The Instigator
Microsuck
Pro (for)
Tied
12 Points
The Contender
Billdekel
Con (against)
Tied
12 Points

Atheism is more probable than Theism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 10 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,204 times Debate No: 25604
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (10)

 

Microsuck

Pro

Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Theism.

For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e.: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc.) That is to say, we are not referring to anyspecific deity.
"More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism).

Rules:

(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
(5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss.


Rounds:

(1) Acceptance
(2) Opening Statement
(3) Rebuttal

(4) Rebuttal

Other notes:

(1) 72 hours to argue;

(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time.
(3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;
(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
Billdekel

Con

Accepted.

But can I start rebutting in round 2 if I have enough space?
Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Pro

Yes you can start rebutting if you have enough space. Thank you for accepting this debate.

A. What is God?

Before we can begin to have a rational discourse on the existence of God, one must first define what God is. Indeed, if we do not know what something is, how can we know whether or not it can exist? Consider the following dialogue:
  1. Person 1: A blorb exists.
  2. Person 2: Prove it
  3. Person 3: Morality could not have arisen except from the blorb. [3]
If this dialogue is less than satisfactory, much of the blame falls with person 2. Person 2's demand for proof is premature. Rather, he should have asked to specify what a "blorb" is; until person 1 does so, a "blorb" is nothing but a meaningless sound and he is uttering absolute nonsense. Without some description, the alleged proof is incoherent.
When confronted with the claim that God exists, the atheist should immediately respond, "What is it for which you are claiming existence?" In other words, the Theistmust present an intelligible and falsifiable description of "god." Until that occurs, "God" makes no more sense than a a"blorb." Both are cognitively empty, and any attempt at proof is logically absurd. As W. T. Blackstone puts it:
Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the qeustion of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge. [4]
This philosophical position is called ignosticism. I am ignostic as to the Deistic claims because the belief in Deism is incoherent and unjustifiable until the definition of Deism and "God" is made clear. Now, there are multiple views of "God" that should be taken note of before continuing:
Pantheism - The view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God. [2] Namely, that nature and God are identical [5].

Monotheism - The view that there is exactly one God and only one God. [6]


Polytheism - The view that multiple deities exist. [7]


Deism - Simply put, it is "[t]he universal creative force which is the source of laws and designs found through nature." [8]



Henotheism: The belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possibility that there exists other deities that may also be worshiped. [10]

There are more concepts of God than that. But if Theists themselves cannot agree amongst themselves who God is, how are you going to expect an atheist -- a skeptic in regards to the supernatural, to the claim that a god exists.[11]

B. Presumption of Atheism
This next argument takes note of the philosophical view that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This argument is formulated as thus:

  1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the abscence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.
  2. The claim that a god exists is an extraordinary claim.
  3. Therefore, in the abscence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favour, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.
  4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that god exists.
  5. Therefore, the claim that a god exists may be considered false. [12]
An extraordinary claim is defined as any claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, every day experiences of the world. [13] Indeed, as Carl Sagan puts it, "Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence."
Extraordinary claims vary in their degree of extraordinariness. Let me give you three statements:
  1. I have eaten lunch;
  2. I won the lottery; and
  3. Last night, God called me to be His final prophet on earth and wants all men to follow my words.
The first claim does not contradict accepted physical laws or our commonsense, everyday experience; consequently, my word would be sufficed for one to accept that claim. The second claim that I won the lottery would not contradict accepted physical laws, but it would contradict out commonsense, everyday experience since most people do not win the lottery. Consequently, if I were to present this claim, it may be sufficient to show that I have won by reading the account in the newspaper or reading the number on the lottery ticket. Finally, the claim that God called me to be His final prophet on earth is extraordinary to the highest degree. To believe the latter claim, you would have to change some of your beliefs about how God reveals Himself to man, your religion, and your views about God etc. Indeed, it would be irrational to believe the latter account unless I put forth lots of evidence.
The claim that there is a God is the highest claim one can make. Why? Because it is a being that differs from all known organisms with regard to power or intelligence; thus, this being is different in every way we experience. For example, God is all powerful. In this way, God is different from all known organisms because all known organisms are limited in their power.
This attitude regarding “god” is quite common. In the words of Stephen Roberts, “I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer gods than you do; when you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” For example, by definition of atheist, all Christians are atheistic about all gods except their own. Christians do not believe in the claims of Muhammad, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Brahm, Vishnu, Shiva; or any other God. No-one has been able to prove that other gods do not exist, yet no Christian believes that such gods exist. Why do they disbelieve? Because of the presumption of Atheism.
Is there strong evidence for the existence of God? The subsequent arguments will show that there is not. Moreover, I will refute my opponent’s arguments and show that there is not. Dr. James Dobson notes that, “faith ranks at the top of God’s system of priorities…This determination to believe when the proof is not provided and when questions are not answered is central to our relationship with the Lord. He will never do anything to destroy the need for faith.” [14]
This approach justifies me rejecting all other gods that may be proposed until extraordinary evidence is available. In other words, the absence of evidence is a strong case for atheism.

C. God is Incoherent

Going back to the definition of God, we must observe the definition of God given by traditional Theism [15]. According to theNational Catholic Almanac (1968) there are a total of 22 attributes of God:
almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true. [16]

This still does not tell us what God is. It tells us the secondary attributes, but not the primary attributes which are equal of importance. The above definition is incoherent. If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described?

_______________

This argument originally appeared in my blog post. All references and foonotes are available in the blog post athttp://reasonalliance.blogspot.com....... This post is original and I have written it. I ran out of room to post footnotes and sources.
Billdekel

Con

First argument

Cosmological argument

• Something exists. (the universe)
• You do not get something from nothing. (1rst law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass)
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
a.It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite).
b.The universe cannot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

We can we infer things about Him from what He created
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.

Second Argument

TAG

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?

Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.

The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?


Thoughts reflect the mind
  1. A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind.
  2. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts.
  3. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts.
  4. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts.
  5. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
  6. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.

Rebuttals

A and C

A and C are in a sense the same argument. So I will respond to them both here.

The argument is a non-sequiter.
The argument that "because you cannot comprehensively explain what you mean, then you are unjustified in believing it."

For example, atheists cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was. They have a vague concept that the universe began in a single point. They speculate about what it might have been like. But they cannot comprehensively explain what they are talking about. That does not mean that the "big bang" is a meaningless concept. It is simply one that is poorly defined. But more importantly, their inability to comprehensively define it certainly does not necessarily mean that it did not occur.

As another example, children commonly repeat what they are told by their parents without fully understanding what the sentences mean. That does not make them unjustified in believing that what their parents say is true. And it certainly does not make the sentences themselves false. When a theist holds a position he does not fully understand, he does so based on his faith that the statement is true, based on the credibility of his source. In other words, if God in all His glory sat down with the believer and said, "I transcend space and time," without fully explaining it, the believer could reasonably accept the conclusion based on the credibility of God, even without understanding it.

Finally, the fact that we do not fully understand what the phrase meant would certainly not stand as proof that the statement itself was false.

Thus, while this argument stands as a warning against casually using language without assigning definite meaning to our words, it certainly does not prove that the God about whom these words are spoken does not exist.


B

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
  1. Will your presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence? If someone who plays jokes on you all the time tells you he won the lottery, your presuppositions are to think he is playing a joke on you. But if someone you trust such as your mom tells this to you will probably believe it on face value.
  2. What would qualify as extraordinary evidence?
  3. What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence?
  4. Are criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?

If a claim is extraordinary, then in the abscence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.

To say its false solely on no evidence given is to commit the argument from ignorance fallacy[1]

There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that god exists.

This is your opinion. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence.

It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.

What kind of evidence would be acceptable to you? If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no strong evidence for God. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?



Sources
(1) http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for your speedy response. I am going to first refute con's opening case and then I will defend my opening statements. It is certainly a great pleasure to be able to debate with you.

Con 1: The Cosmological Argument
I agree that something exists. However, my opponent mis-understands the 1st law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass. The first Law of Thermodynamics basically states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. [1] Indeed, as Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton points out:

"The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments.

"The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this."
[2]

So the entire case collapses right then and there.

To further refute the point, Paul Tobin has pointed this out:

It should first be noted that even if the Kalam argument is successful, it can prove, at most, that the universe is caused. It could not show if the universe had a single cause, or if it was caused by a single (or multiple) personal agent(s) or even that the cause of the universe is the first cause. It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God.

Finally, my opponent's understanding of entropy is mistaken. He states, "The Universe cannnot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occured. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old."

To quote Richard Carrier on this issue [3]:
In traditional thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a closed system that is no longer available to effect changes in that system. A system is closed when no energy is being added to or removed from it, and energy becomes unavailable not by leaving the system, but by becoming irretrievably disordered, as a consequence of the laws of statistical mechanics. But even though the total amount of energy that is irretrievably disordered will increase, this does not mean order cannot increase somewhere else in that same system. This is where confusion arises. Of course, entropy can be measured in an open system, too, but this introduces additional variables, and of course the Second Law then no longer applies. But even when the Second Law applies, it is still possible for a closed system to produce order, even highly elaborate order, so long as there is a greater increase in disorder somewhere else in the system.

In summar, my opponent's case has failed.

Con 2: TAG

To entirely refute TAG, I will present Michael Martin's version of TANG [4]:

How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.

Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God . Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.

Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.


References and Footnotes

1. Interestingly, there are exceptions to this Law. In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the Law of Energy Conservation is a cornerstone of classic physics. However, the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. See Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.
2. Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton. Evidence for the Big Bang Theory. January 25, 2006. <http://www.talkorigins.org... >.
3. Carrier, R. Entropy Explained. 2005. <http://www.infidels.org... >.
4. Martin, M. The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God. 1996. <http://www.infidels.org...;
Billdekel

Con

Defense of Cosmological Argument

Something cannot come from nothing is just simplifying the first law.

Virtual particles

Even though some particles do indeed pop out of quantum vacuums and spacetime, they are not vacuums in the traditional sense of the word. They are ripe with energy, take up space, and are governed by laws[1]. It is not nothing at all, and it’s interesting to note that the vacuums very existence comes from the intelligent planning of scientists.

Virtual particles are also produced from spacetime. But spacetime is not “nothing”; it is something. And it seems to have the ability to produce and absorb short-lived particles called “virtual particles.”

If space were really nothing, we would not be able to measure it. When I measure the volume of an “empty” room, I’m really measuring the amount of space within it. Space has three dimensions—width, length, and height. When an object moves, it moves through these three dimensions of space.

So no the entire case is has not been destroyed. Even if VP were produced from nothing to say the entire case is dismantled is to commit the fallacy of division (occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts).

Paul Tobin's objections


Single cause

The Kalam nor this argument is about proving a creator. Saying "It doesn't prove that it wasn't multiple creators" doesn't refute the argument at all. Its like refuting Pro's arguments by saying "It doesn't prove any philosophy of atheism (humanism or nihilism)" Besides I did have this in my second part of the argument

"• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites."

The objection is a red herring

It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God.

This is why the argument is in 2 parts. I included both

Entropy

I am not mistaken on entropy. I described what's called the heat death. All of the usable energy would be used up resulting in a heat death[2]

A heat death would still happen if the universe was eternal and open.[3][4]

Sub argument "A" (infinite time) has not been touched upon.

Defense of TAG

Pro presented the TANG (transcendental argument for the nonexistence of God). Pro did attack TAG yet he did not answer the question proposed by TAG (how can an atheist account for the laws of logic).

...assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God.

God did not invent or create logic. It is correct to say that logic is dependent upon God, since it is a part of his perfect nature.

If the person writing this article understood TAG properly, he would not assert as part of the TAG argument that God created logic.


But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God

Incorrect. If logic is a part of God's nature, then it is necessarily existent because it is based on God's existence. In other words, it necessarily must exist because God exists.

God's self-existence and necessary attributes are consistent with the first Law of logic, the Law of Identity, which states that something is what it is: A = A. Since the TAG argument ultimately concludes that God exists (God = God), then his attributes, which are dependent and necessarily a part of his existence, also exist. You cannot separate God's attributes from God himself, since his attributes exist because God exists. By way of analogy, I am six feet tall. My height (or whatever height I might be) is an attribute of my existence as a full grown man, and it cannot be separated from what I am. Of course height can be altered, but "height" cannot be removed from my physical existence. It is a part of my existence.

The objection erringly separates God's nature from logic, as if logic can be a separate thing from God's nature. This is not the TAG argument, and it is not logically necessary as shown above.

if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them


This conclusion fails to understand that logic is not separate from God's nature, but is a reflection of God's nature. Since God's nature does not change, the principles of logic cannot change.

TANG fails to understand the TAG argument properly.

By now we can see that the argument fails in his earlier assumptions. Therefore, his conclusion cannot be trusted and is not valid.

"The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, it's the borrowing it from other impossibilities which in turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. "All agents" here include God himself. His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it" you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can". It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even though we talk it about God." - C.S. Lewis [5]

Sources
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://www.windows2universe.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996, p. 18.

Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for a fun debate. I wish you the best of luck in the voting period. I am going to first defend my opening statements and then I will defend my rebuttals.

-->DEFENSE OF OPENING STATEMENTS<--


1. A and C.

My opponent straw man's my entire case. My point is that God's attributes are incoherent and therefore does not exist. I did not at all say that because we cannot comprehend God, He therefore does not exist. Rather, I am saying that God's attributes forbid him to exist in the same way a square circle does not exist.

My opponent also straw man's what the Big Bang theory is. The Big Bang Theory states that ""In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." [1] Indeed, the Big Bang theory explains the development as opposed to the origin of the universe.

My case stands because my opponent totally misses the point. Indeed, something can be prime facia incomprehensible, but it can still be true. However, something that has incompatible properties such as a square circle or God, does not exist.


2. B

Once again, this is a straw man of my case. If I were to tell you that God told me to be the final prophet on earth and that you are to give everything up and follow me, then you would be rational to conclude that I am lying based soely on the fact that I have given no evidence. Indeed, this attitude of Gods is quite common. For example, Christians do not believe in: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Allah, or any of the other thousands of Gods that have not been proven or disproven yet they do not believe in those gods via the lack of evidence [2].

The conclusion is not "therefore God does not exist" rather the conclusion is therefore "the Claim that God exists may be CONSIDERED false until evidence is provided to the contrary."

-->DEFENSE OF MY REBUTTALS<--

1. Cosmological Argument.

Something can come from nothing. Moreover, the universe has always existed though it has changed forms.

A. Virtual Particles

My opponent admits that quantum vacuums do pop out. My opponent, however, misses the point once again. Finally, there is no such thing as a vacuum:

In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy [3]

[T]he laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible. [4]

Paul Tobin's objection is quite valid. You have not yet proved the fact that you cannot have two infinites. Finally, my opponent once more straw man's. He stated that it doesn't disprove the argument. True, though it fails to meet the burden of proof set forth in this debate. Missing the point once more.

Moreover, this argument cannot prove:
1. God is omnibenevolent - God could have created the universe to torture people and for his evil deeds.
2. God is perfect - God could have Created an imperfect Universe
3. God is omnipresent - God could be in only one place at a time as opposed to every place at a time.

2. TAG

My opponent plagarized his arguments from Matthew Slick <http://carm.org...;. As such, I will not address any plagarized arguments. I ask that you take conduct away.

Conclusion:

1. My opponent straw manned my case
2. My opponent plargarized from CARM including the C. S. Lewis quote.

I urge a pro vote.


References and Footnotes
1. Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton. Evidence for the Big Bang Theory. January 25, 2006. <http://www.talkorigins.org...;
2. And also, conceviable the fact of presupposition to their God.
3.Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science. New York: Prentice Hall.
4. Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397.
5. Books above were quoted on <http://www.infidels.org...;
Billdekel

Con

A and C
I think you should reform the argument then. Such as C

"This still does not tell us what God is. It tells us the secondary attributes, but not the primary attributes which are equal of importance. The above definition is incoherent. If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described?"

You have not explained what is incoherent in the attributes of God. You have given the differing views of god. But whether or not something exists does not depend on whether or not it can be described. If something exists, it exists independently of someone's ability to describe it.

This is the case of moving the goalpost. You have not given any specific incoherent attributes of God and both talk about the definition and description of God.

Pro claims I straw manned the big bang. Yet he proved my point. He said the big bang wasn't the origin of the universe, but this is contrary to what others define the big bang as [1]

"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe"

B

Pro claimed I committed a straw man again. Yet he didn't explain why nor answer any of the questions proposed.

Christians do not believe in: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Allah, or any of the other thousands of Gods that have not been proven or disproven yet they do not believe in those gods via the lack of evidence [2].

Not because of the lack of evidence. If the Christian God is proven then logically Ra,Isis,Osiris,ect doesn't exist.

Pro down right ignored me in this rebuttal.

The conclusion is not "therefore God does not exist" rather the conclusion is therefore "the Claim that God exists may beCONSIDERED false until evidence is provided to the contrary."

Yes I understand this. This is why I said if you say its false because of no evidence is to commit the argument from ignorance. I didn't claim that is what you were saying.

Cosmological Argument.

Pro claims the universe always existed, but in different forms. This has not been proven in fact its just a hypothesis

Virtual particles

Pro seems to agree that these particles come from something.

If quantum fluctuations caused the universe then what caused the quantum fluctuation? This hypothesis is self refuting because it is based (ostensibly) on some interpretations of quantum mechanics—which were derived by observing the universe. But if the universe is illusion then so is quantum mechanics; therefore, there is no reason to believe any conclusions allegedly derived from it.

Paul Tobin's objection

Pro says the objection is valid then goes on to agree that it doesn't disprove the argument. So its a red herring fallacy.

You have not yet proved the fact that you cannot have two infinites

If one being is unlimited and infinite in greatness then he can be more great than another unlimited and infinite in greatness. Yet this is a contradiction,since if 2 exist one cannot be unlimited because it cannot limit the other that is unlimited.

Moreover, this argument cannot prove:
1. God is omnibenevolent - God could have created the universe to torture people and for his evil deeds.
This can be disproven since not everyone is tortured or in pain. So in a sense you have a problem of good. If God wanted the world for evil it would be more evil than it is.

2. God is perfect - God could have Created an imperfect Universe
This is ignoring the possibility of sin and man by free will causing the world/universe to be imperfect. If God made something perfect he would be creating something equal to himself

3. God is omnipresent - God could be in only one place at a time as opposed to every place at a time.
Since God would be timeless and would have created time, He can be omnipresent

TAG

I feel that Pro copped out with his genetic fallacy. I copied from a website so that means you can dodge the argument?

Pro's genetic fallacy does not permit evasion

"The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context"[2]

In my conclusion

Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tes95 4 years ago
Tes95
Hold up. "Atheism is more probable than theism"? What the Hell? Being an Atheist is more probable than being a Creationist? He either worded this wrong, or his head messed it up wrong. There is no factor of probability to Atheism, it is a choice to follow that ideology, just as it is to follow the other.
Posted by Quik 4 years ago
Quik
Wow, Pro and Con are excellent debaters, I must say. There are a couple things I would like to point out. There were, in fact, a couple straw man attacks from Con but to say he straw manned Pro's entire argument is a gross exaggeration. Also, Pro assumes that in 100 years we will not have microscopes that disprove randomness in quantum physics. What is funny about Pro bringing that up is that many physicists see the problem of instantaneous quantum fluctuations to be an argument FOR God (and others think we simply can't explain it YET). Just FYI, there are studies that have found that an observer's decision regarding where to look and what to think while observing particles at the quantum level, SEEM to have a profound effect on what is observed. Con's point w/ the Big Bang was to simply say some atheist out there don't know anything about the big bang and yet use it in arguments. Not to contest that argument, I would just like to point out that the big bang does assert that something came out of nothing. Con's understanding of the Big Bang is limited to intro scholastic definitions and/ or educational TV programs. The actual Big bang theory asserts that a singularity (existence of condensed matter, energy AND INFORMATION) existed before the appearance of the viewable Universe. At this point, time and space were non-existent beyond the singularity, ergo it could have existed forever before the Bang (since forever did not exist as space-time was warped around a single point). There are also current theories that our Universe is the result of a black hole in another Universe, expelling its acquired matter, energy and information through a rupture in space-time caused by the overload of information in its origin universe, and that black holes are constantly doing this. I'm just pointing out that the scientific references used in this debate were a bit outdated. Lastly, remember Pro was not proving God doesn't exist, just that it is MORE LIKELY that atheism is true.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Thank you for your feedback. Much appreciated.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
GrayJaeger said "I wish I could have pity on you theists. You never challenge yourself on anything."

Yeah, you're right. I guess there are no theists on this website, debating other people and putting their beliefs to the challenge. Yup, you're obviously completely right. We should all listen to you.
Posted by GrayJaeger 4 years ago
GrayJaeger
I wish I could have pity on you theists. You never challenge yourself on anything.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Billdekel

Of course not. I'm going to address everything he has to say. The most harm it will do to him is cost him one point for conduct. I'm just bringing it up because debaters are not supposed to plagiarize.
Posted by Billdekel 4 years ago
Billdekel
CriticalThinkingMachine

Are you going to ignore everything MilitaryAtheist has to say because of that?
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Microsuck

Are you aware that MilitaryAtheist plagiarized your post for round one in a debate with me in which he is currently engaged? I suggest you address him about this.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
I meant first and third arguments.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
I am an atheist and I do like reading Microsuck's debates, I do think he is a good debater. Although I am in agreement with Goldenpersuader here. Pro really did have a challenge here and I think he failed to meet it. Pro looked for anything he could to get out of the TAG argument. Its what Bill said a
"genetic fallacy". I would of addressed it regardless, furthermore pros first and second arguments are like the same and they are adapted from the argument from non-cognitivism.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
MicrosuckBilldekelTied
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: Plagarism.
Vote Placed by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
MicrosuckBilldekelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 did not meet his BoP to show atheism more probable and as Con pointed out, had mistakes in his argumentation. Con pointed out that arguments A and C are virtually the same, and that B is invalid, thus refuting them. I'm not giving a point for plagiarism because several have already done so without giving full votes which likely would go to Con.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
MicrosuckBilldekelTied
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: Plagiarism- conduct point
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
MicrosuckBilldekelTied
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: really, badbob?
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
MicrosuckBilldekelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con had good arguments and rebuttals
Vote Placed by alex1094 4 years ago
alex1094
MicrosuckBilldekelTied
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: Conduct for plagiarism. Will give full vote in a few hours when I've read it through thoroughly.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
MicrosuckBilldekelTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
MicrosuckBilldekelTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct due to con's plagiarism. Pro presented very well-thought out and rational arguments. Con presented very generic and very unconvincing arguments that were easily refuted.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 4 years ago
Aaronroy
MicrosuckBilldekelTied
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: plagiarism. Full vote later when I don't have an essay to write.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
MicrosuckBilldekelTied
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: -1 for plagiarising argumentation (and no, "I think he made a fallacy" isn't a rebuttal). Full vote later.