The Instigator
Hvaniratha
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Inquisitive
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does Ohrmazd exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,190 times Debate No: 29872
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Hvaniratha

Pro

" In the name of the creator Ohrmazd. "
Bundahishn

Hello all, I wish to start a debate on this website, on the existence of Ohrmazd, God.

─────────────────────

One. Who is Ohrmazd?
─────────────────────

In Zoroastrian theology, Ohrmazd is the Creator of all Things that are not himself.

Ohrmazd is similar to the god of the Christians, and the Jews, and the Muslims in the East.

─────────────────────
Two. What Evidence is There for Ohrmazd's Existence?
─────────────────────


This is a very important question to all followers of Zoroaster. Many theologians of all the great religions, such as Christianity, and Jew, and Islam in the East, have used evidence for a creator.

A. Cosmogony
─────────────────────

" Ohrmazd produced illumination between the sky and the earth, the constellation stars and those also not of the constellations, then the moon, and afterwards the sun [...] "
Bundahishn


One must ask himelf: why is there anything at all? It doesn't make any sense to say, as an anti-theist would say, " The Universe has no reason. " So, in this debate, I will present a cosmogonic argument for Ohrmazd's existence.

B. Morals
─────────────────────


" And by their devotion to witchcraft Ahriman seduces mankind into affection for himself and disaffection to Ohrmazd, so that they forsake the religion of Ohrmazd, and practice that of Ahriman. "
Bundahishn

One must ask himself: why should we do what is right? We know that there are right and wrong things to do. An anti-theist would say, " But it is not absolute. " So, in this debate, I will present a moral argument for Ohrmazd's existence.

─────────────────────
Three. Miscellaneous Items.
─────────────────────

Hello all, I would like for the " Con " of this debate to wait until after I present an argument to attack my arguments.

Thank you

Inquisitive

Con

Extreme anti-theist here. I think that believing in something by assumption alone is not the manner in which one should seek the answer to feed their curiosity.

Thanks and I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Hvaniratha

Pro

" In the name of the creator Ohrmazd. "
Bundahishn

Thank you to " Inquisitive " for beginning the debate.

─────────────────────

One. Cosmogony
─────────────────────

This argument for Ohrmazd is very simple. It's similar to the kalam argument presented by the Christian arguer William Craig. We can defend " the Universe, at some finite time in the past, began to exist " using modern science ─ the " Big Bang, " a modern astronomical concept, has profound evidence in favor of its truth, such as the expansion of the Universe, the existence of background radiation, and the widespread existence of the lightest elements (Cornish). The " Big Bang " thus represents the beginning of the " celestial sphere " (a term used by the Bundahishn) billions of years ago. It is ridiculous to deny " if anything begins to exist, then it has a cause of its existence ". The Western thinker David Hume, argued that since we can imagine it, it must be possible. But this is fallacious, because our imagination doesn't determine reality. I can imagine any number of things that are impossible. This premise seems true both from our experience and from our intuition from how the world works! If " the Universe at some finite time in the past began to exist " is true, and " if anything begins to exist, then it has a cause of its existence " is true, then we must agree that the Universe has a cause. We also are right in thinking this is God, or Ohrmazd, for only a willful being could create a Universe with a finite past.

─────────────────────

Two. Morals
─────────────────────


We all know that morals exist. We know that the Nazi's who created the Holocaust that killed the Jews were wrong, and we know that the Christian's who begin charities and feed people do morally good things. So we have established that morality does exist. If an Aztec person thinks that feeding the hungry is morally wrong, would that change your mind on the moral goodness of feeding the hungry? Any reasonable person would not accept all culture's morality over their own. So we know that morality is independent of whatever place you live in morality exists in the heart, and is there when our conscience tells us something is right or wrong. As Adarbad Mahraspandan said in his Counsels, " think upon virtue and do not turn your thoughts to sin. " Our very intuition and conscience, with all individuals, would agree that morals exist. But how do morals exist? If we are the result of a mindless universe, then there is no axiomatic moral value that could come out of it in the way we see. It makes sense to ascribe moral values to God, or Ohrmazd, who declares to us to live our lives in a good way. So Ohrmazd is the best explanation for morals.

─────────────────────
Three. What Does this Mean for Ohrmazd?
─────────────────────


Well, we know that Ohrmazd exists because of the Universe and because of morals. So even if one of the two arguments is false, the other would still lead to the conclusion that Ohrmazd exists. I will defend both of these in my coming rounds, but please be cognisant that if either is true and valid, then it is sound and Ohrmazd exists. Else, Ohrmazd does not exist and my opponent will win the debate.

