Could God Exist?
| Started: | 11/11/2011 | Category: | Religion |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,659 times | Debate No: | 19239 |
 Pro  Con I accept this debate. Though I myself am a Christian, I believe that this is a good exercise in thinking clearly about our beliefs and answering questions that nonbelievers might raise. I wish my opponent all the best and await for him to begin his constructive speech. |
 |
|
Pro 1: The Cosomological Argument- There is no evidence that something can come from nothing. This argument states that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, since the Earth began to exist it must have a cause as well as everything else. 2: The Teleological Argument: Since the universe has such great complexity it must have a designer otherwise known as intelligent design. The Human brain has about 10 billion gigabytes of capacity, it the Earth was just a little bit away or a little bit closer to the sun life would not be sustainable 3: The Moral Argument: This argument states that we all have a moral code to put it simply. I believe that a being such as God gives us all an objective morality rooted from God. I am saying that objective moral values are rooted in the conscience. This may seem to have a certain propinquity to the Christian god, however, it can apply to about any god. I will conclude my opening arguments. Now my opponent I imagine will argue against these arguments and state his own, not trying to be obvious. Con Rebuttal against Pro |
 |
|
Pro You stated that quantum physics come from nothing, one could say that God creates that right.......but I won't be that cheap. These particles do not come out of nothing, the Quantum Vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy it is an arena of violent activity where the said arena is governed by physical laws. The particles go in and out of the vacuum, they do not come from nothing unlike the universe. Also, you said "The Earth has always existed, only in a different form." This is not accurate. Actually, most Scientists disagree with you. The majority of Scientists adhere to the Big Bang Theory, which states that the Earth came from a state of extreme heat and density which existed 13.7 years ago, while they state the age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years.While I reject the Big Bang, the evidence shows a starting point. On the Teleological argument you asked well who designed the designer. That gets back the Cosmological argument which states that something can not come from nothing , but that only applies to things that begin to exist God never began he simply always has been. With the complexity of the universe have you ever heard of The Black Hole Theory? The odds calculated for a random event creating such an orderly universe was about 100,000,000,000 to the 123 power and that was before they took into account biological life. Your point about other planets fails to discredit my point at all because those other planets do not have intelligent life to sustain. About the moral argument, you said "Not necessarily. Many people have different moral codes altogether, often contradicting eack other" My Christian belief is that we are in a fallen creation and these distortions to the conscience happen. That brings me to your next point, I never said that objective morality is rooted "entirely" in the conscience, I believe it is partially. Objective moral values are inside the conscience but also outside, which takes away the subjectivity. Now on your first argument is that God and the existence are incompatible, the only point Epicurus asked with validity was if God was able but not willing. Did does not mean that God is malevolent? Not interacting in something does not make one malevolent does it? He does not cause evil, evil is the absence of good. We are on the classic "Problem of Evil" here. How are the existence of God and evil in the world contradictory? Nothing about that is explicitly contradictory, feel free to bring up any hidden premises you would like to address. As for your case against God's omnipotence, I hope you do not mind if I copy and paste from me previously answering this question, here you go: Classic question, I assume that you suppose that is god cannot than he is not omnipotent and if he can than he is still yet not omnipotent. The simple answer is no, but allow me to delve into the explanation. This comes with a misunderstanding of the word omnipotent. Omnipotent describes God's power, not that he can do thing self contradictory. Merriam Webster defines Omnipotent as:1often capitalized : almighty 1 2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence 3:obsolete : arrant http://www.merriam-webster.com...... This question is equal to terms like married bachelor or round triangle, it is meaningless. Now, onto your case against God's omniscience. God is omniscience and is free to do as he pleases. His perfect nature makes the logic you presented irrelevant. God's failure wouldn't mess with him knowing all would it? He knows that he would not want to fail and would not have the desire to do so, therefore his will is uncompromised and there is no contradiction. I will not make a further argument, my opponent may present more however and I will answer. I also thank you again and wish you luck! Con You stated that quantum physics come from nothing, one could say that God creates that right.......but I won't be that cheap. I do not understand your statement. These particles do not come out of nothing, the Quantum Vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy it is an arena of violent activity where the said arena is governed by physical laws. The particles go in and out of the vacuum, they do not come from nothing unlike the universe. The universe could have originated from a vacuum fluctuation. Physicist Edward Tryon