The Instigator
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Kosovar
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 860 times Debate No: 58588
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Rounds:
1st: Con makes rules, Pro makes opening argument.

2nd: Both make new arguments and rebuttals.
3rd: Both make rebuttals and Pro makes summary.
4th: Con summary. Pro will write only "I pass this round, at no penalty, as agreed."

Definitions:
Omnipotent:
"having unlimited power; able to do anything," [1].
Omniscient: "knowing everything," [2].
Omnibenevolent: "all-loving, or infinitely good," [3].
To Exist: "to have objective reality or being," [4].

The full resolution is thus:
"An entity, having unlimited power, knowing everything, and being all-loving, has objective reality."

BOP:
Pro has the Burden of Proof (BOP) to prove that at least one omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (OOO) entity can exist and does exist. Con has no BOP except to disprove Pro's arguments, as will be reinforced later, if necessary.

References:
[1] google.com/search?q=definition+omnipotent
[2] google.com/search?q=definition+omniscient
[3] en.wiktionary.org/wiki/omnibenevolent
[4] google.com/search?q=definition+exist
Kosovar

Pro

I am a Muslim, who worships none other than the one and only God, whom we call 'Allah'. I'm new to this website and will use the best of my debating skills to hopefully convince you that there is one God, who has created us all. I'm no physicist but I hope that it won't take a lot for me to win this debate. I respect your faith and do not wish to condemn you for your beliefs, what you believe is 100% up to you and I would also appreciate it if you express your views with respect, as well.
Debate Round No. 1
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

2C0A: However, I have asked that Pro make their opening arguments first.

For reference, see the section "Rounds" of my Round 1 argument.

This is because, it is entirely up to Pro to prove the existence of an OOO god, while Con must merely rebutt said arguments. (Don't worry -- I'll do more than this.) Hence, I need arguments to refute.

Regardless, don't hold it against Pro.

2C0B: "I am a Muslim, who worships none other than the one and only God, whom we call 'Allah'."

Cool.

2C0C: "I'm new to this website and will use the best of my debating skills to hopefully convince you that there is one God, who has created us all."

That is what you will attempt to do. :P

2C0D: "I'm no physicist but I hope that it won't take a lot for me to win this debate."

That depends on what evidence you want to use.

2C0E: "I respect your faith and do not wish to condemn you for your beliefs, what you believe is 100% up to you and I would also appreciate it if you express your views with respect, as well."

Yes, of course.
Kosovar

Pro

Before I proceed to my first point, I must apologise for not noticing that you wanted me to started, hopefully I haven't made too much of a bad impression on you, with my attention to detail. Nevertheless, I will proceed with my argument.

The reason that I believe an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent entity exists because it explains a lot about how the Universe was created. By my understanding, the Big Bang theory describes the universe expanding from an explosion from one, single point. I understand that evidence, such as red-shift and cosmic microwave background radiation backs up the Big Bang theory but what you should keep in mind is, that the Big Bang theory does not provide a valid explanation, nor any evidence for the single point, which expanded to become the universe we know today. Where did that hot, dense point come from? And where did the cause of that come from? If you can give me an answer, I'll probably ask you "where did THAT come from?". It's like if you want to ask for, say a loan; you ask one person, and he/she tells you, "OK, let me just ask this other guy for money to give you, he also has to ask this other guy for money because he doesn't have money either; I'd ask him myself I knew him" Assuming that there is an infinite number of people, who have to ask the person who is more closer to the person with the money, would you ever get that loan?

So, why do I strongly believe that God exists? He is transcendent from his creation; not bound by any of the realms he created- be it time, space or matter. The idea is that he is eternal, having no beginning and no end. I think it should be seen as a miracle that one planet, in our solar system, had a planet that can sustain life. Given the number of particles in the universe, wouldn't the chances of a sustainable planet, with an environment suited to humans- created by luck, be slim? I don't want to completely disprove the Big Bang theory because it pretty much fits the description in the Quran: "And it is We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (Quran 51:47). The idea of the universe expanding came hundreds of years before "the first academic to propose the Big Bang theory", Georges Lemaitre was even born! In a time where the only astronomy you'd get is gazing at the night-sky, the Final Prophet, who was illiterate, wrote about the universe expanding, but there's a difference- God is expanding the universe.

I know it might seem illogical to you, to believe that the universe came from a "magic man in the sky", I don't blame you. Though, it wouldn't be fair if religious people start hating you for not believing in God- after all, there is no solid evidence for God's existence- but, at the same time, there is no solid evidence to DISPROVE God's existence.
Debate Round No. 2
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

3C0A: “I ... apologize for not noticing ... you wanted me to started (sic), hopefully I haven't made ... a bad impression(.)”

Not at all, it's a common mistake. Onto the debate!

---

Con Case

---

2C1: Burden of Proof

Pro seems to accept that they have the burden of proof.

To reinforce this, let's look at this through Occam's Razor.

Definition of Occam's Razor: "[A]mong competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. " [M]ore complicated solutions may " prove correct, but"in the absence of [evidence]"the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. The " principle " shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power," Wikipedia [11].

In a worldview where an OOO entity does not exist, fewer assumptions are made than in any worldview where one does. For example, contrast a Con universe and a Pro universe.

Con: "The universe exists."

Pro: "The universe exists, and an OOO entity exists."

Thus, Pro has the full Burden of Proof.

---

2C2: The Logical Problem of Evil

The Logical Problem of Evil shows that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity and the existence of evil form a contradiction, such that only one or the other can exist in a given reality.

P1: From definition, an omnipotent entity can perform any action.

P2: From definition, an omnibenevolent entity would remove all evil.

P3: From P1-2, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity would remove all evil.

P4: From P1-3, if an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, then evil does not.

A1: Assume temporarily that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists.

P5: From P1-4 and A1, evil does not exist.

P6: From observation, evil exists.

C1: P6 and P5 form a contradiction; A1 is false, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity does not exist.

The existence of evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity. Because we cannot reject the existence of evil, we must reject the existence of an omnipotent entity.

---

2C3: The Paradox of Omnipotence

The Paradox of Omnipotence attempts to prove that it's impossible for an entity to truly be omnipotent, because an omnipotent entity would have to be able to limit itself; however, because it is limitable, it is also not omnipotent.

A few variations on the theme:

Theme 1: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?"

If yes: The entity's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone.

If no: The entity's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone.

Theme 2: "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"

If yes: Jesus's power is limited, because he cannot eat the burrito.

If no: Jesus's power is limited, because it cannot microwave the burrito.

As such, an omnipotent god cannot possibly exist.

---

Rebuttal of Pro Case

Different parts of Pro’s statements support different arguments, so I have moved them to multiple sections. Don't expect complete continuity.

---

2P1: the Cosmological Argument

2P1A: “(A)n (OOO) ... entity exists because it explains ... how the Universe was created. ... (T)he Big Bang theory describes the universe expanding from ... one, single point. ... (T)he Big Bang theory does not provide a valid explanation for .... (w)here did that hot, dense point come from?”

1: Yes, the Big Bang theory does not provide an explanation for where that point came from; the Big Bang theory merely explains what happened afterward, and it would be outside of its scope to include an origin for the universe. In fact, it is currently impossible to scientifically know what came before the Big Bang [1]. However, just because we don't know why the universe began does not mean that Allah (or any divine entity) must exist, and asserting otherwise falls into the “God of the Gaps” mentality [2], which is a form of the fallacious “argument from ignorance” [3].

2: Let's also consider that much of modern physics predicts that “time” came into existence with the Big Bang [4][5]. If this is true, then there can be no “before” the Big Bang whatsoever; asking what came “before” the Big Bang is nonsensical.

3: Even if we accept that time did exist before the Big Bang, there are numerous theories that would allow the universe to come “from nothing”. Consider the Zero-Energy Universe theory. All energy in the universe is balanced, with gravity acting as negative energy and particles acting as positive energy [6][7]. Consider two sets of two particles: In Set A, they are close together, and have little potential kinetic energy. In Set B, they are far apart, and have much potential kinetic energy. As such, if the universe has zero energy, then it is entirely possible that it was formed as a random quantum fluctuation.

