Points: 11

No Gods Exist

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Dustandashes
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Points: 14
Description
Round 1: Opening argument.
Round 2: Rebuttals of Openings.
Round 3: Rejoinder of Rebuttals.
Round 4: Interrogation Questions
Round 5: Answering Interrogation Questions and Closing Arguments.
Round 1
Published:
Thank you to my opponent for accepting and lets get down to business. 


I am here to claim that No Gods Exist. 

I will establish the methodology of my Evidence and then present it. 


1.  Evidence for Non Existence. 

As we all know, not all claims are created equal. 

  • My Name is Bob.
  • My Name is Not Bob
  • I have a Dog
  • I do not have a Dog
  • God exist
  • God does not exist. 
All of these claim have different standards of evidence.  The first two merely require personal affirmation of the subject and no evidence of the contrary. 

The third example has the same standards as the last claim, except the existence of the identity cited is in question here.  While the initial standard of the claim will be sufficient at first, you will expect to eventually confirm the identity of "Person X's Dog" So this has a higher standard of evidence. 

In the cause of the fourth example what you expect is to have a lack of identity, as long as this identity was never confirmed by any evidence, then the affirmation of nonexistence by the person making the claim is sufficient so long as the existence of the dog is never proven. If a person was highly skeptical, a complete induction of the man's apartment and daily life would be necessary to ensure the non identity of "Not Dog"



This brings me to my methodology.  The sixth claim on the list has a specific standard of evidence here.  In order to disprove God, I must: 

A)  Do a complete induction of all tautological God Claims. (All claims that fit the generally accepted definitions of god)

B)  Confirm within this induction that there is no identity to be found, effectively confirming a "non identity" 

C)  Confirm that any evidence of the negation of my claim is not sufficient. 


These are the Standards I will use to disprove God.




2. Omni Gods

An Omni God is essentially the same as a maximally powerful God, but the reason we make a stop here is to pin down something important. 


A maximally powerful God still must obey the laws of physics in order to interact with it. 


This means that God cannot use mathematical or physical properties that are not real.  God cannot make a Square Triangle for instance. Or make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it.  Nor can god create infinite matter.  He could create as much matter as he wants, but he would have to obey time and space while doing so and therefore cannot just infinitely produce it.  

With this is mind, we can move down the next step. 


3. Maximally Powerful Gods. 

Now we have a God that is bound by the laws of physics.  This is the first major step of our complete induction.  Science has been able to draw a fairly detailed map of the observable universe.  We've discovered that the same composition of materials and energies that we see in our galaxy also show up at roughly the same consistency throughout the observable universe.  

This means that if there was a maximally powerful God.  It would have been spotted by now. 

Instead what we see is just particles.  Lots and lots of particles.  So unless God is a particle, we're in trouble here. 


4. Deist God.

This would be a god that basically made the universe and never came back to check on us.  A God of this nature is essentially the same as not existing. At some point when we look far enough out in our universe, we have to acknowledge that things are too far to be called into existence. 

Lets say I have a planet that takes 10 human lifetimes to circumnavigate.  Person A lives at the North Pole.  Person B lives at the south Pole.  Neither person has the technology to reach the other.  They are so far away, that even if both of them intuitively head straight for them, it would take 5 human life times for them to meet.  So Person A is justified to believe that Person B doesn't exist and visa versa. 

This is the reason why it is justified to disqualify the Deist God as existing. 


5. God By Definition.

This would more or less entail finding the cause of the universe and naming it God.  Sadly, it's probably the strongest argument for God.  But ultimately, it's logically vacuous and I would hope that most people including other Theists would not accept such flimsy claims. 




I'll leave everyone with some information on the subject. 

I await the Opening Statement of My opponent. 


Arguments against the existence of God[edit]
Part of a series on

Each of the arguments below aims to show that a particular set of gods does not exist—by demonstrating them to be inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts—or that there is insufficient proof to say that they do exist.
Empirical arguments[edit]
The following empirical arguments rely on observations or experimentation to yield their conclusions.
  • The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Hindu Vedas, the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Qur'an, the Book of Mormon or the Baha'i Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts.
  • The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.
  • The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates.
  • The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.
  • The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.
  • The argument from parsimony (using Occam's razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[69] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.
  • The analogy of Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist; it can be considered an extension of Occam's Razor.
Deductive arguments[edit]
The following arguments deduce, mostly through self-contradiction, the existence of a God as "the Creator".
  • Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book The Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings.[70] Christian mathematicians and scientists, most notably Leonhard Euler, Bernard d'Espagnat[71] and John Lennox,[72] disagree with that kind of skeptical argument.
  • A counter-argument against God as the Creator takes the assumption of the Cosmological argument ("the chicken or the egg"), that things cannot exist without creators, and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress.
  • Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit analogizes the above. Some theists argue that evolution is akin to a hurricane assembling a Boeing 747 — that the universe (or life) is too complex not to have been designed by someone, who theists call God. Dawkin's counter-argument is that such a God would himself be complex — the "Ultimate" Boeing 747 — and therefore require a designer.
  • Theological noncognitivism is the argument that religious language – specifically, words such as "God" – are not cognitively meaningful and that irreducible definitions of God are circular.
Some arguments focus on the existence of specific conceptions of God as being omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect.
  • The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory by considering questions such as "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot move it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself?"
  • Similarly, the omniscience paradox argues that God cannot be omniscient because he would not know how to create something unknown to himself.
  • Another argument points to the contradiction of omniscience and omnipotence arguing that God is bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing.
  • Argument from free will contends that omniscience and the free will of humanity are incompatible and that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is therefore inherently contradictory: if God is omniscient, then God already knows humanity's future, contradicting the claim of free will.
  • The anthropic argument states that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect, he would have created other morally perfect beings instead of imperfect ones, such as humans.
  • The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation contradicts God's omnibenevolence and omnipresence.
  • The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent Creator God by demonstrating that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science.















Published:
A huge thank you to my opponent for this debate, there is a lot to unpack here, so I will get right to it:

For sake of brevity, I will be agreeing with my opponent that deistic gods do not exist. So we can take that off of the table right now. What my opponent has done however, is set up a binary where he is conflating some very distinct ideas. My opponent has also committed a pretty glaring non-sequitur. 

My opponent starts off with some definitions of God that I do not accept. Namely, that God is either "Omni" (not obeying the laws of physics) or Maximal (obeying the laws of physics). My opponent then goes on to include the example of creating a square triangle and rocks so heavy that He can't lift them. 

What my opponent has (sneakily) done, is taken the concept of logical coherence and conflated them with the laws of physics, which are two different categories. For example:

The Bible states numerous times that God cannot lie. He cannot. It even states it is impossible for God to lie. Why? Because God by definition is maximally good and maximally good beings always operate within their nature, maximal goodness. For God to lie, would not be maximal goodness, therefore God by definition cannot lie. 

