The Instigator
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
AlextheYounga
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism is more probable than Theism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,472 times Debate No: 27131
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Magic8000

Pro

Resolution: Atheism is more probable than Theism.

I will let Con define God this time.

3 days to post
4 rounds
8000 Characters
No insulting
No forfeits
Start your arguments for the existence of God in first round
AlextheYounga

Con

So if I were to define God, I would say a maximally great being that functioned as the initial creator. I myself do not fully believe all of the written word of God. It's contradicting, it has too many gaps, it's been edited by man throughout history.

Theism is the idea of believing in one or more than one deity. Atheism is denying any God or any deity, thus an atheist must believe that everything can originate from nothing.

Ontological Argument

Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.

The idea of God exists in the mind.

A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.

If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.

We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.

Therefore, God exists.

What this basically means is that there has to be a maximally great being which would be defined as God. If a maximally great being can exist in some possible world, than a maximally great being must exist in all possible worlds, thus meaning a maximally great being must exist in the actual world. So, if there is even the possibility that a maximally great being could exist, then a maximally great being must exist.

This is the math behind the Ontological Argument made by mathemitician Kurt Godel.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive

Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B

Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.


The Contingency Argument
Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist). In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an uncaused cause


The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Cause does not mean the same as purpose. Cause means, the relationship from one event to the next. It is impossible for there to be an infinite amount of causes because even scientists believe that there had to have been a beggining of our universe, and nothing real in our universe can be infinite. When I say 'real,' I mean tangible. Certainly ideas can be infinite such as Pi, which is supposedly infinite.

Fine Tuned Argument
There are over 50 physical cosmological constants (basically equations that had to equal a certain value) for our universe to form properly and support life.
To stress the importance of how perfect these constants had to be in order for life to form, think about this analogy:

Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37.

Your friend would have had to pick that red dime 50 times in order for the universe to form properly, and for life to exist. That's how perfect these constants had to be. If even one of these were to not equal what they equal, life would no exist and I wouldn't even be here to make this argument.

This argument does not prove the existence of a deity like the others, but it does support the idea of one. It supports that the universe was finely tuned. It shows that it is more logical to believe that something guided our universe to creation.

Pretend you were trying to throw 50 pennies into a 3 inch by 3 inch square and have them all land in the same spot. By throwing them, you are leaving their destination to chance, and it is very unlikely that they will all land in that square. But if one were to place each penny into that square then it is very likely for them all to fit.

That's all I got. Your turn. :)
Debate Round No. 1
Magic8000

Pro

Argument from reason
1.God is omniscient.
2.God is omnipotent.
3.God wants everyone to believe in him.
4.Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists.
5.Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration.
6.Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration.
7.However, atheists manifestly exist.
8.Therefore, it's likely the god described by the first three conditions does not exist.

A similar form to this is the argument from vagueness

1.God either does or does not reveal his existence
2.If God does not reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief
3.If God does reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief, only knowledge
4.The problem of vagueness indicates that there is an unclear ground for belief.

And Though Shellenberg formed this argument like this

1.If God existed, there would be no instances of reasonable or inculpable non-belief.
2.But there are instances of reasonable or inculpable non-belief.
3.Therefore, God does not exist.

I posted three different forms for a better understanding of the argument.

"I myself do not fully believe all of the written word of God. It's contradicting, it has too many gaps, it's been edited by man throughout history."

This is interesting. As why would God allow this?

"thus an atheist must believe that everything can originate from nothing."

False dichotomy. Atheists don't assert that everything came from nothing.

Rebuttals

Ontological

This argument has been parodied many times to prove the existence of literally anything.
One of the most famous is the Gaunilo’s perfect island, however my favorite is the perfect warrior

Hercules is the greatest warrior in history.
A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not.
If Hercules only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater warrior
Therefore, Hercules existed.

One objection to this parody is that we can conceive of a stronger and stronger warrior to kill the former ad infinitum.

