The Instigator
Jiren15
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

God does not exist

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 7 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 76704
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

Jiren15

Pro

I deny the existence of any God.

In my application of what I deem to be logic, I see no clear evidence for the undoubted existence of a God or Creator. I do not subscribe to any religion and also do not regard religious books as sufficient evidence for the existence of a God.

I do not think it is necessary to follow religion to be a good human being. Religion has both positive and negative aspects, however it is not necessary for our growth as a human race and it is flawed in much of its reasoning.

On what grounds is religion true, and also, what evidence is there to prove the existence of a God other than personal conviction.
tejretics

Con



Preface
I accept. Best of luck. I’ll be testing out a few new arguments of mine in this debate. Note that I am in a Devil’s advocate position; thus, I myself am an atheist arguing for God’s existence. I’ll present the negative constructive in R1 since Aff has as well.



Clarifications
Unlike Pro’s assertion, I don’t have to demonstrate God’s existence “with certainty”, since the resolution doesn’t imply as such and it wasn’t a rule/stipulation, only an argument. Therefore, if I’m able to demonstrate inductively that God exists, via. a statement of “God probably exists”, I can resoundingly negate the resolved.


For further clarification, let me define the terms. For the purpose of this debate, I define God as the “singular transcendent mind that grounds reality and caused the universe”, which basically illustrates an intelligent God that is the “creator and ruler of the universe” (Google: “define God”). Thus, I shall be using this definition for the debate. The definition is according to standard envisioning of “God”, and can’t be objected to since Pro “denies the existence of any God”.


“Exist” is to “have objective reality or being”, according to the Oxford Dictionary.

Framework
My structure will follow this format:

  1. 1. There is a mind which grounds reality.
  2. 2. The universe was caused by a mind.
  3. 3. These minds may either be different or the same (null hypothesis).
  4. 4. If they are different, there are 2 minds that ground reality.
  5. 5. Occam’s razor implies that among a set of equally likely explanations, the one with least assumptions is a priori most likely.
  6. 6. Therefore, a single transcendent mind that grounds reality and caused the universe exists.


I will not attempt to demonstrate these premises individually, but shall defend them in the form of independent contentions.


Monistic Idealism
For the first contention, I shall attempt to demonstrate inductively that a mind grounds reality, thus there is some intelligent force that reality depends on. Basically, this is an ontological argument to demonstrate monistic idealism.


Existence of the Mind
The mind exists. Doubting the mind’s existence is a contradiction, and the basic essence of Descartesian ontology demonstrates that the mind exists. The following axiom of Descartesian ontology entails: “Cogito ergo sum.” [1]

Minds are “Mental”
This proposition is to demonstrate that the concept of a “mind” that exists objectively is independent of physical reality. If mind is matter, it would entail that solipsism, in any form, is impossible. Metaphysical solipsism is the position that a physical reality does not exist, and only the mind exists [2]. If the mind itself would be physical, then even if only a mind exists, a physical reality would exist nonetheless, thus a mind being physical would entail that solipsism is impossible.


If solipsism is possible, then it exists in at least one possible world. The question entails--does at least one possible world follow a metaphysical ontology of solipsism? There are good reasons to believe this. Solipsism is logically possible, i.e. it entails no logical contradictions, thus is not prima facie impossible, and it is also conceivable.


For something x to be a metaphysical impossibility, it would have to not be conceivable, e.g. one is unable to conceive of a square triangle, thus that is logically impossible. This picture I borrowed from zmikecuber perfectly illustrates the forms of ‘possibility’.

Since metaphysical solipsism is logically coherent, it exists in at least one possible world, entailing that minds are not physical. Leibniz’s law illustrates that a mind would have to be “mental” [3].


Leibniz’s law is structured thus: There is an object x that has properties a, b, and c, and no more properties. Let n be the combination of the properties a, b, and c. Therefore, it entails that x possesses n, and nothing else, thus x possesses n + 0. Similarly, there is an object y that possesses n + 0, which would entail that x and y have the same properties sans differences, thus are the same.


In application, something “mental” relates to properties that a mind possesses and nothing else, and vice versa, thus Leibniz’s law entails that mind is mental.

Addressing Dualism
Cartesian dualism entails that the mind cannot interact with reality, and there are two separate worlds: the “mental” world and the “real” world [4][5]. If the mind interacts with reality, substance dualism is probably false. It’s obvious that there is some form of interaction that the mind interacts with reality, in that I can make decisions to perform an action in the physical world--the mind makes the decision, and my physiology performs the action. For example, I wish to drink a cup of water--and I just did, which influenced the physical world. Thus, substance dualism is false.


But one could always move to property dualism, i.e. the idea that the mind isn’t a separate substance, rather merely an aspect of the brain [6], A.K.A. a position of epiphenomenalism. Epiphenomenalism would tell us mental events didn’t cause anything and the process of this reasoning is just an illusion created by our physical brains. This is an ad hoc hypothesis, and should be dismissed via. Occam’s razor as unlikely. Epiphenomenalism would eventually lead to causal overdetermination.


Idealism has explanatory power
Abduction via. explanatory power and Occam’s razor would entail that an ontology of monistic idealism is probably true. Dualism assumes two separate substances, two critical assumptions not made by idealism, thus parsimony, which posits that an explanation with lesser assumptions is a priori most likely, entails monistic idealism as likely rationally.


Science is perfectly compatible with idealism, especially since the idealistic ontology makes accurate a priori predictions of how the mind exists a priori explanations of how the mind exists, e.g. via. Chalmer’s Hard Problem [7]. A position of theism is the best explanation to monistic idealism.

Fine-Tuned Universe
According to the fine-tuned universe hypothesis, the universe is “finely tuned” for the existence of life, viz. the idea that various “constants” (e.g. the proton-electron mass ratio) are perfectly tuned such that if they were any different, life couldn’t have originated [8].


