Total votes: 3
REBUTTAL TO PRO
CON, R2: Pro started with an argument that God could not have created the universe.
PRO, R2: 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.
CON, R2: ... this argument only argues that a God that is limited by the physical time-space laws did not create the universe, furthermore, it assumes that physical laws had any relevance at the moment the universe began to exist, which is not at all obvious since we do not know what was possible pre-Bang. ... this argument does nothing whatever to disprove a God that is not bound by the physical laws but able to do everything that is logically possible (i.e. omniscient). ... it is not logically impossible for a being to be independent of the physical laws, we can not conclude that such a God is impossible. [I totally agree with CON here.]
PRO, R3: Con argues that God is not bounded by the physical time-space laws. Whenever someone says, something is real, they have a physically measurable way of demonstrating that thing. ... However, if we go with the way Con is defining God, there is no way of measuring that. This is known as the unfalsifiability fallacy (Defining God in such a way that it is impossible to show it does not exist).
... Con ... defined a god whose existence can neither be proven true nor false. I said that I have concluded that the simplest explanation is that there is no god but I could be proven wrong. It is impossible to know for a fact that there is no god for one simple reason: There are millions of definitions that people have made up for the god they believe in. For me to prove that there is no god, I will have to refute every single one of them here.
When we say something exists, it is implied that we mean it exists within space and time. If we define God as existing outside of space and time, how can we demonstrate it? We only have tools available within space and time. We know of nothing that exists outside such parameters. If your God exists outside the laws of physics, then it is physically impossible for your god to exist. [I agree with CON.]
CON’S ARGUMENT
CON, R1: I will present an argument in favour of the existence of God ....
Kalam cosmological argument:
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (since Nothing comes from nothing)
P2: The Universe began to exist. (Supported by the big bang theory and Borde, Guth & Vilenkin, 2003, who showed that an inflationary model of the universe can not be past-eternal [4])
C: The Universe has a cause.
This cause of the universe is what we call God (from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica).
PRO, R2: Even if I were to grant to you that the premises are sound, the conclusion only leads to an uncaused cause, not to your god.
CON, R3: Pro is correct that this does not lead to the conclusion that any specific God exists ....
[I agree with PRO. CON should have made the connection between the Kalam arg. & the god CON is arguing for more explicit.]
PRO, R2: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” and “The Universe has a cause”
This is the fallacy of composition.... Just because everything in the Universe has a cause, It does not mean that the Universe also must have a cause.
CON, R3: My opponent is attacking a strawman. [Kalam] argues that because the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause. The argument does not claim that because everything in the universe had a cause, the universe must have a cause. If the premises are accepted, the conclusion follows ....
PRO, R2: I am not saying that there is no cause behind the Universe rather I am pointing out that you fail to make the case that the Universe does indeed have a cause. [I agree with CON.]
PRO, R2: If I grant you that "whatever being [sic] to exist has a cause", then it follows that the creator of the Universe must have a cause too. So what created the creator?
CON, R3: ... if God did not begin to exist (which is implied by “eternal”), then God would not require a cause according to the Kalam.
I also agree with CON on the burden of proof dispute: PRO said, “There is no god.” CON did not have to prove a god exists, CON had only to refute PRO’s arguments. There wasn’t space here for me to elaborate on that.
PRO accused CON of appealing to popularity for one of his arguments. I agree with CON's response that that was not what he was doing. Not enough space to expand on this one either,.
NOTE: I awarded a conduct point to CON, because PRO made several ad hominem comments.
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.
Arguments: Pro (Pro’s arguments were more convincing {see below}. Con did not rebut Pro’s argsuments/rebuttals made in Round 3.)
Sources: Pro (Pro’s sources were more convincing {see below}).
Grammar/Spelling: Tie (Pro incorrectly used “effect” instead of “affect” in Round 3, just before the one-word paragraph “Boom.”; Con misspelled the name of one source—in Round 1, Contention 2, “Free Will”: Michael “Egor” should be “Egnor”.)
Conduct: Pro (Con forfeited Rounds 3 & 4.)
===============================================
Round 1
Pro: Everything that exists is physical or contingent upon the physical.
-------------------
Con: Immaterial things exist: the laws of math, logic, and physics. They are true in all possible worlds, therefore not dependent on anything physical.
“Key question to pro: Is there any possible world in which there exists a square circle or where 2+2=5? If not, then these statements are not dependent on the physical world.”
Con said that free will exists. If all is physical, free will is impossible. Therefore materialism is false.
Con quotes Michael “Egor”[sic] of the Discovery Institute to support his case. Egnor argues that if “good” were material-based, it would have to be physically encoded in the brain. as an “engram.” Such coding would be “a particular assembly of proteins, [or other things] in a specific brain location.” There being nothing about the assembly that means good, a decoding engram would be necessary. The decoding engram would also require decoding, and so on, ad infinitum. I find this argument unconvincing,
Round 2
Pro rebuts Con’s statement about the laws of logic by stating that they are “an abstract organization of our thoughts ... contingent on neurological substrates.” Pro adds a supporting quote from Cambridge U., which I think strengthens Pro’s argument, to the effect that neurophysiological substrates underlie intentional behaviors.
Pro answers Con’s question from Round 1 (Is there a possible world in which a square circle exists or where 2+2=5?) in the affirmative with “the quantum world.”
Pro rebuts Con’s statement about mathematical laws by arguing that they are based upon “shapes, quantity, and distance,” all physical concepts.
Pro rebuts Con’s statement that the laws of physics are transcendental by arguing that said laws “break down at the quantum level.”
Pro agrees with Con that “If everything was physical, free will would be impossible.” Pro links to an article on Physical Determinism, which seemed equivocal to me on the subject of mental events, so I’m not sure that it supports his argument that everything is physical.
-------------------
Con agrees that certain abstractions such as thoughts, feelings, mind, and intelligence (but not consciousness) are constructs and are dependent upon the brain. In Round 1, Con argued that the abstractions, intellect and will, as well as the universal, good, are “immaterial.” At the end of this round, Con states that mathematics are also immaterial. Con does not provide a method for determining which abstractions are dependent on the brain and which are not.
Con states that to win this debate it is necessary only to prove that something which exists is not reducible to matter.
Con reiterates that laws of logic are valid in all possible worlds. Con then shifts the burden of proof to Pro, to prove that a world could exist in which the laws of logic are invalid, but does not address Pro’s rebuttal in this round concerning the “quantum world.”
Con quotes Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry to the effect that “Logical Absolutes” are transcendent, independent of human minds. Slick’s argument is that people differ about what is absolute and they contradict each other. This argument is unconvincing to me, because some people could be correct and others not.
Con asks how we can trust our brains if they are material only. Con says that we can’t, nor could we trust our logic.
Con then lists four conclusions, which I do not think have been proved: 1) the laws of logic are transcendent - independent of thought; 2) the laws of logic are self-authenticating; 3) They are true in every possible world, thus do not depend on the physical laws of nature or the construct; 4) They are uncreated and uncaused; Thus materialism is false. At this point, I am not convinced that Con’s four conclusions have been proved.
Finally, Con states that mathematics are “rooted in the transcendental laws of logic.”
Round 3
Pro answers Con’s question a second time: human logic breaks down at the quantum level. Pro supports this contention with expanded argumentation and an excellent video produced at the University of Paris.
Pro counters Con’s rebuttal that mathematics are based on the laws of logic by quoting from the Oxford and the Cambridge dictionaries, both of which support Pro’s view.
-------------------
Con forfeited Round 3, and conceded Round 4.