Instigator / Pro

1510

rating

debates

53.91%

won

Topic

#4671

God probably exists

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

FishChaser

Tags

God

Parameters

Publication date: 07.03.2023 04:07PM
Last updated date: 07.24.2023 04:02PM
Type: Rated
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open
Minimal rating: None

Contender / Con

the_quiet_poet9

1486

rating

debates

45.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

FishChaser

07.03.2023 04:58PM

Pro

In the beginning there was either something, nothing or a meta-state between nothing and something. Something can't come from nothing and something probably can't "just exist" . The answer is probably the third option: In the beginning there was a nothing-something that evolved into somethingness as we know it. The first something that was a something-something was probably God. Underlying what we perceive as reality, the nothing-something is still very present as the default reality that exists without God's intervention.

Quantum foam - Wikipedia

Virtual particle - Wikipedia

Reality is nothing but virtual units of somethingness popping in and out of existence simultaneously without God. There are probabilities and possibilities but they exist and don't exist simultaneously. Building a tangible reality on top of quantum foam is like building a house on quicksand. The only thing that has the capability to turn this into an actually stable universe is a God that appears in the foam as a Boltzmann brain.

Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia

the_quiet_poet9

07.05.2023 06:45PM

Con

I accepted this debate without realizing which side I was on, but all shall be well because pro did not specify what con is arguing for.

Pro: God probably exists

Con: God does not probably exist

Pro's claim

In the beginning there existed a nothing-something that is known as quantum foam, and from it came God, because only a God could stabilize the universe

Arguments

Con did not define "God", but I am supposing that they are assuming it to be "a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people" (Britannica) and not, "the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe."

From this perspective, God is not all powerful, but must be subject to a higher power because he was created. But what is this higher power? According to con, it is quantum foam, however this doesn't line up with con's statement that the "nothing-something" is not something.

Something can't come from nothing and something probably can't "just exist" . The answer is probably the third option: In the beginning there was a nothing-something that evolved into somethingness as we know it.

This doesn't make sense because the nothing-something is still something.

Conclusion

God definitely exists and is all powerful

Round 2

FishChaser

07.06.2023 06:43PM

Pro

In your worldview did God create themselves or did they just exist?

Unlike a complicated and tangible structure such as a God, quantum foam doesn't need to be created. It is the most likely thing to "just exist" out of anything that could have possibly existed before everything else. It's almost like saying "the possibility of God existing existed before God".

What you are saying is that God existed before the possibility of anything existing whereas I am saying that existence is virtual possibilities but God can make a stable and tangible shared simulation.

the_quiet_poet9

07.08.2023 04:34PM

Con

I believe that God exists without reference to time.

I also believe that Quantum foam cannot "just exist".

1. quantum foam has matter

2. everything with matter must exist

3. everything that exists must be created

4. quantum foam must be created

Although the visual particles are constantly blinking, they still have matter and therefore must be created.

Round 3

FishChaser

07.08.2023 07:00PM

Pro

Quantum foam does and doesn't have matter. Matter is usually just a virtual manifestation of quantum fluctuations that doesn't remain stable/tangible for any real amount of time.

You have put more BOP on yourself by taking the position that God definitely exists.

Quantum foam consists of fluctuations that terminate as soon as they come into existence, therefore they never fully exist under normal conditions. Your idea of God however is an incredibly complex metaphysical structure that somehow happens to exist with no basis. Quantum foam is the simplest, most fundamental, most likely thing to simply pop into existence out of nothing in which more complex and tangible structures can momentarily form before disappearing. Disappearing unless they have the power to stabilize quantum fluctuations that is, like God would.

the_quiet_poet9

07.10.2023 04:02PM

Con

Exist definition: To have real being whether material or spiritual

Nonexistent definition: Not in actual or present occurrence; not existing

Something cannot both exist and not exist - it would be a contradiction.

Yes, God is very complex, but the complexity of something has nothing to do with how likely they are to exist. Following my argument that a nothing-something cannot exist, there must have either been something or nothing in the beginning. To quote pro, "Something can't come from nothing", so there must have been something. And what else could that something be other than God?

RationalMadman

07.22.2023 01:27AM

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:

Both sides use sources in a loose, weak way. They say something and back it up whether a definition or keyword, so both are tied for sources in my opinion.

I can follow the Kritik of Con but definite = 100% probability. However, Pro doesn't say this and therefore, I require a longer RFD.

In this debate, what I understand happens is that Pro's angle is very likely to exist, Con's angle is that it's 100% certain (without mention percentage or probability) and believes that this is a clever Kritik on the resolution, that I see as not quite so clever at all.

As the debate progresses from that point onwards, Con first does a syllogism to fight Pro's proof, stating that quantum foam as 'god' is not feasible due to it requiring creation. Following this, one round later, Con proceeds to make a new reverse-syllogism that Pro has no opportunity to reply to, this new syllogism tries to back up the original case that Pro has proven a god to 100% exist.

While Pro doesn't say that 'definitely' means 100% probability, what I understand happens here is Pro says Con has to prove it is definite and both Pro and Con seem to think the clash is whether or not quantum foam qualifies as a 'nothing something' or proof of something god-related... Which I am still confused to the end of the debate as who that even backs or why the actual fuck it is relevant to the topic (I am not saying I can't think of why, I am saying neither debater makes it remotely clear).