The Instigator
Installgentoo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
theta_pinch
Con (against)
Winning
28 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 5 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 996 times Debate No: 45659
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

Installgentoo

Pro

I will be arguing that belief in God is fully justifiable and perfectly rational given current scientific observations of the World.

My opponent should be an atheist or hard agnostic.

First round is acceptance.
theta_pinch

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Installgentoo

Pro

Okay then Theta, are you sitting comfortably? Good, then we will begin!

There are many arguments and pieces of evidence that show that God exists. The first argument from evidence I will make is the modal ontological argument. It goes like this:

1. if a maximally great being (one who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect) possibly exists, then it exists in some possible world
2. if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists across a series of possible worlds
3. if a maximally great being exists across a series of possible worlds, it exists in the actual world
4. therefore, a maximally great being exists

The next argument I will make is a cosmological argument, which goes like this:

1. everything that beings to exist, has a cause
2. the Universe began to exist
3. therefore, the Universe had a cause of it's existence

This cause must be outside of space, and therefore time, according to the theory of relativity. It must also be immaterial and immensely powerful. Now this cause could either be a number or else an unembodied mind or consciousness. However, numbers don't stand in causal relations. The number 7 for example doesn't cause anything. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind or soul, which is what people mean when they talk about God.

The last argument from the scientific evidence I will make is the teleological argument from t fine-tuning of the initial condition of the universe so as to make it habitable for intelligent, interactive life. It goes like this:

1. there are fine-tuned constants and quantities which exist in the universe
2. this fine-tuning could either be due to natural laws, chance, or else design
3. they are not due to chance or design
4. therefore, they are due to design

Now the questionable premise is premise 3. But I can't see how anyone could argue chance or design caused the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Natural laws came into existence at the Big Bang, before the Big Bang the Universe was not guided by anything, except a melee of fundamental particles. No laws existed to restrain activity in the Big Bang to produce a Universe which was habitable. What about chance, then? Well, the range the constants had to fall into to make the Universe inhabitale are so infinitesimally tiny that chance could not logically have caused the universe to be finely tuned for intelligent interactive life. Therefore, only design could have caused the fine-tuning of the universe.

I now ask my opponent to rebutt my arguments from scientific evidence.
theta_pinch

Con


1. if a maximally great being (one who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect) possibly exists, then it exists in some possible world

I'd like to point out that the entire argument relies on the assumption that a "maximally great being exists" and there is no reason to believe a "maximally great being" exists.
2. if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists across a series of possible worlds

This does not follow; there is no reason to assume a maximally great being would exist in all worlds if it exists in one.

3. if a maximally great being exists across a series of possible worlds, it exists in the actual world
4. therefore, a maximally great being exists

1. everything that beings to exist, has a cause
2. the Universe began to exist
3. therefore, the Universe had a cause of it's existence
This cause must be outside of space, and therefore time, according to the theory of relativity.

There is a way that this argument could be invalid: if time doesn't exist. Surprisingly it turns out that time really might not exist negating the cosmological arguments requirement of God. If time doesn't exist then the cosmological argument falls apart--http://www.newscientist.com...

1. there are fine-tuned constants and quantities which exist in the universe
2. this fine-tuning could either be due to natural laws, chance, or else design
3. they are not due to chance or design
4. therefore, they are due to design

I'd also like to point out that if there was a God that created the universe for humans, it's very shortsighted for an omniscient being that he'd make: 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998%
of the universe uninhabitable.


Now the questionable premise is premise 3. But I can't see how anyone could argue chance or design caused the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Natural laws came into existence at the Big Bang, before the Big Bang the Universe was not guided by anything, except a melee of fundamental particles. No laws existed to restrain activity in the Big Bang to produce a Universe which was habitable. What about chance, then? Well, the range the constants had to fall into to make the Universe inhabitale are so infinitesimally tiny that chance could not logically have caused the universe to be finely tuned for intelligent interactive life. Therefore, only design could have caused the fine-tuning of the universe.

The underlined statement is false because as pro admitted there is a NON-ZERO chance that the constants just happened to fall into the range for intelligent life. That means it is both logical and possible to assume that it was chance. The only way the teleological argument works is if proposition 3 has no chance of being wrong, and there IS a chance it's wrong.

