The Instigator
tejretics
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
lord_megatron
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 741 times Debate No: 74282
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

tejretics

Pro

This is the challenge you requested. I thank lord_megatron for challenging me to this debate. I will be arguing Devil's Advocate as the proposition.

Full Resolution

God most likely exists.

BoP is shared.

Definitions

God - the sentient, intelligent, powerful and maximally great creator of the universe.

Exist - have objective reality or being.

Rules

1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. No forfeiture.
3. No trolling, lawyering or kritiks of the topic.
4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be inside the debate or in an external link. No arguing in the comments section.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Pro's case, Con's case (no rebuttals)
Round 3: Pro refutes and defends, Con refutes and defends (no new arguments)
Round 4: Pro refutes, defends and concludes, Con refutes, defends and concludes (no new arguments)

I look forward to an interesting debate.
lord_megatron

Con

I accept. Also I want to add another rule- no semantics
Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Pro

Observations


Ob1: The definitions are non-specific enough for me to defend a God of deism rather than one of theism, i.e. a God who does not play an active part in the “ruling” of the universe.


Ob2: The God I shall be defending ascribes to no particular religion and is, rather, a generalistic deistic God, as the definitions and rules allow me to do so.


C1) Cosmological Argument


My first contention for the existence of God is a re-formulation of the cosmological argument by W.L. Craig, rooted in the Islamic Kalām heritage, and hence called the Kalām Cosmological Argument. [1] Craig structures the KCA in the following manner.


P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2: The universe begins to exist.

C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

P3: There was no time, space, change, materiality or anything abstract prior to the universe.

P4: Hence, this cause must be personal, without time, space, change, and materiality; it must also be extremely powerful.

C2: Such a cause is God, who exists.


CIA. Defense of P1


P1 is rationally intuitive knowledge, that derives from Parmenidean ontology, stating “Ex nihilo nihil fit”, i.e. “something cannot come from nothing”. [2] While one may subject P1 to criticism using Lawrence Krauss’ cited example of virtual particles, I would like to note that virtual particles *do not* come from nothing, but rather from the limited energy of the quantum vacuum. [3]


CIB. Defense of P2


If the universe did not begin to exist, then it would mean the universe has existed eternally. This implies the existence of actual infinities. According to the Hilbert Hotel paradox, and others, actual infinities *cannot* exist, and they are metaphysically impossible. As actual infinities cannot exist, the universe would have had to begin to exist. [4] From a scientific perspective, the eternal existence of the universe is impossible. For this, I apply the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, a cosmological theorem which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. [5]


“What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. ... But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called ‘multiverse’ composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.” [6]


CIC. Defense of P3


The universe, by definition, refers to all of space, time, matter, antimatter and energy. Therefore, there cannot be any space, time or anything material prior to the universe.


CID. Defense of P4


Without abstract concepts envisioned, the cause *must* be personal and sentient. The cause must also be devoid of the properties of the universe, from P3. It must also be extremely powerful to create the universe. This fits with the debate’s definition of God.


Therefore, God’s existence is a necessity.


C2) Teleological Argument


The teleological argument or physico-theological argument presented by me shall take a structure similar to that of Thomas Aquinas, as presented by W.L. Craig. The structure is as follows.


P1: If the universe is finely tuned, then an ordering intellect exists.

P2: The universe is finely tuned.

C: An ordering intellect exists.


CIIA. Defense of P1


“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” [7]


If the universe is so finely tuned with natural order, there is no explanation except intelligent design intuitively speaking. For example, when archaeologists look at an ornate carving from 6,000 BCE, they know that it is human-made, and theorize about humans living in the area 8,000 years ago. Similarly, if something is finely tuned, then obvious intuition suggests an ordering intellect caused it.


