The Instigator
Hayd
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God Probably 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 1 vote the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/31/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,147 times Debate No: 85842
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (1)

 

Hayd

Con

Preface

I challenge Jerry947 to this debate topic because of our disagreement on it. I look forward to a respectful and interesting discussion.


Resolution

God Probably Exists


Terms

God: A supreme being that is the creator of the contingent universe. Possesses attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence, necessary existenceand is eternal.

Probably: most likely

Exist: have objective reality or being

Rules

1. No forfeits

2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate

3. No new arguments in the final round

4. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)

5. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions

6. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate

7. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round

8. Violation of any of these rules results in a loss


Round Structure

R1. Pro's Case

R2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case

R3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case

R4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case

R5. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro waives

Jerry947

Pro

I thank Hayd for creating this debate. I will be using two arguments I have used in other debates and then I will also include a new argument that I have not exactly used before. I like to mix things up a little bit every now and then.

The Cosmological argument:

The argument in a nutshell is as follows:
a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b. The universe began to exist.
c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. If you have any objections to any of the premises in this argument, see source and see if your objection is listed there. The source gives good explanations to the objections it lists.
Source: https://carm.org............

The Truth Argument:

a. Truth is a statement that agrees with reality. Or in other words, truths make statements about what is real. For example, if I were to say that Obama is currently the President of the United States, I would be making a statement that agrees with reality.
b. Truth requires a mind. Sine truths are statements...and because statements are made by a mind, then it follows that truth requires a mind.
c. There are universal truths. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter who is aware of this fact.
d. Therefore it follows that there must be a universal mind (God).

The Axiological Argument:

a. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

My brief defense of this premise: Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code.

b. Objective moral values do exist.

My brief defense of this premise: Almost all people are aware that murder, lying, stealing, and etc...are wrong. it seems crazy to believe that every person just so happens to have the same subjective opinion on these basic moral principles. There must be some sort of universal moral law that exists.

c. Therefore, God exists.

That is the short version of the argument. Please tell me what problems you have with the argument and I will address them in the next round.

Common objections answered...
Only religion can give the most logical explanation for the origin of morality. Most people have an idea of what is right and wrong. Religious people, most of the time state that morality comes from God. This makes sense considering most people abide by an objective moral code that they expect everyone to know about. And the only way an objective moral code could exist is if a God created it. Objective morality can only come from an objective being (God). Now some people might argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or a real right and wrong. But the people that argue this always go back on their claim a moment later (C.S. Lewis). People try to argue that morality is created by societies. But we also understand that there are societies that have condoned evil practices when in fact people know that the society was wrong. For example, W. H. Auden, a famous 20th century poet, said that "there had to be a reason Hitler was utterly wrong." Auden said this famous quote after going to a theater that showed pictures of the Holocaust. These pictures sickened him and made him rethink his worldview. Before watching these pictures, Auden believed that it was up to the society to decide what was right and wrong. But during his time at the theater he realized that if societies decided what was right and wrong, and if morality is subjective, this would mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did. Well, at least according to that society. And who are we to tell them they are wrong if morality is purely subjective? Therefore, religion gives the best explanation for why there is an objective morality and why it exists.

Even though religion gives a great explanation for why morality exists, it also gives the only real reason people have to be moral. According to religion, people are moral to receive gifts or to avoid punishment from God. Others in religion believe they are moral to be more like their loving God. There is no other reason to be moral. Although people have no reason to be moral, people may have some objections. Some may argue that they are moral to benefit society. The problem with this response is that benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. Another objection would be that morality is merely an instinct. The problem with this claim is that people have different instincts which would make morality subjective. And again, if morality is subjective, we could never tell people that they are doing something wrong. Another problem with this argument is that morality is usually that thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves. Therefore, religion gives the only reason to be moral. Without God, there is no reason to be moral. But religion tells people to be moral to please their God or to be more like him.

