Points: 8

God Exists

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Type1
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 14
Description
Just a simple debate of God's Existence.
Round 1
Published:
Science tells us, we observe with our own eyes and experience, the fact that all things in this material universe have a beginning...and an end.  And nothing....NOTHING...in this material universe has been shown to "come into existence" on it's own, without the aid or cause of some outside agent.  The chair your sitting on.....the computer your using....the phone you are texting with...the earth on which we stand....all that, and everything else, NEEDS (REQUIRES) something else in order for it to exist.  ALl things we observe in the material universe we realize requires something to make it exist.  You can ask this of everything.  You keep asking and asking and ultimately you get to the question of "matter" itself  (Whassamatta U.).

What caused matter to exist?  Well, as we observe all around us, "matter" could not cause itself to exist-- this would fly in the face of everything we observe in the universe.  So if matter could not cause itself to exist, something "outside of matter" (i.e. "immaterial", or not made of matter) would be required to create it.

Of course, one could argue "well maybe "matter" and the "universe" have always existed".....Maybe...but again, this would fly in the face of everythign we observe scientifically and with our own eyes-- there is not one thing made of matter that we can confirm has always existed...

Not made of "matter" (immaterial) is one of the attributes of this Entity.  


Published:
Science tells us, we observe with our own eyes and experience, the fact that all things in this material universe have a beginning...and an end.  And nothing....NOTHING...in this material universe has been shown to "come into existence" on it's own, without the aid or cause of some outside agent.
I absolutely agree with you, so how do you suppose your God can exist causelessly?
Round 2
Published:
This Entity (God) would be an uncaused Cause.  Now if you say "not impossible!", why would this not be possible?

What I said about everything in the material universe needing to have a cause applies to everything in the material universe.  As I stated, the "cause" of matter would need to be something that is NOT matter, and also "outside" the universe (otherwise it could not cause/create matter/universe per the logic stated previously). 

So the argument that everything needs a cause would not necessarily apply to this Cause, since it is outside the material universe.

It would be in appropriate to say that a requirement/law/argument for things INSIDE the material universe is applicable to things OUTSIDE the material universe.  
Published:
What does it even mean to be immaterial? Even abstract concepts/consciousness are deeply rooted in the material and nothing we can perceive is beyond the physical plane, so how can you claim to know about a realm beyond the material universe? On top of this, even that which is clearly observable in the physical universe is unknown to us, we can know the properties of something but we don't really know "what" things are. So in other words, the conceptual, the physical, and the metaphysical are all the same thing and part of the same world.
So just by postulating that something is beyond the physical/material how does that make it exempt from causality? Physical properties and the actual existential essence of reality are inseparable, just as the abstract is inseparable from the physical brain. If something is super-physical and exempt from the laws of physics, maybe it can "exist" but it would not have physical properties. To have properties is to have physical attributes and behaviours, and all things which can "cause" or be "effected"  do so according to their properties. So if God is beyond physics, God cannot cause any physical change, because God has no presence in physical reality, he has no properties. If God has no properties, that does not make him exempt from causality, it makes him something which technically exists but which has no effect on anything. 
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Published:
**What does it even mean to be immaterial? Even abstract concepts/consciousness are deeply rooted in the material and nothing we can perceive is beyond the physical plane, so how can you claim to know about a realm beyond the material universe? On top of this, even that which is clearly observable in the physical universe is unknown to us, we can know the properties of something but we don't really know "what" things are. So in other words, the conceptual, the physical, and the metaphysical are all the same thing and part of the same world.
So just by postulating that something is beyond the physical/material how does that make it exempt from causality? Physical properties and the actual existential essence of reality are inseparable, just as the abstract is inseparable from the physical brain. If something is super-physical and exempt from the laws of physics, maybe it can "exist" but it would not have physical properties. To have properties is to have physical attributes and behaviours, and all things which can "cause" or be "effected"  do so according to their properties. So if God is beyond physics, God cannot cause any physical change, because God has no presence in physical reality, he has no properties. If God has no properties, that does not make him exempt from causality, it makes him something which technically exists but which has no effect on anything. **

"Immaterial" means in simple terms "not made of matter".  There are things that exist are not made of matter-- things such as ideas, concepts, dreams, etc.  While yes, they may be rooted in the material world, they themselves are not made of matter.  Materials things (things made of matter) are measurable and you can describe physical dimensions about them.  Not so with things that are not made of matter.

While you can argue that "Whatever caused matter to exist" would itself need a cause, I would ask why?  Whatever caused matter to exist would not be necessarily bound by the laws of our material universe (because it would exist OUTSIDE of our universe).  

If X caused the physical universe (material universe, matter) to exist, then it follows that X itself could not be made of matter, because matter could not bring itself into existence.  

I dont' understand how you can say that because God is beyond physics, God cannot cause any physical change.  HOw does that follow?  


Published:
"Immaterial" means in simple terms "not made of matter". 
That's not true. Immaterial means non-physical, matter is just one part of physical existence. Fields, waves and massless particles are also "material". Everything that can be proven to exist is physical, things like concepts and information would not be possible without electricity/matter etc. and are entirely derived from physical processes no matter how intangible they may subjectively appear to be. There is nothing in the entire universe which does not fit into the materialistic worldview, and nothing which necessitates the existence of God.


While you can argue that "Whatever caused matter to exist" would itself need a cause, I would ask why?  Whatever caused matter to exist would not be necessarily bound by the laws of our material universe (because it would exist OUTSIDE of our universe). 
If that's the case why would anything require cause and effect? The laws of physics are secondary to the laws of logic, it is illogical for something to come from nothing or to happen without cause whether it comes from this universe or not. The "laws" of physics can be wrong, and there can be different rules under different circumstances, but one thing that will always remain is logic, that is, the rules of reality itself rather than just "a" reality. Now, many people would argue that even things on the mere level of physics defy "logic", quantum physics seems to be very illogical but it's regarded as fact, things can be in two places at once etc. so why should our notions of logic decide what is true? Well I am not talking about our notions of logic, but what is objectively logical, if the universe defies our logic than it is not the fault of logic but rather our lack of it. Funnily enough, it is our logic telling us that the illogical world of quantum physics is real, because we are assuming that what theoretical equations tell us must be true even if they contradict all forms of reason and sanity.That being said, it is faith, whether it is faith in a theory or faith in a religion,  that is the beginning of the human lack of logic. Humans are capable of the objective logic I speak of, but we have a fatal tendency to believe rather than think, which creates mental baggage that prevents us from seeing the obvious. One example of these obvious truths is that something cannot come from nothing, whether it is the "quantum foam" that can easily be explained by fluctuations in the aether but which mainstream physicists insist is caused by magic virtual particles popping in and out of reality simultaneously from nothing, or it is a God which you believe must exist simply because that is what you decided to believe. 

But even if we just pretend everything I just said is bullshit, there is still the question of what basis there is for the existence of consciousness, with no structure or process to trigger or facilitate it's existence, to spontaneously exist and happen to be a perfect ethereal being with infinite power and wisdom rather than anything else which is just as likely to spawn from nothingness, assuming anything can at all.

I dont' understand how you can say that because God is beyond physics, God cannot cause any physical change.  HOw does that follow?  
Because if God is beyond physics, and has no physical properties, how can his existence register in the realm of physicality? Force for example is a physical property, if God is not physical than he cannot embody or exert any form of force. The electromagnetic force is responsible for my ability to send signals to my fingers which tell them what keys to hit on my keyboard, if I did not have physical properties I would not be able to use force in such a way. If God is not physical, he is not mechanistic, he has no properties which allow him to cause or be effected by anything. Nothing in the physical world can be effected by that which has no physical basis because it is the physical properties of a thing which governs how it reacts with the physical world.


Round 5
Published:
Um…actually…yes “Immaterial” means not made of matter.  The prefix “IM” when placed in front of a word results in the opposite meaning for that word…For example, “immature” means “not mature”.   “Impatient” means “not patient”.  “Impossible” means “not possible”.  Therefore, “Immaterial” means “not material.”  Not made of material (i.e. not made of matter).  So how is my use of “immaterial” not true?  I’d venture to guess that most people, most scientists, would say “matter” is a physical substance. 
 
I never said that there are NOT other things that are also “material”.  What I did say is that there exists things that are NOT made of matter….big difference.  Some things that are not made of matter include:  dreams, thoughts, ideas, concepts.  I agree these are rooted in physical realities (i.e. they may come from physical realities), but that does not mean or imply that they themselves are physical or made of matter.  Smoke comes from a fire…that does not mean smoke IS fire.
 
