God does not exist
Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
Started: | 11/26/2012 | Category: | Religion | ||
Updated: | 5 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 2,860 times | Debate No: | 27530 |
God does not exist its quite simple. basic laws of physics. they are laws because they have been proven be 100% true
1 matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed in otherwords 0 does not equal 1 Some logic here since matter and energy cannot be created from nothign they must have always existed both exist in space so space has always existed. matter energy and space exist within time so time has always existed. The universe is made up of matter energy space and time. Ergo the idea of god is insane an all powerful entity that created a universe that always existed? to add to this god is said to be the same forever meaning he cannot be made of energy or matter as they constantly are changing. also he would have to exist outside of time which is impossible if somthing does not exist within time it doesnt exist. If you want to say he still does then let me yell you this Somthing that is not made of energy or matter and that does not exist in time CANNOT influence the universe in any way shape or form ergo god would not be all powerful ergo god doesnt exist.! probably a lot of typos seeing as i suck at typing so just ignore them Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. Pro has the burden of proof in this debate. I will simply try to debunk his arguments, but I won't try to prove hat God exists. If I fail to refute his arguments, he wins. If I succeed in refuting his arguments, I win. Pro gave three arguments against the existence of God, so I will try to answer each one. I. Argument from the first law of thermodynamics First, he made this argument, which I summarize in a syllogism: 1. If God exists, then God created the universe. 2. The universe cannot be created. 3. Therefore, God does not exist. I take it that premise 1 is just his definition of God, so I won't dispute it. He's attempting here to debunk the existence of any creator type god, but not any god whatsoever (after all, many mythologies contain gods who do not create, so his argument doesn't address those types of gods). He supports his second premise from the first law of thermodynamics. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and the universe is made of of energy, it follows that the universe had no beginning. There are a couple of problems with this argument. First, laws merely describe the natural world. They do not tell us what is possible or impossible; only what is actual or what the ordinary course of nature is. So there is no reason to think it isn't possible for a supernatural being to violate the laws of nature, or to cause nature to behave differently than it usually does when left to itself. Second, if he thinks the second law of thermodynamics is just as certain as the first law of thermodynamics, he's going to run into a contradiction. If the universe has no beginning, then it has existed for an infinite amount of time. But according to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of the universe increases with every process. And since Pro admits that the universe is in a constant state of change, it follows that the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. Given enough time, it will run out of usable energy. It will undergo what cosmologists refer to as "heath death," or "thermodynamic equilibrium," in which there will be no more activity of any kind. There will be no stars or life. If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, then it should've already reached thermodynamic equilibrium, but since it obviously hasn't, it follows that the universe had a beginning some finite time ago. That means either the second law of thermodynamics was violated or the first law of thermodynamics was violated. Since both laws describe how the physical world operates when left to itself, the fact that one or the other was violated shows that there was (or could have been) some kind of supernatural intervention. But either way, it simply can't be true that the universe had no beginning if we take the second law of thermodynamics seriously. There are also two philosophical reasons to think the universe had a beginning. 1. An actually infinite collection cannot exist in reality. 2. A beginningless past consists of an actually infinite collection of equal intervals of time. 3. Therefore, a beginningless past cannot exist in reality. Here's the other argument. 1. An actually infinite collection cannot be formed by successive addition. 2. The past was formed by successive addition. 3. Therefore, the past cannot be actually infinite. Both of these arguments show that time had a beginning, and if time had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. So Pro's first argument against God fails. Let's look at his next argument. II. The impossibility of a timeless being His second argument can be summarized like this: 1. If God exists, then he is unchanging. 2. Matter and energy are constantly changing. 