The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ramos-7
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

God cannot be scientifically/philosophically proven nor disproven

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...
Ramos-7
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,203 times Debate No: 63938
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

I will argue that the Christian God at least or any religious God cannot be proven by human beings. use the ontological, cosmological, moral, etc. Philosophical arguments, they all won't prove definitely God's existence. A specific religious God is simply affirmed from the start as a personal being.

first round acceptance
Ramos-7

Con

I guess, I'll start off with the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument and then explain each of the premises:

1) Whatever begins to or already exists has a cause/explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or an external explanation.
2) The Universe has an explanation/cause for its existence, and that is grounded in God (a necessary being).
3) The Universe exists.
4) Therefore the universe has a cause/explanation to its existence.
5) The cause/explanation of the Universe can only be a necessary being.
C) God exists.

The 1st premise of this argument uses the same reasoning as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz"s Principle of Sufficient Reason which is considered to be an actual Law of Thought/Logic. If we start to deny that things that have existed in the past, present or future do not require a cause/explanation for their existence, that would make conducting Scientific experiments and using the Scientific Method impossible or very difficult to apply in the natural world since things could cause their own existence and not have a cause/reason/explanation for how so. Predicting anything would be very difficult to do which nullifies multiple forms of reasoning such as Deduction (the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.) & Induction (reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given). Wouldn"t you assume the logical conclusions you form about anything are backed by sufficient reason? People that argue that particles come into existence from nothing via Quantum Fluctuation are simply misunderstanding Science, the entire Universe is filled with energy (not as much as before though since the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy explain that the Universe is constantly moving to a phase called Thermodynamic Equilibrium where there"ll be no more usable energy for us and we"ll all cease to exist). Particles probably come from the energy that is in the Universe, and I"m sure anyone who knows that Energy = Mass X (Speed of Light)^2 (which I guess the equation is true regarding examples such as the way an atomic bomb works) can understand that this energy conversion is more logical and possible than something that violates logic itself (Something From Nothing. For an event to occur, there must be a conscious being present that has the capability to do something by itself (Agent Causation).

Premise 2 : Many Atheists agree with Theists is that the Universe does indeed exist necessarily because it is the foundation for matter, space, time, energy, this planet which we live that is able to support life, the fact that the stream of consciousness exists etc. Without the Universe, none of these things (because they"re all inside of it) would be able to work in the way they all do today, yesterday and tomorrow. If the Universe was necessary in itself, it would have to be eternal (never failing to exist and always was) and changeless (never changes, correlates with eternal). But if the Universe was changeless and eternal, why is it undergoing this Redshift (the widening of the Universe at some velocity that"s supposed to be greater than light) that Edwin Hubble "discovered" that cosmologists say "the Universe is infinitely inflating" (Cosmic Inflation) ? Also the Borde-Guth-Vilekin Theorem of 2003 explained that the Universe which is believed to be expanding cannot be past eternal (which is the implication since there had to have been a moment in the finite past where the Universe to have been formed for it to be expanding or been experiencing a stage where that was not happening). Then questions like "why is Earth the only planet known to man the one that can support and has life (assuming this is the case)?" are asked (this brings up the topic of Fine-Tuning). So if people want to make the argument that the Universe doesn't need to have been created by a necessary being (God) but a necessary substance instead, this would not work since even though the necessary substance avoids the problem of infinite regression, to be able to do something, as mentioned before the substance would have to be conscious, have the ability to do something by itself because something without a mind or being alive for that matter cannot act on its own or be able to create something contingent (agent causation) and it would not be made up of anything in the Universe so it would most likely be immaterial, intelligent enough to know how to craft/formulate things, the power to act accordingly and independent of space, time, the cycle of life, energy, 3 dimensions, the laws of physics that apply to this Universe etc. which sounds like a Necessary Being anyways because a substance cannot do these things without influence from something that matches all these characteristics.

Premise 3 : Is a statement of fact, if you're one of those guys who suggests Solipsism, the Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis or whatever illusionary type idea, I can address any of those if you want to include that (if you were to object to premise 3 which people have actually done before) .

Premise 4 : I did my best to explain.

Premise 5 : Explained through 2.

Conclusion : This is my current scientific/philosophical argument for God.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Ramos-7

Con

I await for a response from Truth_Seeker. May we debate to discuss/teach one-another the truth and to find faults in our arguments so we may grow intellectually and not for the purpose of personal pride or to satisfy negative emotions.
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Ramos-7

Con

I extend the opportunity for Truth_seeker to post a rebuttal for my argument in round 4.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Ramos-7

Con

This guy told me that he wanted to re-start the debate later, that's fine, but if you want to vote anyways go ahead.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
@18karl : "Okay, so you claim that your argumentation is "Leibnizean" but you have no background about the Monadistic theory of Leibniz's metaphysical realm."

I do have a background of knowledge about Monads, it might be less or more than yours, but the way you described them (like being infinite and you considered God to be a Monad) is different than the Monads I know of.

"Nevertheless, let us say now; there is only one conceivable Monad in one intellect. Let us then say that there are two monads existing in one intellect; monad x and monad y. No two monads are the same, for if they were the same, they would be conceived via each other and henceforth share the same attributes, which would then make them both modes, of either one another, or of another monad, for all things exist within itself or within something else."