─────────────────────
Four. Bibliography
─────────────────────

Cornish, Neil J., and Jeffrey R. Weeks. Measuring the Shape of the Universe. " Big Bang Cosmology. " 1998. page 1
Inquisitive

Con

I shall now tear my opponent's argument apart. I shall address all points, quote by quote and rationally conclude them to either be false, irrelevant or in favour of pro.

"This argument for Ohrmazd is very simple." Irrelevant.

" It is ridiculous to deny " if anything begins to exist, then it has a cause of its existence "." This is completely false. A cause is a rationally interpretable reason behind something occurring. It is thus equally irrational to think that God existed without a cause, and hence creator, just as much as it is to think the universe did. This argument fails by the very fact that Ohrmazd, God, is an entity of existence without a cause or creator at all. It just is and eternally has been and will be, why then is it any more irrational to conclude that the universe (or multiverse) in which we exist is of the same nature of origin?

"The Western thinker David Hume, argued that since we can imagine it, it must be possible. But this is fallacious, because our imagination doesn't determine reality." How do you know that you aren't imagining everything that is real right now? How do you know you are not dreaming? How do you know you are not in the Matrix (an alternate false reality)? You don't. There is nothing one can label 'real' that one cannot label 'imaginable by the individual that thinks it to be real. After all, You imagine god to be real without a single piece of evidence whatsoever other than scripture revealing another's imagination finding a similar God under the same alias "Ohrmazd".

"I can imagine any number of things that are impossible." I am afraid that you can't. This is a false claim.

"This premise seems true both from our experience and from our intuition from how the world works!" Absolutely unwarranted and false.

"If " the Universe at some finite time in the past began to exist " is true, and " if anything begins to exist, then it has a cause of its existence " is true, then we must agree that the Universe has a cause. We also are right in thinking this is God, or Ohrmazd, for only a willful being could create a Universe with a finite past." However, by definition, Ohrmazd, God, is an entity that exists and yet has no creator or cause itself and has existed eternally and will exist eternally. Thus your own premise to disprove atheism disproves Ohrmazd in and of itself.

"We all know that morals exist." Unwarranted and irrelevant.

"We know that the Nazi's who created the Holocaust that killed the Jews were wrong." No we don't.

"we know that the Christian's who begin charities and feed people do morally good things." Many have been caught committing pedophilic rape (http://rense.com...) So I really think this claim is false.

"So we have established that morality does exist." Firstly we haven't, secondly this doesn't warrant Ohrmazd's existence in any way whatsoever.

"If an Aztec person thinks that feeding the hungry is morally wrong, would that change your mind on the moral goodness of feeding the hungry?" If the Aztec scriptures were the source of my morality then yes it actually would.

"Any reasonable person would not accept all culture's morality over their own." This is exactly the mentality of the Nazis, Al Qaeda, Taliban and The Americans who dropped the bomb of Hiroshima on Japan. I do not consider these people reasonable and hence claim this false.

"So we know that morality is independent of whatever place you live in" Irrelevant and unwarranted as many devout patriots and jingoists see the law of their lands to be code of morality by which to go by.

"morality exists in the heart" No, it exists as a non-physical idea independent of the heart, originating in mind and reasoning.

"morality exists in the heart, and is there when our conscience tells us something is right or wrong." Irrelevant.

" think upon virtue and do not turn your thoughts to sin." One cannot control their thoughts, this would mean a free will controlling the free will.

"Our very intuition and conscience, with all individuals, would agree that morals exist." I do not think that Stalin would agree with you.

"But how do morals exist?" They don't.

"If we are the result of a mindless universe, then there is no axiomatic moral value that could come out of it in the way we see." Yes and axiomatic morals do not exist.

"It makes sense to ascribe moral values to God, or Ohrmazd, who declares to us to live our lives in a good way." If morality is inherently present in ourselves it makes no sense at all to ascribe them to Ohrmazd.

"So Ohrmazd is the best explanation for morals." False and unwarranted.

"Well, we know that Ohrmazd exists because of the Universe and because of morals." We includes you and I at the very least. Since I do not know this, this statement is false.

"So even if one of the two arguments is false, the other would still lead to the conclusion that Ohrmazd exists." Unless both are false. This is the case.
Debate Round No. 2
Hvaniratha

Pro

Thanks to " Inquisitive " for his reply. I would ask " Inquisitive " that in his future replies to write in paragraphs, as it is easier to read and flows better for anyone who is interested in this topic! Thanks...

─────────────────────
One. Cosmogony
─────────────────────


" Inquisitive " begins his response by saying that it is false to say that everything which begins to exist has a cause, and says that the believer doesn't follow his own rule as he believes God is uncaused! However, Inquisitive is mistaken here ─ for not only do theists hold that everything which " begins to exist " has a cause ( Ohrmazd never began to exist ), but Ohrmazd's existence is explained in the necessity of his own nature. We know this because Ohrmazd has all " intrinsic maxima " of " great-making properties " as Christians argue. Ohrmazd thus has the maximal " necessity " which is greater than " contingency "! So, not only is Ohrmazd uncaused, but he needn't a cause through his necessity.

Inquisitive then misunderstands my point about imagination and possibility. I can imagine breathing in outer space, even if it is impossible for me to do so. So, just because I can imagine inhaling and exhaling in the cosmos, does not therefore mean that I can do it. Points about " the Matrix " and other " brain-in-a-vat " scenarios completely miss my point here. This was meant to argue against Hume's equivocation of imagination and possibility. Indeed, it is ridiculous to claim that things can appear out of nowhere, without a cause. Even appeals to the " Copenhagen model " of quantum mechanics grant that virtual particles first require a vacuum!

Most of " Inquisitive " responses afterwards are bare assertions, or repetitions of his earlier points, both of which miss my point completely. I would remind " inquisitive " that the first premise states that which " begins to exist " has a cause, due to contingency, and thus Ohrmazd is immune to this, even if he still requires an explanation, which is his necessity.

─────────────────────
Two. Morals
─────────────────────

" Inquisitive "s style of line-by-line debating is incompatible with my style, as he seems to mark off every one of my points as irrelevant, without first understanding the structure of assertion and then support for that assertion. For instance, he writes off " we all know morals exist " as unwarranted ( and irrelevant ─ which is a bizarre claim indeed, as that line is absolutely central to the moral argument that he is attempting to attack... ) So in the future, " Inquisitive ," and readers, please stay cognisant of the structure of my debating style...

If " Inquisitive " denies that the Nazi's who created the Holocaust were wrong, then he is in the vast minority, as almost every conscience would have a deep aversion to acts of genocide similar to the Holocaust. Under my opponent's view, we have no reason for law, or justice, or any other system, as he does not even recognise the moral wrongness of large-scale murder. It is reasonable to declare that the Nazi's were morally wrong, and I think most of the readers here will agree.

" Inquisitive " then tries to attack the Christian's who feed the hungry with a statement about pedophilic rape. Not only does this misunderstand my broad claim about feeding the hungry being generally a morally good act, but he provides an example of an act ( pedophilic rape ) which he believes to contradict this claim, and thus view as morally wrong. So, " Inquisitive " not only misunderstood, yet again, the point of this claim ( to provide an example of a morally good act ) by responding with a specific counter-example in the vast minority of charity work, but he himself provides an example of a morally wrong act.

Afterwards, " Inquisitive " attempts to attack my line attacking cultural relativism by declaring that if Aztec scriptures were the source of morality, then I would be wrong, and I wholeheartedly agree with his point. However, we have no reason to believe that the Aztecs were morally right in their sacrificial acts, nor do we have reason to believe that Aztec sciprtures are a source of morality. Rather, the source of morality that " Inquisitive " himself abides by is our conscience, which is the universal mental phenomenon I am referring to.

" Inquisitive " then, yet again, provides examples of those who he believes to have committed morally wrong acts -- Nazi's, Al-Qeda, and the Truman administration... If they are morally wrong, then my opponent contradicts one of his very first statements, that the " we don't " know the Nazi's to be morally wrong in their creation of the Holocaust!

" Inquisitive " then attacks my line of " morality exists in the heart " and responds with morality existing in the " mind and reasoning " to which I agree. The " heart " here does not refer to the organ, but rather to our conscience, which determines the moral rightness or wrongness of any act. " Inquisitive " also agrees that morality exists as reasoned. As such, he has not made clear his stance on morals, but rather attempts to attack every one of my points, whether he agrees with them or not I would ask " Inquisitive " if, in his next round, he clarify his stance on the nature of morals. And then, " Inquisitive " declares that Stalin would not agree with my statement about intiution and morals, to which I would reply that Stalin is therefore wrong. I could just as easily say, " well, I do not think most moral philosophers would agree with you. " This is simply an appeal to authority and has no value in the discussion.

Lastly, since " Inquisitive " denies that Ohrmazd is the best explanation for morals, if they exist, then I'd ask " Inquisitive " to provide a superior, naturalistic explanation.

─────────────────────
Three. In Conclusion...
─────────────────────

In conclusion, my opponent misunderstood the arguments in cosmogony and morals, and provided a rather shallow response to each, especially contradicting himself in the morals case. I have shown that these two arguments are sound, and that " Inquisitive "'s objections are false.
Inquisitive

Con

I shall rebut paragraph by paragraph. This is the best way oblige pro's request to "write in paragraphs, as it is easier to read and flows better for anyone who is interested in this topic!"

I tailored/edited your text to fit 8000 character limit and to highlight what exactly I'm rebutting by cutting out 'fillers' in your text.

P1: Inquisitive is mistaken here ─ for not only do theists hold that everything which "begins to exist" has a cause (Ohrmazd never began to exist), but Ohrmazd's existence is explained in the necessity of his own nature. We know this because Ohrmazd has all "intrinsic maxima" of "great-making properties". So, not only is Ohrmazd uncaused, but he needn't a cause through his necessity.

R1: If Ohrmazd never began to exist Ohrmazd doesn't exist because to exist, according to the theory that all things that exist have a cause, Ohrmazd must have a cause and hence Ohrmazd itself requires a superior creating mechanism of some kind. If Ohrmazd's existence can be explained by the necessity of its own nature, so can the universe itself be justified as existing absent of a creator as the universe is blatantly necessary since it is the hosting site for everything we know to be real and true. There is no proof or evidence given to back up the unwarranted claim of a being with "intrinsic maxima" of "great making properties" so we can render that statement false or at least irrelevant.

P2: I can imagine breathing in outer space, even if it is impossible for me to do so. So, just because I can imagine inhaling and exhaling in the cosmos, does not therefore mean that I can do it. Indeed, it is ridiculous to claim that things can appear out of nowhere, without a cause.

R2: It is not impossible to breathe in space, it is only impossible to breath in oxygen in a space where there isn't any. One cannot imagine this because you cannot imagine anything that is impossible. Coming up with an idea isn't the same as visually imagining a false scenario in which there is no oxygen and suddenly one begins breathing in from zero. This would result in negative mass or energy which would merely be arbitrary as it's relative to nothing and hence become positive. The imaginary cosmos you created are ones in which breathing is clearly possible otherwise your imagination would have banned you from imagining breathing in it.

On another note, you say this "Indeed it is ridiculous to claim that things can appear out of nowhere" However this is exactly what Ohrmazd has done in your theory.

P3: Inquisitive seems to mark off every one of my points as irrelevant, without first understanding the structure of assertion and then support for that assertion. For instance, he writes off " we all know morals exist " as unwarranted and irrelevant.

R3: It is still unwarranted an irrelevant because even if we all knew morals existed, it wouldn't mean there was a God of any kind at all.

P4: If "Inquisitive" denies that the Nazi's[sic] who created the Holocaust were wrong, then he is in the vast minority, as almost every conscience would have a deep aversion to acts of genocide similar to the Holocaust. Under my opponent's view, we have no reason for law, or justice, or any other system, as he does not even recognise the moral wrongness of large-scale murder. It is reasonable to declare that the Nazi's were morally wrong, and I think most of the readers here will agree.

R4: The reason for law is to prevent disorder and chaos. Although I an anarchist I can empathise and relate with law enforcers. They seek to solve issues of conflict by making laws and enforcing them. If the government was to legalise murder and genocide, it would cause protest and riots and possibly economically-detrimental strikes that it would back the government into a corner to then re-ban genocide.

P5: Inquisitive then tries to attack the Christian's who feed the hungry with a statement about pedophilic rape. Not only does this misunderstand my broad claim about feeding the hungry being generally a morally good act, but he provides an example of an act ( pedophilic rape ) which he believes to contradict this claim, and thus view as morally wrong. So, "Inquisitive" not only misunderstood, yet again, the point of this claim ( to provide an example of a morally good act ) by responding with a specific counter-example in the vast minority of charity work, but he himself provides an example of a morally wrong act.