Thanks again for creating the debate and I look forward to seeing how things turn out.
Debate Round No. 1
Hayd

Con

Eternalism
By definition (R1), God is the creator of the universe. If the universe is eternal and never began to exist, then God does not exist.

In order for the universe to begin to exist; past, present, and future must exist distinctly.

But they don’t, because when you take motion into account, time is no longer constant. By this I mean that the time at which an event occurs depends on the observer’s motion, speed, and distance. An observer’s “now” it different from the event’s “now”, and thus all instances of time are fused into a concept called space-time.

This video gives you a great visual of the concept.


Since past, present, and future do not exist distinctly, the universe did begin to exist. Thus God does not exist.

Reverse Modal Ontological Argument
Logical possibility=anything that does not contradict logic (e.g. married bachelors, squared circles, etc.)

World=a possible version of reality

1) The nonexistence of God is a logical possibility
2) Since the nonexistence of God is a logical possibility, there is a possible world in which God does not exist.
3) If there is a possible world in which God does not exist, God does not exist in all worlds.
4) If God is nonexistent in all worlds, he is nonexistent in our world
5) God does not exist.

Clarification of 3)
Think backwards, if God were to exist in a possible world, he would exist in all possible worlds because he is omnipotent. Thus, if there is any possible world in which a god does not exist, the claim is negated. There is, thus, working backwards, he does not exist in any.
Jerry947

Pro

Responding to Eternalism:

1. The first problem with my opponent's argument is that modern science supports that the universe had a beginning. For example, the second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of energy (hence heading towards a heat death). In an eternal universe, it would have run out of energy by now. So since this hasn't happened, we know that the Universe had a beginning. Also, there is the discovery of red-shift in 1929. Basically, this discovery showed us that the universe is expanding which means if you were to go back in time, the universe would shrink and shrink until you got no universe. William Lane Craig says it better, he states that "as one traces the expansion back in time, the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches a point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...).

2. So now that my opponent has brought up the existence of the Universe...I will bring up the cosmological argument.
The Cosmological argument:
The argument in a nutshell is as follows:
a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b. The universe began to exist.
c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
Source: https://carm.org............

Summary: I have just given multiple scientific reasons that prove that the universe is not eternal. So therefore the universe does have a cause and that cause must be God.

3. I understand that time has a relative aspect to it but I don't see why this makes the whole concept an illusion. For example, a person on a train will not realize how fast they are moving and a person living in Paris will see the sun rise at a different time. We all know that time exists objectively but we merely experience it subjectively. So my opponent will have to explain a little further. Also, my opponent hasn't exactly shown that the past, present, and future exist distinctly. By definition they do exist distinctly and a simple google search will prove that. While it is true we experience the past, present, and future differently...this doesn't disprove the existence of time itself. But this issue doesn't really matter since science proves that the universe (which includes the concept of time) had a beginning and therefore makes this point not as important.

Responding to the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument:

1. My opponent states that the non-existence of God is a logical possibility. I found this funny because I realized that it connects to my truth argument. The laws of logic are in fact truth statements about reality. For example, if I were to say that something cannot bring themselves into existence, that would be a true statement about reality. Then according to the second premise of my truth argument, truth statements require minds. And so do the laws of logic. But it gets more interesting! The laws of logic are also transcendent. For example, " if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence and that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. The condition of the universe does not effect these truths" (Matt Slick). Basically, the laws of logic aren't affected by the universe's existence. They would still exist whether we did or not which means that the laws of logic are in fact universal truths which means that there must be a universal mind (since truth requires a mind). I mean, these transcendent laws of logic couldn't even exist without a God which makes this first premise void.

2. Then it is said that "If there is a possible in which God does not exist, God does not exist in all worlds." The problem here is that it makes a factual claim based off a possibility. Something being possible doesn't make it true.

3. Lastly it was said that "If God is nonexistent in all worlds, he is nonexistent in our world." This is true but you first have to prove that God is nonexistent in all worlds (or a single one). Even though my opponent said that God may not possibly exist in a world, this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist in all worlds. Remember, possibility doesn't make probability.