has formualted a model that suggests that the unierse as a whole could originate as a random flctuation of energy in a pre-existing quantum vacuum. [1] Many physicists have proposed different variants based on this model. In addition, the total amount of energy in the universe is zero, as physicist Stephen Hawking explains, so there is no need to ask where this energy came from, as in quantum theory, particles can be created from energy in the form of particle-antiparticle pairs. [2] Also, you said "The Earth has always existed, only in a different form." This is not accurate. Actually, most Scientists disagree with you. The majority of Scientists adhere to the Big Bang Theory, which states that the Earth came from a state of extreme heat and density which existed 13.7 years ago, while they state the age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years. That is correct. But the energy and matter the Earth is made of has existed since the Big Bang, a consequence of the law of conservation of mass-energy. The elements and compounds the Earth is made of have certainly not existed from the time of the Big Bang, but the total amount of mass and energy has. On the Teleological argument you asked well who designed the designer. That gets back the Cosmological argument which states that something can not come from nothing , but that only applies to things that begin to exist God never began he simply always has been. But God is a complex entity to postulate for explaining the design of the universe. A simpler theory should be preferrable to one that postulates a complex entity as God, in order to make the explanation of design more parsimonious. With the complexity of the universe have you ever heard of The Black Hole Theory? The odds calculated for a random event creating such an orderly universe was about 100,000,000,000 to the 123 power and that was before they took into account biological life. If there is a multiverse, as many physicists propose, then it is likely that one of those universes would give rise to life-permitting conditions. Certainly it is improbable if our universe is the only one, but it is possible, as many physicists explain, that there could be other universes besides our own. If there are many universes, one of them is bound to be orderly. Your point about other planets fails to discredit my point at all because those other planets do not have intelligent life to sustain. We are not sure whether other planets have life or not, that is a question that remains open. We can only see a fraction of our galaxy, and there could be thousands of not millions of other planets with life-permitting conditions like our own, and some of them with the possibility of some form of life. That brings me to your next point, I never said that objective morality is rooted "entirely" in the conscience, I believe it is partially. Objective moral values are inside the conscience but also outside, which takes away the subjectivity. But how do we know they are "outside"? If they are "outside" and so easy to recognize, then why do so many people have different ideas about right or wrong? If you had been born in an entirely different country somewhere around the world, you would have a different set of values and ideas. How can you be sure that your idea of morality is right, compared with so many others? Not interacting in something does not make one malevolent does it? If someone was able to stop a murder or saw someone being raped on the street, but decided not to do anything about it, would you not think that person is not benevolent? After all, a benevolent person would help the peson in need or do something about it. He does not cause evil, evil is the absence of good. But did God not create us? Did God not cause us and already know and predict what we would do? We are on the classic "Problem of Evil" here. How are the existence of God and evil in the world contradictory? Nothing about that is explicitly contradictory, feel free to bring up any hidden premises you would like to address. 1. If God can prevent all evil, but does not prevent all evil, then God does not want to prevent all evil. 2. God can prevent all evil, but does not prevent all evil. 3. God does not want to prevent all evil (from 1 and 2). 4. If God does not want to prevent all evil, then God is not perfectly good. 5. God is not perfectly good (from 3 and 4). That was the argument I gave before, and the argument is logically valid (meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises). If you want to show that the argument is unsound, you have to explain which premiss of the argument you reject. This question is equal to terms like married bachelor or round triangle, it is meaningless. I still do not understand how asking whether God can create a stone so heavy God cannot lift is meaningless. After all, it is perfectly possible for a being to create something that being cannot lift. Where exactly is the contradiction? God is omniscience and is free to do as he pleases. But if God is omniscient he would not be free to do something, because he already knows what is going to happen and what he is going to do. How can God make a choice, if God already knows what will happen? God's failure wouldn't mess with him knowing all would it? He knows that he would not want to fail and would not have the desire to do so, therefore his will is uncompromised and there is no contradiction. References [1] Tryon, Edward P. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? <http://pdfcast.org...> [2] What's the total energy in the universe? http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com... |
 |
|