Let me ask you:
 
Question 1 - Do you agree that there are things that exist that are not made of matter?
Question 2 - why is it illogical for something to come from nothing?  Are you saying that it is NOT possible for something to come from nothing?  You give “quantum physics” as an example of something that may not be logical but is regarded as fact.  So now I ask you, are you giving “something coming from nothing” the same benefit of the doubt that you give quantum physics…..that this “illogical” notion (something coming from nothing) could very well be fact?  Why or why not?
Question 3 - You state, as if it were fact, that “something cannot come from nothing”.  I believe you call it an “obvious truth”.  How/why is this a truth, as you put it?  What basis or evidence do you have to say that this is truth?
 
Let’s not jump to other topics (“how do you explain the existence of consciousness,” etc)…let’s close out the topic of matter first.  Regarding matter, I believe there are three options:
 
                Option A – Matter has always existed, forever…infinitely in the past
                Option B – Matter created itself
                Option C – Something not made of matter had to create matter
 
Option A I believe doesn’t jive with what we experience or observe scientifically all around us.  We experience/witness material things having a beginning and end all the time.  If we say “matter has always existed”, this would fly in the face of what we observe, and, dare I say, science.
 
Option B I believe doesn’t jive either with what we experience.  We do not observe things creating themselves.  Everything we observe, or at least MOST things, we observe requiring something else (something outside of it) to create it. 
 
That leaves us with Option C—that something not made of matter created matter.
 
You are correct “Force” is a physical property of matter.   It is used to describe the physical, but “force” in and of itself is not a physical thing.  It is a description, much like height, weight, and depth…..these are words/concepts we use to DESCRIBE the physical. 
 
If we say that something outside the material universe had to create the material universe, doesn’t it make sense that whatever is “outside” the material universe and created the material universe, would be beyond the powers/forces of the material universe? 
 
The idea of “force” is a law of this universe.  Why do you believe that something that created the universe (and thus outside the universe) would necessarily be bound by the laws of that universe.  Again, logic would tell us that that which created the universe and it’s laws would not necessarily be bound by the laws of that universe……
 
YOU are a creature/inhabitant of this universe.  YOU are bound by the laws of this universe.  Therefore it makes sense (logic tells us), that you need to be, as you put it, mechanistic, to strike the keys of the keyboard, etc.  However, if something is outside/beyong/the-creator-of this universe, why does that entity have to be bound by the laws of that universe? 

Published:
“Immaterial” means “not material.”  Not made of material (i.e. not made of matter).  So how is my use of “immaterial” not true?  I’d venture to guess that most people, most scientists, would say “matter” is a physical substance.  
Materialism is the idea that only physical, tangible things exist. If it was about "matter" specifically no scientist would be a materialist because there are a lot of  things other than just matter, but all those things are "material" as in physical or "of substance". When I say immaterial I mean non-physical, when you say immaterial you mean non-matter, tomato tomado. If you would like me to use a different word then fine but until you coin the word "physicalist" or "unphysical" and have it put into the dictionary immaterial is the word I'll be using.

Some things that are not made of matter include:  dreams, thoughts, ideas, concepts.  I agree these are rooted in physical realities (i.e. they may come from physical realities), but that does not mean or imply that they themselves are physical or made of matter.
If they are physical then you have failed to provide even one example of something immaterial as in non-physical. There is no question that they are not made of matter or if something derived from matter is necessarily matter.

Do you agree that there are things that exist that are not made of matter?
Yes, even matter isn't made of matter.

why is it illogical for something to come from nothing?
It is absolutely impossible for something to come from nothing. Nothing is literally nothing and therefor has no potential to create anything. At least quantum mechanics has some correlation to reality, it is something we use to deal with things we don't understand but are still capable of learning about and interacting with.

Option A – Matter has always existed, forever…infinitely in the past
                Option B – Matter created itself
                Option C – Something not made of matter had to create matter
Option C is correct. What we call matter is a configuration of something which is material but not made of matter. Matter is an oscillating vortex which forms into different "knot" like formations based on the layered centripetal trajectories and the counter-pressures they impose. Think of an atom as whirlpool and the smaller particles as bubbles and smaller vortexes inside of the whirlpool. It is all made of the same thing, water i.e the Aether, but because we are using mathematics to explain the behaviour of the pool we do not see the pool itself, we only see the vortexes and the bubbles and we quantify each as something separate and distinct.

You are correct “Force” is a physical property of matter.   It is used to describe the physical, but “force” in and of itself is not a physical thing.
Both of those statements are incorrect. Only the third (first) is correct. Force is not a property of matter, matter is a property of force. Matter is not a thing in itself, matter is a process that happens because of the flow of force. Force is a property of the Unified Field, which is the only thing that is actually a thing, but all of it's properties manifest as "forces" as in the rarefaction, compression, oscillation etc. of the field therefor everything is a process of pressure mediation within the field and every "physical thing" is just a certain distribution of various forces being applied in various ways.

