No Gods Exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
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.
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.
Solid vote
But you and I both know that there is no evidence for what you're claiming. If so, could you give me a citation?
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.
Unless you count a pep rally , lol
Sure, does spirit have a definition? cause none of those have ever been spotted either.
I did define him. He is a spirit. Not a person.
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?
I only claim understanding because he revealed himself to me.
How can you claim something that you can't define?
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.
same to you.
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?
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.
There is no place we can claim God as omni benevolence, that would mean he has no aspect of justice.
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.
I noticed you left out omnibenevolence.
So in order to say god is exempt from physics we need a justification.
What would your justification be.
If it's necessity, then I'll need you to prove the impossibility of the non existence of god.
If it's god's nature, I'll need evidence of that nature, then I'll need impossibility of these not being his nature.
etc. etc. Basically, I need the rock bottom base of the claim and then proof by contradiction.
i have some thoughts on your showing of an omni God.
Omnipotence means all-powerful. Monotheistic theologians regard God as having supreme power. This means God can do what he wants. It means he is not subject to physical limitations like man is. Being omnipotent, God has power over wind, water, gravity, physics, etc. God's power is infinite, or limitless.
Omniscience means all-knowing. God is all all-knowing in the sense that he is aware of the past, present, and future. Nothing takes him by surprise. His knowledge is total. He knows all that there is to know and all that can be known.
Omnipresence means all-present. This term means that God is capable of being everywhere at the same time. It means his divine presence encompasses the whole of the universe. There is no location where he does not inhabit. This should not be confused with pantheism, which suggests that God is synonymous with the universe itself; instead, omnipresence indicates that God is distinct from the universe, but inhabits the entirety of it. He is everywhere at once.
therefore the definition and examples you gave of omni God is incorrect.
Dustandashes you don't understand what it means when the bible says "god cannot lie" It doesn't mean he cannot see and acknowledge what is false, it simply mean that when he says or declares something, it becomes what he says/declares therefore he cannot lie. how can i assert this? the book of ezekiel when god says “What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?” Right there, God is acknowledging something that is false. and immediately he says. "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel."
also... wouldn't a square triangle be a pyramid? if that's the case God made plenty of those.
Thank you very much for your kind words. I really enjoy debating you, I look forward to many more
I liked your answers for the most part. I'm glad you didn't skip out on questions 8-10 because I usually get dodges on those. kudos for being an honest intellectual. Good debate. You're always welcome at my floor.
Thank you!!
Thank you!!
You guys really know how to make an entertaining debate, nice
Thanks to both of you for finishing this debate. It will be a pleasure to vote on a God debate that does not end in a forfeiture.
Btw, you made me want coffee so now you're gonna have to wait the extra ten minutes for me to hit the store on the way home, lol.
I like your intro on that Statement. I'll make my reply my first priority right after I drop my kid off at school.
I had some typos in my questions, sorry about that.
Questions 3 is suppose to read "physically impossible" not "possible"
Make sure you read the end of my R4 before you reply. I wrote guidelines about the best way to set up the Interrogation round.
Don't sweat the format, We're having fun and being polite. I used to mess up formatted debates all the time because I was used to youtube comment battle before this.
The only real new thing I added was the interrogation round. They do it in live debates and I thought it might be fun because I feel like questioning during the rebuttals gets lost in the folds and voters would have more fun reading the debate if it isn't just 5 rounds of quoting. lol.
Thank you speedrace, my opponent is quite formidable indeed. I don't often hear new arguments against God's existence and this one was pretty new to me. Thank you for reading
Lol both of you are hilarious and really good debaters and I love it
Are you saying that since God prescribes his own rules to himself that he could make square triangles if he didn't restrict himself?
Sure, now please explain that in a way that is logically coherent. I'm not poking fun at you. I'm dead serious.
The only rules that could apply to it are the ones it applies to its self through decree.
No, I think you're right.
The example is Elijah, actually. Unless you're referring to Moses and the Plagues.
It would count if we could repeat them scientifically.
For instance, there's a Bible verse where two people are perform some ritual I believe involving animal sacrifices.
Jesus may have been involved, but I think it was Old Testament.
Anyway, One priest did their ritual and it failed and then the one with God on their side did their own ritual and it worked. I think it was Moses actually.
Now if we could reproduce that ritual, it would give us a precedent that "something is making this happen" and we could cite such examples as being contrary to physics and we could start with the hypothesis that "this may be god" and then take it to it's conclusion to see if the model fits.
At least in this scenario, I would be willing entertain the idea of giving god exceptions.
"The problem with The God proposition is that the claim itself doesn't give us any logical reason to believe that God is exceptional in terms of physics. So unless we can make an observation that leads us to that conclusion, then it's not justified to make a special exception."
I suppose citing biblically recorded miracles doesn't count?
Nice to see you on here Buddy!!.
Anyway.
There's a concept in logic called coherence. The idea is that if you have logical idea X, that it must be able to cohere to the rest of your worldview Y. So while Quantum mechanics does introduce it's own set of strange rules, the fact is that all of these rules cohere with the model for physics.
It's like saying that a building is not following the same rules as a person in physics. While the building might react differently to certain physical stimuli, it's only because the building has different variables that the human does. If the human had similar size and composition, then the human would have more physics in common with the building.
Similarly, quantum particles react the way they do because of their size which changes which forces they can interact with and how those force impact them. So the reason that particles don't respond the same to Newtonian physics is because some of the forces in that model are too big to react with the particle so we have a logical reason for the difference of interaction.
The problem with The God proposition is that the claim itself doesn't give us any logical reason to believe that god is exceptional in terms of physics. So unless we can make an observation that leads us to that conclusion, then it's not justified to make a special exception.
"A maximally powerful God still must obey the laws of physics in order to interact with it."
I don't see why. Quantum particles are a relatively new discovery in science, but it's still clear that they have their own physics. If there are quantum physics for sub-microscopic particles, why can't there be "God physics" for God? And don't say that it's because otherwise, God couldn't interact with the Newtonian levels of physics. Quantum particles are apparently the literal basis for Newtonian matter, so they're directly interacting despite a whole different set of rules.
Okay well what do you mean by "law unto itself"
Could I get an example of what this would be and how it would be less observable than gravity?
No, because gravity is understood through observation.
I said "move into interrogations" at the end of R2, but I actually meant "Rejoinders"
Wouldn't that be the same as calling god Gravity and the like?
you should make it more intresting, omni Gods don't have to obey any laws but are a law unto themselves.
Something new I'm trying out.
Round 1: Just provide your argument against My Claim or for your opposite Claim
Round 2: You rebuttal my arguments from round 1.
Round 3: You Rebuttal my Rebuttal from round 2
Round 4: We each Send each other a list of questions we want answered about our opponent's position.
Round 5: We each Quote and Answer the questions and then make closing statements.
Ok, so, if you could just give me a brief run down on the debate format, maybe explain what exactly you want in each round
Ten thousand characters? I'm in trouble
I got you next time. ;)
I'd be willing to take this as a redo our last debate if you don't mind.