3. Therefore, If God exists, then God is outside of time. 4. It is not possible for anything to exist outside of time. 5. Therefore, God does not exist. Against, his first premise is just a definition, so I won't dispute that. I also agree with his second premise. My problem is with his third and fourth premise. The problem with the third premise is that it's possible God created the universe and entered time simultaneously with creation, in which case God does not exist outside of time. The problem with the fourth premise is that besides being unsubstantiated (i.e. my opponent needs to give us arguments for it), it seems that some abstract entities exist timelessly. For example, the laws of logic exist timelessly. There are possible worlds in which time does not exist, and since "Time does not exist" is a true description of those worlds, then the law of non-contradiction applies to those worlds, which means the law of non-contradiction is an atemporal entity. Since his third and fourth premise are both false, Pro's second argument against God fails. Let's look at his next argument. III. The impossibility of an immaterial being having causal influence over the material world 1. If God is all powerful, then God can influence the universe. 2. If God is not made of matter or energy, then he cannot influence the universe. 3. Therefore, God cannot be both all powerful, and immaterial. 4. But God is defined as being all powerful and immaterial. 5. Therefore, God does not exist. Whether 1 is true or not depends on Pro's reason for thinking 2 is true. For example, if he thinks there is some logical impossibility for an immaterial being to influence the material world, then that wouldn't count against God's power since power is not the ability to engage in logical absurdity. Nobody would think that their inability to draw a square circle on a sheet of paper had anything to do with a lack of power. It's not as if you could do it if only you were more powerful. So a logical impossibility does not count against God's power. But if he thinks 2 is true because of some physical or metaphysical limitation, then I will have to accept that 1 is true. And, in fact, I do accept that 1 is true. I just question whether it's consistent with Pro's reason for believing 2. So there may be an incoherence in Pro's argument that isn't evident because he hasn't fleshed his argument out yet. Now let's look at that second premise. Whether Pro thinks the impossibility is logical, physical, metaphysical, or whatever, he hasn't defended this premise, and right now I see no reason to think it's true. In fact, there seems to be at least one reason to think it's false, namely that we ourselves are immaterial souls capable of having causal influence over our own brains. We know this because we are able to act with intention. That is, our mental states (e.g. our beliefs, desires, intentions, etc.) are able to have causal influence over our brains. Now, if our minds were merely emergent properties of our brains, then our minds would not have causal influence at all. The direction of causation would only go one way: brain --> mind. But since we know the direction of causation goes the other way (mind --> brain), then we know our minds are not merely emergent properties of the brain. Properties do not have causal powers; only substances do. Since the mind has causal powers, the mind is a distinct substance from the brain. The mind is an immaterial entity that has causal influence over the physical world, which disproves Pro's second premise. I grant this 3 follows from 1 and 2, but since 2 is false, we can't really conclude that 3 is true. Since 4 is just a definition, I won't dispute that. So basically, Pro's third argument fails primarily because (1) has hasn't shown that the second premise is true, and (2) I have made an argument showing that the second premise is false. Conclusion And that's it. Pro made three arguments against the existence of God, and they all fail. |
![]() |
alright so i would like to begin with some counters to cons views.
{{{{{con . First, laws merely describe the natural world. They do not tell us what is possible or impossible; }}}}} 1st the first laws states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. that being said it tells us that it is impossible create somthing from nothing. in other words 0 will never equal 1. 2nd. Just because the universe has always existed doesnt mean that it should have already reached a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. there is no way to tell when the universe will reach a state of thermodynamc equilibrium mainly because the amount of matter and energy that exists. the 2nd law is also a lot more complicated than the first mainly becuase matter and energy are belived to be 2 forms of the same thing i guess you could look at it like water and ice both are the same substance just in different states. The ability to transfom one into the other is currently beyond us but it doesnt mean it is imposible and could very well be the reason the univerese is not in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium after an infinite amount of time. {{{{con also says that it is impossble to have an infinte past.