The Instigator
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
gryephon
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God Exists

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,322 times Debate No: 70825
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)

 

tejretics

Con

This debate is open to members of any age with at least 8 completed debates, and an Elo rating of 2,235 points or more.

There are some strict rules that apply. Judges must penalize any trespassing of the rules.

1. (a) Forfeiture is an IMMEDIATE loss, granting me an immediate 7-point victory. Therefore, the opponent MUST NOT forfeit ANY ROUND of the debate EXCEPT in Round 5 (see Rule 4).

1. (b) My forfeiture will result in my opponent gaining an immediate 7-point victory.

2. The Burden of Proof (BoP) initially lies with Pro, to prove the existence of God; following his first argument (see Rule 4), BoP is extended to both sides equally. Verifiable sources can be provided to strengthen the proof, but proof is necessary for all arguments.

3. All arguments must pertain to the definitions given below.

4. PRO must begin the argument in Round 1 and, therefore, MUST forfeit Round 5.

5. Appropriate conduct must be maintained:
  • No inappropriate, profane, and/or vulgar language
  • No swearing/cursing
  • No insulting of other members of DDO
  • NO TROLLING

IF appropriate conduct is not maintained, then my IMMEDIATE 7-point victory is guaranteed, and the argument WILL BE REPORTED to DDO authorities. If I do not maintain appropriate conduct, then Pro reserves an immediate 7-point victory and the right to report the same to DDO authorities.

6. LOGIC must be accepted or rebutted; not refuted by claiming, for example, that God is beyond logic.

7. Failing to follow the rules will guarantee an immediate 7-point loss to the rule-breaker.

Definitions:

1. "God" - A sentient, intelligent being that acts as the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being; the properties of GOD in this debate are: OMNISCIENCE, OMNIPOTENCE, and TRANSCENDENCE

2. "Exists" - THIRD PERSON PRESENT FORM of "Exist": having objective reality or being

3. "Omniscience" - the knowledge of everything

4. "Omnipotence" - the ability to perform any action both objectively and subjectively

gryephon

Pro

Here are two arguments that does favor a God, the first argument is an argument essentially from contingency (from which I heard from apologist William Lane Craig), the other one is an age old one from the appearance of design, it has many variations. I’m not sure if I’ll bring up more or not next round, this debate is a 24 hour round debate, so I don’t want to bring up too many that I can’t defend, I just want to see how it plays out. But anyway, thanks for starting this debate.



1. Argument for a personal cause.

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
P2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
P3. The universe exists.
C1. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (as see in P1 and P3).
C2. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from P2, C1).

Explanation of P1 to understand the first premise, one needs to know what I mean by necessity and external cause. Things like the abstracts like numbers are believed (by a lot of mathematicians) to exist out of necessity, as in numbers aren’t really caused by anything. Alternatively there is another kind of explanation which is an external cause… To explain it, let’s say that while walking around you find a teapot in the middle of the road, do you think that it simply spontaneously popped into existence there? No, you think that three has got to be an explanation as it why it’s there. This would be true with just about any object, flower, ball, computer, etc. This is the other category of explanations outside of necessity.

Explanation of P2 I find this reasonable, why? Well when you think about it the universe is composed of all space, time, and matter… so wouldn’t the explanation be immaterial to be the explanation of matter? Wouldn’t the explanation need to be beyond space and time to be it’s explanation? There are the abstracts that are like this, but the problem with saying that abstracts like numbers are the explanations is that they can’t cause anything. However there is a view on God that God is an unembodied mind held by many theists of the Christian branch, an unembodied mind would work as a cause.




2. Argument for a designer

As Paul wrote in Romans 1:20 (ESV) “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Just about everyone knows the immense complexity of the human body, it looks very much like it was made. Even the remarkable fine tuning of the universe for life shows that it’s not exclusively to the human body. Tell me does Con disagree that the universe is finely-tuned? Do you deny that anything has appearence of design?

Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Con

Rebuttal:

1. Argument for a personal cause:

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either (a) in the necessity of its own nature, or (b) in an external cause.
P2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

How is P2 derived from P1? The universe may have a source but does that source need to be the source of all moral authority? Not necessarily. It can even be a yet undiscovered force, or a singularity that transcends existence. If God can self-create or transcend creation, so can a force. There needn't be any of the properties described in the definition of Round 1 for this force to exist. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe originated from a singularity [1], a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume [2]. According to the Big Bang, energy was absorbed from gravity inherent to existence (as God is, according to most theologists), and expanded into photons, that then contracted to form matter and antimatter. [3] [4] The source of the universe need not be an omnipotent, omniscient being that acts as the source of moral authority. Thus, P2 is completely illogical.

