The Instigator
stealspell
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DraggledBovid
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Argument for the Non-Existence of 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,126 times Debate No: 28047
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)

 

stealspell

Pro

Conditions for the debate:

1.] Pro has the burden of proof for the main argument.
2.] The argument contains six (6) assumptions.
3.] Any assumption not challenged in the first round cannot be challenged at a later round.
4.] For sake of clarity, objections must be numbered respectively like so: (1-2) for assumption 1 objection 2; (3-4) for assumption 3 objection 4, etc.
5.] An objection must illustrate a single point or argument. Supporting arguments within an objection must be numbered like so: (1-1-1) for assumption 1 objection 1 supporting argument 1.

(Note: I would be more than happy to debate this argument multiple times with others. Please PM and I will reopen it)
===================================
Argument for the Non-Existence of God
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
01) If a being is thinking, then its thoughts must exist in time. (A1.)
02) If God exists, then God is a being. (A2)
03) If God is a being, then God has thoughts. (A3)
04) If God exists, then God has thoughts. (2,3: h.s.)
05) If God exists, then God exists in time. (2,1: h.s.)
06) If something is in time, then it must be caused. (A4)
07) If God exists, then God must be caused. (5,6: h.s.)
08) If God is caused, then God is not omnipotent. (A5)
09) If God is not omnipotent, then God does not exist. (A6)
10) If God is caused, then God does not exist. (8,9: h.s.)
11) Therefore, If God exists, then God does not exist. (7, 10: r.a.a.)
Q.E.D.


Justifying the Assumptions
_______________________________________________________


[Assumptions (1)]:

Possible objection: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Defense 1: It is irrelevant that they are higher. God's thoughts are still thoughts insofar as they are to be called thoughts.

Defense 2: It is incoherent to speak of thoughts that are not events or existing outside time. One would have to prove how it is possible for thoughts to be not events or outside time. Such a proof would most likely change the meaning of "thought(s)/thinking".

Defense 3: This defense will rely on the following axiom, "If I cannot imagine it, then it is impossible for such a thing to exist." E.g. I cannot imagine, to wit it is impossible for me to imagine a square-circle, or a four-sided triangle. Therefore it is impossible for a square-circle or a four-sided triangle to exist.

P: I cannot imagine thinking without time.
C: Therefore, thinking without time is impossible.


[Assumption (2)]:

Defense 1: If God is not a being but a force, for example, than God does not deserve worship, neither can God be personal or listens to prayers. Neither is necessary to refer to scientific terms such as a "force" as God. It must be proven necessary.

[Assumption (3)]:

Defense 1: If God is a being but does not have thoughts, then it still pointless and unnecessary to believe in Him. Prayers and worship are worthless as the being would have no meaningful way to respond to prayers. God could not be a moral arbitor without thoughts as he could not perfectly reason the right from the wrong.

Defense 2: Humans are made in the image of God. God would be a lesser being if He did not have thoughts as it is sometimes argued reason and intelligence eminates from thoughts. Therefore He must have thoughts.

[Assumption (4)]:

Defense 1: There is no record of such events that exist in time but are not caused. Experience tells us causal relations happen only in time. If there is such a thing, the one making the claim has the burden of proof


[Assumptions (5) and (6)]:

Defense 1: These assumptions follow from the definition of God.
DraggledBovid

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent, stealspell, for starting off the debate.

My opponent's biblical references in the justifications of assumptions lead me to believe that we're considering a purely biblical interpretation of God, which is acceptable to me although not strictly relevant as it pertains to much of the logical structure above.

This round, I'll first address my opponent's arguments and the logical flaws that I see in the proof offered. Then, I will make my own argument that a successful proof of the non-existence of God cannot exist. Let's get started:

Assumption 01) If a being is thinking, then its thoughts must exist in time.
Granted; insofar as a being is thinking (present tense), its thoughts also exist (present tense) and can be interpreted temporally.

