The Instigator
philosurfer
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Does the Christian God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-13
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 4 votes the winner is...
philosurfer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,920 times Debate No: 60497
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (170)
Votes (4)

 

philosurfer

Con

Does the Christian God Exist?



Debate Stipulations:

Round 1) Acceptance Only - NO Statements or Rebuttals
Round 2) Opening Statements & Arguments - NO REBUTTALS
Round 3) First Rebuttals - Further Arguments
Round 4) Second Rebuttals - Final Arguments
Round 5) Final Rebuttals and Closing Statements - NO New Arguments


Terms:

Physical :material existence [1]

Supernatural :outside the natural order [2]

Reality :state of being real; exists independently of ideas [3]

Theistic God :a personal God; intervenes in human affairs e.g. answers prayers [4]

Deism :belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation; belief in a God who created the world but has since remained in different to it [9]

Objectivity :intentness external to the mind; external reality [5]

Subjectivity :taking place in a person's mind; introspective [6]

Ontology :nature of being; the existence of a thing [7]

Epistemology :study of knowledge and justified belief [8]


Debate Accpetance & full Disclosure:

It is critical that Pro of this debate accepts responsibility for putting forward a case for and defending the Christian God of the Bible.

The terms are of paramount importance and will play a critical role in this debate.


Option for amended format:


Pro may have FIRST Round 2 rebuttals IF and only IF Pro agrees to forfiet 5th Round rebuttals and may only give a closing statement.



Definition References:


[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com..................

[2]http://dictionary.reference.com..................

[3]http://dictionary.reference.com..................

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

[5]http://dictionary.reference.com..................

[6]http://www.thefreedictionary.com..................

[7]http://www.britannica.com..................

[8]http://plato.stanford.edu..................

[9]http://dictionary.reference.com...............
lannan13

Pro

I accept and shall waive my finial round to argue first.

Contention 1: Ontological Argument.

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William CriagThe Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]

The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.
Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere.
Now at this point you're probably asking yourself, okay Lannan that shows that the universe began at a point, but what does this have to do with God? This is that there is nothing known prior to the creation of the universe meaning that it since there is no determining factors to what happened before we must assume that it's personal and uncaused. This can be see by one asking how can a timeless rift be given such a temperory effect of the begining of time? One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe if not omnipotent. Thus for this reason God Exists.

Contention 3: Thomisitc TA

Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [4]
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [5]
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

Last year scientists have actually found ripples in time and space continum. Now I know what my opponent had brought up and I agree with a lot of it, however, I believe that it actually helps prove the existance of God than disproves it. We can see after the Big Bang there was gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds. [6] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."- Genesis 1:1

You see, back then they didn't have a large understanding on the universe and how things worked so we can definately see books like the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran to probably not be science text books. If God had shown humans this we can see that they would probably be like Nastrodamus's description of the German Blitzkreig by calling the NAZI panzers Metal beasts or how he wasn't able to describe skyscrapers and such, but you get my point. People didn't have the best information and how things are now and it wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago before we began to make improvements in Space and Science.

Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the term the "Big Bang," has stated, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." [7]

Next, we can see that the Big Bang here also highly applies to my 3rd Contention from my last round of Thomistic TA. The next 5 points are add on by Hugh Ross to the original 5 points and this helps show that the Big Bang proves the existance of God.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [8]


For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [9]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [9]

Sources
1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
3. Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
4. Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157
5. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. González (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79
6. (http://www.cnn.com...)
7. (http://creation.com...)
8. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
9. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)

Debate Round No. 1
philosurfer

Con

GREETINGS AND SALUTATIONS!


Iannan13 – you violated the debate's format!


You were to only accept in Round 1!

Arguments come in Round 2!


You were only allowed to rebuttal in Round 2 first IF you waved Round 5 rebuttals!

(This was to create a program where I go first and you follow but we would rebuttal at the same time and you would still have last word).

Its okay – we shall move forward – but voters please note.


TOPIC (1) Catastrophic MISCONCEPTIONS - The Difference between Deism & Theism

Its becoming somewhat redundant on DDO that members are quick to put forward popular Christian Apologetic, Anthropic and Cosmological arguments and yet obviously do not even know or understand the difference between DEISM and THEISM!

In the Comments of this debate many asked why this debate had the specificity of debating the “Christian god” and why not any other god(s) or God in general(?)

This is why – specifying the “Christian god” is specifying a god of theism!

Iannan13 - ALL of the contentions that you've put forward are used to support philosophical notions of deism - NOT theism.

Check your definitions!

Readers and voters who also do not know or quite understand the difference - please take note if you too are typically in the habit of using these types of arguments when debating issues of theism.

Theistic God : a personal God; intervenes in human affairs e.g. answers prayers [1].

Deism : belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation; belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it [2].

The Christian God of the Bible is a god of Theism!

Iannan, I feel like you have already lost the debate on this point and issue alone. By accepting this debate you must defend and support a case for a personal god – the theistic Christian god of the Bible.


Theism
v. Deism:

A theistic god is, by definition, a personal god who is actively involved - interacting in a physical/material world and Human affairs (interceding by healing the sick, answering prayers, deciding who might win a battle, or who becomes the next elected official, etc). These are physical, material and natural systems God is purported to be manipulating [1].

This is to be distinguished from a deistic god. A deistic god is not a personal god who is actively involved in human affairs and the physical world. A belief in a god of deism is belief in a kind of deity that acted perhaps as the First Cause or the original Unmoved Mover [2].

The Crux of Round 1:

Iannan, all of your contentions, Ontological Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument and Thomisitc TA - are arguments that can be used to support a god of deism – BUT – they do not secure for theism.

A theistic god is proposed to: heal the sick, control the weather, send plagues, kills first born children, etc., which is interacting in the physical and material world and human affairs – which renders arguments of the cosmological kind insufficient.

Your contentions do not adjudicate the issue of theism.


TOPIC (2)
Catastrophic MISCONCEPTIONS 2 – Natural v. Supernatural

I would like to preface & frame the debate by also pointing out the difference between supernatural v. natural.

Caper the Friendly Ghost Paradox (Dan Dennett):

"I often ask my students, when they were children - reading comic books or watching television - if it ever bothered them that Casper the Friendly Ghost could both float through walls and catch a ball? Why doesn't the ball go right through his hand? Most say they noticed this mildly discomforting inconsistency but everyone still goes along with the gag.." - Dan Dennett

Dennett's quote is spot on! Its a brilliant question!

How can Casper the Friendly Ghost
BOTH float through walls and catch a ball?

Is Casper able to conveniently decide when to be physical and material - becoming able to interact in a natural-physical world (throwing a ball up in the air and catching it) but can then also conveniently decide to be supernaturally diaphanous when he wants to float through physical walls?

OBVIOUSLY - Casper the Friendly Ghost is a cartoon! But this highlights one of the biggest misconceptions about what it is, or means, for something to be truly supernatural and how this cannot also be physical and natural.

Ill-conceived notions and ideas about a theistic god are exactly the same!

As an aside; I had one of my colleagues suggest the idea that perhaps Casper has the ability to suspend his atoms in a way that allows him to float through the walls, after-all, an atom is comprised of mostly empty space. I kindly reminded him that atoms and their constituent particles are physical [3][4][5].

Misconception Explained:

A supernatural conception - something that is truly supernatural - is, by definition, devoid of being physical/natural.

As humans are physical beings in a material universe, we cannot have access to truly supernatural "things" ... in fact, they cannot even be "things" - in a physical sense - as they are not physical. Therefore, we cannot be objective about them.

Consider that as soon as we do have access to something that was supposed to be supernatural - it becomes firmly fixed in the natural! Which is to say that it was never truly supernatural then to begin with!

Examples & Analysis (Supernatural):

Three common things that one might consider to be supernatural: ESP, Ghosts & God.

I don't think all three of these are or should be considered equally - but (just for the sake of the example) let's just pick ESP.

If ESP doesn't exist, then one could say that its because it is supernatural - as in -
doesn't exist in our universe.

On the other hand, its possible that ESP does exist and if it does, then supernatural isn't all that "super" - it just means something natural that we can't yet explain. In this context supernatural might mean
real, but unexplained.

But, again, as soon as we have access (let's say proper data was obtained) for something supposed to be supernatural - it becomes firmly fixed in the physical – which means it was never truly supernatural at all.

In short, it seems to me that supernatural either means doesn't exist at all or exists but is not yet explained.

These are two different ways the word supernatural can be used but describing two very different semantics - one is used to express something as being truly supernatural - and the other to describe gaps in our understanding of an already physical universe.

So, the scientific and philosophically important questions then become:

A) How would we be able to recognize something that is truly supernatural and

B) How can we distinguish the difference between something that is truly supernatural from something that doesn't exist at all?!

