The Instigator
tala00131
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Does God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 6 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,068 times Debate No: 36858
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

tala00131

Pro

I would like to say that there is no physical evidence for the existence of God. However, I think there are logical, and sound arguments for its existence. Here are some of those arguments.

The Cosmological Argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe had a cause. The first premise is obviously true. It defies logic to say something can come into existence uncaused. Now, let's look at the second premise, "the universe began to exist". There is lots of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. This includes: the fact that the universe is expanding, the fact that the universe is running out of usable energy. Because the second premise is true, the last premise must be true. Now that we can see that the universe had a beginning, let's see what that cause must be. That cause must be, timeless, and space-less (as this cause must bring time and space). Only two things can be timeless, and space-less. Abstract objects like; numbers and symbols. Or, an unnumbered mind. Numbers and symbols can't cause anything. For example, the number 70, doesn't cause anything. This leads us to our only other option, an unembodied mind. This mind would be called God.

A fine tuned universe: When you look at the order in the universe, it is clear that it is finely tuned. For example, if the rate of expansion after the big bang was altered by as little 1 and 1000000000000000000 we would not exist. If the atomic weak force was altered by as little as 2% we wouldn't exist. The probability of this happening by chance, is almost 0.

The moral argument: If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist. If God does exist, objective moral values do exist. We all know objective moral values do exist. By objective moral values, I mean morals that are true weather we like it or not. Weather we like it or not, lying is wrong. Since objective morals do exist, this follows that God exists.
Mikal

Con

I accept this and look forward to a wonderful debate.

The first thing we must look at what my adversary is claiming. He has accepted the BOP and has claimed that God exists. He has already claimed there is no physical evidence to support this, but hopes to arrive at this by using logical facts. It is my job to show that there is a plausible reasons that God does not exist, and undermine his arguments while providing logical evidence to support my case. So lets begin.

Contention 1

Something from nothing.


For all of those who do not read these type of debates on a regular basis, this is a counter argument of the KCA or Kalam Cosmological argument. The KCA states this

Everything that exists has a cause
The universe exists
Therefore the Universe has a cause
The most obvious cause is God(this is added by some Christians


So for me to break this down, we need to look at the main question. Can something come from nothing? We first need to define the two types of nothing that often get brought up in these debates.

Nothing as know it now - operates under the laws of physics and science that we have available at this moment.
Nothing that existed before time - This is saying that what is nothing now, was not the nothing before the universe began

The second can be automatically removed from this argument. It is scientifically impossible to prove, and is counter intuitive. If you say the nothing that we now know, is not the nothing that existed before the creation of the universe then we are assuming that all the laws of science came into fruition when the big bag occurred. The law of general relativity, law of thermodynamics, etc. So if we define nothing this way, it is quite possible to assume that there is a possibility that the universe could arise from nothing because there are variables at play that we do not know about. This is the most logical assumption and is far easier to arrive at than adding a God into the mix. Even if my adversary where to argue that this is the same line of logic that someone could support a God with, I could classify it as a logical assumption using the same line of logic that he uses to support that God. Since he bears the BOP, it would be on him to show that his theory is more sound that mine.

Now lets look at the nothing that we know about now. If he were to state that the nothing then is the same type of nothing as we know now, then all we would have to do is show that something can come from nothing at this present point in time. Is this entirely or logically possible? Doctor Lawrence Krauss has written and entire book on this, and is quite precise with showing that something can actually come from nothing.

Quantum Physics -Quantum physics is the study of the behavior of matter and energy at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels

This entire essential argument would entail that quantum fluctuations can produce energy and matter. So on extremely small scales nothing is a bubbling, boiling, brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in a time scale so short you can't see them. Check the youtube video here >>>>( http://www.youtube.com...)this demonstrates this as a projection. This depiction won the Nobel Prize, and shows that in the empty space in between the quarks of an atom, particles are spawning in and out of existence. In addition to this the large hadron collider is trying to mimic the conditions in which the universe came into existence, and is working on a way to measure dark matter. Some people even worry what would happen if it actually manages to produce the same conditions in which the universe actually spawned.


