE as well (since PE entails PPE). But there may also be distinctive modal epistemological support for PPE. Pick some existential fact an explanation for which we lack positive reason to think is impossible. An explanation for such a fact is surely (i) consistent/coherent, (ii) conceivable , and (iii) compatible with the known essences or natures of things. Moreover, we know that many facts about the existence of things are actually (and hence possibly) explained. And arguably there is a defeasible presumption of the uniformity of this modal property (‘being possibly explained’) across the class of facts about the existence of things. Plausibly, these various modal epistemological considerations at least give defeasible reason for the possibility of an explanation of such facts (all else being equal).
- P1. The mind exists.
- P2. The properties of the mind are not that which matter can have
- P3. Substance dualism is false.
- P4. If P3, a mind must ground all of reality.
- C1. A mind must ground all of reality.
- P1.
- The existence of the mind is accepted by practically every mainstream philosopher through the maxim cogito ergo sum. I will substantiate this premise if CON wishes to.
- P2.
- To preface substantiate, I will preface by observing that the mind and non-mind are distinct entities. This is true via Leibniz’s Law of Identity of Indiscernible which stipulates that no two things have exactly the same properties. As the mind and non-mind are tautologically distinct, they must also be unique in terms of their properties. Furthermore, through the Princess Elisabeth attack on Descartes' dualistic theory, the mind and non-mind cannot interact with each other. The theory postulates that, given the mind and non-mind are opposites in terms of composition, it is impossible for the two to interact with each other. In particular, Elizabeth employs the following principle:
- When A causes B, there must be some connection by means of which this causal relation occurs.
- To assert that the mind and non-mind can communicate would be akin to declaring that an invisible, intangible, inaudible and undetectable fairy can make changes to the physical world - the existence of two fundamentally contrary substances simply cannot, on their own, interact with each other. Clearly, there requires a third substance of which ties the physical and non-physical together, however, there is an absence of evidence for such a material. Thus, currently, we have no reason to believe that the mind and non-mind can interact. From this, we can hold that there is no reason to believe in the existence of the non-mind. As previously established, the existence of the mind is certain, which, when considered with the fact that the mind and non-mind cannot communicate in any known way, entails that the existence of the non-mind is currently incompatible with the known state of the world. Even if the non-mind were to exist, the mind does not possess the faculty to be aware of it, as this would be analogous to fairies interacting with the physical world. Thus, as it has been shown that it is indubitable that the mind exists, whilst it is uncertain that the non-mind exists, the likelihood of metaphysical solipsism logically follows.
- P3.
- From P2, substance dualism is false, for there is no proof for material reality.
- P4.
- As I have shown, a solipsisistic world is most likely true, which entails that there is a consciousness that grounds reality. I have shown that reality is mental and it would logically entail that a mind controls it. Since reality itself is a mental product, and would require a mind to ground it, therefore there would exist a being that grounds reality acting as its creator. Thus fitting the definition of God.
- C1.
- The conclusion follows. A mind grounds all of reality.
- P1. Logical absolutes (LA) exist.
- P2. The nature of God is such that either He exists, or He doesn’t.
- P3. If the no-God position fails to account for LA, the contrapositive must necessarily account for LA.
- P4. The no-God position fails to account for LA,
- C1. Therefore, God must exist to account for LA.
- P1.
- This is fairly noncontroversial. The existence of the Law of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle are all laws which we presuppose in our daily dialectic.
- P2.
- The Law of Excluded Middle verifies this. A third option is logically impossible when discussing God’s existence, either he does, or he doesn’t exist.
- P3.
- This premise logically follows from P2. The established existence of logical absolutes necessitates that there be an explanation which is either God or not-God.
- P4.
- Let us first examine the nature of LA’s, which I propose are transcendent, absolute, and independent of the universe.
- Transcendent
- Logical absolutes cannot be grounded in human minds - people’s brains are varied and house subjective ideas. What one person considers to be absolute is not necessarily what another considers to be absolute. Thus, LA cannot be the product of fallible human mind. Furthermore, if LA were dependent on minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist – this is clearly illogical, for we can inductively argue that LA existed prior to humans existing, and that the likes of the law of identity existed prior to humans.