Thus I find these arguments to have no real substance. But I thank my opponent for a good round and I will await to hear what he has to say.
Debate Round No. 2
Hayd

Con

Kalam Cosmological Argument
OV1-This argument is referred to as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, developed by William Lane Craig. I will thus be referring to his “elaborations” of specific premises that were not explained by Pro enough to properly negate.

OV2-If I disprove only one of the premises of the argument, the entire argument falls. For step-by-step logic, it needs every premise to leave the conclusion intact. Thus, if Pro properly defends every single one of my attacks of the premises, then the argument passes. But if does all but one, I negate the entire argument.

OV3-My case against the KCA is largly influenced by Tejretics critique of it on his blog [2].

All premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument are logically valid. Valid meaning that premise leads to conclusion. But, as you will find, the argument as a whole is not sound.

In order for an argument to be sound, it must fulfill two premises: 1) all its premises are true, and (2) it is logically valid. The argument meets the second premise, but not the first. Like this argument:

1) Anyone that enjoys chocolate is a lizard.
2) I enjoy chocolate.
3) I am a lizard.

The argument is logically valid (the premises leads to a conclusion), but it is not logically sound (all its premises aren’t true), because there are plenty of people that enjoy tomatoes that aren’t lizards, such as myself.

Thus, I will show how each individual premise is false.

Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

There are two things wrong with this premise.

Firstly, Craig justifies this premise by intuition, “out of nothing, nothing comes”. But this justification is a logical fallacy; the appeal to intuition [1]. There’s no reason to believe that human intuition would work outside the universe, a place lacking space and time.

Second, it is fallacious to invoke causation when humans cannot comprehend it. The cause of the universe could not exist within the universe because the universe would have to exist for that to happen, but since this is prior to its existence (its causation), it must exist outside the universe. But without the universe, there is no time. Our entire comprehension of cause-effect relationships assume that time exists, and is flowing. Thus, it is impossible for us to comprehend this level of causation, and foolish to invoke it. Therefore, there is no ground on which to adduce causation.

Premise 2) The universe began to exist.

This is directly negated by my Eternalism argument. Thus, if Pro fails to disprove Eternalism, he loses this premise, and thus loses the entire argument.

The Truth Argument
This argument is self-refuting. Through the proof, Pro uses two different types of truth. The first, not specifically named, and the second, universal truth. You have to understand what universal truth is to see how the argument is false.

Truth can be defined as universal if it is valid in all times and places [4]. Thus, Pro’s example of 1+1=2 would still be true regardless of whether a universal mind exists or not. Therefore premise c) does not necessitate d) true, and does not prove the existence of God.

The Axiological Argument
My response to this argument is based off the counter-argument proposed by Plato in “Euthypro”. The argument can be summed up as follows [3].

(1) If the argument is true, then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.
(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.
(4) Therefore it is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.
(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then God would have absolutely no basis to justify his command.
(6) If God has no basis on which to justify his command, then his decision/command is just as good as anyone else’s.
(7) Thus, there is no reason to hold God’s interpretation of what's objectively right or wrong.
(8)It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
(9) Therefore the argument is false.

Defense of 2 & 3)
If (i) is true, it would mean that they must be morally good prior to God commanding them, or else God would not will them. If these facts are morally good prior to God commanding them, then they are independent from God. Thus, God is not needed for objective morals to exist (they are not dependent on them as the Pro’s argument holds).

Defense of 5 & 6)
If the argument is true, all morality depends on God’s decision what to command. Thus, God’s decision on what to command can not be informed by morality. If morally good acts are morally good because they are commanded by God, then they must be commanded by God before they are morally good. It must be that God makes his decision what to command in a moral vacuum [4].

This means that any decision God makes on morality has just as much validity on as any other, and there is no reason to follow God’s command over any other.

[1] http://www.seekfind.net...
[2] http://gotejas.com...
[3] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)
Jerry947

Pro

And now the final round has arrived. I will again start by quoting my opponent and then responding to it directly underneath the quote.

"Firstly, Craig justifies this premise by intuition, "out of nothing, nothing comes". But this justification is a logical fallacy; the appeal to intuition [1]. There"s no reason to believe that human intuition would work outside the universe, a place lacking space and time."

First let us define intuition (not a resolutional definition). An intuition is "the faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Knowing that something doesn't come from nothing is not an intuition. It is something we know based off of our observations of the universe. Everything we think of in the universe has a cause. To say that the universe is the exception is committing the taxicab fallacy. What you are doing is assuming a certain system of thought in an attempt to make a particular point but then you leap out of the system of thought when it suits you. You can't do this. There is also the fact that science supports that the universe has a cause. The standard Big Bang theory even indicates that the universe had a beginning. This is a fact that you can't get away from.

As for it being impossible for something to come from nothing...that rule applies with or without the universe. It is logically impossible that the universe could come from nothing. Why? Because nothing is nothing. Nothingness cannot be the explanation for anything...

"The cause of the universe could not exist within the universe because the universe would have to exist for that to happen, but since this is prior to its existence (its causation), it must exist outside the universe."

Sure. So God existed outside of the Universe when he created it. I don't really see your point here. Your point only establishes that nothing in the universe created the universe.

"But without the universe, there is no time."

Right...so the cause of the universe would have to be eternal.

"Our entire comprehension of cause-effect relationships assume that time exists, and is flowing. Thus, it is impossible for us to comprehend this level of causation, and foolish to invoke it. Therefore, there is no ground on which to adduce causation."

Well, since science supports that the universe had a beginning, it is completely logical to say that the universe had a cause. Not completely understanding the cause does not mean there is no need for an explanation. So your reasoning here is fallacious.

"Premise 2) The universe began to exist.
This is directly negated by my Eternalism argument. Thus, if Pro fails to disprove Eternalism, he loses this premise, and thus loses the entire argument. "

Well, I think I did a pretty good job refuting that argument. Modern science presents strong evidence of the theory (as I have already provided).

"Truth can be defined as universal if it is valid in all times and places [4]. Thus, Pro"s example of 1+1=2 would still be true regardless of whether a universal mind exists or not. Therefore premise c) does not necessitate d) true, and does not prove the existence of God."

Okay...let us take a look at the truth argument again.

a. Truth is a statement that agrees with reality. Or in other words, truths make statements about what is real. For example, if I were to say that Obama is currently the President of the United States, I would be making a statement that agrees with reality.
b. Truth requires a mind. Sine truths are statements...and because statements are made by a mind, then it follows that truth requires a mind.
c. There are universal truths. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter who is aware of this fact.
d. Therefore it follows that there must be a universal mind (God).

My opponent claims that 1+1=2 would be a universal truth. I am okay with that, I did after-all say that first. But then he goes on to say that premise c does not necessitate true but this is problematic for my opponent since he just admitted that universal truth exists. But he also says that the universal truth would still be true whether a universal mind existed or not. But this is merely a case where my opponent has misunderstood the argument. Since all truths are statements about reality and because all truths require minds (opponent has made no objection to either of these)...therefore universal truths also require a universal mind. Someone had to make those universal truth statements and they had to come from someone that completely understands and knows all truth. Therefore it can't be a human being since we don't know all true. Therefore it must be a universal mind.

But since my opponent has no problem with the first two premises, then it logically follows that since all truths require a mind, that universal truths also come from a universal mind.

"The Axiological Argument
My response to this argument is based off the counter-argument proposed by Plato in "Euthypro". The argument can be summed up as follows [3]."

This is the second time someone has used this argument on me. And I always get excited when they do because it seems like an impossible trap for the theist.

"If the argument is true, then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God."

Your argument fails at the very first premise. But the answer to the euthyphro dilemma is that something is good because God is by nature good. And this makes sense considering that the creator of this perfect objective moral law would have to be perfectly good. Why? Because the creation of a designer reflects characteristics of the creator. This perfect moral law had to be created by a flawless and moral being. After-all, you can't get perfection from an imperfect being.

