God does NOT Exist!
Debate Rounds (3)
god doesn't exist for the simple fact that the things we ere told in the bible couldn't have possibly have happened based of off scientific events. throughout my short lifespan I've read and did my research on mythology and its clear that many of the stories in the bible have been copied. After reading the old testament I was freaked out. why would god; a being that we love and worship seem so wrathful and evil? like most people I use to be a firm believer in Christ but as I got older and formed my own opinion it became clear to me. This my be a little out there but if Jesus was a Caucasian man why would he live in the middle east? I mean wouldn't the sun burn him to pieces? and what about the ancient drawings? we always see them kneeling before a god but never the one that we are familiar with. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the conventional god that everyone prays to isn't who we really should be worshiping. something doesn't add up, if your eyes are open you would see that something fishy is definitely going on in the world so how could you possibly trust anything? I for one don't. When African Americans were brought from our countries they wouldn't allow us to practice our old religions or speak our old language they stripped us of everything and gave us there way of thinking, they considered us less than but yet they gave us a bible and told us to practice its teachings. That's weird, in my own opinion I think it was done to keep us mentally enslaved. But this has nothing to do with race because we've ALL been deceived and unless someone can give me irrefutable evidences that he did exist I wont budge.
I accept. I shall be playing Devil's advocate in this debate, since I believe God likely doesn't exist. Best of luck.
MaiaBloom forfeited this round.
Modal Ontological Argument
This argument defines God as a "necessary being," which entails all properties required by a standard definition of God. This is because the universe is contingent, thus a necessary being has to be transcendent. Outside the universe, there is no constraint, and infinite ontological potential, meaning the being has to be omnipotent, omniscient, et cetera. As the singular necessary entity, the universe has to be contingent on it, thus it is the cause of the universe. Since all existence is contingent (BCCF), it is contingent on a singular entity, and to avoid infinite regression, it has to be singular. If the argument entails, then there is a singular, necessary, omnipotent, and omniscient entity that is the efficient cause of the contingent universe.
P1. If God exists in one possible world, G(God) exists in all possible worlds (including the actual world)
P2. G is logically possible
C. Therefore, God exists
I am using possible world semantics to justify this premise. Since God ('G') is defined as "necessary," it means G, and G. This means that if <>G, then <>G, since God is necessary and God is possible, thus God is necessarily possible and possibly necessary. Now, if you are "possible," by possible world semantics, one exists in at least one possible world. Since God is defined as necessary, the logical possibility of God would entail to mean <>G by definition.
The existence of God entails no logical contradiction. Since God is transcendent, God lacks any constraint and has infinite ontological potential, meaning God is not bounded by the Law of Non-Contradiction -- therefore, God has to be logically possible.
Since God exists in all possible worlds, God exists in the actual world, since the actual world itself is a possible world, else quantum states cannot exist.
The argument in logical format:
1) <>X --> X
2) <>X --> <>X
3) X --> X
5) <>X (2,4 Modus Ponens)
6) X (1,5 Modus Ponens)
7) X (3,6 Modus Ponens)
Godelian Ontological Argument
I will be defending the ontological argument of Kurt von Godel.
D1) A "positive property," hereby +P, is a property that does not lessen the excellence of an entity, but whose negation lessens the excellence of an entity
D2) Something has necessary existence of it is not contingent on anything else
D3) A property is strongly positive if +P
P1) If 'A' is any strongly positive property, then, necessarily, there exists a being that both exists necessarily and essentially possesses 'A'. This is because necessity itself is strongly positive. If A, then A is separate from the universe, thus has to possess omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection, which are strongly positive. Thus, if +P, then A has +P.
P2) The properties of omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection are strongly positive properties. Godelian ontological positivity refers to being "positive" in fields of omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection. Thus, these properties are +P. They are also +P because otherwise they are bound by logic, which *is* all ontological constraint.
P3) To possess a conjunct of strongly positive properties is a strongly positive property. This doesn't commit fallacy of composition since positivity is transferable by Godelian definition of positivity.
C) There exists a being which exists necessarily and essentially possesses omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection.
Over to Pro!
A1: Lack of evidence
Pro drops modal ontological argument, which *is* the proof for the God I speak of. The ontological arguments I presented are sufficient to fulfill my BoP. Pro fails to fulfill their BoP by proving -- with certainty -- that God does not exist. Pro argues from the Bible, but this is a red herring  and a straw man , since it misrepresents my position, which does not defend a God of the Bible.
As such, vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff, so conduct to Con. Con presented ontological arguments for the existence of God (I thought they were terrible!), but Pro dropped all of the arguments so they stand. Pro's only arguments are mostly against the God of the Bible, but this is not the resolution. What about Buddhists for example? This is a quick win for Con.
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.