God does not Exist
I, Socrates, will argue in the negative in regard to the statement "God does not exist", meaning I will be arguing for the existence of a non-specific deity, although I may choose to argue for the existence of more specific deities suited to specific religions, if it should benefit my argument. My opponent, whomsoever that shall be, will argue in the positive in regard to the aforementioned statement, meaning he will be arguing that our Universe exists without a deity.
This opening statement and round will be used purely for pleasantries, with "round 2" being where the actual debate begins.
I hope not that the superior rhetorician, but rather he that argues for the truth shall prevail.
Best of luck, and let us uncover truth.
I accept. The Burden Of Proof is on Con to prove that God does exist. Interesting double negative included in the resolution of the debate. I do not believe in God since I am an Atheist. I will allow my opponent to begin, both because it is part of the debate structure and because the BOP is solely on Con to prove that God does exist. I will be merely refuting his claims.
I agree that the burden of proof lies on the theist, and look forward to your refutation of the logical conclusions reached in the following debate.
I'd like to put forward two axioms that certainly we all can agree are apodictic.
1. We Exist.
2. "Right Now" is happening.
If you were to contest these two points then we have no basis off of which to argue, and this discussion would shift into some sort of a debate in the realm of metaphysics, which I am not interested in.
Given those two points, simple syllogism can bring us to the conclusion that there exists a deity.
Next I would like to present two possibilities. Either
(A. The Universe had a beginning.
- or -
(B. The Universe did not have a beginning and has therefore existed for eternity.
A. The Universe that had a beginning.
I would like to begin this debate with a simple illustration:
If I were to stand in a hypothetical room containing infinite space, holding a gun to the head of, say, Matt Damon, waiting to pull the trigger, but before doing so I had to ask the permission of another person, say, Scarlett Johansson.
So I ask Scarlett Johansson "Scarlett, can I shoot Matt Damon?" and she responds "Of course! But first the person behind you must shoot him."
It is at this point that I realize that there is a person behind me, who also has a gun pointing at Matt Damon's head. He also has to ask permission before pulling the trigger. "Scarlett," he asks, "can I shoot Matt?".
Scarlett, true to form, replies just as before "Of course! But first the person behind you must shoot him.". The exercise repeats again and again and again with the same circumstances. Will I ever be able to shoot Matt Damon?
Of course not! Not unless someone at some point along the infinite chain of gun-wielding Matt Damon-haters' ability to pull the trigger is NOT dependent on someone behind him shooting first.
Let's discuss existence. You, me, mountains, baked beans, ears of corn, South America, the planet earth, et cetera all exist dependently. Meaning they derive their existence from something else. Mountains exist because of certain geological principles in place and the movement of tectonic plates, you exist because your parents copulated resulting in your conception, ears of corn exist because they were planted and harvested by a farmer, et cetera.
Everything we see and experience derives its existence from something else, and therefore exists dependently. Unless there exists something which does not derive its existence from something else, the source of all other existing principles and objects, our existence and therefore aforementioned Axiom 1 ["we exist"] is impossible. Therefore, we are left asking what exists independently and derives its existence FROM ITSELF, a property of a deity. If such an object, item, or being does not exist, existence in and of itself is impossible because the aforementioned chain of dependent existence extends forever, without me ever "shooting Matt Damon", or without us existing.
I. There exists something that derives its existence from itself, a property of a deity
II. The Universe itself derives its existence from itself, which is a property of a deity.
I. If you are to argue that something, separate and discrete from the Universe generates its own existence, you are assigning it the attributes of a deity and arguing that a deity exists. To simply put it, any item without divine attributes cannot generate it's own existence because for it to "create" itself, it must first exist, and if it already exists then it need not create itself, as the creation has already happened. This is a logical paradox in the observable scientific world, however for a deity who exists outside of space-time it is not an impossibility, as the logic of the observable universe does not apply to a being outside of, separate and discrete from the observable Universe.
II. If you were to argue that the Universe derives its existence from itself, you are arguing that the Universe has the attributes of a deity, and supporting my arguments for the reason presented above. Also, the Universe, bound by the laws of physics, cannot generate itself out of nothing, considering the fact that energy and matter is not created nor destroyed, but even if you were to contest the validity of that scientific principle, a self-generating Universe would still be a paradoxical argument and therefore impossible for the reasons listed above.
In conclusion for argument A, a Universe with a beginning is a logical impossibility, leaving only one remaining possibility, that is, possibility B; The Universe is eternal.
B. The Universe with no beginning
The concept of the "Eternal Universe" can be disproven quite simply using both simple logic and the application of existing scientific principles. Technically speaking, only one proof is necessary to disprove the concept, but I will present both for redundancy's sake.
Proof 1: Logic
It is impossible for the universe to have existed eternally. A time-space model reflecting that of a geometric ray is possible (if there exists a God), meaning the Universe has definite starting point and continues forward for eternity, but a universe that has already existed for eternity creates a logical paradox that is impossible to avoid.
If the Universe existed for an eternity before now, that means there was an infinite number of moments leading up to this one.
If you have a job to complete with an infinite number of tasks, will you ever complete the job? Of course not, because the number of tasks literally does not cease. By the same token, if an infinite number of moments had to occur before this one, it is impossible for us to ever reach this moment, and that would mean that the aforementioned Axiom 2 ["'Right Now' is happening."] is false. This is obviously not the case.
Proof 2: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The applied Second Law of Thermodynamics simply states that each time energy is used it becomes less useable. No energy actually is destroyed, it simply reverts to less useable forms. For example, after burning a wood log all that remains is the ashes, burnt material, and heat that was released, the same net amount of energy, but nowhere near as useable as the original log.
It is because of this law that we know that eventually, at some point in the distant, distant future, every star in every solar system in every galaxy in the universe will burn out, the same as our own, not because the energy is gone, but rather because the energy has reverted into a gaseous form that is not useable in the reactions necessary for a sun to exist.
However, if the Universe existed eternally before now, then every star in the sky, including our own sun would have already burnt out. If it takes a finite amount of time for all energy in a system to transform into an unusable state, given an infinite amount of time, that transformation will occur, but we are aware of the fact that our sun still burns today and therefore we know, by a second proof, that the Universe is not eternal.
In conclusion, let's summarize the logical processes that we went through in this argument and affirm that they are sound;
We recognized both that we exist and that "right now" is occurring. Next, we also recognized that the Universe either had a beginning or did not. We proved that, assuming it did have a beginning, said beginning is impossible without something that exists independently. We proved that said independently existing object could not be the Universe in and of itself using logic, because in the act of creating oneself something must already exist. Then we used both logic and existing scientific properties to eliminate the only other possibility, an eternal universe.
I look forward to you response!
Since my opponent has accepted that they have the full Burden Of Proof this means that I have to defend that Burden and prevent them from meeting it. This round is for rebuttals only.
That is my post. Look at the time the post was made on reddit and look at the time my argument was made on here.
I copied and pasted the argument here in the form of a reddit post to see the argument's weaknesses.
If absolutely necessary, I can post something specific from the reddit account that posted the argument on reddit to prove that this is my post.
I am highly offended by this and appalled with my opponent.
Before I continue my argument I would like to mention that we are continuing the debate and after further evidence provided by my opponent we have agreed that he did not plagarize. Voters should ignore the issue and base their argument solely on the arguments - not based on this issue.
== REBUTTALS ==
My opponent's paragraph regarding further argument on theory A. To sum up his argument placed forward is basically what he is saying is that the process will be infinite without the influence of a diety. The main problem that I, and possibly others will have is that this argument relies on the fact that you are obedient; listen to everything everyone says and that you can live forever because you will eventually die. It is essentially an infinite process however this will never happen as the laws of physics can prove and therefore this argument is invalid. If this could actually happen then we could be discussing this and actually testing your theory. Just because you can think up of an infinite process that does not mean that God automatically exists.
My opponent then provides a l and an ll.
I will begin by refuting l
l - My opponent has assumed that a deity must existence in order for the universe to exist, so instead of completely showing why he is wrong I will provide a much more likely explanation for why and how the universe came into existence. I now present to you, the big bang theory which has officially been accepted by the Catholic Church.
"According to the big bang theory, the universe began by expanding from an infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature. The universe was initially significantly smaller than even a pore on your skin. With the big bang, the fabric of space itself began expanding like the surface of an inflating balloon – matter simply rode along the stretching space like dust on the balloon's surface. The big bang is not like an explosion of matter in otherwise empty space; rather, space itself began with the big bang and carried matter with it as it expanded. Physicists think that even time began with the big bang. Today, just about every scientist believes in the big bang model. The evidence is overwhelming enough that in 1951, the Catholic Church officially pronounced the big bang model to be in accordance with the Bible."
This easily refutes your claim and since it is even in accordance with Catholics officially. I do not konw what religion you are but I am assuming that you are a Christian and I am sure that you did not know that the Catholic Church accepted the Big Bang as a valid theory. With all of this being said I believe that for the moment this is a suffient rebuttal to my opponents claim.
ll - I will refute this claim separately from my previous. My opponents claim states that the universe has the attributes of a deity.
Let's assume, for the moment, that the Universe really is perfectly set up for life, and human life at that. I don't think that for a second -- I'll get to that in a bit -- but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it's true. Does that imply the Universe was created that way on purpose? No. It absolutely does not.
Here's an analogy. I just rolled a die 10 times (that's a six-sided die), and got the sequence 3241154645. The odds against that particular sequence coming up are astronomical. Over 60 million to one.
Does that mean that this sequence was designed to come up?
Or think of it this way. The odds against me, personally being born? They're beyond astronomical. The chances that, of my mom's hundreds of eggs and my dad's hundreds of millions of sperm, this particular sperm and egg happened to combine to make me? Ridiculously unlikely. Especially when you factor in the odds against my parents being born...and against their parents being born...and their parents, and theirs, and so on and so on and so on. The chances against me, personally, having been born are so vast, it's almost unimaginable.
But does that mean I was destined to be born?
Does that mean we need to concoct an entire philosophy and theology to explain The Improbability of Greta-ness? Or does it simply mean that I won the cosmic lottery? Does it simply mean that my existence is one of many wildly improbable outcomes of the universe... and if it hadn't happened, something else would have? Does it simply mean that some other kid would have been born to my parents instead... a kid whose existence would have been every bit as unlikely as mine?
Yes, life on Earth is wildly improbable. And if it hadn't happened, some other weird chemical stew would have arisen on Earth, one that didn't turn into life. Or life would have developed, but it would have evolved into some form other than humanity. Or the Earth would never have formed around the Sun, but some other unlikely planet would have formed around some other star. (Maybe one with cool rings around it like Saturn, only Day-Glo orange with green stripes.) If life on Earth hadn't happened, something else equally improbable would have happened instead. We just wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
Douglas Adams put this extremely well in his renowned Puddle Analogy. He said:
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
Yes, the hole fits us rather neatly. But that doesn't mean the hole was designed to have us in it. We evolved to fit in the hole that happened to be here. If the hole had been shaped differently, something else would have happened instead.
And how perfect is this hole, anyway?
Socrates2 forfeited this round.
|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|