"Defense of 2 & 3)
If (i) is true, it would mean that they must be morally good prior to God commanding them, or else God would not will them. If these facts are morally good prior to God commanding them, then they are independent from God. Thus, God is not needed for objective morals to exist (they are not dependent on them as the Pro"s argument holds)."

Moral truths are not good prior to God. God is perfectly moral and this is the reason why he is the ultimate authority on what is right and wrong.

"Defense of 5 & 6)
If the argument is true, all morality depends on God"s decision what to command. Thus, God"s decision on what to command can not be informed by morality. If morally good acts are morally good because they are commanded by God, then they must be commanded by God before they are morally good. It must be that God makes his decision what to command in a moral vacuum [4]."

Nope. Again, God is good by nature which allows him to objectively know what is right and wrong.

"This means that any decision God makes on morality has just as much validity on as any other, and there is no reason to follow God"s command over any other."

No. God is perfectly moral and this makes him the ultimate judge of what is moral/immoral.

I thank my opponent for a good debate. According to the rules I must waive my final round so I ask my opponent to make sure he only defends his case in round four since that is what the rules say.
Debate Round No. 3
Hayd

Con

In this round I will be defending my case against Pro’s rebuttals in R2.

Eternalism
OV1-Pro brings up two logical fallacies; Bare Assertions and Straw Man.

A bare assertion is when a fact is asserted without supporting reasoning or evidence, obviously, the veracity of a claim cannot be trusted. It is a “bare” assertion. Thus, any bare assertions have no impact.

A straw man is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position [3]. It uses this reasoning:

1) Person A has position X.
2) Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3) Person B attacks position Y.
4) Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


1) Pro’s first objection to externalism is that if the universe was eternal, then we would have run out of energy by now by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Pro doesn’t seem to understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and what it is. The First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that the total amount of energy in the universe stays the same [1]. The Second Law states that, “In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same” [2]. Entropy being the amount of energy that is unavailable to do work.

The First Law alone goes to negate Pro’s claim, and lose him credibility. But the Second Law also does not comply with Pro’s claim, thus we disregard it.

Pro’s second objection is bringing up red shift, that the universe is expanding. That if you go back and back in time, the universe becomes denser, infinitely denser. I agree with Pro here, until he makes the claim, “until you got no universe.” Pro gives no justification for this, it is a bare assumption. We can accept that the universe continues to shrink infinitely so that it is infinitely small, but we cannot take the step to say that then there is no universe; for the universe can exist infinitely (eternally) in infinitely small form. This step needs to be explained, and as it is not, cannot be accepted (OV1).

2) Pro brings up the KCA again to show that the universe has a cause. But, I have already done a detailed rebuttal to show why it's false, see my R2 response.

3) This is another part that hurts Pro’s credibility. Pro straw man’s my argument (see OV1). Pro goes to disprove eternalism by claiming that I argued for the nonexistence of time. I clearly did not argue for the nonexistence of time, I merely argued for the nonexistence of a distinction between the existence of past, present, and future.

Reverse Modal Ontological Argument
1) I was quite honestly extremely confused by Pro’s response. After reading it thrice, it seems that he runs his Truth Argument to show that God exists...again. But it does not explain why this defeats my first premise. As I defeated Pro’s truth argument, I guess I defeated this rebuttal.

2) Here Pro misunderstands the argument. I’m guessing Pro didn’t read my Clarification of premise 3. I’ll just clarify it further: if the the nonexistence of God is a logical possibility (not a logically impossible thing like a married bachelor), then God does not exist in a possible world. If he were to exist in a possible world, you would find God in all worlds since he is omnipotent (this is because existing in all possible worlds is more powerful than existing in just one, and since he must be all-powerful, he would have to exist in all worlds), thus if we do not find him in one possible world, he does not exist in any.

3) ^

Conclusion
I have negated all of Pro’s arguments, and he has not negated any of mine, thus I win the debate. Thank you to Pro for debating me, it has been fun! Waive next round.

