Instigator / Pro
11
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#705

No Gods Exist

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Dustandashes
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
14
1495
rating
9
debates
44.44%
won
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

PRO 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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.