Instigator
omar2345 avatar

God

Debating

Waiting for contender's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Virtuoso avatar
Description
I will be forfeiting Round 1 because I require arguments to rebut.
It is Contender's burden to prove the existence of God.
My burden is to rebut the claims brought forward.
Round 1
Published:
Waive.
Published:
Let me begin by thanking omar2345 for instigating this debate. It is a delight to debate you on this topic. I would like to offer what I believe are 3 compelling reasons to believe that God exists. Let’s begin.

I. The Cosmological Argument 

P1: If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning. 
P2: The universe began to exist
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Let’s define a few key terms of this argument:

  1. The Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. [This definition would include any so-called “multiverse.”] 
  2. Cause: a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
  3. Began: come into being or have its starting point at a certain time or place.
One of the biggest philosophical questions is why is there something rather than nothing; why is there life rather than non-life? If we apply the rules of Occam’s razor, it becomes apparent that God is the simplest answer. 

Premise 1 is fairly obvious. Anything that begins to exist must have an explanation for why it exists. Something cannot come from nothing. If something could come from nothing, then why don’t we observe this in the physical universe today? Indeed, cats and dogs do not appear out of nothing, they have a source for their beginning. William Lane Craig observes:

"To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic. Nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause. But if we make the universe an exception to (1), we have got to think that whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever." [1]

Premise 2 is also philosophically and scientifically sound. Before the 20th century, it was commonly believed that the universe was “static,” ie, both spatially and temporally infinite. It is now universally accepted that the universe is finite in age and size. There are several reasons to believe this. For one thing, if the universe was infinite in age, we would have reached a state of maximum entropy which occurs when all available energy has moved to places of less energy. [1] Secondly, the Big Bang proves that the universe began to exist. Stephen Hawkins notes [2]:

“All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.” 

So why think the cause is God? Tim Hsiao argues [4]: 

“Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.” 
 

II. The Transcendental Argument

P1: Universal immutable truths like logic and morality exist (proving this would just be a matter of showing logic can't be made of matter, and morality is absolute.)
P2: These truths are not part of the physical world and need a transcendent source
C1: God is the source of these truths, logic is a reflection of His mind, and our morality is rooted in his nature.

In my opinion, this is the strongest argument for the existence of God. P1 is obviously true as we depend on them every day. Laws of logic, such as the law of noncontradiction, the law of identity, and the law of the excluded middle form the basis of rational thinking; without these universal laws, our thinking would inherently be irrational. There are also laws of morality that are universal. For example, we know it is inherently wrong to murder, torture babies for fun, and commit mass murder. 

P2 is true because these laws do not depend on the human mind and are immaterial by nature. In philosophy, we would call this a metaphysical necessity and thus exists in every possible world. 

Atheism fails to account for these laws of logic and morality. Logic and morality reflect the mind of God and are a part of His nature. It is wrong to lie because God is truth and it is wrong to murder because we are created in God’s image.

III. The Ontological Argument 

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

This argument shows that God is a metaphysically necessary being. In philosophy, there are 3 types of necessities [5]:

  1. factual necessity (existential necessity): a factually necessary being is not causally dependent on any other being, while any other being is causally dependent on it.
  2. causal necessity (subsumed by Hicks under the former type): a causally necessary being is such that it is logically impossible for it to be causally dependent on any other being, and it is logically impossible for any other being to be causally independent of it.
  3. logical necessity: a logically necessary being is a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible worlds.
It is also important to distinguish the different kinds of worlds in this argument. 

  1. The actual world - the world that we live in
  2. A possible world - a world that is logically possible
  3. Impossible world - a world that is logically impossible

To illustrate, it is possible that a fire breathing dragon exists, thus we can say it exists in some possible world. A married bachelor, however, is logically impossible via the law of non-contradiction (see C2) and can exist in no possible world. God is logically necessary because He exists eternally in “all possible worlds,” and is causal necessary as it is impossible for anything to be causally independent of it.

I believe I have presented 3 solid reasons to believe that God exists. The universe had a begging, thus the universe is not necessary. I now turn this over to Con. Good luck. 

V. Sources
1. William Lane Craig and James Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in Craig and Moreland (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Blackwell 2009) 182 
2. https://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm
3. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html 
4. https://www.debate.org/debates/It-is-Probable-That-God-Exists/1/ 
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity 



Round 2
Published:
I thank Virtuoso for partaking and giving me enough time to respond.

