Instigator / Pro
Points: 12

Does God Exist?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
TheRealNihilist
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
This is a redo
Round 1
Published:
I would like to thank my oponent for accepting my challenge. I woud like to present what I believe to be 3 compelling arguments for the existence of God.
 
I. The Cosmological Argument
 
P1: If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
 
Let’s define a few key terms in this argument[1]:
 
  • Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos
  • Began: come into being or have its starting point at a certain time or place.
  • Cause: a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
  • Exist: have objective reality or being.
 
Premise 1 is axiomatic. Something cannot cause itself into existence; thus if the universe began to exist, then the universe must have an external cause. To say that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. If you deny this premise, then you got to believe that the entire complex universe just appeared for no reason whatsoever.
 
Premise 2 is solid and scientifically sound. While it was commonly believed that the universe was static and existed eternally, we now know that this is false. Stephen Hawkins noted[2]:
 
“The conclusion…is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.”
 
Furthermore, if the universe was eternal, we would have reached a point when all usable energy has been used up. This is known as the death heat of the universe. Richard Hobbs explains[3]:
 
The 'heat-death' of the universe is when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. This happens when all available energy (such as from a hot source) has moved to places of less energy (such as a colder source). Once this has happened, no more work can be extracted from the universe. Since heat ceases to flow, no more work can be acquired from heat transfer. This same kind of equilibrium state will also happen with all other forms of energy (mechanical, electrical, etc.). Since no more work can be extracted from the universe at that point, it is effectively dead, especially for the purposes of humankind.
In conclusion, the universe must have a cause of its existence. There are several reasons to believe that God is the cause. First, an infinite regress of physical causes (such as the bang-crunch-bang cycle hypothesis) is logically impossible (as it essentially bang-crunch all the way back); second, the cause must exist independently of space and time; third, the cause must pre-exist; fourth, the cause must be powerful enough to create the universe; and finally the cause must be nonphysical. This is an entity we call God.
 
II. The Transcendental Argument
 
P1: Universal immutable truths like logic and morality exist
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. Any attempts to disprove one and two I believe don't succeed
 
To deny premise 1 is to deny any logical thinking. We know that logical truths exist such as the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle, among other things.
 
Premise 2 logically follows. Matt Slick notes: “If they are not properties of the universe and they are of the mind, then it seems proper to say that they are conceptual by nature and that they depend on mind for their existence…. If they are not properties of the universe and they are of the mind, then it seems proper to say that they are conceptual by nature and that they depend on mind for their existence.”[4]
 
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that logic and morals reflect the mind of God.
 
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.
 
I find this contention to be one of the most fascinating in the Theistic. This argument is essentially an a priori argument and argues that we can know the existence of God through pure reason alone. There are a three key entities in this argument:
 
1. Impossible entities that cannot exist in any possible world because they are logically contradictory. For example, an invisible pink unicorn is an impossible entity because it contradicts the nature of pink and invisible
 
2. Contingent entities are entities that exist in some possible worlds, but not others. Humans, animals, and plants fall into this category because they exist here on Earth, but their existence is not necessarily on other worlds. 
 
3. Necessary entities exist by the virtue of its own nature. The laws of mathematics, the laws of morality, and the laws of logic are such types of laws. These entities/laws exist independently of the universe. If the universe did not exist, 2+2 will always be 4 and the law of non contradiction will always stand. 
 
The rest of the argument flows logically and necessarily. Professor William Lane Craig notes[5]: 
 
To say that some entity exists in a possible world is just to say that such an entity possibly exists. It isn’t meant that the entity actually exists somewhere. Look again at my explanation: “To say that God exists in some possible world is just to say that there is a possible description of reality which includes the statement ‘God exists’ as part of that description.” Only if that description is true will the entity, in this case God, actually exist. So (2) is definitionally true.
 
