The Instigator
lol101
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

God doesn't 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 9 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 990 times Debate No: 78146
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (9)

 

lol101

Pro

Rules:
-Round 1 is acceptance.
-You must accept my own definition of God.

God-"perfect, all-powerful spirit and being who created the universe"

Exist-"to have actual being : to be real"

Sources:
1]http://i.word.com...
tejretics

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
lol101

Pro

I'm going to start off with a popular piece of reasoning. I will introduce more arguments as I go on.

God is claimed to be omnipotent, which means that he is in the stste of "having complete or unlimited power". Here's a thought about that. Can he create a rock so heavy that he is unable to lift it, but then lift it? If he can, then God is not omnipotent. If he has unlimited power, then his rock should cause him to fail to lift the rock. That literally means that he CANNOT create a rock that can do so, meaning he has limited power. If he cannot, then he still is not omnipotent, since his power is too limited to lift the rock. The claim that God is omnipotent is a false assertion that is left unsupported. This literally means that God's omnipotence is illogical.

P1: If God cannot/can lift this alleged rock, he is illogical.
P2: If something is illogical, it means that there is no logic to it.
P3: If something is illogical, it cannot exist.
C1: God does not exist.

Sources:
1]http://i.word.com...
tejretics

Con

I will post my argument in this round, and rebut Pro’s argument in the next.


Key:


I will be using multiple logic symbols in this debate which will be useful for me to demonstrate modal expressions. This acts as a key for all the logic symbols I use.


<> ‘possibly; is logically possible that’

[] ‘necessarily; is not logically possible that not that’

p-->q ‘if p, then q’

~ ‘not’

G the proposition ‘God exists’


C1) Modal ontological argument


I shall be using the modal ontological argument, an ontological argument predicated on the nature of modality, for God’s existence. The definition of God here is one with all properties mentioned, along with the property of necessary existence, i.e. where G → []G.


1) If p can be perceived, then p is logically possible

2) God can be perceived

P1: It is logically possible that God exists

3) If God exists, God is a necessary being

4) If God does not have necessary existence, then God necessarily does not exist

5) God’s non-existence, if true, is solely contingent

P2: If God is true in one possible world, then God is necessarily true in all possible worlds

6) The actual world is a possible world

7) If God has necessary existence, then God exists

C: Therefore, God exists


The argument phrased in modus ponens form:


a) If God exists in one possible world, God exists in all possible worlds

b) God exists in one possible world

C: Therefore, God exists in all possible worlds


a) God is Necessary


The premise: “If God exists in one possible world, then God exists.” We must first understand what a ‘possible world’ is. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, “[T]hings, as a whole, needn't have been just as they are. Rather, things might have been different in countless ways, both trivial and profound. In any case, no matter how things had gone they would still have been part of a single, maximally inclusive, all-encompassing situation, a single world. … Intuitively, then, the actual world … is just one among many possible worlds.” [1]


From this, we can conclude that there are multiple situations that described how the world could have been, and each situation depicts one among infinite possible worlds. There are also situations that the world can’t have ‘been’ as such, since they would entail contradictions. But if <>p, then we can conclude that p exists in at least one possible world [2].


Now, if p existed in all possible worlds, then []p, meaning ~<>~p. Now, take the proposition G, i.e. the proposition ‘God exists’. With the law of the excluded middle, one can reasonably assert that either []G or ~[]G [3].


Becker’s postulate also concludes that ~[]G → []~G [4]. Since God is defined as “necessary being”, if God does not have necessary existence, he necessarily does not exist. If something is “necessary”, then it is true in all possible worlds. But since God’s existence remains possible, it is true in some possible world, which means God doesn’t necessarily not exist, which, from Becker’s postulate and modus tollens, allows us to conclude that if God exists in at least one possible world, God is necessary.


b) Possibility of God


Premise two is defended from Sankara’s dictum [5], which states that if p can be perceived, then <>p. If p is considered ‘possible’, then it does not entail a logical contradiction, i.e. is logically possible. When p does entail a logical contradiction, when the contradiction is realized, p cannot be perceived, due to Russell and Whitehead 1910’s proposition that known as the Law of Non-Contradiction [6], which entails that if []q and p is an unproved proposition that contradicts q, then ~p. The link here is that God can be perceived, and entails no contradiction. Therefore, God is logically possible.