Now, I, as a human being can lie. What I cannot do however, is break the laws of physics and suddenly levitate, or make myself immune to the principles of thermodynamics. Do we see the distinction? Operating logically and operating within physical laws are not always the same. 

So to this I argue, that God cannot operate outside the parameters of His own nature. His nature is goodness, God cannot be evil, His nature is logical because His nature is truth, God cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense, His nature is Coherent, God cannot make square circles or definitional falsehoods, i.e, things that are logically incoherent.. Yet, as the Creator and Sustainer of the physical world, God can sometimes manipulate the laws of physics (walk on water, burn a bush without consuming it, etc.) 

I am disappointed that I had to spend so much time on this, but it is a very important point to make. 

However, let's change gears here for a moment and just dive into something my opponent said:

This means that if there was a maximally powerful God.  It would have been spotted by now. 
I am sorry, but I am truly confused by this statement. Why would God being bound by the laws of physics (supposing He was) necessitate that He is therefore visible? 

From here, I will continue with this, there are many things that exist in the world that are not observable, nor are they physical, but they are necessary realities that have no physical quantification. 

The laws of logic exist  in our reality, but they cannot be seen, grasped, or experienced with any human or mechanical sensory perception. This is so because these laws are not physical. There is no place in the universe where I can get a pint of the law of non-contradiction. 


My question for my opponent: How can non-physical non changing laws like the law of identity or non-contradiction exist in a world that is only particles, as you have posited. My answer, is that these laws are reflections of a Mind transcendent to us. That is, God. 

This is my first counter argument. God is the necessary precondition for things like logic to exist. No God, that is, no immaterial, unchanging mind, no immaterial, unchanging logic, we can definitely unpack more of this in upcoming rounds. Unless my opponent directly addresses this question (in bold) in his rebuttal, I will be very disappointed. 

The above argument kind of leap-frogged off of my rebuttal concerning the laws of physics and God being visible, however, I will change directions and create an argument unique to my opponent now.


It is my contention, that without a Transcendent Law-giver, mankind's ethics would break down to absurdity, thereby rendering morality meaningless. 
In my worldview, objective morality can exist because we have an Objective moral lawgiver, who created us in His image. Allow me to explain.

Proposition: Torturing babies for pleasure is objectively, and morally evil. In a world where "no Gods exist", there would be no law giver above humanity to determine this, and that would leave morality relative to society, individuals, cultural norms, or just opinion. So in a world where humanity determines what is moral, and not God, I will leave my opponent to answer this:

Society A determines torturing babies for fun is morally evil.

Society B determines torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable. And should be practiced. 

Wrick-it-Ralph, which society is right in your worldview? And why?

To recap, God can manipulate the laws of physics to perform miracles, but He cannot act incoherent with His own nature, since His nature is truthful (A God of truth is He, to quote the Bible) His nature is therefore logical. Since truth and logic are directly related, God is truthful, therefore God is logical, therefore God cannot create square circles or do illogical things. However, God is sovereign over His creation, and can suspend or manipulate the physical laws (gravity, chemical reactions, etc.) 

Therefore my opponent's binary is disproven. 

Second, I have asked my opponent how unchanging, immaterial logic can exist in a world of only particles, since, it is self evident logic is not a particle. I contend the logic we use is a reflection of God's omnipresent and coherent mind. 


Finally, I have presented my opponent with a moral conundrum regarding his proposed worldview in which no Gods exist, and therefore, no transcendent moral law giver. In other words, who sets the rules? I await my opponent's response. 



LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I don't know if my opponent actually expects me to respond to that lengthy Wikipedia article, if so, I can only plead I am just one man. I will also contend, that if my opponent wants me to respond to that wiki pedia article, I that is a debate fallacy known as hurling the elephant, (overloading your opponent with a million different, often unrelated points) I am not saying my opponent is doing that, I just am not sure if I am supposed to respond to each and every point. If my opponent insists I do, then God be with me I will try. 


WHEW! Thanks guys.


ICXCNIKA



Round 2
Published:
Thanks for the opening statement.  Lets move on to the rebuttals. I will focus solely on statements you made without getting off track and then I will summarize my critiques at the end. 



1. Non Sequiturs.

Con said:
"My opponent starts off with some definitions of God that I do not accept. Namely, that God is either "Omni" (not obeying the laws of physics) or Maximal (obeying the laws of physics). My opponent then goes on to include the example of creating a square triangle and rocks so heavy that He can't lift them."
I'm okay with you not accepting them.  It is true that some of them will be non sequiturs in this debate.  I apply an all inclusive argument in the case that my opponent does not advocate for the Christian God.  Therefore, we can stick to the ones you leave on the table. 

Con tries to create special pleading here by saying that physics gets a special pass from god's limitations. 


Con said: 
"What my opponent has (sneakily) done, is taken the concept of logical coherence and conflated them with the laws of physics, which are two different categories."
I see no evidence that this special pleading is justified.  Since we have no way to know anything about god, we cannot make rules about how god reacts to physics.  We have to assume that god functions in accordance with physics like the other 100% of known things. 


Con also said: 
The Bible states numerous times that God cannot lie. He cannot. It even states it is impossible for God to lie. Why? Because God by definition is maximally good and maximally good beings always operate within their nature, maximal goodness. For God to lie, would not be maximal goodness, therefore God by definition cannot lie. 
You are claiming what god's nature is.  Since there is no physical god that we can identify, there is no way to substantiate this claim. 

This is little more than a bold assertion.


Con said:
So to this I argue, that God cannot operate outside the parameters of His own nature. His nature is goodness, God cannot be evil, His nature is logical because His nature is truth, God cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense, His nature is Coherent, God cannot make square circles or definitional falsehoods, i.e, things that are logically incoherent.. Yet, as the Creator and Sustainer of the physical world, God can sometimes manipulate the laws of physics (walk on water, burn a bush without consuming it, etc.) 
I wanted to make sure to address this because Con contradicts himself here.  As we've seen so far, con has made special pleading for physics.  However, in this comment right here, con specifically states that God is logical.  Since logics necessarily conforms with physics, this means that god does conform with physics.  

This is further evidence that Con's special pleading is not justified in this case. 

Con said:
"I am sorry, but I am truly confused by this statement. Why would God being bound by the laws of physics (supposing He was) necessitate that He is therefore visible?" 
Good Steel Man (sincerely a compliment).  I'll explain.

If god was bound by the laws of physics, then god would have to consist of either matter or energy, which means god has some kind of particles that interact at least to weak forces.

If god reacts to weak forces, then there is ways for god to be detected.

Furthermore, In order for god to create things, God would have to be able to react with the strong force at least provisionally or modally.

This means that if God exist, there necessarily is a way for God to be detected.

If god does not meet these requirements, then it is impossible for God to create a Universe.


Con said:
 "From here, I will continue with this, there are many things that exist in the world that are not observable, nor are they physical, but they are necessary realities that have no physical quantification." 
Well, this isn't necessarily true.  

If you count abstracts and use type 2 existence, then yes by definition. 