- Absolute
- This is true via tautology. Statements such as “that which exists has both attributes and a nature” are not subjectively true nor are they statements which are sometimes true and sometimes false. They are absolutely and always true. In fact, the “absolute”nature of LA is presupposed by scientists including Steven Hawking, who postulate that the scientific enterprise can only operative if we assume the veracity of scientific determinism. We simply must hold as an axiom at logical statements are absolute.
- Independent of the universe
- It can be seen that LA is not grounded in any property of the universe. It is illogical for it to be grounded in space (changing locations doesn’t affect LA), time, (Plato utilised the same LA as we do today) or matter (LA cannot be found in atoms, motion etc. Furthermore, it cannot be subject to physical treatment (freezing, burning), suggesting that it doesn’t have a physical presence).
- With the nature of LA established, I propose that LA are conceptual by nature.
- Logic is a process of the mind, whilst LA is the framework which logic references. Thus, it is proper to assert that because LA are simply truth statements regarding logical things, which are conceptual, LA too must also be conceptual by nature.
- Conceptual processes are indicative of a mind. The nature of minds is such that, on balance, irrational minds create irrational thoughts, whilst rational minds produce rational thoughts. Since LA are transcendent, absolute/perfectly consistent, and independent of the universe, it seems proper to assert that they reflect a transcendent, absolute/perfectly consistent and independent mind i.e., God.
- Even if CON somehow disproves this criteria, the atheist still must prove that they have an intelligble account for logic. To fail to do so whilst mainting the atheist position is utterly redunt - akin to utalising measurements whilst denying that rulers denoting "5 centimeters" instantiate distance.
- C1.
- Thus, the conclusion follows, the nature of Logical Absolutes, paired with the atheist’s inability to account forlogic, necessitates that the theistic account for Logical Absolutes is true. The contrapositive would entail that we have no account for logic, which implies that the atheist has no grounds for forming intelligible critiques. I would be happy for CON to provide some account for logic, but their inability to do so ought to render their entire argument baseless and null.
- Conclusion
- Based on the three arguments proposed, the God hypothesis is substantiated, and the resolution is upheld.
To critique the argument itself, this is just a play on godel's argument, in which you assumed that its possible, something you yourself addressed. Your attempt at a symmetry breaker was ill-formed as you used the ambiguity fallacy to try to refer to two separate concepts of probability as the same. The s5 concept of probability is very different from probability in the sense of "possible explanations". Overall pretty bad argument as although your conclusion *does* follow, your premises themselves are something you failed to justify.
Your second argument is honestly just as bad. P2 is improperly substantiated. This law of identity discernable nonsense doesn't apply, because its perfectly reasonable for one object to have every single one of another objects properties so long as it has at least one other property. That is to say that the physical brain can have all of the mind's properties, plus its physical properties. In that sense, the mind is only an abstraction over the brain and simply refers to some of its properties. This sort of supposed separation between them is unsubstantiated. Thereby P3 is unsubstantiated. It assumes there is some metaphysical mind. As per P4, what can be proven to exist depends entirely on what premises you accept to be true. Without sufficient premises, you could not even prove that your mind exists. Plus your whole argument depends on using the appeal to ignorance fallacy "no proof = does not exist", heavily LMAO. And then, even when you accept the conclusion, "control" vs "ground" is different, and you flippantly assert them to be true. This argument only works through heavy use of fallacy and handwavy conflation of different concepts. The foundation of your house upholds your house but doesn't actually influence it. Ultimately, all arguments for a creator fail at showing that this "entity" in question is a personal being with will, or has ever actively influenced our world, which is the core of these arguments. Even if I concede that there is a mind upholding reality, this logic seems to imply its *me* who is the mind that upholds reality, as opposed to some exterior god.