Again, (3) is virtually definitionally true. A maximally great being is one that has, among other properties, necessary existence. So if it exists in one world, it exists in all of them! In that sense, such a being is different than contingent beings, which exist in only some possible worlds. A unicorn, for example, exists in some possible world, but not in all of them, for its existence is possible but not necessary. So your prof is right that there is something special, not about a maximally excellent 
being (which, you’ll recall, is defined to be a being which is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good), but about a maximally great being, which is defined as a being which has maximal excellence in every possible world. If such a being exists in any world, that is to say, if it is possible that such a being exists, then it exists in every possible world, including the actual world.
Published:
I thank the instigator for restarting this debate. My burden I think (we didn’t really confirm it beforehand) is to rebut the claims brought forward. It would be fair to bring my own arguments instead of taking the defensive stance but I run into the problem of making arguments against what I am assuming he believes which does lead to
arguments not specific to what the person who I am debating argues for is God.

I. The Cosmological Argument
P1: If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. 
Even if I agree with every single argument here. It isn’t an argument for God. The conclusion lays it out clearly. “the universe has a cause of its existence.” If this debate was about if there was a cause of the universe’s existence, then this would be sufficient enough argument but a more specific claim is made that God is the cause. This argument by itself can’t facilitate or even come close to make an argument for God. It requires an additional argument. All this argument states is that the universe has a cause. This does not state that God is the cause of the universe’s existence.
Another problem with what you said that this argument only applies to this very universe. This doesn’t apply to universes before so making an argument based on this being the only universe created by the big bang is ignorant due to the lack of knowledge we have before the big bang.
Third problem is that the word “universe”. You have defined it as this:
Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos
From this article it states:
We don't know what dark matter, or dark energy, is: Big problem, honking big problem. Normal matter, the stuff of you, the stuff of me, planets, stars, and cheese sandwiches, amounts to only about 4.9% of the total matter and energy content of the universe. 26.8% of matter is 'dark', we know it's there because on large, cosmic, scales stuff moves around faster than it should and because the way that galaxies strew themselves across space is consistent with the existence of vast amounts of slow-moving gravitating 'stuff' that never turns into stars or planets or anything, just stays as diffuse, invisible, incredibly antisocial particles. Except we really have no idea what these particles truly are”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/this-is-what-we-done28099t-know-about-the-universe/?redirect=1
26.8% of the universe science has yet to know what it does and since they are the leading standard of the knowledge about the universe you can’t make the claim that everything in the universe has a cause of its exist or even begins to exist. Asserting something without evidence is an argument of ignorance. This is a bad way to argue because it kind of like shifting the burden of proof. You are pushing the burden on me to provide proof against your idea even though we don’t actually know. This leads to people believing in aliens and since we can’t really state there is no aliens they still think they are correct.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance
Furthermore, if the universe was eternal, we would have reached a point when all usable energy has been used up. This is known as the death heat of the universe. Richard Hobbs explains[3]:
This is not relevant because the discussion is about God’s existence so I will leave it out.

Everything else I didn’t address was not relevant to the burden of the instigator which is why I left it out or I have already made it clear the problems with his arguments. It was the instigator defining definitions explaining the premise of universe having a cause which isn’t really the point of the debate.
There are several reasons to believe that God is the cause. First, an infinite regress of physical causes (such as the bang-crunch-bang cycle hypothesis) is logically impossible (as it essentially bang-crunch all the way back); second, the cause must exist independently of space and time; third, the cause must pre-exist; fourth, the cause must be powerful enough to create the universe; and finally the cause must be nonphysical. This is an entity we call God. 
Would like to remind everyone this is the actual argument for God. Not everything above it. With this in mind this is clearly not a substantial point as you can see nothing has been explained or provided with evidence.

The first claim is that an infinite regress is not logically possible.
The second claim is that the cause must be independent of space and time.
The third claim is that cause must pre-exist.
The fourth claim is that it take a lot of power to make the universe.
The fifth claim is that it must be nonphysical.
Therefore, God.

I added therefore God because when the instigator has explained and provided evidence I would like to tie it back to God with more detail.