}}}}} This is not true because either way you look at it there are two options God has always existed OR the universe has always existed either way logicaly one version has an inifinte past so if it is impossible to have an infiinte past then god cannot exist nor can the universe. But this brings up another issue we know the universe exists because we exist within it. {{{{{con asks for reason why nothing can exist outside of time and gives an example saying the laws of logic exist timelessy which is wrong. }}}}}the laws of logic exist within time as they only exist so long as they are used by man or any other creature. time is everywhere regardless of where you are no matter how many worlds i could travel too eventually i would die of old age. best way i have to explain why nothing can exist outside of time because the question when did it exist can be asked about anything. For example when did god exist suggesting god has to obey time and therefore cannot be all powerful. next an all powerful entity means there is nothign he/she/it cannot do. We know that in order to interact with out universe we would need to use matter and energy if god was made up of these again he would not be all powerful seeing as there is a limit to what they can do. If i want to slide a block across a floor i would need to exert a force on that block. in order to exert a force on the block i would need any object of mass in this case my hand F=ma If i dont have mass then i cannot apply a force. no force means i cannot move the block. kinetic energy is also required to move the block which again with 0 mass moving theres 0 kinetic energy Ek=1/2mv^2. soo without mass or energy i cannot move the block ergo since god cannot be made of matter or energy he has no ability to influence this universe again meaning he cant be all powerful. Since god is supposed to be all powerfuhe cannot exist because if he did he would not be all powerful as there are limits to everything. {{{{{{con says that we ourselves are immaterial souls capable of having causal influence over our own brains. We know this because we are able to act with intention. That is, our mental states (e.g. our beliefs, desires, intentions, etc.) are able to have causal influence over our brains. Now, if our minds were merely emergent properties of our brains, then our minds would not have causal influence at all.}}}}}} The human brain is an extremely complicated machine which we have not yet fully understood. What we do know is our brain is capable of rememberiing things and making decisions. our minds are a result of the experiences our brain has rememberd. our brains are capable of weighing decisions and then acting based on experiences. We all know lions are powerful animals capable of tearing us into tiny pieces what stops us from going to fight them hand to claw is that we are able to weigh in risks with benefits and act accordingly. as humans we also have instincts that tell us we dont stand a chance against a lion without some sort of plan/weaponry. now put a man who has lost all memories speech who he is and everything gone. odds are he would go up against this lion because his brain has no record of it or what its capable of. we are able to supress certain thoughts or not perform certain actions because we can control that part of the brain. we are basically are our brains our mind is our brain we have only managed to control a certain extent of ourselves we can make decisions and think we can move our legs and arms and other body parts. seeing as our mind is created from our brain which is made up again of matter and energy we are able to influence the universe. The mind/brain is what moves us and allows us to perform actions 100% of what humans do is based on the brain making decisons to say that the mind is not the brain makes no sense seeing as without our brain we could do nothing. the brain and mind are the same thing that being said the mind is not an immaterial entity it is made up of matter and energy. some people infected with parasites or some diesease have their personality change which would be impossible if what the con said was true that our minds are immaterial entities. Conclusion. cons conclusion that my first three points failed has been proven false i would like to tahnk con for this debate i am enjoying it :D In my first post, I argued that the first law of thermodynamics (or any physical law for that matter) cannot act as a metaphysical straightjacket on reality. Laws merely describe the usual course of nature, and there is no reason to think a supernatural being couldn't violate them or produce something that nature couldn't produce on its own.
|
![]() |
Con himself states that an impossibility is impossible for any entity by saying one cannot make a square circle but he would belive that it is possible to make 0 equal to 1? you can add 0 an infinite number of times and never reach 1 because it is quite simply impossible.That being said in no way shape or form can the first law be violated. If god cannot make a square circle because it is "logically absurd" then he cannot violate the first law of thermodynamics. And again the fact that these kind of limitations exist suggest there is no such thing as an all powerful entity.
