Does God, as defined here, exist?
I am taking CON. Burden of proof lies on PRO.
First round is for definitions and opening statements.
God: an almighty and all-good being that made the world, and judges people.
Almighty: Within the laws of logic, can do anything.
All-good: Acts with untainted goodness.
Though I do not hold the burden of proof, I can provide a logical argument for the impossibility of this God - the classic argument from evil.
P1: The world contains evil - that is, the opposite of good.
P2: If God existed, he would be able to stop all evil (see definition - almighty)
P3: If God existed, he would be obliged to stop all evil (see definition - all-good)
C1: If God existed, evil would not exist (from P2 and P3)
C2: God does not exist (from P1 and C1)
Apologies once more for being a nuisance to Con.
Apologies to Con for my absence in the previous round. In
My argrument is in 3 premises:
1. Every effect needs a cause
2. The Universe had a beginning, therefore cause.
3. This cause must be beyond the universe or universal law.
Therefore God exists. In the following argument, I will
Premise 1: Every effect needs a cause.
The law of cause and effect states that for each effect or
For example, a rock would not simply jump in the air. A
Premise 2: The Universe had a begiging, therefore a
To build on my previous premise, everything with a beginning
The universe also has an age at roughly 13 billion years old
Premise 3: This cause must be beyond the universe, an “unmoved
Cause and effect can be compared to a series of gears. One
Similarly, the Universe (as proven in the previous premises)
The Big Bang alone cannot sufficiently
In almost all three of the Abrahamic
Therefore, the existence of the universe
I will now take down the cosmological argument premise-by-premise.
Premise 1: Every effect has a cause.
This is known as the 'law' of cause and effect. Many people think that, because it is a law, it must always be followed. Not so - it is what is known as a descriptive law: http://lesswrong.com... http://blog.cauvin.org... . A descriptive law is a kind of description of the way things act, used as a predictive tool by scientists and philosophers to make educated guesses about the future. Descriptive laws are not like prescriptive laws (such as criminal laws), because prescriptive laws tell people what to do, and descriptive laws describe how things work. Example: the Law of Universal Gravitation: http://www.physicsclassroom.com.... This law does not tell the universe what to do. Rather, it describes how we observe the universe to work. Descriptive laws can fail when we find exceptions: for example, the laws of Newton were partly overturned (even though they remain useful) by Einstein's General Relativity: http://m.space.com... .
The law of cause and effect is like this. We observe the universe and see causes producing effects all the time, so we assume that all effects have causes. This is not always true, because at the quantum level, things can actually happen for no reason at all. So, Premise 1 is false.
Premise 2: The Universe had a beginning, therefore it was caused.
This premise only works if Premise 1 is true, and Premise 1 is false, so Premise 2 is also false.
Premise 3: The cause of the universe must have been beyond the universe.
Well, yes, but that doesn't lead to God. The definition of God I gave was:
An almighty and all-good being that made the world, and judges people.
Your definition was:
Spaceless, ageless, very powerful.
These don't match up. God might be very powerful, but ultimately limited. He might be amoral, or evil, or even completely apathetic about humans. That means that it isn't the definition we agreed on.
In this round I will address my opponents opening argument,
R1: Problem of Evil
Con here has based his opening argument on the “Problem of
Since evil is committed by humans, and humans are given free
R2: “The law of cause and effect is like
By acknowledge that cause and effect exists, even as a
As seen in the beginning of Con’s rebuttal, he recognizes
“This is known as the 'law' of cause and effect. Many
Therefore, it is contradictory for Con to assert that
R3: “This premise only works if Premise 1
R4: “These don't match up. God might be
In the definitions stated God was described as “almighty”,
“God: an almighty and all-good being that made the world,
In the characteristics I gave concerning God, I stated that
Well, look at it from this perspective. A parent tells their child not to eat an ice cream, and leaves the child alone in the room with the ice cream. The child eats the ice cream, the parent returns and punishes the child. Who was at fault? Well, although you might say the child was at fault (I don't disagree), I would say that the parent is mostly at fault. By leaving the child alone and allowing it to do wrong, the parent is obviously doing the wrong thing. This is my analogy with God.
"By acknowledge [sic] that cause and effect exists, even as a descriptive law, Premise 1 therefore cannot be false."
That's not the point. When I say that cause and effect is a descriptive law, I'm also saying that it might not always be true, and is certainly not absolute. This means that the universe may simply not have a cause, so Premise 1 is not certainly true.
"...he must be "unimaginably powerful", which in turn fits in the definition when God is stated as all mighty [sic]."
Not at all. I defined almighty as: within the laws of logic, [God] can do anything. Unimaginably powerful is not the same. It could be the case that the human capacity for imagining power is much smaller than the limits of power itself.
"I had not asserted God to be amoral or apathetic. I had only asserted that God be "Ageless, timeless and unimaginably powerful"."
Well, by accpeting this debate, you implicitly agreed to my definition of God, which includes perfect goodness and the judgement of humans. If you cannot prove a God that has those traits, you haven't upheld your burden.
R1:” Well, look at it from this perspective. A parent tells their child not to eat an ice cream, and leaves the child alone in the room with the ice cream. The child eats the ice cream, the parent returns and punishes the child. Who was at fault? Well, although you might say the child was at fault (I don't disagree), I would say that the parent is mostly at fault. By leaving the child alone and allowing it to do wrong, the parent is obviously doing the wrong thing. This is my analogy with God.”
As seen in the definition, the debate has defined God not only as all-mighty but one that “judges people”. If the child disobeys an explicit order, and was given the choice not to, then why would the parent not punish the child? If the mother is acting upon the good intention of punishing the child from doing so again, than why would the parent be at fault? It was the child’s choice to disobey the mother, and the child’s choice to obey the mother (and hence, easily avoid punishment).This would also fit will with the quality of God that involves “judging people”.
R2:”Which in turn fits in the definition when God is stated as all mighty [sic]."
However, powerful beyond the capabilities of human imagination does not necessarily mean that said power must be beyond the laws of logic. And as shown in the argument, I had already shown how said power could be logical to exist.
R3: “That's not the point. When I say that cause and effect is a descriptive law, I'm also saying that it might not always be true, and is certainly not absolute. This means that the universe may simply not have a cause, so Premise 1 is not certainly true.”
Whether or not cause and effect is a descriptive law, it fails to disprove that the universe needs a cause. You only provided the possibility of that not being the case but still asserted premise one of being certainly false. Sufficient proof against the universe requiring a cause has not been sufficiently provided.
R4: “Well, by accpeting this debate, you implicitly agreed to my definition of God, which includes perfect goodness and the judgement of humans. If you cannot prove a God that has those traits, you haven't upheld your burden.”
None of the attributes I had given to God had contradicted the terms of the debate. My previous rebuttals had shown how it would be possible for an all-good all powerful God to exist, hence I had fit the terms and the burden of proof.
Thanks to Con for this debate. Vote Pro
|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:||3||0|