Instigator / Pro

FishChaser

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:

Parameters

Publication date: 05.22.2025 02:19AM
Last updated date: 05.30.2025 09:56PM
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

Sir.Lancelot

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

FishChaser

05.24.2025 04:08AM

Pro

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.

Sir.Lancelot

05.24.2025 04:55AM

Con

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.

https://home.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/aquinas.html

Round 2

FishChaser

05.25.2025 01:46AM

Pro

The First Way: Motion

1. 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 motion
5. 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?

The Second Way: Efficient Cause
1. 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 Necessity

1. "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?

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.

Sir.Lancelot

05.27.2025 03:14PM

Con

The Big Bang and Evolution also weaken the default assumption of agnosticism

Round 3

FishChaser

05.27.2025 03:29PM

Pro

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.

Sir.Lancelot

05.30.2025 02:52PM

Con

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.

AdaptableRatman

05.30.2025 09:56PM

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:

Pro outperformed Con on every level in this debate. The reason I cannot give Sources to Pro is that Pro relied on Con's source and did not source his own rebuttals. He did not even mention the source.

Con never ever presented the 5 ways by Aquinas. He linked, too lazy to present his case. That would be okay is those 5 ways were a subpoint backing ither stuff up but it was the skeleton of his case not even the meat alone.

In Rounf 2 and 3, Pro step by step clarifies issues with the 5 ways by Aquinas as well as how big bang and evokution don't necessarily prove wrong the resol tion that there are no arguments for or against the existence of God that actually make agnosticism less reasonable.

He had uncontested points against Aquinas' 5 ways are that the prime mover and prime cause must be moved or caused by what Pro interprets from the earlier premises in said ways. Another strong rebuttal was that if God is the greatest of everything he would need all opposite traits too. In fact one can i tuit from that rebuttal an even further issue that the proposed god would need to be infinitely evil, powerless, unwise to also be infinitely good, powerful and wise. There are ways to address this but Con never bothers to in the entire debate.