The Instigator
AdithyaShark
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Ash_RationalTheist
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
AdithyaShark
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 671 times Debate No: 73705
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

AdithyaShark

Con

God doesn't exist, because nothing can be omnipotent, omniscient, and so powerful. If it's sentient and intelligent, HOW CAN IT CREATE THE WORLD?????? Hitler believed in God ... so he doesn't exist, duh. 'Cause evil people can't believe, I think. My friends don't believe in God - YOU CAN'T CHALLENGE MY BELIEF!
Ash_RationalTheist

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for putting up this debate . Although a frequently debated topic, yet can be analyzed in so many different angles.

Firstly i would like to ask him, which God is he talking about? that is, Let Con define what he means by God, so that i can shape my arguments accordingly.

After reading his Round 1 argument, i infer the following:

1) Con affirms his position straightaway by suggesting his version of God which sounds highly Personal and Theistic like the Biblical God YAHWEH and how it is improbable.
2) Con asks "How can a Sentient and Intelligent God create the world?"

My Responses:
1) Personal Gods vary from religion to religion, sect to sect and hence the probability of their existence is very low. That however doesn't imply God doesn't exist. I will make further statements in this context, after he defines what he means by God.

2) I think this question is irrelevant, since the Topic is about Existence of God and is not a Creationism VS Evolution Debate.

Speaking of Hitler and CON's friends, is again irrelevant for this debate.

Waiting for Round #2

Regards,
Ash
Debate Round No. 1
AdithyaShark

Con

I thank Pro for accepting.

Definitions
God - "... the perfect omniscient, omnipotent, omniscient, sentient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." [1]

Exists - "have objective, physical reality or being." [2]


C1) A Naturalistic Origin of the Universe

The Big Bang

The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is the most widely accepted cosmological model for the origin of the universe. [3] The BBT says that the universe was initially an infinitesimally small singularity, that expanded releasing intense heat and continues to expand and cool. The basis of this theory comes from Einstein's prediction of general relativity, which, as mathematician Alexander Friedmann calculated, allows for space itself to stretch and expand. The BBT predicts that, while extremely small, the universe had intense thermal energy that would have radiated and left over some remnants. In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background, remnants of thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang. [4] In 2014, a measure of the primordial B-mode polarization at 150 GHz was reported by the POLARBEAR experiment. [5] There is no other scientific theory that explains this thermal radiation. Therefore, the Big Bang cosmological model is likely true. The BBT makes an important prediction: the universe cannot have an external cause. This was calculated by physicist Erwin Schrodinger, via. quantum superpositions.

Quantum Superpositions

All particles are at a state known as a quantum superposition. A quantum superposition state is a state at which, when a particle moves towards a destination, it moves in all possible directions toward that destination, but we can observe the particle move only in one direction. [6] This is illustrated by what is often known as Schrodinger's cat, as stated by physicist Erwin Schrodinger. It says that if a cat is suffocated, the cat will seem either dead or alive but is actually both dead and alive at the same time. [7] Quantum superpositions do not allow an external omniscient cause of the universe.

P1: An external cause will be omniscient and, therefore, all-observing.
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, an external cause or omniscient being (God) cannot exist.

Causality

A common argument cited by theists is that there has to be a finite cause to the universe. This is a poor understanding of physics. The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems state that there does not have to be a finite cause for the universe.

Quentin Smith writes: "... the universe began without cause at the beginning of this expansion (a) subsequent to a singularity of infinite density, temperature and curvature, and zero radius, or (b) at a singularity with finite and nonzero values, or (c) in a vacuum fluctuation from a larger space or a tunneling from nothing." [8]

Therefore, the causal premise is invalid.

C2) Occam's Razor

The Law of Parsimony, a form of Occam's Razor, posits that between two philosophical/scientific explanations, the explanation with least assumptions is generally more likely. I have shown how God is not needed to create the universe.

Therefore, let us list the assumptions between scientific naturalism and theism. Scientific naturalism has 1 assumption: the existence of a physical universe with laws. Theism has 2 assumptions: the existence of a physical universe with laws, AND the existence of God. Therefore, theism is unlikely.