The conclusion entails from the premises from modus ponens.


C2) Argument from idealism


I shall be defending the position that there is a consciousness that grounds reality--therefore, there is a being that grounds reality and rules it, thus acting as its creator. Since reality defines ‘power’, and the being exercises control over reality, that being is ‘all powerful’. Therefore, it fits the definition of God. If reality is mental, then a mind controls it by definition, thus I shall affirm that reality itself is a mental product.


a) The mind is not physical, and is mental

b) If X is mental, it cannot interact with something which is not mental

C1: Minds cannot interact with anything non-mental

c) The mind interacts with reality

C2: Therefore, reality is mental, and requires a mind to ground it


a) Minds are Mental


First, it is known that the ‘mind’ is something that exists. As Descartes put it, “Cogito ergo sum” [7], or “I think; therefore, I exist.” To doubt the existence of the mind itself requires a mind. With this, I shall affirm that a mind is not physical. If a mind is physical, then metaphysical solipsism is logically impossible, i.e. exists in no possible world, thus is necessarily untrue. Metaphysical solipsism is the position that the mind is all that exists [8]. If the mind is made of matter or energy, then it is impossible for the mind to exist apart from it, which it would under solipsism.


Is solipsism metaphysically possible? A proposition p is metaphysically possible iff it entails no logical contradiction. From Sankara’s dictum, something is metaphysically possible if: (1) it is not prima facie impossible, and (2) it is conceivable and can be perceived [9]. Consider this diagram I borrowed from Zmikecuber:



Therefore, minds are neither matter nor energy, meaning they are ‘mental’, and physicalism or materialism is false.


b) Interaction With the Physical


If q is mental, then q cannot interact with y if y is ‘physical’. Interaction between q and y assumes that dualism is true, therefore I shall refute dualism to affirm this premise. Under substance dualism, the mental and the physical are different, and the mind does not interact with reality. But consider the ability to make a choice--this refutes substance dualism.


Now, move on to property dualism, which holds that while mind and reality are separate, they can interact with each other, because the mind is a property of a physical. The problem is, this runs into non-cognitivism. If the mind is a property of the physical, it only acts as a relational attribute, therefore cannot exist independently--the mind as property of the physical means the mind is to the physical as ‘40lbs’ is to a rabbit that weighs that much. But solipsism is possible, so the mind is not a relational attribute.


c) Interaction With Reality


The mind does interact with reality. When I make a choice to touch something that is actually real, the mind tells me to touch it, thus the mind interacts with reality. Additionally, I can feel pain due to physical effects.


The conclusion entails. There is a mind that grounds reality--an all-powerful spirit that is the creator and ruler of the universe.


1. http://plato.stanford.edu...

2. http://plato.stanford.edu...

3. http://web.stanford.edu...

4. http://legacy.earlham.edu...

5. http://en.wikipedia.org...

6. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. Principia Mathematica, 116-117. Cambridge: 1910.

7. https://en.wikipedia.org...

8. http://www.iep.utm.edu...

9. http://alexanderpruss.com...


Debate Round No. 2
lol101

Pro

lol101 forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

== Omnipotence Paradox ==


I found Pro’s argument surprisingly weak. When it comes to disproving God, all it does is affirm the following:


a) Something which can perform any action is contradictory

b) ???