Assumption 02) If God exists, then God is a being.
In response to this argument, the word "being" needs to be defined. According to Merriam-Webster's [1], it most commonly refers to:
"1. a) the quality or state of having existence."
If this is the definition to which my opponent refers, then I obviously grant assumption 02, which can then be simplified to "if God exists, then God exists," which is obviously the case.
However, I reserve the right to modify my response to this assumption later if my opponent interprets "being" differently.
Objection 02-01) My opponent says in their defense of this assumption that God does not deserve worship if s/he is only a "force." However, this is extratopical: we are arguing over whether or not it can be demonstrated that God does not exist, not whether or not God deserves worship. This defense is irrelevant.
Objection 02-01-01) The argument that a force does not deserve worship is unwarranted in my opponent's defense.


Assumption 03) If God is a being, then God has thoughts.
Objection 03-01) Per my response to assumption 02, all "being" means is "existent." Not all existent things necessarily have thoughts, so this assumption is unfounded.
I would like to note here that a Judeochristian interpretation of "God" would lead to a granting of this assumption, but I'm going to leave this objection up until that's clarified.
Objection 03-02) My opponent says in their first defense of this assumption that God is pointless without thoughts. However, this is extratopical: we are arguing over whether or not it can be demonstrated that God does not exist, not whether or not God is pointless. This defense is irrelevant.
Objection 03-03) My opponent says in their second defense of this assumption that God is lesser and lacking intelligence without thoughts. However, this is extratopical: we are arguing over whether or not it can be demonstrated that God does not exist, not whether or not God is intelligent. This defense is irrelevant.
Objection 03-03-01) The argument that God is "lesser" without thoughts is unwarranted. Perhaps God has something greater than intelligence and thoughts. For example, ants cannot conceive of the type of intelligence that humans have; it is a totally separate plane. Perhaps God is "above" beings like humans.

Assumption 04) If God exists, then God has thoughts.
If all of the previous assumptions are correct, then this assumption follows logically.
Objection 04-01) However, insofar as objection 03-01 stands, we don't know that God has thoughts.
Objection 04-01-01) I think my opponent's justifications are mislabeled: the assumption 04 defense seems to refer to causes, which become relevant in assumption 06. Hence, I will assume that the final defense, which is labeled a response to assumptions 05 and 06, actually refers to 04 and 06. In that event, my response is covered in objection 04-01.

Assumption 05) If God exists, then God exists in time.
Granted.

Assumption 06) If something is in time, then it must be caused.
I'll group this assumption with the defense mentioned in objection 04-01-01: "[t]here is no record of such events that exist in time but are not caused. Experience tells us causal relations happen only in time. If there is such a thing, the one making the claim has the burden of proof[.]"
I'll also group it with:
Assumption 07) If God exists, then God must be caused.
Objection 06/7-01) Some events, such as radioactive decay, have no clear "cause." While inductive reasoning generally points in a deterministic direction, some events are inconsistent with this viewpoint of cause and effect.
Objection 06/7-01-01) Ironically, the universe is a good example. While these are only some hypotheses, it is possible that the universe is an eternal cycle with no temporal beginning or end [2], or that our universe perpetually collides with a mirror universe, creating a new set of universes [3]. This does not prove that God does not exist; these are merely ideas that allow for a universe without a first cause, so God could lack a first cause by the same token.

Assumption 08) If God is caused, then God is not omnipotent.
Objection 08-01) This assumption is unwarranted. My assumption is that the thinking is that an omnipotent God is the "greatest," but there is no reasoning offered for why a "caused" God could not be the "greatest," whatever that means.

Assumption 09) If God is not omnipotent, then God does not exist.
Objection 09-01) I'm assuming that this is a reference to the biblical God. If it's just a reference to a generic God figure, I would say that there is no reason that such a figure would need to be omnipotent. Moreover, I would actually argue that the Bible doesn't claim that God is omnipotent.
Objection 09-01-01) 2 Timothy 2:13 [4] - "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself."
If God cannot deny himself, then he lacks a capability and is not omnipotent.
Objection 09-01-02) Titus 1:2 [5] - "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began."
If God cannot lie, then he lacks a capability and is not omnipotent.

Assumption 10) If God is caused, then God does not exist.
I'll group this assumption with:
Assumption 11) Therefore, If God exists, then God does not exist.
If the previous three assumptions are correct, then these assumptions follow logically.
Objection 10/11-01) However, insofar as my objections stand, these are invalid conclusions.

To sum up, there are a number of key issues. First, my opponent ascribes a couple of characteristics to God needlessly, such as the ability to think and omnipotence. Second and more fundamentally, my opponent assumes that everything has a cause, which is not a universal truth. Finally, my opponent puts these together to argue that something omnipotent cannot be caused, relying on several already flawed premises.

Now I'll get onto my own argument that a proof of the non-existence of God cannot be logically sound.

Meta-objection 01) The core of the issue in a proof of the non-existence of anything is that "proof" is a loaded word. Proving something is not as simple as searching for it and not finding it; proof refers to establishment of absolute certainty of a claim beyond any doubt [6]. With respect to the claim that a generic God exists, this is impossible: the claim of a "God" or creator of the universe, most fundamentally, is too nebulous. If the universe is shown to be created otherwise, then maybe God created what created the universe, and so on. A generic God is impossible to disprove. My opponent attempts to get around this by ascribing traditionally Judeochristian characteristics to God; however, it not being clarified that we speak only of that God (and, moreover, the proof being invalid), I urge a Con vote.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

[1] "Being." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
[2] Seife, Charles, 2002. Eternal-universe idea comes full circle. Science 296: 639.
[3] Steinhardt, PJ and N. Turok, 2002. A cyclic model of the universe. Science 296: 1436-1439.
[4] 2 Timothy. Bible Gateway. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
[5] Titus. Bible Gateway. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
[6] "Proof." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
Debate Round No. 1
stealspell

Pro

Thanks DraggledBovid for taking part in this debate.


Proposition 1 was granted.


Proposition 2 was objected to because the word “being” needs to be defined. This is an odd objection since my opponent used the word “being” in the previous proposition successfully and without difficulty. Yet, we need a definition?


Response to 2 (in general):


a) I dismiss this objection on the grounds that definitionism is an inadequate way of attacking a proof. E.g. what’s the definition of a definition?


b) “Defining” being, I’d say, is equal to defining human being, i.e., what it means to be human. Everyone knows this is a strenuous and impossible task. But I say this because most cultures believe humans to be in the image of God (or God to be within us). So God’s being cannot simply stand to mean "existence". It must be understood through the meaning of human being. But is it necessary for us to "define" what it means to be human before we go on to understand what it means for God to have being? I should think not. We understand what it means to be human not logically, but emotionally and through everyday life. Likewise, we can say that what it means for God to have being is shared in how we understand our own being emotionally and through everyday life. When we refer to God's being we are using our own. This does not, however, diminish the rest of God's more clearly established qualities of omnipotence and omniscience. But insofar as God is personal, this must be the case. Thus thinking would naturally be part of the perfect being because we ourselves think.


Objection 2-1: “My opponent says in their defense of this assumption that God does not deserve worship if s/he is only a "force."”


Response to 2-1: A crucial part of my argument is to understand what I mean by God. I state that "If God is not a being but a force..." meaning forces and beings are separate things. So if being means existence, and forces clearly exist, then I could not mean being means existence. In other words, I see no reason to refer to God as a force. Moreover, I say that God existing without being would not deserve worship or listen to prayers i.e., would not be personal.


Response to 3-3-1: "Perhaps God has something greater than intelligence and thoughts. For example, ants cannot conceive of the type of intelligence that humans have; it is a totally separate plane. Perhaps God is "above" beings like humans."