Murky Metaphysical Waters - But aren't there things which are not physical?

Not exactly.

The seemingly metaphysical things that we might want to put forward as a last ditch effort: thoughts, love, dreams, hope, even consciousness itself, are all still rooted in physical systems.

Consciousness, for example, is a by-product of a material brain. We know this because of cases of head trauma - damage the brain and consciousness is altered [7][8] - destroy the brain and consciousness disappears with death [9]. We have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the relationship between consciousness and the physical brain through neurology.

An historic example of this would be when the Physics community was searching for the Graviton (a sub-atomic particle hypothesized to be responsible for the force of Gravity) [6]. A few short years later Relativity swooped in and explained an inexplicable phenomena in nature - gravity is a particle-less force as it is the curvature of space-time warped in the presence of matter.

Similarly, in much of metaphysics, emotions and values we cherish deeply; Love, Joy, Happiness, etc., are the reactions of physical systems - our physical bodies (our brain) with and during internal and external stimuli (brain states).

Consciousness itself might be looked at as a simple by-product of an organ - just like my liver produces digestive enzymes - my brain produces consciousness.

This is not to say that Dualism is a completely failed project - but, in some way, it matters very little if everything of importance to us resides in the material brain and a physical universe.


TOPIC 3)
Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

"The miracle is, there are no miracles." - Albert Einstein

If a theistic god interacts in the physical/material world, there would have to be some interaction with the system at some fundamental level. Even with total absence of God's presence, we would still expect to see the results in the physical world as trace evidence of the interaction. We do not find any evidence of a divine hand at work manipulating the system or the laws or physics having been suspended.

The question, "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" probes the ambiguity of theism - with reasonable expectations of observation (an amputated limb is physical).

If there was even one documented case of an amputated limb being restored due to a prayer healing ritual it would at least be suggestive. There are no such cases on record.

Even if one believes or has faith in a personal god - why believe in a deceptive one?

Is God just like Casper the Friendly Ghost - able to conveniently decide when to be physical and material but then also decide to be supernatural when he wants to intercede and yet still elude the physical world?


Cited Source References:

[1] http://www.pbs.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.yourdictionary.com...
[5] http://www.britannica.com...
[6] http://arxiv.org...
[7] http://www-users.med.cornell.edu...
[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[9] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;

lannan13

Pro

Yes I know that I goofed. As a result I shall forfeit my conduct point and the last round of debate. Please see comments section for details.

Contention 1: Theism vs. Deism

My oppoent is actually incorrect on the fact that I am NOT arguing for Deism. Let us use the Merriam-Webster since my opponent has already used that source one in his last round.

Deism- a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe. [1]

Theism- the belief that God exists or that many gods exist [2]

By using the source that my oppoent has provided we can clearly see that I couldn't possibly be arguing for Deism since I stated that God created the universe and it's because of that fact that all of my points stand. So with that I extend all of my arguments from my last round across the board.

Contention 2: Ontological Argument

I'm going to add on to this argument by showing imperical evidence for this argument via the Godel argument.

On the matter of proving God, we can actually do it by mathematics one can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [3]
Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things. Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [4] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation.


\begin{array}{rl}

\text{Ax. 1.} & \left\{P(\varphi) \wedge \Box \; \forall x[\varphi(x) \to \psi(x)]\right\} \to P(\psi) \text{Ax. 2.} & P(\neg \varphi) \leftrightarrow \neg P(\varphi) \text{Th. 1.} & P(\varphi) \to \Diamond \; \exists x[\varphi(x)] \text{Df. 1.} & G(x) \iff \forall \varphi [P(\varphi) \to \varphi(x)] \text{Ax. 3.} & P(G) \text{Th. 2.} & \Diamond \; \exists x \; G(x) \text{Df. 2.} & \varphi \text{ ess } x \iff \varphi(x) \wedge \forall \psi \left\{\psi(x) \to \Box \; \forall y[\varphi(y) \to \psi(y)]\right\} \text{Ax. 4.} & P(\varphi) \to \Box \; P(\varphi) \text{Th. 3.} & G(x) \to G \text{ ess } x \text{Df. 3.} & E(x) \iff \forall \varphi[\varphi \text{ ess } x \to \Box \; \exists y \; \varphi(y)] \text{Ax. 5.} & P(E) \text{Th. 4.} & \Box \; \exists x \; G(x)

\end{array}

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [5]


Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax. Also note how God is capitalized here. This is because this actually proves the Christian God. Not just a deity. [6]



Contention 3: Natural vs. Supernatural


Since my opponent likes to source and argue cartoons I too shall bring up a cartoon to counter this argument. There was a Nicktoons show called Danny Phantom where the main character was a ghost, but he is able to do things like hold weaponry and even where cloths. How is this you might just ask? This has to do with the stability of the person's molecules and that objects. Concidering that ghosts are mainly a gas, but you can somewhat see them their molecules are unstable and highly volitile. The ghost is able to cluster and slow his molecules so that he is able to do these things. Another theory is that he speeds up the molecules of the object that he touches and it too becomes gassous. Thus showing that something can be natural and supernatural at the sametime.

