Does God exist
Debate Rounds (3)
The Cosmological Argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe had a cause. Let's examine the first premise. It defies logic to think that something can come into existence without a cause. Have you ever seen a horse come into existence out of nowhere? Have you ever seen a cheese burger come from nothing? No. Why is that? Because things don't come into existence un-caused. Let's examine the second premise: "the universe began to exist" Scientific evidence shows that the universe had an absolute beginning. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe has always existed, the universe would have run out of usable energy a long time ago. The universe is expanding, this shows that something had started the expansion. It is impossible for an expanding universe to be infinite. So, we have concluded that both premises are true, therefore, the last premise is true. Now, let's see what the cause of the universe must have been. Since the universe can't bring itself into existence, the cause must be beyond space and time. The cause must be: timeless, space-less, immaterial, and powerful. This sounds something like 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 as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 we wouldn't exist. If the atomic weak force was altered by 2% we wouldn't exist. The probability of this happening from chance is almost 0.
The moral argument: If God doesn't exist, objective morals do not exist. Objective morals do exist. By objective morals I mean morals that are true whether you like them or no. Weather we like it or not, lying is wrong. Since objective morals do exist, God exists.
The resurrection of Jesus: Jesus's tomb was discovered empty. Two theories have been put forth by unbelievers. One, that someone stole the body. The Jews had no motives to steal the body. Another theory is that the people went to the wrong tomb. The people who went to the tomb watched Jesus being lane down, so they knew where the tomb was.
Another fact is that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty by a group of women. Women had no rights back then, and were not being treated equal. If the author wanted to fake the resurrection of Jesus, he would have put that a man found Jesus empty.
Experience with God: God can be experienced personally. You can know God, aside from argument alone. Even if all of the arguments I present are proved wrong, you can know God just by experiencing him. Atheists obviously have never experienced God.
I just realized I have debated you on this before and I regret taking this now, seeing as how I always try to find new people to debate on this. Since I seem to be stuck with this either way at this point, I wish my adversary good luck. Remember my adversary has the BOP and must show that God does exist. It is my job to undermine him and show that he may not exist. Note this is the same argument I used in our first debate and I am just simply bringing it over because he failed to respond to any points I made.
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 began to exist 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. I will summarize and emphasize some of the main points regarding the KCA in contention 2.
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 down below ( 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.
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.
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.
The Cosmological Argument
See Contention 1 and 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 wrong in some way. Thus the argument is simply illogical in some ways and starts to postulate 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.
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.
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 within 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 and 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 or molestation. If not he is just simply reporting what goodness is, then he is no longer the standard for goodness and goodness is the submitting to an outside standard.
His resolution was not met.
My opponent has the cosmological argument wrong, it goes like this. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exists, therefore the universe had a cause. My opponent says that the nothing we see now is not different than we would see before the origin of the universe. This is false, according to the current model of the big bang, there was no time, or space before the big bang. According to this model, the universe came into being from a point which came from nothing.
My opponent states that quantum fluctuations can create energy, and because quantum events are uncaused, energy can come into existence without a cause. It is true that quantum fluctuations create energy, and are uncaused. However, the energy is not coming from nothing, because we don"t have nothing to work with. Before the origin of the universe there was literally no time or space. The laws of physics did not exist. Quantum fluctuations are not creating energy out of nothing, because there is something. They are coming out of empty space. But, before the origin of the universe, there was no space.
My opponent says that in because we live in a flat universe, we are living in the same type of universe which allows quantum fluctuations to happen, therefore, the universe could have come from nothing. But as I said before, the laws of physics didn't exist before the origin of the universe. Quantum fluctuations happen in empty space, however, before the origins of the universe, there was no space.
A fine tuned universe:
My opponent says that the fine tuning argument is based on the assumption that humans are special. This is not the case, when I said we wouldn't exist if something was changed by a value, I meant life wouldn"t exist. If the rate of expansion after the big bang was altered by as little as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 life wouldn"t exist. The probability of the universe being fine tuned to allow life to evolve is very small, therefore, it is more likely that there is a creator. My opponent says that life occurs in other universes as well. But, he gave no evidence that such a multi universe exists, there is no evidence that a multi universe exists.
The moral Argument:
My opponent says that the moral argument is flawed because God could condone anything. Whatever God says is good, is good. He is the creator, the moral giver. We are merely his creation, we follow his rules.
My opponent gave no response to my other arguments.
The reason I could not respond to the others was because of the 10,000 character limit. I will address everything in this round. Also I only used the first round for making my statements and building my own case, I will offer direct rebuttals in this round as well.