I did not ignore con when he said that the universe should have already reached thermodynamic equilibrium seeing as it has existed for an infinite amount of time. I went to state that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing like water and ice and may just be the reason the universe hasnt reached thermodynamic equilibrium. It is entirely possible that matter can transform into energy and vise verca which would once again make and unbalanced level of energy. to add to this scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding due to some type of radiation i dont fully understand yet. That being said the universse wlll eventually collapse together into one mass due to the effects of gravity. This could very well be the cycle of our universe to have it collapse together and then explode due to an unbalanced energy which would explain why the universe can not actually be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium without violating the 2nd law. {{{con The ability to ask a question doesn't mean there is necessarily an answer. For example, I can ask, "How much does the color blue weigh? the color blue does not have a weight seeing as it blue light and light has no mass. There is no question that doesnt have an answer. Just because we do not know the answer doesnt mean there isnt one. {{{{ con There are at least a couple of ways God could cause physical objects to move, even if he is not made of energy. First, God could create energy ex-nihilo at the moment of causation. Second, God could use energy that already exists in the physical world to cause motion. Either way, it is certainly not impossible for an immaterial being to have causal influence in the natural world.}}}}} As shown in the first part of this argument an all poweful entity cannot violate the first law because that woud be "logically absurd" and not a matter of power therfore he cannot create energy. Furthermore to manipulate energy to cause motion would again require mass. Again if god was made up of mass he could not be all powerful due to the limits on matter and seeing as god is supposed to be all powerful this would again provide more proof he does not exist. It also proves he cannot interract with the universse again limiting his power. {{{[con n answer to (2), Pro said that the laws of logic "only exist so long as they are used by man or any other creature." But that is not so. Square circles were impossible even before sentient creatures existed, and the reason is because square circles are violations of the law of non-contradiction.}}} Again the laws of logic do only exist because we are able to use them. WE are the ones who created the shapes and Gave them a specific set of rules. cricles cannot have edges because thats what we decided. squares cannot be rounded again because thats what we wanted. take away all life forms and you have a universe with no definitions therfore no laws of logic apply. {{ con In response to (2), Pro attempted to equate the mind with the brain and argue that they are the same thing. But I have argued that they are not the same thing by noting that the mind has causal influence over the brain. Pro ignored that argument.}} Again i went to prove that the brain and mind are the same thing as when one is infected with parasites or certain diseases people act differently. but according to con this would be impossible seeing as the brain and mind are not the same thing. Just because we can decide what we want to do in certain situations doesnt mean our minds are not the same thing as our brains. again our brain can WEIGH decisions and act according to our memories/experiences the ability to defy our instincts is not proof our brain is not the same thing as our mind/mental state. If i decide to create a fighting game and make a hard bot that is capable of choosing to attack low or high depending on the location of the enemies block does that mean the computer has a mind seperate from its programming? The answer is no the computer reads the situation and chooses its next move base on those circumstances just as our brain is able to defy instincts in certain situatons. {{{con The the mind and the brain do not share every property in common. For example, everything about the physical brain is open to third person observation, but nothing about the mind is open to third person observation.}} The brain is extremely ccomplicated the fact that we do not know what exact chemical reactions mean in terms of the brain doesnt mean the mind is not open to thrid peson observation when it comes down to it it is extremely difficult to understand the brain due to the fact of the infiinte possible reactions/energy levels. {{con one can have a mental perception of a green sweater that is perfectly clear in one's mind when dreaming, but nothing in the brain is green. So the mind and the brain are not the same thing.}}} This statement by the con makes absolutely no sense at all. one can only have dreams about stuff they have seen in their memories after all a blind man cannot dream of green because he has no idea what it looks like. It is not in his memory to picture. our brain is a giant camera that contantly records things whether it is pictures people sweaters or movies. juust becaue the brain isnt green doesnt mean it cant put together a picture of somthig green from our memories. All our knowledge of who we are is recorded in our brains if someone has a brain transplant whos alive the man who needed the transplant or the persons brain??? the answer obviously being the mans brain takes over the body as his brain/mind is a collection of experiences and memories. If someone loses their brain cells and grows new ones (impossible i know but bear with me ) Will the person remembr who he/she is or what they like doing and what they belive in? again the answer being no because they dont have any memories ergo the brain and the mind are the same thing. conclusion con has fail debunk any of my points as a result god doesnt exist :D I want to thank the reader for following us this far. If you have taken the time to read this much, then please vote so that your time will not have been in vain. :-) |
![]() |
narmak | philochristos | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
narmak | philochristos | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution,cumulative genetic change over generations, happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it. Ask a serious science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
Allowing the poison of religious text to atrophy intuition, intellect and instinct, is the ball and chain mankind drags on its way to a higher standard :)