No Gods Exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
2. Omni Gods
I'm honestly not sure what my opponent means by the mathematical argument. Regardless his argument here ends up backfiring big time. Going back to my KCA (which I will fully defend in the next round), I argue that the universe is not infinitely old and had finite in nature. If the universe, and the particles, were infinite in age, we would have reached the "death heat of the universe" which will happen when we run out of entropy. So what could have been the cause of the universe? The cause must have existed prior to the universe. There is a hypothesis called the cyclic model, that argues the universe goes from big-bang to big-crunch [2], but this leaves us with an infinite regress which is problematic.
Rather than being an argument against God, it is actually an argument for God! How does one define evil and how does one objectively measure it? Indeed there must be an absolute being that we call God that is the source of our morality. Matt Slick notes 5 issues with this line of reasoning [5]:
- Evil is not defined. Therefore, the assessment of the statements cannot be validated.
- If evil were defined, what would justify the definition as being the right one?
- Epicurus presupposes a moral absolute that if God can prevent evil, then he should. But how is such a moral absolute justified as being true?
- The problem of how much evil (all, most, some) ought to be prevented is not addressed.
- The problem of preventing evil thoughts and intentions with its implication of denying free will is also not addressed.
Controversies
Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.[23][24] More recently, Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence."[25] According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it."[26] Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system".[27] According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state."[28] Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way."[29] In Landsberg's opinion: "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book."[30]
A recent analysis of entropy states, "The entropy of a general gravitational field is still not known", and, "gravitational entropy is difficult to quantify". The analysis considers several possible assumptions that would be needed for estimates and suggests that the observable universe has more entropy than previously thought. This is because the analysis concludes that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor.[31] Lee Smolin goes further: "It has long been known that gravity is important for keeping the universe out of thermal equilibrium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative specific heat—that is, the velocities of their components increase when energy is removed. ... Such a system does not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. Instead it becomes increasingly structured and heterogeneous as it fragments into subsystems."[32]
Con FF a round in the middle of the debate which halted the entire debate since this means that Con couldn't post arguments in the last round. This is poor conduct.
Considering that neither side here defines What they actually mean by God (slap!), I am forced to piece together the definition. I’ll deal with that at the end.
Pro starts off with a set of justifications as to why the concept of Gods should be ruled out by default.
He starts by explaining the omni god and their properties a logical contradictory. He raises the typical problem of evil, and uses the contradictions inherent to rule this God out.
He goes on to rule out lesser gods that adhere to the laws of physics. This seems much more tenuous a position in my view - and it’s not fully clear whether there are any Gods in between.
The God by definition argument - imo does a reasonable Job of ruling out - or at an explanation for why evidence is required of Gods by definition.
The metaphysical argument - smacks of special pleading - and feels as if pro is simply trying to rule out Gods by definition. The logic seems to be incredibly sneaky to me, and doesn’t feel intuitive as it doesn’t feel as if Pro has truly covered all bases.
Cons opening argument is a typical Kalam and Ontological arguments. These are well presented and they work as they appear prima facia intuitive.
Pros rebuttal here is one of the best take downs of the ontological argument I’ve seen: pro points out that pro is jumping from a possibility to an actuality in a hidden step - providing a modified of premise 2 version that follows better and specifically highlights the logical error the OA makes. The take down explains his the replacement of does exist with possible clearly undermines the whole position. This was excellent.
The KCA take down was just as good. Again, one of the best.
To start with, pro points out we have never seen anything that has begun to exist - everything is made from something else - and this is the first time I’ve seen this argument. It uniquely specifies why we can’t make the determination from the first premise.
The second part was also unique - when modifying Kalam to use formed from something else (which is all we have ever seen), it loses its intuitive power.
In my view both these points were excellent take downs.
Cons rebuttal uses the free will argument to challenge the problem of evil. I feel this rebuttal was exceptionally generic, con needed to take the fight to con and challenge on specific arguments and issues using examples. As the PoE is intuitive, the argument presented by con fails to really explain what it is about the formulation that is wrong.
