The Instigator
bossyburrito
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Unstobbaple
Con (against)
Winning
7 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 1 vote the winner is...
Unstobbaple
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/2/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,097 times Debate No: 104688
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (48)
Votes (1)

 

bossyburrito

Pro

DEFINITION:

"God is an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being who created all of existent matter and life." [1]


The first round will be for acceptance only - I will present my argument in the second round, and my opponent will present his, along with any objections to my arguments that he sees fit to write. The third round will be used for counter-arguments and defences, as well as new arguments. The fourth round will contain no new arguments, and will only serve to allow the debaters a chance to both give final counter-arguments targeting the already-established arguments put forward earlier in the debate, as well as letting them conclude their arguments.

The BOP will be SOLELY ON ME - I will have to affirm that God DOES exist. My opponent only has to cast doubt on my proofs.

You will have 72 hours to post a round, can use up to 8,000 characters per round, and the debate will be in the voting period for fourteen days.

Unstobbaple

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
bossyburrito

Pro

Let’s get right into it.

I will prove, through various arguments, the existence of a Maximally Great Being – a being in comparison to which no other is, or could be, greater. Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind is that the essence of this being necessarily involves existence.

Some facts are contingent. It is *possible* for a faerie to exist in the world, though it either could or could not. Nothing within the concept of “faerie” binds it to existence or nonexistence. Given the idea of a faerie, one could not say whether any concrete faeries can be found. There is an important implication here: if we do find that a faerie exists, because its idea does not involve existence one way or the other, its state of existence is able to prove nothing. It is irrelevant to the understanding whether there are concretes of contingent beings; the understanding is able to fully grasp the ideas separate from actualities (though bear in mind that “separate” does imply that from the concept no knowledge of actuality is gained). It is NOT the case that: Concept -> Actuality.

Certain facts are necessary. These have to do with the essences of things. Two and two make four, and they must always make four. The triangle is three-sided; it cannot be the case that X and not-X; A is A. If we know that these are necessary, then we *can* make claims about what exists in the world through them, a priori. If it is necessarily true that triangles are three-sided, we can know that, in the world, there does not exist a triangle which is not three-sided. So, if it is necessarily true that triangles are three-sided, given a non-specified triangle, in every possible world it is true that that triangle is three-sided. A fact which cannot exist in any possible world is necessarily false; it is impossible.

Now, consider what we mean by Greatness. Two premisses should be uncontroversial:
1. It is greater to contingently exist than to necessarily not exist.
2. It is greater to necessarily exist than to contingently exist.

If my opponent wishes to take issue with these premisses, I warn him that doing so would be unreasonable; if “greatness” is the wrong word, then I will fully accept using some other, such as “garxness”. The point is that one can imagine this sort of scale, atop which, among the other qualities that theology ascribes to “greatness”, is a being which necessarily exists.

To make clear, again: my case is solely about a being which is Maximally Great (in different terminology, Perfect). There is no thing in the imagination which is greater than this being. After the existence of such a being has been proven, the definition of God as offered in R1 will be shown to be a part of the definition of this Maximally Great being (henceforth MGB).

Proof One:
1. If a MGB exists, then a MGB exists necessarily

Justification: The prior discussion of greatness.
2. It is not impossible for a MGB to exist.

If my opponent wishes, to his detriment, to challenge this point, I will gladly elaborate why it is intuitively true in the rebuttal phase. Until then, it shall be an accepted premiss.
3. If it is necessary that a MGB exists, then an MGB exists.

A priori; the definition of necessary existence.
4. It is necessary that a MGB exists, (non-exclusive) or it is not necessary that a MGB exists.

Excluded middle.
5. If it is not necessary that a MGB exists, then it is necessary that it is not necessary that a MGB exists.

Modal status is necessary – if it is impossible that P, it is necessarily impossible that P; possible that P, necessarily possible that P; necessary that P, necessarily necessary that P, and so on. This is Becker’s Postulate. Again, I urge my opponent to consider carefully whether he wishes to waste time on this point.
6. It is necessary that a MGB exists (non-exclusive) or it is necessary that it is not necessary that a MGB exists.

Follows from the prior two premisses; if p -> q and q -> r, p -> r
7. If it is necessary that it is not necessary that a MGB exists, then it is necessary that a MGB does not exist.

Remember premiss one: If a MGB exists, then a MGB exists necessarily. If this is so, then if a MGB does NOT exist necessarily (if it is necessary that it is not necessary that a MGB exists), it is necessary that a MGB does not exist.
8. It is necessary that a MGB exists (non-exclusive) or it is necessary that a MGB does not exist.

Follows from the prior two premisses.
9. It is necessary that a MGB exists.

We have shown that it is false that it is necessary that a MGB does not exist in premiss two. Therefore, we are ready to conclude.
10. A MGB exists.

Via the rule from premiss three.


Q.E.D.

Proof Two:

From nothing, nothing comes. There must be a source and a cause of everything, and this fountainhead must have at least as much reality as the things which follow from it (for you cannot get something greater from something lesser).

Ideas are subject to this rule. The idea of a table, for instance, must have sprung from something as perfect and real as the idea itself – in this case, an actual table (or, in any case, a string of ideas that, in the end, rest in something as or more real as the final idea). The fact that we have an *idea* of God is not a matter of debate. We understand, intuitively, the concept of an infinite, perfect being. If this is so, we must ask whence this idea came. Since the idea of a perfect being could not have come from anything less real or less perfect than itself, it must have come from a real perfection, and therefore God must exist as the source our idea of Him. Since this idea is of a MGB, God, then, must be a MGB as well.

