The Instigator
dellaxim
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Does God Exist?

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 8 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,038 times Debate No: 55977
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

dellaxim

Pro

Please do not accept this debate if you won't put any effort in to it. I will use the "traditional" arguments:

Ontological argument:

1 A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2 A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3 It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness.
4 Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5 Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5 Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

The Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

The Moral Argument:

1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
2. Morality is objective and absolute.
3. Therefore, God must exist.

Alvin Plantingas's Probability argument for God:

A. The world ... shows amazing teleological order.

B. All Objects exhibiting such order ... are products of intelligent design.

C. Probably the world is a result of intelligent design.

D. Probably, God exists and created the world.
bladerunner060

Con

I accept, and look forward to a rousing debate.

A few notes:

BOP is clearly on Pro, here. It is up to him to establish that God exists. I must negate his case and/or construct a case for the opposite motion. I don't have to take a position on God's existence, and I hope the voters can judge fairly on the arguments presented.

God has not been defined specifically by Pro, but I will assume he's using the only definition he provided, that of the MGB--or, at least the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent (3O) parts, anyway. A god that doesn't exhibit these qualities seems hardly worth the title "God". [1]

He has said he will use the "traditional" arguments; by this I presume him to mean that he is limiting himself to the four arguments he lists, which are certainly traditional.

Now, on to rebuttals.

The OA (Ontological Argument).

Pro's syllogism fails on a number of levels, but for the sake of space in this round I'll be addressing the biggest one, and we'll see how Pro responds. After all, we know what his arguments, broadly speaking, are to be, so the remainder of this debate will be about those four and their validity.

P3 is, generally speaking, an equivocation fallacy. I'm not sure if Pro is using it as such since he doesn't support his premises, but merely lists them. There is a difference between "possible" in the ontological sense, and in the common sense. In the common sense, we use "possible" just as much for "things that could be true for all I know" as we do for things which are truly "possible". That is, we call them possible because we don't know them to be impossible. If I don't know math, then if you ask me if it's "possible" that 2+2=5, I may answer that it's possible--but I'm mistaken.

For the MGB (Maximally Great Being) to be possible to exist, it must by definition be necessary that it exist--and universally so; it must exist in every possible world for it to exist in any possible world.

Yet the criteria for establishing a "possible world" is merely that it be world in which a given possible proposition is true, and a possible proposition is just one that's logically possible, that is, does not imply a logical contradiciton. [2][3] By asserting that the MGB is possible, Pro asserts that it's impossible for the MGB not to exist. There's no grounds for this assertion. And, indeed, the syllogism can be inverted:

P1 A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W;
P2 A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
P3 It is possible that there is NO being that has maximal greatness.
C1 Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that NO omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
C2 Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being DOES NOT EXIST.
C3 Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being DOES NOT EXIST.

There are no logical contradictions with the MGB existing, provided you assume "The MGB DOES NOT exist" is false. There are no logical contradictions with the MGB NOT existing, provided you assume "The MGB EXISTS" is false.

Therefore the MGB either exists in all possible worlds, or does not exist in any possible world--but the OA can't be used to pick one of those two choices without the same reasoning applying to the inverse.

While it's true that all necessary propositions are possible propositions, the OA rather dishonestly asserts the broader position (that of possibility), when it definitionally is actually asserting the narrower one (that the MGB is necessary). It does this because if it asserted the narrower one, it would rather obviously be begging the quesiton: The Premise "MGB MUST exist" begs the conclusion "Therefore MGB Exists". I don't blame Pro for this--I blame the argument itself, which is a well-known argument.

Because of this, the OA fails.

The Cosmological Argument (CA).

It's shorter, so I can quote Pro, here (I'm adding a P to the numbers again, though).

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore the universe has a cause

First off, this does nothing whatsoever to establish "That cause is God". This argument is a red-herring as presently formulated, as it simply does not address the resolution.