However, abstracts are by definition not observable and that's why they're named so.  You don't observe them.  You abstract them. 

As for anything that's not an abstract, it is physical and observable so technically you are incorrect because we should not conflate these two types of existence since they are not mutually tautologous (logically equivalent.).


Con said:
 The laws of logic exist  in our reality, but they cannot be seen, grasped, or experienced with any human or mechanical sensory perception. This is so because these laws are not physical. There is no place in the universe where I can get a pint of the law of non-contradiction. 
Great joke.  Correct, I cannot get a pint of the law of identity or a pinch of gravity to sprinkle on it.  This further demonstrates my point that such ideas do not actually exist and do not belong in the category of type 1 existence. 


Con said:
My question for my opponent: How can non-physical non changing laws like the law of identity or non-contradiction exist in a world that is only particles, as you have posited. My answer, is that these laws are reflections of a Mind transcendent to us. That is, God. 

This is my first counter argument. God is the necessary precondition for things like logic to exist. No God, that is, no immaterial, unchanging mind, no immaterial, unchanging logic, we can definitely unpack more of this in upcoming rounds. Unless my opponent directly addresses this question (in bold) in his rebuttal, I will be very disappointed. 

I'll answer.  Those laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.  You're treating The Laws of Physics as if they were a speeding law.  A speeding law is a prescribed law that I "ought" not break. 

While a descriptive Law is not a thing at all, it's a concept.  A pot hoc assessment of the consistencies that one sees in reality.  Gravity is gravity because we seen things fall and named it Gravity.  it sounds redundant because it is.  But don't forget that things that are both true and redundant are redundantly true. We call these things tautologies.  

In my worldview, the laws of physics are not problematic at all and as a scientist once said before he was executed "The system works without God."-- Dead Atheist

He's not the only scientist to say this either.  To quote Lawrence Krauss "Scientists never even ask the god question during their work because it never comes up"

The remark here being that scientists have never once posited that God was "Necessary" for anything in science. 

They were able to find the answer without it. 

Con said:
"It is my contention, that without a Transcendent Law-giver, mankind's ethics would break down to absurdity, thereby rendering morality meaningless. 
In my worldview, objective morality can exist because we have an Objective moral lawgiver, who created us in His image. Allow me to explain.

Proposition: Torturing babies for pleasure is objectively, and morally evil. In a world where "no Gods exist", there would be no law giver above humanity to determine this, and that would leave morality relative to society, individuals, cultural norms, or just opinion. So in a world where humanity determines what is moral, and not God, I will leave my opponent to answer this:

Society A determines torturing babies for fun is morally evil.

Society B determines torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable. And should be practiced. "
So here, My opponent shamelessly creates a false dichotomy (tisk tisk) and states that either I'm in favor of God or Baby Killing.  

This is fallacious because I can be and am against both of these things. 

Evolution accounts for morality quite eloquently actually, so this is not problematic.  

If you next question to me is about the "objectivity" of morality, I will tell you that it doesn't matter if it's objective because what we CAN say is that morality is ingrained in us.  

Furthermore, atheists have all of the same moral tendencies as Christians on average plus we aren't force to follow 2,600 year old moral edicts. 


Evolution doesn't favor baby killers because it hurts their species and the tribe who intuitively has this instinct from gene mutations will band against the baby killer whose genes are more rare because baby killers don't mate as often and when they do, they kill their baby. 



I will not require a formal response for my source, it was placed as a way to cover niche God arguments and is mostly for viewer completeness. Feel free to address any part of the sources as fits with your argument. By the way.  I know that fallacy as being the "lighting too many fires" fallacy.  

Finally, You said: 
Therefore my opponent's binary is disproven. 

I would just like to note that I addressed the false dichotomy here and hopefully my opponent understand my contention with this argument. 

I am now out of characters and just in time too. I will be expecting a critique of all relevant points from my Round 1 argument and then we'll move to Interrogation. 




Your Floor and thank you for patiently reading this. 

Published:
Greetings again, and of course thank you to my opponent. As I begin my rejoinders for this round, I would like to stress something very important:

My opponent has stated the following:

Since we have no way to know anything about god, we cannot make rules about how god reacts to physics.  We have to assume that god functions in accordance with physics like the other 100% of known things. 
My opponent also states:

You are claiming what god's nature is.  Since there is no physical god that we can identify, there is no way to substantiate this claim. 
It is clear my opponent is convinced that we cannot know anything about God or make claims about Him. Then we have this:


(1) A maximally powerful God still must obey the laws of physics in order to interact with it. 
(2)This means that God cannot use mathematical or physical properties that are not real.
(3) He could create as much matter as he wants, but he would have to obey time and space while doing so and therefore cannot just infinitely produce it.  
(4)If god was bound by the laws of physics, then god would have to consist of either matter or energy
(5)If god reacts to weak forces, then there is ways for god to be detected.
(6)Furthermore, In order for god to create things, God would have to be able to react with the strong force at least provisionally or modally.
(7)This means that if God exist, there necessarily is a way for God to be detected.
(8)If god does not meet these requirements, then it is impossible for God to create a Universe.

At least 8 statements from my opponent making claims about God. About His nature, about what He can or cannot do, and about how He would interact with His creation. My opponent has completely undermined his own arguments. 

If my opponent is to be consistent, and stand by what he said concerning out inability to know anything about God, then my opponent must redact all statements in this debate about God

In regards to my opponent's statements concerning the laws of logic, regardless of whether they are descriptive or prescriptive, my opponent has stated they are abstract concepts and "do not exist."

Since my opponent does not believe logic exists, I offer this as a response:

"The smell of Thursday never gets close to the heat produce by the sound of yellow in the warmth of Alaska."

Now, getting down to my final point:

So here, My opponent shamelessly creates a false dichotomy (tisk tisk) and states that either I'm in favor of God or Baby Killing.  

This is fallacious because I can be and am against both of these things. 

Evolution accounts for morality quite eloquently actually, so this is not problematic.  

If you next question to me is about the "objectivity" of morality, I will tell you that it doesn't matter if it's objective because what we CAN say is that morality is ingrained in us.  

Furthermore, atheists have all of the same moral tendencies as Christians on average plus we aren't force to follow 2,600 year old moral edicts. 


Evolution doesn't favor baby killers because it hurts their species and the tribe who intuitively has this instinct from gene mutations will band against the baby killer whose genes are more rare because baby killers don't mate as often and when they do, they kill their baby. 

Oh, my, I never stated that my opponent is in favor of God or baby killing. I never mentioned anything about killing babies, I asked:

"
Society A determines torturing babies for fun is morally evil.

Society B determines torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable. And should be practiced. 

Wrick-it-Ralph, which society is right in your worldview? And why?"




Nothing about killing babies, or believing in God. My opponent is woefully avoiding the question because he knows where the answer leads. My opponent's arguments about evolution is irrelevant, nobody is killing babies, this is about torturing babies, not killing them. So my opponent's theory about tribes and genetic mutations do not apply. 