I think you implied something with “independent of space and time” that has never been proven. That would be creation ex nihilo. This would be something coming from nothing. Creatio ex Materia on the other hand which is something coming from something has. It is as simply as me using a toaster to toast my bread. With existing matter I have made bread into toast. I didn’t just create something outside of matter but you are implying here that God outside of matter created something out of nothing. The burden is on you to provide creation ex nihilo is possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
To summarize:
  • Even if everything is accepted this is not an argument for God
  • Everything beginning to exist is an ignorant statement when dark matter is not fully known what it is
  • Creatio Ex Nihlio has never occurred
II. The Transcendental Argument
P1: Universal immutable truths like logic and morality exist 
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. Any attempts to disprove one and two I believe don't succeed

To deny premise 1 is to deny any logical thinking. We know that logical truths exist such as the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle, among other things. 
You did not explain the morality part. Either you believe in objective morality or subjective morality. More than likely you believe in objective morality. I would like clarification before I make arguments. On to logic. Logic exists because of our interpretation of it. It is not objective more so it is something we call as a standard to have arguments based around. Take for example naming things. We name things so that socially we understand what people are referring to and logic is no different. We call it logic to say what we know what we are referring too. Sure these are only labels but I think the way the instigator says logic exists is by saying it objectively exists. That is what I have a problem with. If that is your position, then I would like you to prove objectivity by proving something to be objective or if you want to do more so be it and how objective morality exists if that is your position.

Another problem I found is that this is clearly not the position you hold. You hold the view that your God exists not let’s say the Biblical or the Islamic God exists. This argument works better because you left out the specific God you are talking about. If we slot in your specific God which I am guessing from your profile is the Jewish God then you must present an argument for the Jewish God. This can be done by using the Religious book like the Torah to find instances where they talk about God and use that as the definition of God for your arguments. When you have the definition then you can support the transcendental argument with the specific God you believe in.
Premise 2 logically follows. Matt Slick notes: “If they are not properties of the universe and they are of the mind, then it seems proper to say that they are conceptual by nature and that they depend on mind for their existence…. If they are not properties of the universe and they are of the mind, then it seems proper to say that they are conceptual by nature and that they depend on mind for their existence.”[4]
Science hardly has a grasp of consciousness. To even make the claim that this is not part of the world we live in requires proof. Since science does not have proof of where consciousness comes from your arguments is supported without evidence thus not being substantial. Here is a quote from an article:
“Two challenges lie ahead. One is to use the increasingly refined tools at our disposal to observe and probe the vast coalitions of highly heterogeneous neurons making up the brain to further delineate the neuronal footprints of consciousness. This effort will take decades, given the byzantine complexity of the central nervous system. The other is to verify or falsify the two, currently dominant, theories. Or, perhaps, to construct a better theory out of fragments of these two that will satisfactorily explain the central puzzle of our existence: how a three-pound organ with the consistency of tofu exudes the feeling of life.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/?redirect=1
As you can clearly see science does not have the answer to it and we have to wait until we make claims about it without looking ignorant.
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that logic and morals reflect the mind of God. 
It is not reasonable due to the barrier that is conscience. Science has yet to have an answer for it and to conclude something based on no information is a sign of ignorance. Since consciousness is vital to your point your argument is an argument of ignorance.
To summarize:
  • Failed to provide how logic or morality objectively exists
  • Failed to put this argument in context with their specific God
  • An argument of ignorance when it comes to consciousness
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.
From this I can gather anything is possible that isn’t self-contradictory. If I simply remove great being and add in Cthulhu. If this is an actual argument for God, it would mean it is also an argument for Cthulhu. That is the problem with this argument. If I wanted to I can simply change “maximally great being exists” to maximally great being does not exist and if you agree with this being a God argument, you would also have to agree with this being an argument for God’s non-existence.  It can pretty much say anything is possible but doesn’t state if it is probable. It is possible for me to survive a jump off cliff but is it probable? I think most reasonable people would say no because it is really likely the fall will result in death or severe injury.