Con also doesn’t fully offer a rebuttal to “omni Gods” other than the issue of KCA infinite regress issue.
As this is the last round by con, I feel I can summarize at this point.
In the end, pros position here is a bit pokey - but there is enough there for me to feel he’s met his initial burden of proof. It feels like the are gaps in his definitions, but as these were pointed out, it would really be my opinion. As a result, I feel with cons forfeits and lack of a significant counter, I have to side with pro.
Arguments to pro.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
I'm voting on argument based on the first two rounds only. Please let me know if you think this is unfair.
Argument:
This was interesting. Both of the first two rounds were comprehensive, so there's not much to say there. Pro ruled out why he thinks that none of the gods that he mentioned can exist, and Con went the logical route as to why a god must exist. Because of the forfeit, the essentially boils down to who critiqued the other's opening argument better.
Omni-Gods:
I would have given this to Con had he fully explained why the universe can't be infinitely old, but because he put this off for the next round, this point falls and I am giving the point to Pro.
Evil:
Con did a good job here of showing his point on evil, and how it must be objective to work in the scenario he describes. I'm giving this point to him.
Maximally Powerful Beings:
Con doesn't really give a rebuttal here, instead using the watchmaker argument. Without sufficient backup, it falls and this point goes to Pro.
Ontological:
Pro wrote a very long rebuttal to this, but my problem with it is that it argues purely over semantics. He never critiques the underlying argument and only the words on top, so this point is tied.
Kalaam:
Pro sufficiently ruled this out by saying that it doesn't relate to a god, so he gets this point.
All-in-all, Pro got more points, so I am giving argument to him. I hope both parties will redo this so that I can see the full debate. Good job. :)
Conduct:
Pro gets conduct because Con forfeited.
*Tied In All Othes*
I miss a lot of notifications because of the way the system is here. I usually have to manually check all my debates because I get confused when I have too many link to click on my notifications so I constantly delete it and sometimes a comment or vote slips by me if I'm busy that day.
First of all, how have you missed this for 6 days lol
Second of all, I always vote objectively, that’s offensive
Jk (about it being offenseive, not my votes being objectives because they are lol)
Wow, I appreciate the objective vote man. Kudos to you.
This was a good debate but jumped around a lot... and argues the same ole tired god.
I'm interested bc in all of you your good descriptions you didn't including what i would define god as. God is everything, god isn't a who but a platform, it a source where everything comes from, god is an infinite consciousnesses type platform that is everything, this source platform manifests what it knows as corporeal realities in order for these realities to experience, the source platform isn't good or evil it is not a who but everything, therefore, evil is just one manifestation of this platform, so is good, if a reality requires both to be what it is then both are necessary. I'm probably leaving out things but i'll define it that far.
Evidence of it's existence is through us, bc we are all this platform. Therefore, some should be aware of this platform, some should not be... bc remember it's everything. Some should have experiences, some should not... some do have experiences that defy this reality, some have experiences of knowing exact events in the future, some have experiences that defy what should be allowed. These experiences are real and largely ignored by skeptics. Skeptic do not have experience bc that is what they are... they aren't suppose to have them. If they did, they wouldn't be skeptics. As for why don't we all have experiences or remember? Many problems, if you remember as the source platform you wouldn't be able to have your experience... and likely go a little mad being everything simultaneously. Why doesn't everyone experience? Bc then we wouldn't have skeptics, scientists (of certain fields that require to be focused minus worry of spirituality), atheists, etc...
Religion is what a person believes, all religions are known to this platform. Therefore, the person that experiences what they know is likely from that experience.. again the platform is everything. It is infinitely everything. It all comes down to the observer. That's all i can write.
Actually, after reviewing the whole debate, would you be interested, Wrick it Ralph, in the same debate but between us? So long as we can keep the 30,000 character limit. This one might get lengthy
I would interested in a debate about your first premise, regarding the meta-physical. Would you?
Fantastic RFD! Thanks so much for the feedback
Indeed
That’s a debate unto itself
There are divided opinions about that very topic here, lol.
No problem. I wish I’d have realized it was 2 day to respond and not 3. I felt it would be poor conduct to argue in this round
Good Debate. I wish you would have at least posted your rejoinder in the last round though.
I would have voted. but then I saw that Con forfeited, so it's hard to do so unless I just give conduct to Pro. I was looking forward to the ending and I hope that you guys redo this. :/
Just to clarify. That link I posted was my source. I see that I kind of worded it funny.
Oh dear. I just read your statement. This just heated up. I'm excited. :)
Ha you agree with me on the only part that is correct.
Keep your illusion that is the soul.
physically? you are correct, but the soul is eternal and unchanging.
"Why not just be nice to everyone?"
Why not be nicer to the higher-ups?
Do you love God more than you love your mother?
"Basically, just be yourself to everyone."
Yourself is meaningless. You weren't you 1 second ago or 1 year ago or yesterday. At that very point you are you until you know you are in with 1 more second of life. No-one is their "self" they are people on a timer waiting to expire.
I disagree with your assessment of "Jerking" the higher ups for favor. Why not just be nice to everyone? if someone is being mean then you can just walk away, if someone is doing something wrong, call them out on it! The position of a person doesn't make them more or less responsible to moral obligations nor does it warrant the idea of sucking up to them to protect yourself.
Basically, just be yourself to everyone.
"Sounds like game of thrones."
God (debateart.com)
There is one top guy I guess Cerci (bsh1)
Underling I guess Jaimie (don't get offended Virutoso)
Jon Snow (RationalMadman)
Tywin (Ramshutu)
I guess that is it.
Sounds like game of thrones.
"I used to rock arm sleeves in high school. They were super popular when I was a teenager a million years ago. I also wore a dog collar, so take that how you'd like."
Wow I must be from another universe.
"You seem to be in a really good mood today. I never see you deviate from serious statements."
Good mood? I don't want to kicked off the site. You have to jerk the higher-ups to gain favour. Without favour your screwed. Look at the real world. Nepotism works and highly doubt I would ever get close to that but hopefully we are on good terms.
You seem to be in a really good mood today. I never see you deviate from serious statements.
"Your conduct was fine. I believe he's being sarcastic."
No I heard you could remove me from existence. I mean as in remove me from the site.
"Rolling on the floor laughing"
Hey you have to respect the higher ups or you will be punished. I think so at least since I haven't seen the rules. Where are they?
"I honestly have no clue...."
Must be like 0.00000001%
I don't think I did the percentage justice but you get the point. Not a lot of people. Really rare.
I used to rock arm sleeves in high school. They were super popular when I was a teenager a million years ago. I also wore a dog collar, so take that how you'd like.
"Well I was aiming for matter of fact with sound conduct. Did I fail? :("
I don't want to speak on his behalf. From my point of view you have stuck to the arguments without the name-calling.
Should have directed that to Virtuoso.
1) ROFL = Rolling on the floor laughing
2) I honestly have no clue....
Your conduct was fine. I believe he's being sarcastic.
"Rofl"
What is that?
"They're called arm sleeves"
How much of the population of the world do you think wears them? As a percentage.
Never heard of them and knew Jeff Hardy wore women's leggings on his arms. I think so.
Well I was aiming for matter of fact with sound conduct. Did I fail? :(
They're called arm sleeves
Rofl
Are those woman's leggings on your arms?
Jeff Hardy from WWE uses them don't know what they are called.
I know I did say to Instigator to be respectful but I had to ask.
Be respectful don't want to be an enemy of someone who does God's work.
He is basically does stuff for the site. Made one of my forum post read-only so you know he means business.