Existence of God
Debate Rounds (5)
(1) If an all-powerful perfectly good God exists, then evil does not
(2) Evil exist
(3) Therefore, God does not exist
The preposition (1) fails if it is logically possible that
(1.5) God has a moral reason to allow evil
This preposition is not dependent on our ability to understand that reason, only that it is logically possible.
I will lay out these three arguments for my opponent to rebut:
The first argument is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The premises of the argument are as follows:
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore the universe has a cause
(4) The cause of the universe must be causeless, immaterial, timeless, changeless and personal
(5) This uncaused cause is a description of God
(6) Therefore God exists
The second argument is known as the Teleological Argument which states that the constants for the universe are finely-tuned for the existence of life. The premises of the argument based on these findings are as follows.
(1) There are three possible explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe; necessity, chance or design
(2) The fine-tuning is not due to necessity
(3) The fine-tuning is not due to chance as the probability is vanishingly small
(4) Therefore the fine-tuning is due to intelligent design
The final argument is the Argument from Objective Morality
(1) Without God, objective morality can not exist
(2) Objective morality does exist
(3) Therefore, God exist
I await to hear my opponent's refutations!
boredinclass forfeited this round.
Everything you just stated is so fallacious.
mine is simple, you're claim is, that there is an omnibonevolent god, if that is what you say, why does god allow bad things to happen. Also, you cannot prove that god has a moral reason, because you cannot prove there is a god
Kalam is flawed because
1) you can't prove I that everything needs a cause, that's fallacious
2) this argument makes no sense
3) use some data to back this claim up. or there is no proof
The second argument is also false, because the whole idea behind evolution and science is that life occurs from the random disasters, with non-random consequences. If an earthquake kills slow animals, it creates faster ones and they breed to make faster animals. (simple law of natural selection)
The final argument is jumping the gun. If he cannot prove that god exists, then you must vote for me. that means that morality has existed without god, so his argument is invalid. And he has no proof.
My opponent lacked proof the entire round, therefore, you cannot assume there is a god.
All his arguments are fallacious (post hoc ergo procter hoc)
Problem of Evil
My opponent thus far has illustrated a single argument titled the Problem of Evil. As I stated in my refutation of this argument it is logically possible that God has a moral reason for allowing evil. It is incredibly arrogant to assume that we have know to know the reason for it to exist. Allow me to give an analogy, if a father takes a sick child to the doctor to receive a large shot of medicine the child may see this act as an evil one. Although he may not understand the reason it is a valid reason. The reason itself is not dependent on the child's awareness or understanding.
My opponent makes a blatant contention with no evidence of an argument. He/she states that I must prove that there must be a cause for anything that has a beginning. This, however, is a basic principal of causality. It is the onus of my opponent to prove or at least provide an example of something that began to exist that does not have a cause. I believe that my opponent will fail to do so.
My opponent provided the example of evolution to prove that life can occur out of chance occurrences. However, my opponent fails to understand the gravity (pun unintended) of these constants. The universe itself would become desolate, unable to support stars or planets in any way. For instance, were α (the strength of the electromagnetic interaction) to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If α were > 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the universe would be warm enough for life. ^2
I fear I did not express the vanishingly small possibility of these constants falling as they do. The number of seconds in the history of the universe is about 10 to the 18th power. The number of sub-atomic particles in the entire universe is about 10 to the 80th power. Now with those numbers in mind, consider the following: Donald Page, one of America's eminent cosmologists, has calculated the odds of our universe existing as being one chance out of 10 to the power of 10 to the 124th power, a number which is so inconceivable that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement! ^1
Unless and until my opponent can provide an explanation for these chances occurring the third explanation, design, is far more likely.
My opponent appears to have made no specific contention to this final argument. For this argument to be invalid my opponent must prove that either (1) Without God, objective morality can still exist, or, (2) Objective morality does not exist.
I'd like to point out that my opponent's argument appear to be fallacious. The fallacy is known as the argument from personal incredulity. The argument is laid out as:
(1) I can't see how these arguments are valid
(2) Therefore these arguments are invalid
In order for my opponent to win this argument he must not only STATE that the arguments are invalid but show WHY the arguments are invalid. My opponent's only logical contention "post hoc ergo procter hoc" does not apply to any of the arguments I have laid out. Each of my arguments are known as "deductive arguments". They are not reliant on the linking of causal variables. Such a contention applies more towards "inductive arguments" which focus on the linking of a single event and arguing up towards the conclusion.
^1 Donald Page, cited in L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell, "God and Modern Science: New Life for the Teleological Argument," International Philosophical Quarterly 27 (1987): 416. Betty and Cordell actually get the number too small.
^2 D. Barrow (2001). "Cosmology, Life, and the Anthropic Principle". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 950 (1): 139–153. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02133.x.
1) have you seen god?
2) have you heard god?
3) is there a real life photograph of god?
4) is there an audio of god?
5) has god published any literature?
I could go on and on with these questions, but the answer to them all, is no. And since there is no documentation of god's existence, then there is no proof of a god
The problem of evil
The difficulty with this argument, is that my opponent must first prove there is a god, then he must prove that he has a moral reason to let evil exist.