However, there are other problems, too. P1 is an unsupported assertion. Pro can appeal to induction for it, but we have no experience of "universes", and they are clearly of qualitatively different kind than things "inside universes", and so it's a tough row to hoe.

P2 depends on an A theory of time (Where's RationalThinker when I need him?), and is also unsupported, in the sense that this current universe we experience appears to have begin to exist, but we can't be certain that it's not just a cycle of an infinite series.

Because of this, the CA fails.

The Moral Argument (MA):

P1: If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
P2: Morality is objective and absolute.
C: Therefore, God must exist.

P1 is utterly unsupported by Pro and, I believe, is unsupportable by him.
P2 is likewise unsupported.
The conclusion follows, but these premises have no justification whatsoever, and so because of this, the MA fails

Pro appears to have copied the final argument from somewhere--I urge him to give his sources when he does so.
The Teleological Argument (TA):

P1: The world ... shows amazing teleological order.
P2: All Objects exhibiting such order ... are products of intelligent design.
C1: Probably the world is a result of intelligent design.
C2: Probably, God exists and created the world.

First, we have to wonder if P1 is an equivocation. Does Pro mean the "world" (i.e. Earth), or does Pro mean "universe"? Because if it's merely "world", then Pro has even taking it at face value, only established that Earth may have been the result of intelligent design, which means it could just as easily (or, I'd argue, MORE SO) that AliensDidIt than that GodDidIt. And if he makes that his premise for the universe, he's going to have to support it, as I certainly see no signs of "teleological order" in the unvierse whatsoever. I don't see any on Earth, for that matter. But I'll let Pro support it, if he can. As it stands, it clearly fails, but he has more rounds in which to support it.

P2, likewise, needs support.

C1 follows from P1 and P2, but without their support, C1 fails.

His C2 fails, since it's flatly a non-sequitur. The argument does not support "god". It supports "intelligent designer". That doesn't have to be a 3O God at all.

Because of this, the TA fails.

As of now, I hope I've shown that all the arguments that Pro has locked himself into supporting are simply not shown to be sound. Thank you to Pro again for instigating this debate. I turn the floor back to him!

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
dellaxim

Pro

dellaxim forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Con

How very unfortunate that my opponent has decided to forfeit the round. I know from their profile they were online 1 day ago...I hope all is well.

I will extend my arguments, and hope that my opponent returns for the next round!
Debate Round No. 2
dellaxim

Pro

dellaxim forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has once again forfeited.

Hopefully he returns at some point...
Debate Round No. 3
dellaxim

Pro

dellaxim forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Con

I continue to extend my arguments, and I hope that my opponent shows up for the last round, at least!
Debate Round No. 4
dellaxim

Pro

dellaxim forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Con

Well, then. I had hoped for a good debate; it's unfortunate that my opponent decided to forfeit rather than participate.

Extend all arguments, then, and I urge a vote for Con!

Thanks to everyone who winds up taking the time to read this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CarinaSosteric 2 years ago
CarinaSosteric
I do Not believe in God but for this debate ill put me on your side. I Think God does Not exist in a physical Aspect. I think God Exists within One another. God is Like your Friends always watching over you checking you are always ok. I think God Is like your Guardian angel on your shoulder telling you what to do and what is wrong. No one has any proof of god and no one will likely never know. But we don't judge because a belief. Even if God doesn't exist There is someone who cares. Like Your own Personal God. Your Friends, Your Family are your Guardian angel they are someone who is watching over you. And will never leave your side, they will always be there forever..
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Think Con kinda of overkilled it from the rather lazy approach by Pro.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
dellaximbladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "Please do not accept this debate if you won't put any effort in to it." - Oh the irony... FF
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
dellaximbladerunner060Tied
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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dellaximbladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dellaximbladerunner060Tied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
dellaximbladerunner060Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
dellaximbladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
dellaximbladerunner060Tied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
dellaximbladerunner060Tied
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: FF.