The Instigator
ArgumentativeMan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
usernamesareannoying
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Does a Deity Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
usernamesareannoying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,058 times Debate No: 73691
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)

 

ArgumentativeMan

Pro

I'm not sure on my beliefs yet, but I'll say I'm pro-deity for the sake of the debate. Any wanderers willing to debate, feel free to leave a comment and we can have a duel of the minds! (Wow, that was a bit too dramatic...)

This deity would be omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, receive worship, be the creator of our Universe, and be intangible.
usernamesareannoying

Con

Thanks for instigating this topic Pro. I would like to clarify that the burden of proof is shared. I will refrain from arguing this round, and I will leave it for acceptance. Please begin with your opening argument and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
ArgumentativeMan

Pro

I'd like to open my argument by saying that there is no tangible scientific proof of any type of a deity's existence, and there most likely never will be. Most religions based around gods fundamentally boil down to having faith in something that you will never know for sure exists until, supposedly, after your death. While the concept of faith is commonplace in religion, faith may not be required to prove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent deity.

The beginning of our Universe was the Big Bang, a sudden and rapid that seemingly occurred for no reason. This expansion generated all of the matter and energy present in our Universe today. While scientific evidence certainly suggests that this is how our Universe and everything in it formed, it seems as if the well-known religious text, the Bible, mentions it first.

Genesis is the first book in the Bible, and it is the beginning of Genesis that details how God, an omnipotent and omniscient being, created everything in existence. The first sentence of Genesis 1:3 reads "And God said 'Let there be light,' and there was light." This explanation for the creation of everything is eerily reminiscent of the Big Bang. In both the Big Bang and the instance in which God created the Universe, there is the sudden appearance of light.

Using this interpretation of the first sentence of Genesis 1:3, a section of a book written thousands of years ago that somehow contains a vague yet recognizable account of the Big Bang, Genesis itself becomes a solid piece of evidence that a deity such as God does exist, and that God created the Universe, providing a glimpse into the events that occurred before the Big Bang, something that is still lacking a scientific explanation.

The accuracy of Genesis' explanation for how our Universe formed seems to be completely correct, which is a stunning accomplishment considering the primitive scientific competence humanity possessed thousands of years ago. In Genesis, no sound or massive explosion accompanies the Universe's creation. The scientific accuracy of these two small details are astounding--both are correct, as sound had no medium to travel through during the Big Bang, and the inflation we experience today suggests that the Big Bang was an extremely fast expansion rather than an explosion. Genesis, however, was written before anyone knew that sound waves existed, nor the mediums they require to travel, and far before anyone had even conceived an idea such as the Big Bag.

The mysterious knowledge that Genesis preaches is far ahead of its time, and God creating the Universe seems to be the most viable explanation for the pinpoint accuracy of Genesis. There is no other credible way for Genesis' description of the Universe to be almost identical to modern scientific beliefs without the intervention of God, and it is only when God is introduced into the Big Bang theory that there is a viable explanation for the events that occurred before the Big Bang, and those that caused it.
usernamesareannoying

Con

Prologue

Thanks for instigating this topic, Pro. I intend to clarify some aspects of the debate - when you instigate a "God Debate", it does not necessarily necessitate the Christian God. I hopefully clear other problems out within this round. Anyway, I wish my opponent good luck. :)

Arguments

Omnipotence Paradox

God possesses the following intrinsic maximums: omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. The intentions of this argument is to convey that one specific attribute of God's is sophistry. If I successfully do this, it demonstrates that the concept of God is incoherent. If I do this, my burden of proof is fulfilled. The attribute I intend to attack is specifically "omnipotence". Omnipotence is defined as "almighty or infinite in power". (1)

My argument will assume the following logical format:

P1: God is defined as possessing omnipotence
P2: Omnipotence is sophistry
P3: If omnipotence is sophistry then God is sophistry
P4: Omnipotence is sophistry, so God is sophistry
P5: God is sophistry
C: Therefore, God is sophistry


Premise one:

Pro defined God as having omnipotence

Premise two:

If God has omnipotence, (unlimited power) then God would be able to create another deity that is more powerful than God. If God can do this, then this would violate the definition of "God", since God is the most superior. If God cannot do this, then God is limited by logic - if God is limited by logic, then God does not truly have unlimited power. Therefore, the concept of omnipotence is sophistry.

Premise three:

If God is defined as having omnipotence, and the concept of omnipotence is sophistry, then the concept of God is sophistry.

Premise four:

God has omnipotence, so God is sophistry.

Premise five:

A deduction of the premises infers that God is sophistry.


Therefore, the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and the argument is sound - God is sophistry.


The Argument from Atemporal Minds

The intentions of this argument is to convey that, minds cannot exist in a timeless place. If God does not have/is a mind, then God would not have omniscience. Omniscience is defined as: "infinite knowledge". (2)

This argument assumes the following logical format:

P1: God exists transcendently
P2: If God exists transcendently, then God does not exist within space-time
P3: God is/has a mind
P4: If God transcendent, then God's mind is atemporal
P5: If God's mind is atemporal, then God's mind cannot exist
P6: If God's mind cannot exist, then God cannot exist
C: God cannot exist

Premise one:

Space-time exists within the universe. If God created the universe, then God cannot logically exist within the universe. Therefore, God must transcend space-time.

Premise two:

Premise two is valid as long as premise one is valid.

Premise three:

If God exists, God must be/have a mind, because knowledge is contingent upon a mind.

Premise four:

Temporal minds imply a mind that exist within space-time. Since God exists outside space-time, the implication is reversed.