CIIB. Defense of P2


Fred Hoyle argues for a fine-tuned universe in his book Intelligent Universe (1984). He compares “the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a star system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.” [8]


According to the widely supported fine-tuned universe theory, the universe is *precisely tuned* for life to exist on one planet. The theory is supported by many philosophers and physicists. [9]


CIIC. Further Defense of Teleology


As the universe had a beginning, there are only three possible explanations for its origins.


(1) Physical necessity

(2) Chance

(3) Intelligent Design


I will be supporting the latter. Let me compare these explanations:

Physical necessity - there is no logical or scientific evidence to support that the universe exists out of pure physical necessity. Therefore, it is best to directly dismiss the hypothesis that the universe exists out of physical necessity.


Chance - the obvious atheistic standpoint for the universe being created is out of pure chance. This is a viable option, but it is *astoundingly* improbable. Physicist and mathematician Professor Roger Penrose of the Oxford University has calculated that the mathematical likelihood of a universe being created in a zero-entropy condition out of pure chance is 1:10^10(123). [10] The sheer improbability of this leads us to almost dismiss it completely.


Intelligent Design - as physical necessity is *absolutely* unsupported, we have dismissed it completely. Therefore, it is a comparison between chance and design, for which we have to flip the ratio of the probability of chance around. Thus, the mathematical likelihood of intelligent design is 10^10(123):1, which is extremely probable and the most likely explanation.


C3) Contingency


I shall now present the Modal Cosmological Argument, also known as the Argument from Contingency, that takes the following structure.


P1: Everything in the universe exists contingently

P2: Contingent existence is a property that is transferable from part to whole

C1: The universe is contingent.

P3: To prevent reductio ad infinitum, there must be a necessary entity on which all other things are contingent.

P4: A necessary entity would be the creator of all contingent entities

C2: The universe was created

C3: God by definition is a non-contingent origin of the universe, and, thus, exists.


CIIIA. Defense of P1


It is an already physically established fact that all existence is contingent and variable. It is impossible for anything to be definite. [11] Therefore, everything in the universe exists contingently.


CIIIB. Defense of P2


Contingency of the existence of particles *is* transferable by simple logic to make up the whole without necessarily committing the fallacy of composition, viz. as *existence* itself is seen as being contingent, we can thus transfer it.


CIIIC. Defense of P3


If there is no non-contingent being, then there would be an infinite regression of contingency. As actual infinities cannot exist, such a regression is impossible.


P4, C2 and C3 are self-explanatory.


Therefore, God exists.


==Summary==


(1) God exists as he is the only means of causality.

(2) Such a fine-tuned universe requires an intelligent creator, and the probability of intelligent design is exponentially high.

(3) There must be a fixed non-contingent entity who is the originator of all contingent entities; this entity is God, and, therefore, God exists.


Conclusion


I have presented 3 reasons to think deism is true. In the next round, Con must not present rebuttals but present his *own* case. We can move on to refutation and defense in the next rounds. I expect Con to give good reasons to think atheism is true under a shared BoP.


I have shown how God likely exists. I look forward to an interesting debate.



References


1. http://tinyurl.com...

2. Craig, W.L. and Moreland, J.P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. pp. 182-190.

3. http://tinyurl.com...

4. http://tinyurl.com...

5. http://tinyurl.com...

6. http://tinyurl.com...

7. http://tinyurl.com...

8. http://tinyurl.com...

9. http://tinyurl.com...

10. http://tinyurl.com...