The question still stands, Which society is right and why? In a world where "no Gods exist" what would be morally wrong about torturing babies for fun. I demand an answer to this question. 

Thank you to the debate art community, sincerely, thanks for reading through all of this, and thanks to my opponent for slugging it out with me. 

ICXCNIKA. 


Round 3
Published:
Thanks for the statement 

My opponent accidentally moved to rejoinders without doing his rebuttals, but it's not a problem.  If you want you can just do your rebuttal of my R1 in your next statement. 

I can't do a formal rejoinder because I have no rebuttals to go off of, so I'll just address what you said and I can tie up the loose ends in my R4. 


At least 8 statements from my opponent making claims about God. About His nature, about what He can or cannot do, and about how He would interact with His creation. My opponent has completely undermined his own arguments. 

This is my fault because I realized after writing my statement that I worded it poorly, however, I did not misspeak nor did I contradict myself.  I simply should have said it more clearly, I'll elaborate. 


I said: 
Since we have no way to know anything about god, we cannot make rules about how god reacts to physics.  We have to assume that god functions in accordance with physics like the other 100% of known things. 
Even though I worded it poorly, what I said here was that IF we are to make any claims about God, we cannot support those with unfounded claims.  

So if we want to talk about God, we have to assume that God is subject to the same rules as everything else in physics.  Because we have never found anything that didn't follow the laws of physics, so until we find something that does, we have to assume that God does as well. 


So when I said: 


(1) A maximally powerful God still must obey the laws of physics in order to interact with it. 
(2)This means that God cannot use mathematical or physical properties that are not real.
(3) He could create as much matter as he wants, but he would have to obey time and space while doing so and therefore cannot just infinitely produce it.  
(4)If god was bound by the laws of physics, then god would have to consist of either matter or energy
(5)If god reacts to weak forces, then there is ways for god to be detected.
(6)Furthermore, In order for god to create things, God would have to be able to react with the strong force at least provisionally or modally.
(7)This means that if God exist, there necessarily is a way for God to be detected.
(8)If god does not meet these requirements, then it is impossible for God to create a Universe

I am not doing the same thing as you because I'm starting with physics and seeing who God could possibility fit in the model. 


My opponent is starting with God and then wrapping it around physics. 


You said: 
In regards to my opponent's statements concerning the laws of logic, regardless of whether they are descriptive or prescriptive, my opponent has stated they are abstract concepts and "do not exist."

Since my opponent does not believe logic exists, I offer this as a response:

"The smell of Thursday never gets close to the heat produce by the sound of yellow in the warmth of Alaska."

Now, getting down to my final point:
My opponent is arguing in bad faith here.  My opponent knows that people can imagine things that don't exist.  I made it very clear that the laws of logic are descriptive and existence implies occupying physical space.  This is just a shallow distraction and does not rebut my statement even a little. 



You said: 
Oh, my, I never stated that my opponent is in favor of God or baby killing. I never mentioned anything about killing babies
My mistake, you said torturing babies, but everything else I said about this still stands. 

It's true that my opponent does not specifically mention god, but it is a false dichotomy because My opponent claims that without God, there can be no morality, that's a false dichotomy.  So while your example looks innocent at first, once you realize that it's sneaking god into the equation, it becomes clear that we're dealing with a false dichotomy. 

You said: 
Which society is right and why? In a world where "no Gods exist" what would be morally wrong about torturing babies for fun. I demand an answer to this question. 
See there's the false dichotomy.  He says "which society is right and why?"  He implies that a society without god will torture babies.  This is false.  I'm without god and I have 5 kids and I've never tortured one of them. 

You said: 
Nothing about killing babies, or believing in God. My opponent is woefully avoiding the question because he knows where the answer leads. My opponent's arguments about evolution is irrelevant, nobody is killing babies, this is about torturing babies, not killing them. So my opponent's theory about tribes and genetic mutations do not apply. 
I avoided nothing, I answered your question.  Both societies will have the same policy on baby killing because it's a non sequitur and a false dichotomy.  Just because you didn't accept the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it. 

You say the evolutionary argument is irrelevant, but you didn't show any evidence as to why it's irrelevant.  You're only rebut is that I accidentally said killing babies instead of torturing babies, so this is a total dodge on your part. 


I'll await your rebuttal next round and then we'll move on to interrogations. 

Feel free to rebut my R3 along with my R1 since we kind of got out of order here. 

Your floor. 
Published:
First off I apologize for messing up the order, I am new to this site and my opponent was trying a new debate format, so my apologies. I believe, If I've read correctly, I am in the "rejoinder to rebuttals" phase of the debate.

My opponent has stated he did not undermine his arguments or contradict himself when he told me I couldn't make claims about God, but that his claims about were allowed and reasonable. I will let the judges decide on this one. 




Before anything else is said, I think I need to stop here for a moment and point something out. 

I do not believe me and my opponent are having the same debate anymore. When I refer to God, I am referring to the Being who originated the entirety of time, space, and matter. God is the Uncaused Cause of the entire universe, and is therefore, by definition of Who we are referring to, not subject to the laws that govern His creation. He is not part of the creation, He distinct from it. As I stated in my first statement however, that does not mean God is not subject to logical coherency, (i.e, God cannot exist and not exist at the same time). My opponent insists this is special pleading, however, it's just common sense. Not everything in that is logically coherent is a physical law. The law of excluded middle, for example, is logically coherent. This does not mean it is grounded in or subject to physical properties. 

My opponent states:


So if we want to talk about God, we have to assume that God is subject to the same rules as everything else in physics.  Because we have never found anything that didn't follow the laws of physics, so until we find something that does, we have to assume that God does as well. 
No, that's definitionally false. As I stated, we are talking about God, who is the Creator of physics. My opponent is presupposing that materialistic naturalism is true, and then trying to argue that God is either a part of the physical world or not existent. 



In order to settle this matter of God being bound by the laws of physics, I will ask my opponent two final questions on the subject:



 1   I will ask my opponent, are the concepts of logic and morality subject to the laws of physics? Does gravity have an effect on morality or the law of non-contradiction? Is the idea of justice subject to the laws of thermodynamics? If the answer is no, then, by your standard, these two concepts must not exist. 


Trailing off of that, I would say one more thing, my opponent said:

I made it very clear that the laws of logic are descriptive and existence implies occupying physical space.  This is just a shallow distraction and does not rebut my statement even a little. 

. 2. Since the laws of logic do not occupy physical space, are the laws of logic real? 


I leave my opponent with those two questions on the matter. Now let's get to morality. 


My opponent insists that my question regarding the two societies are a false dichotomy. They, simply put, are not. A false dichotomy or binary is where both options do not include the possibility for a third true option. For example:

"Hey Wrick-it-Ralph, do you:

1. Steal from children

or 

2. Beat up puppies? WELL????"

This is a false dichotomy because, my opponent may not do EITHER of those. The question presuppose my opponent does, and is therefore not a true binary. The question that I asked my opponent was framed nothing like that, and did not in anyway disregard room for another option. It simply wasn't a false dichotomy. 

My opponent states:


It's true that my opponent does not specifically mention god, but it is a false dichotomy because My opponent claims that without God, there can be no morality, that's a false dichotomy.  So while your example looks innocent at first, once you realize that it's sneaking god into the equation, it becomes clear that we're dealing with a false dichotomy. 

Except it doesn't. God was not, directly or indirectly put into the question. And I never stated that without God there can be no morality, I stated that without God there can be no OBJECTIVE morality.



My opponent says:

See there's the false dichotomy.  He says "which society is right and why?"  He implies that a society without god will torture babies.  This is false.  I'm without god and I have 5 kids and I've never tortured one of them. 
Oh dear I never said anything of the sort. This reminds me of the Cathy Newman Jordan Peterson debate. 

My opponent continues:

Both societies will have the same policy on baby killing because it's a non sequitur and a false dichotomy.  Just because you didn't accept the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it. 
 Both societies will have the same policy? So you cannot, in all truthfulness, conceptualize a society where people do really bad things? 


My opponent states:

You say the evolutionary argument is irrelevant, but you didn't show any evidence as to why it's irrelevant.  You're only rebut is that I accidentally said killing babies instead of torturing babies, so this is a total dodge on your part. 
The reason to why it's irrelevant is because I never said kill, so talking about survival of your tribe or passing down your genes or any other evolutionary based ideas are not in scope. 


In order for my opponent to be put at rest, I will, for a moment, pretend I'm an atheist and re ask the question:


Greetings, my fellow atheist, I have an ethics question, let's say we have two societies:

Society A says torturing babies for fun is morally good. 

Society B is against torturing babies for fun and says that is morally bad.

From one atheist to another, which of these societies is morally right and why?



Ok, so I hope I didn't mess up the order again. I'm not too sure how the interrogation round will look, so I will let you take the reins and I'll try to follow suit. A sincere thanks to anyone still reading us, and of course, thanks to my opponent for his well thought out responses and the time he put into this debate.








Round 4
Published:
Since we got out of order a bit.  I'll just make a brief comment about my opponent's last statement and then we'll move onto questioning. 


If you're defining god as not applying to physics.  That's fine, but I would say you now have a problem because how is that different than defining a square triangle in the same way? 

I could just say that pixies created the universe and define pixies as not applying to physics. 

I can also add in their definition that their only purpose is to create the universe. 

I could say this is common sense and it's obviously just the nature of universe creating pixies to create the universe. 

I could say a realicorn is defined as being a unicorn that actually exist, so by definition, it now exist. 

This actually falls into my R1 statement of "defining god into existence" 

I can't technically say you're wrong here. 

But the thing you're arguing for is no longer the actual creator of the universe, but rather a hypothetical model. 

Onto questioning. 



Since this is new, I'll be using my own standards for questioning until it becomes apparent that an objective standard is needed.  I think the best way is to use questions that generally cover the topic and this will give us the opportunity to shine light on the parts of the argument we want to address. 



1. If it was discovered that particles created the universe without using a mind, would you call that God? 

If yes, then would it be justified to call this the same God that we're arguing for in this debate? 

If no, then why? and would it shake your belief in God? 


2.  If it was proven that a cyclic universe is possible and that the universe is eternal, would this make the God proposition less likely in your opinion and if so why? 



3.  If a complete induction of The universe was ever done with precision and we determined it physically possible for a God to exist, would it then be justifiable to assert that No God Exist? 


4.  What would be a good standard of evidence to disprove God? (Lets try to assume this is possible for the sake of good logic even if ultimately it's might not be.)


5.  What makes one religion anymore likely than another? 

6.  Are religions even a good way to learn about God? 


7.  Is it possible that all religions are wrong by God still exist? 

8.  Is it possible that God exist, but hates all religions?  

9.  If you were God, would you send people to hell and if so, what would be your standard and your model for hell? 


10.  If you were God, would you punish people for not believing in you? 




During your next round, you don't have to answer these questions unless you want to, the main point of your next round will be for you to give me your interrogation questions and then we can both answer them in last rounds and then we'll give our closing statements in that round as well. 


You can answer the questions immediately if you want, but make sure you post your questions as well. 


Your floor. 
Published:
Some very good questions from my opponent, some very good questions indeed. In the spirit of good debate, I will save my answers for the last round and closing statement. That way things will be evened out in the last round.


Wrick-it-Ralph....by all means take a seat. You might want to pour yourself a cup of coffee....we're going to be here a while....(loosens tie)


Questions number 1. 

If God was the Creator of all time, space, and matter, as every theological, dictionary, encyclopedic, Biblical, ecclesiastical, and catechismal definition of God maintains, would it not follow that as the Creator of time/space/matter He was outside of the laws which govern them? If so, how do you jump from "He's not bound by physics" to "He's not bound by logical coherency." ? This was the main distinction I was trying to make. Every physical law is logically coherent, but not everything that's logically coherent is a law of physics. Sorry, long question. 


Question number 2. 

In order to make the claim there is no God, would you or would you not have to be omniscient? Since God could very well exist outside the scope of human knowledge, one would have to have all knowledge would they not?



Question number 3. 

Do you personally believe intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe besides earth? If so, could one of those intelligences be the God of the Bible? If no then why?


Question number 4. 

What would prove conclusively to you that God exists? 


Question number 5.

Do you ever worry you might be wrong?


Question number 6. 

Is morality objective or subjective in your worldview?


Question number 7. 

 In the Muslim community, there was a phenomenon known as "The Man in white." Wherein large numbers of Muslims were converting to Christianity based upon a recurring dream of a man dressed in white, who Muslims were certain was Jesus of Nazareth. What do you make of these claims? 

Question number 8. 

If atheism were true, would it not follow that there is absolutely no meaning, purpose, reason, or substance behind anything we ever said, did, will do, dream, aspire, ascertain, or desire? Would it not follow that all of existence is an absurdity? And an exercise in futility? Would it not be true that all you and I have to look forward to is the heat death of the universe?

Question number 9.

It is well documented through multiple early sources that Jesus' disciples believed they saw Him alive after His crucifixion. What do you make of these claims?

Finally, my favorite....

Question number 10.

If after your departure from this life, you awoke and saw God seated upon His throne, you were wrong, the soul does exist, the afterlife is real, and you are now standing before the God of the Bible, and He gave you permission to say anything to Him, what would you say?


Round 5
Published:
Alright, I have my coffee. 

Questions number 1. 

If God was the Creator of all time, space, and matter, as every theological, dictionary, encyclopedic, Biblical, ecclesiastical, and catechismal definition of God maintains, would it not follow that as the Creator of time/space/matter He was outside of the laws which govern them? If so, how do you jump from "He's not bound by physics" to "He's not bound by logical coherency." ? This was the main distinction I was trying to make. Every physical law is logically coherent, but not everything that's logically coherent is a law of physics. Sorry, long question. 