Q. E. D.

Proof Three:

1. If the Universe has a cause, there is something which has unlimited power over the Universe.

- In the sense that everything about the Universe is the result of this cause; there is nothing in the Universe which would have independent existence.
2. The Universe has a cause.

3. There is something which has unlimited power over the Universe.

- If this being is not yet God, then there must be able to be something greater than it – some reason for its existence – and therefore the argument is arbitrarily extended until we reach the thing which transcends the limits of the Universe and everything, and is thus maximal in all ways; it is beyond bounds, beginnings, ends, matter, and change. There is nothing which can constrain this being, and, thus, it is omnipotent. This is God.

Omnipotence:

A MGB is self-caused. Its essence involves existence; it is not reliant on anything but itself. Therefore, there must not be anything that can limit it. This is omnipotence.

Omniscience:

All knowledge is knowledge of some idea, and an idea may only be perfectly understood by understanding its essence. As Spinoza says, in his Ethics, “The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.” The essences of all secondary things involve those primaries which gave rise to them. A MGB, being the most fundamental existent (the cause of all things; the Prime Mover), must be the cause of all ideas. Therefore, knowledge of any sort must, at heart, be knowledge of God. Since God is but the full expression of God’s essence, and from God’s essence all knowledge follows, God is, in a sense, knowledge and truth itself, and thus, in the truest sense of the phrase, Knows All.

Omnibenevolence:

If we are to say that any thing is good or evil, we must be able to trace these moral ideas to their foundations. Much like with knowledge, we go to the most fundamental existent: God. God, then, must be the embodiment of morality, and, since we may never say that the source of our ability to pronounce anything good is not good, God must be perfectly moral.

Cause of life and the universe:

This has been established many times.

Unstobbaple

Con

A few standard Definitions from google:


Omnipotent: (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.


Omnibenevolent: Adjective. (not comparable) All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'.


Omniscient: All knowing.



You have not at all tried to prove the agreed definition of God exists.


The maximally great being? Aristotle? That the best human may exist does not at all establish the definition of God here. You have also not even been able to establish that it is possible that a God exists. You’ve essentially tried to define god into existence.


Here are a few absurd implications of your argument [1]:

  • P(1)': Let use define a unicorn as an equine necessarily existent being with one horn.

  • P(2)': It is possible that a necessarily existent unicorn exists.

  • P(3)': If it is possible that a necessarily existing unicorn exists, then a necessarily existing unicorn exists in some possible worlds.

  • P(4)': If a necessarily existing unicorn exists in some possible worlds, then a necessarily existing unicorn exists in all possible worlds.

  • P(5)': If a necessarily existing unicorn exists in all possible worlds, then a necessarily existing unicorn exists in the actual world.

  • P(6)': If a necessarily existing unicorn exists in the actual world, then a necessarily existing unicorn exists.

  • C(1)': Therefore, a necessarily existing unicorn exists.




  • Hercules is the greatest warrior in history.

  • A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not.

  • Other warriors exist and Hercules is greater than those.

  • Therefore, Hercules existed.


‘Necessary and possible’ are two positive claims.


These are thing you have to prove. You can’t just assert both of these true be true. From what we know about logical laws and science, there is not only no evidence that this particular god is not possible or necessary, there is evidence of the negation, that a god is not possible or necessary. These are direct negations of your premises.


The God we’ve defined contradicts known facts .


Evolution is one of the most well established theories established in science. Humans were not created. They evolved from Eukaryotic ancestors so your god has actually been disproven. All life was not created, as your definition requires, it evolved [3].


Matter was not created, it burst from a vacuum in a separation of matter and antimatter whose sum energy is the big bang event. You’re simply asserting that God is necessary for existence when science has reached a consensus that he is not. You’re asserting that those most qualified to answer this question are wrong without even citing sourcing. I’m sure you can find some theologians to cite but science is the field of inquiry needed to answer how life and matter came into existence and they have reached the firm consensus that God was in fact not necessary [4].


Even if we concluded that the Universe did not begin with the big bang there are many other options. You assumption that there was a single 3 omni god is absurd. Why not a collection of universe creating pixies? Why not being that Knew a lot, was powerful and caring but were not ‘maximally great’ in these three areas as our definition? Your god is just an assertion so far. You have provided no tangible evidence and the internal logic of your argument is inconsistent i.e. your argument is neither sound or valid.


The problem of evil

“ If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it. And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering [2].”


This is a key problem with a god that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He would have created the pain suffering and injustice in the world. He can’t know about all the evil in the world, be powerful enough to change it then refuse if he is infinitely good.


In fact, in light of this argument a god that is more of an evil jester is more likely. If s/he were all knowing in all powerful it’s clear god delights in suffering, evil and pain. God most certainly could not be all loving.


Could god make a rock so heavy he couldn’t lift it?


This is the classic rebuttal to omnipotence from George Carlin. It’s just impossible to be all powerful because it is innately contradictory There are many examples of things that it would be logically impossible for him to do. Can he make so evil that he could not reform it apparently.

Ontological argument.

I’ll just post a few classic refutations to this since this is a well trod argument and personally I’d call it a baffle with BS argument.

  • P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.

  • P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.

  • P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.

  • P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.

  • C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

  1. A being that contains all the parts of another plus one extra part is the greater being.

  2. There cannot exist any part that is not a part of the greatest possible being.

  3. Therefore, the greatest possible being encompasses the entire universe -- hence Pantheism.

  4. If 1. is false, there is no reason to believe that the greatest possible being encompasses anything -- the greatest possible being is indistinguishable from nothing.

  5. If 1. is false and 4. is false because the greatest possible being is the one that encompasses all intrinsically positive things and no intrinsically negative things, then "a being that exists is greater than one that does not" is not true unless existence is intrinsically good.”