"This is false, according to the current model of the big bang, there was no time, or space before the big bang. According to this model, the universe came into being from a point which came from nothing."
"However, the energy is not coming from nothing, because we don"t have nothing to work with. Before the origin of the universe there was literally no time or space. The laws of physics did not exist."
I also addressed these two points but I will offer them again and add some new points. This would fall under a different type of nothing. Some people assume the laws of life and physics came into play at the time of the big bang, if this is the case the laws we now operate under would not work before hand.
He does admit this.
" It is true that quantum fluctuations create energy, and are uncaused"
This is where he is admitting something can come from nothing within the laws that we operate under now. He is asking how could something come from nothing, if the nothing then was a different type of nothing which is the second type that I addressed. If we know nothing can come from something now, then is it no more probable to assume something could possibly come from nothing then? This is not out of the realm of possibility. Seeing as how we both have no idea what laws were in place then, I think it is a far more likely assumption than adding a God to the argument.
My adversary also makes a huge error with saying the standard big bang model shows there was a time before the big bang. It does not do so, it simply shows what happened after the big bang. These are the high points of the model itself.
"First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning( The Big Bang)
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins."
This is referring specifically to the rate of expansion of the universe , and also cosmic background radiation which was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson( Which I may add was on accident ). The CBR is actually how we can measure the universe to tell what type of universe we live in. You can use the light from the CBR and measure parts of it, to determine the energy within the Universe. Which I said in my original post is 0.
Bear in mind my adversary must show that there is something prior to the big bang if he goes down this road as well. Dr Krauss also addresses this in a lecture he did. His description was far more detailed, but I will try to provide a brief summary while adding my assumptions to it. I am not going to use charts or graphs but just hit the basics of this.
Nothing we know or that my adversary has shown supports there was a time before the big bang. We believe the unvierse began to exist at the time of the big bang, and everything began to operate at that point as the model says and shows. Label the big bang (X). If we began to exist at (X) and (Y) is this present point in time it would look like this. (X) >>>>>>(Y). All the > are points in time in between the start of the universe and now.
My adversary is claiming this >>>>>(X)>>>>>(Y). For this to be true, he must show there are points in time before the big bang. That is on him to demonstrate this and meet his BOP. There is no evidence I have seen or nothing that I know that supports this in full.
"My opponent says that the fine tuning argument is based on the assumption that humans are special. This is not the case"
This is the case in a way. When we think life is designed for us to life, we are claiming we are special. We are one in billions of billions of galaxies that have life. There is nothing special about thinking that we exist. If God were going to make a fine tuned universe, He would have did a much better job. Almost 99 percent of species on this planet have died out and we will do the same.
I have already shown and explained why quantum fluctuations. can play into this. If something can come from nothing, it is just all about the probability of it happening. Its all mathematics, it is all probability and chance as to why we exist. These are the the essentials of how and why we exist.
This is almost a direct quote from Steven Hawking and William Lane Craig. My adversary states this
"if the rate of expansion after the big bang was altered by as little as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 we wouldn't exist"
Hawking says this and which is often quoted by William Lane Craig.
"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size."
He then later goes on to say this as well, which Craig and my adversary both seem to forget.
"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
"My opponent says that the moral argument is flawed because God could condone anything. Whatever God says is good, is good. He is the creator, the moral giver. We are merely his creation, we follow his rules."
This really is not an adequate rebuttal so it is hard to refute further. He says that what God says is good is good. So I ask my adversary again what happens if God where to say rape is good?
I would like for him to specifically address the Euthyphro Dilemma that I mentioned in my first round.
"The resurrection of Jesus: Jesus's tomb was discovered empty. Two theories have been put forth by unbelievers. One, that someone stole the body. The Jews had no motives to steal the body. Another theory is that the people went to the wrong tomb. The people who went to the tomb watched Jesus being lane down, so they knew where the tomb was."
Granted that if we decide to admit everything in that regard is true, there are 100's of people who had access or knew about that tomb and could hide the body in that time period. It would be quite logical to assume someone could have moved it, in order to falsify the claims that Jesus was a divine being. We are talking anywhere from grave robbers, guards, and the court that sent him to die all together. So many people had access to the tomb. As you already stated it could have been the wrong tomb itself. The tomb itself and most were called an ossuary at the time, and they found one with writing in it mentioning some of the events that happened in the bible. Such as a fish and a man being swallowed which represents Jonah and a image of a man being risen which is suppose to symbolized Christ walking. This could have been placed here by anyone whom found the tomb, and it is a long shot to assume that this is the actual tomb itself.
"Experience with God: God can be experienced personally. You can know God, aside from argument alone. Even if all of the arguments I present are proved wrong, you can know God just by experiencing him. Atheists obviously have never experienced God."
Experience is subjective and very vague. This is almost so hard to respond to because there are no facts within it. Someone could thank they had experience that involved God, when it is really a scientific phenomenon. Think about how adrenaline gives people super human strength some times and works off emotion. Some people have lifted cars to get people out from under them that they love. Then say something like God gave me super strength. We now know this is not true and can be reasonably explained. The same can be said about most of these "experiences". Belief is God is based off of faith, and once someone says they believe by faith the debate is over. We debate with facts not faith.
My adversary has still failed to meet his BOP and show that a God does exist. I have gave reasons and logic to show why the universe can exist without a God, and why a God probably does not exist.
My opponent states that there is life elsewhere in the cosmos. I wounder how he knows this. Did astro biologists finally find life on other planets? He also states that 99% of all species to exist went extinct. This is true, but it is easily explained with the bible. According to genesis, death came about as a result of sin. Although I believe Adam and Eve was a symbolic story, I believe the purpose behind it was to show that man rebelled against God. He again sates that there are many universes. There is no evidence for this.
My opponent asks if God were to condone rape would it make it good. Well, sorry, but the answer is yes. God doesn't say rape is good, but if he did it would be good.
My opponent says that there were many people who had motives to steal the body of Jesus. This isn't true. Jews don't believe in a savior. So, why would they steal the body to prove something the don't believe in?
"Nothing in the English language means no existence. If I said I had nothing for lunch, it doesn't mean I had something for lunch. Krauss is changing the meaning of nothing to mean something. In Krauss' book, he states nothing is empty space with low levels of energy"
That type of nothing is a type of nothing, it is why we call it nothing. Other wise it would be something. You keep failing to respond to the fact that it is more logical to assume nothing can come from nothing, which even Steven Hawking believed and which you did not respond to.
My adversary also fails to respond to the fact how he knows there was a time before the big bang.
"My opponent states that there is life elsewhere in the cosmos. I wounder how he knows this. Did astro biologists finally find life on other planets?"
I can arrive that that assumption the same way you can arrive at the fact that is a Christ, except this is a more logical assumption. Life itself could mean plant life or just where something is living. Remove the fact that we are 1 in billions of galaxies, we are one in a billion species. We still are not special no matter how you look at it. We are just the one that evolved far enough to question it.
"My opponent asks if God were to condone rape would it make it good. Well, sorry, but the answer is yes. God doesn't say rape is good, but if he did it would be good."
This speaks for itself. If God could command anything, then he could easily not be morally ethical. Since this is the case we can easily justify subjective morality. Since you are basing the fact morality comes from something and can be altered. In that case there would be no need for a God.
"My opponent says that there were many people who had motives to steal the body of Jesus. This isn't true. Jews don't believe in a savior. So, why would they steal the body to prove something the don't believe in?"
Think about the disciples or thousands of people in the bible whom believed in him. If we are assuming he was put in a tomb and the bible is true, he had followers. So it is quite logical to assume someone would be willing to falsify it.
My adversary has almost derailed, straw-maned, or just flat not mentioned most of the points I made. I said this the first time I debated him, it seems as if he listened to a William Lane Craig lecture and did not fully grasp the context of the material that was being taught. He hit the key points in the arguments, but provided no solid foundation for belief.
I provided multiple and logical reasons as why we don't need a God, and my adversary has failed to meet his BOP
In the end he did not support the resolution that he claimed.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by spankme 3 years ago
|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:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: The sources and detailed explanations put forth by Con are extensive - Con could almost write a book on the subject, and obviously has put a great deal of thought into this matter. Pro's position was well-thought-out also, but in the end Pro's arguments depended on faith more than logic or scientific proof. For one, Con's theory that Jesus' body could have been stolen from the tomb instead of him having risen from the dead was persuasive. I was also impressed by the slam-dunk response against God existing because there is good and evil: "If God could command anything, then he could easily not be morally ethical. Since this is the case we can easily justify subjective morality. Since you are basing the fact morality comes from something and can be altered. In that case there would be no need for a God." Both Con and Pro had minor spelling errors, and although it was clear they have debated each other in the past on the same topic, neither were overly-irritated or hostile.
Vote Placed by eastcoastsamuel 3 years ago
|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:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: The instigator failed to meet his burden of proof. The lack of sources or hard scientific evidence to prove any of his claims only hurt his case. The contender, meanwhile, provided sources and offered scientific, hard rebuttals to his claims. The contender wins this debate on the grounds of convincing arguments and sources.
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.