2. Argument for a designer

Complexity is merely due to the structural aspects of a thermodynamic system. One of the primary structural aspects of a thermodynamic system (such as the universe) is the emergence of disorder within the order of the universe; the measure of this disorder is called entropy, and is merely a particle level rearrangement. Supernatural forces play no part in this.

Arguments:

1. The Omnipotence Paradox

If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions (all actions include hypothetical one; "all" even includes nonexistent, or incomprehensible actions, which, by the rules of absolute omnipotence, require the ability to perform the same by the omnipotent being objectively). Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do. [5] By this debate's definition of "omnipotence", the omnipotence referenced here is absolute omnipotence, meaning that there are no limits to the Supreme Being's omnipotence by the terms of this debate. Thus, omnipotence cannot exist.

2. The Omniscience Paradox

(1) If the Supreme Being foreknows of some event E, does E happen necessarily, and (2) if some event E is contingent, how can the Supreme Being foreknow E's occurrence? [6] [7] Thus, omniscience implies the lack of contingency, and thus, by the definition of the existence of a Supreme Being, means everything is definite. This definitiveness is proof of the universe being completely entwined by order. But according to the thermodynamic measure of entropy, there is more than one way in which a thermodynamic system (eg: a region of the universe) may be arranged. [8] [9] This arrangement is variable, yet constant in the fact that the varied arrangements may coexist. Thus, there is, by definition, disorder in the universe. [8] If there is disorder, then only one hypothesis of the possibilities of entropy may be predestined, and not more. Thus, foreknowing all the possibilities is impossible. Therefore, omniscience does not exist.

3. Miracles

"Miracle" is defined as "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency." [10] Miracles are (a) deemed possible and necessary by the laws of omnipotence, and (b) essential attributes of the Supreme Being. But, they are inexplicable by the laws of physics and have no proof to them. Therefore, if the Supreme Being is unable to perform any supernatural action, then he/she may not be considered as the Supreme Being.

4. Russell's Teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. [11] This analogy also now allows me, having presented the logical rationales for the nonexistence of a Supreme Being, to shift the burden of proof to Pro and theism.

The arguments are derived from my own arguments in a former debate: http://www.debate.org...

Sources:
[1] A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://gotejas.com...; Posts "God Does Not Play Dice With The Universe", "What Is Nothing?" and "E Pluribus Unum".
[5] Savage, C. Wade. "The Paradox of the Stone" Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74–79
[6] "Purtill on Fatalism and Truth". Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.
[7] Viney, Donald Wayne (Spring 1989). "Does Omniscience Imply Foreknowledge? Craig on Hartshorneby". Process Studies (Center for Process Studies) 18 (1): 30–37.
[8] "Carnot, Sadi (1796–1832)". Wolfram Research. 2007.
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] Oxford Dictionary of English, American Edition (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
gryephon

Pro






1. Argument for a personal cause:

Though I guess it is true that this doesn’t necessarily mean that the cause of the universe is the source of all moral authority from this argument. But it would be a very bizarre form of atheism to acknowledge that there really is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial personal cause to the universe who might possibly be the source of moral authority.

A force doesn’t have any freewill, for example when a person sits down he can decide to get up whenever he pleases… However this isn’t true with forces, it can’t decide to do things on its own accord because forces are mindless. If the universe really does have a beginning, it makes sense that a mind started it. Energy can't simply decide to begin to exist.

If there is an actual personal cause to the big bang then it is probably all-powerful, what else can expand an infinitely dense singularity that isn’t all-powerful?

Correct me if I’m wrong, If the big bang is actually infinite, as you say infinitely dense, you will need infinite energy, which follows infinite temperatures. One can’t cool an infinitely hot thing, not warm an infinitely cold thing. But there does exist things with finite temperatures, for example where I’m at right now it is 53 degrees, 53 isn’t an infinite temperature. So if everything came from an infinite temperature, why is the earth’s temperature finite? This is why I’m skeptic about singularities.

2. Argument for a designer

I doubt thermodynamic systems actually make life Heat is not intelligent enough to make any form of life, nor cold. I almost find it as silly as saying one evolved from a rock. Life itself looks designed, and earth is finely tuned to be compatible with life. Are you saying that this just coincidence, or are you denying that things looks designed and the earth is not finely tuned for life?

And how would you know no intellectual mind plays any part in this? The observable evidence clearly infers a creator.

Con’s arguments

1. The Omnipotence Paradox

I don’t really get what’s not computing here. If an omnipotent being can really do all things, then the being can really do all things. It follows logically that since the being can do all things, this does includes paradoxes. It may be a counterintuitive ability of omnipotence, but it logically follows

2. The Omniscience Paradox

How can a supreme being foreknows? Oh easy, probably logic. For example if some guy jumps off a cliff a few miles up and you see him falling towards the ground you can put the two evidence together and conclude that he will hit the ground. If a being can predict the future, logic is the best explanation to this phenomenon.