“Q.E.D.

Proof Two:”

This is simply an assertion without evidence. You’re also assuming the Universe had a beginning and that beginning was a God. Again, Why not universe creating pixies, an evil trickster God or a God with the limited power to create universes who then died? This is a criticism of the Big Bang Theory from someone who does not at all understand it. The wide body of science accepts the Theory as the most accurate definition. The theory made predictions about the Universe which were confirmed with the discovery of cosmic background radiation confirmed The Big Bang Theory as the most accurate explanation for matter.[4]

“Q. E. D.

Proof Three:”

“1. If the Universe has a cause, there is something which has unlimited power over the Universe.”

Yes, the laws of physics have virtually unlimited power of the Universe. You’re simply asserting this without evidence.

“2. The Universe has a cause.”

Again an assertion. What’s your evidence?

“3. There is something which has unlimited power over the Universe.”

Assertion. You need to actually prove this. You can’t just state that it’s true.

Omnipotence:

You may not established that a maximally great being would have to be self caused. Why could it not have evolved. How is it greater to be self caused? Life on earth was self caused and it is far from omniscient.

Omniscience:

Assertion and what does this have to do with a proof of our god?

Omnibenevolence:

I’ve demonstrated why God can’t possibly be omnibenevolent.

-

Pro has not been able to establish that the particular God we have defined. Repeatedly makes assertions that contradict basic scientific theory. If all of Pros areguments are correct Pro can not establish that the being he describes would match our definition for God.

[1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

[2] http://www.iep.utm.edu...

[3] https://evolution.berkeley.edu...

[4] https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
bossyburrito

Pro

In this round, I aim to show a few things:
That my opponent has misread many of my points;

That my opponent’s own points are, if not incoherent, irrelevant;

That my opponent is out of his depth.

Establishing the above will not be difficult. Given the complexity of the topic, where necessary, I will respond line-by-line (unlike my opponent, who, likely because the deficiencies of his responses would become painfully clear if what I actually said was repeated, has responded only generally).

Section One

A: “You have not at all tried to prove the agreed definition of God exists.”

Where have I argued anything about “the best human”? I’m not sure how my opponent’s reading was even possible, given how disconnected with reality it is.

My opponent accuses me of attempting to “define God into existence”. I will let Descartes respond:

While from the fact that I cannot conceive God without existence, it follows that existence is inseparable from Him, and hence that He really exists; not that my thought can bring this to pass, or impose any necessity on things, but, on the contrary, because the necessity which lies in the thing itself, i.e. the necessity of the existence of God determines me to think in this way. For it is not within my power to think of God without existence (that is of a supremely perfect Being devoid of a supreme perfection) though it is in my power to imagine a horse either with wings or without wings. (Meditation V)

I ask the reader to keep in mind this simple fact: If it is in God’s nature to exist, then God exists. My opponent can now either retract his point or argue that, if God necessarily exists, then God may not exist… a position that should strike even a layman like my opponent as losing.


B:The “Necessary Equine” and Friends

The responses which my opponent sprinkled into his round, no doubt found by googling “ontological argument debunked” or something similar, betray his lack of genuine research.

“P(2)': It is possible that a necessarily existent unicorn exists.”

My opponent endorses a long line of arguments, starting with Gaunlino, aimed at launching a Reductio into the heart of the Ontological Argument. However, these all fail, for they do not take into consideration the fact that there are some beings for whom necessary existence is impossible. It is no contradixion to affirm both that God may necessarily exist and that a Unicorn may not necessarily exist. Consider a necessarily existent Unicorn: this being would be extended. However, we can easily imagine a world in which substance does not permit the type of extension necessary to allow for a Unicorn, which would be impossible if such a Unicorn were necessary. Therefore, a “necessary Unicorn” is nonsensical. This argument’s form – that we can imagine, rightfully, a world in which a thing does not exist - applies to every being except for the MGB, and, thus, no other being necessarily exists in the same way (so the Ontological Argument cannot “prove anything into existence”).

C: “Proving” Necessity and Possibility


“You must prove that God is possible and necessary!” shrieks my opponent. The reader, however, being as intelligent as he is, will see that this is precisely what my three Proofs do. Moreover, I have made clear to my opponent that, if he is not able to show that there is some contradixion in the Idea of God, God is necessary (ironic how my opponent appeals to “logical laws” while wallowing in his own ignorance of S5). “What we know about science” CANNOT do the work he believes it may; science, the study of the CONTINGENT, cannot tell us about the modal status of anything.

D: God “Contradicts” Fact

My opponent makes the elementary mistake of assuming that evolution and creation are at odds. This will be brought up again later, but, for now, I must simply ask: whence came Evolution? If the answer, as I think it is, is “God”, then God created the mechanism that created life. This is more than enough to fulfil my burden.

He then argues that the Big Bang is a sufficient cause of the Universe. The same question: whence came the Big Bang? Why the Big Bang and not something else? There must be some reason for X instead of Y; all things trace back to the self-caused and self-explanatory, and this is God.

Why not other “creators”? Because they, too, would have to be explained. At the end of the line there must stand a single God with no equal.

E: The Omnipotence Paradox

God is the source of all logic; to say that he is then “bound” by logic is absurd. He defines himself, and has defined himself freely. Therefore, he has determined the bounds within which he is omnipotent.

D: The Reverse Ontological Argument

This fails out of the gate, for I have shown, through other means, that it is possible for a MGB to exist.

Section Two

After reading my Second Proof, my opponent apparently decided that, rather than responding with anything relevant, he would write a paragraph on a COMPLETELY different topic (which has been dealt with elsewhere). Proof of cowardice?