C: God does not exist


Pro completely fails to establish the crucial premise that links the first premise with the resolution. An entity which is ‘all powerful’ is not one that can perform any action. ‘All powerful’ is synonymous with having the attribute of omnipotence. But ‘omnipotence’ has multiple meanings. “A deity [is omnipotent if it] can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.” [1] Bringing about a contradiction as a state of affairs is logically impossible, therefore an omnipotent being wouldn’t do that anyway. The argument doesn’t link to the resolution.


Additionally, an omnipotent being has no limitations of power, therefore its power should be considered ‘boundless’. This means that the being cannot be constrained ontologically. If p is ‘constrained’, there is a state of affairs q such that q → ~p, and, in the actual world, q is true. Therefore, p’s ‘being’ is constrained by q. But if p were actually ‘boundless’, then it would entail that []p, which means either (i) p and q are not mutually exclusive due to lack of logical constraint, or (ii) []~q. In this case, (i) is true as an omnipotent being is not constrained by logic, since it has ‘limitless’ power, or is ‘all-powerful’. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy argues that “as [the omnipotence paradox] stands it is not quite valid. From the fact that a particular being is able to create a stone it cannot lift, it does not follow that there is in fact something that that being cannot do. It only follows that if the being were to create the stone, then there would be something it could not do. As a result, the paradox is a problem only for necessary omnitemporal omnipotence, that is, for the view that there is a being who exists necessarily and is necessarily omnipotent at every time. There is no problem for a being who is only omnipotent at certain times, because the being in question might very well be omnipotent prior to creating the stone (but not after). Furthermore, the stone paradox provides no reason to suppose there could not be a contingently omnitemporally omnipotent being; all the being in question would need to do is to decide not to create the stone, and then it would be omnipotent at every time.” [2]


The paradox has to assume that the laws of logic constrain God. But that would imply that logic is necessary, which fails to account for []G, because if []G where G is ‘all-powerful’ (as established by the modal ontological argument), then l (logic) cannot apply in a possible world where there is nothing except G, therefore is not necessary.


When God is ‘omnipotent’, it’s incoherent to say “could not” -- God is defined as being omnipotent, therefore using the term ‘could not’ next to God is meaningless, simply because it imposes logical constraint on a boundless being [3].


Presume Con because:


a) The argument fails to link, since it assumes ‘all-powerful’ implies ‘absolute omnipotence’

b) The being referenced is not omnitemporal

c) Argument assumes God’s power can be constrained ontologically by logic

d) It is incoherent to say God ‘cannot’ perform an action


Therefore, the omnipotence paradox fails.


1. https://en.wikipedia.org...

2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...

3. Paul Copan. Loving Wisdom, p 46.
Debate Round No. 3
lol101

Pro

lol101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
lol101

Pro

lol101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
I am surprised to find Con advocating for a possible existence of God.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
I went on a trip. Sorry for the boring debate. :(
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
That's pretty obvious. It means that you are simply not fake or imaginary. That you are a real person place or thing.
Posted by SeekinTruth 1 year ago
SeekinTruth
What does it mean to "have actual being," to be "real?"
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Awesome, thanks.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I'm definitely going to accept this, don't worry.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Why only Christians, Jews, and Muslims? How about the "perfect, all-powerful spirit or being who created the universe"?
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
Changed the topic.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I don't want to debate this resolution... it's non-debatable...
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
So what should I change it to? There are multiple options.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
lol101tejreticsTied
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: FFS
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
lol101tejreticsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
lol101tejreticsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
lol101tejreticsTied
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: Conduct to Con for Pro's multiple forfeits. Arguments to Con as he refuted Pro's argument successfully by pointing out that an omnipotent entity does not need to be able to lift a rock heavier than he can lift. Moreover, Con presented two powerful arguments against the resolution, namely the necessity of God's existence and that reality is mental, and thus negates the resolution successfully.
Vote Placed by Fkkize 1 year ago
Fkkize
lol101tejreticsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
lol101tejreticsTied
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.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
lol101tejreticsTied
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.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
lol101tejreticsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times. This is poor conduct.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
lol101tejreticsTied
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