Answer: So if I was assuming that God existed, I would say that God could easily fit into the physical model without having to be absent, so I find it strange that we have no evidence of God.  I absolutely believe that if God exist, then God will ultimately be detectable by human technology when it peaks. 



Question number 2. 

In order to make the claim there is no God, would you or would you not have to be omniscient? Since God could very well exist outside the scope of human knowledge, one would have to have all knowledge would they not?

Answer: Well I don't have to be omniscient.  I simply have to have the proper knowledge.  In the case of God, I believe a complete induction serves as an ample goal.  That can at least lead us to the conclusion that the likelihood is astronomically small. 



Question number 3. 

Do you personally believe intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe besides earth? If so, could one of those intelligences be the God of the Bible? If no then why?

In the observable universe, I highly doubt it.  Unless you count microorganisms, but you said intelligent so that rules them out.  If by God, you mean the source of creation, it could be in the universe but I highly doubt it's intelligent.  It's probably just some semi lifeless mass most likely.  as to why, there basically just isn't any good evidence for God being a detectable life form.  Maybe he's hiding inside a planet or something, but I doubt it. If God existed, he'd probably be sitting at the center of creation statically.


Question number 4. 

What would prove conclusively to you that God exists? 

Well for me, God would only need two qualities, A) Power to create the universe and B) Agency.  So to prove this to me, I would need a scientific observation of a being that has agency, not necessarily intelligence, and has the power to create the universe.  That would convince me of A god and I would probably think there was more than one.  If you want to get me to "One God who 100% did create the universe"  You would have to show me that there couldn't be another God and that this god necessarily made this universe.  So there it is.  God Speed solving this, lol. 



Question number 5.

Do you ever worry you might be wrong?

Honestly, no.  I worried more as a kid when I was constantly pondering hell.  I still worry about what death might be like.  But not very often.  Atheism completely made me feel liberated when I realized I could be good without a holy book.  That was my big initial take away from becoming an atheist.  I thought to my "I can be the best me without having to listen to this book"

Question number 6. 

Is morality objective or subjective in your worldview?

I consider it objective because when people say morality, what they're usually talking about is how they feel and that ultimately stems from evolution and our ability to weigh things like fairness and harm and benefit.  Since those standards don't change based on my opinion, that makes them objective. Even if they were subjective, it wouldn't bother me that much.  That would just mean that some morals were better than others. 


Question number 7. 

 In the Muslim community, there was a phenomenon known as "The Man in white." Wherein large numbers of Muslims were converting to Christianity based upon a recurring dream of a man dressed in white, who Muslims were certain was Jesus of Nazareth. What do you make of these claims? 

Well since Jesus is referenced in the Quran and I'm sure many Muslims are aware of Christianity, it wouldn't surprise me if they dreamed about Jesus.  As for the conversion, Islam is a troubling Religion in the grand scheme of things and man Muslims care for the violence especially when their religion preaches peace.  Plus there religion is extremely fundamental at it's core and has way less sects than Christianity.  So it's not so easy for them to just up and become atheists.  It would make sense that Christianity would be a comfortable step for them and it would satiate their love for peace since it's probably the third most pacifistic religion if you only count the new testament.

Question number 8. 

If atheism were true, would it not follow that there is absolutely no meaning, purpose, reason, or substance behind anything we ever said, did, will do, dream, aspire, ascertain, or desire? Would it not follow that all of existence is an absurdity? And an exercise in futility? Would it not be true that all you and I have to look forward to is the heat death of the universe?


Well meaning is subjective because it comes from personal view.  If you want intrinsic meaning, then you simply look at evolution.  Life wants to live.  That means that living things get meaning from being alive and experiencing things and making more life to share in the experience with them.  You could call it futile if you like, but I get to watch my kids experience things and empathize with them and biology tells me that I'm happy when I do it so I'll take my hit of hormones over futility any day of the week, lol. 



Question number 9.

It is well documented through multiple early sources that Jesus' disciples believed they saw Him alive after His crucifixion. What do you make of these claims?
To the best of my knowledge, the only documentation of the disciples is The bible and those are not even written in the same time frame as when Jesus supposedly lived.  Even if I granted that it was well documented, then the best we get is proof that Jesus was a real human man who was good at magic tricks.  We'd need a completely extrabiblical source to verify the magic part. 



Finally, my favorite....

Question number 10.

If after your departure from this life, you awoke and saw God seated upon His throne, you were wrong, the soul does exist, the afterlife is real, and you are now standing before the God of the Bible, and He gave you permission to say anything to Him, what would you say?

Well assuming he didn't already introduce himself, I'd ask if he's God.  Once that's out of the way, I would have a giant list of questions.

Were any of the holy books right? 

If not, then why all the suffering? 

Depending on the answer I'd either say "Oh I guess that makes sense then" or "You're evil"

If he says that one of the holy books are right, then depending on the holy book I'd end up somewhere between one of the two reactions I just mentioned. 

If God condemned me, I'd accept it as I pondered upon how evil he was for an eternity of torture.  If it was a limited time of torture and he gave good reasons, then meh, who knows.  Fun question but I  could go on all day.  I think you mostly get the point. 



In Closing I believe that this boils down to a single question that I don't see asked enough.  What is the proper standard of evidence to debunk non existence? 

At some point, when we search the entire haystack 1,000 times over and never find the needle.  When the hay is so far away from us that we can never even get to it to start looking for the needle.  When the needle is so far away from us and so undetectable that it can't even affect us in any way.  Then it's time to say that there's no needle. 

Good Debate.  I hope this format was fun for everyone.  I found my opponent's questions to be quite fun to answer. 

Published:
A thank you to my opponent for responding to my questions. As we close this debate, I would like to say I am very grateful to my opponent for all the time and energy he put into this debate. I am also very grateful to the debateart community for reading our debate. No matter who wins, I think we both had fun and got to do what debate is all about, reason rather than argue. 

I will now answer my opponent's questions. Here goes:

1. If it was discovered that particles created the universe without using a mind, would you call that God? 
Honestly I wouldn't. As a Christian, whenever we're talking about God, I of course, always am referring to the Biblical God, and in my worldview this is a God people  write poems to and have conversations with. So the particle theory just doesn't fit my worldview. Now if what you said was indeed scientifically proven, I would argue those particles are some type of machines or agents God (the Mind) put in place to actuate the act of creation. 

If it was proven that a cyclic universe is possible and that the universe is eternal, would this make the God proposition less likely in your opinion and if so why? 
Ok, so, I'm not a cosmologist, but my understanding of the cyclic model is that is simply isn't possible for all the time space and matter in the universe to travel through a singularity and "rebound" that the cyclic model would require, there just aren't physics for it. Now if the cyclic model WAS possible, I also understand that between each cycle there would be a conservation of energy, so that each cycle as we travel back in time would have less and less energy, eventually there would be not enough energy to have an eternal process, still requiring a beginning and therefore a Creator of the cycle. Again, I'm speaking way outside my area of expertise here, so take what I say for what its worth. 

