Instigator / Pro
7
1542
rating
111
debates
59.01%
won
Topic
#6180
There are no arguments for OR against the existence of God that actually make agnosticism less reasonable
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- 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
4
1597
rating
199
debates
55.03%
won
Description
No semantics
no attempting to frame me with higher BoP (if anything it is up to the opinion-having one to prove their point to the neutral/agnostic one)
Definitions are not arguments
Round 1
It is more efficient if you try to point out ones that do instead of me literally naming every argument and pointing out why none of them do.
Agnosticism - The belief that the existence of a god or supreme being is unknowable. (Oxford Languages.)
Burden of Proof: On-balance.
The Five Ways by Thomas Aquinas raises valid scientific arguments that leaves a lot of room for doubt toward agnosticism. Because there are a cycle of effects, there must be an original cause. That First Cause is God.
Something could not have come from nothing. Complexity and design necessitates an intelligent mind.
Round 2
The First Way: Motion1. All bodies are either potentially in motion or actually in motion.2. "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality" (419).3. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect.4. Therefore nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality with respect to motion5. Therefore nothing can move itself; it must be put into motion by something else.6. If there were no "first mover, moved by no other" there would be no motion.7. But there is motion.8. Therefore there is a first mover, God.
premise 5 contradicts premise 6, if nothing can move itself and everything must be put into motion by something else there can be no "first mover, moved by no other"
Also "God" is asserted here overlooking other possibilities. Why couldn't the first mover be a singularity for example?
Also "God" is asserted here overlooking other possibilities. Why couldn't the first mover be a singularity for example?
The Second Way: Efficient Cause1. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself.2. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A is absent, so is B.3. Efficient causes are ordered from first cause, through intermediate cause(s), to ultimate effect.4. By (2) and (3), if there is no first cause, there cannot be any ultimate effect.5. But there are effects.6. Therefore there must be a first cause for all of them: God.
premise 1 is contradicted by premise 6, if nothing is the efficient cause of itself then there can be no first cause
Also "God" is asserted here overlooking other possibilities. Why couldn't the first cause be a quantum field for example?
The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity1. "We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be:" contingent beings.2. Everything is either necessary or contingent.3. Assume that everything is contingent.4. "It is impossible for [contingent beings] always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not."5. Therefore, by (3) and (4), at one time there was nothing.6. "That which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing."7. Therefore, by (5) and (6), there is nothing now.8. But there is something now!9. Therefore (3) is false.10. Therefore, by (2), there is a necessary being: God.
"God" is asserted here again, overlooking other possibilities. Why couldn't the necessary being be an algorithm for example?
In fact, this whole thing is just a series of assertions.
What if every contingent being is necessary, because it was bound to have existed?
What if something can be necessary at one time, but not at another?
What if something can have possibly not existed, but just so happens to never have not existed?
In fact, this whole thing is just a series of assertions.
What if every contingent being is necessary, because it was bound to have existed?
What if something can be necessary at one time, but not at another?
What if something can have possibly not existed, but just so happens to never have not existed?
The Fourth Way: Gradation
1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better (hotter, colder, etc.) than others.2. Things are X in proportion to how closely the resemble that which is most X.3. Therefore, if there is nothing which is most X, there can be nothing which is good.4. It follows that if anything is good, there must be something that is most good.5. "Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God" (420)
I guess if we define "better" and "good" and "perfection" as the most extreme possible version of something as Thomas seems to, that means God is the hottest and the coldest, the alpha and the omega, the most good and the most evil, the gayest and the straightest etc.
So God is a being comprised of all contradictory and opposite extremes. His entire existence is self-defeating and self refuting according to this argument.
Or perhaps Thomas would say "no no, he is only the extremest version of the good things".
What does "good" even mean in this context? What makes you think that God has to be "good" ? Why does the thing in question have to be God at all? Once again, "God" is asserted here, overlooking other possibilities. Why couldn't the "most good" thing be Plato's concept of the metaphysical "good" from which all forms proceed?
The Fifth Way: Design
1. We observe that natural bodies act toward ends.2. Anything that acts toward an end either acts out of knowledge, or under the direction of something with knowledge, "as the arrow is directed by the archer."3. But many natural beings lack knowledge.4. "Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God" (420).
The conclusion is based on conflating "effect" with "purpose". Just because there is a result doesn't mean there is an intention.
The Big Bang and Evolution also weaken the default assumption of agnosticism
Round 3
The big bang was initially postulated by a Catholic Priest, even though atheists use it to somehow try to debunk religion. It doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with whether there is a God or not.
There is also "theistic evolution" so evolution doesn't inherently care if there is a God or not either.
Also simply naming theories without explaining why they actually undermine agnosticism is insufficient.
There is also "theistic evolution" so evolution doesn't inherently care if there is a God or not either.
Also simply naming theories without explaining why they actually undermine agnosticism is insufficient.
Pro has not met their burden, nor have they put any effort into this debate. In the first round, I mentioned this is on-balance.
The Big Bang Theory, whether indirectly or not, has loose associations that give us information on the potential existence or nonexistence of a creator.
Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways also poke holes in agnosticism. Extend arguments and sources.