Probabilistic reasoning entails that the fine-tuning likely originated via. intelligent design, since there are three acknowledged possibilities as to how such fine-tuning could have occurred:

  1. 1. Chance
  2. 2. Necessity
  3. 3. Design

Chance creating the universe would be highly improbable. According to astrophysicist Hugh Ross, the probability of the universe being caused by chance would be 1:1037 [9].


Necessity creating the universe is equally improbable, since for something to remain coherently “necessary”, it would have to be true in all possible worlds, but there is no metaphysical or logical contradiction with there being other possible tuning of the cosmological constants.


Thus, intelligent design entails, meaning there is an intelligent cause of the universe.

Law of Causality
The “Law of Causality” implies that everything that begins existing has a cause of its existence--since the universe began to exist (according to BGV theorem and the Big Bang theory), it would have a cause. A simple ontological analysis of the properties of this cause would entail that the cause is, sans the universe, timeless and spaceless.


For something to be conceived of as “timeless” and “spaceless”, it would either be (1) an abstract concept, or (2) a mind. Since abstract concepts can’t influence reality, it’s logical to entail that a mind caused the universe.

God
The question entails - how do these arguments inductively or deductively justify the statement “God exists”? The first argument from monistic idealism showed that there is a mind that grounds reality, while the Law of Causality and the Fine-Tuned Universe entail a universe that was caused by an intelligent being.


One might argue that this entails two entities with the properties, not one, but that is untrue via. Law of Parsimony, which posits that among a set of competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with least number of assumptions is a priori most likely.


The arguments entail that there is/are either: (1) one intelligent, transcendent entity, or (2) multiple intelligent, transcendent entities. Since these entities have only non-empirical, logical possibility, Occam’s razor would entail (1) to be a priori more likely than (2), thus I have inductively affirmed that God probably exists.


I await your response, Pro.

References
1. Rene Descartes (1644). Principia Philosophiae.
2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
3. http://www.oberlin.edu...
4. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
5. http://plato.stanford.edu...
6. http://carm.org...
7. See video.
8. Stephen Hawking. A Brief History of Time, p 125.
9. Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos, p 115.

Debate Round No. 1
Jiren15

Pro

Jiren15 forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Jiren15

Pro

Jiren15 forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Jiren15

Pro

Jiren15 forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Jiren15

Pro

Jiren15 forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Extend all arguments.

Vote Con because of the full forfeit. I was hoping for an interesting debate, but my opponent has seemingly deactivated his account. I hope he is well.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Jiren15 why'd you deactivate??
Posted by Azoh1 1 year ago
Azoh1
God doesn't exist? What made the universe? A big bang? Oh please, if that were true 9/11 should've made another tower. Just the human eye is so complicated. You think this was all coincidence? We are a living life force with knowledge. Tell me, if god isn't real how did all this happen. If it were that easy to make a universe with a big bang... How did humans and animals get created.
Posted by MrJosh 1 year ago
MrJosh
My point, which has been appropriately expounded by others is simply that by denying that "any" god exists, is to deny any god concept, be it Thor, Odin, YHWH, or a pantheistic concept of the universe as god. Regarding the need to define every word, of course not, but there are those on DDO who debate as exercises in the debate process more than discussion of the topic. Those individuals might choose to turn the debate into a discussion of a technicality.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Dw, I haven't defined God as a "coffee cup" lol, I've used a more standard definition.

@Jiren - hope you agree with it!
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
You don't need to define every word, just define the main statement that you will debate. What does it mean to exist? Would you like to provide the definition, or will you allow your partner to provide their own definitions?
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
Most words have pretty common meanings that don't need defining (although there's always at least one troll out there who will take advantage of any ambiguity you leave open), but the word, 'god' ought to have some kind of definition since it has been used in so many different ways. To a pantheist, 'god' means something completely different than it does to an classic theist. A Greek god is also very different than the Christian God. Athena, for example, didn't create the universe, so your argument about creation would be irrelevant to her.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Plz answer me
Posted by Jiren15 1 year ago
Jiren15
So basically it is necessary to define every word I use because there are users who will provide there own definition of words, which we already have definitions for, in order to win a debate by default of their new individual definition of a word? How would one debate if every word needs to be defined for the specific debate. We already know the meaning of words. For example I could challenge any debate saying that the words mean something different to me. Logic... Simplicity. Why unnecessary the complications?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
If you could change the time period to 48h or 72h, I'd accept .... if you're unable, I'd probably still accept, but please keep me informed via. comment on my profile
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
I think if somebody came along an defined God as "their coffee cup," we'd all recognize that the person is trolling and penalize them in the conduct points. But Pro ought to give some kind of definition for God in the first round just to avoid that sort of thing.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Jiren15tejreticsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
Jiren15tejreticsTied
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: Pro ff and didn't debate. Con presented his arguments.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Jiren15tejreticsTied
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. Con was the only one who made a argument. Pro FF leaving Cons case untouched.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Jiren15tejreticsTied
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: Full forfeit from PRO, whereas CON was the only one to provide a case, which was unrebuted. Therefore, CON wins.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Jiren15tejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one to provide a full argument--whereas Pro failed to respond to *any* of Cons points and forfeited all remaining rounds.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Jiren15tejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: The way the resolution was worded, Pro has the BOP, but he or she only wrote 'I see no clear evidence...' instead of giving actual evidence of why God is non-existent. Con, by contrast, used logic and reasoning to support the existence of God, and Pro has responded to none of these points and thus failed to meet the BOP. Thus Arguments to Con. Conduct to Con as Pro FF'd.
Vote Placed by Fkkize 1 year ago
Fkkize
Jiren15tejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Full FF