11. Hawking, S.W. (1988). A Brief History of Time. p. 59.
lord_megatron

Con

Okay I shall be presenting my argument, rebuttals next round.
1. Everything needs a creator.
Primarily God has been accepted as the Creator of the universe, and second as a powerful being. Saying that the universe needed a creator, we define that everything needs a creator, for the universe is the space in which everything exists. So, who created God? We don't have a long family tree or history like we do for ourselves, thus we don't yet know who created the creator.
2. Where is his power now?
In the past, it seems we had a direct connection line with God through which we got to know his name and created different religions. However, it seems that this sentient, super-intelligent and powerful being has gone dormant now, and doesn't seem to be doing anything that is majorly noticeable. Since you have chosen to defend deism, human activity can't be attributed to him, and so there seems to be nothing he is working on for the past 1000 years. A super-intelligent and powerful being would get bored much faster, and if he existed as a sentient being, he surely would have been noticed doing whatever he is doing.
3. Where is he?
God isn't in astral or invisible form as past accounts in religions like Christianity, Hinduism, etc. refer to him coming to Earth in a human form. Now it seems its high time for him to return, with over-population threatening to cause all but few of his other species to be extinct. With deforestation still going on, animals soon would only be found in zoos. Isn't God their creator too? Some people say God is everywhere, but then air and internet are everywhere but still known. How has God remained hidden for so long?
4. Why can't we exist without God?
Think about it, a deism God has no active part in the ruling of the universe. Even if it was about a theism God, would he not be against the atheists, because we are the most dominant living species on planet Earth, so we would be focused upon. If there was a deism God, allowing the world to go as it is, would he not be bored? Designing the universe is work of course, but eventually just adding more rubble would be boring, now wouldn't it be?
5.
God - the sentient, intelligent, powerful and maximally great creator of the universe.
Exist - have objective reality or being.
It seems God yet has only subjective reality, that is why it is referred to as a belief.
Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Pro

R1) What Created God?


The universe needs a cause. To *prevent* an infinite chain of x created by y, y created by z, etc., as established by the Cosmological Argument, there needs to be a necessary transcendent being that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, non-abstract and, therefore, personal. [1]


“The coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science ... is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization … upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing.” [2]


As God is a *necessary* being, there is no other plausible explanation other than a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and maximally powerful being, such as God.


R2) God’s Power at Present


The God I shall be arguing for is a God of deism, a God who has *withdrawn* from the universe. Con has not justified why this is improbable, hence this is an invalid contention. I *never* claimed we had a “direct connection line” with God. Con must justify this. My theory is that we never had such a “direct connection line” with God, and, as mentioned, I shall not advocate for the God of any particular religion.


R3) Where is God?


Once more, I say I absolutely do not defend or support the beliefs of any religion. God is transcendent, and, therefore, *outside* the universe, in astral form. This, nonetheless, is irrelevant to the resolution, wherein Con must disprove the likely existence of God and I must prove it.


R4) Why can’t we exist without God?


I have provided 3 sufficient arguments that demonstrate why we can’t exist without God. The universe itself can’t exist without God, as there is no philosophical or scientific explanation for a fine-tuned universe, a non-personal creation (KCA) or how contingencies are rooted and sourced. If contingencies are not rooted at a non-contingent cause, then even the contingencies *beginning to exist*, which is undisputed by science, is impossible.


R5) Subjective Reality


“It seems God only has subjective reality …”


There is absolutely no justification for this. I have presented three valid arguments that show God must exist physically and objectively. Until these arguments are refuted by Con, this contention is completely invalid.


Conclusion


None of the above arguments provide any good reason to think atheism is true, rather acting like an examination round. I have provided three arguments to think deism is true, whereas there have been no contentions to think atheism is true. Under a shared BoP, this is unacceptable. The resolution remains resoundingly affirmed.


References


1. http://tinyurl.com...

2. http://tinyurl.com...
lord_megatron

Con

p1- everything that exists has a cause
That can be deemed incorrect, for there is no use of the universe theoretically. Suppose if there was no universe, then what? We won't exist. But then we only we have need for the universe, and if the universe weren't there, then we won't exist. What other use does the universe has, for we are the products of universe, and if there were no humans, what is the reason of the universe?
p4 Hence, this cause must be personal, without time, change, and materiality, it must also be powerful.
How can a being exist out of time, change, materiality and yet wield powers that allow it to interfere in the physical world? The god is without time, change, materiality, but he creates all this with the universe. If God is in the universe, then he has entered all these realms.
c2 Such a cause is god, who exists.
exists- have objective reality or being.
The universe is finely tuned, but so is this computer according to human terms. This was most likely made in a factory. How are we sure that a sentient, intelligent being created the universe? Although machinery was invented by us, since you define God is in astral form, how do we know it is just a powerful force that created the universe, an energy of some sort, and not by a sentient being?
I didn't understand the meaning of contingent in this context.
'The God I shall be arguing for is a God of deism, a God who has *withdrawn* from the universe. Con has not justified why this is improbable, hence this is an invalid contention.'
It is improbable as there is no valid reason for God to withdraw from the universe that still can be improved. Currently we are the only planet with life, and although the universe is complex, it can be made better than pile of rubble, few stars and mostly space. Thus we may assume that he is currently present, for the ever-expanding universe would be his working if he is thought to be the creator of the universe.
'None of the above arguments provide any good reason to think atheism is true, rather acting like an examination round.'
'11. Hawking, S.W. (1988). A Brief History of Time. p. 59.'
I don't need to explain what I think of your round. cough*brief history of time* cough
'Once more, I say I absolutely do not defend or support the beliefs of any religion. God is transcendent, and, therefore, *outside* the universe, in astral form. This, nonetheless, is irrelevant to the resolution, wherein Con must disprove the likely existence of God and I must prove it.'
Then what do you say God is living in? meaning of universe source google-
'All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.'
Since we talk about all existing matter, then what place is God living in? His astral form doesn't account for his absence, for even the soul is astral but is on the Earth, although there is not much proof for the soul if God takes human form he would have been known.
Plus if the universe can't exist without a creator, a God can not exist without a creator as well. We are still stumbling in the dark.
This is the first debate in which I had to think, well played.
Debate Round No. 3
tejretics

Pro

Defense of Contentions


C1) Cosmological Argument


CIA. Defense of P1


“That can be deemed incorrect, for there is no use of the universe theoretically. Suppose if there was no universe, then what? We won't exist. But then we only we have need for the universe, and if the universe weren't there, then we won't exist. What other use does the universe has, for we are the products of universe, and if there were no humans, what is the reason of the universe?”


This is irrelevant to refuting P1. I did not say everything that exists has a reason, I said it has a cause. This whole refutation is based on a misinterpretation of P1. Everything that exists has a *cause* - this is defended by the statement of Parmenidean ontology, Ex nihilo nihil fit, as stated before. I extend the defense of P1, and conclude that this misinterpretation leads to the irrelevant “refutation”.


CIB. Defense of P4


P4 is primarily defended by P2 and P3, which are dropped by Con. I shall address Con’s questions here.


“... but he creates all this with the universe.”


God is an external, transcendent cause and, therefore, *does not* create “all this” with the universe. He creates the universe *external* to it, using his *own* powers. As P2 and P3 both lead to a conclusion of P4, P4 is necessary, and God is transcendent, allowing us to conclude that he must have immense power. Thus, the God of this definition is also met.


C2) Teleological Argument


Con has *dropped* the premises and directly questioned the conclusion. But to question a contention, one has to question the premises. I shall, nonetheless, address this examination.


“The universe is finely tuned, but so is this computer according to human terms. This was most likely made in a factory. How are we sure that a sentient, intelligent being created the universe? Although *machinery was invented by us*, since you define God is in astral form, how do we know it is just a powerful force that created the universe, an energy of some sort, and not by a sentient being?”


Con answers his own question. God in astral form is a *sentient* force, as it envisioned the universe. The computer is created as it was first *envisioned* by a sentient mind; similarly, God may have had machinery, but was a *sentient astral force* that envisioned and created the teleology of the fine-tuned universe. [1]


Con has *dropped* the likelihood of intelligent design.


C3) Contingency


Con has *dropped* this *entire contention* on the accounts that he does not understand the meaning of “contingent”. If the existence of the universe is contingent, that means it *may* or *may not* actually exist. It is subject to chance, and “occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.” [2] The *circumstance* here, the necessary non-contingent object, is God.