First off, he blames me for having no evidence, when one- this is his claim, and two, as the instigator, he has the bop
One, you must prove that everything that has ever existed has had a cause. two, you cannot prove that the universe wan't always here. Third, why is he dictating the rules of the universe, he says that the universes purpose cannot be caused or material or time or changing or personal. first off, what study has proved this, humans are not the deciders of the universe. And, my opponent is consistently trying to put the BOP on me, but he is the instigator
The only explanation is what I said in my previous speech. It is random. And it's not like it's on a universal scale. Since you were conceived, it's all been highly unlikely that you would be born, but you beat the odds. This is able to proven. God is not. However, I may not have a source, but my opponent claims that one man was able to calculate every atom in the universe that's funny considering that it is infinite.
Alright, even if there is a god, there is no example of a universe without it. Since there are no studies or examples to support his claims, the argument has no weight.
also, his deductive reasoning fails because, when talking about something as infinite as the universe, you can't just eliminate 2 choices and have your answer, the universe has infinite possibilities. therefore, all arguments above are invalid, and there is no proof of a god. Vote Con
also, based on my framework, since there is no evidence and he never provided a counter-framework, then I win.
(sorry, I meant to correct that, the post hoc ergo procter hoc were notes for a class, that I put on here to make it look like I was interested)
(1) We can only know things from our senses
is a self-refuting statement. The question that demolishes this epistemology is: How do you know that is true? It is impossible to taste, smell, see, touch or smell that premise therefore how can we know its true?
Problem of Evil
We can drop this argument now as it only leads to the occurring question. It appears, however, that my opponent is trying to pin me down on this argument when in round three it was my opponent who presented it.
The title of this argument is "The Existence of God" It is not "God exist". Therefore the burden of proof does not solely rely on me. My opponent, in taking his con stance, is making a similar claim to knowledge which is: "God does NOT exist." Therefore my opponent must erect in his case an argument for the non-existence of God while at the same time tearing down my arguments FOR the existence of God. The debate should not end in a constant shift of burden of proof. I do not have to prove that everything that has ever existed has had a cause. The reason being is that by DEFINITION a cause must be antecedent or simultaneous with it's effect. ^1 By definition as well an effect must have a cause.^2 Based on Big Bang cosmology the universe must have had a beginning. ^3 It appears my opponent must not be up to date with with the latest scientific knowledge. I am not trying to determine the rules of the universe, merely listing the basic principles of philosophy and the world itself.
Since my opponent will not take the time to read the source I provided I will not dignify his claim that every atom in the universe is infinite. I will explain however that actual infinites create mathematical impossibilities. For example Infinity - 2 = infinity.
My opponent appears obsessed with scientific reference to God however I refer to my epistemological issue at the beginning of my round. My opponent illogically ruled out all my arguments by saying "the universe has infinite possibilities" Unless and until my opponent explains what that means my arguments are valid and you should vote PRO. My evidence is based on the arguments I laid, it appears my opponent is ignoring these evidences and then asking for evidence? This is tautological. VOTE PRO
I'll agree that the problem of evil is dropped
The title of the debate has nothing to do with your burden of proof, you still have to prove there is a god, and if you cannot, we must assume that there is no god. I don't have to make a case, because I don't have any burden of proof, if you wanted that, you should have established that as a clause in the first round.
>>>I do not have to prove that everything that has ever existed has had a cause. The reason being is that by DEFINITION a cause must be antecedent or simultaneous with it's effect. ^1 By definition as well an effect must have a cause.^2 Based on Big Bang cosmology the universe must have had a beginning. ^3 It appears my opponent must not be up to date with with the latest scientific knowledge
-first, that's an ad hominem, secondly it is impossible to prove that everything needs a cause, but you still need to prove it, you were doomed from the start, because you cannot prove that everything in the universe needs a cause, who's to say that there isn't one little speck of dust that has no cause whatsoever. Also, isn't this just a hasty generalization? because you use such a small group (earth) to represent a composite of billions of stars and planets.
>>> I am not trying to determine the rules of the universe, merely listing the basic principles of philosophy and the world itself.
-ok, with this subject, you can't use philosophy, you're trying to prove the existence of a deity, you cannot use a philosophy to prove that. You must determine rules of the universe, where your rules are faulted (I'll extend in the overview)
ok, so he does drop my points.
Also, he concedes that you cannot calculate the universe because it is infinite
There were no real refutations in the last speech, so you must drop this argument
Alright, he basically drops my answer to his deductive reasoning- when talking about something as infinite as the universe, you can't just eliminate 2 choices and have your answer, the universe has infinite possibilities. therefore, all arguments above are invalid, and there is no proof of a god. Vote Con- he only asks me to explain it, so my opponent basically eliminates fifty choices and then chooses one, that would be good if we were talking about earthbound problems, but we aren't were talking about a body that is so infinite, it is mathematically impossible to eliminate all but one possibility, you cannot deduce that there is a god, only prove there is one.
Just a note, I did read his evidence, but the remarks made in them had no studies, data, statistics, through investigation, or in a sense, observation. All it was is that I guy just sat down and thought, he only thought, he didn't test, he merely purposed a philosophical hypothesis and then people agreed, no tests no data, nothing. He has no VALID source.
I thank my opponent for a fun and intelligent debate. Vote con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeit. Although Pro brought the exact same arguments against me in a previous debate, Con seems to have not even tried to refute them. So arguments by default goes to Pro as they went unrefuted. Also Pro used sources and Con did not.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.