4: Furthermore, let’s consider the assumption inherent in this argument – that everything that began to exist has a cause. This seems intuitive, but is flawed. First, this belief is an induction, not a philosophical fact, and can never be a philosophical fact, because we cannot have perfect knowledge. Second, it is known that quantum fluctuations have no apparent cause, but are merely temporary energy imbalances that spontaneously form [8]. Furthermore, this assumption requires time to exist to make any sense.

5: For this specific subargument, let’s assume that, in fact, everything that exists requires a cause. (Disregard 2P1A.1, 2, 3, and 4.) Therefore, the OOO must also have a cause, and that cause requires a cause, ad nauseum. As such, this doesn’t solve the problem of infinite causal regress, but just adds extra steps into the already infinite regress.

6: And even if a divine First Cause is required, why must that First Cause be OOO? For example, if it must merely be omnipotent, then the existence of an OOO entity is still unproven.

2P1B: “God ... is ... not bound by ... time, space or matter. ... (H)e is eternal, having no begining and no end.”

1: These are mere assertions. Even assuming that an OOO god exists, there is no given reason why that OOO god must be eternal.

---

2P2: Intelligent Design

2P2A: “(M)iracle that one planet, in our solar system, had a planet that could sustain life.”

1: Why?

2: A lower estimate for the number of stars in our universe is 1*10^24 stars, based on merely the observable universe [9]. If the chance of life existing on any given star is 0.00000000000000000000001%, then it’s probable that life exists.

3: What does “[O]ne planet ... had a planet” mean?

4: I’d recommend a read of http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://rationalwiki.org.... Why is it that we live on Earth? Because we can live on Earth. If we couldn’t, we wouldn’t.

2P2B: “Given the number of particles in the universe, wouldn't the chances of a sustainable planet, with an environment suited to humans ... be slim?”

1: I don’t know why the number of particles in the universe is related to the habitability of any given planet. Wouldn’t more particles mean more chances of habitability?

---

2P3: Accuracy of the Quran

2P3A: “I don't want to completely disprove the Big Bang theory because it ... fits the description in the Quran(.)

1: This seems like skewed logic here. Accept the Quran, then accept the Big Bang because it agrees with it.

2P3B: “In a time where the only astronomy was ... gazing at the night sky, the Final Prophet ... wrote about the universe expanding(.) ... God is expanding the universe.”

1: The modern translation of this verse is quite different from earlier translations. Three examples:

“And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample,” (Quran 51:47). 1917 translation from Muhammad Ali.

“We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof),” (Quran 51:47). 1930 translation from Marmaduke Pickthall.

“With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space,” (Quran 51:47). 1934 translation from Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

Only in modern times has the past-tense and positive “we made it big” been changed into the present-tense and comparative “we make it bigger”. Why?

(And yes, this is copied from http://rationalwiki.org.... Seeing as I wrote that portion of the page, I don’t think it’s plagiarism.)

2: It's also interesting that scientific discoveries are very rarely "predicted" by the Quran until after science has made the discovery. One would imagine that a book so full of scientific foreknowledge would be used to predict future scientific discoveries, while it appears that the Quran can only vaguely predict currently existing science. This appears to be a manifestation of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy [10].

(And yes, this is copied from http://rationalwiki.org.... Seeing as I wrote that portion of the page, I don’t think it’s plagiarism.)

---

2P4: Lack of Disproof

2P4A: “(T)here is no solid evidence for God's existence - but ... there is no solid evidence to DISPROVE God's existence.”

1: Pro contradicts Proself. In 2P1, 2, and 3, Pro argues that evidence for God's existence exists. In 2P4, Pro argues that no evidence for God's existence exists. Which does Pro truly believe?

2: Evidence is unnecessary to disprove God; see 3C1.

3: Even if evidence is necessary, I have provided it; see 3C2 and 3.

---

References:

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch#Theoretical_ideas

[2] rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

[3] rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[4] science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm/printable

[5] hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

[6] livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html

[7] astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

[8] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

[9] universetoday.com/102630/how-many-stars-are-there-in-the-universe/

[10] rationalwiki.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

[11] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Kosovar

Pro

I apologise in advance, this is going to be long:

Okay, I had quite a read on your argument, so I will provide a response for each of these sections.

Yeah, I'm British so a lot of words with 'Z', like 'apologize', I replace with 'S'.

The Burden of Proof

Well, I'm not sure how I can prove that God exists as humans do not have that kind of power, though I strongly believe the complexity of the universe itself can be used as evidence to support the concept of a designer, rather than it all happening by chance.

The Logical Problem of Evil

I don't think that the existence of evil should be used to disprove God's love for everyone, after all, we have different ideas of what's evil and what's not- for example, consider causing the extinction of mosquitos: some might argue that it is a good thing as the number of human deaths by malaria are reduced, on the other hand it could also be seen as immoral because of the disruption of the ecosystem for species with mosquito-based diets and the end of many mosquito lives. Another example: if someone kills a baby, it will never get to live its whole life ahead of it, but it will never get the chance to sin and will instantly go to Jannah/Heaven. What is evil and what is not depends on our perspective of things. However, Allah knows best; he has his own distinction between good and evil, whether you like his methods or not. Obviously, the idea is that God created everything. Some things aren't meant to be used, such as evil. By giving us free will, we are free to live our lives however we want as it is within the boundaries of the laws of the Quran, atleast that's what I (as a Muslim) believe "O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Paradise and eat both of you freely with pleasure and delight of things therein as wherever you will, but come not near this tree or you both will be of the Zalimeen (wrong doers)." (2:35); the story of how Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit or as Christians know it as is the most famous example of being tested on how we behave with free will. Those who do not believe in our Lord will eat the fruit. Those who avoid the fruit will be awarded for their faith and patience. Because of our free will, some of us chose to use evil for own needs, for others, for revenge etc. Not only do people on Earth have free will, Iblis (or Shaytan/Satan) also has free will, he uses temptation to convince people to sin. Allah does not stop Iblis because he has indiscriminately given everyone free will. With the Quran, Allah gives us warning about temptation. If you can read the words of Allah, then you have the chance to abide by the laws and live with the comfort of the idea of Heaven, provided you live your life as a good Muslim by praying, fasting, avoiding that which is forbidden etc.

The Paradox of Omnipotence

"Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?"

Yes... I think. If God creates a rock so heavy that even HE can't lift it, couldn't one argue that he has chosen to restrict his abilities? My favourite example of one restricting their abilities is the Superman vs Muhammad Ali issue. Superman entered a boxing match with the famous boxer, on one condition: he had to reduce his superhuman strength. Now, of course Superman probably would have torn him apart with his powers, but he felt like fighting like anyother human. In the end, he lost against Muhammad Ali. As for Jesus microwaving a really hot burrito... well, if he can't eat it, he can't eat it; I don't believe he is omnipotent or that he is even the son of God. So yeah, an omnipotent being wouldn't be subject to our logic because God can do whatever He wants, including restricting himself, which is essentially not wanting to do something.

The Cosmological Argument

Ok, I guess this is my fault, I don't think my wording was very good- I apologise for that. I believe in the Big Bang theory, just not all of it, such as: it being created by chance.

Yes, the Big Bang theory does not provide an explanation for where that point came from; the Big Bang theory merely explains what happened afterward, and it would be outside of its scope to include an origin for the universe.

I don't think you're being fair, if Pro can't explain the origin of the Universe, why am I obligated to provide evidence for something that goes beyond the natural? Coming back to the idea of His omnipotence, we don't have any observable evidence to support the existence, except maybe the universe itself because of how complex it is, I don't see anything observable to prove that everything sprang into existence by itself.

However, just because we don't know why the universe began does not mean that Allah (or any divine entity) must exist, and asserting otherwise falls into the “God of the Gaps” mentality, which is a form of the fallacious “argument from ignorance”.

