The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

God Is Existent

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,318 times Debate No: 75680
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)




I have chosen lannan13 for the debate.

Full Resolution

God is likely existent.


Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared.

Pro presents their opening arguments in R1, and Con presents it in R2. Pro's R2 and R3 are only for rebuttals and defense, and R4 is waived by Pro. Con's R3 and R4 are only for rebuttals and defense.

Definitions (Please request any changes or additions before we begin)

God - the omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent creator of the universe.

Likely - probably.

Existent - having being; existing.


Deconstruction semantics, trolling and kritiks of the topic are not permitted.

All arguments must be visible inside this debate, though sources may be external to it.

Changing guidelines, definitions, structure, resolution or any other stipulations should be requested prior to the start of this debate.


When voting, please give feedback on your reasoning, and what would have changed your mind, so as to improve future debates.



Contention 1: The Ontological Argument

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William Criag: The Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.This excludes metaphysics as we can see that if we observe a black hole it sucks in matter and a worm hole allegedly leads back out. But what if we look at how Neil Tyson depicted it as inside the black hole in his novel, Death by Black Hole, purposed that actually inside a black hole could cause another universe from the hot matter that inside. We cannot find God as the original black hole has evapporated via Hawking Radiation and there is no way to get back to him (except through death, but that's an entirely different debate) so we can only wait for us to be contacted by him.

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]

The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.

Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere. Even if we look at Tyson's theory on how this universe started and that it is a multiverse we can still see that the universe, this one, had a beginning.

Now at this point you're probably asking yourself, okay Lannan that shows that the universe began at a point, but what does this have to do with God? This is that there is nothing known prior to the creation of the universe meaning that it since there is no determining factors to what happened before we must assume that it's personal and uncaused. This can be see by one asking how can a timeless rift be given such a temperory effect of the begining of time? One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe if not omnipotent. Thus for this reason God Exists.

Contention 3: TA Arguement

Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [4]
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [5]
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

Last year scientists have actually found ripples in time and space continum. Now I know what my opponent had brought up and I agree with a lot of it, however, I believe that it actually helps prove the existance of God than disproves it. We can see after the Big Bang there was gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds. [6] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."- Genesis 1:1

You see, back then they didn't have a large understanding on the universe and how things worked so we can definately see books like the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran to probably not be science text books. If God had shown humans this we can see that they would probably be like Nastrodamus's description of the German Blitzkreig by calling the NAZI panzers Metal beasts or how he wasn't able to describe skyscrapers and such, but you get my point. People didn't have the best information and how things are now and it wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago before we began to make improvements in Space and Science.

6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [7]

For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [8]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [8]

Sources in comments section.
Debate Round No. 1


CI. Occam’s razor

CIA. Deductive

Occam’s razor, or Ockham’s razor, is an epistemological razor proposed by William of Ockham as the “principle of economy”, or “law of parsimony”. [1] “
The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.” [2]

Philosopher Bertrand Russell modified the principle using his celestial teapot analogy, to show that the God hypothesis is an unnecessary addition, thus the philosophical burden of proof lies upon the person asserting God’s existence. Russell writes, “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” [3]

Thus, if there is an additional unnecessary assertion, it is best to dismiss the assertion altogether as unlikely, if the assertion is not required. Thus, if I can refute Pro’s case, the God hypothesis is dismissed as unlikely.

CIB. Ad hoc hypothesis

To prevent the God hypothesis from failing, there will always be additional ad hoc hypothesis, but Occam’s razor, specifically in the scientific method, posits that the explanation with least ad hoc hypotheses also prevails. [4]

To show the God hypothesis requires ad hoc explanations, I will present two contentions against the existence of God that can only be refuted via. the addition of ad hoc explanations.

1. Incoherence of a Caused Universe

As physicist Sean Carroll notes, there are two necessary requirements for causation to take any coherent form – time (and the passage of time), and the laws of nature. The former is obviously necessary, as without the passage of time it is impossible for anything to coherently “happen”. The latter is true as without the laws of nature we lack the unbreakable principles to bind anything with a limit, else we run into paradoxes often faced by properties such as omnipotence due to lack of limitation. Prior to and outside of the universe, there are no laws of nature nor is there time or space, thus it is impossible for anything to coherently “happen” outside the universe. Thus, the universe cannot have been caused prior to its own existence.