Refutation of Con’s case


R1) Withdrawal


The reason for withdrawal is *irrelevant* to this debate, as it is to show that God likely *exists*, i.e. has physical reality or is real. I have shown 3 valid arguments to think that God most likely exists. As these still stand, this refutation remains irrelevant.


R2) Location


“Then what do you say God is living in?”


God does not need to “live” *somewhere*. God exists outside of spacetime itself and transcendent. Science does not know where that is, but the point is, it does not *need* to. God is transcendent by nature and, therefore, it is impossible to say *where* he “lives”, and it is irrelevant. It does not, in any way, attack the existence of God. Maybe God lives outside the spacial and temporal dimensions.


== Summary and Conclusion ==


Con misinterpreted P1 of the KCA and failed to refute the Cosmological Argument in any way. Con has yet to provide a valid refutation of teleology and has dropped the very low probability of chance and the high probability of intelligent design.


Con has *dropped* their earlier contentions and the Argument from Contingency completely. As this is my last round, Con should not, by standard norms of conduct, rebut the *dropped* arguments and can only defend the case as presented so far.


I have shown how intelligent design is mathematically probable, I have shown that teleology exists and an ordering intellect must exist, I have shown that God is the *ONLY* possible cause of the universe, and that a non-contingent entity *must* exist.


Con has not defended their assertions in *any way possible*, and has not used *any sources whatsoever*, instead playing a game of *bare* assertions.


I have used credible philosophical and scientific sources to support my claims, and have *resoundingly* affirmed the resolution, while Con has *ONLY* presented questions without *any* arguments to show that *atheism is true*.


For these reasons, award sources and arguments to Pro. The resolution is resoundingly affirmed. Vote Pro.





Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com...

lord_megatron

Con

lord_megatron forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lord_starscream 1 year ago
lord_starscream
Don't what went wrong with my facebook login. Guess I'll have to do this debate again unless my account fails again.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Yassine, thanks.
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
- I'll look into this later.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Hey, why've you removed me from your friends list? Please add me back :(
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
This is an unfounded accusation. All my contentions and rebuttals are valid.
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
ugh why I feel it is semantics and I have been cheated??
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
C'mon, lord_megatron! You have a tough opponent, here...
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Thanks.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Thanks.
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
It's interesting to see you playing Devil's Advocate; good luck!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
tejreticslord_megatronTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were very well orchestrated and defended, which put him in the initial position of having affirmed the resolution right from round 2. Most of Con's rebuttals were straw man arguments, because they attacked the notion of a theistic God, whereas Pro argued that a deistic God exists. Con's other rebuttals were based on misinterpretations of Pro's arguments, and ultimately Con did not successfully refute any of Pro's arguments. Pro gets sources points because he used wider range of suitable sources and he also gets the conduct point, since Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by Kozu 1 year ago
Kozu
tejreticslord_megatronTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF's R4 losing conduct. Pro gives a dozen sources from books and online resources, Con gives none. Pro's teleological argument is completely dropped, along with contingency going untouched on account of Con's lack of knowledge of its definition. Con seems to confuse the cosmological argument's proof as a reason for existence when it's actual goal is to demonstrate a necessary cause , making this point essentially unrefuted. It was odd that Con attacked the conclusions instead of the premises since the conclusions naturally follow from it's the premises, if the premises are untouched the conclusion *must* stand. Con gave Pro more questions than he did rebuttals. Walking away from this debate I must believe god necessarily exists.
Vote Placed by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
tejreticslord_megatronTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was just far too passive in his arguments and rebuttals to offer a decent case/defence. Having every other sentence ending as a question isn't an argument - it's an implication/rhetorical tool - to be used in moderation. Con hits off-target in rebuttals to KCA by appealing to subjectivity - and with his rebuttals to God existing without physical properties. FF didn't help to this end either.