To note, logic would be based on contingency, so there wouldn’t be any lack of contingency. Also I’m kind of skeptical

3. Miracles

Well it may not be due to his omnipotence, but due to creatorship.

According to the Bible, the origin of the universe is scripted, things where brought about through words. When God said let there be light, there was light. I do kind of relate this to software development, you know how like when you have your own forum you would have this hidden control panel for being the admin, or if you’re developing a game you could edit the game’s variables through a command line (assuming that you knew the commands).

If this divine agent is in fact the creator of the universe, I don’t see why the creator can’t have created some sort of administrative access like that on the computer. So in a sense, it’s not necessarily because he is omnipotent, but is the creator. If say this being wanted to walk on water, he just simply commands the water to be walkable much like a software developer gives commands to whatever software.

4. Russell's Teapot

You could of just simply saved text space here and said the burden of proof is on you. Though I guess it’s interesting to find out why atheists keep referencing a teapot when they’re talking about the burden of proof.

Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals:

1. Argument for a personal cause
An intelligent being may not be the only source of the universe; energy does not DECIDE to exist. It just exists. Existence is not influenced by a decision. Since you are making the proposition that existence is influenced by an intelligent decision, I invoke Rule 2 and the Russel's Teapot Law to ask you to provide PROOF that existence is influenced by intelligent decisions. The existence of energy is inherent to gravity itself [Note 1]. According to the definitions of this debate, "omnipotence" is NOT the state of being "all-powerful", it is the "ability to perform ANY action" [Note 2]. Temperature is influenced by the variable U, which represents the density of energy at a certain point of spacetime and the radiation of a portion of the same. Since the energy density is practically infinite, combined with large proportions of Hawking radiation that still remains concentrated in the initial singularity (of the Big Bang), the temperature is NEARLY infinite (Not infinite because of limited levels of Hawking radiation) [1][2][3]. U is a variable because of the entropy of energy [4][5].

2. Argument for a designer

WHAT
is the "observable evidence"? The "artistic" structure of the universe can be due to its initial stage of zero entropy in a singularity. Proof has not been provided that the universe's patterns require intelligence. With this argument, Pro has not fulfilled their BoP.

3. The Omnipotence Paradox

Defiance of logic is impossible; that is the very definition of logic. According to Rule 6, LOGIC must be accepted. This is merely the refuting of logic. Anything paradoxical is nonexistent. Here, too, Pro has not fulfilled their BoP and has violated Rule 6; you must show how omnipotence is ACCORDING to logic. A paradox is "an absurd or contradictory statement" [6]. Logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" [6].

4. The Omniscience Paradox

Mere logic cannot allow one to foreknow everything in existence. There is always a possibility, however MINUTE, that a certain event E does not happen. [7] Logic does not always allow knowledge of everything, existent and nonexistent. Thus, the omniscience paradox is still a relevant contradiction of rational logic.

5. Miracles

Without providing ANY PROOF, you DIRECTLY ASSUME that God created the universe. Miracles are irrational. You must follow Rule 2 and fulfill your burden of proof by PROVING miracles supernatural actions are possible. You have not PROVEN anything in this round, merely stating derivations. [Note 3]

Arguments:

1. The Singularity

In particle physics, a gravitational singularity is a point in spacetime with infinite energy density and zero volume, making it extremely condensed with energy. [4][8] During the Big Bang, there was a singularity that contained photonic energy (i.e. light energy). The extremely concentrated singularity expanded slightly, releasing heat energy from the friction of the gradually contracting photons. The photons suddenly contracted immediately, producing particles and antiparticles.[4][9] These gradually became what is known as the universe today.

2. The Grand Design Question

The question "who/what created the universe?" is often the question posed by theists to cite the existence of God. But, if the answer is the Supreme Being, then the question can merely be deflected to "what created the Supreme Being?" [10] According to recent research, there CAN be something that created the universe initially. And, according to most physicists, it is the singularity, the initial focus of the Big Bang.

3. Ancient Intelligence

"Intelligence" is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. [6] Intelligence has displayed itself in the evolution of various species, but the most complex form of intelligence is found in hominids. Hominids evolved from apes and emerged around 7.5 to 5.5 million years ago. [11] Biologically, such complex intelligence cannot have emerged prior to 7.5 million years ago, but, since the universe was created 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago, [12] an intelligent Supreme Being would have had to have existed before that time, which is biologically impossible.

Conclusion:

Scientifically and theologically, the existence of a Supreme Being with the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence is impossible.


Notes:
1. If you argue that something created that energy: if God can self-create (by the proposition of omnipotence, and the basic origin of God), so can energy.
2. While I maintain that the Big Bang was not influenced by a personal cause, I nevertheless had to point out this violation of Rule 3.
3. While by Rule 7 you must forfeit this debate, I allow you to fulfill your BoP in the next round, but you must fulfill it COMPLETELY.


