The Instigator
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
V5RED
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Atheists can not accept the multi-verse theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
V5RED
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 727 times Debate No: 80204
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

If there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possibilities, inevitably, God exists -- and by the very definition of God, that God would reign over the entire structure.

Therefore, atheists can not accept the multi verse theory as an explanation of the fine tuning of the universe and have to face the chances of Mr. Impossibility.
V5RED

Con

I accept and look forward to you meeting your burden of proof where you demonstrate clearly that gods are possible beings. You will need to define gods then demonstrate that they are possible. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

pr.Daniel_Jordan forfeited this round.
V5RED

Con

I hope Pro is not planning to forfeit any more rounds. I will give the benefit of the doubt and hope he was just to busy to reply. I would also say that I hope voters do NOT deduct the conduct point for this one forfeiture. If Pro forfeits more rounds, sure, but this is just one round.
Debate Round No. 2
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

pr.Daniel_Jordan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

pr.Daniel_Jordan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

In the multiverse theory, everything is required to exist, therefore, a God that reigns over everything will exist, therefore the multiverse theory is not for atheists
V5RED

Con

Pro never met my challenge I asked him to demonstrate that gods are possible beings. The multiverse theory would only imply that all POSSIBLE beings exist and pro never demonstrated that gods are possible beings.

Things that will not exist in the multiverse:

Square circles
Married Bachelors
any other logical contradiction

Now, I hate the idea of logical possibility because all it really is is saying you can think of a thing being possible if you don't think too hard. Everything in the multiverse would be physically possible. As far as we know, water is non flammable, so it is unlikely that any universe will have flammable water. They might have something they call water that is flammable, but it will not be the substance we call water. Until someone demonstrates that gods are physically possible, they are basically just flammable water to me.

Note: Yes, I have seen a river burn, but it was an oil spill on top of the water that was burning, the water itself never burned.

In summary, pro forfeited almost every round and never met his burden of proof that gods are possible beings. If pro demonstrated that gods were possible beings, then yes, this modal method might work do show that atheists could not accept the multiverse, but neither he nor Alvin Plantinga(the philosopher who I think pro got his idea from) have demonstrated this.

By the way, here is a link to the full modal argument that Pro was trying to argue for.
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adrian222 1 year ago
adrian222
Hey jonbonbon. This is Adrian52 not V5RED :P.

When you wrote "But you're saying that it's possible that there's some metaphysical law keeping a god from being possible. But I can just as easily throw the argument back at you saying that a metaphysical law like that would most likely require a higher being to create that law, which would actually make that being god."

Just a technicality here. I am by no means stating that it is possible (because I have no way of knowing what is or isn't possible), but that it *could* be possible. Let me just simplify it.

If God exists, then the 'metaphysical law' I am referring to can not exist. And if the metaphysical law exists, then God can not exist.

We have no way of knowing which is true, but we know they are mutually exclusive and it can only be one or the other. The simple issue is that you have no way of saying which one is correct, or likely to be correct, because we have no evidence going either way.

So until the moment in time comes when we do have some reason to go one way or the other, we should avoid making definitive claims. Also your claim that a 'higher being' would be needed to create that metaphysical law is again an unjustified metaphysical claim. How do you know how such laws are "likely" to be created, or that a conscious being needs to create them? Can you logically prove why that is necessary in a realm that we can barely comprehend?