I do not know what a mode is nor why you keep bringing up the topic of Monads, just because I agree with the premises of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, that does not mean I believe in the existence of Monads, his argument for God does not mention Monads at all. I do not understand why you keep bringing up the topic because I do not see how it relates to me and proving God's existence, I do not require monads to do so and also they cause problems for the existence of God anyways because if God is supposed to be omnipotent, omnipresent & omnibenevolent as well as eternal, where do these Monads come from (they're also eternal and act in their own ways; govern themselves) and how do they exist with God? There is no such thing as multiple eternal beings only 1.

With this theory stated, let us further assume this; if monad x existed and monad y existed, either monad x or y will then (in necessity) be exemplified by one attribute of the monad, or another monad entirely. This exemplification results in the violation of the definition of monad, and is proven analytically false, for the monad exists by itself and is conceived by no other th
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
@18karl : "I did in my response to your argument?"

You mentioned monads, so I would think you believe in them. Why would you mention them and ask me about them if I never have and you do not believe they exist?

"Firstly, existence in the intellect is based upon several principles of perception, which limits existence to only modes, affections of monads and monads themselves. Monads are in necessity infinite, whilst modes and affections are in necessity finite, for if these monads were finite, then it would be divisible into other monads, which would render the monad a compound (a type of affection of the monad). So let us say that a Monad is infinite, and modes/affection finite. Then if God via definition is the perfect and all-powerful spirit, then all-powerful insists that he be the greatest. If God were a mode or an affection or a compound, then he would not be all powerful, as he would be in necessity finite in himself, and limited/conceived by another monad, which would then in necessity result in the denial of God's power."

http://en.wikipedia.org... According to this, Monads are eternal not "infinite", there's a difference between the 2. Monads are not personal, conscious or any of the traits you've mentioned like God is either which further shows the difference between the 2. What is a "mode"? I searched the word and found no results other than the one used in math and the word that means "a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done." or "a fashion or style in clothes, art, literature, etc.".

Also why do you have the Eye of Lucifer (aka the All-Seeing Eye) as a profile picture? Do you support the Illuminati?
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
@Ramos-7:

"Is this the monad you are speaking about (in the link below), because if not, idk what you're talking about. Why do you believe they exist (there're claims about multiple Monads existing in the Universe, the link provides characteristics of them)."

Okay, so you claim that your argumentation is "Leibnizean" but you have no background about the Monadistic theory of Leibniz's metaphysical realm. Nevertheless, let us say now; there is only one conceivable Monad in one intellect. Let us then say that there are two monads existing in one intellect; monad x and monad y. No two monads are the same, for if they were the same, they would be conceived via each other and henceforth share the same attributes, which would then make them both modes, of either one another, or of another monad, for all things exist within itself or within something else. With this theory stated, let us further assume this; if monad x existed and monad y existed, either monad x or y will then (in necessity) be exemplified by one attribute of the monad, or another monad entirely. This exemplification results in the violation of the definition of monad, and is proven analytically false, for the monad exists by itself and is conceived by no other things.
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
@Ramos-7:

"I never mentioned anything about monads in my argument. Is this the monad you are speaking about (in the link below), because if not, idk what you're talking about. Why do you believe they exist (there're claims about multiple Monads existing in the Universe, the link provides characteristics of them)."

I did in my response to your argument?

"Why do you consider God to be a Monad? I gave the definition of God, and that of a Monad is not the same but only similar in some characteristics. I never considered 2 or more Monads existing together and according to the link they're supposed to be eternal not infinite, that statement relates not to my argument for God."

Firstly, existence in the intellect is based upon several principles of perception, which limits existence to only modes, affections of monads and monads themselves. Monads are in necessity infinite, whilst modes and affections are in necessity finite, for if these monads were finite, then it would be divisible into other monads, which would render the monad a compound (a type of affection of the monad). So let us say that a Monad is infinite, and modes/affection finite. Then if God via definition is the perfect and all-powerful spirit, then all-powerful insists that he be the greatest. If God were a mode or an affection or a compound, then he would not be all powerful, as he would be in necessity finite in himself, and limited/conceived by another monad, which would then in necessity result in the denial of God's power.

"No they're not, that's just some subjective idea you have, monads do not make up the "essence of all argumentations like this", mine is a clear example of that fact and what do you mean "there can only exist 1 monad in the human intellect."? Since when did those things exist in people?"

Strawman much? As proven, if God were an affectionate/mode of a monad, then God is not all powerful. The Monad exists and is self-caused. The world begins with the monad.
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
@18Karl

"But the essence of the argumentation has been missing, for how is it ever conceivable that two "monads" to be both infinite, yet they have the ability to conceive each other?"

I never mentioned anything about monads in my argument. Is this the monad you are speaking about (in the link below), because if not, idk what you're talking about. Why do you believe they exist (there're claims about multiple Monads existing in the Universe, the link provides characteristics of them).
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Because the theory of monads is the mere essence of all argumentations like this, and there can only exist one monad in the human intellect."

No they're not, that's just some subjective idea you have, monads do not make up the "essence of all argumentations like this", mine is a clear example of that fact and what do you mean "there can only exist 1 monad in the human intellect."? Since when did those things exist in people?

"So let us suppose this God you talk about is eternal; then it would be, via necessity infinite. It is a metaphysical judgment of reality to attribute the universe of containing monads and modes. There can only be one monad ever conceivable in man, and it is impossible for two infinite monads exists alongside each other."

Why do you consider God to be a Monad? I gave the definition of God, and that of a Monad is not the same but only similar in some characteristics. I never considered 2 or more Monads existing together and according to the link they're supposed to be eternal not infinite, that statement relates not to my argument for God.

" i.e God does not need a cause. So via this logic, God is a monad; then, with your logic, solve the dilemma of dual-monadistic existence. i.e How can two infinite monads exist alongside each other?"

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
@Ramos-7:

"They do not create each other (conceive), one creates the other (God created the Universe) it doesn't work vise-versa. One is eternal (always was, is and ever will be) and one is infinite (it was created but it goes on forever)."

But the essence of the argumentation has been missing, for how is it ever conceivable that two "monads" to be both infinite, yet they have the ability to conceive each other?

"Why bring monads into the discussion when I never mentioned them? God is eternal, the Universe is not, why are you trying to reason that one of them cannot exist? I brought up the point that the Universe began at some point in the past in my post, if something "Began to exist" like the Universe did, the logical implication with knowledge of how Cause & Effect functions would lead to the conclusion that something beyond space, time, energy, the cycle of life, something non-physical (immaterial) etc. caused the Universe."

Because the theory of monads is the mere essence of all argumentations like this, and there can only exist one monad in the human intellect. So let us suppose this God you talk about is eternal; then it would be, via necessity infinite. It is a metaphysical judgment of reality to attribute the universe of containing monads and modes. There can only be one monad ever conceivable in man, and it is impossible for two infinite monads exists alongside each other. This is the argument here. And in the application of cause-effect, I believe that it was in one your presumptions in the argument that God is Eternal. i.e God does not need a cause. So via this logic, God is a monad; then, with your logic, solve the dilemma of dual-monadistic existence. i.e How can two infinite monads exist alongside each other?
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
@18Karl "To say that the Universe MUST have a cause is, and to leave that on the hanger thread as if it were an axiomatic conclusion is an absurdity. Not everything must have a cause, and since God is eternal, then the universe is not eternal."

Pardon me, I forgot to type everything that exists has a cause or explanation to its existence, not just cause. Just because God doesn't have a cause that doesn't mean his existence cannot be explained.

"But via essence of the universe, and via Hubble's Law, the universe is in necessity infinite. Then conceive; how is it possible that there are two things that are either eternal in nature, and yet they conceive each other."

They do not create each other (conceive), one creates the other (God created the Universe) it doesn't work vise-versa. One is eternal (always was, is and ever will be) and one is infinite (it was created but it goes on forever).

"Every monad has to be absolutely different, for if they were similar, then they would be conceived via each other and henceforth rendering both things a compound, not a monad. This is the simple essence of the rebutting of the argument from design from a Spinozan PoV. But let us take your PoV for example; then if God and the universe is eternal and infinite, then one of them has to not exist. We know that the universe exists, so in necessity, God does not exist, or He may exist as the universe."

Why bring monads into the discussion when I never mentioned them? God is eternal, the Universe is not, why are you trying to reason that one of them cannot exist? I brought up the point that the Universe began at some point in the past in my post, if something "Began to exist" like the Universe did, the logical implication with knowledge of how Cause & Effect functions would lead to the conclusion that something beyond space, time, energy, the cycle of life, something non-physical (immaterial) etc. caused the Universe.

"LELLLLL"? What is that supposed to mean? Why type t
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
But in negating the resolution, just say:

"Principle of Sufficient Reason"

LELLLLL
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
@Ramos-7:

To say that the Universe MUST have a cause is, and to leave that on the hanger thread as if it were an axiomatic conclusion is an absurdity. Not everything must have a cause, and since God is eternal, then the universe is not eternal. But via essence of the universe, and via Hubble's Law, the universe is in necessity infinite. Then conceive; how is it possible that there are two things that are either eternal in nature, and yet they conceive each other. Every monad has to be absolutely different, for if they were similar, then they would be conceived via each other and henceforth rendering both things a compound, not a monad. This is the simple essence of the rebutting of the argument from design from a Spinozan PoV. But let us take your PoV for example; then if God and the universe is eternal and infinite, then one of them has to not exist. We know that the universe exists, so in necessity, God does not exist, or He may exist as the universe.
Posted by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
@18Karl 1) God is eternal. An eternal cause cannot have been caused by anything. If something is eternal, that means that it always was, is and ever will be. Here's what Merriam Webster has to say for the word eternal:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

2) Read 1.

3) So you believe it is based on perception? Does everything that exists have an explanation according to your worldview or no?

4) Read 1. Also its fact everything in the Universe must have a cause, its not so much a proposition.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Truth_seekerRamos-7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff and no arguments from pro.