CONCLUSION
First I'd like to remind everyone that I don't have to prove God doesn't exist; I simply have to prove that there's a chance God doesn't exist.
Pro provided three arguments:
1. The modal argument--I showed it doesn't prove God exists because there is no reason to assume that a maximally great being exists.
2. The Cosmological Argument--I showed that there is a possibility that time doesn't actually exist(rather it's an illusion) and because of that the cosmological argument doesn't prove God exists.
3. The Teleological Argument--I showed that there is a possibility that the physical constants could have fallen into the intelligent life range by chance and that it's unlikely that an omniscient being would fine tune the physical constants yet make most of the universe uninhabitable.
I have shown that each of these arguments have a chance of being incorrect. Therefore Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof as there is a possibility for each of the arguments to be incorrect.

Debate Round No. 2
Installgentoo

Pro

Pro has made terrible arguments against mine.

He says that in the modal ontological argument there s no reason to assume a maximally great being (one who is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect) exists, but this is pure bullsh1t. Our souls exist [1], that is our ability to be self-conscious. These entities are omniscient of an action before we make them, omnipotent in what they can cause us to do, and moral agents in that they make us make decisions. Since they exist, there is nothing illogical in saying a maximally great soul could exist.

In response to my cosmological argument that time did not exist before the Bi Bang, and because energy= matter at high energy points there was always energy before the Big bang, so there was a medium in which relativistic time did exist. I reject this rebuttal on scientific grounds.

Con's argument that there is a possibility that chance could account for the fine-tuning resulting from the Big Bang is also silly. It relies on assuming the Big Bang took an infinitesimal amount time to take place to make sure there ws a chance these values could emerge, but if that were true so much time would have elapsed there would be utter chaos everywhere in the Universe because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Instead we see galaxies existing everywhere. Chance is not viable explanation of cosmic fine-tuning

Citations

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
theta_pinch

Con

He says that in the modal ontological argument there s no reason to assume a maximally great being (one who is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect) exists, but this is pure bullsh1t. Our souls exist [1], that is our ability to be self-conscious.

Self consciosness is purely natural; that doesn't provide evidence of a maximally great being.

These entities are omniscient of an action before we make them,

Omniscient means all knowing. That means that our "souls" would have to know EVERYTHING; not just what we're going to do.

omnipotent in what they can cause us to do,

So they can cause you to walk across the street and end up on Mars? I think we would've heard about that. The point is that omnipotent means all powerful; our "souls" are limited.

and moral agents in that they make us make decisions. Since they exist, there is nothing illogical in saying a maximally great soul could exist.

Pro's definition of soul is consciousness. Consciousness can be explained by naturalistic processes. Due to this pro's assertion is illogical because there would have to be electrochemical impulses and sensory organs to cause consciousness. Because these would limit a maximally great being pro has not proven anything.


In response to my cosmological argument that time did not exist before the Bi Bang, and because energy= matter at high energy points there was always energy before the Big bang, so there was a medium in which relativistic time did exist. I reject this rebuttal on scientific grounds.

Wheeler suspects that our perceived "time" corresponds to the distance from a special point in the four-dimensional timeless space he modelled. If so, that point might mark the apparent beginning of time at the big bang.

According to the mathematical model time is an ILLUSION. It also suggests time corresponds to a point in four dimensional timeless space. That means that cause and effect don't apply in the fourth timeless dimensional space where our universe "started." My argument still stands.

Con's argument that there is a possibility that chance could account for the fine-tuning resulting from the Big Bang is also silly. It relies on assuming the Big Bang took an infinitesimal amount time to take place to make sure there ws a chance these values could emerge,

The "make sure" part doesn't make much sense. There is no need to "make sure" that the constants were possible because they must have been possible or else we wouldn't be here nor would those values have occurred. Pro appears to be operating under the assumption that chance means the universe consciously made sure the values could occur which goes against the very definition of chance. Chance=Random Luck. No "making sure" was involved.

but if that were true so much time would have elapsed there would be utter chaos everywhere in the Universe because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

No time would've elapsed because the constants instantaneously appeared.

Instead we see galaxies existing everywhere. Chance is not viable explanation of cosmic fine-tuning


Yes it is; your entire rebuttal is based upon a TERRIBLE strawman of the random chance idea.

PRO'S SOURCE

Pro's source doesn't support his argument. No where in How the Self Controls it's Brain does it suggest that a soul exists.

CONCLUSION
None of pro's arguments work. The first was based on a faulty interpretation of a source plus bad logic. The second was based on a misunderstanding of my argument, and the third was based on a terrible strawman argument. Therefore all my arguments still stand.

Debate Round No. 3
Installgentoo

Pro

I entirely disagree with con's analysis of my arguments. Vote pro if you don't want people to eat your babies.
theta_pinch

Con

I entirely disagree with con's analysis of my arguments.

Not to sound rude or cold but it doesn't matter what your personal opinion of my arguments is.

Vote pro if you don't want people to eat your babies.

This is both an appeal to emotion and the worst strawman ever. Satanists are the ones who eat babies; not atheists and this shouldn't even be a factor.

CONCLUSION
Pro said he disagreed with my analysis but gave no reasons or explanations. Therefore my rebuttals stand. Because con has to prove that God exists and there is a good possibility that the arguments he presented aren't accurate to reality pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
It was in Arial Black and to answer your question:I did not know.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Pinch, Please do not make all bold words. Do you know how difficult it becomes to read when you present your debate like this?
Posted by Invalid_Argument 2 years ago
Invalid_Argument
No one has ever proven the "Big Bang Theory." That is why it is a theory and cannot prove God doesn't exist.
Posted by Nels4Tats 2 years ago
Nels4Tats
Actually those are satan worshipers. satanists are atheist who believe in a different type of philosophy. They only used the name Satanism to represent their turning on the values of modern day society. Their main belief is that People should be fully responsible for their actions. And that children should never be harmed. However what I am talking about is moderna day Satanism, which is also what installgentoo is talking about. It's called Laveyan Satanism. Look it up!
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
THEIST: belief in the existence of a god or gods--Oxford dictionary
SATANIST: the worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices, such as placing a cross upside down--Oxford Dictionary.

If they believe in Satan and perform "travesty" of Christian symbols then they must believe the christian god exists.
Posted by Installgentoo 2 years ago
Installgentoo
No, they are atheists. There was an interview with a Satanist on wikinews where he said as such.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
Satanists are in fact theists because they believe God exists; they simply don't worship him.
Posted by Installgentoo 2 years ago
Installgentoo
Satanists are also atheists. I take this as a concession that my opponent wants to eat your babies.
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
Erm, not to seem rude, but I don't think either of you guys understand the modal ontological argument...
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
@Nels

Not everything "is created." Only things which are "created" have a cause. So if the universe existed eternally, the KCA wouldn't work.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 2 years ago
justin.graves
Installgentootheta_pinchTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: PLEASE DON'T EAT MY BABIES!
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Installgentootheta_pinchTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed horribly in his burden of proof. Pro asserted that using scientific observation god could be proved rationally. There was no science only philosophy. Argument points to Con. Regarding conduct, pro used profanity, and then made an illogical and dishonest statement in the final round. Points to Con. S&G is tied, and sources are tied.
Vote Placed by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Installgentootheta_pinchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm very disappointed. It's terrible conduct to stop debating because you agree with your opponent, swear, and tell him his arguments are terrible. Pro also had his arguments refuted, straw manned, and like I said before basically forfeited. He also had a great amount of spelling mistakes. Pro also used a source that had nothing to do witht he topic... While I would have liked to see arguments from Con instead of only rebuttals, he won this by far. Condolences to Pro, congratulations to Con.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 2 years ago
codemeister13
Installgentootheta_pinchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe Con provided a more intriguing argument and refuted his opponent's arguments much more effectively than just a personal disagreement. Pro's source ended up being a wikipedia article and, unfortunately, I wouldn't call Wikipedia the most reliable source on the internet. I feel like Con's source was more sound than Pro's.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Installgentootheta_pinchTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CON successfully refuted PRO's points in both the ontological and cosmological arguments. Although PRO used some rebuttal in Round 2, his case mostly boiled down to him saying "I reject these arguments" without providing counterpoints. PRO basically forfeited Round 3 (and made an awful appeal) so I am giving conduct and arguments to CON. PRO's source was faulty, as CON pointed out, so CON also gets sources.