Here when we speak of ESP we can view a scientifically acurrate movie (Lucy). Anyways, we are shown several times that the humanity has only unlocked 10% of our brains potential and it isn't until the later percentages that we find ESP and other things like superpowers. You see it exists, but it is just highly rare. [7]

We can also see that my opponent has dropped the second half of the argument here in that of the premise of Ross which pertains quite a bit to metaphysics. Though these arguments are in the same contention by no means are they connected in the sense that the first half relies on the second half so you cannot just try to disprove the first half and disreguard the second half of the set. This is another important thing for this debate as we show that the universe exists and in the end God has to also exist and this is due to God being present and having to had been able to create the univserse and this was needed as there was nothing in the beginning. We can see that it was not until the universe began that time began, so we can see that God can exist in that manner. Once again this can be shown by God being able to exist in some alternative timeless dimension. For this second string Ross sites the Bible to further his beliefs in God behind the Big Bang further explaining how the universe was created and that God is in another dimension.

"Again, by definition, time is that realm or dimension in which cause-and effect phenomena take place. According to the space-time theorem of general relativity, such effects as matter, energy, length, width, height, and time were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. According to the New Testament (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), such effects as grace and hope were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. So both the Bible and general relativity speak of at least one additional time dimension for god." [8]

Contention 4: Amputees

I do appologize here as I will have to use some Biblical sourcing on a few things and you can deny it if you wish. For this we can see that there is tons of examples of Devine Intervention in the world. From the storm that hit the Spanish Armada to the storm that hit the Mongolian fleet (Ironically called the Devine Wind). We can also see this to the story of the Israeli state that has survived through several Arab Wars and dominating each one. God also gifts people to speak with tongues and given them special gifts (2Timmothy 3:16-17) We can also see that due to God being independent as I've stated already in the previous contention and you can find this in the Bible in Romans 9 and Psalms 91:1.


Sources
1. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
2, (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
3. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
4. (Kurt Gödel (1995). "Ontological Proof". Collected Works: Unpublished Essays & Lectures, Volume III. pp. 403–404. Oxford University Press.)
5. (http://www.spiegel.de...)
6. (http://arxiv.org...)
7. (tipom.blogspot.com/2014/05/video-lecture-series-on-philosophy-of.html)
8. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 80.)
Debate Round No. 2
philosurfer

Con

Apologies To All Who Read & Vote



Unfortunately, debates in which semantic discrepancies become the primary issue(s) usually turn out to be quite unfruitful.

Iannan13, you accepted this debate with the understanding & full disclosure of being obligated to make a case for the Christian god – which is a very specific god of theism.

Regardless of this – you continue to argue using pre-prepared arguments which do not automatically secure in the very specific cases of theism or monotheism.

To push you on this, and so that you now understand this point (and to hold you over the coals a bit), how then does the Ontological Argument secure the existence of the god Elohim, Yahweh, or El(?) - which is what you need to do in this debate (or something to this effect). How is the Ontological argument then proof for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Once an argument is put forward for the existence of a god or gods (as you have done) you would still need to show how this is the Christian god – correct?

EXACTLY!

Here is where the confusion lies:

  1. A god of theism may in fact act in a deistic way (let's say created the universe)

    but

  2. A god of deism does not act in a theistic way (answering prayers, healing the sick, etc.)

This is the classic keynote characteristic difference of deism from theism!

So far, your arguments may be used to secure for possibilities of deism - but you are still obligated to make and defend the Christian god – a god of theism – a god who is actively involved in the world and human affairs - which you agreed to do by accepting this debate. Unless you want to argue that the Christian god is not a god of theism(?) - which, then, the whole Bible would be thrown at your head!

In a way, I intentionally set you up based on this point. The reason why you were challenged to this debate was precisely because I knew these were the arguments you were going to put forward.

In fact, other members on DDO recognized this point and when they asked to accept the debate many asked that the specificity of the Christian god be amended to a generic god – so that arguments like the popular ones you're using could be used!

But because this is a very specific god - the Christian god of the Bible - a god who is said to be actively involved in the world and intervenes in human affairs must be defended (a god of theism) – which the Ontological argument does NOT address this as it only addresses the possible existence of a god and does not specify which god or what kind of god.

Now you want to debate semantics and the definitions. I imagine its because, without being able to use your pre-prepared arguments, you don't have very much left to argue on this topic. And I don't think you knew the difference between theism and deism before we started this debate.

Topic (1) Theism v. Deism

In your own offering of the definition of deism you demonstrated that you do not quite understand the difference (still) as you emphasized the difference - but as a point in your favor:

Deism- a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.”

YES – precisely BECAUSE deism is belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only,with rejection of supernatural revelation; belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it [1].

This is what distinguishes deism from theism!

Key Difference: A theist is a firm believer in the existence of a spiritual being or beings. God is defined as the creator and supreme power of the universe by a theist. A deist is the one who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it. Hence, God has no control over the natural phenomena occurring in the universe [2].

Therefore - ontological, anthropic, cosmological & design arguments do not secure for theism.

God may have created the world but may not be able to interact with it after it was created. God may have created the world but in order to create it he had to remain out of it. God may have created the world but must remain separate from it in order that we may be free. These are all deist positions.

Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature -- a noninterventionist creator -- who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws. Like a “clockmaker god” initiating the cosmic process, the universe moves forward, without needing God’s supervision. Deism believes that precise and unvarying laws define the universe as self-operating and self-explanatory. These laws reveal themselves through “the light of reason and nature” [7].

Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer. Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a "revealed" religion [8].

Your definition of theism is very watered down as well. Theism usually always refers to monotheism or concepts of God (singular) in the Abrahamic traditions. And, rather, belief in GODS (plural) is referred to as polytheism [3].

Theist

Deist

Definition

Theist denotes a person who believes in the existence of a God. A theist believes that God is the creator and sovereign ruler of the universe.

A deist is the one who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it. Hence, god has no control over the natural phenomena occurring in the universe.

Broadly categorized under

  • Monotheism – God is considered to be an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent entity that governs and organizes universe.

  • Deism – Closely related with the religious beliefs.

  • Polytheism – Believes in the existence of multiple gods

Polytheism can be further divided into two categories- Hard and soft. Hard Polytheism considers that multiples gods are distinct to each other. Soft polytheism believes that multiple gods are connected to each other.

  • Monodeism and Polydeism – Monodeism believes that god created the universe and left it. However he keeps a watch on it.

  • Polydeism – Based on the belief that God is itself the universe.

  • Pandeism – Universe is just a part of God.

  • Process Deism – Belief that god and the universe are subjective.

  • Christian Deism – View words of Jesus Christ as deist teachings.

  • Philosophical Deism – Based on the research of various religious and philosophical texts.

  • Scientific Deism – Believes that religion should be based on scientific notions.

Origin

From Greek theos 'god' + -ist.

The word "Deism" is derived from the Latin word for God: "Deus."

Belief in religion

Generally, closely related to religion.

Does not subscribe to the claims of religion.

Effect of God

Constant effect on our universe.

No known ongoing effect on our universe.

Topic (2) Natural v. Supernatural (Casper Paradox)

Iannan13, you totally dropped the ball on this one too!

You said, “...Danny Phantom ghost...this has to do with the stability of the person's molecules and that objects. Considering that ghosts are mainly a gas, but you can somewhat see them their molecules are unstable and highly volatile. The ghost is able to cluster and slow his molecules so that he is able to do these things...”

MOLECULES ARE PHYSICAL!

Molecules are made of matter – therefore arePHYSICAL & NATURAL!

GAS is physical and made of matter – therefore is NATURAL!

I already addressed this in the explanation of the paradox by explaining that one of my colleagues suggested the idea that perhaps Casper has the ability to suspend his atoms in a way that allows him to float through the walls, after-all, an atom is comprised of mostly empty space. I kindly reminded him that atoms and their constituent particles are physical[4][5][6].

The paradox remains!

TOPIC (3) Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

I'm going to make this a challenge so you understand this one. Ready?

Find an academic medical journal in which an amputated limb was somehow miraculously restored due to a prayer ritual-ceremony or some kind of divine command.

Find any modern documentation of an amputated limb being re-grown instantaneously due to divine intervention.