I. The Cosmological Argument 
If we apply the rules of Occam’s razor, it becomes apparent that God is the simplest answer.
I don’t really like how you said that at the start of your explanation. It is like me saying I won this debate without giving a substantial argument. You can make the claim after your claims have been made. Not too much of a problem more so nit-picky.  
Premise 1 is fairly obvious. Anything that begins to exist must have an explanation for why it exists. Something cannot come from nothing. If something could come from nothing, then why don’t we observe this in the physical universe today? Indeed, cats and dogs do not appear out of nothing, they have a source for their beginning.
I will be taking this two ways:
1.       Neither you or can prove anything begins to exist. Cause and effect simply states with an effect there is a cause. It hasn’t been proven anything begins to exist so for you to say that is false. That is an argument of ignorance.
2.       If we agree on the cause and effect. Then your God must also have a cause. Either you will say
·         God caused itself then the burden will be on you to provide how this is the case even though nothing in existence can be perceived as causing its own existence or
·         The other direction you can take it is that you commit a special pleading fallacy where just because it is God therefore it doesn’t apply to the same standards that we have to other things. I have already stated that is fallacious but if you want to do make that claim again.
3.       Just for clarification if you don’t answer clearly the problems I had above. With the example you gave you stated cats and dogs began to exist. Are you claiming God didn’t begin to exist?
Premise 2 is also philosophically and scientifically sound. Before the 20th century, it was commonly believed that the universe was “static,” ie, both spatially and temporally infinite. It is now universally accepted that the universe is finite in age and size. There are several reasons to believe this. For one thing, if the universe was infinite in age, we would have reached a state of maximum entropy which occurs when all available energy has moved to places of less energy. [1] Secondly, the Big Bang proves that the universe began to exist. Stephen Hawkins notes [2]:


“All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.” 
No real problem here.
So why think the cause is God? Tim Hsiao argues [4]: 
I want to make a few things clear here. For 1) This is not part of the Cosmological argument. If we look at his premises
P1: If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning. 
P2: The universe began to exist
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

We realize there is no mention of God. So basically all that he has stated if I agree with everything here is that the universe has a cause. It is my opponents burden to prove the existence of God. I can easily accept the premise as the universe was caused. The problem was that God being the cause going on to a greater point of its existence.
I am going to be cutting the quote into pieces so that you understand what part of it I am rebutting.
Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe,
Scientists not knowing is different from there being nothing before the universe.
 it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions,
I can’t accept this. This clearly makes claims about something they don’t know anything about. You don’t say something on the lines of I know X when experts in the field don’t know. This is clearly ignorance at play.
the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe.
This is begging the question. Without explaining how it is the case you just decide it “must” be the case. Even with the assumptions that he knows something about what scientists don’t know about he still can’t explain how it is the case. Sure this is a quote but this was provided by my opponent and I think it is fair for me to say he agrees with it.
Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.
I added this on its own not because of its many assumptions to get there it was the key word “ex nihilo”. If readers don’t know what it means here is what it means from Wikipedia:
Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing", chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but it also occurs in other fields.
This is primarily used like it is stated in Wikipedia as creatio ex nihilo. This states creation occurred out of nothing. I would like to remind what my opponent agreed to early on with this statement:
Something cannot come from nothing.
If it wasn’t clear something cannot come from nothing is contradicting with creation out of nothing. These two positions cannot be held with each other. I can’t both like and dislike dogs like how my opponent can be for creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia (something coming from something). Either my opponent will commit a special pleading fallacy or might not realise the contradiction or might correct his position.

II. The Transcendental Argument

P1: Universal immutable truths like logic and morality exist (proving this would just be a matter of showing logic can't be made of matter, and morality is absolute.)
This is by definition is not true and you haven’t justified this premise. I would like you to tell me about immutable truths likes logic and morality existing.
P2: These truths are not part of the physical world and need a transcendent source

C1: God is the source of these truths, logic is a reflection of His mind, and our morality is rooted in his nature.
You explain it later on so I will leave this at that.

P1 is obviously true as we depend on them every day. Laws of logic, such as the law of noncontradiction, the law of identity, and the law of the excluded middle form the basis of rational thinking; without these universal laws, our thinking would inherently be irrational. 
You have just stated irrational are bad at meeting the requirement of everyday life. You haven’t stated what you meant with “depend” so I will be assuming it. Either you mean in order to survive they require law of logics or in order to be rational or they depend on using the laws of logic to be rational.
There are also laws of morality that are universal. For example, we know it is inherently wrong to murder, torture babies for fun, and commit mass murder. 
You have stated a claim and used examples for your justification. The problem here is that I had no gauge of what brought about morality being universal which I am assuming it would mean it is objective. Due to what I am thinking is a failure on your part I can’t actually counter-argue against this which such flimsy justification for objective morality. So basically I require reasons why morality is universal/objective not examples.
P2 is true because these laws do not depend on the human mind and are immaterial by nature.
Laws do depend on the person is perceiving it. Laws like the laws of logic would only be followed by rational thinking agents. Whereas there are many people who cannot consistently follow the laws of logic. These laws depend on the person perceiving it. Sure it might not change the very meaning of the laws but since we know things based on what we perceive that law is dependent on how well or correct we interpret it.
In philosophy, we would call this a metaphysical necessity and thus exists in every possible world. 
To my knowledge metaphysics is the study of fundamental truths or questions core concepts like existence. The thing is I even reject Rene Descartes “cogito ergo sum”. It is an axiom in order to have this conversation. This is not really rebuttal more so can you tell me any metaphysical belief and justify it? I didn’t elaborate too much because my burden was to counter God points and since how you got there like with metaphysics is important I would like clarification.
Atheism fails to account for these laws of logic and morality.
Weird flex but I will still answer this. Since atheism is a rejection of God and you have failed to me to state God is required for logic or morality I can simply as a human being give you my opinion. Saying I am an atheist does not add anything more because you have failed to link God creating logic and morality and since atheism is the disbelief in God atheism matters no more than assigning myself as a human being.
Logic and morality reflect the mind of God and are a part of His nature. It is wrong to lie because God is truth and it is wrong to murder because we are created in God’s image.
This is where you have lost me. Partly due to me not accepting your points due to the lack of clarification and another reason. If God decided to make slavery moral would you have a change of heart about God? I think you can either answer these two ways. 1) God won’t do such a thing because he is truth 2) Yes because it is God.
I have a response to both but would like an answer.

III. The Ontological Argument 

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
It is possible for the infinity stones to exist. That is your premise. Anything can be possible doesn’t mean it is probable.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If it is possible that infinity stones, then it exists in some possible world. Note that if I accept this I have already lost this debate. If a great being exists, then you have won. Everything else from this argument is useless due to that reason. This premises relies on the person making the argument to say this is probable from possible. If the person does not do that then my infinity stones argument will fit in even though it isn’t a great being.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Nothing really need to be said. A lot of If’s and if I accept these premises I have lost the debate. The burden will be on my opponent to provide this to be probable.
This argument shows that God is a metaphysically necessary being. In philosophy, there are 3 types of necessities [5]:
1. factual necessity (existential necessity): a factually necessary being is not causally dependent on any other being, while any other being is causally dependent on it.
2. causal necessity (subsumed by Hicks under the former type): a causally necessary being is such that it is logically impossible for it to be causally dependent on any other being, and it is logically impossible for any other being to be causally independent of it.
3. logical necessity: a logically necessary being is a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible worlds.
It is also important to distinguish the different kinds of worlds in this argument. 
1. The actual world - the world that we live in
2. A possible world - a world that is logically possible
3. Impossible world - a world that is logically impossible
Not really part of your argument more so simply stating definitions.
To illustrate, it is possible that a fire breathing dragon exists, thus we can say it exists in some possible world.
You realize the flaw in this argument and you still use it. With this argument anything is possible if it is logical. This can be people with hands for eyes an eye on the forehead and no ears. You would have to say it is possible but is it probable? That part is missing from your argument. That is the most important part. I can easily accept anything logically possible can exist but it being probable is the problem.
 A married bachelor, however, is logically impossible via the law of non-contradiction (see C2) and can exist in no possible world.
Agreed because by definition it is a contradiction.
God is logically necessary because He exists eternally in “all possible worlds,” and is causal necessary as it is impossible for anything to be causally independent of it.
This is what I consider another case of begging the question. You haven’t explained how God can be the case instead said it is a “causal necessary” in other words it must be the case.

Good luck responding.

Special pleading fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading
Begging the question:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
Creatio Ex nihilo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
Creatio Ex materia (for some reason it doesn’t have its own wiki page so I will give the last link because it does talk about what it is)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
Law of non-contradiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Cogito ergo sum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum


Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
omar2345 avatar
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
No. It can be a conclusion and rebuttal round. That means you have an extra round but if my arguments were good enough 1 round would not really make my arguments better so much so I win.
Instigator
#10
Virtuoso avatar
Added:
--> @omar2345
The rules don't specify, but do you want me to waive the last round?
Contender
#9
Virtuoso avatar
Added:
--> @omar2345
Posted my arguments
Contender
#8
omar2345 avatar
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Thanks.
Instigator
#7
Virtuoso avatar
Added:
--> @omar2345
Hope you feel better. I’m still working on my arguments. If you wish, I will wait until the last minute to post. Feel better!
Contender
#6
omar2345 avatar
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Thank you for taking your time. I would have more time to recover from my illness. Hay fever is a b*tch. Have to deal with it for the majority of the summer.
Instigator
#5
omar2345 avatar
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
Don't see how that is relevant and with my way of doing this you have free rein on doing what you want with it.
Instigator
#4
GuitarSlinger avatar
Added:
--> @omar2345
Absolutely! (that is, if you believe in absolutes)
#3
omar2345 avatar
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
When I am done with this if you want we can debate this.
Instigator
#2
GuitarSlinger avatar
Added:
I'm back! sorry. work duties called and wasn't able to get on for quite awhile.
#1
No votes yet