Pro I do not understand your statement. Well, your original argument was that Quantum Mechanics could make something come from nothing. I was somewhat sardonically stating that God could be a Plausible creator of the quantum vacuum. The universe could have originated from a vacuum fluctuation. Physicist Edward Tryon has formualted a model that suggests that the unierse as a whole could originate as a random flctuation of energy in a pre-existing quantum vacuum. Many physicists have proposed different variants based on this model. In addition, the total amount of energy in the universe is zero, as physicist Stephen Hawking explains, so there is no need to ask where this energy came from, as in quantum theory, particles can be created from energy in the form of particle-antiparticle pairs. Another plausible argument does not discount the possibility of God though. Also, question arise such as where did the particle-antiparticle pairs come from? They would of had to exist first , but I feel that makes less sense than an intelligent being( Who put things together with order and precision rather than constant random events). See, with a vacuum fluctuation there are bits of randomness that would have to happen in order for that to be accurate. So it goes back to the Cosmological and Teleological arguments. That is correct. But the energy and matter the Earth is made of has existed since the Big Bang, a consequence of the law of conservation of mass-energy. The elements and compounds the Earth is made of have certainly not existed from the time of the Big Bang, but the total amount of mass and energy has. Right, but what are the origins of all this? When you get to the origin of it all, you don't really have the origins of the origins, correct? Was there ever something eternal? I believe there was (God) But God is a complex entity to postulate for explaining the design of the universe. A simpler theory should be preferrable to one that postulates a complex entity as God, in order to make the explanation of design more parsimonious. But a simplier theory doesn't make something a better explanation, right? If there is a multiverse, as many physicists propose, then it is likely that one of those universes would give rise to life-permitting conditions. Certainly it is improbable if our universe is the only one, but it is possible, as many physicists explain, that there could be other universes besides our own. If there are many universes, one of them is bound to be orderly. Yes, but where did those universes come from? Where is the starting point? I also do not agree that it is improbable that our universe is the only one, why is this? We are not sure whether other planets have life or not, that is a question that remains open. We can only see a fraction of our galaxy, and there could be thousands of not millions of other planets with life-permitting conditions like our own, and some of them with the possibility of some form of life. That is a lot of "could be" is it not? There is no evidence of life on other planets, if you find any sign of intelligent life on another planet your argument would have solid ground but an open question hardly is a hinderance to my point. But how do we know they are "outside"? If they are "outside" and so easy to recognize, then why do so many people have different ideas about right or wrong? If you had been born in an entirely different country somewhere around the world, you would have a different set of values and ideas. How can you be sure that your idea of morality is right, compared with so many others? But they could be outside, which shows the possibility. I am not arguing that anything is definitive( I do believe that), but that there is a possibility. If someone was able to stop a murder or saw someone being raped on the street, but decided not to do anything about it, would you not think that person is not benevolent? After all, a benevolent person would help the peson in need or do something about it. I see you abandonded the manevolence argument and diverted into a matter of benevolence. The question, like the matter of benevolence, does not contradict the possibility of God, which I believe is the topic of this debate so it is irrelevant. I answered "The Problem of Evil" because it is commonly seen as an argument against God and I did answer this just probably not to your sastisfaction. That was the argument I gave before, and the argument is logically valid (meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises). If you want to show that the argument is unsound, you have to explain which premiss of the argument you reject. It is fallicious that it disproves the possibility of God, in no way does that disprove the possibility of God's existence. I do not like vegetables, but don't they still exist? Does me not liking them make them exist any less? Just because something is "logically valid" doesn't make it applicable does it? I still do not understand how asking whether God can create a stone so heavy God cannot lift is meaningless. After all, it is perfectly possible for a being to create something that being cannot lift. Where exactly is the contradiction? It is meaningless to his possible existence, although it is an interesting question. Not trying to get too much in to God's nature(notice I excluded the Ontological Argument), but it is contrary to his nature and thus a contradiction. But if God is omniscient he would not be free to do something, because he already knows what is going to happen and what he is going to do. How can God make a choice, if God already knows what will happen? You are basically saying that him knowing he will do something means that he does not have the choice to do it. This is not to the propinquity to the truth many would like it to be, God knows what choice he will make. This does not take away the choice, nor his omniscience. Con Well, your original argument was that Quantum Mechanics could make something come from nothing. I was somewhat sardonically stating that God could be a Plausible creator of the quantum vacuum.