2. Argument from Atemporal Minds

The argument from the impossibility of a timeless mind takes the following structure.

P1: God is a timeless mind.
P2: Minds require processes.
P3: Processes are temporal.
C: An atemporal mind, thus in extension God, is incoherent.

The first premise is true by definition. Two is true by the definition of intelligence, of which we don’t have a quantitative understanding, but understand at least that it requires a sensory or subjective process. Processes require a passage of something, and for something to take a process, or a motion from temporal point x to y, would require a passage of time to be coherent. Thus, the conclusion is adequately justified.

RI. Ontological Argument

First, I question P1, which requires a highly specific definition of “possible” to be valid, which, in “possible world” semantics, of which the MOA is derived, refers to metaphysical possibility, in contrast to epistemic possibility. The latter is subjective possibility, i.e. a statement of “possible for all I know”. The former is the possibility which the MOA must prove, but fails to do.

An example illustrating the differences between metaphysical and epistemic possibility would be a statement of “water =/= H20”, which would be possible epistemically, but not metaphysically.

The soundness of a possible world semantics interpretation of the S5 axioms is questionable, though true epistemologically. In other words, “<>[]P = []P”, if true metaphysically, as Pro’s interpretation of the MOA seems to suggest without justification, then any random being’s existence can be justified, e.g. the flying spaghetti monster, via. a simple reductio ad absurdum. If the flying spaghetti monster replaces “maximally great being”, it is immediately demonstrated to “exist”, albeit subjectively and epistemically. Thus, this argument is irrelevant in justifying objective existence.

A second reductio ad absurdum would flip the premise itself. The reverse premise, “it is possible for God to not exist”, entails the reverse conclusion “God doesn’t exist” via. the same structural logic, which is demonstrated metaphysically in a universe with only a single particle, where the particle obeys a Hamiltonian that is time-dependent. [5]

RII. Kalam
Cosmological Argument

The first premise of Pro’s KCA begs the question. Den Barker writes, “The curious clause ‘everything that begins to exist’ implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise ‘everything that begins to exist has a cause’ is equivalent to ‘everything except God has a cause.’ As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.” [6]

In other words, “everything that begins to exist” begs the question, as Pro (and Craig) seems to imply that God is the only entity that does not begin to exist, thus “everything except God has a cause” is what the first premise entails, and that begs the question.

If the KCA begs the question with P1 as mentioned, one has to either add ad hoc or rectify it by saying “everything has a cause”, which would entail a question “what created God?”, which is the question directed at the Leibnizian cosmological argument which the KCA attempts to escape.

The first premise is also untrue, as the Conservation of Mass/Energy can be falsified by mass-energy equivalence and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which allows the quantum vacuum to retain quantum uncertainty that allows it to generate actual energy via. an annihilation process that causes a quantum fluctuation. “[T]he laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt = h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible.” [7]

The zero-energy universe hypothesis is likely true, and, according to NASA, it has been proven empirically with a 0.4% chance of error. [8] The universe could have literally come from “nothing”, since its energy is zero. And not the quantum vacuum, but rather entirely causelessly. [9]

The second premise is justified by Pro via. the BGV theorem, but Pro’s interpretation of the BGV theorem relies on a classical interpretation of spacetime and a presentism ontology of time, but special relativity entails eternalism rather than presentism, and quantum gravity entails a non-classical interpretation of spacetime.

RIII. Teleological Argument

First, P1 is entirely unjustified – telos is entirely subjective, and Pro equates between prescribed and attributed telos. Pro has yet to demonstrate the former, which is necessary. Secondly, entirely subjective telos can be generated by anything, e.g. evolution via. natural selection generates “design” in the eye, thus is technically generating telos.

P2 is equally questionable, since Pro is merely attributing telos and that is not demonstrated, thus can be subject to a critique via. a dysteleological argument.

The argument also only argues for an “ordering intellect”, not God as defined since it does not justify all properties of God as defined, thus is irrelevant to the resolution.

Since Pro’s arguments are negated, I extend Occam’s razor to show that metaphysical naturalism is more likely than deism or theism.



[7]: Edward P. Tryon (1973). “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” Nature. 246:396-397.



Contention 1: Occam's Razor

ccam's Razor sides with the group that makes the least assumptions. We can see that the universe having a maker and creating everything is a lesser assumption than the universe being created out of nothing at some point. (though I thought I already argued this in an earlier contention) We can argue this actually by two ways, first is that of the Ontological Argument which I'll get into a bit later or arguing that God is A priori and even a posteriori. Meaning that he was already existing revealing that God has always existed and that he's pre-argumentation. Remember that I'll further argue this in my Ontological Argument EXCEPT for the Anslem's Ontological Argument. [1]

A statement is a priori = one can see that it is true using pure reason and given an understanding of the meanings of the words in it. We don’t need empirical evidence to know that it’s true. A priori statements seem to be true necessarily.

A statement is a posteriori = our evidence for its truth is empirical, or based on data that we receive via sense experience.

1. God, by definition, is the greatest possible being.
2. A being that does not exist in the real world is less great than a being that exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds.
3. Suppose that God (the greatest possible being) does not exist in the real world.
4. If the greatest possible being does not exist in the real world, then He is not as great as the possible being who is just like him but who does exist in the real world.
5. But the greatest possible being can’t be less great than some other possible being. To say that “the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible” is to say something that’s necessarily false, because self-contradictory.
6. The supposition in 3 is false. God does exist in the real world. And he exists not contingently, but necessarily, or in all possible worlds. It is impossible for God not to exist. [2]

Here we can see that Point 6 is completely true. If we had this maximumly great being of some sort we could see that even if we took him out of our universe that there would still be a Maximumly Great Being. Thus we can simplify to see that when combined with the S5 argument of the Ontoligcal argument that God is Possible in All worlds and because of this we can see that it's a posteriori for God to Exist and arguing otherwise is futile.

For example, you argue that God and his mind contradict, but it is unlikely. How we come to this conclusion is ironically provided by your own argumentation. You see God is outside of time and this relm, but since he also does things in this relm then spacetime becomes a factor. So we can see that everything can exist outside of the relm of spacetime, but once it comes on to this plane then it is affected as his own actions and words are in the Bible and we can see that this is obvious and thus by this own argumentation that God can exist. Once again we can see that through Neil Tyson's theory on Black Hole Universes that it is highly possible for God to exist elsewhere and for the Universe to exist before itself. We can also see by observing the Big Bang-Big Crunch timeline that the universe also could have easily existed before itself as the Big Crunch shows the universe shrinking back down to a singularity and then exploding back out into that of another Big Bang. [3]

Contention 2: Ontological Argument

First to respond to the possible argument, one can see that this counts for all worlds possible meaning that all that exist. Due to this and we've seen this from the above Anslem Argument that God has to exist under this circumstance as no matter what there will always be a Maximumly Great being which also refutes the reverse premise. We can see that it would be highly unlikely for him to not exist as God would have to exist seeing that there would always be some Maximumly Great Being out there.

On the matter of proving God by doing mathematics we can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [4]
Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things.

Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [5] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [6]

Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax.

Contention 3: KCA

First I would like to provide a causation argument.

1. Premise A: Every cause was either caused or uncaused (Null Hypothesis)

2. Premise B: There is a finite number of past causes.

3. Let n be the number of past causes and let C be the set of all causes that ever existed: c1, c2, c3 ... cn

4. Now choose any cause cx from the set of causes C.

Using Recursive process

5. Does cause cx have at least one preceding cause causing it?

6. If the answer is no, then cx is an uncaused cause. End of proof

7. If the answer is yes, then cx has at least one preceding cause causing it

8. Let cy be any of the causes that caused cx

9. Remove cx from the set of all causes C. Now the size of C will be reduced by 1

10. Now make cx = cy and repeat steps 5 to 10

The recursive process will loop until either:

a. An uncaused cause is found in step 5; or

b. After a maximum of n-1 iterations, the size of set C will become 1. At that point, there's only one cause left in the set. There are absolutely no other causes available that can cause it. Therefore, this single cause must be an uncaused cause. End of proof.

Conclusion: The logic above, if the premises are true, concludes that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause. There's no escape.

This is called the Pool Table argument because one could argue that it’s possible to know where each ball in a pool game will end up being, and could be traced backwards. The problem is that it’s impossible to know what the white ball would do or how it would be hit.

For my opponent to refute my argument, he must either challenge my premises or challenge the validity of my logic. My opponent may argue that Premise B that "there's a finite number of past causes" is not necessarily true. In order to keep this discussion concise, I would like to first ask my opponent if he agrees that there can only exist a finite number of past events. If he disagrees, I will show in the next round why this premise is true.

Now that I proved that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause, let's examine some of the properties of an uncaused cause:

1. An uncaused cause must have behaved in a certain way that's not predetermined. Such a cause couldn't have been naturally caused!

2. The cause acted freely. If it wasn't free, then what made it act this way? The answer is nothing.

3. A cause that acted freely must have some form of intelligence. By intelligence I don't mean cleverness, but I mean a being with the ability to apply knowledge and skills [source #].

An unnatural, free and intelligent cause is definitely best explained by the God hypothesis.

My opponent begs the question of God's preexistance, but I've already shown that the Life of the Universe can show precausation and Neil Tyson's theory also helps here. Since I'm short on characters I need to get to the last contention. I will have to refute the zero energy universe next round. This opening part was already refuted when I have shown that the laws of physics can be broken due to Kugelblitzs and even when we look at the opening moments of the Big Bang and even black holes we can see that the laws of Physics become broken down meaning that there is some missing key part that is included here in this part and it is simply that of God. [7] [8]

Contention 4: TA Argument

My opponent states that it's subjective but he yet actually does anything to refute this argument. We can see that teleos can be based from anything, but since God is the sole creater of the universe everything is to please him and hence we have teleos. (Sorry running out of Character space will refute better next round)
Debate Round No. 2


== Overview ==

Pro has *multiple* dropped arguments and new arguments, which I shall attempt to show, and to rebut Pro's responses, and the new arguments Pro has presented.

== Rebuttal ==

R1) Ontological Argument

a) Pro *drops* the entirety of the modal ontological argument they presented, dropping reverse MOA, my questioning of the MOA demonstrating the differences between epistemic and metaphysical possibility, and all my refutations to the MOA via. reductio ad absurdum, instead presenting two entirely different ontological arguments that do not employ modal logic. This can be considered a new argument, which contradicts the rule that Pro's R2 and R3 are only for rebuttals and defense.

b) I shall address the Anselm ontological argument here. The second premise is a *bare assertion*, thus is entirely unjustified and is an unwarranted argument. The entire argument relies on the second premise, thus it must be justified, but no justification is given. Premises 4 and 5, and the conclusion 6, all rely on the assumption that 2 is true, which is questionable. Now, I shall also question 1 via. the subjectivity of "greatness", via. the argument from non-cognitivism. A property such as greatness, being subjective, requires a *standard* to be great. Since eternalism is justified via. the Andromeda paradox, it is assumed that God is transcendent to the universe as God is an external cause of the universe. Without a standard, "greatness" is incoherent, viz. in a universe with only a pencil, one cannot remark that the pencil is a "sharp" pencil, since "sharp" is subjective and there is nothing "less sharp" to compare it with, thus the term "sharp" is undefined. Thus, without a standard, we lack objective definition for greatness. Thus, God cannot be the "greatest conceivable being" unless God is not an external cause of the universe, which he is by this debate's definition, thus lacking a standard to be *objectively* "great".

c) The Godel ontological argument's axioms and theorems are *all* bare assertions. Specifically, axioms 3 and 5 are subject to questionability, and all axioms must be *demonstrated* to be considered an "axiom". The property of being transcendentally God-like cannot be "positive", since it is vulnerable to a similar objection from non-cognitivism, wherein "positivity" is a subjective property, thus lacks objective definition external to the universe without a *standard*. Furthermore, the Godel OA has the assumption that "existence" is a predicate and a positive property, which is philosophically dubious. [1]

R2) Kalam Cosmological Argument

a) This "pool table" argument only justifies P2, *not* P1. Thus, the first premise is *dropped*, with absolutely no justification given. The pool tabele argument merely asserts there is an uncaused cause, but there is *no* reason to believe this uncaused cause was the cause of the universe. The question begs - the cause of *what*? Not necessarily the universe, unless demonstrated otherwise. Pro also drops the zero-energy universe hypothesis. Pro drops P1, so presume Con.

b) While an uncaused cause cannot have been caused naturally, it could have been *determined* naturally via. determinism, since causality of the universe is not required, thus this is begging the question. The cause need not act freely, since natural laws would have come into existence with the universe, thus it *need not* act freely. Intelligence is also dismissed in the same manner, since there is an unbacked assumption that this uncaused cause was the cause of the universe. Furthermore, that there is a finite number of past causes is a bare assertion.

c) Breaking the physical laws is arguing for my side, and is *irrelevant* to the resolution, or at least Pro's side. If physical laws can be broken, then so can the causal principle via. the exact same logic. Also, causality is *not required*. And that there is "some missing key part" is a bare assertion, with no justification whatsoever.

d) The entire kalam cosmological argument, as William Lane Craig concedes, assumes the Presentism ontology of time and the A-series to be correct, both of which are dubious in light of special relativity.

R3) Teleological Argument

a) Pro *drops* my refutation that Pro has only attributed telos with no justification, and has still *not* proven that telos indeed exists objectively.

b) Pro also drops P1, no justification given, and P1 remains a bare assertion. Lannan also *concedes* that "telos can be [generated by] anything", yet Pro justifies that God exists by begging the question, asserting "God exists so telos exists", while he is *supposed* to prove "telos exists, so God exists".

c) The implications of telos being subjective are important. If telos is truly subjective, then all telos is attributed and there is *no* prescribed telos. While Pro claims with P2 that "telos exists", I digress, since telos is entirely subjective and, thus, cannot be objectively demonstrated. Pro *concedes* that telos is subjective, and fails to note the impact - there may not be any such telos.

R4) Occam's razor

a) Pro asserts that the universe having a maker is a "lesser assumption" than it coming from nothing. But that is (a) a bare assertion, (b) not my assumption, since I'm not giving support for any particular model, only that God does not exist. Also, Occam's razor does not dismiss the *greater* assumption, rather the explanation with more assumptions in number. The existence of God is an additional, unnecessary complication. Secondly, "nothing" has a mathematical value of 0, thus the universe coming from nothing is a *zero* assumption, thus can be considered a "lesser" assumption.

b) Pro asserts that he will prove God is true a posteriori, but no such evidence is given; religious experiences are the sole flawed claims to a posteriori evidence, which is easily falsified via. neuroscience. I have refuted all of Pro's a priori arguments for God.

c) My arguments from atemporal minds and the incoherence of a caused universe are *entirely dropped*, so presume Con. Thus, Pro has dropped the *majority* of my propositions.

== Summary ==

// Ontological Argument //

Pro drops MOA entirely, and weakly makes bare assertions using the Godel OA and Anselm's initial ontological argument for God's existence, both if which are falsified.

// Kalam Cosmological Argument //

Pro drops P1, no justification given, and makes a pool table argument to further defend P2; pool table argument has some unsupported assumptions that are falsified via. their own usage of bare assertions to support their claims.

// Teleological Argument //

Pro concedes my refutation but fails to understand the impact and proper link; Pro also drops the attribution versus prescription of telos, so presume Con.

// Occam's razor //

Argument from atemporal minds and the incoherence of a caused universe contention both entirely dropped by Pro, so presume Con. Furthermore, Pro makes bare assertions and confuses "less" assumptions with "lesser" assumption.

== Conclusion ==

The resolution is resoundingly negated.

== Sources ==



I would like to note that none of these arguments are actually new, but they are supporting evidence for the case that I have brought up which is permitted in this debate, thus I have done no harm. I would also like to bring up if the case is still in violation you may nil it and tag me for misconduct as I would've violated the rules. I'm short on time so this round, unfortunately, will be rushed.

Contention 1: Occam's Razor

Now I shall get to where I left off last round. (note that this isn't a new argument as it was permitted that I would move to it this round due to running out of characters.

I don't disagree with these laws in principal! But I think Con is misunderstanding them. Before I continue, I want to highlight a little mistake by Con. He stated that "a caused universe have to be refuted only by the addition of ad hoc hypothesis." This is incorrect. An ad hoc statement would make an argument less likely, but doesn't necessarily refute it. But this is irrelevant, because none of my claims are ad hoc.

First, the principle of parsimony is completely misstated.

"[Principle of parsimony] appears to be based in the notion that, when there are several competing theories, ‘the simplest is always most likely to be the correct one'. However, this sound-bite version of the principle is not entirely correct and was not what Occam actually proposed at all. Simple ideas can be quite wrong and relatively complicated ideas are more than capable of being correct. […]In contrast to popular opinion, at no point did Occam ever state that the simpler explanation is always more correct or that the more complex explanation is always less correct." [1]

So what did Occam mean then? He argued that the best way to evaluate a theory "is to start from the simplest possible explanation and make it more complex only if, and when, absolutely necessary." [1]

Let me admit, that many theists make this mistake and whenever they find something they don't understand, they plug God into it. This is called the well known "God of the Gaps" fallacy [2]. These instances clearly violate the law of parsimony and are ad hoc. However, none of my claims were as such. They were all logical, rational and reasonably conclude that God is the best explanation given all the data available.

I also want to add that none of my claims are ad hoc! I didn't stick the God hypothesis in any of my arguments to rescue it!

I ask the audience to dismiss this argument altogether.

Contention 2: Ontological Argument

4 and 5 axioms are quite self-explanitory. We can see that it's obvious that if this MGB doesn't exist in the real world we can see that it is quite obvious for the next MGB to be the MGB of the present universe, BUT because of that we can see that taking this out of the present universe we can still see that that said MGB would be greater than the current MGB as it had to be taken out of this universe for said assumption to occur, so we can see in this area that there is an MGB here and that this MGB has no choice, but to be God. [3] This point was also made last round and DROPPED by my opponent so we have to assume that we can no doubtably see here that God has to exist as there will always be an MGB in this present universe!

The Godel argument goes right along here, because we can see when we plug this into the Theorems we can see that God has to exist due to there always being a "God-like" creature in the Greatest possible MGB that will ALWAYS exist in this relm, because of that, once again, we have to see that God exists. [4]

Due to that we can see that I win this argument here.

Contention 3: KCA

My opponent argues that breaking physical laws is improbably, so it goes to his side, but that is illogical and impossible. We can see this because, as I've already shown, that things like the Kugleblitz shows that things can break the laws of Physics and supports my own arguments. We can see as we break down towards the point of singularity that once again the Laws of Physics begin to break down and for that reason we can see things like the Zero Universe and said series cannot possible be correct. This shows that there has no choice, but of devine intervention as these things exist as shown as things getting "hotter than temperature."

Now at this point you're probably woundering: What does all this, the temperature, BVG, etc.., have to do with God? Well, let’s examine the implications of this conclusion:

  • This cause must be outside of space and spacetime which began with the Big Bang [5]

  • It must also be non-physical because it’s outside of space.

  • One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe. [Good point, but I removed omnipotence. Because they can argue that it’s extremely powerful, but extremely powerful is not all powerful. There’s no need to have a weaker argument because of technicality].

The cause is non-abstract, because abstract things don’t create things. Therefore, a cause that’s non-physical, outside of space and spacetime, extremely powerful, had free will, is not abstract and the creator of the universe. If this is not God... then God help us.

Once again we can see that without a doubt that this point agains has to go to me.

Contention 4: TA

As stated last round I could not refute anything due to there only being a few hunderd characters reaming. Now I do know that it is subjective, but let's tie this in once more with the Aslem Argument. We can see that no matter what that the Greatest thing will be the greatest MGB even if you take that out then the next MGB will be the MGB. This works here as we can see that due to the interlinking of all things via the connection chain of MGB's that even if something is selfish or natural that it serves some purpose and due to all things in some personal relm being an MGB that in turn it shows that it is serving an MGB and hence in some possible world God. Due to this we can see that due to S5 axiom from the Ontological argument that we can see that If it is possibly neccessary then it is necessary. Meaning that due to the dropping of this point earlier by my opponent this in turn confirms the Teleological Arugment and thus forth proving God.

In conclusion, we can see that God has no choice, but to exist. For this we just need to look at many things and that I have won over all of my contentions by cleverly interlocking them and henceforth by winning one it is easy to win the rest. We can see that I showed that no matter what God will exist for there being an MGB ALWAYS and that MGB will always be God in that case. Due to the relivence we can also see that due to the concession fo the Universe having a begining and that there bing times in the world and universe where the laws of physics are "broken" we can see that this is a key example of devine intervention and that this proves that God exists by showing that God can do the impossible.

With that I thank you and urge you to vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3


I apologize for the late response.

== Overview ==

Pro *continues* dropping some already dropped points, and part of his argument is plagiarized, as I shall note. I thank Pro for their final arguments. Pro must waive R4.

== Rebuttal ==

R1) Ontological Argument

a) Pro has entirely dropped his initial MOA of R1, dropping all my refutations to it. I extend all my rebuttals related to his modal ontological argument to this round.

b) Greatness is not exemplified by existence unless proven so. Being non-existent does not reduce a subjective property such as "greatness", which, sans a standard, has no objective justification, thus can be entirely discounted. I did not drop this point, as Pro asserts, but showed that the property of "greatness" is not necessarily exemplified by existence. The core assumption that existence is a "predicate" is made, and is subject to Kant's refutation of it. In R1, Pro asserts that Kant's argument is made void by the MOA, but since Pro *drops* MOA, this is still subject to Kant's objection, viz. something non-existent cannot have attributes. [1] A reductio ad absurdum can be made via. a unicorn:

P1: Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
P2: Such a being "exists" by definition, and, therefore, must exist.
C: Therefore, a unicorn exists.

The above syllogism follows the exact same logic but achieves an absurd conclusion. This entirely refutes the structure of the Anselm OA. [2]

The core assumption made in this argument is that the concept of God is equated with the concept of "great", which may suffer an objection via non-cognitivism, or may confuse two separate issues:

1. If compared to every other object, God is greater.
2. The greatest thing is arbitrarily labeled "God".

One could argue that the "greatest object" must exist necessarily, but this argument commits use-mention error by changing the definitions. [2, 3]

c) Pro asserts that the 4th and 5th axioms are quite "self-explanatory", but this is a bare assertion. The property of being God-like is *not* necessarily a positive property, and the concept of being "positive" is only justified subjectively, but objective justification is necessary for the axioms to be justified. Pro *drops* my refutations to the 4th and 5th axioms, and continues assuming things without justification. Pro *drops* argument from non-cognitivism.

R2) Cosmological Argument

a) Breaking laws does not mean "things like the zero universe and said series cannot possibly be correct". This is irrelevant to breaking laws. The zero-energy universe hypothesis is confirmed by the flat curvature of the universe, and we know by a chance of error of 0.6% that it is accurate, and, even otherwise, remains logically consistent with existing laws. [4, 5] This completely refutes Pro's assertion that it is false.

b) Pro makes many bare assertions here - that physical laws being broken somehow implies the zero-energy universe hypothesis being false, and so on. Pro also *drops* my argument that sans physical laws and time things no longer need causes and the causal principle breaks down. Pro *drops* eternalism.

R3) Teleological Argument

This *entire* refutation is irrelevant to the teleological argument. Pro merely seems to extend his ontological argument, and I have *already* refuted the entirety of the ontological argument. The S5 axiom is subject to reverse MOA and reductio ad absurdum, which Pro *drops*. The MGB does not, in any manner, have to "exist" in order to be considered great. Pro *drops* all my refutations of the teleological argument, and I extend them to this round.

R4) Occam's razor

a) Pro's interpretation of Occam's razor is precisely identical to mine - Pro himself writes, "the best way to evaluate a theory is to start from the simplest possible explanation and make it more complex only if, and when, absolutely necessary." I have demonstrated that God is not necessary, and, therefore, it is demonstrated that God is a complex explanation when it is *not required*.

b) Pro has *plagiarized* much of his refutation to Occam's razor from another debate. [6] Such plagiarism is rarely considered acceptable conduct in any debate setting, and I request voters to penalize it.

c) Pro *completely drops* the incoherence of a caused universe and argument from atemporal minds, so presume Con.

== Summary ==

(1) Ontological Argument

Pro constantly makes the key assumption that a maximally great being would have to exist to be considered "maximally great", but that is a bare assertion and lacks justification. This also commits use-mention error. [2] Pro *drops* the modal ontological argument, and continues asserting Godel OA with no justification, so presume Con.

(2) Cosmological Argument

Pro *entirely drops* P1, with no justification given, and asserts that the zero-energy universe is false without any justification. Drops "pool table" defense. I have soundly refuted the KCA.

(3) Teleological Argument

Pro merely extends ontological argument, drops prescribed-attributed distinction, and does not, in any way, attempt to demonstrate objective telos. Extends MOA without refuting my points.

(4) Occam's razor

Pro plagiarizes and takes same position on Occam's razor as me, entirely drops incoherence of a caused universe and argument from atemporal minds, so presume Con.

== Conclusion ==

Pro plagiarizes, drops multiple arguments, and does not refute any of my points adequately. I have refuted all Pro's arguments, and shown via the argument from atemporal minds and incoherence of a caused universe that the concept of God is incoherent. Pro also agrees with me on Occam's razor, and, thus, drops all my points regarding the same.

The resolution is resoundingly negated. Vote Con. Pro must waive R4.

== Sources ==



No round as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
@Ragnar: both sets of text were C/P'd by @lannan from a debate of mine.

"1. Premise A: Every cause was either caused or uncaused (Null Hypothesis)

2. Premise B: There is a finite number of past causes.

3. Let n be the number of past causes and let C be the set of all causes that ever existed: c1, c2, c3 ... cn

4. Now choose any cause cx from the set of causes C.

Using Recursive process

5. Does cause cx have at least one preceding cause causing it?

6. If the answer is no, then cx is an uncaused cause. End of proof

7. If the answer is yes, then cx has at least one preceding cause causing it

8. Let cy be any of the causes that caused cx

9. Remove cx from the set of all causes C. Now the size of C will be reduced by 1

10. Now make cx = cy and repeat steps 5 to 10

The recursive process will loop until either:

a. An uncaused cause is found in step 5; or

b. After a maximum of n-1 iterations, the size of set C will become 1. At that point, there's only one cause left in the set. There are absolutely no other causes available that can cause it. Therefore, this single cause must be an uncaused cause. End of proof."

And Lannan's response to Occam's razor--I think R3.

Both from:

Well, technically from his team debate Google Doc, but still .... completely C/P'd ...
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Regarding the plagiarism accusation, which sets of text are copy/pasted from elsewhere?
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
@Blue Steele I used every char and had to edit my rebuttal to even fit into the allotted chars
(1) Sources. Failure to explain why Pro's sources were better. "Carried through more" is not a valid reason to conclude the sources were more reliable.
- I explained I'm voting off what stands in the final round, what stood and was refuted stood in favor of Pro, I felt his sources didnt fit and stated so.

(2) Arguments. Too generic. This RFD really says nothing specific about how it reached its conclusion. It just asserts certain points were rebutted.
-" I feel KCA was not properly refuted, your sources [4,5] didnt address his actual argumentation but instead you asserted your view of why he was incorrect in your final speech and i will not accept new evidence, and the evidence provided didnt disprove anything provided by pro. I feel con did not relate his points to his opponents to show that pro had no case, And Con do not accuse of plagiarism, if you google Occam's Razor, the majority of sources have been used in debates. If you had cross applied contentions you would win"
This means i felt he did not accurately cross apply points to refute AFF, I also felt KCA wasn't refuted correctly or completely

OOC: I feel you have abused your moderator abilities, you simply went down my voted on section and removed my last 3 giving you viable reason for mod punishment, I find this unacceptable and disappointing. If you disagree with my vote then vote yourself.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Preston // Moderator action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (arguments, sources). Reasons for voting decision: I found Pro's Sources to be carried through better and more thoroughly, thus award Pro with sources. Con i disagree with your Round 3 observation on Ontological Arguments, I feel that his R2 was a proper Rebut and thus not dropped as you claim, He also rebutted all main subjects of debate. I feel he developed the arguement while you focused on the fact he dropped an initial part of it, But this isnt what i voted on anyways because he as aff need only prove the Res. I feel KCA was not properly refuted, your sources [4,5] didnt address his actual argumentation but instead you asserted your view of why he was incorrect in your final speech and i will not accept new evidence, and the evidence provided didnt disprove anything provided by pro. I feel con did not relate his points to his opponents to show that pro had no case, And Con do not accuse of plagiarism, if you google Occam's Razor, the majority of sources have been used in debates. If you had cross applied contentions you would win

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources. Failure to explain why Pro's sources were better. "Carried through more" is not a valid reason to conclude the sources were more reliable. (2) Arguments. Too generic. This RFD really says nothing specific about how it reached its conclusion. It just asserts certain points were rebutted.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
>Reported vote: michigainman56 // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Iannan had the better reasoning as well as sources.

[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb. Failure to explain S&G and conduct. Far too generic on arguments/sources. RFD says nothing of substance.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
Well I was given specific permission to just go ahead and use it, and if Con wants to argue that then he should argue why under half of his arguments from his constructives are unique.
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
Well I find arguing plagiarism is a weak attempt at nullifying an argument, especially since everything is used at some point in time on this site.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
That was not plagerism as I was given permission to use that from here.

Besides if we plug your R2 case into the plagerism checker only 42% of it is unique. So that's a side bit.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
Michiganman has been reported for vote bombing.
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
michigainman56 please remove vote, you didnt explain why he should recieve every point
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: In Google Doc: