The Instigator
Ra88
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
woojin05
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

God does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
woojin05
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 688 times Debate No: 61138
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Ra88

Pro

P1) God necessarily must have omniscience.
P2) God necessarily must have free will.
P3) An omniscient being cannot have free will.
C1) Therefore, god does not exist.
woojin05

Con

I accept your challenge.

Just to set some boundaries and clarify this debate,
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments presented
Round 3: Refutation
Round 4: Reconstruction
Round 5: Summary (no new arguments brought up)
By looking at your line of analysis you presented in your first round, I'm assuming this debate will be philosophy heavy, meaning that all arguments presented and refuted should consist entirely of philosophy.

Thanks and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Ra88

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge.

Also thank you for setting the boundaries clear which I am suppose to do in the first round. I was actually expecting the counter argument in the first round itself but the boundaries which you have set is acceptable and is apt. As you have guessed, I would like this debate to be pivoted more about philosophy but anything else pertaining to the argument is also welcome. Without reinstating my argument I look forward for the counter argument.

All the best !
woojin05

Con

Thanks for the responce! Now i will go over my case of 4 arguments, then preceed to refutation.

CASE
Ontological Argument

P1) It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.

P2) "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."

P3) Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.

P4) Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).

P5) But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."

C1) Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

Argument from Time and Contingency

P1) We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.

P2) Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility.

P3) Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.

P4) Then right now nothing would exist. For

P5) If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. But

P6) From nothing nothing comes. So

P7) The universe could not have begun.

P8) But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But

P9) If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So

P10) There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.

P11) Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.

C1) This absolutely necessary being is God.

Cosmological Argument

P1) Everything that exists or begins to exist has a cause.

P2) The universe exists and began to exist.

P3) The universe must have a cause.

C1) The cause of the universe is God.

P5) An actual infinite cannot exist.

P6) A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite.

P7) Therefore, a beginningless temporal series of events cannot exist.

P8) If something has a finite past, its existence has a cause.

P9) The universe has a finite past.

P3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

P4) The cause of the universe is God

Argument from Contingency

P1) If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.

P2) The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.

P3) Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.

P4) What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.

P5) Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

REFUTATION
ARGUMENT 1 : Omniscience and Free Will Argument

P1) God is omniscient

P2) God has free will
A. Before attempting this argument, you must define what “free will” necessarily is.
B. The major wrong assumption that you’re making is that God has free will. However, God doesn’t have complete free will either. If ‘free will’ is defined as “being able to choose between good and bad options”, God knows what is bad, so he does not have the ability to choose what is bad because God can only do that which is good. His nature is holy, meaning that he cannot sin. In the case of God, because he is holy and cannot sin, he is only completely free to the extent where he can choose to do only those things which are good because that is what is consistent with his essence.
C. Even if we If I accept that God has free will, Neg still has won the debate. If ‘free will’ is defined as “the ability to make choices without being coerced”. Certainly God is not forced to choose something by anything outside of himself when it comes to making decisions. So from this simple definition as God is a perfect being, and is impossible to be coerced, any action or whatever he does itself is free will, meaning that by being all knowing he has free will. Meaning that in the case that God has free will, he still can be omniscient

P3) An omniscient being cannot have free will.

A. You showed no analysis on why that is the case; It’s still on your burden to prove why an omniscient being cannot have free will; why an all knowing God cannot have free will.
B. Also, sure I may be able to accept this fact as in ‘B’ of refuting your P2), I did accept the fact that God doesn’t have free will but that doesn’t prove why God doesn’t exist.
C. Some other pieces of analysis you may draw up to the fact that an omniscient being cannot have free will may be somewhere along the lines of: (in bold)., and I will also refute those (not in bold)

-Entities with free will have non-determinate futures

i. This is an assumption that has not been proven. A person can freely choose to act and have that act be known by God, but God knowing what a person freely chooses to do does not mean the person wasn’t free to choose it.

ii. The determination of a future event chosen by a free will restricts the future event to that choice because the person had freely made that choice. The person was free to choose it or something else, and the choice is determined at that time.

-If an entity knows the future, the future is not non-determinate.

i. Knowing what a person chooses to do does not mean the person has not freely chosen it. Whatever the person freely chooses to do is what is known. If the person would have chosen something different, that is what would have been known. So, the argument is invalid.

C1) Therefore god does not exist
A. It’s still on your burden, as in a similar case with your ‘P3)’ to prove why an omniscient being without free will cannot exist. Just because there is a contrast with God being omniscient and not having free will, doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist.

i. Just because an omniscient being doesn’t have free will doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

ii. You haven’t even been able to prove why an omniscient being who has free will cannot exist.

B. God can still exist if he doesn’t have any free will. As I already mentioned previously, “His nature is holy, meaning that he cannot sin. In the case of God, because he is holy and cannot sin, he is only completely free to the extent where he can choose to do only those things which are good because that is what is consistent with his essence.”, meaning that God by being God cannot sin, meaning he doesn’t have free will, but he still is omniscient; that he still exists.

Thanks!

Debate Round No. 2
Ra88

Pro

Ra88 forfeited this round.
woojin05

Con

I extend my arguments, and I wait for my opponent to provide refutation.
Debate Round No. 3
Ra88

Pro

Ra88 forfeited this round.
woojin05

Con

Due to my opponent's recent two forfeits, I feel as if my opponent has no refutations to my arguments, nor were they able to reconstruct any of their own points. In the hopes we can actually debate, I would like to expect some form of a responce in the final round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ra88

Pro

Ra88 forfeited this round.
woojin05

Con

Again, to the end, no responce from my opponent, but I would still like to thank him for providing an interesting argument, though it needed more explanation and analysis. It was fun debating, though it wasn't a "full" debate. Also thanks in advance to other judges and I look forward to the voting session. Thank You. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Uniscious 2 years ago
Uniscious
This belongs in religion, not philosophy.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
I sure wish you'd get your head out of your !

SEARCH for VAJRASATTVA, Vajrasattva- LeRoy, etc.

I don't HAVE a God- I AM a God,
or to be more accurate, I'm an Incarnated God, An Avatar.

In a way, I meant my Comment for Con, not Pro.
I didn't write that God has to be only beyond definitions, etc.
I wouldn't exist, or you wouldn't be able to perceive me & my communications, etc. ,
if that was correct.

Debate all you want to, but-
realize that I win.
Posted by Ra88 2 years ago
Ra88
Vajrasattva-LeRoy,
Did you actually pray to your god that I should lose ?
If by definition god has to be beyond all definitions, descriptions, restrictions, etc. then what is the point of even debating and hence the purpose of this site ?
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
There's no such thing as "luck" .

In the first place your claims about God are false.
By definition, God has to be BEYOND all definitions, descriptions, restrictions, etc.

An omniscient being would obviously have COMPLETE free will.

It's apparently Impossible to prove that God exists,
but it's very easy to prove that God cannot not exist.
If God didn't exist, neither we, nor anything else, would, either.
I believe you've Lost the debate ...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Siladheil 2 years ago
Siladheil
Ra88woojin05Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Ra88woojin05Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Forfeiture