The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
ti_360
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 41448
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

God will be defined as:

"The transcendent mind that created all of time and space"

This seems to be the most popular view of God, and the one held my known defenders of Theism like William Lane Craig (who believes that God enters time at the first moment of creation). I am going to attempt to show that God does not exist, and that there cannot be a transcendent mind that created all of time and space.

The first round is just for acceptance; no arguments shall be made in the first round.

Failure to adhere to the rules, and the definition of God will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit.
ti_360

Con

I procceed in acceptance of my opponents proposition, of which states that "god does not exist" in accordance to the given definition:

"The transcendent mind that created all of time and space"

Best of regards,
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Introduction

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I think my definition of God is a fair one, and one that most theists who are philosophically inclined would probably agree with. What I like about my argument is that it tears down even a quite generic version of God, instead of just the specific omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being commonly discussed about in the literature.

The Argument

My argument is simple:


P1: If God exists, a non-temporal mind can exist

P2: A non-temporal mind cannot exist

C: Therefore, God does not exist


The argument is valid Modus Tollens ("If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P."[1). The question that remains pertains as to what justification there is to believe the premises are actually true.

Defense of P1

If God exists, then sans ("without") the creation of time, God exists as timeless (non-temporal). Since God has to be a mind, then we can deduce that if God exists; a timeless, or non-temporal mind can exist. This seems to cash out from the very definition of God used in this debate. The issue will be surrounding P2 it seems.

Defense of P2

This becomes evident once we unpack the concept of timelessness, and a mind; a contradiction arises. A sufficient mind must have thoughts. “A mind” without “thoughts” is like “room” without “space”; it is simply nonsensical. What are thoughts? Thoughts are the product of thinking by definition[2][3][4]. What is thinking? Thinking is a mental action/ process by definition[5][6][7]. An action/ process entails a jump from A to B. A jump from A to B entails a change:





Change is intimately bound up with, and requires time:

"So construed, the notion of change is obviously bound up with notions of cause, time and motion" - Change and Inconsistency (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)[8]

"Change is intimately bound up with time." - What is philosophy? (University of Florida)[9]


This is because when a change occurs that presupposes time for it to occur; or else everything just remains frozen with no movement. This means that to have thoughts, these thoughts have to be temporal. Therefore, to have a mind, the mind must be temporal. Ergo, a non-temporal mind entails a logical contradiction, and cannot be the case.

Conclusion

I have showed that a non-temporal mind entails a contradiction. Minds must be temporal by definition, and due to simple metaphysical principles. Since a non-temporal mind would have to be possible if God exists, and it isn't; God does not exist.

"How can a nontemporal mind think? Thinking at its most generic metric requires that this mind have one state and then transition to another." - Ben Schuldt[10]


Sources


[1] http://www.philosophy-index.com...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[7] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[8] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[9] http://web.phil.ufl.edu...
[10] http://richardcarrier.wikispaces.com...

ti_360

Con

ti_360 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
ti_360

Con

I appreciate my opponents response and his/her selection of argumentative content. For the given argument I will maintain reference of the Big Bang Theory in support of my proposition.

In the given argument my proposition proceeds to state:

Analogous to the given statement"God does exist", substantiation in dismissal of theism is incorrect, similarly substantiaton to the dismissal of atheism is invalid . In contrast, it is valid to assert that atheism is more probapabilistic than theism due to unnessecary presence of theological affirmation, upon which is testimonial to cosmological origin.

One cant prove that God doesnt exist, but science makes God unnecessary." ~ Stephen Hawking

Demonstration of my premise is sustainable of theological possibility, by reference to cosmological occurence, in which cause asserts definitional correspondence to "God".

P1: Effect is Consequent to Causality, therefore X - Y

P2: Cosmological occurence is an event(Y) characterised by a cause(X)

P3: By contrast to the validity of previous premises, due to neccasary inclusion of temporality for the applicability of a cosmological cause, in process X - Y is simultaneously produced.

C: Causation and effect progress simultaneously, in which space-time is incident to causlity.

Further development of my argument with concern to the presence of mental concioness prior to cosmological causality will proceed within the succeeding rounds.

Sources
http://www.iep.utm.edu...
http://rationalatheism.tumblr.com...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Introduction


We both forfeited a round, which makes this, unfortunately, a two round debate.


Rebutting My Opponent


Con states:


"Analogous to the given statement 'God does exist', substantiation in dismissal of theism is incorrect, similarly substantiation to the dismissal of atheism is invalid. In contrast, it is valid to assert that atheism is more probapabilistic than theism due to unnessecary presence of theological affirmation, upon which is testimonial to cosmological origin." - Con


My argument is more strong than that however. My argument isn't that Atheism is more likely because theism is unnecessary, it is that theism is necessarily false; therefore, Atheism is necessarily true.


My opponent gives a quote from Steven Hawking:


"One cant prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary." - Stephen Hawking


However, I am not using science to disprove God. I am showing that the concept of a timeless mind is logically incoherent. This has nothing to do with empirical evidence.


My Opponent's Arguments


"Demonstration of my premise is sustainable of theological possibility, by reference to cosmological occurrence, in which cause asserts definitional correspondence to 'God'" - Con


The definition of the God that my opponent accepted by accepting this debate was:


"The transcendent mind that created all of time and space"


A mere "cause" is not sufficient to prove the God I defined in this debate. Failure to abide by rules, such as definitions is a no no. Hopefully, this is not what he is doing. Either way, this argument:


"P1: Effect is Consequent to Causality, therefore X - Y

P2: Cosmological occurrence is an event(Y) characterised by a cause(X)

P3: By contrast to the validity of previous premises, due to neccasary inclusion of temporality for the applicability of a cosmological cause, in process X - Y is simultaneously produced.

C: Causation and effect progress simultaneously, in which space-time is incident to causality."


First of all, the argument isn't even logically valid. This means, it is a non-sequitur, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Either way, we cannot apply temporality to this mind (or "cause"), because the debate outline specifically defends God as a mind that transcends time and space. Thus, God has to be a timeless mind. However, I showed a contradiction in that notion that Con failed to sufficiently respond to. Therefore, my argument stands.


Conclusion


God, in this debate, is not just defined as a mere "cause" but the transcendant mind that caused all time and space. Thus, the mind has to be timeless, and not temporality can be applied at this atemporal state of affairs by definition.

My argument against God stands; the resolution has been affirmed.
ti_360

Con

ti_360 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
*Schuldt
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I posted the wrong source by accident with regards to the last quote by Ben Shuldt:

http://richardcarrier.wikispaces.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by supershamu 2 years ago
supershamu
Rational_Thinker9119ti_360Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro definitely has that one. He made a stronger point and was much more responsive. His argument made sense in that a mind as we know it needs time to progress thought. Because there is no time then thought can't progress therefore making it not a mind. At least that is what I gathered. I can't say I agree in its truth in application to our creator but it is a thought provoking notion on time and mind as we know it