The only response to this Proof is that it is “simply an assertion without evidence.” The reader knows this to be false.

Section Three

1.

Note how my opponent cut out my explanation. For the Universe to have a cause, there must be something the Universe, in whole, is dependent upon – this implies subservience.

2.

Do you, dear opponent, wish to argue that the Universe does not have a cause? Do you wish to argue that things happen without reason – that causality is a myth? If so, I’m afraid that you will have to first discard ALL of your arguments based on science, since science is PREDICATED UPON the idea that things happen for a reason. I will give you a way out: drop this point. If you do not, in the next round I will both prove the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and show how you yourself have refuted all of your points.

3.

My opponent does not understand that syllogisms do “actually prove” things.

Appendix:

A: Omnipotence

My opponent asks why God could not have “evolved”. Evolved from what? He argues that God could have been caused by something else. This “rebuttal” ignores the points I have made about the nature of causality, necessity, and Maximal Greatness. To have one’s existence predicated on something else – to be contingent – is, definitionally, to be in existence solely because of that Other; that Other must be more primary and therefore Greater. Since such a being could not be imagined in relation to a MGB, a MGB must be self-caused.

“Life on earth was self caused and it is far from omniscient.”

I don’t think you understand what “self-caused” means. Yes or no: life on Earth depended on something other than life on Earth to exist?

B: Omniscience

“Assertion and what does this have to do with a proof of our god?”

It follows from the concept of a MGB. I am showing why a being that I proved fulfils the definition of God you provided. I have no idea why you would type what you have typed.

C: Omnibenevolence

The Problem of Evil may be written thusly:

“Whoever makes things in which there is evil, and which could have been made without any evil, or need not have been made at all, does not choose the best course.

God made a world wherein there is evil; a world, I say, which could have been made without any evil or which need not have been made at all.

Therefore God did not choose the best course.” (Leibniz, Theodicy)

The following, Leibniz’s response to the above, decisively lays this argument to rest.


“[O]ne must confess that there is evil in this world which God has made, and that it would have been possible to make a world without evil or even not to create any world, since its creation depended upon the free will of God. But I deny […] the first of the two premisses […] [T]he best course is not always that one which tends towards avoiding evil, since it is possible that the evil may be accompanied by a greater good.”

Unstobbaple

Con

“While from the fact that I cannot conceive God without existence”



My opponent's ideas are detached from basic ideas about reality. Simply saying that a supremely perfect being would necessarily exist is in fact defining that being into existence. If existing is a quality of a perfect being this still in no way adds weight to the idea that this perfect being exists. From what we know of the universe perfection does not exist making existence unlikely.


Pro has basically said that, “It is not within my power to think of God without existence,” and then used this lack of imagination as evidence for the existence of such a being. I can certainly imagine a MGB that does not exist and would not take it as proof for the being if I could not.

“B:The “Necessary Equine” and Friends”

I have already pointed out multiple times that a 3 omni God’s existence is impossible and that science has given us an explanation for for all of life and matter so a creator god is not necessary. These are classic responses to a classic argument.


The exact same argument Pro has used to disprove a necessary unicorn can be used to disprove a necessary unicorn and the ontological argument does, in fact, work in the exact same way in an attempt to prove a necessary unicorn. ‘we can easily imagine a world in which substance does not permit the type of extension necessary to allow for a Maximally Great Being, which would be impossible if such a MGB were necessary.’


Pro’s assertion that we cannot ‘imagine’ a world without a MGB is nonsensical and only reveals a lack of imagination on his part. This is the exact definition of an argument from ignorance. Pro cannot imagine a world without a Maximally Great Being so he concludes that one must exist. This is a logical fallacy.


It’s true that I find the ontological one of the most boring and least substantive God arguments around. Once again Pro resorts to ad hominem attacks first questioning my knowledge and now my ability to research a topic.


“C: “Proving” Necessity and Possibility”



Pro has asserted that God is both necessary and possible. He has not proven these assertions. He has also asserted that his proofs have already established that God is necessary and possible. They have not.


We have never seen life or matter spontaneously burst into existence. We have never encountered a being that is anything more than obviously fallible with respect to knowledge, goodness and power. We have every reason to suspect that we will only find beings with the same deficiencies we have observed in all beings we have discovered. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that there is a being that is maximally great with respect to these qualities and Pro has not provided one shred of evidence that such a being exists.

“D: God “Contradicts” Fact”


Here Pro misrepresents my arguments. I have in no way said that some form of creation is at odds with evolution. Evolution and the big bang theory make a creator god unnecessary which contradicts Pro’s entire argument. While it may be possible Pro has not been able to provide any compelling reason as to why a 3 omni God would exist. Pro has no explanation as to why some other unknown supernatural or natural cause initiated both the big bang and the evolutionary process. It would be much better to simply admit that he doesn’t know than to insert this oddly specific version of a supernatural being into the process.


“E: The Omnipotence Paradox”


Pro redefines Omnipotence to avoid the obvious paradox shifting the goal post or redefining god in a way that we did not agree in the resolution. Pro put no limitations on omnipotence in his set up.


“D: The Reverse Ontological Argument”


Pro again asserts that he has proven that a MGB is possible when he has not. Further if a MGB were possible that would in no way suggest that such a being exists. It’s quite certainly possible that an teapot orbits around Saturn but this in no way suggests that this is actually true. Possibility says nothing about what is actually true.


“Section Two”


Pro again resorts to personal attacks, calling me a coward, and drops my argument here. He drops my argument that I have mentioned multiple times. The evidence leads us to believe that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. If a creator being/force were necessary there are many other options other than a 3 omni god that created all matter and life such as a god with limited power and knowledge or universe creating pixies.