References:
[1] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 47,57.
[2] Münster, A. (1970), Classical Thermodynamics, translated by E.S. Halberstadt, Wiley–Interscience, London, ISBN 0-471-62430-6, pp. 49, 69.
[3] Bailyn, M. (1994). A Survey of Thermodynamics, American Institute of Physics Press, New York, ISBN 0-88318-797-3, pp. 14–15, 214.
[4] Hawking, S. (1996). A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Dell Publishing Group, New York, ISBN 978-0-553-10953-5, Edition 2, based on 1988 edition.
[5] Frank L. Lambert, A Student’s Approach to the Second Law and Entropy (http://entropysite.oxy.edu...)
[6] The New Oxford English Dictionary, Edition 3
[7] Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. New York: Random House, 1954.
[8] Moulay, Emmanuel. "The universe and photons". FQXi Foundational Questions Institute. (http://www.fqxi.org......)
[9] Aguilar, M.; Alberti, G.; Alpat, B.; Alvino, A.; Ambrosi, G.; Andeen, K.; Anderhub, H.; Arruda, L.; Azzarello, P.; Bachlechner, A.; Barao, F.; Baret, B.; Barrau, A.; Barrin, L.; Bartoloni, A.; Basara, L.; Basili, A.; Batalha, L.; Bates, J.; Battiston, R.; Bazo, J.; Becker, R.; Becker, U.; Behlmann, M.; Beischer, B.; Berdugo, J.; Berges, P.; Bertucci, B.; Bigongiari, G. et al. (2013). "First Result from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station: Precision Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5–350 GeV". Physical Review Letters 110(14): 141102.
[10] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York. ISBN 0-553-80537-1
[11] Begun, David R. 2010. Miocene Hominids and the Origins of the African Apes and Humans. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 39: 67 -84
[12] "Planck reveals an almost perfect universe". Planck. ESA. (http://www.esa.int......)

gryephon

Pro

1. Argument for a personal cause:


Yes, existence can be by a decision. For example, computers exist from a decision, at least by a free will agent. This is true with most technology.


The point is that the universe doesn’t decide to exist or causes on it’s own… so this would mean that (A) the universe must be eternal (B) Caused by a freewill agent.


If the universe is eternal, this causes some philosophical problems. If time is infinite, from whence did finite time come? For say one can draw from the second law of thermodynamics that the universe is grinding down to a cold dissolute lifeless hell, if time happened an infinite time ago why aren’t we in this dissolute future?


About the all-powerful part… Hmm… So we’re not actually debating God here, we’re debating a custom defined God. Ok gotcha. Not sure if I should concede here or not, cause why do I want people to believe in a custom defined God?


2. Argument for a designer


There is not any “artistic” structure in a singularity, I see no reason to asses that any artistic structure came from it. In the human body there is DNA, that’s code, I’ve never seen a computer code itself without an intelligent programmer. If your not swayed by this clear evidence of a creator, I have no idea what will cure this poison of skepticism from you. I doubt that if God descended down from heaven and told you he existed you would believe, even if he did miracles in front of you.


3. The Omnipotence Paradox


I’m not defying logic, I’m following it. The logic here is clear cut, if an omnipotent being can do all things, it is valid to asses that paradoxes are possible with an omnipotent being simply because omnipotence can do anything.


Also if you’re saying paradoxes or contradictions can’t happen or exist, this would be your burden of proof, not mine. I myself don’t know if it’s possible or not if paradoxes exist, though obviously it’s possible if an omnipotent being does exist.


I personally believe that contradictions or paradoxes don’t actually happen because they’re contrary to the nature of my God (not sure about other gods). But if I was an atheist, I would have no valid reason to assume that paradoxes or contradiction can’t happen, how on earth would I know?


4. The Omniscience Paradox


My argument here seemed to be cut short in the last round, not sure what happened.


Possibilities do not exist in deductive logic, conclusions are certain. If you know everything, you can foreknow anything through deductive logic, because you know how everything will act. If you knew everything would be disordered. But it is possible you already know the future when your omniscient because the future exists as a thing so logic wouldn’t be necessary. =\


I’m just starting to loose understanding in what your trying to say here. =\


I’ll be honest, I don’t really know. There’s a bunch of possible explanations, maybe he knows everything because he created all things, or maybe he know everything because he’s omnipresent (everywhere at all times at once), or maybe he knows everything by some unknown mechanism. I say logic cause I don’t believe in the future, so I don’t think knowledge is derived from the future (it’s not a thing cause it doesn’t exist, so an omniscient being wouldn’t be required to know it) but by the present. But hey who knows. I have mixed views on the a-theory and b-theory of time.