3.  If a complete induction of The universe was ever done with precision and we determined it physically possible for a God to exist, would it then be justifiable to assert that No God Exist? 
Well, first off, I'm not exactly sure what is meant by a complete induction, as far as I know we have much to learn about basic facts regarding the universe still. In fact just today in the news I read that a black hole was photographed for the first time in history. However, the main problem here is using the phrase "physically impossible."  God is not some Galacticus type figure playing soccer with planets. He isn't made of matter in the first place so I just cant see this question making coherent sense

.  What would be a good standard of evidence to disprove God? (Lets try to assume this is possible for the sake of good logic even if ultimately it's might not be.)
I would say the standard of evidence would be omniscience. If we had an omniscient being who has exhaustive knowledge of the entire universe, everything that could exist beyond the universe, and anything in between, tell us God does not exist, then I think that would be the only way to prove it. Of course, an omniscient being sounds a lot like GOD now, so it would literally take God to disprove God. 

5.  What makes one religion anymore likely than another?
I would say what makes Christianity more likely than any other is because the central historical event which we claim, the Resurrection, was, at least for a time, falsifiable. Christianity was never stomped out the first week after Christ died even though it should have been a failed movement like the Sabatai Sevi or the Kochba movement. Something happened that Christianity went from a defeatist story of tragedy (crucified Messiah) to we are having this discussion 2000 years later. 

.  Are religions even a good way to learn about God? 
I would argue no, since, I do believe as a Christian that many religions are false. So it would depend I guess. 

7.  Is it possible that all religions are wrong by God still exist? 
I think that would be deism, and so if you are asking me if I believe deism is possible, I would argue no since in my epistemology, deism could lead into solipsism. (A long theory, but what if the deistic god put us in a simulation and everything was an illusion?)

Is it possible that God exist, but hates all religions?  
I think if that were the case, God would after all this time, would have revealed to us what is true. So I don't think we'd still be in the dark by now. 


If you were God, would you send people to hell and if so, what would be your standard and your model for hell? 
Ok, so, I'm going to try and answer this without giving you a model identical to Christianity, just for the sake of the debate, however, since I am a Christian, my model is going to look strikingly close. 

Would I send people to hell? Yes, what would my hell be? Well let's think about this:

In their life, some of my creatures wanted nothing to do with me. I, as their creator, am the source of all  light, the source of all life, the source of all peace, and the source of all joy. Since these creatures of mine chose, in their life, to have nothing to do with their maker, the source of all good, I would ratify that choice for all eternity and separate them from myself, the source of all good. Living in a place or a state where you are cut off from all good, I believe is truly hell. It's a scary thought.


In other words, if I was God, and my creatures didn't want anything to do with peace, light, and life (myself in this case) I would honor that wish, and they would never get to see my light, my peace, and my love, only my wrath and my disdain. I hope this makes sense. 


10.  If you were God, would you punish people for not believing in you? 

If there were people who truly didn't believe in me for some physical reason due to their capacity to perceive ( disability, etc) I would have mercy on those people, however, I believe the world we live in has sufficient evidence that God exists, and so if we lived in the same world but I was God, and people chose to willfully ignore the creation I provided them with, yes I would punish those people in the afterlife. Now if we had people who were just plain spiritually blind, it's hard to say what I would do, I would have to evaluate it on a case to case scenario. Of course actual God (not me) has a far superior justice system than mine, but I think I'm on the right track. 


Finally, for my closing statement, I will just briefly say that I do not believe the resolution to this debate was upheld. My opponent was adamant on a physical god who could be observed, and I agree with my opponent, that type of god does not exist. However, as far as disproving the existence of a Being outside our continuum, that simply wasn't achieved. 



Again, a sincere thanks to everyone involved here. This was quite a debate. Best wishes to my opponent, I'll see you next time.

ICXCNIKA

Added:
--> @b9_ntt
Solid vote
#50
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
But you and I both know that there is no evidence for what you're claiming. If so, could you give me a citation?
Instigator
#49
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Spirits when allowed to manifest are spotted quite often! angels, ghosts, demons. All manifestation of spirits. Also, don't dare to demean something spiritual with emotion, too many do that and fall into deception as it is.
#48
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
Unless you count a pep rally , lol
Instigator
#47
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
Sure, does spirit have a definition? cause none of those have ever been spotted either.
Instigator
#46
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I did define him. He is a spirit. Not a person.
#45
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
Well if you have understanding and he revealed himself to you, then why can't you define him? Since you've met God personally, you should at least know something about him. How tall is he? What color is his Hair? Does he even look human? Is he a blob? Does he speak English?
Instigator
#44
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I only claim understanding because he revealed himself to me.
#43
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
How can you claim something that you can't define?
Instigator
#42
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I said God is beyond physics. How can i define beyond wrick? many ways. But one that you won't ever understand is the spiritual application which is most relevant to defining God's nature. Spirit. The bible does not claim omni benevolence, i challenge anyone to show me otherwise. It only says that God is love, it never says he is nothing but love or that he is only capable of love. Love is something we associate and understand through first emotional concept and for christians spiritual understanding. The rock paradox does not show omnipotence as impossible, it only shows the foolishness of mankind trying to apply his weakness to God himself. If the rock and God are one, we would never know it as he defined in spiritual understanding. I have no need to justify physics with God as God expresses himself through physics and reality as we percieve it. When you look at earth, you not only see God's work, you see God expressed, aside from his spirit but revealed through intention and will.
#41
Added:
--> @Dustandashes
same to you.
Instigator
#40
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
You realize the rock paradox shows why omnipotence is impossible right? The bible claims omnibenevolence. Do you deny it? You say it's beyond physics, but you're not justifying that. If you can't even give me the mechanics of it without arriving at a contradiction, then why should I believe that claim?
Instigator
#39
Added:
You misunderstand the relationship between God and physics. God expresses himself in the universe as the law of physics, yet his authority and power is beyond it.
#38
Added:
There is no place we can claim God as omni benevolence, that would mean he has no aspect of justice.
#37
Added:
something intresting that people haven't considered in asking "can God create a rock too big." where would he get it from? If he fills all time and space he would have to find a rock outside of creation for it to be to big for him to lift, if however in this universe as we know it where God fills "the heavens and the heaven of heavens" then God would literally make a rock from himself and lift it. Therefore it is impossible for God to lift a rock bigger/heavier/denser than himself. or even create one for that matter, for God is infinite and would have to make an infinite rock, but the rock would stop becoming infinite before God did.
#36
#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:
PRO declares, “An Omni God is essentially the same as a maximally powerful God” except that it is not bound by the law of physics. Thereafter, PRO argues against the maximally powerful god, hardly ever mentioning the Omni God.
CON states that the god CON will argue for is the God of the Christian Bible, who is able to “sometimes manipulate the laws of physics” but does not violate logical laws. This god fits PRO’s category of “Omni God.”
ARGUMENT about the nature of God
PRO says, “A maximally powerful God still must obey the laws of physics in order to interact with it. This means that God cannot use mathematical or physical properties that are not real. God cannot make a Square Triangle for instance. Or make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it. Nor can god create infinite matter. He could create as much matter as he wants, but he would have to obey time and space while doing so and therefore cannot just infinitely produce it.”
CON replies that PRO’s first example is a non sequitur: a square triangle violates the definitions of square and triangle and is a logical impossibility, and has nothing to do with the laws of physics.
PRO says, “If god was bound by the laws of physics, then god would have to consist of either matter or energy, which means god has some kind of particles that interact at least to weak forces.” [Yes, IF. But CON does not argue for this, so it’s a straw man. PRO hasn’t disproved CON’s God.]
PRO says, “This means that if God exist, there necessarily is a way for God to be detected.
If god does not meet these requirements, then it is impossible for God to create a Universe.” [PRO has not proved this.]
To CON’s statement that God can flout a law of physics but not a law of logic, PRO replies “Since logics necessarily conforms with physics, this means that god does conform with physics.” [I don’t agree.]
In Round 2, PRO says, “CON tries to create special pleading here by saying that physics gets a special pass from God's limitations.” And, “I see no evidence that this special pleading is justified. Since we have no way to know anything about God, we cannot make rules about how god reacts to physics. We have to assume that God functions in accordance with physics like the other 100% of known things.” [No, you have to prove it.]
And to CON’s description of god, PRO responds, “You are claiming what God's nature is.” [This is true: CON is saying which God he thinks exists, and uses arguments to substantiate it. That’s what the debate is about.]
CON replies that PRO also made claims about what god could and could not do, (see the first paragraph under this header) and if one does it, the other should be allowed to do it too.
In Round 3, PRO responds, “I am not doing the same thing as you because I'm starting with physics and seeing who God could possibility fit in the model. My opponent is starting with God and then wrapping it around physics.” [I agree with this.]
Finally, CON replies, “My opponent has stated he did not undermine his arguments or contradict himself when he told me I couldn't make claims about God, but that his claims about were allowed and reasonable. I will let the judges decide on this one.” [I vote for CON on this issue.]
PRO also repeats his argument: “IF we are to make any claims about God, we cannot support those with unfounded claims. So if we want to talk about God, we have to assume that God is subject to the same rules as everything else in physics. Because we have never found anything that didn't follow the laws of physics, so until we find something that does, we have to assume that God does as well.”
It’s clear that PRO thinks the existence of the Omni God has been disproved. CON disagrees, however, and the debate from here on shows the two parties often talking past each other about two different gods.
In Round 4, PRO says, “If you're defining god as not applying to physics. That's fine, but I would say you now have a problem because how is that different than defining a square triangle in the same way? I could just say that pixies created the universe and define pixies as not applying to physics. … This actually falls into my R1 statement of "defining god into existence." I can't technically say you're wrong here. But the thing you're arguing for is no longer the actual creator of the universe, but rather a hypothetical model.
CON says, “My opponent is presupposing that materialistic naturalism is true, and then trying to argue that God is either a part of the physical world or not existent.” [I agree.]
[Has PRO proved CON’s God is non-existent? I vote for CON on this argument.]
I also favor CON's arguments about morality and about the ontological status of logic. There is not enough room here for me to elaborate.
PRO also used some terms which were not defined (e.g. "type 1" and "type 2" existence), and that also influenced my vote.
#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:
To start with, I must begin by cracking both pro and cons heads together for not defining God. That’s the first thing you need to do!
Pro. So, the main arguments.
To start with, both sides agree that the deistic god doesn’t exist - which reduces the claims down somewhat.
The primary claims made, are effectively that if God exists, we would have observed them in some way. This is based on the premise that God must adhere to the laws of physics. I think the argument behind this is a bit tenuous - but its cons job now.
God by definition - while I know what pro means, I can’t accept yet without more detail, but if not raised by con, I won’t mark you down for it.
Con starts off by pointing out pro conflates adhering to the laws of physics with logical coherence. That one may be logically coherent but be above the laws of physics.
For the wider point here, con argues that we can’t see or directly physical observe the laws of logic. Meaning that direct observation may not necessarily be a factor. This argument doesn’t feel right intuitively, as we do observe the laws of logic.
Con argues to support his point that there is a need for a lawgiver for both morality and physics.
For the issue of logic and physics - pro argues this is special pleading. I’m not on pros side on this one, the two things appear primarily facia different things - and I feel the onus is on pro to show they are the same. While I could but that God adheres to some sort of physics - that they are OUR physics in our reality, I feel is a burden that pro bears.
Likewise that claims of contradiction - I don’t feel is justified either. Con argues logic and physics are different things - you can’t call con out for contradicting himself when he’s only arguing in opposition to your own claims.
Pro does however make a good case for why God would should be observable - specifically if he interacts with space, matter and time, those effects should be measurable.
On the topic of where the laws came from - I felt pros answer was more of a non answer here. I think pro needed to hit this one head on, instead it felt more of a deflection.
On morality though, pro does much better - positing that evolution does a much better job of explaining morality in this context. Specifically that evolution of morality is beneficial as it removes factors that could be harmful to the species - I feel pro could have done more here, but he does enough.
Con goes on to excellently spot a key contradiction in pros claims - specifically claiming we can’t know properties of God - then listing the cases where pro claims the properties can be deduced. That was fairly brutal.
Saying that, con misses pros point on evolution, and doesn’t capitalize on the issue of logic vs the laws of physics.
Pro clarifies his mistake of wording here - I feel his clarification seems fairly sensible. Pro also points out how Con doesn’t deal with the evolutionary argument.
So R3 and we get the first definition of God from Con.
Con takes the gloves off here: and points out some flaws with pros position of God being subject to the laws of physics - specifically trying to wrap God in Naturalism artificially, and pointing out that logic is not subject to physics.
The morality argument is a bit more tenuous - I understand the argument, but the rejection of evolution as out of scope misses the point of the argument imo.
Now round 4. Pro starts describing what defining God into existence is. Now while I’m not a fan of cons technique - pro is effectively defining God out of existence.
Q&A:
“I absolutely believe that if God exist, then God will ultimately be detectable by human technology when it peaks.”
I feel this undermined pros argument - predicated on being detectable NOW - rather than detectable at some point.
Other than this, the Q&A is almost impossible to weigh as arguments, as the points don’t fit into the classical argument structure up to this point. They were good questions, but did not push me either way.
Assuming share BoP here: my main issues are that I felt pros argument that God must adhere to the laws of physics a bit tenuous - pro was as much defining God out of existence as Con was defining him into existence.
With the technology question and questions surrounding physics vs logic - I felt con did enough to poke holes in this central position. Without this I don’t
Feel pro can establish his case.
Conversely though, I don’t think con did enough to establish the converse either. The strongest argument from morality was severely harmed by the evolution argument.
At the end of all of this, though while I was leaning towards pro, I don’t think there’s enough for me to click left or right: it was a good debate - without enough real argument flow to make the call.
All points tied.