Could the quantum vacuum not have existed eternally? Also, question arise such as where did the particle-antiparticle pairs come from? These particle-antiparticle pairs come from the vacuum. Virtual particles obey the same conservation laws as "real" particles. Essentially, these particles can "borrow" energy for a period of time from the vacuum itself. The effects of virtual particles are experimentally measurable, and there are many observable physical phenomena that arise from them. For instance, both the Coulomb force and the magnetic field is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. The strong nuclear force between quarks is the result of interaction of virtual gluons, as well. The Lamb shift of energy levels in an atom, and Hawking radiation emitted by black holes, are other examples of physical phenomena caused by virtual particles. You can read more about virtual particles and their effects here: http://www.scientificamerican.com... They would of had to exist first Not necessarily. What they do is "borrow" energy from the vacuum. This is in accordance with the uncertainty principle which allows existence of such particles of borrowed energy. See, with a vacuum fluctuation there are bits of randomness that would have to happen in order for that to be accurate. So far as we know, the production of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs (which is closely related to quantum fluctuations) is a stochastic or nondeterministic process, in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle. When you get to the origin of it all, you don't really have the origins of the origins, correct? Well, as I said before, the Big Bang could be caused by a vacuum fluctuation in a pre-existing eternal vacuum. But a simpler theory doesn't make something a better explanation, right? It is certainly better to have a more parsimonious theory than one that is not. Or rather, entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity when formulating explanations for unknown phenomena. This is a crucial epistemological principle that guides our knowledge, both scientific and practical, every day. For instance, if I saw a chair in the middle of my living room, and I had seen someone else bringing the chair into the room the previous day, the best explanation for the appearance of that chair would be that this person brought it in. This would be a better hypothesis, one that makes fewer new assumptions, than say, claiming that the chair was brought in by aliens. This principle is also known as Ockham's Razor. Yes, but where did those universes come from? Where is the starting point? Again, universes can originate from a pre-existing eternal vacuum. This vacuum undergoes fluctuations that create isolated regions of spacetime, or new universes, in a similar fashion that a vacuum generates particles. I also do not agree that it is improbable that our universe is the only one, why is this? I meant to say that if there are more universes, then it is likely that one of those universes would have conditions that allow life to form, just as if you spin a roulette a greater number of times, the probability that the roulette will land on a certain number at least once increases with the number of times you spin it. I see you abandoned the malevolence argument and diverted into a matter of benevolence. Not at all, I am simply showing that a God who allows such pain, suffering, and evil in the world, despite being perfectly able to prevent it, should not be classified as a good or benevolent being, which God is supposed to be. 1. If God exists, then God would prevent all evil and suffering. 2. If God would prevent all evil and suffering, then evil and suffering would not exist. 3. Evil and suffering do exist. 4. Therefore, God would not prevent all evil and suffering (2 and 3). 5. Therefore, God does not exist (1 and 4). The question, like the matter of benevolence, does not contradict the possibility of God, which I believe is the topic of this debate so it is irrelevant. It does if the existence of God and the existence of evil are incompatible, as my argument shows. If God and evil are incompatible, then God cannot exist, and it is not merely a matter of possibility. It is fallacious that it disproves the possibility of God, in no way does that disprove the possibility of God's existence. Again, if God and evil cannot exist together, and evil exists, then God cannot exist. The argument from evil shows, not merely that it is improbable that God and evil exist, but that it is impossible. Just because something is "logically valid" doesn't make it applicable does it? If the premises are true, and the argument is valid, then the argument is applicable, and the argument is sound. If you have not rejected any of the premises, then you cannot reject the conclusion. 1. If God can prevent all evil, but does not prevent all evil, then God does not want to prevent all evil. 2. God can prevent all evil, but does not prevent all evil. 3. Therefore, God does not want to prevent all evil (from 1 and 2). 4. If God does not want to prevent all evil, then God is not perfectly good. 5. Therefore, God is not perfectly good (from 3 and 4). 6. If God exists, then God is perfectly good. 7. God does not exist (5 and 6). The argument presented above is valid. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. It is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Since my opponent has not mentioned which of the premises they reject, and have not questioned the structure or logical validity of the argument, then the conclusion follows. |
 |
| TeenageApologist | CarlosMarti123 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 7 | 0 |
| TeenageApologist | CarlosMarti123 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
| TeenageApologist | CarlosMarti123 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Don't worry, he seems to be equally bad at arguing with new members.
Has he always had such trouble understanding logical fallacies?
"carlos,carlos,carlos looks like someone was out of their league here."
ROFL! You attack the cosmological argument by creating a straw man that no one supports, and then you claim that I am "way out of my league here"? Sure, izbo10. Sure.
Sorry izbo10, but once again you have failed to understand the criteria required for an argument to be fallacious. Showing that the conclusion of an argument (let's call it argument A) can be deduced from another argument that IS fallacious (let's call it B) does nothing to show whether the original argument is fallacious or not. B could be fallacious, but that does nothing to show whether A is fallacious. What you have to show is that the **structure** of the argument is fallacious, **regardless** of whether the premises are true or false, something you have repeatedly and continually failed to do despite numerous assertions to having done so.
"Should I say, prove something began to exist outside the universe, otherwise the argument stands, because the universe is solely composed of those things that began to exist."
/Facepalm
Suppose that we granted your claim that the universe is solely composed of those things that began to exist (though the meaning of that sentence is ambiguous). So what? You have done nothing to show whether the original argument is fallacious or not. Showing that the conclusion of an argument can be arrived at through another fallacious argument does NOTHING to show whether that argument is fallacious or not.