R5: I provide an example of an act that the law bans. If you choose to base morality on law, as many patriots and jingoists do, then it is immoral but undoubtedly it is illegal. This was my point. Also there is nothing intrinsically good or bad about making a charity to feed the hungry because you could feed many hungry children and then raise them to become ninjas who assassinate people for your selfish gain. You also could be feeding the hungry with the money that could have gone to fund cancer research and save the thousands of people who died that month from cancer instead. So really stop this nonsense morality angle of attack, it literally makes no sense.

P6: Inquisitive declares that if Aztec scriptures were the source of morality, then I would be wrong. However, we have no reason to believe that the Aztecs were morally right in their sacrificial acts, nor do we have reason to believe that Aztec scriptures are a source of morality. Rather, the source of morality that Inquisitive himself abides by is our conscience, which is the universal mental phenomenon I am referring to.

Pro has assumed I abide by a code of morality outlined by my conscience and that I am not a strict follower of Aztec philosophy. These assumptions are unwarranted and irrelevant to my opponent's case. God is not my conscience and there is not even any evidence for this anyway. So quite an irrelevant point to raise.

P7: Inquisitive provides examples of those who he believes to have committed morally wrong acts -- Nazi's, Al-Qeda[sic], and the Truman administration[I never mentioned this]... If they are morally wrong, then my opponent contradicts one of his very first statements, that the Nazi's were not morally wrong in their creation of the Holocaust!

R7: This is nothing to do with proving Ohrmazd's existence whatsoever.

P8: Inquisitive then attacks my line of "morality exists in the heart" with morality existing in the "mind and reasoning" to which I agree. The "heart" here does not refer to the organ, but rather to our conscience, which determines the moral rightness or wrongness of any act. Inquisitive also agrees that morality exists as reasoned. I would ask Inquisitive if he clarify his stance on the nature of morals. And then, Inquisitive declares that Stalin would not agree with my statement about intuition and morals, to which I would reply that Stalin is therefore wrong. I could just as easily say, I do not think most moral philosophers would agree with you. This is simply an appeal to authority and has no value in the discussion.

R8: Morals are irrelevant to the debate, as Stalin would tell you, because morals do not come from God but our own intellect and emotional urge to reason what is right and wrong. See R9 for more.

P9: Since Inquisitive denies that Ohrmazd is the best explanation for morals, if they exist, then I'd ask Inquisitive to provide a superior, naturalistic explanation.

R9: Humans with down's syndrome and mental retardation have no morality. This is the reason why we do not expect them to know not to kill someone but rather hope that they will be incapable of planning any crime at all. All animals are amoral other than human beings. Most humans want communal success and growth. Best way to achieve this is to help one another selflessly but in a society where everyone is selfless. As I said, ask Stalin, he'd tell you all about it. Morality is the con of mankind. It makes you act against everything you were built to do; to compete for survival in a world of natural selection. That is all.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hvaniratha 4 years ago
Hvaniratha
I'm sorry to hear that ... it was fun debating with you, anyway.
Posted by Inquisitive 4 years ago
Inquisitive
I'm quitting DDO.
Posted by Hvaniratha 4 years ago
Hvaniratha
Well, it has a set of premises that logically follow to its conclusion, even if you believe the premises are flawed or if there is some external error. I would be happy to discuss this with you in a message.
Posted by Inquisitive 4 years ago
Inquisitive
There is no argument. It fails in and of itself.
Posted by Hvaniratha 4 years ago
Hvaniratha
While I agree that it was morally wrong, and that envy is wrong, I apologise for misunderstanding your quote, I shortened it to " Truman administration " so my sentence would flow better. I would still like to discuss the cosmogonic argument with you in a message, if you are interested.
Posted by Inquisitive 4 years ago
Inquisitive
The administration did what it did out of idiocy and envy for japanese superiority.
Posted by Inquisitive 4 years ago
Inquisitive
I would have preferred them to be anarchist heroes than law abiding villains.
Posted by Inquisitive 4 years ago
Inquisitive
My attack was on the men who did it.

Not on the administration that ordered it.
Posted by Hvaniratha 4 years ago
Hvaniratha
Also, the Truman administration were the Americans who decided to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Posted by Hvaniratha 4 years ago
Hvaniratha
" Inquisitive ", I do not think you understand the cosmogonic argument, or the idea of " intrinsic maxima ", so if you would like to discuss it in a PM, we can.
No votes have been placed for this debate.