Does God Exist?
Debate Rounds (4)
-Pro argues for God's existence using various arguments.
-Con argues that God does not exist. And yes, Con actually has to provide arguments for the non-existence of God. For some reason people never understand this.
-Pro gives definitions and sets up debate
-Con accepts the debate (acceptance only).
-Pro gives opening argument
-Con gives opening argument...no rebuttals.
-Pro responds to what Con argued
-Con responds to what Pro argued (does not defend arguments)
-Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote.
God-the greatest conceivable being.
Exist-have objective reality or being.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Since this premise is generally not disputed, I will only give a quick defense of it. Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
a. Since we know what is absolutely wrong, there must be an absolute standard of rightness.
Murder is an action that all people (insane people are the exception) recognize as absolutely wrong. Taking the life of a human being unjustly is undeniably wrong and everybody knows it. That said, if we know what is wrong, we must have some idea of what is right. For example, if someone were to say that 2+2 were equal to five, we would know that they were wrong. But in order to know that, we would have to have some idea of what the right answer was.
b. If there wasn't a Moral Law, then we wouldn't make excuses for violating it.
We have all done something wrong at some point in our lives. It is interesting to note that we always try to make excuses for violating the moral law. But if there was no objective moral law, then we would not feel the need to apologize to people when we hurt them. For example, if I were to say some harsh words to a family member of mine, I might try to offer them excuses like "I was hungry."
However, if morality was subjective, and there was no right/wrong, we wouldn't feel the need to to say sorry whenever we did something "wrong". In fact, lets say that I owed a person money. I wouldn't have any moral reason to pay them back. The person I owed money to merely would have a different opinion of what morality was than me. And since there would be no objective moral standard, I would be perfectly justified in not paying him back.
But this is all ridiculous since we all are aware of the same objective moral law. And that is why we make excuses for violating it and that is the reason why we just know when someone wrongs us.
c. All people really do know that a standard of right/wrong exist.
Most people have an idea of what is right and wrong. Now some people might argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or a real right and wrong. But the people that argue this always go back on their claim a moment later (Lewis 6). The same people that say that morality is opinion based (or subjective) would still be irritated at people for treating them poorly. I can imagine that my opponent would be irritated if the voters gave me all the votes merely because they liked my username better than his. He would certainly feel wronged. But the thing is, if morality was subjective, no one should ever feel wronged. Why would someone feel wronged if morality was based on opinions?
Sometimes people try to argue that morality is created by societies. But we also understand that there are societies that have condoned evil practices when in fact people know that the society was wrong. For example, W. H. Auden, a famous 20th century poet, said that "there had to be a reason Hitler was utterly wrong." Auden said this famous quote after going to a theater that showed pictures of the Holocaust. These pictures sickened him and made him rethink his worldview. Before watching these pictures, Auden believed that it was up to the society to decide what was right and wrong. But during his time at the theater he realized that if societies decided what was right and wrong, and if morality is subjective, this would mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did. Well, at least according to that society. And who are we to tell them they are wrong if morality is purely subjective?
d. If there is no objective morality, there is no reason to be moral. If there was no objective standard of right/wrong, then all we would have is peoples opinions. Our opinion on morality would be like our opinion on what the best flavor of ice cream is. It just would not matter If we did something that people thought was wrong since there would be no objectively wrong things in the first place.
Some may argue that they are moral to benefit society. The problem with this response is that benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. The question "why be moral" and "Why benefit society" are almost the same question. Benefiting society is a moral thing to do...but we want to know why someone should be moral if there is no objective morality.
Another objection would be that morality is merely an instinct. The problem with this claim is that people have different instincts which would make morality subjective. And again, if morality is subjective, we could never tell people that they are doing something wrong. Another problem with this argument is that morality is usually that thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The Ontological Argument:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
I am interested to see what premises my opponent attacks.
The Teleological Argument:
1. The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The world is so complex that there must be a creator. According to Roger Penrose of Oxford University, he has calculated that the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123). That number is inconceivable. The odds are so against a life permitting universe that it is like a criminal (representing the universe) is about to be executed by a firing squad (representing odds against life permitting universe) and then the members of the firing squad all miss. People claim that it happened by chance. Christians say that it is ludicrous to think it happened by chance. Why? Because something feels rigged. It is completely logical to believe that there is an intelligent designer especially since everything is so complex. On the other hand, it is crazy to call all of this simple chance.