So there is 2 logical conclusions we can draw from this

(A) The nothing as now know it as shown it can produce something, as I have shown through the video i posted and stating that quantum fluctuations cause this to happen.

(B) The nothing before the big bang is a different type of nothing. With us now knowing that the nothing we know now can produce something, is it such a far step to assume the nothing then could produce something as well. This is still a far more viable argument than a God of the gaps argument.

http://www.lhc.ac.uk...





Contention 2


The type of universe in which we live



We can live in a open,flat, or closed universe, this is depicted below.








An closed universe would have positive curvature, a flat would have 0 and a open would have negative. This is all in euclidean terms. If we look at it further from this perspective, knowing what type of universe we live in would tell us the ending. If we lived in a closed, the universe would in the end re-collapse upon itself. Both an open and flat are infinite in spacial extent, the only difference is that in a flat universe the rate of expansion would slow down at some point. To sum this argument up in a nutshell we have to live in a flat universe because it is the only mathematically perfect one and it operates with the value of 0. Meaning if you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero net matter/energy. Since this is the case, we are operating under the same laws of physics which allow quantum fluctuations to happen and which could allow a universe to come from nothing.

http://old.richarddawkins.net...



Contention 3


Occam's Razor


This basically states

""If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

Look at it like this, Occam's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation, so if the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary. We can also say that creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way, but creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Occam's Razor, should be eliminated.



Rebuttal 1

The Cosmological Argument

See Contention 1



Rebuttal 2

A fine tuned universe


This basically says that life and the universe is fine tuned, and if anything changed by (x) value we would not exist. So the most logical assumption is God. This seems to be the line of thought with this statement he has presented.

This line of logic bears a few major flaws. One of which is that the argument depends on regarding humans as “special”, as though a universe without humans would be improper in some way. Thus the argument is simply illogical in some ways and takes as an axiom (that is what we consider to be that humans are "special") and uses that for what it aims to prove. Just because we think we are special, does not mean we are special to the universe.

A recent study says this

"Entities that are peculiar to and characteristic of their environment are exactly what you would expect from non-intelligent, natural processes. Intelligent design could produce either outcome: inhabitants that are well-fitted to their environment or inhabitants that are not (as in zoos). Non-intelligent processes could only produce the former. Thus, the fact that the universe appears to be “fine tuned” to produce its inhabitants is a direct prediction of atheism, but not of theism. Thus the fine-tuning argument actually argues for an atheistic universe."

Who says the universe is tuned for life? As far as we know, intelligent life only occurs in one to the billions of the universes around us. It’s not the case that the universe is teeming with life, is it? If someone intelligent were going to design a universe to host life, they could do a way better job than by inventing our universe.

The fact is we are just one species in millions and millions that evolved to the point where we could actually wonder why. At some point our galaxy will collide with another and we will be extinct just like most of the other species within the universe. This universe is not fined tuned for us, we are here by sheer probability and chance as evolution shows us.

He wants to exam the cause, and the cause is quite simple. mathematical probability is the only reason we exist, and the main reason that we have to believe we exist.


Rebuttal 3

The moral argument


This is an argument that William Lane Craig has decided to run with.

It goes like this

God is the only basis for which we can measure objectivity with morality.

I will respond to this deeper in later rounds, but I am facing a character limit so must pick and chose main points for now.

We can have objectivity without God. Anything that can promote happiness without directly effecting another human negatively can be used as an objective gauge. As well as anything that can progress us as a person or species as offer advancements. To say there is no gauge other than God is just wrong. It just depends if you look at it using ontology or epistemology.