“Section Three”

1.

As to Pro’s earlier question as to what initiated the big bang the correct answer is ‘I don’t know.’ Even if we knew it had a cause, we do not, it could be any number of natural or even supernatural causes. Pro’s leap to a 3 omni creator god is ridiculous. Why not an evil God bent on torturing life? Why not an unknown natural cause. Why not a god who can only initiate universes? Pro has no answer.

2.

I’m saying that scientists typically claim not to know what caused the big bang theory. Your claim to know is ridiculous. This is also a form of the composition fallacy [5]. “The Fallacy of Composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. “ In other words, just because all minute parts of the universe operate under the cause effect rule does not mean that the universe as a whole operates under the same rule. It may be that the universe has simply always existed or that time itself began as a result of the big bang. There is no way to be certain currently.

A: Omnipotence

I disagree with Pro’s points here but I don’t see them as relevant to a debate.

B: Omniscience

So my opponent's position is that a Maximally Great Being would know everything. Great, that’s Pro’s opinion and he has done nothing to establish that such a being exists.

C: Omnibenevolence

That Pro believes his quote resolves the problem of evil is troubling. He has basically said that there is evil in the world but there is also a greater resolution of good. We live in a world where children, are raped, genocide is committed, those who are different are exiled tortured and even murdered, children are forced to fight torture and rape, starvation is rampant in many countries while in others obesity is the main concern. In all this God stands idly by without acting to prevent this evil. Is it Pro’s contention that this is the best that God could have done and still generate an ultimate positive result? There can be no 3 omni god with the brazen level of evil in this world.


“Two greatness premises:”


These are assertions presented without proof. A being created by another can clearly be better and this does little to establish his case anyway.


Proof One:



    1. 1.

      Pro has defined a mGB into existence in this way. He has simply stated that it would have to be self caused or non-contingent without proof.

    1. 2.

      A MGB may very well be impossible. There is no way to know this. Even if it were not impossible this does not mean that it is possible.

    1. 3.

      Again, Pro is trying to define God into existence which is why his argument works for maximally existent unicorns etc. (They are maximal in their existence so the must necessarily exist)

    1. 4.

      No, I can certainly deny that it is necessary that a maximally great being exists without claiming that it is not necessary that it exists. Just because I say that I do not believe that the number of gumballs in a jar is not necessarily odd does not mean I am saying it is even, even though these are the only two options. These are two separate propositions.

    1. 5.

      I never claimed a Maximally great being is impossible. I’ve claimed pro has provided no evidence to suggest that it is necessary other than his own assertions that it is.



Pro continues in the same vein making further assumptions based on the empty assertions of the first 5 points.

[5] https://yandoo.wordpress.com...


Debate Round No. 3
bossyburrito

Pro

Preface:
Science cannot disprove logic.

B: The “Necessary Equine” and Friends

“I have already pointed out multiple times that a 3 omni God’s existence is impossible”

And I have refuted your arguments.

I “lack imagination”, according to my opponent. Firstly, this is a new argument of his. Secondly, it is an old argument in theology. Anselm has already responded perfectly in Chapter VII: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu... VII

Is it an “argument from ignorance” to say that no one can imagine a square circle? I would hope not. The reader is surely reasonable enough to realise why I don’t want to waste more characters here.

“Pro resorts to ad hominem attacks first questioning my knowledge and now my ability to research a topic.”
1. My insults have always been in addition to substantive demolitions of your points, not points themselves.
2. I think what I’ve said has been proven to be true by the following:

“we can easily imagine a world in which substance does not permit the type of extension necessary to allow for a Maximally Great Being, which would be impossible if such a MGB were necessary.”

This is perhaps the worst attempt at reason in the debate. No, that substitution does NOT work. Do you want to know why? Because God IS NOT AN EXTENDED THING. GOD DOES NOT HAVE EXTENSION. PRETTY MUCH NO ONE HAS ARGUED THAT GOD IS EXTENDED. I want to say it again: GOD. IS. NOT. CORPOREAL.

C: “Proving” Necessity and Possibility

All that must be said here is that induction may be faulty, but deduction is ALWAYS bulletproof. Logic don’t give a single darn ‘bout your observations, partner.

E: The Omnipotence Paradox

I do not redefine anything. Millennia of theology uses omnipotence in the way I have. The meaning is implied by the word, much like the word “table” implies certain things. I did not change or add anything – nothing about my usage was unprecedented. The reader is smart enough to know this.

D: The Reverse Ontological Argument

My opponent proves, yet again, his lack of comprehension. It is AN ACCEPTED LOGICAL FACT that, in S5 logic, the possibility of a necessity resolves to a necessity. This is no secret.

A teapot… is not necessary.

Section Two

Note how my opponent does not even TRY to engage with my original argument. Rather than admit that he simply does not want to respond to my Second Proof, he offers random odds and ends to give the illusion of refutation. This will not fly, and, since this is the last round... my opponent is out of luck. Even if I lost on all other points, Proof Two alone would fulfil my burden, and it has been carried by either apathy or incorrigibility.

“He drops my argument that I have mentioned multiple times.”

This is a flat-out lie. There are two “arguments” this line could refer to – that there could be “lesser” or “many” Gods, rather than one God, or that the Big Bang explains everything. In the last round, I dealt with both elsewhere, which is why I noted that… I had dealt with both elsewhere.

He goes on to simply restate those arguments, even though I had previously dealt with them elsewhere.

Section Three

1. “Why not x? Pro has no answer.”

Ignoring the fact that I EXPLICITLY answered.

2. My opponent says that cause-and-effect may not always hold. The problem is that it must, or else we simply would not be able to speak about those cases where it does not. As Wittgenstein said, “The limits of my language are the limits of my world”, and, wisely, “whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.”

The issue is not mere temporality. It is causality. If the Universe is self-caused, then… it is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (my prior justifications would apply). Even in the case of Pantheism, my God carries.

A: Omnipotence

My opponent has dropped ALL of my responses. He certainly thought these points were relevant when he thought they weighed in his favour. Now that I’ve shown him wrong, apparently not…

B: Omniscience

I never claimed that these three subsections were meant to establish existence. It was just to show that my God, in a pre-emptive defence against your attack, does fulfil the first round’s definition.

C: Omnibenevolence

My opponent expels onto the page a list of evil. I fully admit to the evil. I am contending that it is possible for this evil to exist for a reason. The point, Monsieur, was to show that there is no necessary contradixion between the existence of evil and the existence of an omnibenevolent God. This is all I have to do in order to defang your argument; if evil and God may coexist, pointing to evil does not rule out God.

Remember, my opponent must show why God is not POSSIBLE, not merely unlikely or unsavoury. I have offered the mechanism by which this possibility is to be preserved.

Proof One:

I’m not sure why my opponent waited till round three to have a systematic crack at my first argument. Weird.

1. This has been said again, but my opponent was not listening. I did not “define” anything into existence any more than the geometrician “defines” triangles into having three sides. Triangles, from their nature, have three sides, not by definition. The definition only labels accurately certain truths and relations in the world.

2. A MGB may very well be impossible. There is no way to know this. Even if it were not impossible this does not mean that it is possible.

3. “his argument works for maximally existent unicorns”

I have destroyed this claim.

4. So the reader is perfectly clear: the Law of the Excluded Middle is what my opponent attacks here. One of the most fundamental laws of logic.

His argument is, basically, that there is a difference between propositions about the world and propositions about beliefs about the world. That’s… completely irrelevant at worst, and helpful to me at best. For that distinction is EXACTLY why my opponent’s argument fails. In reading my point, he equivocates between the two types of propositions, believing that I am talking, at one point about the world, and at another about belief. Since I did not once mention belief, and explicitly cited the law of logic I relied upon, his counter dies.

5. One does not ask someone to offer evidence for the triangle’s three angles.

Loose Ends:

I’ve moved some things around to keep like with like.

I want to make this absolutely unambiguous to the reader: where I have said “I have already done [x] and proven [y]”, I obviously imply that my points work to support each other. The cohesiveness of my system survives unless my opponent is able to decisively debunk all of my prongs. I do not think he has dealt with even one, much less the multitude.

--

“A being created by another can clearly be better and this does little to establish his case anyway.”

Absolutely not. Reader, consider but one question: whence does the additional greatness in the created come from, if not from the creator? And if it does come from the creator, surely it cannot be added?

--

Given that this wipes out a large portion of my opponent’s case, I URGE THE READER TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS SECTION.

science has given us an explanation for for all of life and matter so a creator god is not necessary.”

Contrary to what you seem to think, science does not “prove the impossibility of God”. I accept the Big Bang. I accept that evolution occurred and is occurring. None of this is relevant, for God could have, and indeed must have (see Proof Three), set these things into motion.

My opponent has failed to do the work of going from “Science is accurate” to “Science being accurate shows the impossibility of God”. IN FACT, HE ADMITS THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND TO.

“I have in no way said that some form of creation is at odds with evolution.”

Then evolution does not make God impossible, which makes God possible, which means, since God is a necessary being, God necessarily exists.

This, plus Proof One (which my opponent has only seriously attacked by attacking the possibility of God, WINS ME THE DEBATE.

Unstobbaple

Con

B: The “Necessary Equine” and Friends

Here Pro drops my argument that we have well established mechanisms arrived at through rigorous study that explain the current state of the Universe (Big Bang model) and all of life on earth (abiogenesis/evolution) making a creator completely unnecessary in spite of Pro’s adamant assertions that he is necessary. He appears to concede this point but has asserted that something extra and supernatural was needed to guide life and the universe relying on intuition to support his point.

What is a non corporeal being and where are the peer reviewed research journals that have discovered non corporeal entities? We have no such evidence that such being are even possible.

C: “Proving” Necessity and Possibility

I’ll add that when someone imagines a supernatural state that cannot be studied it is only correct to admit that you know nothing about that imaginary being/state of supernatural existence.

‘Magic man done it’ adds nothing to explain the current state of the universe and life. All evidence to date does not support the idea that a god is necessary or possible (Pro concedes this later) but we don’t really know and neither does Pro as he has offered no evidence to support this.

E: The Omnipotence Paradox

Based on standard dictionary definitions of omnipotence god cannot possibly exist without violating basic, fundamental laws of logic and Pro has attempted to use a non standard definition of the word realizing the error.

D: The Reverse Ontological Argument

I’ll grant that a teapot orbiting Jupiter is not necessary but at least we can prove that this is possible. We have never observed a non contingent or non corporeal being so we have no idea if that is possible or not (Con concedes this later).

Section Two

Pro again drops my arguments that there are any number of Gods that could have created the universe that do not fit our definition. The only quality a god would need to create the universe is the ability to create universes and life.

His only rebuttal was that the reader knows my statements to be false. Pro presented no evidence and uses a comparison of a table to explain why the universe need be created by something greater. The amount of power concentrated just before the big bang was equivalent and indeed it is a basic law of thermodynamics that matter is not created or destroyed but rather conserved.