I do not intend to argue that because the origin of the universe is not currently fully explained by science, that there is a divine entity; my point was that atheism is as much of a faith as Islam or any other religion. I don't believe it's necessarily irrational for one to live by the "God of the Gaps" mentality, for the only thing that would hypothetically change one's religious view on how the Universe was created is an explanation for all these 'Gaps' and observable evidence, I think that's quite logical thinking, we're currently assuming that God exists until some concrete explanation backed up by solid evidence knocks deism out of our heads, then I will disagree with the existence of God. It's going to have to be a big one.

Let's also consider that much of modern physics predicts that “time” came into existence with the Big Bang. If this is true, then there can be no “before” the Big Bang whatsoever; asking what came “before” the Big Bang is nonsensical.

I have an idea of what came before the Big Bang: something outside the scope of space, matter, or time i.e. Allah. Even if we accept that time did exist before the Big Bang, there are numerous theories that would allow the universe to come “from nothing”. Consider the Zero-Energy Universe theory. All energy in the universe is balanced, with gravity acting as negative energy and particles acting as positive energy. Consider two sets of two particles: In Set A, they are close together, and have little potential kinetic energy. In Set B, they are far apart, and have much potential kinetic energy. As such, if the universe has zero energy, then it is entirely possible that it was formed as a random quantum fluctuation.

Cool story, bro. How do we know God didn't cause this? Sorry, that seemed lazy to type, but I'm reluctant to to holding 'backspace' on that question. Correct me if I'm wrong: Pro is implying that particles and anti-particles were formed out of the vaccum of space. This argument doesn't explain how the universe was created because in order for a quantum fluctuation to occur, there must be a universe in the first place. It doesn't really explain how something came from nothing. No space, no quantum fluctuation.

Furthermore, let’s consider the assumption inherent in this argument – that everything that began to exist has a cause. This seems intuitive, but is flawed. First, this belief is an induction, not a philosophical fact, and can never be a philosophical fact, because we cannot have perfect knowledge. Second, it is known that quantum fluctuations have no apparent cause, but are merely temporary energy imbalances that spontaneously form. Furthermore, this assumption requires time to exist to make any sense.

Like I said before: no space, no quantum fluctuation. You would be wrong to assume that a quantum fluctuation occured in order for the universe to exist because the required condition for quantum fluctuation is the vaccum of space.

For this specific subargument, let’s assume that, in fact, everything that exists requires a cause. Therefore, the OOO must also have a cause, and that cause requires a cause, ad nauseum. As such, this doesn’t solve the problem of infinite causal regress, but just adds extra steps into the already infinite regress.

Well, that's a good question, but he is able to defy the laws of physics; he exists outside of time, space and matter, therfore he is eternal in no way bound by his creations. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “God was [before the creation] and there was nothing else.” Everything is linked to God, no matter how 'uncausable' it may seem, including our cute, little quantum fluctuations <3.

And even if a divine First Cause is required, why must that First Cause be OOO? For example, if it must merely be omnipotent, then the existence of an OOO entity is still unproven.

I don't understand your point... The Quran says that God created everything, so we believe that God created everything, the Quran doesn't describe quantum fluctuations, so based on the Word of Allah, He created the universe and basically everything. To be honest, if someone came up to me and asked, "How do you know there wasn't The First Creator for The First Creator. I don't know, the idea is that he always existed.

2P1B: “God ... is ... not bound by ... time, space or matter. ... (H)e is eternal, having no begining and no end.”

These are mere assertions. Even assuming that an OOO god exists, there is no given reason why that OOO god must be eternal.

There must have been something eternal to create or initiate the creation of the universe, no question. Even quantum fluctuations need something (the vaccum of space) in order for them to occur.

I will put the rest of the argument on to the comment section, since I can't seem to fit all of my argument here.




Debate Round No. 3
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

This response is short, possibly badly written. Sorry, not much time.



---



4C0: Pro's arguments



The last part of Pro's Round 3 argument is in the comments, due to them extending over the 10,000 character limit.



---



Defense of Con Case:



---



4C1: Burden of Proof



4C1A: "(H)ow I can prove ... God exists as humans do not have that kind of power(.)"



1. If Pro truly believes humans cannot prove (with scientific or logical evidence) that Allah exists, then Pro cannot prove that an OOO god exists. If there is no evidence for an assertion, then it can be rejected immediately with Occam's Razor. Pro MUST provide evidence, or else fails to prove that an OOO god exists.



2: In fact, providing evidence is exactly what Pro does in all of Pro's points. Hence, Pro contradicts themself.



---



4C2: Logical Problem of Evil



4C2A: "(W)e have different ideas of ... evil(.)"



1: The fact that different people have different morals is irrelevant to the fact that evil exists.



2: Further, even if we only accept Quranic views on evil as correct, then evil definitely exists. The Quran clearly opposes homosexuality [1]. And yet people commit homosexual acts. Clearly, merely using the teachings of the Quran itself, evil exists. Hence, Islam is not internally consistent.



4C2B: "Those who avoid the fruit will be rewarded(.)"



1: Obviously that's not always how it works out; good people often die young, and bad old. This is true for people of any creed. Why can't Allah fix this?



4C2C: "(F)ree will ... to live ... however we want(.)"



1: Please, prove that free will exists and that humans have it.



2: Why can't an OMNIPOTENT entity force people to be good and also have free will? Why not make everyone freely choose the good, like the perfect saint?



3: Pro believes in Jannah, yes? In Jannah, there is no evil [2]. Yet if free will means that evil is possible, then that must mean that no free will exists in Jannah. Yet Jannah is *better* than Earth. Under Islam itself, it is better to have no free will and no evil. Why doesn't Allah enforce this?



4C2D: "Iblis ... has free will ... uses tempation to convince people to sin. Allah does not stop Iblis because ... free will."



1: Allah is omnipotent; Iblis is not. Why can't Allah stop Iblis?



---



4C3: The Paradox of Omnipotence



4C3A: "If God creates a rock so heavy that even HE can't lift it, couldn't one argue that he has chosen to restrict his abilities?"



1: Yes. That is, in fact, what I am arguing. The difference between Superman and an OOO entity is that Superman's abilities were ALWAYS limited -- he merely increased the limit. For an OOO entity, the abilities were unlimited and unlimitable -- yet the OOO entity placed a limit on said abilities.



2: "Choice" is irrelevant. The limitability of omnipotence is important here, nothing else.



3: Two more questions, to help understand this issue:



Could an omnipotent entity permanently and retroactively remove its omnipotence?


If yes, then it's not omnipotent, because it has limited ability and has always had limited abilities.


If no, then it's not omnipotent, because it can't remove its omnipotence.



Could an omnipotent entity create an entity more powerful than itself?


If yes, then it's not omnipotent, because it is possible to have more power than the entity.


If no, then it's not omnipotent, because it can't create the entity



4C3B: "So yeah, an omnipotent being wouldn't be subject to our logic because God can do whatever He wants, including restricting himself, which is essentially not wanting to do something."



1: Why isn't an OOO entity subject to logic?



2: Even if an OOO entity isn't subject to logic, BOTH answers to any versions of the question (even if they are simultaneous, ignoring the Law of No Contradiction) BOTH make the entity NOT OOO. Hence, it is simply impossible for an entity to be OOO.



---



Rebuttals



---



4P1: The Cosmological Argument



4P1A: "[I]f Pro can't explain the origin of the Universe, why am I obligated to provide evidence for something that goes beyond the natural? .... I don't see anything observable to prove that everything sprang into existence by itself."



1: I'm Con.



2: I have offered some explanations for the origin of the universe. However, while it isn't my duty to prove that the universe came into existence without a god, it IS Pro's duty "to provide evidence for something that goes beyond the natural".



3: As stated, evidence doesn't exist because our current system of physics cannot "see" past the very first Planck second. Hence, there is proof neither for nor against the possibility of the universe self-creating.



4P1B: "[A]theism is as much of a faith as Islam[.]"



1: I don't think you understand -- atheism makes no claims about the universe. Islam does, namely the existences of Allah, Jannah, Iblis, etc. Islam requires evidence. Negative atheism does not. Hence, Islam is much, much more of a faith.



2: Even if this were true, this would be equivalent to saying "Yeah, religion sucks, but your religion sucks too".



4P1C: "[W]e're ... assuming ... God exists until ... concrete explanation[.]"



1: That's an incorrect assumption. God is an unnecessary complication, and thus, through Occam's Razor, you should assume that God does not exist until proven otherwise. (ie, the reverse of Pro's beliefs)



4P1D: [B]efore the Big Bang: something outside the scope of space, matter, or time i.e. Allah."



1: Again, you have not proven that the existence of an entity outside space, matter, or time (or any combination of the three) is possible. Hence, it's still not proven that such an entity can actually exist.



2: Again, you have not proven WHY the OOO entity MUST be outside the scope of space, matter, or time.



3: Ideas are great. However, as I pointed out, neither Pro's nor mine is supported by evidence yet. Unfortunately for Pro, Pro has the Burden of Proof to prove Pro's idea.



4P1E: "How do we know God didn't cause this?"



1: Because, without evidence either way, that's an unnecessary assumption.



4P1F: "Pro is implying that particles and anti-particles were formed out of the vaccum of space. ... [F]or a quantum fluctuation to occur, there must be a universe[.]"



1: I'm Con.



2: [[Citation needed]]



3: Why must space exist for quantum fluctuations to exist?



4: Why didn't space exist before the universe existed?



5: Actually, not just the vacuum of space, but everywhere. Minor issue.



4P1G: "[Allah] is able to defy the laws of physics ... exists outside of time, space and matter ... is eternal[.]"



1: See 4C4D.1 and 2.



4P1H: "Muhammad ... said: “God was [before the creation] and there was nothing else.” Everything is linked to God ... including ... quantum fluctuations[.]"



1: This assumes that Muhammad is an accurate source.



2: This assumes that the Quran is an accurate depiction of Muhammad.



3: Pro asserts that quantum fluctuations are caused by Allah without evidence.



4: In addition, Pro is assuming that Allah exists in order to "prove" that everything is caused by Allah. This is circular logic and fallacious.



4P1I: "The Quran says ... God created everything, so we believe ... God created everything, the Quran doesn't describe quantum fluctuations, so based on the Word of Allah, He created the universe and basically everything."



1: This assumes that the Quran is an accurate source.



2: Using the Quran to prove that Allah exists is, again, circular and fallacious.



4P1J: "There must have been something eternal to create or initiate the creation of the universe, no question."



1: Why? Why is self-causality impossible? Why is it impossible for something to form from nothing?



2: See 4C4D.1 and 2.



---



4C2: Intelligent Design



4C2A: "One planet ... of our solar system or the whole of space, can support life[.] .... [W]hy ... only one[?]"



1: Actually, we don't know that either of those statements is true. We haven't sufficiently explored our solar system, much less ALL space, to know that life doesn't exist other than on Earth.



2: Remember the anthropic principle. We live here not because we are lucky, but because we CAN live here.



3: WHY is this proof of Allah? Even if life is improbable, improbable stuff happens. A royal flush has a 1 in 649,740 chance of happening -- yet it happens all the time.



4C2B: "What's to stop Earth from not having life[?]"



1: Nothing. Why does this matter?



4C2C: "That's the probability for each separate star ... chances for each star can't add up."



1: What do you mean? It's very possible to add probabilities.



2: These aren't the actual probabilities -- this is the minimum probability of life forming for life to be 100% likely.



---



4C3: Accuracy of the Quran



4C3A: "[T]he Quran came up with the Big Bang[.]"



1: No, that's Georges Lemaître.



2: I recently wrote on this [3]. Do read.



3: Even if this were true, the "predictions" of the Quran are so vague that they are unscientific. In the Quran, a day can mean as much as 50,000 years or as little as 1 day. Creation myths like this impart little to no information about anything, much less the Big Bang.



4: Muslims didn't predict that the universe began with a gigantic "explosion" until science discovered it, in a form of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Your predictions can't be wrong if you tailor the Qur'an to fit the prediction after the fact, now can they?



4C3B: "[D]ifferent translations ... extremists ... pacifists[.]"



1: Don't Muslims believe that ONLY the original Arabic is correct?



4C3C: "You say these predictions are vague[.] ... [T]here weren't ... names for these ... at the time[.]"



1: Unfortunately, I don't have the character space to debunk these. However, "Their skins will bear witness against them as to what they have been doing" is pretty damn vague, and if they meant fingerprints, why not figure out a scientific way to describe them? Was Allah not willing to do detail?



---



4C4: Lack of Disproof



4C4A: "No contradiction ... intended[.]"



1: Intention is irrelevant; the contradiction remains.



---



References:



[1] islam.about.com/od/islamsays/a/homosexuality.htm


[2] islam.about.com/od/heavenhell/g/gl_jannah.htm


[3] rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quranic_scientific_foreknowledge#Big_Bang

Kosovar

Pro

Kosovar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Shqiptar 2 years ago
Shqiptar
Hello, unfortunately I was unable to access the internet, for quite some time; I also forgot my password (silly me) for my other account, hence my forfeiting of the round. You can have this win, but if you accept I would like to carry this on to a new debate. I think you're a great guy so I would love to finish what I started, hopefully with nothing to prevent me from doing so. Please reply if you would like to continue this debate. Also, I didn't know arguing in the comment section was against the rules, I apologise for that and will make an effort to make my arguments more concise and clear.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Arguing in the comment section is against site rules. If it were allowed, the character limit would be irrelevant.
Posted by Kosovar 2 years ago
Kosovar
or disproof for the existence of God.
Posted by Kosovar 2 years ago
Kosovar
Intelligent Design

2P2A: "(M)iracle that one planet, in our solar system, had a planet that could sustain life."

1. One planet out of our solar system or the whole of space, can support life for us humans. What's to stop Earth from not having life ever in the first place?

2. That's the probability for each separate star, these chances for each star can't add up.

3. Sorry, it was a freeaking mistake, I sometimes do these things where I type the same thing twice and then it doesn't make sense.

Wouldn"t more particles mean more chances of habitability?

More uninhabitable planets suggests a low probability of life being created by chance on one planet; by particles, I was referring to the particles which make up the planets (and everything on them) and stars in our galaxies, why is there only one inhabitable planet in our solar system?

Accuracy of the Quran

Just saying, the Quran came up with the Big Bang theory- to make things clear: I agree with the Big Bang theory, but not that it wasn't caused by God.

Of course there are different translations, that's why we have Islamic extremists, Islamic pacifists and passive-aggressive Muslims who fight for nothing but Islam, protection or self-defense.

These predictions aren't "rare", here's a link with a list of accurate predictions:

https://www.alislam.org...

You say these predictions are vaguely predicted. It seems to be loosely linked because there weren't any names for these discoveries at the time, like the air traffic system. Humans, decided to name Allah's creations, just as Adam named Eve.

Maybe, it won't predict any more future scientific discoveries for our own good, for example: finding a way to become immortal. One evil man might decide to use his immortality for his own selfish ends. Some things are better left untouched. Allah knows best.

Lack of Disproof

No contradiction was intended, there can be neither (as far as we know) proof or di
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
"I really hope this isn't going to be another ontological argument."

Yes. Much yes.
Posted by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
I really hope this isn't going to be another ontological argument.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
You are an atheist, yet you believe an OOO entity exists. Odd. :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
FuzzyCatPotatoKosovarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really did not refute any arguments. Also Con advanced rational arguments.(I also you voted on my prove god debate wrong. I never asserted god to be supernatural:(
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
FuzzyCatPotatoKosovarTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by telisw37 2 years ago
telisw37
FuzzyCatPotatoKosovarTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though con forfited the last round, his arguments were more logical.