What about the fact that "the amount of matter (or more precisely energy density) in our universe at the Big Bang turns out to be finely-tuned to about 1 part in 1055. In other words, to get a life-permitting universe the amount of mass would have to be set to a precision of 55 decimal places" (http://crossexamined.org...).
What about the galaxy mass distribution? If "too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation. [And] If too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabilized by the gravity and
radiation from adjacent spiral arms." See link below...
And what about these other 400 factors that have to come into play?
How can you possibly say that the universe is not fine tuned for life?
How about these facts? The 23 degree axis tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth. Then there is the fact that if the gravitational forces in our universe were altered by .00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, the sun would not exist and then we would not either.
2. Fine-tuning can potentially be explained by chance, necessity or design.
3. Not by chance or necessity.
First of all, the odds are so against a life permitting universe that no one can even argue for necessity. As for chance, the chances of our universe existing are so great that they outnumber the number of individual atoms that currently exist. But not only that, chance is not even an explanation. If a coin is tossed, it may have a 50% chance of showing heads but the cause of that happening is that a human flipped the coin. So the question is, what caused the universe to exist? I want to know why the odds were beat. Since chance and necessity are not good explanations...
4. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of design.
I am now finished and I will await for my opponent to respond.
Now in my history with these debates, a major clash was different people's definitions of god. In this debate, we have defined God as a being that is the greatest conceivable being.
Let us start by suggesting what someone like that would be like. we are talking about a being so great anything we can conceive God will have. so we have a being that will have the power to create life the power to take it, the power to be helping me perform a song and at the same time be with a doctor performing surgery in Iraq , for every time I think of an idea this God has already thought it, the power to see my future and my past. This greatest being alive will also be empathetic and love unconditionally and will look for the best outcome for everyone. this is a god with characteristics defined as an Omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipercipient, omnipatient, Omnitemporal, omnipotent, and omnipresent being and all great being, God.
Now though it would be nice if such a being existed it is not improbable not unlikely but logically impossible and that is how I will structure the first part of my side of the argument about logic.
Let's start with a God with all power that we can conceive. This god can create matter out of nothing for he created us all now let's say he created a planet, let's call it Planet Martha, now he creates this planet as big as he can with all his power. What happens when he tries to lift this planet? As the force needed to would be F=ma, in order for it to exist in the same universe as us, if m is infinite then no "F" will give us an "a" value. so we have a problem with his power either he is powerful enough to create a planet which he isn't powerful enough to move or he is not powerful enough to create a planet.
What other problems can we find with the existence of this greatest being? How about our idea of free will. this god knows all. That if we could but talk to him/her we could ask him/her any question and he would have an answer. at the same time from the bible, we are told that this is a being who knew us since before we were born and has a plan for us. a being with both of these cannot exist in the same universe as free will as if I were to ask god say what I will have for breakfast tomorrow he tells me cereal and I have bacon because I felt like Bacon over cereal then I have just proven an all knowing being wrong which either means he isn't all knowing or doesn't exist.
Finally, the major logical problem with an all great being is their benevolence, if a god is all good. Now going to an all powerful God we assume that god has the power to do anything. but what about sin. it is a weird day when I think that there are things that I can do that this all powerful being cannot because he is also all good.
These are just a few of the many problems of a greatest being God.
All these above powers are conceivable powers as all we have to do is look to sci-fi and fantasy novels to see these powers perceived by us but we have put limitations on them in order to keep the story moving in the case of God there are no need for these limitations hence I have treated it like we would the Greatest being.
Looking at this from a less logical basis and a more emotional basis.
People find that believing in a God that is greater than all other things that loves them personally helps people better themselves but that doesn't make it real. See I am happy to agree that believing in God can make people better but so can belief in a flying spaghetti monster that will smite you if you wrong others or in other words sin but that doesn't make it real and yes it would be nice but all the proof points towards God, all gods being a complex construct used for us to better ourselves which is great and beneficial but not real.
The proof people have given me in the past has all been emotive anecdotal and inspirational messages which powerful don't prove anything and all I have to do is say that every time I have reached out to god I have felt nothing every time I have trusted in him life falls apart which for an all loving powerful God seems impossible thus he can not exist.
Quickly to finish my case ill share the argument for god that nearly convinced me of gods existence, Nearly:
My high school Chaplin told me that God is the greatest being and if he wasn't real then he is not the greatest being because the only way the greatest being you could imagine could get greater is if he was real. so premise by premise, God is the greatest being in existence, Things can exist in my imagination or in reality, for god to be the greatest being he must exist.
This argument falls apart when you substitute any word to God so that everything I imagine is in existence hence I can imagine the worlds greatest theme park and under the same reasoning it should exist but it doesn't because it is just something I made up in my imagination.
1. God cannot move a planet argument
I think my opponent is trying to say that an omnipotent being cannot exist due to the fact that it could not create a planet that itself could not lift. My opponent states that "so we have a problem with his power either he is powerful enough to create a planet which he isn't powerful enough to move or he is not powerful enough to create a planet."
My response to this argument is that God cannot do what is logically impossible. This does not mean that God is not omnipotent, but it merely means that he can do everything that is actually possible. However, if my opponent wants to go down that road and if my opponent asserts that an omnipotent God could do the logically impossible...then fair enough. God can do the logically impossible and therefore he could be almighty (or all powerful) and create an immovable object that he could still move all at the same time. It doesn't make sense logically but it could happen if God could do the logically impossible.
2. Free Will Argument
My opponent asks "What other problems can we find with the existence of this greatest being? How about our idea of free will. this god knows all. That if we could but talk to him/her we could ask him/her any question and he would have an answer. at the same time from the bible, we are told that this is a being who knew us since before we were born and has a plan for us."
I see two main issues with this argument.
a. Knowing that something is going to happen doesn't actually take away free will. For example, if you were to offer a young girl ice cream or a bowl of rocks to eat, you would know that they would pick the ice cream. Knowing this fact does not remove the young girls free will. Again, knowledge that people have about each other only shows that they know each other well. When a married women knows exactly where her husband lost his car keys, no one is really surprised. Couples get to know each others actions after many years. And in a similar way, God also happens to know a lot about humans and the fact that he knows us so well that he knows what we will do in the future does not mean we have no free will.
b. The second problem with my opponent's argument is that they assert that they could somehow mess with God's all knowing nature. They ask this question: "if I were to ask god say what I will have for breakfast tomorrow he tells me cereal and I have bacon because I felt like Bacon over cereal then I have just proven an all knowing being wrong which either means he isn't all knowing or doesn't exist."
Let me just set the record straight, you can't win this battle against an all knowing being. If that being tells you that you are eating a certain item the next day, then of course you would do what he says. However, this silly conversation would never happen in reality. So it is kind of pointless to go down this route.
3. The Problem of Evil (benevolence argument)
My opponent states that "the major logical problem with an all great being is their benevolence, if a god is all good. Now going to an all powerful God we assume that god has the power to do anything. but what about sin. it is a weird day when I think that there are things that I can do that this all powerful being cannot because he is also all good."
Perhaps the God has good reasons for allowing evil. And for the record, my opponent has does nothing to show that the existence of God is improbable based off of that fact that evil exists. My opponent has the burden of proof here to show that the statements "God exists" and "evil exists" are logically inconsistent. There is no explicit contradiction between the statements and my opponent needs to do a lot more here with their argument. However, there could be a multitude of reasons as to why evil exists. A world in which humans have free will cannot be perfectly good. You can't make someone freely be perfect. Perhaps the purpose of our life is not to live in some perfect world and be God's pets. Perhaps our purpose is to know God and to be able to freely make decisions (which means a world in which there is evil).
However, I find it interesting that my opponent seems to admit that evil exists. This is odd since if they affirm that there is a such thing as evil then they also have to say that there is a such thing as good. Why? Well, that is because in order to know that something is evil, you must also have some idea of what is right.
For example, if someone told you that 1+1 is 4 you would tell them that they were wrong. But in order to know that they were wrong you would have to have some idea of what the answer is. The reason I bring this up is because my opponent is actually affirming the second premise of my moral argument in round one.
If they claim that there is a real good and bad then they affirm that there is a such thing as objective morality which only helps me out. However, if my opponent decides to deny that there is a real good and evil, then their argument about the problem of evil disappears since what is evil would merely be a matter of opinion (meaning no actual problem of evil).
4. People believe in God for emotional reasons
My opponent argues that people may belief in God due to their own happiness yet...this doesn't actually make God exist. I completely agree with that statement. But I have always been perplexed by the atheistic view of the theistic worldview. Most people are not like that. Most people believe in God due to their personal experiences with him or for various other reasons. I don't know why people always think that theists are using God as a crutch.
Then my opponent states that a belief in a flying spaghetti monster could also bring people comfort. I really don't know how my opponent came to that conclusion. But are they really trying to compare God to a monster?
5. People have only given my opponent emotional arguments in the past
Well, I for one have not used emotional arguments in this debate. I sure could but I have decided to use logically sound arguments instead. My opponent states that they feel nothing when they reach out to God yet that is a hard statement to respond to. They say that "I have felt nothing every time I have trusted in him life falls apart which for an all loving powerful God seems impossible thus he can not exist."
This ironically is an emotional argument against the existence of God. However, I would like to tell my opponent that the key is to find out which God exists before trying to connect with that God. The obvious answer to me is the Christian God and there are many ways to connect to him. But, this is kind of off topic. I would answer any questions my opponent asks me though.
6. The Ontological Argument Doesn't Work
My opponent claims that "everything I imagine is in existence hence I can imagine the worlds greatest theme park and under the same reasoning it should exist but it doesn't because it is just something I made up in my imagination."
This objection does not work. The greatest theme park would not be all powerful or omnipresent and therefore would not be great enough to exist in both the imaginary world and in the actual world. It could only exist in the imaginary world. If my opponent tries to argue that the theme park is both of these things, then they are merely taking away the characteristics that make a theme park a theme park and they would ironically just be calling God by a different name.
That said, since God is omnipotent and omnipresent, he could therefore exist in the mind and in the actual world.
I thank my opponent for his arguments and I cannot wait for the next round.
Starting with your Axiological Argument
you have taken this from a theological standpoint where you take the existence of god and try to explain away the problems instead of creating and argument that start in the philosophical standpoint with logic determining the existence of a greater being.
now the main problems with your premises are in premise 2 of Objective Absolute moral values and laws. in part a) you have stated that absolute wrongs and writes exist but this is not a universally accepted opinion and is often called Deontology in moral and ethical philosophy and is flawed when dealing with allot of moral decisions so you simple math problem is more of a first order derivative with a singular solution on the imaginary axis. you quoted murder in an action that is absolutely wrong but what if you were to come across a case where if you don't murder someone a lot more people will die a common problem used is the trolley car problem. you ar on a bridge over a track as a cart comes towards the bridge you see it is missing a driver and out of control next to you is a pallet of bricks on wheels with a worker attached by a wire. the cart is heading straight for a pack of workers down the line and the only two options you have are push the bricks off stopping the cart and killing the one worker or letting the cart kill much more people. here many people would say that the murder was justified but many would also say it wasn't either way it shows that there are not absolute moralities only cultural norms in which we abide by in order for society to function most efficiently.
You claim that if there was no objective morality there would be no reason for communities to have moral codes however it is something that is intertwined in a successful community. this is a fact I think my opponent realises and tried to pass it off by asking some questions about why benefit society then answers it without looking at the history of what would have happened. we have 2 societies one in which they are nice to eat other the other in which they all are out for number one and number one only. these societies live millennia ago and what happened to each well the society that looked out for each other fort off all predators with people having special jobs in society and survives well passing on the knowledge and beliefs of helping each other out and not stealing or killing each other. however, the other society dispersed and were too busy infighting and stealing to try to live better but overall the entire society was destroyed and didn't pass on their knowledge. so this selective pressure kept occurring in our society unto the point where we started to feel bad if we ever acted like the dead society and came to a place in which we have acts that are generally considered wrong but can be broken for the benefit of society. so if you are claiming that if objective moral absolutes are enate in all of the gods people (everyone) then god must exist then you would be wrong because though some people choose to live their life in absolutes we are a society that evolved in such a way that the average individual will look out for the group i.e. be moral but not because of a greater god. like I said your main problem was assuming the existence of god before applying logic.
The Ontological Argument
I have already addressed premise one by accident in my round one speech as to why a maximally great being is impossible in our world. and I would also like to address premise 5 and six which if we like I pointed out previously applied this logic to anything else like a theme park you could "prove" the existence of a theme park when in fact there is not one.
The Teleological Argument:
the universe if fine tuned for life .... you say this as if we look to nature we see nothing but barbaric suffering and creatures struggle to survive from this day to the next and that is on our planet if we look elsewhere then we see that in fact, life is possible in many other places but between these little bubbles are nothing. you say we should believe you just because you have a gut feeling that something rigged is there when in fact given a near infinite number of attempts over any instant of space-time probability dictates that it will eventually occur. just because you see a pattern in the forest that you think was made by a gardener doesn't mean that there was ever a gardener present and if he was then where is he now.
you state that your problem with chance being an explanation for this is to do with the fact that if there was a coin flipped who first flipped the coin or what caused the universe to exist. well, these types of arguments are all self-defeating why is there a double standard for god if the universe needed a cause then just like the universe where did god come from you cannot accept one argument without accepting the other.
I will leave my case here for now as by your rules I am not certain if I can debate over your criticisms of my arguments (defend them) in your round three debate. so, I await your response with baited breath.
a. My opponent first states that my view is flawed when dealing with many moral decisions. The funny thing here is that there would be no moral decisions if there was no objective right and wrong. How can you possibly have a moral decision to make if there was no real right and wrong in the first place? So it seems my opponent already knows that there is an objective moral law even if they don't admit it.
b. My opponent then brings up the idea of a trolley car problem in which you have to kill people. Again, this scenario doesn't show that morality is subjective. It merely shows that my opponent acknowledges that something objectively bad happens with either decision you decide to make. Though, I think it is obvious that you could just yell at the workers on the line to get out of the way. Yet, this scenario would never happen in this first place. Also, it seems that the person making the decision would not be murdering anyone, they would be killing the person since they had not planned to kill the person beforehand.
c. So my opponent declares that there is no objective morality and then says that "moral codes however it is something that is intertwined in a successful community."
The problem here is that if there is no real right and wrong, all you have is the opinions of people. And no moral code of any person would actually be objectively good. Therefore no one would have a moral code in which all people have to follow. No one has to obey the laws of government since they are opinion based and no one even has to obey their own parents!
d. My opponent believes that people should be moral in order to benefit society. But again, why does any people have an objective reason to benefit society or why do people have an objective reason to be moral? They are practically the same question and they haven't actually answered it. My opponent then says that "we started to feel bad if we ever acted like the dead society and came to a place in which we have acts that are generally considered wrong but can be broken for the benefit of society."
Not only is this some story that my opponent made up, but this is also the same problem I keep talking about. People would never feel bad for doings things that weren't really (or objectively) wrong.
e. My opponent then says that my "main problem was assuming the existence of god before applying logic." This statement doesn't at all address my argument but it is interesting. My opponent seems to assume the existence of objective morals in his arguments and yet he does not acknowledge that he does this. That said, I never said that people are absolutely moral, I only said that all people know the existence of the objective moral law.
2. The Ontological Argument
a. Since my opponent gave the same refutation of this argument, I will give my same response. The greatest theme park would not be all powerful or omnipresent and therefore would not be great enough to exist in both the imaginary world and in the actual world. It could only exist in the imaginary world. If my opponent tries to argue that the theme park is both of these things, then they are merely taking away the characteristics that make a theme park a theme park and they would ironically just be calling God by a different name.
3. The Teleological Argument
a. Instead of addressing my argument, my opponent brings up "barbaric suffering." So tell me Con, how can there be barbaric suffering if there is no right and wrong? And what does this have to do with fine-tuning in the first place?
b. My opponent then states that "you say we should believe you just because you have a gut feeling that something rigged is there when in fact given a near infinite number of attempts over any instant of space-time probability dictates that it will eventually occur."
Since when did I say anything close to that? Please reread my arguments. I never once said to believe me due to a gut feeling. I did however provide the odds of our universe existing as it is and then I showed that life looks rigged in our favor since we beat these incredible odds. As for the supposed "infinite number of attempts," I can only guess that my opponent is referring to the many worlds theory.
Let us first note that there is no actual evidence for a multiverse. Vilenkin also stated that "Another important question is whether or not such scalar fields really exist in nature. Unfortunately, we don"t know. There is no direct evidence for their existence" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...).
And as for the theory disproving my fine-tuning argument...
Roger Penrose "calculates that the odds of our universe"s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. The probability that our solar system should suddenly form by the random collision of particles is 1:1010(60). (Penrose calls it "utter chicken feed" by comparison.) Thus, it is inconceivably more probable that our solar system should suddenly form by the random collision of particles than that a finely-tuned universe should exist. So if our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, it is inconceivably more probable that we should be observing an island of order no larger than our solar system. For there are far more observable universes in the World Ensemble in which our solar system comes to be instantaneously through the accidental collision of particles than universes which are finely-tuned for intelligent life. Indeed, the most probable observable universe is one in which a single brain fluctuates into existence out of the quantum vacuum and observes its otherwise empty world. Observable universes like those are just much more plenteous in the World Ensemble than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...).
c. I originally asked what caused the universe to exist and then compared it to flipping a coin. My opponent says that "these types of arguments are all self-defeating why is there a double standard for god if the universe needed a cause then just like the universe where did god come from you cannot accept one argument without accepting the other."
I am not sure if you could accuse me of making a self-defeating argument here. But the whole thing about me making a double standard is certainly false. I merely explained why chance fails to be an explanation for why the universe exists. And my opponent hasn't been able to counter that. That said, the universe had a cause according to the Big Bang Theory. But the cause of the universe would also be the cause of time. So the cause has to be eternal since it existed outside of time. Therefore God, would hence be eternal and the cause of the universe.
My opponent showed some worry if they could finish defending their arguments. I think/hope a round should be enough. I will think about adding the fifth round in future debates.
Until then, I wish my opponent well and I am excited to see how things turn out.
The argument of Gods Omnipotence:
I set a scenario in which gods power is impossible by our laws or reality to which you agree with me saying that this "that God cannot do what is logically impossible" which is saying that we either give up his all great power or his existence and by your own definition we cannot do the first sense God cannot exist.
The argument on our free will:
you have oversimplified your example with a choice of either or either. in this case that you gave I did not know which choice the little girl would make, ice cream or rocks, I can assume ice cream but I would never know until she chooses however in the case of god supposedly he is all knowing and thus knew which option was going to be taken but was offering the other as a courtesy. so similarly as to the omnipotence we either give up the existence of the god or his omniscient power and because god is all great he cannot be god without the latter and doesn't exist. also, we are talking about a god that can exist at all points in time simultaneously so has already seen you make the choice and thus choosing otherwise is either impossible or disproves god. Also, your attack on my example of a conversation with god was purely an example of what would happen under your flawed logic.
The argument of evil:
I'm sorry I thought the dots were easy enough to connect if someone is all good then they want there to be no evil in the world and will do all within their power to stop it. god is all good, and all powerful so why doesn't he stop it. the best argument I heard against this was that he is preserving our free will but as we saw above that comes with its own problems so without any valid reasons left then I must assume god cannot exist.
The argument for emotional reasoning:
the only problem I see her is your issue to my example of a popular sudoreligion that many people will recognise and how if we put the same faith in it as in god then both have exact same evidence to exist but neither do.
the other two subjects in round three need not be touched as they have been already or are about to be when I go over each of your arguments and your defences to them.
The Axiological Argument
you keep running back to their being an objective moral defence that there would be no objective moral right or wrong but like I said, in the beginning, there will be because we can base moral decisions on a couple of different techniques one being the one you describe and the other which balances the overall pain and pleasure caused by an outcome which is call utilitarianism and this is the basis many if not most people make their decisions from. it also justifies the killing of one in order to save the many. this was also the point of the trolley car problem a simple thought experiment to show different ways of approaching a problem through different people's eyes.
I used my example to explain this objective morality you keep asserting is there even when morality can be defined by us and in most pop culture is. we see superheroes breaking buildings and injuring the few in order to stop the oppression of the many and are completely ok with this when if morality was objective we would say they are as bad as each other which they are not one has just weighed the positives to the community and themselves and stood up for that design they have made. you also quite wrongly assume I believe in objective moral laws but I am a rule utilitarianism so as stated the ends justify the means in a case by case reading.
The Ontological Argument:
My argument for this yes is calling god by a different name because a name holds weight if you told someone all the attributes of god but replace the word god with sandwich or theme park most logical people say that yes it would be the world's greatest theme park if I could enter it anywhere anytime go on any ride and it was completely suited for me, but the idea of that is completely absurd and can not exist in our world so by talking all the stigmatised nature away from the name god we can see the major flaw in this argument is that it cannot prove the presence of a greatest being without proving the presence of the greatest everything.
Thank you for your time, everyone, it has been a very enjoyable debate and please vote Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.