The current model of our universe has no net mass-energy or to state it another way if you combine all the matter/energy and antimatter, negative energy you would end up with nothing. The universe likely sums to zero but the initial opposite quantities would be the same as they are today. [6]

This is only one explanation among many but scientists do not know for certain how the universe arrived at it’s current state but a 3 omni creator is certainly not necessary.

Section Three

1. Even in Pro’s bizarrely simple example of a table you need not know anything about the atomic structure and properties of wood to create a table. You only need to know how to cut the wood into pieces and hammer them together which is fairly limited knowledge considering the near infinite knowledge of the location of every single atom in the table, for instance.

2. Equivalent power is necessary not all power is needed whatever that would even mean since we have observed nothing similar. You most certainly do not need a greater power since matter and energy are never destroyed but are conserved. This is the second law of thermodynamics.

A pantheistic world view therefore certainly does not support our definition of god. How could a universe be all knowing and all powerful.

A: Omnipotence

Pro has simply asserted that a maximally great being would be self caused. He hasn’t demonstrated that a creator god exists or that it would need to be all powerful.

B: Omniscience

Even with a simple table you could say that all knowledge of any given table originates with whoever made the table but that does not mean the creator has even an inkling of the near multiple terabytes of information would could learn about the position, properties and energy states of each and every molecule and sub atomic particle in the table.

C: Omnibenevolence

“Remember, my opponent must show why God is not POSSIBLE, not merely unlikely or unsavoury. I have offered the mechanism by which this possibility is to be preserved.”

You rarely see such an obvious shifting of the burden of proof. Pro made a positive claim that there is an Omnibenevolent god. I need only refute this claim to win the debate and this argument is a very simple knock out for a 3 omni god.

Is it possible that there is a divine purpose every time a child is raped, a race is tortured and enslaved, corruption rules nations and the powerful use abuse and exploit others simply because they can? Yes, but it is certainly not likely. What we observe is that evil exists in abundance in the world and we can conclude that an all powerful god inflicted and intended evil to occur indicating an evil god.

Proof One:

1. We observe triangles and create a definition to describe what we observe. The god Pro describes is not at all analogous to a god that Pro cannot help but imagine but has never observed. He defines god as something that must necessarily exist. I cannot think of a better example of defining something into existence. Remember those that actually study the universe, astrophysicists, have come to the consensus that a god is not necessary for its existence.

2. “A MGB may very well be impossible. There is no way to know this.” Pro concedes that it may very well be impossible for a god that fits our definition to exist. This is a concession of the entire debate. He had the responsibility to prove that a god exists but has admitted that he has no idea if it is even possible that a god does exist.

3. Pro is simply utilizing special pleading. I have demonstrated that it is not necessary for a maximally great being to exist. There is no better reason to state that a god is necessary than there is a unicorn.

4. Pro’s interpretation of the law of excluded middle is 100% erroneous and he has completely misrepresented the meaning of the law. “In logic, the law of excluded middle...states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true [7].” In context there are two propositions on the table. Is it necessary for a god to exist and is it not necessary that a god exist? These are two separate positive claims that each would need to be proven.

Pro has failed to prove that God is necessary. The time to believe is after the evidence is available and not a second before. We would have to explain every single natural process in the universe to confirm that a the noncorporeal causation does not exist but we can say that all modern discoveries indicate natural and not supernatural causation. Pro has the burden of proof. All I have to do is demonstrate that there is not sufficient evidence to confirm that a god is necessary which I have done.

5. Again, the triangle is defined based on the observation of triangles and is not analogous to an imagined god that has not been observed and cannot be proven to be either necessary or even possible.

Loose Ends:


Pro has been unnecessarily insulting multiple times which speaks to conduct and has conceded that there is no way to know if god is possible conceding the debate BoP to prove that “God Exists.”


Again, I do not intend to prove that God is impossible and it is virtually impossible to prove that invisible pink unicorns, fairies and evil vindictive universe creating gods do not exist. That asinine point has nothing to do with the debate. My responsibility is to show that Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof. I have no burden to prove the impossible, that God is impossible and this is yet another shifting of the BoP.



[6] https://tinyurl.com...

[7] https://tinyurl.com...



Debate Round No. 4
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: YYW// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: To win, Bossy had to prove that God existed, as he explained in his opening, which he did not do. His 'proofs' were neither proofs, nor arguments. The first (from necessity), second (idea of MGB), and third (universe has a cause) are all circular, therefore fallacious, and non-BOP meeting. The first is plainly incoherent. The second proves only that there is an idea of an MGB, not that an MGB exists; no basis for the latter claim. The third is functionally the same as the second, and not competent to meet the burden. In the end, it turns out that Bossy cannot make the requisite showing, because everything he said fell short of proving God's existence. CON wins by default, because PRO assumed the sole BOP and failed to meet it. PRO is encouraged to take a remedial logic course. Further elucidation may be found in this thread, starting at post 169: http://www.debate.org.......

[*Reason non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains their reasoning, examining specific arguments from Pro and explaining how they factored into the debate based on burden of proof.
************************************************************************
Posted by YYW 1 month ago
YYW
*******************************************************************
>Reported Mod Action: Airmax's Comment; YYW action: Be a SassyAsshole<

Action: [*Reason for removal*] I want to clarify the issue of "judge voting" being an auto opt-out of vote moderation.While both debaters are certainly welcome to opt out of vote moderation standards, such a thing would have to be clearly specified. Judge voting is NOT an auto opt-out, and I'd be happy to clarify whatever it is that I said in the thread referenced above.

