The Instigator
acernine
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Carcharus
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Carcharus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 477 times Debate No: 86044
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

acernine

Con

Does God Exist? This is a timeless question which has been debated many times before now, and will no doubt be debated many times after. I will argue against the existence of a God. God will be defined as a being with the following qualities:

  • Omniscience (all seeing)
  • Omnipotence (all powerful)
  • Omni-benevolence (all good)


Humanity has a burning desire for knowledge, as is showcased by Galileo's famous line "Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so." Historically we have explained the unknown with magic, mysticism and theism - the former two have all but diminished as our knowledge grows and so their place shrinks. The majority believe them ill-founded and unnecessary. The latter however - theism - has seen a far gentler decline, but a decline nonetheless. What is it that differentiates theism from mysticism?

God is a contradiction
My first argument regards the source of evil in this world. It goes as follows: If God aims to prevent evil but lacks the power to do so then he is not omnipotent; if he has the power but does not use it then he is not omni-benevolent; if he has the power and the will then from where does evil arise? If God possesses neither of these qualities, then why hail him as God?

Carcharus

Pro

I offer sincere thanks to the Opposition (henceforth referred to as Opp.) for what I hope will turn out to be a fruitful discussion. This is my first debate on this website, so I apologize in advance for any violations of the website’s convention. I am unaware as to what is the proper way to cite sources in this debate—therefore, I will cite my references/footnotes in a fashion similar to that used in peer-reviewed journals.



Due to the formulation of this debate as a question—unless further challenged by the Opp.—the onus probandi in this debate will be split evenly between the two sides (which seems to be accepted implicitly by the Opp. due to their usage of a positive form of argumentation against the existence of such a deity).



Modal ontological argument:



The argument I will be defending in this debate is Alvin Plantinga’s modal ontological argument.1 The argument defines God as a “necessarily existent entity,” along with the properties held to in the first round’s definition of God. To be “necessary” is to exist in every possible world—every possible way in which the actual world might have been. The argument is formalized below:



1) If God does not necessarily exist, then God’s existence is not possible



This premiss is true, because God is defined as “necessarily existent,” therefore—sans satisfaction of the definition—does not exist per definition. If God does not exist in all possible worlds, he doesn’t exist in any possible world.2



2) God’s existence is logically possible



This is true since God’s existence does not entail any contradictions. One has been raised by my opponent, which is addressed below.



3) Therefore, God necessarily exists



Follows from 1) and 2) via modus tollens.



God is contradictory:


The contradiction raised is famously called the “problem of evil,” and has been refuted in the past. My refutation indicates that there is no evil in this world. Our standards of evil are subjective, and there’s no way to affirm moral realism. God’s own standards of morality are the sole standards—if any. The argument is circular since it presumes God-less moral realism.


Citations and footnotes:




  1. 1. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.




  1. 2. Ibidem.

Debate Round No. 1
acernine

Con

acernine forfeited this round.
Carcharus

Pro

Opp. has chosen to waive the previous round. I will offer a crystallization:

a) The onus has been conceded by omission. In extension, judges must presume a shared onus.

b) Opp.'s sole argument was their presentation of the 'problem of evil', a reductio ad absurdum argument that tries to disprove an omnibenevolent deity. I have raised a major error - there is no evidence for the assertion 'evil exists'. The current situation has no evil by definition, since if God is omnibenevolent, then God's will is moral; thus is implied a form of Divine Command Theory.[https://en.wikipedia.org...]

c) I have demonstrated via ontology that a being defined with the attributes in question and 'necessity' exists in all possible worlds or is logically impossible, and that this being is logically possible. It entails that God exists necessarily in all worlds, including the actual world M.

I urge a ballot in favor of the Proposition, and thus beg to propose the motion.
Debate Round No. 2
acernine

Con

acernine forfeited this round.
Carcharus

Pro

The opposition has forfeited Round 3. I urge a ballot in favor of the proposition.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Caleby6226 10 months ago
Caleby6226
Amen to that
Posted by God_is_awesome 10 months ago
God_is_awesome
Matthew 24:9-10 ...'Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.'
This is being repeated today in places like Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Egypt, where many Christians are being killed for their faith in Christ Jesus everyday.
Posted by jglass841 10 months ago
jglass841
Hmm. As an atheist, I am interested to see how this will work out. I love debates like this. Also, since our morals are subjective, how can we say that a God is morally good?
Posted by missmedic 10 months ago
missmedic
looks like acernine quit the game, must be gods doing.
Posted by missmedic 10 months ago
missmedic
" Our standards of evil are subjective, and there"s no way to affirm moral realism." You can't say this and then claim to know god is good. It is important not to confuse objective morality with absolutist morality. The latter is a hallmark of religious doctrines, which make statements of the type "thou shalt not". But an objective morality, i.e. a morality based on the facts of reality, does not need to be of that type. All it needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments. Because of this, atheism is perfectly compatible with objective morality.
Defending any god belief is purely egotistical as any real god would not need defending, only believing. Unless you are trying to convince yourself god is real.
Posted by TheSmartDebator 10 months ago
TheSmartDebator
Now, as a Unitarian Universalist and a former Christian, I am not really big on deciding whether or not god exists in my life, but I dislike a debate about it because you cannot prove anything. The whole decider on whether or no god exists is whether or not you believe in him. Neither side can argue anything, and neither side can use logic. I don't think this debate should end in anything but a tie. Finally, any argument the Aff makes can be answered by the Neg saying that's how god is, and then could be refuted by the Aff by saying that that doesn't make sense. This debate is not a debate.
Posted by Eagle2016 10 months ago
Eagle2016
I am so Glad to see that there are people who really want to know if there is a God. I am glad that God will see me through this debate and others he is my savior(:
Posted by IvanOberfetwebel 10 months ago
IvanOberfetwebel
You can't argue this and be satisfied, it's about faith brother. I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior because I believe that his blood and his sacrifice has cleansed me, and that's the only argument I can give. If you truly want to see the magic that god can do for you, you have to invest in it, you have to attend the services
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
acernineCarcharusTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 9 months ago
RainbowDash52
acernineCarcharusTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed why it was logically impossible for God to be omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolent at the same time in round 1. Pro tried to redefine "God" despite Con already defined God when instigating the debate, so Pro's arguments don't carry weight. Pro's rebuttal against Con's argument however do not use Pro's redefined definition of God, so it does carry weight. Pro explains how God can be benevolent despite having the power to stop evil since evil is subjective and therefor God defines what is evil, and therefor everything that happens is considered not evil by God. In conclusion, Cons only argument was refuted and Pros arguments were irrelevant for redefining God, so arguments tied. Pro gets conduct because Con forfeited.