5. Miracles


What do you mean burden of proof here? I’ve already provided proof, It was done under argument for design and the fact that it was a personal cause. I don’t have to prove that miracles actually happen, I have provided proof that it is possible through creatorship.


Also miracles being irrational is being bluntly biased to rationalism. Does it matter if miracles are irrational? Of course I’m not a rationalist, I sometimes use religious beliefs to investigate the validity of reason. I don’t assert that there is any rule of logic if there is not a rule giver, without a creator there is no reason to assume validity of any rule of logic (nor assume they actually exist). I may be logical and reasonable, but I’m certainly not rational. I favor a much broader intellect than rationalism as I find it silly to assume there is no God.


6 The Singularity


You know, an all consuming singularity that happened 14 billion years ago is kind of like saying “there is a teapot in the center of the universe” to me. Even believing is kind of weird. If the universe exploded you’d expect the universe to be more uniformly distributed, but even you said that there are regions that are disordered. To me this is all just speculation about the past. Can you prove that it actually did happen?


7 The Grand Design Question


The best explanation doesn’t need an explanation unto itself. This would lead to an infinite regress of explanations. If anyone simply disbelieves something because there isn’t an explanation to it, then there would be no point in believing in anything. If something made God I can’t imagine what, in my mind he probably wasn’t created, but exist out of metaphysical necessity like numbers.


8 Ancient Intelligence


I don’t see how this is relevant, the supreme being may not even be a common ancestor or simply never evolved to begin with. Also this kind of reasoning assumes Darwinism. I’ve never seen anyone actually prove macroevolution, so I don’t see any reason to assume Darwinism.


Response to notes


1. Why is that? God and energy aren’t the same, there is no reason to assume that energy can. If your going to assert that, then the BOP is on you

Debate Round No. 3
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals:

1. Argument for a personal cause

Why do you directly come to the conclusion that there needs to be a freewill agent? Existence need not be the result of will [1]; existence can be a result of randomness. There is randomness in the universe. God is merely an explanation by philosophers dissatisfied with randomness, in the firm belief that there MUST be order. But any thermodynamic system, including the universe, is created based on disorder [2]. Disorder is the basis of existence. The universe exists because of entropy. And yes, we are arguing about a "custom-defined God".

2. Argument for a designer

The concept of "arrangement" and "complexity" is a human concept, built by the presumptions that humans have of the universe. DNA appears as a code solely to the psychology of a human. Chemical structures considered "complex" may also be a result of disorder. The creation of the universe was because of the emergence of chaos [3][4][5].

3. The Omnipotence Paradox

An omnipotent being cannot "do all things"; such a being, by the definitions of this debate, can perform all ACTIONS. And you don't seem to have understood the paradox; instead of arguing against the paradox itself, you are arguing against the very concept of paradoxes (no offences intended; I apologize if I seem to be rude). So let me rephrase it and make it simpler. Now, an omnipotent being ("X") can perform ANY action whatsoever, even if that action, hypothetically, does not exist [yet]. Now let us say X creates a yet non-existent action Y that it cannot perform. [X has the ability to create even that action by the definition of omnipotence] As Y is conceivable by X, X cannot perform Y, even if the action Y does not exist. "All" encompasses the action Y. Therefore, as X cannot perform Y (which X creates only later), X is not omnipotent. Once X creates Y, Y becomes an existent action that X cannot do. To make this argument more concise, for the sake of the argument, let us take an action. (Disclaimer: This is NOT an action that the Supreme Being according to the definitions given in this debate cannot perform; it has been selected randomly) Now, let X be called "Superman" (just for ease of understanding) and Y be the act of making a dog's curved tail straight. (this is taken from a famous folktale of Aladdin) Now, let us say that all dog's tails are straight. (only for the purposes of explanation) Therefore, dogs cannot have curved tails, so the act of making curved tails straight does not exist. One day, Superman decides to make some dog's tails curved and then uses his powers to ensure that the act of making a dog's tail straight is impossible even for him. Since this action is conceived of, it is a hypothetical action that acts as an idea. This action could not be performed by Superman even before it was created, as it existed as an idea, with the square ground rule that Superman could not perform it. Therefore, Superman is not omnipotent. [7]

4. The Omniscience Paradox

If you already know how everything will act, then you already foreknow it without deducting it by logic. If one already knows that something will happen, then that action is definite. "Knowing" is the act of having knowledgeability of a certainty [8]. If something is a certainty, it is already predetermined. And a predetermined action lacks possibilities. There is no chance that no event is contingent. Definitiveness completely violates disorder in this universe. If there is definitiveness and God exists, then God is the only free will agent and we are unknowingly being influenced by God. But as there is absolutely no evidence for that, I will discredit this notion. If even one contingency exists, then God cannot be omniscient because no being can have certainty that a contingency can occur. As the existence of disorder is effectively proven by the laws of thermodynamics [4][9], lack of contingencies is impossible. The Bible is used as your only source in a rebuttal of yours, so I will use it as a source. The Bible says people must direct their actions on the basis of appropriate moral judgement and describes some as immoral. But if everything is predetermined, then moral judgement and immorality do not exist. Most other religions also believe that morality must be followed by God's law. [Note 1] Thus, the omniscience paradox is valid.

5. Miracles

You seem to be implying that rationalism and atheism are the same, which means you are essentially accepting my arguments. Rationalism is actually "the state of something being based on or according to logic." [8] "Logical" and "rational" are synonymous by this definition. A miracle is an act inexplicable by the laws of nature. You have not provided anything to show that miracles are not possible. That is how you have not fulfilled your BoP here.

6. The Singularity

Why is imagining a human-like figure at the center of the universe easier than imagining an object, like, by your example, a teapot, at the center of the universe? It is merely due to widespread acceptance of the idea. And widespread acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity. Nevertheless, I shall provide proof of the existence of singularities. The proof is simple: singularities still exist today in the centers of black holes. [10][11] B-mode polarization is a polarization signal that acts as a cosmic microwave background, a form of thermal radiation from the Big Bang itself. The polarization signal, when analyzed, showed that gravitational forces before the existence of matter did hold energy, and maximum energy was held at a point of immense energy: a singularity. According to Albert Einstein, these CMBs (cosmic microwave backgrounds) act as "ripples" in gravitational spacetime. This is virtual proof of sudden cosmic inflation, rapid expansion of the universe from a singularity, basically proving the Big Bang. [12][13][14]

7. The Grand Design Question

The point of this debate is evidence. If you believe God can self-create, then why can't any other object?

Response to note rebuttal:

What makes you conclude that God can self-create? What if what created the world wasn't an omniscient, omnipotent God, but a God that acted as a force? That is a much more logical belief, similar to the Taoist belief of Tao, or the Hindu belief of "Brahman".

Arguments:

These rebuttals serve to prove that my previous arguments were valid. Pro did not rebut the arguments of the Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox validly, as (no offence to Pro) Pro did not completely understand these arguments. Therefore, I extend all my arguments from above and the previous rounds.

Sources:
[1] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York. ISBN 0-553-80537-1
[2] Frank L. Lambert, A Student’s Approach to the Second Law and Entropy (http://entropysite.oxy.edu......)
[3] Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia - Entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
[4] Münster, A. (1970), Classical Thermodynamics, translated by E.S. Halberstadt, Wiley–Interscience, London, ISBN 0-471-62430-6, pp. 49, 69.
[5] Landsberg, P.T. (1984), "Is Equilibrium always an Entropy Maximum?" J. Stat. Physics 35, pp. 159–169
[6] Landsberg, P.T. (1984). "Can Entropy and "Order" Increase Together?" Physics Letters 102A, pp. 171–173
[7] Savage, C. Wade. "The Paradox of the Stone" Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74–79
[8] The New Oxford Dictionary of American English, Edition 3
[9] Hawking, S. (1996). A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Dell Publishing Group, New York, ISBN 978-0-553-10953-5, Edition 2, based on 1988 edition.
[10] Carroll, Sean M. (2004). Spacetime and Geometry (pp. 205 to 266). Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-8053-8732-3.
[11] Lewis, G. F.; Kwan, J. (2007). "No Way Back: Maximizing Survival Time Below the Schwarzschild Event Horizon". Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 24 (2): 46–52
[12] Einstein, A (June 1916). "Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation".Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin. part 1: 688–696.
[13] Einstein, A (1918). "Über Gravitationswellen".Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin. part 1: 154–167
[14] http://gizmodo.com...;

Notes:
[1] If you wish to discredit morality COMPLETELY, then please take that stance in the next round itself.

gryephon

Pro

1. Argument for a personal cause:

Well the problem with saying that things randomly exist is that it devastates the reliability of information. For example your evidence for singularity is based on cosmic background radiation, I could point out that it could have simply popped into existence randomly a million years ago and has nothing to do with the big bang (the big bang is alleged 14 billion years, not a million)… You couldn’t prove that it didn’t pop into existence. I could probably push this further and point out that you couldn’t prove the universe existed beyond 5 minutes, everything randomly came into existence including memories. And if it’s true things randomly exist, why does it discriminate between existence and non-existence? Why not just simply have everything pop into existence in all space?

A freewill agent can solve some of these problems by avoiding the randomness problem, and also why matter does have a bginning.

So randomness is really detrimental to your case. As any proof of you proving anything would be impossible.

2. Argument for a designer

I’m not really sure what to say right here, your worldview is so damaged that you can’t accept any evidence for design. If there was proof a creator, this is it So it's not like I never fulfilled the burden of proof. I really don't think it's a good idea to dismiss something on a guess that it is an illusion of the mind... that would be problemactic if I asked you to prove that what we see is real and not a dream, Then it would be impossible to prove the big bang or anything else as real or a dream or an illussion. This is why your refutation was bad because your dismissiong stuff on a guee that it's an illusion.

3. The Omnipotence Paradox

Do I need to repeat myself here? Let me explain it this way. You cannot refute the existence of a being can do the impossible literally by stating whatever is impossible. If it can perform all action, this would include the performance of all actions that are impossible because they are actions too. You can even make a circle-square if you wanted to.

4. The Omniscience Paradox

You’re assuming here that foreknowledge is not compatible with free will. For example if I gave you the option of getting a million dollars or a penny for free what would you choose? Obviously the million dollars. Now does this mean that I predetermined your decision even though I foreknew that most people would pick the million dollars? No. I just simply foreknew it by knowing the value of the money.

Your not making any sense. Obviously an omniscient being can know that a contingency can happen. I myself know that a contingency can happen because I’m about to drink water cause I’m thirsty, and I’m pretty certain this event will happen. Yeah, just did. There is also no reason to assume that God is secretly manipulating you, as far as you know he might be up in heaven spelunking without a care in the world what you do.

Bible wise, I just flat out disagree with your assumption that that a foreknowing being is required to predetermine everything a person does. That’s just a baseless assumption.

5. Miracles

I thought it had something to do with secularism. If this is the case about rationalism, then I see no reason why to claim that Miracles are irrational, I submit it as a religious belief. If your saying that religious beliefs are unreasonable then this is clearly secularism.

Anyway I don’t see any reason to argue on this further. I don’t need to provide proof that a miracle actually ever happened, clearly a miracle is possible though an omnipotent god or the creator of the universe and as the divine agent. The burden of proof is on god’s existence, the proof and existence of miracles is irrelevant.

7 The Grand Design Question

I never stated God self-creates nor concluded that, as that would be just plain silly. I tried to explain to you it’s possible that God is like the abstracts (numbers in this case), that he exists out of necessity. To point out, the “personal cause” would be timeless as asserted in the argument for a personal cause, sense God is a personal cause, he would be timeless. He himself wouldn’t actually have a beginning nor would he need

Response to notes

Well the problem with that is that it is inventing God, not learning about God. I find this disgustingly immoral. If your going to modify God to suit your interest, it takes away the whole point in believing in God because God would be your creation.

Debate Round No. 4
tejretics

Con

1. Argument for a personal cause

Prior to the Big Bang's recombination that created the universe as it is today, the "universe" was a hot, dense baryon plasma sea where photons were quickly scattered from free charged particles [1]. The CMBs showed hints of unstable neutral hydrogen contact, but neutral hydrogen primarily became stable during the process of post-Big Bang recombination. Thus, the CMBs were pre-recombination or during recombination and thus are from the Big Bang. [2]

2. The Omnipotence Paradox

You are still illogically arguing against paradox. I am not stating whatever is impossible, I am stating that if God can make something that he can't do, he isn't omnipotent; if he CAN'T, he isn't omnipotent. Instead of responding to this paradox, you are arguing illogically against paradoxes. Here, you disobey Rule 6: you CANNOT claim God is beyond logic.

3. Omniscience Paradox

For God to predict something DEFINITIVELY is impossible. Even your drinking water (before you drank it) had at least a 0.01% chance of not happening. But DEFINITIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE of EVERYTHING completely violates contingency.

4. Grand Design Question

Then why can't energy exist as an abstract force out of necessity?

PRO cannot post an argument in Round 5 (Rule 4).

Reasons for Victory:

PRO's only definitive argument is the argument for a designer and even that is based on instinctive consideration. There is no verifiable PROOF provided for the existence of God. In the last round, Pro disobeyed Rule 6 and Pro has NOT fulfilled complete BoP, instead making conclusions without VERIFIABLE PROOF. While PRO's arguments were excellent, they did not have proof and were based on only logical drawing of conclusions that were all rebutted by me. By Rule 7, disobeying the rules (here rule 6) results in my immediate 7-point victory and I request the judges to take that into consideration. PROPER reasons for votes must be provided by the judges.

Thanks a lot to PRO for accepting this debate and for providing such amazing arguments. I take my hat off to you.

Sources:
[1] Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s". Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.
[2] Spergel, D. N.; et al. (2003). "First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: determination of cosmological parameters".Astrophysical Journal Supplement 148 (1): 175.