C3) Second Law of Thermodynamics

Another common argument for the existence of God is the argument from design, that states that the universe exhibits design that could have only been by an intelligent creator. The second law of thermodynamics refutes this by saying that the universe is random, and randomness in the universe increases constantly with the passage of time, there being no "design" as such. [9]

Conclusion

The resolution is negated, as it is virtually impossible for God to exist, and God's non-existence is more likely. The BoP is shifted to Pro.

Sources

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

[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.space.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] Gribbin, John (2011). In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality. Random House Publishing Group. p. 234. ISBN 0307790444.
[8] Smith, Quentin (1988). "The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe." Philosophy of Science. Volume 55, No. 1, pp. 39-57. (http://infidels.org...)
[9] Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Chapter 9: "The Arrow of Time." p. 153.

Ash_RationalTheist

Pro

CON has played [b]Strawman Fallacy[/b] by assuming a general version of God and refuting it without even asking Pro's Definition of God. This collapses the very ethics of the Debate. The CON is supposed to refute Pro's Claims instead of refuting his own pre-conceived notions of God.

Before going any further i would like to define my viewpoints, eventhough CON seems to be in his own rhythm and hasn't asked me to define God yet.

God: I would define God as [b]Existence-Consciousness-Bliss(Sat-Chit-Ananda).[/b]

(Note: I will use the term Atman for God, Sat for Existence, Chit for Consciousness and Ananda for Bliss in the future references )

[u]Atman is Sat[/u]

Atman is Sat. That which exists in the past, present and future, which has no beginning, middle and end, which is unchanging, which is not conditioned in time, space and causation, which exists during Jagrat/Waking State, Svapna/Dreaming State and Sushupti/Deep Sleep, which is of the nature of one homogeneous essence is Sat. This is found in Atman. Sat only was prior to the evolution of this universe.

[u]Atman is Chit[/u]

Atman is the one Consciousness in all manifested forms. As gold remains gold alone, whether it is molded into coins, jewellery, idols or anything else, the universal Consciousness remains the same, no matter in which form it is manifested. Whatever exists here, whether moving or unmoving, all is supported by Consciousness. The basis (of the universe) is Consciousness.

[u]Atman is Ananda[/u]

Ananda is that bliss which is eternal, uncaused and unexcelled. It is the real nature of Atman. We experience the bliss of Atman every day in deep sleep. It is not mere absence of pain that we experience there. It is undoubtedly positive happiness, for we remember on waking up that we slept happily. This indicates the fact of the existence of bliss to Atman in that state.

Sat, Chit and Ananda are one. Atman is partless and homogeneous. The three characteristics Sat, Chit and Ananda are not distinct from one another. The tree can be differentiated into branches, flowers, twigs, etc., for they are finite things limited to particular part, of the tree, but Atman has no parts. Sat is present wherever there are Chit and Ananda. Sat cannot be limited by another Sat for there are no two Sats, nor by Asat(Non-Existence) for Asat cannot exist. If it is said that Chit is different from Sat, then it will be Asat(Non-existent) like the horn of a hare. This sort of assumption will land you in a serious dilemma and confusion. All miseries come to a termination when one realises Atman. Therefore Atman must be an embodiment of bliss. Sat is Chit. Sat is Ananda also.

Thus, i deem CON's arguments as irrelevant and unnecessary, since they pose no viable threat to the God suggested by me.

Still i will address a few issues here:

[quote]I would like to agree with CON on the idea that no external cause created the Universe, but would also like to add that "God didn't create God manifested as the Universe".[/quote]

[b]Conclusion:[/b]

When Existence itself is God , the question whether God exists? verily falls short.

Sources:
http://www.sivanandaonline.org...
Debate Round No. 2
AdithyaShark

Con

The standard policy followed in DDO is that the Instigator provides definitions of the terms in Round 1. While not explicitly under a "Definitions" subheading, I assumed the God was a theistic deity in the Round 1 argument itself, which means it must be considered as the definition of this debate. Also, as you did not provide any contradicting definition in Round 1, I may provide a definition in Round 2. If you had provided a different definition, it would not have been counted as my mention in Round 1 counts as a definition. I provided a definition in Round 1 which I substantiated on in Round 2 as you had not provided a different definition. The definition still stands.

R1) God is Existence

All of Pro's arguments in this section are bare assertions. As Pro must share in the BoP, he must prove that God is existence itself; he is rather merely stating his beliefs.

R2) God is Consciousness

Same as above. Bare assertions are not arguments. All assertions must be demonstrated or shown to be probable.

R3) God is Bliss

Same as above.

All of Pro's "arguments" are bare assertions, and must be backed up with proof. I clearly provided a definition within the argument in Round 1; as it was unchallenged by a different definition, I clearly stated it in Round 2. None of Pro's definitions are present in any viable semantic source (e.g. a dictionary), and, therefore, are not backed up. If these random definitions count, then I can define God as "anything impossible", and show that, by definition, God does not exist.

I extend all my arguments.

Conclusion

Whether God is existence or not, Pro must show that God most likely exists. The resolution remains negated.
Ash_RationalTheist

Pro

I would like to reproduce my response no.1 from Round #1

"1) Personal Gods vary from religion to religion, sect to sect and hence the probability of their existence is very low. That however doesn't imply God doesn't exist. I will make further statements in this context, after he defines what he means by God."

As you can see i've clearly knocked out the concept of perosnal Gods in my respone #1. Also i've already said that i'll elaborate my position in Round #2 after he offers a more coherent definition.

The reason i asked CON to define again in Round #2 is because his Round #1 appeared really INFORMAL. Have a Look, here's a part of his 1st round:

"My friends don't believe in God - YOU CAN'T CHALLENGE MY BELIEF!"

Lets check out his arguments One by One

Argument: CON says my arguments are bare assertions

Refutations : Dear CON, They are logical deductions and hence perfectly rational and valid. I would like ask CON a question, "Do YOU exist?" If he does then why deny Existence? Why deny GOD? For Existence is God.
Even if he doesn't exist, its not my concern, Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore i am), I exist and thus there's Existence, There is God!
Now please CON don't ask proof for Existence itself, that'd be really childish.

I'm not gonna spend time on Consciousness and Bliss since the topic of this debate is about Existence.

Argument: None of Pro's definitions are present in any viable semantic source (e.g. a dictionary), and, therefore, are not backed up. If these random definitions count, then I can define God as "anything impossible", and show that, by definition, God does not exist.

Refutation: The God you presented is alike the Abrahamic God which is a Western Idea and hence you can find them in dictionary. The God I presented is based on Eastern Philosophies like Advaita, Tao etc. You cannot find them in dictionary because the terms equivalent to God/Divinity were in Native languages like Sanskrit, Mandarin etc. I'll provide the Wiki reference link in the source section, you can read from that. So this is not a definition tailored by me, but rather an authentic one which has been existing for centuries and are accepted by Religious and Philosophical Traditions.

I extend my definition as i have justified its origins.

Conclusion: As God is the very Ground of Existence, doubting whether God exists is like doubting our own existence, which any sane person will refuse to.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
AdithyaShark

Con

First, in Round 1, I already mentioned the God I was envisioning is "omnipotent", "omniscient" and "sentient." Pro accepted the debate, meaning he accepts all definitions and does not seek to change them in any manner. Next, Pro's "definition" of God comes from no valid dictionary or other semantic source.

Now, by the Russell's teapot analogy, the philosophical Burden of Proof is with Pro.

Counter-Refutations

Pro says "God is existence". This is a bare assertion, and needs to be demonstrated. Pro needs to prove God is existence to fulfill his BoP.

Second, as I, however informally, provided the definition of God in Round 1, and Pro accepted the debate, he is subject to THOSE terms and definitions alone. I discard my initial arguments as my other arguments still stand to refute that definition.

Advaita, Tao, et cetera are not forms of "God", they are spiritual forces.

Now, let us see what the Wikipedia article says about Satcitananda.

"Satcitananda is a description of the subjective experience of Brahman." First, the Oxford Dictionary defines "exist" to mean "has objective reality or being." [1] A subjective experience cannot call for existence. This is a subjective form of God, and does not make that God exist objectively and physically. Secondly, Pro's resolution rests on Satcitananda being God.

Brahman is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world." [2] This is not God, but rather a spiritual force. As mentioned before, I defined God informally in Round 1.

Pro has yet to prove that God is existence. Pro says that God is existence is a "logical deduction", whereas this is what he substantiates on this point:

"Atman is Sat. That which exists in the past, present and future, which has no beginning, middle and end, which is unchanging, which is not conditioned in time, space and causation, which exists during Jagrat/Waking State, Svapna/Dreaming State and Sushupti/Deep Sleep, which is of the nature of one homogeneous essence is Sat. This is found in Atman. Sat only was prior to the evolution of this universe." - where is the logical deduction in this? Pro is asserting things without any deduction whatsoever. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled their BoP.

I extend all my arguments.

The resolution is negated. Vote Con.


Ash_RationalTheist

Pro

Ash_RationalTheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Reason for Voting Decision | 3 points to Con (arguments), 1 point to Pro (conduct)

*Conduct*
Conduct is with Pro. Despite Pro's forfeiture, Con's initial round was incredibly informal and *did not* provide the definitions clearly. Con failed to ask Pro's opinion on *any* definition whatsoever and committed the Strawman Fallacy. Therefore, conduct to Pro.

*Spelling and Grammar*
Neither side made any major mistakes in S&G. Therefore, it is tied.

*Arguments*
Con *did* provide, informally, a definition in Round 1 for God, which he successfully refuted via. quantum superposition, and the fact that causality is absolutely *not* required. Con constructed a valid case, proving the Big Bang, showing how God's existence is illogical via. quantum superposition, and using Occam's Razor to show how the non-existence of God is most likely. Pro's interpretation of Satcitananda was flawed in that it does not represent God, and Pro made bare assertions without using *any* inductive or deductive proof or any other way of demonstration. Con did not refute Pro's claims or vice versa, but Con did not have to because Pro's claims were *bare assertions*, with no verifiable proof whatsoever. Also, Con (as mentioned previously) did provide a definition for God informally. Pro could not refute Con's final arguments because of their forfeiture.

*Sources*
Tied, as while Con used extensive citations, Pro's misinterpretation caused them to use one verifiable source. I shall tie sources.

I am forced to critique Con's informal and unethical tactic, which, I assume, was intended to cause a reverse newb-snipe. Con did not provide formal definitions and began extremely poorly and informally. This is hardly acceptable conduct in any debate setting, and I request Con not to do this again.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

===================================================================================
Posted by wampe 1 year ago
wampe
I'm confused, Pro wanted Con to define "God" and then complained when it was done. Did I miss something here?

PRO round 1
Firstly i would like to ask him, which God is he talking about? that is, Let Con define what he means by God, so that i can shape my arguments accordingly.

CON round 2 (straight from a dictionary)
God - "... the perfect omniscient, omnipotent, omniscient, sentient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." [1]

PRO round 2
CON has played [b]Strawman Fallacy[/b] by assuming a general version of God and refuting it without even asking Pro's Definition of God. This collapses the very ethics of the Debate. The CON is supposed to refute Pro's Claims instead of refuting his own pre-conceived notions of God.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Shark, the first round was incredibly informal ... Zarro's tactic, eh? Anyway, the definition *was* provided, so Pro's arguments are down.
Posted by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
AdithyaShark
Ash, it is not the duty of Con to argue against Pro's conceptions. It is the duty of the Contender to follow the Instigator's conceptions. You accepted the debate and therefore my already mentioned envisioning of God.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
I'm not in the debate. therefore not limited by its rules. And please note that nowhere in my assertion is god mentioned. Thanks for the tip. I found the article on Intelligent Design facinating. Totally irrelavant though. My point stands. In my opinion BOP is in favour of a creator. Probably not Your little pony but its not impossible.
Posted by Ash_RationalTheist 1 year ago
Ash_RationalTheist
@Seraph38 Intellectual Dishonor? Its the duty of CON to argue against Pro's conceptions and not with his own conception. If not, That'd be a classic Strawman!
Posted by Seraph38 1 year ago
Seraph38
Furyan5, look up what a "Intelligent Design Fallacy " is.

If one wishes to change their definition of god to some obviously existent thing, then so be it; it won't change the fact they've Copped-out of a real argument in order to preserve their crappy argument. E.g. I think god is My Little Pony [pulls out My Little Pony]... good job, you've won the god debate... have fun basking in the glory of your intellectual dishonor.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
The fact that the universe is random actually put the BOP in favour of a designer. The requirements for life to exist are very specific. The chances of those requirements happening by random chance are 1 in 10^3200000. The chance that a designer exists are 50/50. Given that we can't prove conclusively that he does or does not exist. so although much greater I'm happy to concede that the odds of a designer are greater than 50%. This, if I'm not mistaken satisfies the requirements of BOP.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
AdithyaSharkAsh_RationalTheistTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.