We have no such documented cases on record at all. Not one case of an amputated limb being miraculously regenerated. Yet we have claims of God interceding to heal sicknesses of all other kinds. The question, "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" probes the aspects ambiguity and coincidence[9].

This question also frames our debate with considerations of what would be classified as supernatural and physical and what would be considered deism and theism – not in old arguments from design – but in real world applications.

Cited Source References:

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://www.differencebetween.info...

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[4] http://www.britannica.com...

[5] http://www.yourdictionary.com...

[6] http://www.britannica.com...

[7] http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...

[8] http://www.deism.com...

[9] http://whywontgodhealamputees.com...

[10] (Bea TruthSeeker Video - attached) https://www.youtube.com...

[11] (Heath Owens Video - attached) https://www.youtube.com...

[12] (Christopher Hitchens - attached) https://www.youtube.com...

lannan13

Pro

We have agreed to end this debate due to confusion and are planning to do a similiar debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Debate Round No. 4
philosurfer

Con

Iannan13, in essence, graciously and very kindly conceded this debate in personal messages - and I extend an olive branch to initiate an entirely new debate, one more of his preference, once this one was over.

This debate was more for me to prove a point - that the arguments from design do not automatically secure for very specific personal gods of theism.

They maybe be used to argue logically for the possible existence of a god of deism - but once we say this god(s) is/are then personal and active agents in the world, a specific god concepts then cross over into theism.


Iannan, thanks for accepting the challenge.

I will not add additional arguments but only ask that DDO guidelines be followed.

Many Thanks,

Philosurfer

Debate Round No. 5
170 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Futurepresident2048 1 year ago
Futurepresident2048
Meant to say con would recieve conduct as pro missed part of the rules.
Posted by Futurepresident2048 1 year ago
Futurepresident2048
Both sides had great spelling and grammar as well as convincing arguments and sources so both would be tied. I agreed with neither side before or after the debate as I myself am agnostic for the most part. Conduct Id have to give to pro though since con did miss one part of the rule.
Posted by philosurfer 1 year ago
philosurfer
Christian vote bomb... ugh
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I deserve to loose this debate. Please vote for my opponent.
Posted by 18Karl 1 year ago
18Karl
Lannan, GTOA (Godel's Ontological) is not an empirical proof of God whatsoever. It is an a priori proof that launches itself from logic, and hence the opposite could be proven with the same methods. You don't seem to grasp formal logic m8. You just say: "this is the argument, it remains proven, I don't need to prove it" It is just valid, not SOUND.

btw the GTOA only proves the existence of a maximally perfect being, not the Christian God.
Posted by philosurfer 1 year ago
philosurfer
I was gonna mention that - caught that too.

But for the sake of moving the debate along I left that one alone.

Yes, there in no equal sign present in the expressions.
Posted by DizzyKnight 1 year ago
DizzyKnight
Interesting as the debate is, calling expressions in formal logic "mathematical equations" reveals ignorance in the discipline.
Posted by philosurfer 1 year ago
philosurfer
Its still a good debate and can still be voted on.

Iannan basically very kindly and graciously sort of conceded.

But part of what we agreed to is that I still give him an entirely different debate, one that is more the kind he wants - where I maybe address the classic Anthropic and Design type of arguments.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Just when I thought this was an awesome debate .... :(
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by DarwinBulldog 1 year ago
DarwinBulldog
philosurferlannan13Tied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree, Pro made a few mistakes but made amends through out the debate to compensate. But Pro got smoked straight up when it came to every topic. This one is easy to score.
Vote Placed by Unitomic 1 year ago
Unitomic
philosurferlannan13Tied
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: Pro gets conduct for the gracious "concession". But ultimately, I am really doing this to tie the vote, as this debate was cancelled by both parties due to misconceptions, and I feel neither side should gain a win (as they won nothing), and neither side should suffer a loss (as they didn't really lose).
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
philosurferlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Graceful, classy concession by Pro.
Vote Placed by MasterOfTheUniverse 1 year ago
MasterOfTheUniverse
philosurferlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: The way Philosurfer argued this was very different. Definitely a unique position than usually seen on the topic. Con on Conduct but I'm scoring it for Pro as corrections were made to try and fix the mistake. I'm assuming Pro eventually resigned from the debate but he did so in a classy way. So I score conduct to Pro even though he made a mistake on the format. But the format was unusual. Pro still owned it anyway. Sources were about equal in quality and Con did have more so sources go to Con.