Another problem I found with this form of argument is the many assumptions used to get to God. This can be clearly seen with the 4 premises before the conclusion and after the first premise which start with an “if”. This argument can be summed up as if a maximally great being exists then it exists. An if statement can be a condition but in the scenario the if is used as a possibility. Anything can be possible that isn’t self-contradictory.
I find this contention to be one of the most fascinating in the Theistic. This argument is essentially an a priori argument and argues that we can know the existence of God through pure reason alone. There are a three key entities in this argument:
 
1. Impossible entities that cannot exist in any possible world because they are logically contradictory. For example, an invisible pink unicorn is an impossible entity because it contradicts the nature of pink and invisible
So basically the instigator has no argument against God not existing or even Cthulhu if this is the explanation brought about.
2. Contingent entities are entities that exist in some possible worlds, but not others. Humans, animals, and plants fall into this category because they exist here on Earth, but their existence is not necessarily on other worlds. 
This clearly does not justify God's existence like it said here:
the cause must exist independently of space and time;
God is not a contingent being like you said in late of your cosmological argument but here you are justifying your premises about God with contingent beings even though you have stated God is not a contingent being. So basically the second premise is not justified because God like you have defined earlier on is a non-contingent being but here you are talking about contingent beings.
3. Necessary entities exist by the virtue of its own nature. The laws of mathematics, the laws of morality, and the laws of logic are such types of laws. These entities/laws exist independently of the universe. If the universe did not exist, 2+2 will always be 4 and the law of non contradiction will always stand. 
The instigator cannot prove this because he would have to do the impossible which is prove objectivity or how self-evidence can even be true. The problem is that it can’t be because we interpret the world using our brain which is subjective and to say something objectively exists outside our mind would be a lie due to the nature of our existence connected to our brain.

To summarize:
  • The argument can state anything is possible
  • God was stated to be non-contingent but here the instigator was using contingent beings to justify his argument
  • Objectivity has yet to be proven
From what I can gather. To you God is:
  • Independent of space and time
  • Pre-exists
  • Powerful
  • Non-physical
What I missed was which God were you referring to. Do you care to add what type of God it is while also linking the scripture involved with the arguments you have given? I am thinking you would pick the God of Judaism and use the Torah to support the arguments you have brought up. I know I did assume what God you believe in earlier but it is required for my point.

Over to you

Round 2
Published:
I’d like to thank my opponent for their response. My opponent asked which “God” I am referring to. While I certainly could have brought proof for the Torah and for the divine origins of Judaism, I believe that’s beyond the scope of this debate. As such, I am essentially arguing for a Deist type of God with the classical Theistic attributes.
 
Also, while the debate would be more interesting with a shared burden of proof (with Con arguing against the resolution and providing arguments for atheism), I also believe that to be beyond the scope of this debate. As such, I have the BOP to prove the existence of God. With that, let’s dive into my defense.
 
I. Cosmological Argument
 
Con completely misses the point of my argument. Con is correct to say that the conclusion of the argument is that “the universe has a cause of its existence.” I gave multiple lines of reason to conclude that the universe did, in fact, have a cause of this existence. Con failed to adequately respond to the lines of reasons that the universe had a beginning of its existence. I am uncertain of what Con is talking about with regards to dark matter. This is rather irrelevant to the argument unless Con is able to use dark matter to prove either one of my premises to be false. Finally, I don’t quite understand what Con is talking about with regards to aliens. Again, that’s completely irrelevant.
 
Second, the argument is not an argument from what we do not know, rather it is an argument based on what we do know. We know that what begins to exist has an external and transcendent cause of its existence. If I was to paint a picture, I would be that external and transcendent cause of that painting’s existence.
 
Third, as con correctly points out, the conclusion of the argument is that “the universe has a cause of its existence.” The question then is what is the most probable cause of the existence of the universe? I gave multiple lines of reasoning to believe that God is the ultimate cause.  I don’t understand Con’s argument on Ex nihilo vs Creatio ex Materia. Please clarify more in the next round.
 
II. Transcendental Argument
 
I am sorry for neglecting to mention the morality part in my opening round. I do believe in objective morality. By objective, I mean that such an action is morally right or wrong for every person. For example, it is always wrong to torture babies for fun. The key question to Con: Is it morally permissible to torture babies for fun? If not, can you prove it? What is the ultimate source of objective morality?
 
Again, I don’t quite understand my opponent’s arguments. The resolution doesn’t really require me to prove any religion is right or wrong. I am essentially arguing for a Deist-type of God. If my opponent wishes for a separate debate on the Divine origins of Judaism, I’d be happy to have that debate.

III. Ontological argument
 
First, how is this an argument for God’s nonexistence? As Con notes, it is certainly possible to plug anything in for God. However, before I address this, I want to clarify the logical structure of the argument. Getting from P2 to P3 is a statement of S5 modal logic which states:
 
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P.
 
Finally, attempts to parody this argument fails for one of two reasons: (1) it is not structurally parallel to the argument; or (2) it is not dialectally parallel to the argument. Further any attempt to parody the argument that resolves 1 and 2 is the ontological argument itself and thus leads us back to square one and is a non-argument.
 
IV. Concluding Remarks
 
I apologize to Con for not being as thorough in this round. Hopefully, I will do so in the next round. This week has been really busy for me and so once again, I’m writing my arguments at the last minute and I’m physically and mentally exhausted. That being said, I would love to do a separate debate on the divine origins of the Torah and Judaism.
 
One final thought, when it comes to debates, personal beliefs are often pushed aside. I often argue against my personal beliefs in debates and I’m almost doing so here by arguing for a Deist-type of God. I say “Deist-type” as Deism is not a dogmatic religion and I don’t view it like an organized faith with a core set of beliefs.
Published:
I thank Virtuoso for replying back. 
 
I will start with the last paragraph he gave because it does make my grievances clearer.

IV. Concluding Remarks
I apologize to Con for not being as thorough in this round. Hopefully, I will do so in the next round. This week has been really busy for me and so once again, I’m writing my arguments at the last minute and I’m physically and mentally exhausted. That being said, I would love to do a separate debate on the divine origins of the Torah and Judaism. 
That doesn't excuse the problem I have with trying to rebut the amount of information was given for me to rebut. I would have liked the Torah to be mentioned because arguing for a general God is not the position you hold since you do sponsor to Judaism and it is only fair to make it more specific instead of being general about the core of what we’re arguing for or against.
One final thought, when it comes to debates, personal beliefs are often pushed aside. I often argue against my personal beliefs in debates and I’m almost doing so here by arguing for a Deist-type of God. I say “Deist-type” as Deism is not a dogmatic religion and I don’t view it like an organized faith with a core set of beliefs. 
If you mean by personal beliefs as in defining your specific God then it can't be excused. God requires a definition and since you are not a deist more so a theist if my assumptions are correct it would only be fair to argue from your theist standpoint. Personal beliefs as in things that are not useful for either side to bring up would not be brought up but I would have thought God would be important enough to define in the way that you view it using the Torah.

Now back to the start.
I’d like to thank my opponent for their response. My opponent asked which “God” I am referring to. While I certainly could have brought proof for the Torah and for the divine origins of Judaism, I believe that’s beyond the scope of this debate. As such, I am essentially arguing for a Deist type of God with the classical Theistic attributes. 
The problem here is that it isn't the position you take. You have a God that you are stating exists not the other iterations of it or making arguments for those Gods. You have already stated that you are making the "classical Theistic attributes" which would mean you subscribe to one of those classical Religions not the Deist position. 
 
Also, while the debate would be more interesting with a shared burden of proof (with Con arguing against the resolution and providing arguments for atheism), I also believe that to be beyond the scope of this debate. As such, I have the BOP to prove the existence of God. With that, let’s dive into my defense.
Wasn't really agreed what this debate was. I guess it was implied to be the second try of our first debate which was you had the burden of proof and I didn't.