The main argument for this is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. This was coined by Socrates and asks this

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God"


The problem this question raises for the Christian is a double edge sword. If something is good just because God says so, what happens if he condones rape. If not if God is simply reporting what goodness is, then he is no longer the standard for goodness and seems to be at the mercy of some outside standard


In Closing

I have addressed all of his contentions and show viable reasons for God other than what was presented. The resoultion was not met. I believe the most logical assumption to arrive at is that a God does not exist
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
tala00131

Pro

My opponent has the cosmological argument wrong. The cosmological argument doesn't say that everything that exists has a cause. It says: whatever begins to exist, has a cause. There is no model of the big bang that confirms an infatuate past. The fact that the universe is expanding, and is running out of usable energy proves the universe had a beginning. The cause behind the universe must have been outside of time and space, as it brought time and space into existence. God best fits this definition. My opponent stated that there are many universes. He gives no evidence for this.
Mikal

Con

It all depends on the version of the KCA or cosmological argument that you are looking at.

Whatever premise we take the Universe as, the case still remains the same. It began to exist, therefore it must have a cause. I have gave logical reasons as to why it does not need a cause, using quantum physics and the model that won the noble prize.

I also never mentioned whether space itself was infinite or finite because this is irrelevant for the point that I was making. All I had to do was show that the universe, could exist without a God. I have succeeded in doing so and have multiple sources to back up my statements.

My adversary also does not address any other rebuttals or contentions that I have offered, so I will simply say extend all arguments

In Closing

The resolutions has not been met, and he has provided nothing to counter my rebuttals or even evidence to support his initial contentions. Therefore the most logical conclusion is to assume that the universe can exist without a God.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MaMaGG 3 years ago
MaMaGG
Everything around us proves that God is real!!!!! How did the world appear? Because God created it!!!
How did humans appear? Because God created them!
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Fair enough and thank you for the apology
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Fair enough and thank you for the apology
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
My apologies, Mikal.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
I'm trying to document the plagiarism here, and failing. I'm stumped.

I withdraw my vote. I undertake to make better records in the future.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
A CVB is now just a VB to be deleted by Airmax. Far better to just click report, and then cast a real vote.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Policy on plagiarism is being discussed by the moderation team. An official standard policy may be achieved.

It has been suggested that I provide a more robust RFD, so I will do that.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
Wiploc we definitely still counter votebomb. I see it used a lot, and getting rid of someones ability to vote on a debate because they were reported is stupid. You are essentially getting rid of the other sides voters, because most would only give arguments or something.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
We don't counter votebomb any more. Just click the Report This Vote button. The administration will take care of the issue. Please correct your votes, and report mine if you think it is wrong.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
This debate really seemed as if he watched a William Lane Craig debate without knowing how to properly defend any of the contentions that he offered lol.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
tala00131MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con used sources, empirically testable data, and logic to show that a God cannot exist. We got a few arguments, from pro, but a severely weak rebuttal that dropped pretty much ever single rebuttal con threw at him. Arguments and sources unequivocally to con.
Vote Placed by thg 3 years ago
thg
tala00131MikalTied
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: I believe PRO failed to really support his arguments with sources or further arguments. I agree with his premise. I just don't believe he supported it well. CON, on the other hand, was very articulate. I don't buy that Hawking and others' quantum arguments "prove" that the universe could have come from "nothing", as their argument begs the question or relies on a semantics glitch re: the meaning of "nothing". If there ARE quanta that just kind of pop into and out of our purview, that doesn't mean they don't "exist" when they are out of our purview, and that doesn't mean there isn't some process that they are a part of...and that there isn't a MIND back of that process. Anyway, I wish PRO had been more diligent. This might have been a much better debate.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
tala00131MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a very abrupt argument by the end. Pro did not use any reliable sources. Con did.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
tala00131MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: removed counter vb
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
tala00131MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
tala00131MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments con. Much more convincing case, with a lot more proof to back up his claim. Also many more sources, so I give him sources as well. Hopefully wiploc will have to give justification for his vote, which is baseless at this point.