This would, as I described in my earlier defense, require redefining the understood meaning of intelligence and thoughts. How are we to understand the intelligence and thoughts as being "greater"? As I wrote in R2, we use our own experiences when we refer to God. Saying it is something "greater" is acknowledging our own experiences as beings, and then using the word "greater" to mean essentially "I don't know. It's just God." I'm not going to go further on this objection because it would require me to address things like "What is it like to be a bat?" There are not specific qualities that successfully allow us to accurately understand what it means to be an "ant" or a "bat". So, I'll simply say that saying they’re “greater” without definite clarity just muddles things and essentially extends or redefines the meaning of intelligence and thoughts.


Proposition 5 was granted.


Response to 6/7-1: "Some events, such as radioactive decay, have no clear "cause.""


I reject this part of the objection. See: weak nuclear force.


"While inductive reasoning generally points in a deterministic direction, some events are inconsistent with this viewpoint of cause and effect."


I reject this objection because "some" events is ambiguous.


Response to 6/7-1-1: I'm actually glad this objection was made, and perhaps I should have included it in my opening defense.


"If something is in time, then it must be caused."


The assumption is carefully worded. The universe is not something that is in time. A quality of the universe is time. So I reject this objection on warranted grounds.


Response to 8-1: I reject this objection as I specified in my justification (perhaps my opponent got confused) that this comes from the meaning of God. To elaborate: If God is caused then the there must be something of greater potency than God to cause God. To borrow from Aristotle's terminology, if this serves of any help, if God is NOT actuality i.e., what is actual cannot be made actual since its already actual, thus God is potentiality coming from some actuality. I believe this assumption is well within the understanding of an omnipotent being.


Response to 9-1: "If it's just a reference to a generic God figure, I would say that there is no reason that such a figure would need to be omnipotent."


If we are talking about anything but an omnipotent God, then I do not think we are talking about God.


"Moreover, I would actually argue that the Bible doesn't claim that God is omnipotent."


Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: "Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. (Revelation 19:6) [1] The key word is Almighty.


Response to 9-1-1: "If God cannot deny himself, then he lacks a capability and is not omnipotent."


God lacks capabilities that would contradict his being. Just because God is all-good doesn't mean God lacks the capability of evilness and is therefore not omnipotent.



Responses to 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 4-1, 9-1-2: See R2



"To sum up, there are a number of key issues. First, my opponent ascribes a couple of characteristics to God needlessly, such as the ability to think and omnipotence."


The word "characteristics" implies God has a character, and is therefore a being (as described in R2). The qualities applied to God are not unwarranted. See R2.


"Second and more fundamentally, my opponent assumes that everything has a cause, which is not a universal truth."


I do not declare "everything has a cause is a universal truth". I say that experience affords us with the fact that "all things in time have some cause", meaning we are reasonably justified to believe it. Anyone who believes it is false must demonstrate why it is false. Our belief is inherently justified in experience and no one rational person would doubt it.


"Proving something is not as simple as searching for it and not finding it; proof refers to establishment of absolute certainty of a claim beyond any doubt"


I disagree with this because in a court of law we only need proof beyond reasonable doubt. Not proof to establish absolute certainty. Could you establish why we need to establish absolute certainty? But most importantly...


"With respect to the claim that a generic God exists, this is impossible: the claim of a "God" or creator of the universe, most fundamentally, is too nebulous. If the universe is shown to be created otherwise, then maybe God created what created the universe, and so on. A generic God is impossible to disprove."


...Insofar as we are speaking of the being we are able to consider most perfect, then we speak of God. God creating what created the universe is superfluous. God who does not think and is impersonal is meaningless to us, as explained in R2. Could it be that a non-personal God is meaningful to someone? Could it be that a non-thinking God is meaningful to someone? It's hardly in our nature to believe this.


"My opponent attempts to get around this by ascribing traditionally Judeochristian characteristics to God; however, it not being clarified that we speak only of that God (and, moreover, the proof being invalid), I urge a Con vote."


This is simply false. First the proof is valid. You probably meant sound. Second, God Brahman shares many of these characteristics. True, not every god may share them. But is that god really God or a human like figure with more strength and more good and more knowledge? Isn't the highest conception of God the being with most strength and most good and most knowledge?


Pro rests.


[1] - http://bible.cc...

DraggledBovid

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent, stealspell, for the response. I apologize if my response was disjointed or confusing - there were many points at which I said that the logic stealspell was using followed from the previous points, but that the previous points were false, which was actually something stealspell tried to indicate in the beginning. Sorry if that was confusing, although the relevant responses can still be found from last round. Let's get started:

Proposition 2:

a) My opponent notes that I began to require a definition of being at proposition 2 even though it was used in proposition 1. As I said in my granting of the first proposition, anything that is thinking (present tense) also has thoughts that exist in time (present tense). Hence, I could grant that a thinking being had thoughts that existed in time. However, in proposition two my opponent began to go deeper into the idea of being, stating that God is a being. Hence, a definition of being became necessary.

b) My opponent basically refuses to define being except by saying that we must understand "being" in the sense that people are "beings" and can interact with God in a personal way. This requires that God is more than simply something that created the universe, but also conscious and personal. This assertion is totally unwarranted, so I reject it on that basis.

Objection 2-1:

My opponent makes a distinction between forces and beings, essentially stating that his conception of God is as a being and not a force. As I just mentioned a moment ago, this interpretation is unwarranted. I reject it on this basis.

Objection 3-3-1:

My opponent basically says that, since I can't quantify something beyond both of our levels of intelligence, this point is moot. This in ability to quantify does not, however, needlessly muddle things. The point that I was making in 3-3-1 is that, like my opponent says, "thoughts" is an appeal to human experience. I have no idea what "greater" than that feels like, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and that I can't understand the possibility. I understand the distinction between the intellectual capacity of an ant and my own; I am merely applying that massive gap in the direction greater than human intelligence. At this point, proposition 3, that God, being a being, must have thoughts, is untrue. Even if God can understand the intellect if individual humans from an intellectually superior position, just like we understand the simplistic mental functions of ants, that does not mean that s/he doesn't have a greater intellect above thoughts, just like our human understanding of ants without the ability of ants to conceive of our intellect. Therefore, we can reject proposition 3.

Objection 6/7-1:

My opponent rejects my argument about nuclear decay not having a cause. I'll clarify: nuclear decay can be driven by weak nuclear force, but the point at which decay begins to occur isn't calculable - in that sense, it is not as if there is a quantifiable event that spurs nuclear decay, only some process that we haven't been able to pinpoint.

Moreover, the example isn't relevant. Even if all known events have been caused in some way or another, that doesn't mean that all events are caused in some way or another. Induction is good for making "soft" rules, but we can never prove our findings beyond all doubt.

Objection 6/7-1-1:

My opponent makes a semantic argument against the universe without a cause argument that I made in the rebuttal, claiming a difference between being in time and having a quality of time. As stealspell claims, "the universe is not something that is in time." Semantic defenses are interesting, but my opponent doesn't come close to explaining what the difference between what "in time" and "quality of time" is. To me, having the quality of time apply to something means that the temporal characteristics are relevant to it and it is, in other words, in time. Extend that not something in time does not need to be caused.

Objection 8-1:

My argument was that the claim that a caused God could still be omnipotent (why not?). My opponent stated that I got confused, but I think I did actually reference the same line of thinking that stealspell made. As they say, "[i]f God is caused then the there must be something of greater potency than God to cause God." Well, simply put, why not? I understand the thinking here, it just isn't logical. If one thing is omnipotent, then it can do anything, including creation of another omnipotent being. Omnipotent = omnipotent.

Objection 9-1:

My opponent repeats that God has to be omnipotent. Reject this since it's totally unwarranted.

I offered two bible verses in support of my point, which I'd like to extend since they are both biblical illustrations that the Judeochristian God evidently cannot do literally anything. It's still not clear that we're speaking of that specific God, but I'm responding specifically and generally just to cover all bases.