YYW Response: As previously clarified, the moderator has no authority to moderate judge-only debates which, by definition, opt out of the moderation protocol established by Airmax, in his thread respecting that subject. As a result, Whiteflame's imperious decision here reflects at once his failure to comprehend the moderation protocol, and his role in that capacity. Whiteflame must, therefore, step down from that position. Voting moderation must be abolished entirely.
************************************************************************
Posted by YYW 1 month ago
YYW
"the fact that the vote was reported by one of the debaters, makes it clear that no such agreement was made"

That is a terrible argument, because the fact that a debater reports a vote does not necessarily mean that no agreement respecting opt-out judging was reached. In the alternative, it might mean any number of things, such as the debater is, despite his opting out, dissatisfied with the vote and desires not to have to sleep in the bed he made. It could also simply reflect that the debater wishes to menace Whiteflame. Or, in any case, it could mean that the debater didn't understand that he opted out of the so-called moderation procedure by selecting one person as the judge.

This latest pronouncement reflects, as per usual, a change in policy to suit the incompetence of Whiteflame and company.
Posted by airmax1227 1 month ago
airmax1227
"The moderator has no authority to moderate judge-only debates which, by definition, opt out of the moderation protocol established by Airmax, in his thread respecting that subject."

I want to clarify the issue of "judge voting" being an auto opt-out of vote moderation.

While both debaters are certainly welcome to opt out of vote moderation standards, such a thing would have to be clearly specified. Judge voting is NOT an auto opt-out, and I'd be happy to clarify whatever it is that I said in the thread referenced above.

When the vote was initially reported, I did look in the opening rounds to see if such a thing was mentioned (since YYW pointed out in his vote that he was going to be the only voter), and it was not. Furthermore, the fact that the vote was reported by one of the debaters, makes it clear that no such agreement was made, and therefore that standard voting moderation standards would apply, and that the enforcement of those standards would be expected by at least one of the debaters.
Posted by YYW 1 month ago
YYW
@Unstopp: your reasoning... was not ideal here. But, that doesn't matter, because Bossy failed to meet his exclusive and self imposed burden.

What is important to realize, here, is that Whiteflame is hopelessly stupid.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 month ago
Unstobbaple
@YYW Not my best work but I am getting pretty lax in God debates. I think I've looked at the arguments too many times to really respect these types of arguments and I know exactly what I think. I doubt I'll do another God debate. I agreed to it because it was recommended by Sui as the one topic he would consider, as you may know, Bossy jumped in and antagonized me till I agreed to it while Sui directed me to this debate to respond to his call out thread.
Posted by YYW 1 month ago
YYW
@Unstopp

Whiteflame does not understand how to moderate votes, or even cast them. This is more than established by his repeated failures to competently asses debates (see generally every vote he has ever cast), competently identify the outcome of any particular debate (see generally every RFD he has ever written), and moderate votes (see, e.g., his post in the comment section).

When dealing with him, I expect him to screw up. He may have some articulated reason why my most recent vote was, in his opinion, not adequate. That doesn't matter to me, because, again, he is stupid. It may well be the case that he did not realize that in selecting me as the sole judge Bossy opted out of the moderation procedure, or Whiteflame may simply not understand the significance of having a judge only debate. Both are possible.

The fact is that I don't even vote on debates anymore because I don't want to deal with his stupidity, as exemplified by this particular abuse, which is consistent with the long train of inanity which has characterized his tenure in this capacity.

In the past, it's worked like this: I read debates. I produce some language explaining my decision. That is the end of it, or would be, in a world where vote moderation did its job correctly and understood its role. That status quo ante has changed.

I might, at some point in the future, write up a more lengthy, scathing rebuke of this debate... which I found as poorly written as it was generally distasteful, not so much because of my agreement with whiteflame as to the sufficiency of my initial vote, but rather because debates like this should not happen and Bossy has much to learn about that art. You do too, but here, the burden wasn't on you. It was on him.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 month ago
Unstobbaple
@ YYW your immediate annoyed reaction to my pm contradicts Bossy's statements over here starting at post 164:

http://www.debate.org...

Ironic that he's often accused me of intellectual dishonesty, even earlier here in the comments.
Posted by YYW 1 month ago
YYW
*******************************************************************
>Reported Mod Action: Whiteflame's Removal/ YYW action: Gofuckyourself<

Action: [*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made in the debate. That requires actually pointing to the argument that Pro made in the debate, and explaining how Con"s argument showed that it fell short of establishing the basic claim. Vaguely stating that the argument failed because something was said, and how the argument could have been improved, is not sufficient.

YYW Response: The moderator has no authority to moderate judge-only debates which, by definition, opt out of the moderation protocol established by Airmax, in his thread respecting that subject. As a result, Whiteflame's imperious decision here reflects at once his failure to comprehend the moderation protocol, and his role in that capacity. Whiteflame must, therefore, step down from that position.
************************************************************************
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 month ago
Unstobbaple
@YYW It did seem strange to remove a vote from a judge the instigator nominated. Now that I think about it there is no good reason why a RFD would even be a requirement here. I sent a pm to Whiteflame. Maybe he didn't realize the debate was judged?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 1 month ago
YYW
bossyburritoUnstobbaple
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: To win, Bossy had to prove that God existed, as he explained in his opening, which he did not do. His 'proofs' were neither proofs, nor arguments. The first (from necessity), second (idea of MGB), and third (universe has a cause) are all circular, therefore fallacious, and non-BOP meeting. The first is plainly incoherent. The second proves only that there is an idea of an MGB, not that an MGB exists; no basis for the latter claim. The third is functionally the same as the second, and not competent to meet the burden. In the end, it turns out that Bossy cannot make the requisite showing, because everything he said fell short of proving God's existence. CON wins by default, because PRO assumed the sole BOP and failed to meet it. PRO is encouraged to take a remedial logic course. Further elucidation may be found in this thread, starting at post 169: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/104933/6/.