If we say that something outside the material universe had to create the material universe, doesn’t it make sense that whatever is “outside” the material universe and created the material universe, would be beyond the powers/forces of the material universe?  
If there is a multiverse (multiple realities) then the multiverse is actually the universe. There is no separate reality, there is reality itself and then there are different ways of seeing reality and different layers of it that you may or may not be able to perceive. That being said, there may be different rules in different times and places but they all exist within the construct known as "reality" which has rules of it's own which preside over all that exists. One of those rules is that infinitely wise and powerful sentient ethereal beings don't spontaneously pop out of nothing and create universes.

And even if everything I said in this whole debate is a load of bollocks, you still haven't met your BoP.
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
Well it doesn't matter if we agree, that's just a trap to make it look like I didn't understand your argument. The only thing that matters is what the argument ultimately amounts to.
It's the Kalam cosmological argument with the God assumption added in.
You can word it however you want. But that is ultimately what you're advocating for.
#34
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
@Wrick-It
I want to see if you and I agree on what my baseline premise was. Can you restate for me what you think my baseline premise was?
Instigator
#33
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
@Ramshutu A few things:
1. I wasn't asking you to explain your vote. I'm trying to understand which parts/points of my argument do you disagree with? You said my argument was bad, implying there were errors (or you disagreed) with certain parts of my argument. What I'm trying to understand (at least gain yoru perspective) is which poitns of my argument did you not agree with, and why? Of course, I won't settle for a general "I disagree with all of it" lol...that's a cop out...you should be able to address the points specifically, otherwise it'll like you disagree for other reasons...
2. Regarding my comment about an “This Entity (God) would be an uncaused Cause”......so you disagree with that statement,-- YOu belive God, too, would require a Cause? If so, then I must ask why? Why do you think the Creator of the universe would require a cause? I ask because I believe you are reading things I didn't say into my arguments, or not fully understanding.
Instigator
#32
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
None of those items on the list were the cause of me awarding your opponent the win.
#31
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
“why do you think I exempted God from requiring a creator?”
Because you said “This Entity (God) would be an uncaused Cause”
Hard to have a creator if you had no cause...
#30
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
The reason this premise gets kicked to the curb is simple. There's no justification for it. Baseline premises come from induction. This is how we build up to higher conclusions. God cannot be verified via identity (revealing himself) So we cannot justify god via induction. Furthermore, uncaused causes cannot come from induction because they suffer the same problem as god. Basically. Your argument is built on a foundation of quick sand.
#29
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
In simple, terms, why do you think I exempted God from requiring a creator?
Instigator
#28
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Which of these points is incorrect or wrong in your opinion?
Why the universe needs a creator:
1. We observe everything around us as having a beginning and end.
2. When things begin, they need a creator-- they need something(s) outside of themselves in order for them to be created. Things do not "create" themselves into being.
3. If you ask this of everything, you ultimately arrive at the question of "matter" itself. What caused matter to exist?
4. "Matter" could not create itself (refer to item 2 above)
5. Therefore, matter needs a creator that is not made of "matter" (if what created "matter" was also made of "matter, then this would contradict what we observe...see item 2).
6. Apply this to universe. Logic would tell us the universe needs a beginning (see item 1.....science and physics has also pointed us to this conclusion too).
Now which of these are you not understanding or questioning?
Instigator
#27
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
A good debate to take a look it is this one:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/452
It’s a good example of a well arguments resolution.
#26
Added:
The problem isn’t that I don’t understand your argument, it’s that your argument is bad.
Your whole argument is special pleading - that the universe required a creator, and God doesn’t. Your justification is basically you asserting that the universe needs a creator at some level and God doesn’t. Your list creates a big list of reasons why things must have a creator - then you exempt the creator from the reasoning you just listed to prove he needed a creator. The reason you exempt god from your logical reasoning for why he does not require a creator is because you have arbitrarily defined that there is a difference, and asserted that this arbitrary difference means God doesn’t follow the rules. This is bad logic.
The second point, is simpler, and oddly, a more profound error. You’re trying to prove God exists. You are doing that by trying to prove God is necessary. Your responses below seem to be implying that you were not arguing God is necessary. For god to be necessary, your God must be the only thing that could have created the universe, and by arguing that there could be lots of other things that could exist without a creator - you yourself have just argued away that inherent necessity. Why couldn’t any of those non-God things have caused the universe?
You don’t have to convince me God exists to win my vote - you just have to come up with a better argument. You should review the logic and reasoning you’ve used as it really is not as good as you think it is.