My opponent offers another Bible verse. The argument is basically that "almighty," as used in the Bible, means omnipotent. That's certainly one take on "almighty," but I'd say that God of the Bible couldn't be truly omnipotent given the limitations referenced in the Bible verses that I offered. "Almighty" could just mean "really powerful." Moreover, just because nature shouted that God was almighty, doesn't make that so. God might be almighty with respect to nature, but not with respect to something else.

Objection 9-1-1:

My opponent concedes that God can't do things that contradict his being. My opponent says that this fact doesn't make God not omnipotent, but omnipotence means the power to do anything. If God can't contradict himself (or lie, which was conveniently left out), then God cannot do anything.



My opponent makes a couple of responses to my summary. This is just a summary, though, so I don't think it needs going into. I was just trying to make my position clear.



Meta-objection:

The core of the meta-objection is that "proof" is a quite large burden to fulfill. As far as a generic (not Judeochristian specifically) God goes, disproof is impossible because, even if something else created the universe, maybe a God created what created the universe, or what created what created the universe, and so on. Total disproof of a generic God is impossible since proof requires such great lengths in this case. My opponent makes three responses:

1. My opponent rejects my notion of "proof" requiring certainty. My opponent actually references proof beyond reasonable doubt in a court, but "beyond reasonable doubt" is a qualifier on proof, meaning that proof in that case is meant on a level of probability with respect to reasonable doubt. Proof in general, however, is a higher standard. I referenced a definition in the rebuttal, but here it is in full (see my citation there [6]):

"1. a) the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."

In other words, proof isn't just likeliness, it compels acceptance. It's proof. It's certainty.

2. My opponent basically strays from my point in the second response and goes to the argument about an impersonal God being useless, which is irrelevant to whether or not God can be demonstrated not to exist. It's not relevant to the meta-objection either, which is pretty clear since stealspell says my point is superfluous compared to his.

3. This argument is the same as the second: that God must be perfect and all powerful and such, which is unwarranted and can be rejected on that basis.

I look forward to stealspell's response.

Debate Round No. 2
stealspell

Pro


Thank you for the articulate response, DraggledBovid.


“However, in proposition two my opponent began to go deeper into the idea of being, stating that God is a being. Hence, a definition of being became necessary.”


Unfortunately, I don’t know what “go deeper into the idea of being” could possibly mean. Either my usage of the word in prop. 1 is consistent with prop. 2, or I’m using a different meaning then prop. 1. That’s it. But my opponent never charged me with equivocation. So I must be using the same meaning as prop. 1. As I underscored in my previous reply, my opponent challenged the word after having no trouble understanding its usage in prop. 1 How is this possible? Moreover, as I explained in R2, definitionism is an inadequate method of attacking a proof. My opponent never addressed this in the preceding response. Requesting a definition of being after understanding what is meant by being, is identical to asking, “what is the definition of a definition?” Also, as I have proved twice, my opponent knew what being meant before he began to challenge it, as is evident in his response to prop. 1 (see Round 1). The objection is thus without doubt unwarranted.


“My opponent basically refuses to define being except by saying that we must understand "being" in the sense that people are "beings" and can interact with God in a personal way.


As I mentioned in my first response, the requirement my opponent makes for a definition is unwarranted, and exists possibly only due to the need for a definition of God, which is equally unwarranted. I’m certain my opponent understands what God means just as he understood what being meant in prop. 1, but ask for a definition regardless of this fact. This became evident when he implied, in the latter part of his response, creation, which I never mentioned in Round 1. This is clear evidence that my opponent understands what God means and requires a definition for no reason, just as if I were to require a definition of a definition. Above all, my opponent has failed to justify definitionism as a valid method of assessing the validity/soundness of this proof.


Response to Objections 2-1 is covered above.


I have no idea what "greater" than that feels like, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and that I can't understand the possibility.”


This is false merely because not knowing what it feels like is equivalent to not understanding. A “possibility” is an abstract thought (an imagination) of what the mind already has experience of and understands. Therefore, it’s incoherent to speak of “greater” because our minds can only conceive of possibilities based on experience. That is to say, any possibility we may have of “greater” is based on experience. But “greater” implies beyond experience. So a possibility of “greater” is an imagination beyond experience based on experience. Contradiction.


“just like we understand the simplistic mental functions of ants”


Understanding “mental functions” and understanding the experience of ants are too different things. We can only understand the experience of humans. Additionally, understanding “mental functions” is not independent of human experience.


“but the point at which decay begins to occur isn't calculable”


Not being calculable doesn’t suggest anything. We don’t have a complete picture of the universe, and many things are currently incalculable. That doesn’t denote science is justified to draw conclusions based on our present inability to calculate something.


“Even if all known events have been caused in some way or another, that doesn't mean that all events are caused in some way or another.”


I already explained my position on this, trying to clarify my opponent’s misunderstanding. I quote myself, “I do not declare "everything has a cause is a universal truth". I say that experience affords us with the fact that "all things in time have some cause", meaning we are reasonably justified to believe it.”


“Induction is good for making "soft" rules, but we can never prove our findings beyond all doubt.”


No scientific claim is beyond all doubt. I believe my opponent would not contest evidence regarding Evolution, which is not beyond all doubt, yet its application in medicine has been enormously helpful, or theories of physics and chemistry, for that matter, which afford us with technology all around. But those aren’t beyond all doubt either.


“To me, having the quality of time apply to something means that the temporal characteristics are relevant to it and it is, in other words, in time.”


The confusion arises from calling the universe a “thing.” The universe is not a “thing” but rather, space-time, matter-energy, weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational force. These are all qualities of what we call the universe. When we refer to things we refer to them as being in the universe, or part of the universe. But a horse is not a quality of the universe; the matter which makes up the horse is. Time is the measure of motion. It’s incoherent to say we can measure the motion of the universe, but on the contrary, it’s perfectly understandable to say we can measure the motion of a horse.


“If one thing is omnipotent, then it can do anything, including creation of another omnipotent being.”


If God is actuality, creating an omnipotent being would be creating actuality. But God cannot create actuality out of actuality because nothing would have been “created” (changed or be derivative of) since nothing could have possibly occurred given that both God and the “other” omnipotent being are the same thing i.e., both in actuality. For God to “create” means to take from actuality and put into potentiality; while potentiality attempts to become actuality (back to God).


“If God can't contradict himself (or lie, which was conveniently left out), then God cannot do anything.”


We do not conceive of illogical things. Thus it’s incoherent to speak of illogical things. Likewise, it’s incoherent to entertain whether God could conceive of illogical things, act upon them and the like—given that we are unable to speak about illogical things. How can we draw conclusions about things we can’t talk about?


“Proof in general, however, is a higher standard.“In other words, proof isn't just likeliness, it compels acceptance. It's proof. It's certainty.”


Not in science and we have nice things like computers, cell phones, TVs, cameras, etc. If we are to accept my opponent’s reasoning here, we would never have any of those things because scientists would have never published any of their “proofs” because they are too weak to pass the “without any possible doubt” test.


My opponent basically strays from my point in the second response and goes to the argument about an impersonal God being useless, which is irrelevant to whether or not God can be demonstrated not to exist.


Insofar as God is understood through the experiences of human beings and is considered the origin of the universe and thus life itself, I hold that God will be viewed as personal or meaningful. A non-personal or non-meaningful God seems irrelevant of discussion.


This argument is the same as the second: that God must be perfect and all powerful and such, which is unwarranted and can be rejected on that basis.”


As I mentioned in my first response to my opponent’s objections, “If we are talking about anything but an omnipotent God, then I do not think we are talking about God.” (R9-1)


I look forward to reading my opponent’s responses.


DraggledBovid

Con

DraggledBovid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
stealspell

Pro

Since my opponent has forefited Round 3, I have nothing new or more to add for Round 4.
DraggledBovid

Con

DraggledBovid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
stealspell

Pro

Since my opponent has forefited Round 4, I have nothing new or more to add for Round 5.

It seems like this debate is over.
DraggledBovid

Con

DraggledBovid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stealspell 1 year ago
stealspell
lol this was years ago.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
The argument from atemporal minds...interesting
Posted by JesusAaronChristPayne 4 years ago
JesusAaronChristPayne
I'm sure I could shed some Holy Light on the topic. God turned his back on Buddhism and cut off Sheiva's feet so she could never put her feet down unless I did first. I am kin to the key of the Holy Family The Royal Payne's. I am Jesus S. Aaron Uni Peg Unix Eisus Christ Payne XXXIVQ, heir to the throne of the Church and Pharaoh of Egypt.

Sin,

Your Excellency, Lord and King
Jesus S Aaron Uni Peg Unix Eisus Christ Payne XXXIVQ

House Of Payne Church Of God
CEO of all I See Vatican City The Holy SEE

PS
DON'T BE EVIL DNA AND Wii TOS OFF THE
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
No it wouldn't. If someone of my mindset were to become president then they would lean democrat on the environment, animal rights and human rights. They would also lean republican on economics and war. The most important thing though is to NOT follow them totally. Excessive capitalism is almost as bad as socialism (of the forms we know) because it leaves a small group of disadvantaged out there and more people join that group wanting things for free. People who are really down and out or the elderly who put in their dues deserve "entitlements" but it should never be given to able body people who are just lazy. If the right loopholes were closed, as Romney suggested, it would make a huge difference for a lot of people. I believe people who work for minimum wage and tips should not have to pay taxes on tips. That is a pay increase right there of 50-200%. That money will at least make it back into the economy instead of a pet project. I also believe if the rich property owners were not allowed to right off the loss of not renting their properties, in times like this they would have to lower the rent and low income people who want to start a business SHOULD be able to get a small business loan... another one off welfare maybe!?! The most important aspect of all is to preserve freedom. We should basically be allowed to do whatever we want as long as it does not have adverse effects on other people or personal property. If you are walking home drunk and stop and wizz on my tree, I may not be happy but as long as no children are around I wouldn't say or do anything. You have a right to relieve your bladder when full!
If you really want more of my thoughts let me know.
Posted by DraggledBovid 4 years ago
DraggledBovid
Maybe this is just due the the vagueness of the "conserve everything" attitude, but how exactly do you plan on conserving freedom, free enterprise, jobs, and the planet/wildlife/waters at the same time? Wouldn't regulation of the latter violate the former?
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
I'm not sure I ever met one either. I think they have been extinct since the end of the 19th century. Once Teddy got in and started the progressive movement it is either liberal or conservative. I believe in TRUE conservatism. Conserve values, conserve families, conserve life, conserve freedom, conserve jobs, conserve free enterprise (not class laden capitalism), conserve the planet, conserve wildlife and most of all conserve the waters!
Posted by stealspell 4 years ago
stealspell
Lol. I thought you were going to say, "If I cannot imagine it, then it is impossible for such a thing to exist." I can't image a republican. Therefore, it's impossible for such a thing to exist.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
There are a bunch of little things that have a liberal tinge to them but the one I remembered was

This defense will rely on the following axiom, "If I cannot imagine it, then it is impossible for such a thing to exist." E.g. I cannot imagine, to wit it is impossible for me to imagine a square-circle, or a four-sided triangle. Therefore it is impossible for a square-circle or a four-sided triangle to exist.

That is true liberal thinking and that is why we always have recessions and booms in our economy. They do not want to understand the little things in life or the monster called the federal reserve. They live in a tiny little bubble taking their kickbacks and saying, "we did a great job this year, more people on welfare, more laws to protect the lazy, less freedom of speech, less competition for jobs or business!"
Posted by stealspell 4 years ago
stealspell
Humor me. What gave you the impression I'm a liberal?
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
It is your word against mine but I have been around enough to know you are a liberal. You have an argument that goes in circles and proves nothing. I don't believe in the biblical GOD and if you can understand what you read you would know that. I believe in GOD and I believe we will be judged but that is the only similarities between me and Catholicism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
No votes have been placed for this debate.