Debate Rounds (3)
The Telelogical Argument:
1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles human artifacts.
3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.
4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.
5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.(CARM)
The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
2.3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.(Iron Chariots)
The Ontological Argument:
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.(Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Moral Argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.(Patheos)
Obviously, God must exist.
Thanks for making this debate. I'll save my refutations for the next round. (As the debate rules require).
P1. In order to prove there is a god, we have to have a need for one in order to explain the mechanics of our universe.
P2. We do not have a need for a god in order to explain the mechanics of our universe.
C: Therefore, god is probably not real.
Defense of premise 1:
Pretty self explanatory. If we don't have any need for a god in order to explain the mechanics of our universe then there's no reason to assume he exists.
Defense of premise 2:
A common argument that theists make so that god is the only thing that could have caused our universe and created life. This is normally called intelligent design.
Here are a couple plausible ways our universe could have come to be *without* including a god:
A) Simultaneous causation
This is the idea that cause and effect can happen simultaneously. The cause of the Universe could have happened at the same time of it's effect. Let's say we have atoms A, B, and C. If atom A causes atom B, then atom B would cause atom C, and atom C would cause atom A.
Why should we accept God over simultaneous causation?
Why can't the cause be an immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless, uncaused, non-sentient force that randomly creates things? Since this force was always, creating things, it was pretty much inevitable that energy, space, and time would be created in a powerful reaction destroying everything including this force to create the two.
Why should we think God caused the Universe instead of this force?
Then, I talk about the multiverse.
The multiverse is the idea that we had so many different universes, with so many different combinations, that it made the right conditions for us to live in. For example, scientists have said that if a monkey is eternally hitting random keys in a keyboard it is *highly likely* that eventually something that would look like it was designed would come out, such as the complete works of William Shakesphere.
Why accept god over the multiverse?
Do we need a god for an intelligent mind to exist?
Intelligent design arguments say often that we need a god to create humans, and our minds.
I think this is directly rebutted by asking how god came to be:
The ways god could come to be:
1. god was eternal. God always existed.
This would mean that an intelligent mind can exist without god. If we know that god is intelligent, and intelligent minds need a creator, then either god doesn't exist or this rule is faulty. (Both) God could be used as proof that intelligent minds do not need a creator.
2. God has a creator. That would mean that there is something more powerful than our god out there. That god would need a creator, so would that gods creator, and so on...
Therefore, humans do not need a god in order for an intelligent mind to exist. Even if we do assume that it's plausible for god to exist the fact still remains that an intelligent mind is able to exist without a designer.
Defense of the conclusion:
The conclusion is already supported by the 2 premises. No explanation for it is required.
The problem of evil is probably the most well known and one of the most basic atheistic arguments. It goes like this:
(Keep in mind that Pro and I confirmed in an earlier PM that we are discussing the Christian God)
P1. God is supposedly omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.
P2. If God was omnibenevolent, he would have the will to destroy all evil.
P3. If god was omnipotent, he would have the power to destroy all evil.
P4. If god was omniscient, he would know how to destroy all evil.
P5: Evil exists.
C: Therefore, god cannot.
it's a clear contradiction. God would either have to be incredibly lazy or evil in order to allow pointless evils to happen, both of which contradict with the definition of god.
Thanks for reading this. Next round I'll give my rebuttals to Pros arguments and then you can vote.
Have a nice day.
This argument makes no sense, because, as I stated with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, a God must exist for the universe to exist.
ReasonstoBelieve.org states that, "The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000 times) too small or too young to permit life to be assembled by natural processes. Researchers, who are both non-theists and theists and who are in a variety of disciplines, have arrived at this calculation.
Invoking other universes cannot solve the problem. All such models require that the additional universes remain totally out of contact with one another; that is, their space-time manifolds cannot overlap. Thus the only explanation for how living organisms received their highly complex and ordered configurations is that an intelligent, transcendent Creator personally infused this information."
As for a different cause than God, abstract objects can"t cause anything. So the only viable candidate for a nonphysical cause seems to be a personal cause. Among the pool of explanatory options considered (the universe existing by the necessity of its own nature, physical things causing the universe, abstract objects causing the universe, and a transcendent personal cause of the universe) a transcendent personal cause is by far the best explanation; indeed it is the only viable explanation among the entire pool. Thus we"re left with a transcendent personal cause of the universe if the universe has an explanation of its existence.
The simultaneous causation is just unsubstantiated theoretical hypothesis, and should not be a valid argument until further use.
The universe must have a transcendent, personal cause to its existence, and this must be God.
The argument from evil fails because of one simple explanation, which ReasonableFaith.org elucidates in an article: "We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur. As finite persons, we are limited in time, space, intelligence, and insight. But the transcendent and sovereign God sees the end from the beginning and providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with certain evils along the way. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted within God"s wider framework. To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations. A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome. The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child"s dying of leukemia could produce a sort of ripple effect through history such that God"s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later and perhaps in another land. When you think of God"s providence over the whole of history, I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. We"re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities."
Further, the Christian faith (at least) entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil. In so doing, these doctrines decrease any improbability of God"s existence thought to issue from the existence of evil.
You cannot make judgment such as this because you can't claim what you claim with any certainty because of the nature of God.
God must exist.
Fanath forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro came straight out of the box presenting fallacies as arguments, Telelogical argument as Pro presented it should be called the TeleIllogical argument, as it presents both False Analogy + Hasty Generalization Fallacies. The Ontological argument was not much better and the Moral Argument is actually non sequitur. Con clearly demonstrated that there are other options apart from God when it comes to the Cosmological Argument, which was the only argument Pro put forward which had a reasonable chance of success. The Ontological Argument was defeated by Con's God had a creator argument, as this demonstrates the Exclusion Fallacy of the Cosmological argument. The Evil exists argument destroyed the Morality argument. I gave Pro the Conduct point due to Con's Forfeit, which I think was bad sportsmanship, an audience at a debate would want their money back if the Con side up and walks out. before finishing the debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.