The Instigator
GeoLaureate8
Pro (for)
Losing
42 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Winning
106 Points

God Does NOT Exist, God is NOT Great, and Makes Life Worthless

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 13,586 times Debate No: 12134
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (161)
Votes (30)

 

GeoLaureate8

Pro

====> O P E N I N G <====

I affirm that God does not exist, God is NOT great, and the existence of God degrades the significance of life.

====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <====

I affirm that God canNOT exist. The existence of an eternal creator that caused the Universe is NOT possible whatsoever!

:::Argument from the Universe:::

P1: The Universe is everything that exists. [1]
P2: If God exists, he is part of the Universe.
P3: If God is part of the Universe, he could not have created it.
:. Therefore, a creator God is IMPOSSIBLE. Bottom line!

:::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS:::

P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

Things don't "begin to exist." Everything in the known universe abides by the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and thus, nothing in our existence has ever had a beginning or "begun to exist." Matter merely is transformed. My laptop didn't begin to exist because the matter that formed my laptop has always existed, it was simply transformed. So for someone to claim that things that begin to exist, have a cause is an absolutely unfounded assertion.

P2: The universe began to exist.

It is not certain that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang marks the beginning of our corner of existence, but it is unlikely that the singularity point at the moment of the Big Bang is the entirety of the Universe. It was about the size of a pea. There were likely many other singularity points through the vast void of the larger Universe. Also, even if we were to assume that our singularity was the only one, there's no reason to assume that the matter of the singularity didn't always exist. There's also no reason to assume that it couldn't have merely popped into existence on it's own, akin to what scientists have observed in the quantum world.

P3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

No. The premises have been refuted. This also leads me to my next argument.

:::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause:::

Even if Kalam's Cosmological was logically coherent based on true premises, it doesn't affirm anything other than that the Universe had a cause. How can one even begin to think that they can make the absolutely ludicrous assertion that they know who or what caused the Universe?! What if it was a giant domino that tipped over and kick started the Universe? What if it was merely a quantum fluctuation? What if it was a collision of universes? What if we emerged from a wormhole?

How can anyone claim that if there is a cause, it must be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, sentient being? We already know that complex beings can only arise through processes of evolution. How can a complex sentient being even exist before the Universe, let alone skipping the process of evolution?! Absurd!

====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <====

:::God Can't Be Great:::

Let's assume that such a deity exists. He must be finite, despite Theist claims to the contrary. God is not Satan, God is not demons, God is not my opponent, God is not evil, God is not dirt, etc. Unless a Theist is willing to accept that God is a Satanic, evil piece of dirt, then God must be finite.

God is a finite being and despite claims about his ultimate greatness, he will always be lesser than the entirety of existence itself. God is finite, God is bound by the limits of the whole of existence. God is a tiny spec of dust compared to the sheer vastness of the entire Universe! He would probably get sucked into a black hole and be completely obliterated into a million pieces!

:::God is a Tyrannical Dictator:::

"[Belief in God] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you - who must, indeed, subject you - to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead." - Christopher Hitchens

God is a self-appointed ruler of the Universe. I didn't grant him authority over me. He imposed himself onto me as my authority. My actions are governed by a set of laws that I don't agree to, and disobedience to these laws result in eternal, cruel, unending suffering and burning in an infernal concentration camp. It is comparable to the Holocaust, but worse. At least the Holocaust victims escaped suffering after they died. Hell is suffering for eternity. I declare this utterly reprehensible and entirely contrary to any notion of omnibenevolence.

God is omniscient and knows every move I am making and what actions I will make in the future. Thus, time is on a fixed path of fixed events by which God is able to be omniscient. If time and events were spontaneous and unfixed, God couldn't know the fate of every man. This sort of predeterminism robs us of our free will.

"Either God can exist or freedom. Both cannot exist together." - Osho

"If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." - Mikhail Bakunin

====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <====

Life with the existence of God strips away the significance of life. The meaning of life is already handed to you by God who declares that your purpose in life is to worship him, believe in his son, work towards the goal of heaven, and a choice to do otherwise results in dire consequences. I say that is an utter assault on the beauty of life!

Life and existence is neither meaningful nor meaningless. Life is far beyond any meaning, especially a meaning decided for you by God. Life is an opportunity and a spacious existence to be creative and possibly create your own meaning. The significance of life flourishes when there are no boundaries and no arbitrary guidelines. This degrades the great potential of life! The existence of God is a hindrance, an assault on the beauty and freedom of life!

====> C O N C L U S I O N <====

God has been utterly destroyed once and for all!

Sources:

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

.
KRFournier

Con

Thank you, GeoLaureate8, for this debate. I look forward to an enlightening interchange.

====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <====

:::Argument from the Universe:::

Geo engages in the fallacy of redefinition. In P1, he defines universe as everything that exists. In P3, he defines the universe as that which God created. When I substitute more accurate terms in his syllogism, the fallacy becomes evident:

P1: The Complete Universe is everything that exists. [1]
P2: If God exists, he is part of the Complete Universe.
P3: If God is part of the Created Universe, he could not have created it.

P3 makes sense on its own, but the universe he refers to is not the same as the one in P1 and P2. Therefore, his conclusion is invalid.

:::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS:::

P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

Geo is twisting semantics to convert the REAL Kalam's Cosmological Argument (KCA) into a straw man he can more easily defeat. Indeed, matter is neither created nor destroyed, but this premise does not speak about matter, it speaks about time and space. Everything we've ever observed has begun at a point in time. While the matter in Geo's laptop has always existed, his laptop began to exist at a point in time and space.

P2: The universe began to exist.

It is certain the universe is continually expanding from a singularity. [2] Alexander Vilenkin developed a unifying theory [3] in 2003 with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth. This theory, which is independent of our universe, shows that all expanding universes must have a singularity and therefore a beginning.

P3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I have upheld the premises and exposed Geo's fallacies in his refutation. Therefore, this conclusion follows.

:::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause:::

Geo is correct that we cannot make the leap from uncaused cause to God without more evidence. On the other hand, it also fails to prove God's non-existence and therefore fails to satisfy Geo's resolution. He must elaborate on how this actually proves his case.

====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <====

:::God Can't Be Great:::

Ipse dixit. Geo has not explained WHY God must be finite. I can only assume he is appealing to his Argument from the Universe, in which he substitutes one meaning of universe with another. So long as that argument is refuted, this argument has no logical foundation whatsoever.

:::God is a Tyrannical Dictator:::

God being the self-appointed ruler of the universe has no bearing on his greatness. God is, by the mere fact that he is God, great. I think, perhaps, Geo needs to be reminded of the definition of Great:

Great - 1. Very large in size. 2. Larger in size than others of the same kind. 3. Large in quantity or number: A great throng awaited us. See Synonyms at large. 4. Extensive in time or distance: a great delay. 5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis. 6. Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art. 7. Chief or principal: the great house on the estate. 8. Superior in quality or character; noble: "For he was great, ere fortune made him so" (John Dryden). 9. Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West. 10. Eminent; distinguished: a great leader. 11. Grand; aristocratic. 12. Informal Enthusiastic: a great lover of music. 13. Informal Very skillful: great at algebra. 14. Informal Very good; first-rate: We had a great time at the dance. 15. Being one generation removed from the relative specified. Often used in combination: a great-granddaughter. 16. Archaic Pregnant. [1]

None of these definitions speak of benevolence, which seems to be what Geo is truly attempting to refute. If that is his intention, he should revise his resolution in the next round, though I advise the voters to consider how that might affect the conduct vote.

====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <====

One's life significance cannot be objectively measured. Life-significance is a human state of mind. Even Geo claims that we create our own meaning. Geo cannot objectively prove this portion of the resolution by virtue that he has himself has already shown that the matter is subjective in nature.

====> T A G <====

This is my argument to support my position: the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG).

Truth, being that which affirms reality as it is, is the desired goal of academic pursuit. Debate falls within this pursuit. Strong agnosticism and other forms of skepticism are refuted at the outset on the basis that they are self-refuting. The claim that truth is not objective is itself an objective truth claim and can only be true if it is false.

Geo has relied on logical reasoning, scientific induction, and even moral principles in support of his resolution. Clearly, he presupposes these things are capable of attaining objective truth. To do so, these principles must be abstract and absolute, as anything else reduces to absurdity. If logical reasoning is conventional, then it cannot affirm anything more than conventional knowledge. If nature is not uniform, then science cannot affirm anything more than present observations. If morality is subjective, then it cannot affirm anything more than ethical suggestions. Unless these principles are universally binding and abstractly independent from human thought, Geo's appeals to logical reasoning, scientific inference, and moral consquence are meaningless.

For Geo's debate to be intelligible, logic must be necessarily true, the universe must be uniform, and morality must be universally binding. TAG asserts that God is the necessary precondition for these principles, and is proved via the impossibility of the contrary. God is the only precondition that can justify immutable logic, uniformity in nature, and moral objectivity, for He is perfectly true, immutable, transcendent, righteous, holy, infinite, and so forth. Without Him, these principles cannot exist in the state in which Geo requires them.

The result is that Geo's attempts to disprove God's existence, among other things, ultimately relies on principles that can only be justified if his position is wrong.

====> C O N C L U S I O N <====

Geo's resolution is in three parts, and he must show all three to be true. He has not proven God does not exist as his arguments have been shown to rely on ambiguity of terms. He has not proven that God is not great; he has only shared his opinion on the matter. He has not proven that God makes life worthless; he has only espoused his personal perceptions on the matter. In fact, there is very little proof of his resolution at all in his opening round.

On the other hand, I have offered proof of the contrary, which he will be tasked to refute. It is up to him to defend ALL his arguments and refute mine. If he fails to support even one element of his three-part resolution, then the voters are justified in voting Con.

====> S O U R C E S <====

1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://skyserver.sdss.org...
3. http://books.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
GeoLaureate8

Pro

Thanks, KRFournier for accepting this debate. Let's cut straight to the chase.
.
.

====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <====

:::Argument from the Universe:::

My opponent plays semantics (as the majority of critics here have done as well) and attacks my use of the word Universe to denote the whole of existence. Since no such word that I'm aware of, literally means the whole of existence, the term "Universe" had to suffice and which I thought I made clear the intended use. In fact, according to various definitions on Wikipedia (which references ancient philosophers and the early use of the word), "the Universe is defined as everything that exists, has existed, and will exist." [1] As such, my opponent is FALSE when he proclaims a redefinition fallacy. However, this is all useless semantics and is unfortunate because it misses the point of the very essence of my argument.

Admittedly, my opponent was able to get past the semantics and somewhat understood my argument by acknowledging that I'm referring to the "Complete Universe."

My Original P3: If God is part of the Universe, he could not have created it.

KRF's Strawman P3: If God is part of the Created Universe, he could not have created it.

As you can see, KRF has constructed a blatant strawman and attacked it by saying that the Universe of P3 is inconsistent with P1 and P2.

Allow me to clarify the argument to escape any sort of semantics about Universe/Created Universe/etc.

P1: The whole of existence is everything that exists. (A = A)
P2: If God exists, he is part of the entirety of existence.
P3: If God is part of existence, he could not have created existence itself.
:. Therefore, a creator God is impossible.

Note: Any mention of "outside of space-time" is irrelevant. If something exists outside of space-time, it is still part of existence.

I stand in affirmation that this argument, when fully understood stands unrefuted.

:::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS:::

P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

{KRFournier: it speaks about time and space. Everything we've ever observed has begun at a point in time. While the matter in Geo's laptop has always existed, his laptop began to exist at a point in time and space.}

Unproven bare assertion.

He says that the premise is about the beginning of time and space, not the beginning of "objects" that we know of. This is correct, and I knew that. However, this premise acts as if we know that whatever begins to exist, has a cause, because everything we see today "began to exist" (Lane Craig himself said it and he's wrong). However, nothing we know of and observed, has "begun to exist." And thus, my opponents argument is a circular bare assertion that because time and space had a beginning, therefore, the matter that made my laptop began to exist. Invalid.

The fact is, we DON'T know that time and space began to exist and he has no basis whatsoever for claiming as such.

P2: The universe began to exist.

My opponent provided an argument I already refuted in the 1st round. I had already noted that our "corner of existence" (properly termed "the Hubblesphere) began as a singularity point. I further refuted his point that our singularity point "began to exist."

Quote: "even if we were to assume that our singularity was the only one, there's no reason to assume that the matter of the singularity didn't always exist."

So of course the Big Bang was the beginning of our expanded singularity point, but that doesn't mean the matter and energy of the singularity point couldn't have always existed. Let me note that "beginning" =/= "begin to exist." For example, I began to be me at birth, but the matter my body is made up of is merely matter that has always existed, just merely transformed.

:::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause:::

My opponent concedes the ineffectiveness of Kalam's Cosmological for proving God and instead get's only as far as an unknowable uncaused cause. However, he notes that it fails to prove the non-existence of God and fails to satisfy the resolution. This is only partially true as this is only one facet of my case against God. Remember, I have provided both a positive argument against God's existence and a negation of one of the stronger arguments for God.

====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <====

:::God Can't Be Great:::

My opponent boldly claims that I didn't explain WHY God must be finite. This is false.

Quote: "God is not Satan, God is not demons, God is not my opponent, God is not evil, God is not dirt, etc. Unless a Theist is willing to accept that God is a Satanic, evil piece of dirt, then God must be finite."

:::God is a Tyrannical Dictator:::

I find it humorous that my opponent has gone semantical on the word "great." However, he kindly lists all the definitions of "great." I think it's obvious what I mean by the word, but from his list, this is what I refer to: "Of outstanding significance or importance; remarkable or outstanding in magnitude; superior in quality or character; noble."

He says that no definition provided speaks of benevolence, however, if God were shown to be evil, finite, and tyrannical, he would NOT be "superior in quality of character," he would NOT be "noble," and he would NOT be "remarkable or significant."

====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <====

KRF claims that life's significance cannot be objectively measured, but on the contrary, my argument demonstrates this precisely.

Degrade: to lower in character or quality; to reduce in amount; to reduce in worth or value [2]

If God exists and this being imposes a single meaning to life, life and existence become limited and confined, thus degrading the significance of life. Life that is boundless, unrestricted, free to explore, free to give multiple meanings, free to create, life's significance is once again restored.

====> T A G <====

This argument is very simple to refute. It simply begs the question as demonstrated by my opponent: "Geo's attempts to disprove God's existence, among other things, ultimately relies on principles that can only be justified if his position is wrong."

The Transcendental Argument affirms that logic can only be valid and absolute if God exists as the "necessary precondition." My opponent's justification for this statement is "[TAG] is proved via the impossibility of the contrary." Well isn't that great? Where's the proof or logical reasoning behind that statement?

TAG falsely assumes that the only way for universals and absolutes to exist is if God exists. That's like saying "Math is only valid if God exists." Ridiculous! And blatantly fallacious!

====> C O N C L U S I O N <====

"God is DEAD, hence man is FREE!" - Nietzsche

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
KRFournier

Con

This debate is moving right along, so I'll try to keep the pace.

====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <====

:::Argument from the Universe:::

Geo's argument here only works if God is defined as a supreme being that created all of existence including himself. I call him Straw God and concede his existence is impossible.

However, I can't think of a religion today that postulates such a God. I am defended the Christian God as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith [1], which most accurately reflects the working definition of God I am defending.

Given a distinction between all of existence and God's creation, there is no logical incompatibility. Therefore, he has not disproven the existence of God, only of Straw God.

:::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS:::

P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

Geo simply misunderstands the intended premises of the KCA. P1 does not assert that matter and energy has a cause. It asserts that, per our observations, everything we observe began to exist at a point in time. The beginning of matter and energy (if indeed there is one) are dealt with in P2.

Furthermore, Geo uses the fallacy of composition:

P1: A laptop is composed of matter
P2: Matter never began
:. The laptop never began

P2: The universe began to exist.

Understanding P1 correctly, things that exist in time started in time. Whether or not matter and energy always existed is irrelevant to the bigger issue: that time and space began. For example, if matter and energy always existed, something would have to cause that matter and energy to expand into 4 dimensions.

Note that Geo did not comment on the Alexander Vilenkin's unifying theory that all expanding universes have a singularity and therefore a beginning. Vilenkin and his colleagues are non-religious physicists that had previously published infinite universe theories. What say ye?

:::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause:::

Of course, proving the KCA by itself doesn't prove that the cause was God, but Geo can't have it both ways. The ambiguity of the uncaused cause favors neither position. Geo is free to offer a dozen alternative causes, but doing so fails to prove God does NOT exist. A rebuttal of an argument FOR God's existence does not prove the opposite. That would be the fallacy of Affirmative Conclusion from Negative Premises.

====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <====

:::God Can't Be Great:::

I fail to see how Geo is exempt from supporting his assertion that "God is not Satan, God is not demons, God is not my opponent, God is not evil, God is not dirt, etc. Unless a Theist is willing to accept that God is a Satanic, evil piece of dirt, then God must be finite." This is ipse dixit, an assertion he has not supported. I suppose it's just another set of attributes of Straw God.

:::God is a Tyrannical Dictator:::

I wasn't trying to engage in semantics as much as request clarification on the definition of great. Indeed, my point was that, with such an ambiguous term, how can either of us prove greatness or non-greatness meaningfully?

Here is Geo's criterion: "if God were [sic] shown to be evil, finite, and tyrannical, he would NOT be 'superior in quality of character,' he would NOT be 'noble,' and he would NOT be 'remarkable or significant.'"

Straw God certainly meets Geo's criteria and is therefore not great. God, on the other hand, is by definition infinite, which makes him "remarkable or significant." By Geo's own arbitrary standards, God is indeed great.

====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <====

Once again, we are met with Geo's arbitrary criterion. Significance, according to Geo, occurs in a life that "is boundless, unrestricted, free to explore, free to give multiple meanings, free to create."

Aside from the limits imposed by the laws of physics, I declare that I am boundless, unrestricted, free to explore, free to give multiple meanings, and free to create. I simultaneously believe in God (not Straw God) and assert that he grants me these freedoms. Therefore, I have life-significance.

How can Geo hope to prove that my sense of life-significance is false? This is entirely a subjective matter.

====> T A G <====

Looks like Geo successfully defeated Straw TAG. It's a good thing I still have TAG to defend. Perhaps I can help Geo understand the argument in pseudo-syllogism. Here are the assertions I made with a summary of my supporting arguments.

Truth is objective - I argued that skepticism is self-refuting

Objective truth is obtained via reliable principles such as logic, science, and morality - That's what we're doing in this debate; using these principles to objectively prove or disprove the resolution

Logic must be abstract and absolute in order to obtain objective truth - Proved by transcendental argument. For logic to be universal and independently verifiable, these are the necessary preconditions.

Nature must be uniform - Proved by transcendental argument. For scientific inquiry to yield objective results, the future must behave like the past. The necessary precondition, therefore, is an ordered universe.

Morality must be abstract and absolute in order to place objective moral obligations on outside parties - Proved by transcendental argument. If morality is to be used to disprove God's existence, then it must be a morality that is not subject to human unpredictability. Subjective morality is just mere opinion.

The Christian Worldview is the only worldview that accounts for the aforementioned preconditions. Naturalism cannot account for abstract entities. Idealism cannot account for absolute entities. I could go on, but I'll let Geo site the worldview of his choice. In the end, by eliminating worldviews that cannot meet the preconditions necessary for intelligible debate, the Christian Worldview is left standing. Thus, by impossibility of the contrary, the Christian Worldview is true and God exists.
That's the argument. It's not circular, but it does reason from the particulars to the universals. That's what a transcendental argument does. Now, I'd like to see Geo defend TAG instead of Straw TAG next round.

====> S O U R C E S <====

1. http://www.reformed.org...
Debate Round No. 2
GeoLaureate8

Pro

.
.
.

====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <====

:::Argument from the Universe:::

My opponent calls my argument a strawman because it only works if God created himself. However, if my opponent asserts an infinite God, he indeed, must have created himself. Let me note that my prior argument assumed a finite God (God being only a part of existence.) So, finite creator God has been refuted. Acknowledging this nuance, I will reconstruct the argument to refute an infinite God as well.

If God is infinite, he created himself because:

P1: God is infinite. (As my opponent claims, as do most Theists.)
P2: If God is infinite, he cannot be separate from creation. He is all encompassing, including creation.
:. If God created creation, he created himself.

**Argument from the Universe (When Infinite God is postulated.)**

P1: The whole of existence is everything that exists.
P2: If God is infinite, he is the whole of existence.
P3: If God is all that exists, he could not have created existence itself.
:. Therefore, an infinite creator God is not possible.

Thus, it has been affirmed once again.

He's infinite, he is everything. What is there to create? If there's things missing not yet created, he's not everything and not infinite.

:::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS:::

P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

I have already refuted this in prior rounds. I know the argument asserts that everything we observe began to exist. But the fact is, we have not observed anything that began to exist. Everything that we have observed, is made up of the same atoms that have always existed. Matter transforms, it fluctuates, and can even transform into a laptop if manipulated properly. But the matter has always existed (Law of Conservation of Matter).

KRF asserts that Premise 1 only pertains to phenomena that we currently observe in the Universe. That is to say, things as we observe them today, begin to exist. He then asserts that Premise 2 deals with something different. It deals with the origin of all matter and all energy, and the entire Universe itself. Well, doesn't this make Premise 1 irrelevant then? Because obviously the conditions after the Big Bang are different before the Big Bang. If my opponent wants to assert that assertions of Premise 1 and Premise 2 have the same grounds, then he would also have to concede that the Law of Conservation of Matter applies to both our current Universe after the Big Bang, and applies to existence before the Big Bang. If the Law applies before the Big Bang, the Universe could not have begun to exist. See the problem here?

(My opponent also falely accuses me of committing a composition fallacy by claiming that I said that, because matter never began, therefore my laptop never began. That wasn't my argument. I said that because matter never began, the matter in my laptop never began either.)

P2: The universe began to exist.

{KRFournier: For example, if matter and energy always existed, something would have to cause that matter and energy to expand into 4 dimensions.}

That makes no difference. The matter and energy of the singularity point never began to exist. It was always there. You asked what caused the expansion (which would actually pertain to P3, not this), however, expansions don't require a cause, especially if you concede that it never began to exist. We already know that matter exists, and is perfectly capable of expanding, morphing, and doing all kinds of things on it's own (without a cause per se).

P3: The universe has a cause.

It almost seems as if my opponent is willing to grant me that matter and energy always existed. That means nothing began to exist, so there goes P1 and P2. And granted that's not the case, my opponent has still failed to meet his burden.

***KRF must unequivocally show that space, time, matter, and energy began to exist. He has not.***

As you can see from Round 1, I was more than happy to acknowledge and postulate expanding universes that began as singularity points. However, as already demonstrated, my position is that we don't know that the matter and energy of the singularities actually "began to exist."

:::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause:::

My opponent concedes this point once again, yet criticizes that this fact doesn't prove the non-existence of God. While I agree with this point, he forgets that my arguments affirming that God doesn't exist are complimentary, and not affirmative based on the merit of this argument alone. Remember, arguments against God can include positive arguments against and negative arguments against arguments for God. I have both.

====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <====

:::God Can't Be Great:::

My opponent contents that my arguments that God is finite don't hold up. However, I have constructed an agument that affirms this.

God is finite.

P1: God exists outside of time-space and is separate from creation.
P2: If the above is true, God doesn't exist everywhere, only some places.
:. God is not infinite.

:::God is a Tyrannical Dictator:::

My opponent believes I have not upheld the assertion that if God is evil, finite, and tyrannical, and therefore, not warranted to claim he is NOT 'superior in quality of character,' he is NOT 'noble,' and he is NOT 'remarkable or significant.'

However, I have explained that God is evil because he invented an infernal concentration camp for those who don't believe just in him. He is finite as demonstrated above. And God is tyrannical by definition. Tyranny: absolute ruler; arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power. [1]

So God is NOT great, whatsoever!

====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <====

KRF asserts that my argument for this is groundless, however, this is not the case. My argument was simply that the existence of God degrades the significance of life.

Degrade simply means "to lower in character or quality; to reduce in amount; to reduce in worth or value." [2]

The existence of a God who hands you a predefined meaning to life, already is an example of life being "reduced in amount." It eliminates all other possible meanings of life, it stops one from creating his or her own meaning, and reduces the multitude of opportunities and potential of life.

====> T A G <====

KRF asserts that:

P1: "Objective truth is obtained via reliable principles such as logic, science, and morality."
P2: These three principles must be abstract and absolute.
P3: "For [the three principles] to be universal and independently verifiable, these are the necessary preconditions."
:. "The Christian Worldview is the only worldview that accounts for the aforementioned preconditions."

This is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS! He justifies his conclusion by saying "Naturalism cannot account for abstract entities. Idealism cannot account for absolute entities." I ask, what is the reasoning behind this? What proof?

He doesn't even attempt to make an argument as to why God or the Christian worldview can only account for absolutes and universals as opposed to other world views! His conclusion is a complete and utter non-sequitur with no justification! As I stated before, this is akin to saying that "Math can only be valid and absolute... if God exists!" What is this?

The only thing that can be affirmed by this argument is that objective truth relies on principles like logic, and in order to be valid, they must be absolute and have a basis for being absolute. There's no reason to posit God as the only possible explanation for absolutes. Might as well say, "Goddidit." This does not hold up.

====> C O N C L U S I O N <====

Resolution affirmed. Thank you to my opponent and thanks for taking the time to read this.

Sources: In comments section.
KRFournier

Con

I thank Geo for his presence and punctuality. It's nice when a debate is forfeit-free.

====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <====

:::Argument from the Universe:::

Interestingly enough, Geo had been assuming--up until now--that God was finite. I'm glad I posted a link to the Westminster Confession of Faith's description of God in my last round because I wouldn't dare defend the existence of such a God. So can his Argument from the Universe defeat an infinite God? Apparently, it can… if you define the term infinite for an auto-win.

He's equivocating infinite the same why he equivocated universe. In round one, he defined Universe as all of existence. Now he defines infinite exactly the same way, making them utterly interchangeable. As a result, his argument hasn't changed, dragging along the same fallacies with it.

As I stated before, Christians make a distinction: there is all of existence, which includes God, and there is his creation, which is a subset of all of existence. Yes, we assert God is ever-present in this creation, but that does not logically necessitate that he IS creation or creation IS God. Geo should not simply take P2 for granted. He should have shown why it is logically impossible to separate God from his creation.

Nowhere in my definition of God is infinite equated to all that exists. He is infinite in being and perfection, which simply means he the most perfect and was not created. He is infinite in knowledge, meaning he knows all things about all of existence. He is infinite in time, which means he is eternal rather than temporal. Nowhere does my definition assert that God and Creation are the same. He might encompass his creation--surround it--but that does not logically dictate that they are indistinguishable from one another.

This serves as a reminder as to why we need to carefully define the characteristics of God before go about knocking down Gods of Straw.

:::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS:::

P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

Let me refute this in a way that may not have been clear before. Saying the Matter always existed, begs the question. We don't KNOW it always existed, we've simply observed that it is never created or destroyed in the known physical universe. KCA sets out to prove that matter had a cause, in the next premise. But first, it establishes the indisputable fact that, in a temporal existence, things have beginnings. If everything else we know began, then why not matter?

P2: The universe began to exist.

{That makes no difference. The matter and energy of the singularity point never began to exist. It was always there.}

Circular reasoning. This premise is based on the conclusion being false. Geo should have used another means of refuting P2.

P3: The universe has a cause.

{It almost seems as if my opponent is willing to grant me that matter and energy always existed.}

I said matter's eternal existence is irrelevant to the argument KCA was making, but I do not concede this point. In fact, I've already pointed out that its question begging.

{***KRF must unequivocally show that space, time, matter, and energy began to exist. He has not.***}

Actually, you proved it by failing to refute KCA. In 100% of our observations of this temporal universe, things have a beginning point in time. Therefore, given the law of parsimony couple with the fact that there is a singularity in our universe, it is reasonable to conclude that matter, energy, space and time began as well. Indeed, this is what Alexander Vilenkin's theory was getting at, which you never addressed.

:::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause:::

We both agree that the ambiguity is not, in and of itself, helpful to either position. However, Geo asserts that it compliments his other arguments. Well, the door swings both ways. This ambiguity also compliments my refutations of his other arguments.

====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <====

:::God Can't Be Great:::

{P1: God exists outside of time-space and is separate from creation.
P2: If the above is true, God doesn't exist everywhere, only some places.
:. Straw God is not infinite.}

By simply adding a third premise that God has more dimensions than we have conceived, then it is possible for God to be simultaneously distinct from creation and omnipresent within it. The point is, where does Geo get this definition of God? Notice how God is infinite in the Argument from the Universe and finite here. Geo is simply cherry picking the attributes that best support his fore drawn conclusions.

Simply put, God is, by definition, great. Whether you agree with his existence or not, he is bigger, better, stronger, and smarter--by definition--than everything. How do you refute a definition?

:::God is a Tyrannical Dictator:::

If God does not punish, then God is not just. If God does not forgive, then God is not Good. God gives us the freedom to choose heaven without having to be perfect, while those that do evil and curse God are punished. He is both righteous and merciful. I believe that makes him 'superior in quality of character,' 'noble,' and 'remarkable or significant.'

====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <====

Geo keeps ignoring my point that he cannot prove whether or not life-significance is degraded because such things cannot be objectively measured. For every person that finds predestination degrading, there's a person that finds that it adds significance. I can't say it any other way, so I'll rest my case.

====> T A G <====

I will confess, given the space constraints, I did not pick apart every worldview and show how they fail to account for abstract and absolute entities. However, I did leave room for Geo to show me how his worldview does. So, let me illustrate how Naturalism and Idealism fail. It's all I have to work with.

Naturalism presupposes that only matter and energy exist. This worldview cannot account for either abstract or absolute entities. Abstract entities, which occur in the mind, are nothing more than electrical impulses in brain matter. They are subject to differentiation between brains and therefore unreliable. This means I can dispute the Law of Non Contradiction because it's merely a convention. However, Geo would not accept such a dispute. He would insist that logical laws are universally binding and unchanging. So, in a Naturalistic worldview, where else could these things be? In a Christian worldview, God is transcendent, universal, unchanging, and logical. Therefore, His mind accounts for logical laws that no one can dispute.

Idealism presupposes that only ideas exists, or at the very least, that they are the only reliable thing. This worldview can easily account for abstract entities, but not absolute ones. We observe that there are conflicting ideas. The logical conclusion is that all ideas, right and wrong, exist and we experience and trade a subset of these. So, how do ideas determine which other ideas are right or wrong in a way that cannot be disputed? They simply cannot.

Geo insists that he is arguing for OBJECTIVE truth. He is using logic (Argument from the Universe), science (Cosmological Argument), and morality (God as Tyrannical) to make his objective case. However, in order for his arguments to even succeed, then Geo's resolution must be false. God is the only rational justification for the reliability of the very things he uses to refute his existence.

====> C O N C L U S I O N <====

Geo has struggled with consistence definitions and terms. His redefines God, universe, and infinite in his Argument from the Universe and uses circular reasoning to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument. He failed to address some of my arguments, such as Alexander Vilenkin's theory and the inability to objectively measure life-significance. Finally, he didn't attempt to show how TAG was wrong other than to call it "ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS!"

I thank the voter
Debate Round No. 3
161 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
I have already conceded to KRFornier that the argument has a big flaw.

However, that's the primitive version of my later Modified Argument from the Universe.
I guarantee it is a lot tougher to tackle than this early primitive version of the argument.
Posted by Jay_Walk 5 years ago
Jay_Walk
And how is that retarded rendition better than what I previously thought you meant? They are both equally stupid and pathetic "arguments" as KRFournier showed.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Yea, that's the one valid rebuttal the other two clowns jaywalk and carlosmarti couldn't come up with.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Ad hominem comments aside, your syllogism is valid. Indeed, it logically shows that God did not create the whole of existence. The problem is when you attempt to say that this argument somehow proves that God doesn't exist, when in fact, it only proves that God didn't create himself.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
I'm not an Objectivist nor did I base this on that axiom. I also don't know dhorptan.

I amended the wording of the argument for those who have issues with the definition "the universe is everything that exists."

If you understand what the argument is actually saying you will understand it. I can tell by both of your criticisms that you don't get the argument.

Let me restate the argument for stupid people.

The whole of existence is everything that exists.
If God exists, he is part of the whole of existence.
If God is part of the whole of existence, he couldn't have created the whole of existence.

This is based on the principle that a component cannot be the cause of a composite entity.

Get it through your head and don't be an idiot.
Posted by CarlosMarti123 5 years ago
CarlosMarti123
Yep, I can't believe such a terrible, question-begging argument from Dhorptan made it to Debate.org!

V
Posted by Jay_Walk 5 years ago
Jay_Walk
I stopped reading after I seen an all too familiar line used by foolish objectivists "The universe is everything that exists". Not to mention he shares the same retarded argument by dhorpatard on youtube. I just love the magical axiom of randroids "Existence exists" where existence is defined as the non-supernatural. Nobody should take objectivists seriously.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
As we can't prove or disprove God's existence, and since that is the case, we cannot know if God exists or not, but only believe. Therefore whether God did exist or not, based on each of our beliefs life would still be the same, so the question is, is your life not great, and do you make life worthless? Not God is not great and God makes life worthless, for one, without God, there would be not absolute standard in which we could conclude whether if God makes life worthless and whether God is great or not. Your making an absolute statement, if God does not exist, then there is no universal rule maker, thus no absolutes.

Also you said that God does not exist, but in the same statement you said God makes life worthless, seems like your implying that God does exist yet, not at the same time, for how can someone or something be not great if it does not exist?
Posted by pachomius 6 years ago
pachomius
[quote]Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 minutes ago
You're argument is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You say that no one has ever achieved total understanding of the observable universe and this gives you warrant to postulate God. And in order to protect your assertion of God from criticism, you resort to saying that he can't be fully comprehended by the intellect.

Your claim is unfalsifiable and logically, unfalsifiable claims that aren't subject to testing are weak.[/quote]

You must know the difference between an ad hoc fact and a truth.

An ad hoc fact is falsifiable because it is based on the observation of the senses of man, which senses cannot reach the totality exhaustively of the observable universe accessible to man.

Only an unthinking and inexperienced human can dare claim that his eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin are equivalent (equal-valent) to the intricacies in the depths of the oceans, the unfathomable heights in outer space, and the extreme subtleties of the living cell and the marvelous labyrinths inside the atom.

That is why all inputs of the senses and theories worked out from them are ad hoc facts and therefore falsifiable.

But a truth is never falsifiable, for example, it is a truth that being and non-being are not convertible -- not an ad hoc fact.

And God as the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning, that is a truth, not an ad hoc fact of the senses.

Truths are seen by the unblindered mind immediately.

You cannot see them because you don't have a working mind but only senses and sensory inputs, and you have precluded your mind from going way way beyond the sensory inputs of your senses to the realm of self-evident truths.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
You're argument is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You say that no one has ever achieved total understanding of the observable universe and this gives you warrant to postulate God. And in order to protect your assertion of God from criticism, you resort to saying that he can't be fully comprehended by the intellect.

Your claim is unfalsifiable and logically, unfalsifiable claims that aren't subject to testing are weak.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by iholland95 5 years ago
iholland95
GeoLaureate8KRFournierTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
GeoLaureate8KRFournierTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was not even a debate geo, you really need to read the kalam and tag. And stop taking debating lessons from D'souza, emphasis does not a point make!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 6 years ago
Doulos1202
GeoLaureate8KRFournierTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
GeoLaureate8KRFournierTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by arc4music 6 years ago
arc4music
GeoLaureate8KRFournierTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
GeoLaureate8KRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:32 
Vote Placed by csills 6 years ago
csills
GeoLaureate8KRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
GeoLaureate8KRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
GeoLaureate8KRFournierTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
GeoLaureate8KRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30