The Instigator
ChokingChlorine
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

About God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 491 times Debate No: 76912
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

ChokingChlorine

Con

A lot of people seem to have this notion that there is a God out there that has been here for all eternity. What I have to question is how does God get around to making the Earth when he has been here an eternity before? Some people say that he has always been, but I don't find that convincing at all. Also, Jaclyn Glenn looks kind of like the wasp humanoid D'vorah from Mortal Kombat with her dark eyes.
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1: The Ontological Argument

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William Criag: The Argument is bellow.

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. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.This excludes metaphysics as we can see that if we observe a black hole it sucks in matter and a worm hole allegedly leads back out. But what if we look at how Neil Tyson depicted it as inside the black hole in his novel, Death by Black Hole, purposed that actually inside a black hole could cause another universe from the hot matter that inside. We cannot find God as the original black hole has evapporated via Hawking Radiation and there is no way to get back to him (except through death, but that's an entirely different debate) so we can only wait for us to be contacted by him.

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]

The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.

Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere. Even if we look at Tyson's theory on how this universe started and that it is a multiverse we can still see that the universe, this one, had a beginning.

Now at this point you're probably asking yourself, okay Lannan that shows that the universe began at a point, but what does this have to do with God? This is that there is nothing known prior to the creation of the universe meaning that it since there is no determining factors to what happened before we must assume that it's personal and uncaused. This can be see by one asking how can a timeless rift be given such a temperory effect of the begining of time? One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe if not omnipotent. Thus for this reason God Exists.

Contention 3: TA Arguement

Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [4]
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [5]
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

1. God, by definition, is the greatest possible being.
2. A being that does not exist in the real world is less great than a being that exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds.
3. Suppose that God (the greatest possible being) does not exist in the real world.
4. If the greatest possible being does not exist in the real world, then He is not as great as the possible being who is just like him but who does exist in the real world.
5. But the greatest possible being can’t be less great than some other possible being. To say that “the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible” is to say something that’s necessarily false, because self-contradictory.
6. The supposition in 3 is false. God does exist in the real world. And he exists not contingently, but necessarily, or in all possible worlds. It is impossible for God not to exist. [6]

Here we can see that Point 6 is completely true. If we had this maximumly great being of some sort we could see that even if we took him out of our universe that there would still be a Maximumly Great Being. Thus we can simplify to see that when combined with the S5 argument of the Ontoligcal argument that God is Possible in All worlds and because of this we can see that it's a posteriori for God to Exist and arguing otherwise is futile.

Sources in comments section.
Debate Round No. 1
ChokingChlorine

Con

Okay, your argument paradoxically can work for or against you. It can be very appealing for there to be an uncaused causer, but the thing is is that we have no idea of the source for this to happen. The God you imagine there to be, I admit can't be disproven, and I know how people relate to the watchmaker, but we have different means of making thing rather than a God. You can only imagine him to be something that imposes itself, but if you could imagine Him doing this stuff in real life, it would seem unrealistic. I know that you might appeal to the big bang as being a failure of a concept. I won't get into that which I'm not qualified to talk about. I can alwasys imagine a nothingness being a place of something for reality.
lannan13

Pro

TA Continued

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.

7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [1]


For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [2]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [2] My opponent states that we cannot imagine this God doing these things IRL, but we can see that it would be impossible, becasue as Ross argued that God opperates outside of this Dimensional Plane. Thus disproving any zero-net argument out there.

Furthering extending across from my last round we can see that my Aslan Argument shows that no matter what that there is a God. Say that X is the greatest thing out of XYZ and their greatness follows in that order. It is clear that if you take X out of XYZ then Y would be the greatest due to Y being greater than Z. Thus showing that no matter what we will always have a Maximumly Great Being no matter how low the Greatness gets. Though we can still see that since God is on a different Plane that W is really God and that W is thus greater than XYZ as.

I extend all other arguments.

Sources
1. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
2. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)

Debate Round No. 2
ChokingChlorine

Con

It is such a funny thing that the Big Bang talks about the beginning of at least one universe which would be ours, but the lack of explanation to the beginning appeals to a God that seems to have attributes that may as you might argue concur with the Bible.
lannan13

Pro

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."- Genesis 1:1

You see, back then they didn't have a large understanding on the universe and how things worked so we can definately see books like the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran to probably not be science text books. If God had shown humans this we can see that they would probably be like Nastrodamus's description of the German Blitzkreig by calling the NAZI panzers Metal beasts or how he wasn't able to describe skyscrapers and such, but you get my point. People didn't have the best information and how things are now and it wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago before we began to make improvements in Space and Science.
Debate Round No. 3
ChokingChlorine

Con

ChokingChlorine forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 4
ChokingChlorine

Con

ChokingChlorine forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

All points extended.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(2) Debate: http://www.debate.org...

Profile: http://www.debate.org...

==================================================================
>Reported vote: ThatLibertarian// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Arguments, S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: .

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation for any points awarded. Apparent vote bomb.
===========================================================================
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Alpha3141// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Wow, you smoked that guy! That was a pretty solid case!

[*Reason for removal*] Lack of explanation for any points awarded. Out of five rounds, there were three rounds of actual argumentation so it is not a full forfeit and votes need to explain points awarded to pass moderation review. Votes are exempt from moderation only on debates where one side posted no substantial arguments at all and forfieted all rounds. This is not such a case. The voter also did not specify that the points were awarded due to the forfeit which makes this vote indistinguishable from a vote-bomb. For forfiets such as this one where the debater only forfeits some rounds but argues in others, only the conduct point is justified by default while other points awarded need to be explained.
===========================================================================
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@palmkrawler - except P9 is unjustified. Lannan justifies his P9, i.e. the only cause of the universe can be God, under the KCA section. Please read the debate.
Posted by palmkrawler 1 year ago
palmkrawler
6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists.

Wow. How delusional. I could use the same argument.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
10. Therefore, The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

or how about

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is green slime creatures from Planet X.
10. Therefore, green slime creatures from Planet X exists.

See how silly your argument is??? I hope you can do better than that.
Posted by MrJosh 1 year ago
MrJosh
I'd love to see some support for that 9th premise.
Posted by ChokingChlorine 1 year ago
ChokingChlorine
Hey, I gave you a letter. That deals with this. I think that I'm going to stay skeptical, even though there doesn't seem to be anything satisfying either way.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Round 1 Sourcing
1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
3. (Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.)
4. Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157
5. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. Gonz"lez (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79
6. (Anselm, St., Anselm's Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed. (La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
ChokingChlorinelannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Cotton_Candy
ChokingChlorinelannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO was much more serious than CON and his arguments affirming the existence of god weren't negated till the end. So arguments to PRO. Rest, tie.