The same can be done with the greatest being. As I can conceive of a more powerful being that can eliminate the former ad infinitum. Furthermore if God is suppose to be the greatest thing that can be conceived. Yet 2 Gods would be better than 1 and 3 God better than 2 ad infinitum

In this argument, existence is presented jointly of one God's attributes as part of the definition: if X is God, then X has got the residence of existence. It's the equivalent to "if X isn't doesn't exist, then X isn't God". It doesn't show that we have any entities that actually fit this definition.

Existence could rarely ever be regarded an attribute, as anything nonexistent are not able to have attributes. Therefore, making a conclusion regarding existence of a God on its attributes is not logically sound. Simply speaking, this kind of argument comes to "show me god and to I am going to show an existing god". It's just a kind of circular reasoning as the existence was made into your presumptions.

Kalam and Contingency Argument.

Physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. As other events such as Quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause. [1][2] The universe would of started at this level.

Mass can come from energy. (e=mc2) But, then, where does the energy come from? The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, requires that energy come from somewhere. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang.
However, neither observations nor theory indicates this to have been the case. The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero. As famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking said in his 1988 best seller, A Brief History of Time, "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. Specifically, within small measurement errors, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from an initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty.[3]- Victor Stenger[4]

Even if we were to accept every premise in Kalam, this doesn’t show it has to be God.

The Kalam and Contingency Argument are basically the same, however you stated

" In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an uncaused cause"

This doesn't make sense, as if the universe always existed, it wouldn't have a cause.

Fine tuning argument

I like the way Richard Carrier answered this in an interview. He said

"Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us. Likewise, a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size and enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. And that’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size and age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely and sparingly, and that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) and by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal to life (constituting stars and black holes on which no life can ever live). Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one."

Thus, we have exactly the universe we’d expect to have if there is no god. Whereas a god does not need vast trillions of star systems and billions of years to make life. He doesn’t need vast quantities of lethal space and deadly matter. Only a godless universe needs that."[5]

This argument questions the omnipotence of the creator. If he is all powerful why did he make life constrained to survive only in a tiny fraction of the universe? If God existed he could make humans live on a toxic planet with no oxygen and have us drink uranium instead of water. As humans living where they couldn't possibly live would be a complete mystery to science. However we only find life where biology predicts!


Sources
[1] “Even in a perfect vacuum—a region of space containing neither matter nor energy—particle-antiparticle pairs (such as an electron and its antiparticle opposite, the positron) constantly appear and disappear....”
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...
[2] Paul Davies: In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162)
[3] Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 129.
[4] Victor Stenger, God the Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist
[5] http://www.thebestschools.org...

AlextheYounga

Con


Rebuttal
1.God is omniscient.

2.God is omnipotent.
3.God wants everyone to believe in him.
4.Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists.
5.Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration.
6.Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration.
7.However, atheists manifestly exist.
8.Therefore, it's likely the god described by the first three conditions does not exist.

This argument relies on the premise that God wants everyone to believe in him. It only eliminates the possibility that he wants everyone to believe in him. For it is very possible that God does not want everyone to believe in him. This idea only comes from the written scriptures. This in no way elminates the existence of an initial cause.

1.God either does or does not reveal his existence
2.If God does not reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief
3.If God does reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief, only knowledge
4.The problem of vagueness indicates that there is an unclear ground for belief.

Then why are the majority of the population on Earth theists? Obviously, there is some reason for belief.

Ontological Argument Defense

Hercules is the greatest warrior in history.

A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not.
If Hercules only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater warrior
Therefore, Hercules existed.

This argument has been parodied many times to prove the existence of literally anything.

For one, your Hercules argument fails to meet the criteria of a maximally great being. For a maximally great being is one that is existent, the greatest conceivable, and the greatest possible being. Being a great warrior is not maximally great, (for Hercules might not have been a great potter.) therefore the argument fails.
Another is that it is self contradicting. If Hercules is the greatest warrior in history, then he already existed, didn't he?

As for the island argument, which is even worse than the Hercules one:
God is that thing than which no greater can be conceived, Gaunilo's is that island than which no greater can be conceived. Thus, while no island may exceed it in greatness, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that some non-island could.
A necessary being is both existent and the greatest conceivable and greatest possible being. Only God, as defined in the argument, meets all of those criteria and can, therefore, be dubbed a necessary being.

In fact, the only way to disprove the Ontological Argument is to show that it is an incoherent idea, for example, a round square. The concept of a maximally great being is not an incoherent idea, for it is very possible that it exists.

As for Quantum Fluxuations, I have provided a video that does well to show the problems with them.
=


And what it means is that even if the universe has always existed, what cause it to exist-for under different circumstances, a never ending universe may not have existed.


Fine Tuning Argument
I think you did pretty well at taking out my fine tuning argument.


Sources:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...





















Debate Round No. 2
Magic8000

Pro

Defense of the Argument from reason

This argument relies on the premise that God wants everyone to believe in him. It only eliminates the possibility that he wants everyone to believe in him. For it is very possible that God does not want everyone to believe in him. This idea only comes from the written scriptures. This in no way eliminates the existence of an initial cause.

Yes we can eliminate existence of an omnibenevolent deity. As if God doesn't want me to believe he wants me to go to hell, which isn't all loving at all. If you want to remove omnibenevolence then we can move to the other forms of the argument.

Then why are the majority of the population on Earth theists? Obviously, there is some reason for belief.

See # 3, If God does reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief, only knowledge

This can actually be an argument against God revealing himself. As there are so many contradicting religions and beliefs. Even within religions we have conflicting doctrine. Many theists do question the existence of God sometimes, some even become atheists. However if there really was some good reason for belief we shouldn't see this.

Ontological Argument

Con only goes after a small fragment of my argument and ignores most of it. So I will not spend too much space on this one.

For one, your Hercules argument fails to meet the criteria of a maximally great being.

This is a straw man of what the parody is trying to show. This parody isn't trying to prove Hercules is or was a maximally great being.

Kalam

Again Con only goes after 1 part of the argument. The video Con posted straw mans my argument as it goes after an old and outdated vacuum model called "The Tryon model" .

William Lane Craig States

"According to Isham this problem proved to be “fairly lethal” to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were “jettisoned twenty years ago” and “nothing much” has been done with them since."

This is clearly going after another model. As I have shown in R2, there are modern physicists who work on these models. The model I was referring to is the "Alexander Vilenkin model". None of Craig's objections apply here. Vilekin's model doesn't claim there was any type of background space (which Craig based his objections off), but that the universe was the result of a quantum tunneling event [1].

And what it means is that even if the universe has always existed, what cause it to exist-for under different circumstances, a never ending universe may not have existed.

I still don't get it. If the universe has always existed, it doesn't have a cause. As if God always existed he wouldn't have a cause. If we can imagine something possibly not existed this doesn't mean it has to of had a cause.

Sources
[1] http://mukto-mona.net...
AlextheYounga

Con


You know, this might seem irrelivent, but I just thought I would add something. This is a funny story, but it made me think about God a little bit and his reasoning for why he doesn't reveal himself.
I was watching a Futurama episode (the episode is called Godfellas. If you want to watch it, it's on Netflix and it's pretty hilarious.) and in this episode, Bender meets God. God is portrayed as a talking galaxy in the episode. God tries to explain to Bender the difficulty of being God. He explains, "When you do things right, people won't think you've done anything at all." If you show yourself and help people whenever they need it, they become dependent on you. If you neglect the people when they need it, they reject you. This is very true, as it is seen in every government with social programs that people become dependent on, yet when the government does nothing, people become angry.
Just food for thought.


Ontological Argument

For one, your Hercules argument fails to meet the criteria of a maximally great being.


This is a straw man of what the parody is trying to show. This parody isn't trying to prove Hercules is or was a maximally great being.


I don't think my opponent completely understands the Ontological Argument, for it can only prove a maximal being, and no other being. I don't really understand what his Hercules argumnent is trying to prove. It really doesn't even dent the Ontological Argument at all.

One objection to this parody is that we can conceive of a stronger and stronger warrior to kill the former ad infinitum.


But actually, the most maximal being would be one that could not be elminated by anyone. You can't refute that. A maximal being that is the strongest would be the maximal being, eliminating the ad infintium argument.

Existence could rarely ever be regarded an attribute, as anything nonexistent are not able to have attributes.


There are several versions of the Ontological Argument. The initial proposer of the argument, Anselm, made a second argument after the first which does not rely on existence being a perfection. Here is the argument.

  1. 1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
  2. 2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
  3. 3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
  4. 4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
  5. 5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
  6. 6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
  7. 7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

This version of the argument relies on two important claims. As before, the argument includes a premise asserting that God is a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. But this version of the argument, unlike the first, does not rely on the claim that existence is a perfection; instead it relies on the claim thatnecessary existence is a perfection. This latter claim asserts that a being whose existence is necessary is greater than a being whose existence is not necessary. Otherwise put, then, the second key claim is that a being whose non-existence is logically impossible is greater than a being whose non-existence is logically possible.


Kalam Cosmological Argument Defense

The model I was referring to is the "Alexander Vilenkin model". None of Craig's objections apply here. Vilekin's model doesn't claim there was any type of background space (which Craig based his objections off), but that the universe was the result of a quantum tunneling event [1].

Alexander Vilenkin's models are used by many theists to show the necessity of God, including William Lane Craig. The one that is usually used, is one of his newest models. He created a model with two other scientists in 2003 that William Craig mentions in his argument.


This purely philosophical conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. In 2003, Arvin Borde, Allan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the early universe. Because we don’t yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we can’t yet provide a physical description of the first split second of the universe. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state of the early universe—which some scientific popularizers have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have an absolute beginning.


He then goes on to use the Kalam Cosmological Argument.


1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.

Now from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we’ve seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless, at least without the universe, because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.



My opponent still has not proved why atheism is more probable than theism.





http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

Debate Round No. 3
Magic8000

Pro

Argument from reason

Con doesn't back up h
is rebuttals here.

" If you show yourself and help people whenever they need it, they become dependent on you. If you neglect the people when they need it, they reject you. This is very true, as it is seen in every government with social programs that people become dependent on, yet when the government does nothing, people become angry.

Just food for thought.

Well, this analogy may work if I brought up the problem of evil as an argument. As a God showing someone he exists doesn't mean people will become dependant on God. If the government shows people there exists social programs this doesn't make people dependent upon them. In many religions doesn't God want to be worshipped? Won't he do things for people if they ask? Such as Christianity the scriptures say to cast your cares on the Lord and he will take care of you [1][2]

Ontological Argument

I don't really understand what his Hercules argument is trying to prove. It really doesn't even dent the Ontological Argument at all.

My Hercules argument is trying to prove that there existed a greatest maximal warrior. As it's along the same reasoning of God.

But actually, the most maximal being would be one that could not be elminated by anyone. You can't refute that. A maximal being that is the strongest would be the maximal being, eliminating the ad infintium argument.

The greatest maximal warrior would be one that could not be eliminated by anyone. You can't refute that. As if I claim an island is the greatest maximal thing in existence, if you conceive or a bigger island I can use the same argument. I did conceive of something greater, but now con is basically saying "You can't do that". My "2 is better than 1 argument" hasn't been addressed.

The rest of what Con says was already refuted in my opening statement.

This latter claim asserts that a being whose existence is necessary is greater than a being whose existence is not necessary.
Otherwise put, then, the second key claim is that a being whose non-existence is logically impossible is greater than a being whose non-existence is logically possible.

"In this argument, existence is presented jointly of one God's attributes as part of the definition: if X is God, then X has got the residence of existence. It's the equivalent to "if X isn't doesn't exist, then X isn't God". It doesn't show that we have any entities that actually fit this definition."

"Simply speaking, this kind of argument comes to "show me god and to I am going to show an existing god". It's just a kind of circular reasoning as the existence was made into your presumptions."

This argument also relies on the assertion that if you cannot imagine something better than God, he exists. Con hasn't proved that something exists if you cannot imagine something better.


Kalam


Alexander Vilenkin's models are used by many theists to show the necessity of God, including William Lane Craig. The one that is usually used, is one of his newest models. He created a model with two other scientists in 2003 that William Craig mentions in his argument.

I don't think WLC or theists use a model where the universe comes into existence without any God to prove God.

We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. In 2003, Arvin Borde, Allan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary

This is a red herring. As the argument is God was not needed for the universe to come into existence. Not that the universe is eternal.

Now from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused

I've refuted the first premise of the Kalam. Which Con has not objected to.

If you're going to say God is uncaused why not skip a step an say the universe was uncaused?

changeless

This one is interesting. As if the cause was changeless wouldn't it still be creating universes? Why would it be changeless?

immaterial

This assumes that the only material that exists is in the universe. It assumes there's not some unknown material outside the universe

My opponent still has not proved why atheism is more probable than theism.

I believe I have.

*The argument from reason hasn't been refuted
*Con didn't refute the evidence that shows the universe needed no God to come into existence
*I have shown that the fine tuning argument proves atheism is more probable than theism.






By the way, Futurama is awesome!

[1]1 Peter 5:7
[2]Psalm 55:22

AlextheYounga

Con

Well, this analogy may work if I brought up the problem of evil as an argument. As a God showing someone he exists doesn't mean people will become dependant on God. If the government shows people there exists social programs this doesn't make people dependent upon them. In many religions doesn't God want to be worshipped? Won't he do things for people if they ask? Such as Christianity the scriptures say to cast your cares on the Lord and he will take care of you [1][2]

Without removing human desires, people will desire for an all-mighty being to help them out of every problem. People's wants can never be fully met. This is why welfare will never be abolished. People love presidents that give them things. By showing that social programs exist, naturally, many people will flock to it. Just as if God were to show his existence, (an all-mighty being who could, in essense, change the laws of the universe just to help you) people would depend on God for every single problem. As I said before, this is just a thought. No one will ever know why God hasn't revealed himself.

Ontological

"Simply speaking, this kind of argument comes to "show me god and to I am going to show an existing god". It's just a kind of circular reasoning as the existence was made into your presumptions."

This isn't circular reasoning. The argument isn't stating, "God exists because he exists."

Kalam

This is a red herring. As the argument is God was not needed for the universe to come into existence. Not that the universe is eternal.

How is it a red herring if it actually supports the argument? It's saying that the universe was never eternal which supports the idea of an initial cause.


I've refuted the first premise of the Kalam. Which Con has not objected to.

I've been rejecting that the entire time. Even the scientist, Alexander Vilenkin, that you used states that the universe began to exist.

This is a quote from Alexander Vilenkin

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
Holy crap, I posted that last argument with 42 seconds to spare. I'm sorry If I didn't get to everything, I was very rushed on that last one. I went on vacation and could not get to the debate. Sorry.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Alexa.

On my debate with Microscuck, with the same title as this, you provided a tie vote for arguments, saying that neither of us argued well. You did not back this up with any examples or arguments. Can you please send me a message explaining what I could have done better. I'm very curious to know.
Posted by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
I'll touch on those points next round
Posted by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
I apologize for not addressing all of your arguments. I seemed to have only become focused on certain points, even though I took them all into account.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Ok.
Posted by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
I'll probably accept this. Just give me a little time. I need to finish up some other debates. lol
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Magic8000AlextheYoungaTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the better of each argument. It might have been a better debate if it had focus on a single argument.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Magic8000AlextheYoungaTied
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: Cogent responses to silly arguments.