[1] http://www.livescience.com...
[2] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[3] http://www.nizkor.org...
Jerry947

Pro

As according to the rules, this round is waived.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jerry947 9 months ago
Jerry947
Feel free to vote. I really don't understand why people are voting for him...but go ahead. I always like feedback even if it is against me.
Posted by famousdebater 9 months ago
famousdebater
I can get a vote up if you still want one but I think that I'd probably vote for Hayd. I'd usually just get my vote up regardless of who I was voting for but I feel a bit bad considering that I've voted against you on two of your debates already. If you still want a vote and some feedback I'd be happy to give it though.
Posted by Jerry947 9 months ago
Jerry947
I try to find people from all kinds of backgrounds to vote on these kind of debates. But I never have much success. Thanks for remembering famousdebater.
Posted by famousdebater 9 months ago
famousdebater
Pro asked me to vote on this a while ago and I forgot. I'll get a vote up soon.
Posted by Jerry947 9 months ago
Jerry947
Yeah...you still don't get the arguments. I understand how you feel about the burden of proof...most atheists would agree with you. But claiming that God probably doesn't exist is also a fact claim.

The reason God is moral is because he is by nature moral. It is the same as saying that you are human because it is in your nature to be human. So once again, he doesn't follow a standard.

I did show objective morality to exist and my points were never refuted or even addressed...
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
The main reason for my discounting the axiological argument was that none of the premises was clearly warranted.
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
@Jerry

Your argument on the burden is nonsense. When the resolution is a fact claim, the affirmative side always carries the burden of proof. That's because it is a burden of "proving" something, not a burden of persuasion. There are many arguments affirming this, and I applied the same standard to God.

>God is perfectly moral and does not follow a standard himself. It is literally impossible for him to do anything immoral since his nature is perfectly moral. He is the one that created a moral standard for humans to follow. Nothing about this is circular.

First, you didn't show that objective morality existed (see my RFD), so that was sufficient to ignore the argument.

Second, if God is moral, there must be some reason for it -- an external standard upon which this morality is contingent, sans which it's incoherent. Either God follows an external standard for morality or an internal one that leads to infinite regression.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 10 months ago
NothingSpecial99
Ah nuts! I don't meet the ELO requirement
Posted by NothingSpecial99 10 months ago
NothingSpecial99
So this is my first time voting on a debate with this certain topic. I"m mostly unaware of the arguments for both sides even though I lean towards one side. I believe that my perspective will be valuable in this RFD. So as part of my RFD I will analyze each argument from both sides.

Pro argues:
The Cosmological Argument
The Truth Argument
The Axiological Argument

Con argues:
Eternalism
Reverse Model Ontological Argument

Since the debate resolution is on the probability of God existing, both sides seemingly share BOP. Also, the fact that each argument alone could affirm or negate the existence of God in their own right, the winner would be the side that maintains more arguments arguing for or against the existence of God.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 10 months ago
NothingSpecial99
Cosmological Argument:

The initial presentation made sense to me and appears logically sound.

Con tries to rebut by stating the first premise is a logical fallacy because human intuition doesn"t apply outside the universe. Although Con doesn"t provide a reason why intuition requires space and time with Pro"s definition of intuition. As a person who doesn"t really know much about these arguments, I need to know more. Pro defends this stating that the premise is based on current observation and to make the universe an exception would be logically fallacious.

Con"s second rebuttal to this premise is the statement that the causation must precede the effect and since time hasn"t begun until the universe was created, it is foolish to invoke the premise. Pro"s defense of this was that God is eternal which seems logical.

Con also disputes the premise that the universe has a beginning by using his eternalism argument. Therefore, if his eternalism argument holds, Pro loses this argument.

The Truth Argument:

Con only disputes premise C by stating that universal truths do not require universal minds, however this rebuttal would not work if Con doesn"t disputes premise B which stated that truth requires a mind. Since Con hasn"t disputed premise B, Pro"s truth argument stands.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
HaydJerry947
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/81691/