Response to Notes:
I did not create my definition of God; ALL my descriptions were based on descriptions I found in many strictly monotheistic/henotheistic religions. But yes, "The Monotheistic God Exists" might have been a better title. I sincerely apologize for any offense.
gryephon

Pro

I forfeit this round as agreed by rule 4.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AndrewUCLA 1 year ago
AndrewUCLA
I'm following up on CON's "Omniscience" point. The crux of my point is this: God knows the future, right? That's a major premise of the Bible, which largely (and hilariously) tries to prove its own legitimacy by having the second half of the book match certain prophesies in the first half of the book. See also: http://www.openbible.info...

If God knows the future, then there is necessarily only one future. It is predetermined. (I'm assuming the Abrahamic God exists for purposes of this argument, but there is certainly a non-theistic argument for it as well; see Sam Harris' book, Free Will.) That is to say that God already knows what "choices" you will make tomorrow. Think about that for a minute. If the choices you are going to make tomorrow are already set in stone, are they really choices at all? If you believe the answer's yes, feel free to try to explain. If you believe the answer is no (which people are psychologically loathe to do, perhaps out of an inflated sense of ego and/or grandiosity), then you are a Determinist. If our choices are not really "free," and we are just automatons set in motion (whether according to God's will or not), then there is no basis for moral judgment of our actions.
Posted by AndrewUCLA 1 year ago
AndrewUCLA
I'm following up on CON's "Omniscience" point. The crux of my point is this: God knows the future, right? That's a major premise of the Bible, which largely (and hilariously) tries to prove its own legitimacy by having the second half of the book match certain prophesies in the first half of the book. See also: http://www.openbible.info...

If God knows the future, then there is necessarily only one future. It is predetermined. (I'm assuming the Abrahamic God exists for purposes of this argument, but there is certainly a non-theistic argument for it as well; see Sam Harris' book, Free Will.) That is to say that God already knows what "choices" you will make tomorrow. Think about that for a minute. If the choices you are going to make tomorrow are already set in stone, are they really choices at all? If you believe the answer's yes, feel free to try to explain. If you believe the answer is no (which people are psychologically loathe to do, perhaps out of an inflated sense of ego and/or grandiosity), then you are a Determinist. If our choices are not really "free," and we are just automatons set in motion (whether according to God's will or not), then there is no basis for moral judgment of our actions.
Posted by gryephon 1 year ago
gryephon
@AndrewUCLA Why do you think everything is predetermined?
Posted by gryephon 1 year ago
gryephon
What do you mean free will doesn't exist? I choose so it makes sense that I have free will.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
I don't think either party has concluded that free will exists, nor is it being argued for. Therefore, causal determinism isn't effective in this debate.
Posted by AndrewUCLA 1 year ago
AndrewUCLA
Con - Problem of Evil FTW. Also, you're overlooking a major point re: causal determinism (in your Omniscience argument) - if everything is predetermined, there is no free will, and thus there can be no basis for moral judgment. There's nothing for a personal god to be concerned with, which raises the question: why'd he make us?
Posted by gryephon 1 year ago
gryephon
Yeah I know, I usually respond last minute or hour.

Also, your welcome.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@gryephon must post their argument in 31 minutes, or they lose by 7 points; Rule 1 (a). :)
Posted by connorjfield 1 year ago
connorjfield
You know what that's my bad for some reason I thought you were pro. My apologies you're totally right
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Thanks to @gryephon for accepting! :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
tejreticsgryephon
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't seem to understand how the omnipotence paradox functions, and doesn't really address it substantively. I also buy that the argument from design can be explained through science, vice God, and that it is at least insufficient to affirm. Similarly, I find that the argument that god is the cause of the universe is un-compelling. Why must the cause be a personal cause or one that is the source of all authority. Even if this a semantic issue, it is one that has substance in the setting of the debate, and one that renders this argument unable to affirm that god, as defined, exists. So, due to the extension of the omnipotence paradox and the failure of Pro's case, I Vote Con. Con, one note that I would make is that when you agree to share the BOP, you agree that you both have something to positively prove. Therefore, your argument about Russell's teapot actually contradicts your own agreement to share the BOP. If Pro is the only one proving anything, then give him the sole BOP.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
tejreticsgryephon
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Okay, I shall be judging this debate as if it were a regular debate. Sources shall go to Con since he's the one who not only used a great deal of sources, but highly credable sources at that. I don't believe that Pro broke the rules as mentioned by Con, as one can debate for or against God with simple theory and that is enough by itself. So Conduct is null. Spelling I will give to Pro since Con had made several grammatical errors compared to Pro. Arguments, I have no choice to give to Con. This is being that in many of Pro's own words that he has conceded and given up much ground in several areas and I do feel that his TA argument (contention 1) backfired and in turn helped Con more than it did Pro. With that and the fact that I do believe that Con won the majority of the contentions and arguments made I have no choice but to give the debate to Con on a 5-1 vote. If either debater wants this RFD clarified then please feel free to PM me about it. Thanks.