The Instigator
Sunfire315
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
n7
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Does The Christian God 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 1 vote the winner is...
n7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 559 times Debate No: 84604
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Sunfire315

Pro

I will be arguing for the Pro, God exists. Either side does not need to prove it absolutely, merely make it more plausibly true than false.

No devils advocates
No kritiks
No ad hominem

I will be presenting:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Fine Tuning Argument
The Moral Argument
n7

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Sunfire315

Pro

Sunfire315 forfeited this round.
n7

Con

Pro forfeited :(


I will present one simple argument for the nonexistence of the Christian God.


Argument from Irrationality


Premise 1: If the Christian God exists, then he is perfectly rational.

Premise 2: The Christian God has acted irrationally.

C: The Christian God doesn't exist.


I highly doubt a Christian would want to object to P1. The bible claims God is perfect [1][2], it follows that he is rational, as rationality is needed to act in the best way possible. I am assuming P2 will be the debated premise.


I will define rationality as based on some justified reason. For example, if God were to state “Cut off your pinky finger, because sheeps are white.” it would be considered irrational, sheeps being white have no link to mutilation. So too would it be irrational to do something on an arbitrary basis. Commanding that shoes be black instead of brown for example.


I contend that some actions the God of Christianity has done are irrational. In Genesis, it describes that it took God 6 days to create the everything [3]. Why? What reason is there for stretching it over 6 days? God is all powerful, he could create everything in a second as easy as it is for you to read this. God isn’t bound by anything, therefore there can be no justification for limiting himself to 6 days. It is completely arbitrary. If I can create the same building in 1 minutes or 40 hours, I’d be an irrational fool to choose to create it in 40 hours.


Furthermore, where is the logic in letting Satan live? He could right now just click his fingers and eliminate the most evil thing in existence. Christians think of Satan as a constant thorn in God’s side. He has caused an immense amount of damage and suffering, so why does God not fix the problem instead of playing some sort of heroic good v evil game with him?


Lastly, the laws of the old testament seem to be immensely irrational. Leviticus 20:18 states that you will be shunned for having sex with a woman while she is menstruating. Leviticus 15:19-30 also states that menstruating women in general should be cut off for the duration and everything she touches or sits on should be considered unclean. Where is the logic here? Sex while menstruating is safe [4] and why should menstrual blood be treated unclean rather than all blood in general? What’s so special about an evening that it will make you clean if you touch a menstruating women (Lev 15:19). Cutting the sides of your head and clipping the edges of your beard are also prohibited [5] as is wearing mixed clothing [6].


There doesn’t seem to be any logic or reasoning behind these laws. None of those things in and of themselves are bad, it looks to be arbitrary. A perfectly rational God would ascribe laws according to reason, not on some arbitrary basis.


It should be noted that claiming that these laws don’t apply now is a red herring. The fact of the matter is, God is rational and always has been. The fact that they did apply is all that matters.


Since the God of the bible has done things without reason, this creates a contradiction with his rational nature. We come to the conclusion that the God of Christianity doesn’t exist.


[1] Psalm 18:30

[2] Deuteronomy 32:4

[3] Genesis 1

[4] http://news.health.com...

[5] Leviticus 19:27

[6] Leviticus 19:19

Debate Round No. 2
Sunfire315

Pro

Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of Premise 1:Something cannot pop into being out of nothing utterly and entirely uncaused. To say that it can is worse than magically pulling a bunny out a hat, because at least then you have the magician, not to mention the hat. It is constantly confirmed by our daily experience, and never disconfirmed.

Defense of Premise 2: The beginning of the universe is entailed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which maintains that the amount of usable energy in a system will gradually decrease over time as the system approaches thermal equilibrium. if the universe has existed forever, it would have already ran out of usable energy by now.

Conclusion: Since things are incapable of causing themselves, we must look beyond the natural world of space and time for a cause. The cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, as well as incredibly powerful, and plausibly personal, for the only things which can conceivably exist spacelessly are abstract objects like numbers, or else a personal mind. Even if A timeless, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful, personal being is very similar to the Christian God.

OPPONENTS OBJECTIONS: Your argument is flawed because it fails to account for the limits of the human perspective. As humans we cannot see the future, only the immediate present. A massive causal chain can be started by a seemingly insignificant and "arbitrary" action, and this chain might only come to fruition countless years in the future, or on the other side of the planet. So we are not in a position to judge if God's actions are arbitrary or "irrational". The concept of waste is only applicable to somebody with finite resources which he needs to martial. God has an infinite amount of time, He doesn't exactly have a schedule. As for the seeming absurdity of the Old Testament ceremonial Law which dictates that you cannot wear mixed clothing, much of it was symbolic, and not of moral significance. The objecy
n7

Con

Thanks Pro.


Kalam Cosmological Argument


Pro presents a nice and concise version of the Kalam cosmological argument.


Premise 1


I’m not necessarily going to object to this premise, but I do object to using it in an argument for God. Pro states that “Something cannot pop into being out of nothing utterly and entirely uncaused”. This is likely true, as nothing contains no properties. Yet nothing doesn’t have causal power, it is restricted, which can be thought of as a property. This makes ‘nothing’ incoherent and impossible. Necessarily, something cannot come from nothing.


However, where did the material to create the universe come from? Where did God get it from? God had to materialize it into being from nonexistence. He had to make something from nothing. Which both Pro and I agree is impossible. Therefore, so too it is impossible for God to have been the cause of the universe. If Pro wants to uphold the resolution, he must throw out this premise and consequently the KCA.


Premise 2


Pro only argues against the universe existing infinitely in time. The problem is being temporally infinite is only a sufficient condition for a universe without beginning. This is to say that there are other ways for a universe to exist without a beginning and be finite in time. Under Eternalism, time is finite, yet every state of time exists infinitely.


“On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." [1]


There are many reasons from science to accept this theory of time. For example, the special of theory of relativity which has been confirmed time and time again [2] entails an Eternalist view of time [3].


Second Law


Pro uses the second law of thermodynamics to argue for premise 2. I find this defense to be a misunderstanding of the second law. One, the law only applies to a closed system [4], which we don’t know if the universe is or not. It could be an open system within a multiverse. Second, the second law is a statistical law. On average, entropy will increase, but not absolutely.


“Despite the importance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is not absolute. Statistical mechanics implies that, given sufficient time, systems near equilibrium will spontaneously fluctuate into lower-entropy states, locally reversing the thermodynamic arrow of time.” [5]


If we are to assume the universe is temporally infinite, then we have all the sufficient time in the world. We’d expect fluctuations to lower entropy states.


Lastly, the argument assumes there is some minimum value of entropy. If there is no minimum value of entropy, then the universe could be increasing in entropy as much as it wants without ever reaching a maximum point.


"The only person who seems to have taken seriously the simple mathematical truth that the ever-increasing nature of the entropy did not imply that it had to have been zero a finite time ago was the Catholic physicist and historian of sciencePierre Duhem (1861-1916). He refused to use it as an argument for the creation of the universe out of nothing in the finite past or the achievement of a total heat death in the future because the continuous increase of the entropy of the universe did not mean it had ever experienced a minimum value, or would ever reach a maximum value in the future. [6].


Premise 1 is contradictory to Pro’s conclusion and the second premise is completely unjustified and likely outright false.


Argument from Irrationality


Pro states my argument is flawed because God could be using these seemingly irrational actions to form a causal chain. Yet, this only pushes the question up. Pro hasn’t defended the rationality of using causal chains. God is all powerful, so why does he need to use causal chains? This argument is also subtly appealing to hiddenness. “There could be a reason why God has done these actions, but we just don’t know them.” This is flawed for many reasons. One, it looks to be ad hoc, Pro has to add a reason why these things happen which bloats his ontology making my position more likely. Second, you can defend literally every position by appealing to this principle. Why does the Earth appear to be round if it’s flat? There is a reason, we just don’t know it.


Ironically, you can refute the use of hiddenness principles by using the hiddenness principle. Maybe there is a powerful refutation to appeals to hiddenness. Think of the totality of knowledge, how much knowledge is out there that we don’t know. New systems of logic and mathematics, ect. So, we are not in a position to claim hiddenness principles are justified. It is self-refuting.


He claims that the Old Testament laws are symbolic. He asserts this without justification. Nor does he argue for the rationality of using symbolic texts. The texts certainly seem to be prescriptive, why would a rational God make something seem one way when in reality it is the opposite?


Sources


[1] Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology pp 183-184

[2] http://spacetimecentre.org...

[3] http://www.pitt.edu...

[4] http://www.panspermia.org...

[5] http://arxiv.org...

[6] Barrow, John D. The Book of Universes. London: Bodley Head, 2011. pp. 39-40

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Seagull 8 months ago
Seagull
I have not seen the arguement from irrationality before, fascinating.
Posted by Sunfire315 10 months ago
Sunfire315
lol, I did not realize I posted it in time!
Posted by Sunfire315 10 months ago
Sunfire315
"Extend" is a courtesy usually offered when somebody forfeits a round. It doesn't mean they forfeited the debate.
Posted by n7 10 months ago
n7
Extend? What do you mean? I've only seen that term used to extend their arguments when someone forfeits mid-debate.
Posted by Sunfire315 10 months ago
Sunfire315
Please extend, I finished like 15 minutes before it ended, but I had to shower.come back, its ober.
Posted by Sunfire315 11 months ago
Sunfire315
Definitions:
Universe: entirety of the natural world, all of space, time, matter and energy.
Posted by Sunfire315 11 months ago
Sunfire315
Note: While I did say that I would be using those three arguments, I may not use them all, or I may use more, time permitting or barring.
Posted by Sunfire315 11 months ago
Sunfire315
Both of us have the burden of proof.
Posted by RookieApologist 11 months ago
RookieApologist
Seems that since the topic is in the form of a question, you would both share the burden of proof. I'm mainly typing this so I will get notifications :-)
Posted by n7 11 months ago
n7
Is the burden of proof on you or both of us?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Death23 10 months ago
Death23
Sunfire315n7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff