God (PRO)Fake or (CON)real?
Debate Rounds (3)
Natural Science: an intellectual project whose focus is the physics in the cosmos, and whose methods are eclectic. But at minimum there is a process wherein theoretical models are constructed -- then, experiments are conducted to see if the model is a good match with the physical world.
Natural Theology: an intellectual project whose focus is the metaphysics of the cosmos and all reality whatsoever, and whose methods are eclectic. But at minimum logic and reason is our guide, not biblical revelation.
Also the best established theories of science can help to inform the discussion in a very specific way: namely scientific theories can act as premises in a philosophical argument leading to theistic implications, but ultimately it"s not a scientific argument.
Hence what Pro and Con are both now engaged in are natural theological arguments in an ongoing project of philosophical natural theology (whether ending in atheist or theist conclusions), not just scientific positions or subjective opinions.
Possibility: in the context of this debate we will have to keep clear what we mean by "possible." When it comes to the existence of God in particular, we mean a subjunctive possibility, that is, metaphysical or logical possibility, not an epistemic possibility, as in it"s either possible he exists or impossible, we just don"t know which. 
This is in terms of a modal type of logic.  Where "possible" means true in some non-actual or actual state of affairs. If P possibly implies Q, then we're saying that "If it were the case that P, then it might be the case that Q." 
Necessary Existence: something exists necessarily if they do not depend on anything external for their existence. Their existence is true in all logically possible states of affairs if they exist. If P necessarily implies Q then we're saying that, "If it were the case that P, then it would be the case that Q." But now there"s two types of necessity,
1) Necessity de dicto (of word), which is like saying, "necessarily, some X is such that it is A." This is true or false in all possible states of affairs.
2) Necessity de re (of thing), which is like saying that "some X is such that it is necessarily A" ... so here we're talking about the necessity of a thing"s possessing a property or having it essentially.
Contingent Existence: a thing which is dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; it's conditional.  Such things are generated and later corrupted. A thing is generated just if there is a state when it exists and a causally or temporally prior state when it does not. On the other hand, these things are corrupted just if there is a time when it exists and a later time when it does not. These things are therefore temporally contingent, for since they come into and go out of being, then they are possibly generated or possibly corrupted. And so every temporally contingent being begins to exist at some time and ceases to exist at some time. Such beings, then, seem to exist for a finite period of time. 
God: a necessarily existing being who can be described as supreme, maximally great, or unlimited because he has, as its nature (that is, he has essentially) supremeity, maximal excellence, or limitlessness. And to have such a nature means God must possess (again, essentially) some collection of great making properties like omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection, etc.
If such a being exists, then in virtue of these essential properties, he must exist necessarily, and so, fundamentally, God can be described as a necessary being, and the existence of this being, a necessary one, is what I will attempt argue better explains what we know of reality than atheism.
Theism: The philosophical view that affirms the existence of God or something like him.
Atheism: The philosophical view that affirms the non-existence of God or anything like him. (This is to contrast the non-philosophical position that atheism is a view that affirms the non-belief of God. For this variety of atheism wouldn"t be a philosophy suitable for debating, it would instead be a psychological description irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists. I therefore assume the philosophical atheism rather than the psychological atheism since Con wants to debate. He must therefore offer a positive case in favor of the denial of God, he must show that God is either disconfirmed given some bit of reasoning whether empirical or rational).
Objective - independent on our stance on things.
Thesis of Moral Objectivity - It is possible to find out about some moral sentences that they are true.
Irrational cause: eg, kid bitten by black dog then believes that all black dogs bite kids.
Nonrational cause: eg, physical events or causes.
Presuppositions of Reasoning - saying that one ought to accept any view is to assume all nine below hold true. 
1. intentionality or aboutness: the relation that mind states have to the world
2. thoughts and beliefs can either be true or false
3. the condition of accepting, rejecting, suspending belief about propositions
4. logical laws exist and humans can apprehend them
5. state of accepting truth of proposition & the propositional content of mental states
6. causal role of the apprehension of logical laws in accepting a conclusion
7. entertain-ability of a premise while drawing conclusions
8. reasoning processes which gives a reliable way of understanding the world
9. propositionally understood representation
Steps of the Reasoning Process- First there"s experience involving the reception of facts to think about, self-evidence involving the perception of a prima facie truth of a rule permitting inference, and finally logic arranges the fact in a certain form to prove a conclusion.
Explanation types - there has to be a combination of relations first of how a thought was produced and second of how thoughts are related to one another logically. Such thoughts are about something else, they are either true or false and their propositional content must cause other thoughts to take place. Further, the act of inference must be subsumed under an always true logical law according to which one thought follows another. Thus our acts of rational inference occur due to reality having a feature that corresponds to that inferential process. This reason-explanation combination exists either in a world that is fundamentally governed by blind matter rather than reasons, or not. 
Fine-Tuning doesn"t mean "design" " it"s a neutral term that"s generally agreed upon by scientists, that very small deviations from the actual values of the cosmic constants and quantities would result in a life prohibiting universe. For the range of life-permitting values is exquisitely narrow compared with the range of assumable values. 
Constants are mathematical expressions of nature"s physical laws whose values are not determined by the laws themselves. A universe governed by such laws can have a wide range of values. For example, Newton"s Law of Gravity:
F = Gm1m2 / r2
Here, the gravity force, F, between two objects depends not just on their masses m, and distance r; but also on a certain constant G, which is constant regardless of the masses and distance.
Fundamental constants ^5;, include gravitation ^5;G, the weak force ^5;W, the strong force ^5;S, the ratio between a proton and an electron"s mass mn:me. The universe is conditioned principally by these values and so just a slight variation in some of these values would render life impossible! PCW Davies says that changes in ^5;G or ^5;W of only 1 part in 10^100 would be a life-prohibiting universe. 
Quantities are also independent of the laws of nature themselves. They are arbitrary physical values simply "put into" the universe at the initial conditions of the universe. These are boundary conditions on which the laws of nature operate. For example, the entropy level is an arbitrary quantity. Another is the cosmological constant\3;, which drives inflation and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of expansion in the early universe moments after the big bang, which was crucial for life. For \3; was fine-tuned to around one part in 10^120!
More quantities governing early expansion includes the total density ]7;0, and the Expansion Speed H0. At Planck time (the first 10^-43 seconds after creation) the expansion was occurring at a fantastically special rate. For ]7;0 was close to a critical value on the borderline between re-collapse and everlasting expansion. Hawking estimates that if the expansion rate decreased in 1 part in a hundred thousand million million, one second after the Big Bang, our universe would have re-collapsed a long time ago. And an increase wouldn"t result in galaxies condensing out of the expanding matter, for the composite particle made up of three quarks known as the entropy per Baryon S, needed to severely constrain the structure of the Big Bang for thermodynamics to arise. Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of this special low entropy condition arising by chance is 10^10(123) !
6. Victor Reppert, 2003, "C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Re
Here are some definitions.
Theist: Someone who believes in a god defined by being personal, and having structured beliefs and/or worship of this deity(s).
Deist: Someone who believes in a god with indefinite or impersonal characteristics.
Agnostic: Someone who believes that there is not enough evidence to decide if a god exists or doesn't exist
Atheist: Someone who disbelieve in a god.
Agnostic atheist: Someone who takes a theoretical agnostic position but maintains an atheist viewpoint due to a lack of positive evidence for a deity. (This is where I fall under.) (e.g. Well I guess a bear could escape from the zoo and break through your bay window and kill you while you sleep on your couch, but it doesn't seem very likely as there are no bears at the local zoo. I hope this better explains the position.)
Good luck to Con. Grae shall be waiting.
Agnosticism is the middle ground. Something that says that either position could be right must be considered correct until we have proven one of the other positions. As long as you have not proven god, agnosticism must be held up as the truth. For this debate, agnosticism is the center position, and both of us must work to reason why our position is the correct, starting from the agnostic position, and using evidence or logic to prove our position.
Now, while it is true that I must logically accept agnosticism, I will show why it is logical to disbelieve in god (i.e. accept god is fake) until evidence shows.
In no situation in life do we take the theistic position on an issue. We always are atheists. When someone makes a claim, in what situation do we just believe it at first? If someone told me that Gun's N' Roses were back together and playing a concert in Philadelphia, would you just accept that as fact? No. It is a claim that requires more then your trust in someone to accept. When your friend tells you that he got a new dog, that isn't an outrageous claim. It isn't something that requires more evidence to accept then your trust in that person. However, when you make the claim more outrageous and extraordinary, you start to need more evidence. You stop taking the agnostic, or deist position on the issue, and start to doubt. The logical position when an extraordinary claim is made without evidence is to take a theoretical agnostic position, but remain skeptical, and accept it as fake until you have more evidence.
Imagine that you are in a field (existence), and there is a wall. (the limits of our understanding) You cannot see what is behind the wall, and you hear nothing. You do however, see a podium, like the ones at the zoo describing an animal (a religion). This podium says that there is a lion behind the wall. (The christian god). You cannot hear the lion, nor can you see it. Do you take the agnostic position, the atheist position, or the theist position? Or rather, do you disbelieve in the lion, but accept the minute possibility of one? Now, imagine that there are a great many podiums. Each claim a different animal. Many claim animals similar to a lion (Judeo-Christian-muslim subsets), many more claim multiple animals, or animals very different from a lion. Then you see hundreds of podiums that look destroyed or not kept (ancient religions), not only that, but every podium claims that the others are all wrong. The only evidence you have is the wall (gaps in our knowledge) and the podiums that claim to know it. Do you believe any of the podiums?
This is how I see religion. And not only do I fail to see evidence (since I would be making a negative argument, there is nothing I can do unless my opponent brings up points), but I see evidence for the opposite.
Pretty much every religion claims that every other religion is wrong. Well, some of these religions claimed to be wrong have had a large influence over the beliefs of that religion. Christianity has roots in many of the pagan beliefs, (Horus, Krishna, Dionysus and others bear a remarkable resemblance to Jesus. The cult of Dionysus had a Eucharist) and they are not alone in this problem. Religion is a cultural aspect, and as the culture evolves, so does the religion. This is clearly seen by anyone who takes a mild interest in religious studies. Religion is a regional thing. Meditteranean beliefs are very different from North American ones, which in turn are very different from South American ones. However, you see striking similarities in the beliefs of these peoples based on the region and what other religions they were close to. If there were truly a god, and a true religion, would a god really be so perverted by pagan beliefs?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 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:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for obvious reasons. Con seems to have plagiarized from another DDO user and he forfeited the debate. Pro was the only one to use arguments and Con has various grammar errors.
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.