There is no god
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 5 votes and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
We understand how the big bang works. We know that space and time came to be at the beginning of the Universe. Therefore, If there is a god, Then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe. We know how planets are formed from stars exploding into supernovae, We understand how light is created from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms and how these sustain life on Earth(Photosynthesis etc. . . ). Every explanation is completely natural.
There have been plenty of cases(Flat Earth, Creationism, . . . ) where a religious explanation had to be let go for a better scientific one. Yet there has not been a single event in history where we had to let go of a scientific explanation for a better religious explanation.
God has always been used to fill the knowledge gap whenever we did not know something about the universe. "What created the Earth? We don't know therefore God did it" "Oh a supernova created the planets. Well, What created the stars then. We don't know therefore god. Oh the big bang. Well what created the big bang? Dunno so it must be god". Every time a secret of the universe has been uncovered, The answer has never been "God did it" We came to be through the process of evolution, Consciousness/mind is a product of the brain, When we die, Our body decays and we cease to be. No god is required at any step.
This thus leads to two possibilities: Either there is no god or there is a god but that god is useless, It does nothing. At most it might had a part in the starting process of the universe but then did nothing since. It has been so inactive that there is no noticeable difference between that god and a god that does not exist.
So out of these possibilities, The simplest explanation is that there is no god.
Can you please tell me which god you believe in and why? And can you also provide your best reasons for why believe in that god?
In the short description of the debate, Pro wrote “I am a strong atheist ,by that I mean, I have looked at the evidence and have concluded that the simplest explanation is that there is no god.”
“We understand how the big bang works. We know that space and time came to be at the beginning of the Universe. Therefore, If there is a god, Then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe.”
“This thus leads to two possibilities: Either there is no god or there is a god but that god is useless, It does nothing.”
“I am not a physicist so I cannot educate you but they can”
“I would suggest that you write a paper and get it peer reviewed… Good luck doing that.”
(1) “Even if I were to grant to you that the premises are sound, the conclusion only leads to an uncaused cause, not to your fod… This is a non-sequitur fallacy.”
(2) “The big bang did happen but we know that no god created it… if there is a god, then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe.”
(3) Fallacy of composition “Just because everything in the Universe has a cause, It does not mean that the Universe also must have a cause.”
(4) “If I grant you that "whatever being to exist has a cause", then it follows that the creator of the Universe must have a cause too… the burden of proof is on you to prove that(Prove that there is a god and one that is eternal)”
Furthermore, if God did not begin to exist (which is implied by “eternal”), then God would not require a cause according to the Kalam. It is an argument for Aquinas’ uncaused cause (which he wrote is what he understands to be God in the Summa Theologica), which is timeless by definition as there was no time before the universe (and with it spacetime) existed.
“CON argues that God is not bounded by the physical time-space laws. This makes no sense.”
“This is known as the unfalsifiability fallacy (Defining God in such a way that it is impossible to show it does not exist).”
If your God exists outside the laws of physics, then it is physically impossible for your god to exist.”
"All these people agree with me therefore I must be right"
Aside from Pro’s condescending comments, his only two arguments against the existence of God were based on the physical impossibility of God. The physical impossibility of God does however fail to prove that God does not exist since God is only bound by logical possibility, not by physical possibility. Furthermore, Pro failed to refute the conception of God as the uncaused cause (which Aristotle and Aquinas argued for, although only Aquinas referred to this as God), which is supported by the Kalam cosmological argument, which supports a time-less (as there was no time prior to the universe) and space-less (ditto) uncaused cause.Pro, therefore, failed to fulfil his BoP (since he has taken the Pro position and made the assertion "there is no god") and I have made an argument for the uncaused cause conception of God, which falsifies his position and his shifting of the BoP is unsuccessful as it would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam to argue that because there is no proof for something it does not exist (e.g. we assumed that black swans do not exist... until we discovered them in Oceania).