#25
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
"Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why God - as you define him - is the only possible thing that doesn’t need a creator."
First off, i'm hoping that's not what you based your vote on, because if you did, you misinterpret and misread what I wrote. Tis a pity. Lol I don't need to do that because that is not what I said. I don't think i ever said God is the ONLY thing that doesn't need a creator. What I did say was that the Creator itself would not be created. Again, big difference. Put another way, what I said is this: if "X" created the universe, then "X" itself would not be "created"....could there very well be other things outside the universe, such as "Y" and "Z", that don't need a creator? Sure. Personally, I don't believe that, but again, that's not what I'm arguing (I can argue that later). That wasn't part of my argument, and it's not accurate for you to say or imply that's what I said.. Again, what I said was this: What created the universe would need to be an Uncaused Cause (i.e. uncreated). I never said it was the ONLY thing that was uncreated.
Now what I did say too was that everything we observe in the universe requires a creator, something outside of itself that helps it or is a catalyst for it coming into being. If you disagree with this, then I challenge you to find anything that did not need something else in order for it to exist.
Instigator
#24
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Let's take this one at a time. What part of my argument did you not understand or are you questioning? Thought it was pretty clear and simple:
Why the universe needs a creator:
1. We observe everything around us as having a beginning and end.
2. When things begin, they need a creator-- they need something(s) outside of themselves in order for them to be created. Things do not "create" themselves into being.
3. If you ask this of everything, you ultimately arrive at the question of "matter" itself. What caused matter to exist?
4. "Matter" could not create itself (refer to item 2 above)
5. Therefore, matter needs a creator that is not made of "matter" (if what created "matter" was also made of "matter, then this would contradict what we observe...see item 2).
6. Apply this to universe. Logic would tell us the universe needs a beginning (see item 1.....science and physics has also pointed us to this conclusion too).
Now which of these are you not understanding or questioning?
Instigator
#23
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
The issue here is that your whole argument was that God exists because he is necessary to explain the cause of the universe. The only justification for this statement was special pleading - that you make God exempt from the requirements that you assign to the universe.
The justifications you gave as to why God is exempt was arbitrary, and unsupported: the only reasons you gave as to why you can claim God doesn’t need an external creator whereas the universe does appeared to be down to reasons of the immaterial that you simply unilaterally state are exempt.
To have won this debate using the argument you made, you would have had to:
1.) Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why the universe necessitates a creator.
2.) Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why God - as you define him - is the only possible thing that doesn’t need a creator.
You did neither of those things. Instead what you did, is assert that an uncaused cause is required based on your arbitrary discussion about the immaterial.
#22
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
"Nice to see you."
Don't know why I am here. Maybe because I am not getting content on DDO so now I flip flop between the two.
"What comment specifically do you want me to address?"
Lets start with the basics. What axioms do use that can prove to be true since from another debate I think you stated you believe in objectivity?
#21
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Nice to see you.
So what comments specifically are you addressing with the reply "Depends on your logic". What comment specifically do you want me to address?
Instigator
#20
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
All things being equal. Pro simply fell short of the BOP Pro's argument was essentially the Kalam Cosmological Argument with the additional premise that the "uncaused cause" is a god. This assertion is not support by the kalam alone. Pro needed to provide additional evidence to show the correlation. Furthermore, Pro was not able to justify the premise that god was justified to fall into a different category apart form literally all of known reality. Without this proof, Pro's argument essentially landed on a special pleading fallacy and bled to death.
Both debaters were polite and vigorous in their arguments. Fun to read.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The primary contention here, by pro, is that everything needs something else to exist - thus God is needed to explain the existence of anything.
Con agrees - and asks pro to justify why everything else needs a cause but God does not.
The justification pro gives is that everything is material and God is not. On its face this smacks of text book special pleading, and as the debate wears on, con hammers home this point in a round about way.
Con basically asks why the immaterial is not subject to cause and effect, what is something that is immaterial anyways, and whether pro can show the immaterial exists.
What wins this for con - is that through his line of questioning regarding the material, he makes pros argument seem an arbitrary assertion: he asks pro to justify the exemptions he assigns to God through the invocation of the immaterial.
Pro didn’t recover, and could only really assert that his exemptions are valid.
There were a few ancillary points con made (God outside reality / how can non physical be conscious), but I have not assessed these as the main argument is enough to win on its own.
Arguments to con.
All other points tied.