Contention II. Introspective Argument
Contention III. The Transcendental Argument for God
Is this "everybody agrees with me, therefore you are arguing in bad faith"? My issue is that you speak of perfection as if its some sort of criterion, external to human opinion, but it seems fairly clear based on what you've said thusfar that its only some nebulous concept that you can only refer to vaguely when its convenient, but not actually give a rigorous definition of it.
your conclusion does not have merit, because you fail to define the key descriptor of this being which is meant to make it god, therefore, you fail to prove god exists
I didn't "miss" your symmetry breaker. It's just invalid. I spoke about how it is an argument from an ambiguity fallacy already. To go into your detail, you never really explain why it is that a perfect being could possibly exist, which is the core contention, or what a perfect being is to begin with. It seems like you're trying to imply that a perfect being is the ultimate explanation in terms of the principle of explanation, but you also never explain why this ultimate explanation(which is just a rephrasing of the Actus Purus argument which is just invalid) should be a perfect being. You loosely refer to things, but never explain their connections which are absolutely integral to your argument, and while the first time you can be forgiven, given my constant objection to these things on the grounds that they are improperly substantiated, it seems like you just have no intention of properly substantiating any of your claims.
When a scientist postulates their theory, they don't assert it as definitively true, they assert it as a good description of reality that is consistent with observation. Science exists to describe reality, not define it, and simply describing reality in a way that's useful is good enough for a scientist. You addressed like 2 explanations, based on awful logic, and then concluded "welp i'm definitely right ez". You're also not a scientist, and this isn't a theory, this is a debate, so I expect you to not just dismiss two or three possible explanations for something using bad logic, but actually explain why your conclusion follows from your premises. The burden is on you to actually argue your point.
Args: PRO made several well-substantiated arguments, which CON failed to counter - "your arguments kinda suck" is not a rebuttal. CON's case was a combination of word salad, as well as repeating the same unsourced rebuttals over and over.
Sources: PRO used several reliable sources, CON used none.
S/G: CON's legibility was absolutely atrocious, and it was a challenge to wade through it.
Conduct: various snarky comments from CON, including challenging PRO's reading ability when the opposite was true.
Con saying - "your arguments kinda suck and your second argument is honestly just as bad", is not an argument or in anyway a rebuttal.
And attempting that old chestnut of "definitions" argument as in -" you didn't actually define perfect in any meaningful way" - clearly indicates that Con was way out of his depth from the moment he stuck his keyboard.
Pro presented his case in an adult and professional manner. Con's presentation was childish and ill mannered.
Pro's source material was excellent, where as Con's was nothing short of childish empty word salad.
I would like to be able to say , that considering Con has only just signed up here -5 Dec 2022, has no forum threads or a single forum post to his name , that it was a brave but suicidal leap to enter into to a debate so unprepared and so intellectually unarmed.
"your arguments kinda suck ngl." how will bones ever recover from this??
Still want to do the abortion debate where we defend our actual beliefs, or have you realised that formal debating is a wee bit out of your capacity?
I was asked to debate, not play dress up.
"if only on this site, votes judged the actual content of an argument, and not simply the format it was presented in"
Well, would you rather have sex with an ugly woman?
Voters cast their votes based on which side looks more pretty.
They dont care about arguments. Text needs to look good and give their brains an orgasm.
Nobody wants ugly truth.
hello there, let me introduce myself. I am a spanish guy studying in UCM (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) first year of philosophy. I am doing a proyect of philosophical anthropology related with the lack of debate between people. Because of that I wanted to interview people who wanted to debate, i found somehow this website and i think that u guys have a really respectfull and good dialogue in general. The deadline for the proyect is the 9th of january, so if u are interested pls write me as early as u can, ty all :D
if only on this site, votes judged the actual content of an argument, and not simply the format it was presented in. If I knew from the outset that this argument would be primarily about who's looks better, I wouldn't have bothered going into such detail about how much bad faith PRO engaged in lol
Under a week to vote now.
Bump
Nothing would ever convince me of such a silly proposition ;)
Interesting.
Is it important to source your arguments from somewhere else? Is that not a glorified appeal to authority in a field where authority doesn't have a lot of value? What does their sources or format have to do with the simple fact that they failed to substantiate their premises?
This is a devil's advocate argument by PRO. Essentially they challenged me that I would not be able to point out issues in their arguments. The exact phrasing that was used just before the debate was
CON: "I'm convicted that there exists no valid argument for the existence of god using sound, measurable premises"
PRO: "easy
we will debate that then"
>Reported Vote: YouFound_Lxam // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>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
**************************************************
YouFound_Lxam
Added: 2 hours ago
Reason:
Pro, had a more laid out argument
Pro provided more sources than Con
Pro worded their arguments better
Are you arguing as a devil's advocate or have you changed your mind about God?