Don't take this the wrong way I'm not double-teaming you with the other guy. I agree with everything he's saying, though occasionally I might phrase things poorly. Absolutely every claim needs to have some evidence or reasoning to support it, including claims that a metaphysical law like I am referring to is possible. But it *might* be possible. And if it turns out that it is, then God can't exist. Thus at the fundamental level, stating that God is possible is not justified, which means even in an infinite number of universes you can't say "God" will inevitabl
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Atheist can not accept a god. without a god.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Well I've been completely misunderstood this whole time. I was just providing a different view on the debate while mildly defending the idea that God could exist (i was mainly just trying to add a different view on the topic since I hate when discussion are one sided), then all of the sudden I was getting walls of text about how I'm wrong. I'm not defending pro specifically. And I can't find a way to explain my position on the possibility of God in less than 2,000 characters. So I was aggressively bowing out; because, I'm annoyed. And you're still trying to argue with me. Here is the end of the discussion: I just rest God as if he's possible because it's not proven he's impossible. It's not a knowledge claim or a claim that's supposed o affect anyone else's beliefs. It's a personal claim about a personal way of looking at things, because I'm not disgusted by the idea of God.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
It is not just semantics, Pro's whole argument rests on his assertion that a God is possible, and if I were to fallaciously accept that not proving a thing to be impossible means it is possible, then I would have to accept Pro's argument. I will not fall into that fallacy hence my being Con in this debate.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
You're just playing with semantics. If you're trying to emphasize a lack of belief as opposed to claiming a specific belief, you still have to take a stand on either side in the way that you treat the information. And I can't say X is impossible without proof that X is impossible. Thus I treat X as being possible. I'm not making a statement that affects reality or anyone else. I'm making the statement that I treat X as possible. So in case it's not clear, allow me to make this amendment to fit better with your semantics: I cannot make a knowledge claim that God is possible, but because I can't prove that God is impossible, I will treat the idea of God as being possible.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
Jon, I clearly said that you should neither claim that X is possible nor that it is impossible unless you have evidence for either one. Not believing that X is possible is not the same as believing that X is not possible.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Well on the opposite side, how can you say that it is impossible without evidence that it is impossible? Saying that something isn't possible is the same as saying it's impossible.

Not to mention, I'm just thinking like a scientist. All scientific laws are just things that haven't been disproven. It doesn't mean we will disprove them, but science looks to disprove in order to discover what is. If it's not disproven then it should be considered as a possibility.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
Jon, I perfectly well understand that you are talking about possibility, and you still need evidence that a thing is possible to be justified in claiming that it is possible. The appropriate stance is to say that you do not know if a god is possible because you have no evidence that it is possible.

https://www.youtube.com...

This video makes it extremely clear that you are not justified in saying that X is possible unless you have evidence that it is possible.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Wait there's two of you? I'm getting double teamed?

Well I guess that explains why there were minor inconsistencies between you. I was looking at the picture not the names. But yeah, anyway, this all seems a little extreme. I'm not even taking a hard position on something except that it's possible a god exists. Not that he definitely exists or definitely doesn't. You guys are most likely misunderstanding me.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I'm not claiming knowledge or evidence. You're misunderstanding me.

Possibility doesn't necessitate existence. If I don't have the evidence to prove your father can't lift a dumbbell, then I have no way to say it's impossible, thus meaning it's possible from my point of view. I can't just reason my way into thinking that your father is probably dead. I can just reasonably say it's possible. Not true, but possible.

Besides your arguments contradict each other. You're saying that I can't assert that god is possible just because he hasn't been proven impossible. But you're saying that it's possible that there's some metaphysical law keeping a god from being possible. But I can just as easily throw the argument back at you saying that a metaphysical law like that would most likely require a higher being to create that law, which would actually make that being god.

I have not claimed that god definitely exists. You put those words in my mouth. I said it's possible at the moment because we can't prove it's impossible. That's not a knowledge claim or a claim on existence. That's a claim on a lack of knowledge.

So yeah, you're sticking words in my mouth and arguing on a completely different plane than me. You're arguing about actual existence and I'm arguing literally just about the possibility of existence.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
pr.Daniel_JordanV5REDTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture and pro didn't have any arguments that had the sort of weight that con did (everything exists vs. only logical things exist with examples). Easily a con win.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
pr.Daniel_JordanV5REDTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiting is a conduct violation, and refusing to debate the topic is also a conduct violation. Pro refused to define "gods" and it is Pro's responsibility to write a clear resolution. Con's argument that not everything can exist is correct, but he didn't present it until the final round, where a new argument must be ignored for judging.