Premise five:

Minds imply an interaction in time, since minds include processes. Processes infer a finite amount of time, however, time is non-existent in a timeless place... If God's mind is atemporal, then God's mind cannot involve processes. Therefore, a timeless mind, is sophistry. If God is/has a mind, then God is sophistry.

Premise six:

Premise six is valid as long as premise five is valid.


Therefore, the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and the argument is sound.


Reverse Modal Ontological Argument

P1:It is possible that a maximally great being does not exists.
P2:
If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.

P3:
If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.

P4:If
a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.

P5:
If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.

C:
Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.


In a logical format:

P1) ◊(∃x) (Mx)
P2) ◊(~∃x) (~Mx) ⊃ (◊(~∃x) (~Mx))

P3) ◊(~∃x) (~Mx)⊃ [] (~∃x) (~Mx)
P4) [] (~∃x) (~Mx) ⊃ (~∃x) (~Mx)
P5) (~∃x) (~Mx) ⊃ (~∃x) (~Mx)
C) (~∃x) (Mx)


Premise one:

Modal logic dictates that it is possible for MOA to not exist. To avoid a misconception is epistemic modalities, possibly does not relate to "I could possibly win the lottery tomorrow", it denotes truth in at least one possible world. Possible worlds does not relate to a multiverse of sorts; it relates to hypothetical plausibilities of how our actuality (our world) could have been. For example, in a hypothetical world, Planck's Constant could be different. However, some aspects of actuality are tautological (must be true throughout all possible worlds; necessarily true). Tautologies include: rules of logic i.e. all bachelors are unmarried. Mathematical aspects like "2 + 2 = 4" are tautological as well. For clarification, necessarily true means true throughout all possible worlds. It is not breaking any of the tautologies aforementioned to postulate that the non-existence of God could occur in at least one possible world, since the concept is coherent. The rest of the argument postulates that non-existence is necessary.

Premise two-five:

This is tautological


Since the conclusion logically follows from the premises, then the argument is sound.


Refutations:

Big Bang

This wasn't necessarily an argument, however, there was a misconception. The Big Bang does not postulate ex nihilio; creation out of nothing. The Big Bang Theory theorises that the universe was once confined at a dense singularity, then expanded. This is known as rapid inflation. The point is, the Big Bang is not the creation of matter, energy, or space-time.

Genesis

In this argument, my opponent uses the Bible as a source. However, there is no solitary evidence proposed... What my opponent is hinting at, is that God caused the Big Bang to happen, and he tries to make an inductive link from the Bible to the said deity. This poses two problems: Pro hasn't provided evidence that God exists, and the inductive link from "let there be light" to the Big Bang is relative - the veracity is not absolute. I commend that Pro refrains from using the Bible as a source, since there is nothing to deem it with credibility.

Pro assumes "let there be light" definitely correlates with the Big Bang. Again, the Big Bang is only rapid inflation, not the creation of the universe, and the correlation lacks an objective link and relies solely upon wholly subjective intuition.

Basically, Pro's argument is begging the question - it assumes the following syllogism.

P1: God exists
P2: Genesis states that God created the Big Bang
C: Therefore, God exists and created the Big Bang.

This argument uses the conclusion as a premise, and premise one commits the bare assertion fallacy. Until Pro provides tangible, ontological evidence that God exists, the argument is a non-sequitur.


Citations

(1)
http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...

Debate Round No. 2
ArgumentativeMan

Pro

I hereby forfeit the debate. My opponent is superior to me both in intellect and in knowledge of the topic on which the debate is based.
usernamesareannoying

Con

Thanks for the kind words and for the instigation of this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
"P4: Omnipotence is sophistry, so God is sophistry
P5: God is sophistry
C: Therefore, God is sophistry"

You've successfully repeated the same thing thrice.

I would put it this way:

P1: God possesses omnipotence.
P2: If omnipotence is sophistry, God is sophistry.
P3: Omnipotence is sophistry.
C: From P2, God is sophistry.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 2 years ago
usernamesareannoying
Thanks dude, that helped a lot.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Plus, reverse MOA is contrary to C-series.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
The reverse-MOA also rests on the *epistemic* assumption that God is "maximally great". Thus, the so-called metaphysical demonstration is flawed as it is based on epistemological assumptions.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
One also needs to *specify* S5 Modal logic, but that is subject to questioning the same way one would question a standard MOA, viz. the "necessary being" definition is not advocated by Pro, ergo Con needs to demonstrate it under a shared BoP.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
There can also be philosophical-metaphysical confusion between the standard metaphysical time determined by gravity to the second law of thermodynamics, and illusory temporal dimensions via. B-theory of time.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
A reverse MOA doesn't affirm non-existence metaphysically, it is merely shallow epistemology. You'll have to illustrate *where* it is possible metaphysically and expand on that metaphysical assumption, viz. illustrated, as an example, *in* possible worlds with only one particle obeying a time-dependent Hamiltonian. See http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
@ArgumentativeMan

Use this as a lesson - research and understand the arguments that have been presented to you. There are many debates here in which these arguments have been used and argued. Search for them and evaluate those to better understand.
Posted by ArgumentativeMan 2 years ago
ArgumentativeMan
Sounds fine by me.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 2 years ago
usernamesareannoying
If I argue this round, I would have an unfair advantage. I will leave round one for acceptance.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
ArgumentativeManusernamesareannoyingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
ArgumentativeManusernamesareannoyingTied
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: Forfeit by Pro. Con used the only sources.