I. Cosmological Argument
Con completely misses the point of my argument. Con is correct to say that the conclusion of the argument is that “the universe has a cause of its existence.” I gave multiple lines of reason to conclude that the universe did, in fact, have a cause of this existence. Con failed to adequately respond to the lines of reasons that the universe had a beginning of its existence.
That wasn't the burden you were supposed to meet. You were supposed to make arguments for God yet the KCA doesn't conclude God exists. "universe had a beginning of its existence" does not mean God exists. For this reason, the KCA is insufficient as an argument for God. It doesn't conclude God exists which is the entire point of your burden of proof. To show God does exist.
 
I am uncertain of what Con is talking about with regards to dark matter. This is rather irrelevant to the argument unless Con is able to use dark matter to prove either one of my premises to be false. Finally, I don’t quite understand what Con is talking about with regards to aliens. Again, that’s completely irrelevant. 
Dark matter part is addressed with the next quote I used. The aliens part was not vital to my points so it is not important if I help you understand it.
 
Second, the argument is not an argument from what we do not know, rather it is an argument based on what we do know. We know that what begins to exist has an external and transcendent cause of its existence. If I was to paint a picture, I would be that external and transcendent cause of that painting’s existence.
This is clearly missing from your response. You didn't mention this was based on what we do know. You are making this a condition after the argument was made. Now the reasonable question is what do we know? I thought it would be obvious the question I would ask but I guess I have to wait another Round to realize what exactly you mean by the KCA.
 
You being the cause of a paper being colorful doesn't actually mean anything. If you are saying it goes in line with cause and effect, then you must also state how God doesn’t fall into this. So that point is really not important.
 
Third, as con correctly points out, the conclusion of the argument is that “the universe has a cause of its existence.” The question then is what is the most probable cause of the existence of the universe? I gave multiple lines of reasoning to believe that God is the ultimate cause.
Lines of reasoning do not make them correct. Your line of reasoning were bunch of claims not supported by anything. I have yet to get anything from that paragraph and wanted clarification on how you went through that line of reasoning. All I see here is that you are pretty much saying what you did in Round 1. An insufficient argument for God. A line of reasoning does not mean your burden of proof is fulfilled. It only means you have reasons to state it is God but have yet to support it thus making it insubstantial.
I don’t understand Con’s argument on Ex nihilo vs Creatio ex Materia. Please clarify more in the next round. 
I should clarify when you don’t even bother to clarify your own positions? This doesn’t even help me understand what grievance you had with that form of argument. So forgive me if I don’t actually know what you don’t understand. To clarify Creatio Ex Nihilo has never been observed to exist. Due to this being the only way God can create something while not being part of that something it would require you to provide proof of something coming from nothing.

II. Transcendental Argument
I am sorry for neglecting to mention the morality part in my opening round. I do believe in objective morality. By objective, I mean that such an action is morally right or wrong for every person. For example, it is always wrong to torture babies for fun. The key question to Con: Is it morally permissible to torture babies for fun? If not, can you prove it? What is the ultimate source of objective morality?
Why did you push the burden to me with the questions? I asked for clarification about objective morality assuming you would delve into what you mean by it then you ask me what it is. If it is rhetorical both are still useless to your burden of proof. I am not required to fulfil your burden of proof.

You stated “it is always wrong to torture babies for fun.” This is not true. This depends on what you value. If I don’t value babies and also value torturing babies for fun then it isn’t wrong to torture babies for fun. That is the problem with objective morality. No-one is hard wired to like specific things. People are different given the subjectivity of the mind. With this in mind I can see people liking furries or becoming serial killers. In their mind they think what they are doing is correct. What we do from that is apply a standard/system outside subjectivity in order to reach an unattainable goal of making decisions without feelings attached to it. In a different example like science. It is built on many assumptions in order to derive observable evidence. A clear example is that they assume a X perception is optimal in gaining observable evidence. Science uses an assumption like that to gain information. It doesn’t make it objective. It makes it a scientific fact. You have simply done the same with objective morality but left out the assumptions you have when using the standard/system you have.

If you are saying your system is objective, then I would like proof of it to be the case. 

Like what I said earlier which you haven’t done is prove objectivity but in this sense prove to me how objective morality exists. An example of something you consider bad without explaining how it is objectively bad is not how you do it.
Again, I don’t quite understand my opponent’s arguments. The resolution doesn’t really require me to prove any religion is right or wrong. I am essentially arguing for a Deist-type of God. If my opponent wishes for a separate debate on the Divine origins of Judaism, I’d be happy to have that debate.
The resolution I am guessing is from the title which is “God exists”. In order to tell me how God exists you would need to tell me which one it is since there isn’t a consensus on what God’s attributes are.
III. Ontological argument
First, how is this an argument for God’s nonexistence? As Con notes, it is certainly possible to plug anything in for God. However, before I address this, I want to clarify the logical structure of the argument. Getting from P2 to P3 is a statement of S5 modal logic which states:
 
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P.

If you actually read my argument I had a problem with premise 1, 2, 3 and 4. Possibility does not equal probability so this argument pretty much makes many assumptions in order to make a possible entity into something existing. That is not an argument. It is like me saying what if you won the debate? You would win the debate. What if God exists? God exists. That is the entire argument summed up. It doesn’t provide an argument for God it simply makes many assumptions clouding how simple the argument is.
(1)  it is not structurally parallel to the argument; or (2) it is not dialectally parallel to the argument. 
(Not a quote from what you said)
“Parallel structure (also called parallelism) is the repetition of a chosen grammatical form within a sentence. By making each compared item or idea in your sentence follow the same grammatical pattern, you create a parallel construction.”
https://www.evergreen.edu/sites/default/files/writingcenter/handouts/grammar/parallel.pdf
You haven’t explained how my arguments were structurally parallel or dialectally parallel either. I only found the definition of one of the two complaints you had with my arguments but that doesn’t even actually debunk my point. You are simply saying just because I added a different context it isn’t the same argument. That wasn’t the point of the parody. The point was to show how if you accept this argument for God then you accept this argument for Cthulhu and God not existing. If the argument was sound my argument wouldn’t work for Cthulhu or God not existing but it does. The argument is based on possibility leading to something existing. I simply changed that something from God to whatever I liked. That is what this argument is.

Further any attempt to parody the argument that resolves 1 and 2 is the ontological argument itself and thus leads us back to square one and is a non-argument.
Hiding behind the argument name doesn’t change what the argument is about. It is simply stating X is possible therefore it exists. I simply changed the X into what I like and guess what? I made an argument for Cthulhu and God not existing.

I don’t know what my opponent is doing but it is not clarifying his positions nor it is sufficiently rebutting my claims. Hopefully I have demonstrated that.

Over to you


Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
I don't know why Virutoso forfeited but he did.

Thanks now I have time to do other debates. 


Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
Okay. 

Added:
easy win for Pro
#10
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
No real offense to Virutoso but I am doubtful.
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Seeing a smart religious person debate a smart atheist sounds like a lot of fun.
It's rare to find a religious specimen that isn't brainwashed. Cough Cough dsjpk5.
#8
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Virtuoso vs. Omar on religion sounds very interesting.
#7
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
Why would this be interesting?
Contender
#6
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
IRL stuff.
#5
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
Why didn't you see my first one with Virtuoso?
Contender
#4
Added:
This'll be interesting...
#3
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
No helping. I already gave that argument in the first debate that was deleted. If you stick around you would see the most important problem with the argument that I will levy.
Contender
#2
Added:
The Cosmological argument is actually one of the worst arguments for God out there. First, it assumes that the universe has a cause. Second, it talks about a cause and not a creator. And third, if everything must have a cause then what caused God?
#1
#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:
Forfiet
#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:
Out of Four rounds 2 were forfeited. 50% Forfeit means I can vote Conduct on its own Ramshutu, ask the mods if you don't believe.