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

God exists..

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 4 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 72574
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

qwzx

Pro

Do not copy and paste this time....

trade mark: ;)
tejretics

Con

I accept. I would like Pro to note that I did not copy-paste any argument in the cited debate [Pro told me in a PM].
Debate Round No. 1
qwzx

Pro

"Some scientific proof"(so you don't just take the Bible's word for it)
Many scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light known as the Big Bang. This was the start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. In Genesis 1:3, God said"Let there be light". This is a logical explanation for the Big Bang.

God is indeed Super natural ,Omnibenevolent, OmniPotent

I am going to beat you to the punch....

1. God is supernatural and can not be tested and CAN defy logic.

2. God is omnibenevolent and evil only exists because he gave us free will (Proverbs 16:9, Joshua 24:15, John 7:17, Psalm 37:23)

3.God can pick up a rock that he created to be too heavy for him to lift...God is supernatural therefore defy logic and contradictions.

However I, may not answer all your questions about life correctly... there are just some things that are outside of logical thinking

Some arguments for you to consider....
The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause. This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.
-The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things.
-The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.
-The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or a teacher at a school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.

If you can answer these arguments then I can answer any questions you will have for me.

Sources
http://argumentsforatheism.com...
other debates I have had in the past

;)
tejretics

Con

By the standard DDO maxims, I shall first provide definitions for the terms.

God - an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, intelligent being who is the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being
Omnipotent - able to perform any action, natural or supernatural
Omniscient - knows everything with certainty
Omnibenevolent - morally perfect
Exist - be actual in objective reality

Before I begin, I would like to say that as Pro has not specified who has the Burden of Proof, as Pro is making a positive, scientifically unfalsifiable but generally unaccepted claim, Pro has the BoP.

Rebuttals
Logic
If God defies logic, then God defies rationality. The clear definition of "exist" is "to have objective reality or being." [1] Objectivity is defined by the barriers of logic and physics. Pro says, "There are just some things outside of logical thinking." If God is outside of logical thinking, this debate is irrelevant since Pro is merely stating Pro does not have to prove anything. Validity is based on logic. If something is beyond logic, it is invalid by definition, and, hence, unreal. By the Russell's teapot analogy, Pro has full BoP.

The Big Bang

The Big Bang was not merely an "enormous explosion of energy and light." [2] The Big Bang is based on the concept that the universe was in a very high-density state and then expanded. [3] The high-density state of the universe is described as a dense baryon-plasma sea with a singularity, i.e. a point in spacetime with infinite density and zero volume. [4][5] The Big Bang is described as the inflation of gravitational spacetime itself. 13.798±0.037 billion years ago, gravitational spacetime existed virtually within the quantum vacuum, a body in a vacuum state [i.e. having incredibly minimum levels of energy, theorized to be energy intrinsic to gravity]. [6] The Big Bang could have occurred without an initial cause via. uncaused quantum mechanical fluctuations, originating in the quantum vacuum. The uncertainty principle and mass-energy equivalence together show that the density of energy in the universe can increase or decrease based on the energy density of the Higgs field and the level of mechanical fluctuations. [7][8] Pro claims that the explanation as given in Genesis 1:3, "And God said: let there be light, and there was light," [9] is logical but has not offered any verifiable evidence for the same.

The inflation of the universe after the Big Bang.

Causality
Here is my simple question: why does this uncaused cause have to be God? Quantum mechanical fluctuations and gravity can be uncaused. [10]

"Supposing that the Big Bang emerged from a singularity of infinite density, it is hard to see what would constitute a reason for denying that that singularity itself emerge from some prior cosmological goings-on. And as we have reasons for supposing that macroscopic events have causal origins, we have reason to suppose that some prior state of the universe led to the production of this particular singularity." [11]

The theorems of Hawking and Penrose state that the causal premise is ineffective due to the definitive pre-existence of gravity. [12]

Teleology
1. The perceived teleology of the universe is because of randomness. The universe was created due to the emergence of minuscule disorder; the disorder of the universe results in the random emergence of teleology and dysteleology. Disorder is measured as entropy and governs the creation and destruction of the universe. Via. second law of thermodynamics, time is the rate of entropic graduation in the universe. [13]
2. My opponent has not proven the base of their contention: "teleology exists." Hence, I here present the dysteleological argument, the precise opposite, as a rebuttal:

P1: An omnipotent, omnibenevolent being would create objects with optimal design.
P2: Perfect teleology, i.e. definitive optimal design, does not exist.
C: Therefore, either (a) God does not exist, or (b) God is not omnipotent/omnibenevolent. [14]

Ontology
Pro concludes that all ideas have an equal basis in reality. Pro has not proven that human psychology draws conclusions only from reality and is, by Pro's analogy, definitively equal to that reality. But we can also disregard the existence of God via. ontology as follows:

P1: The non-existence of God in all worlds can be imagined.
P2: This imagination has a basis in reality.
C: God does not exist in any world.

The basic definition of possibility, specifically, refers to metaphysical possibility. Metaphysical possibility refers to the physical possibility of x without the need for x to be defined by perception, as opposed to epistemic possibility, which states that x is possible via. imaginative perception. [15]

Morality
1. This argument does not argue for God as described in the definition, thus is irrelevant to the resolution.
2. Pro's argument rests on the assumption that morality is definitive and existed prior to humanity. Morality was most likely devised by humans as a concept of philosophical ethics to ensure the maintenance of social order in civilization. Pro has not demonstrated that morality is definitive and subject to a higher power.
3. Pro asserts that moral obligation cannot originate in human minds without illustrating any proof or explanation of the same.

Arguments
No God is likely to be true via. Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is a priori most likely. [16] In further explanation, if x need not exist [i.e. all events attributed to x are explained by another verifiable source], there are other explanations for x, and x is unverifiable, then x most likely does not exist.

References

[1] http://tinyurl.com...;
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...
[4] Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books, New York. (1988) ISBN 0-553-10953-5.
[5] http://goo.gl...;- PDF.
[6] http://goo.gl...
[7] http://goo.gl...
[8] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York (2010). ISBN 0-553-80537-1.
[9] Genesis 1:3, KJV.
[10] http://goo.gl...
[11] W.H. Newton-Smith (1980), p. 111.
[12] Hawking, S. W., and Penrose, R. (1965), "Singularities in Homogenous World Models", Physical Letters 17: 246-247.
[13] Carnot, Sadi. (1824).
[14] Boyd, Gregory A. (1997) God At War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. IVP Academic, Downer’s Grove, Illinois. ISBN 0-830-81885-3.
[15] http://goo.gl...;- "Modal Epistemology."
[16] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
qwzx

Pro

Rebuttals
Logic
"If God defies logic, then God defies rationality. The clear definition of "exist" is "to have objective reality or being." [1] Objectivity is defined by the barriers of logic and physics. Pro says, "There are just some things outside of logical thinking." If God is outside of logical thinking, this debate is irrelevant since Pro is merely stating Pro does not have to prove anything. Validity is based on logic. If something is beyond logic, it is invalid by definition, and, hence, unreal. By the Russell's teapot analogy, Pro has full BoP."

Not exactly, only parts of God are outside of logical thinking. Time travelling is illogical but time is real....Similar analogies. Describing a color to a blind person to the point where he can see the real color is illogical today...In the future perhaps we can find a way to change that. If we find a new language with that capability....will logic change?
CAN LOGIC CHANGE? hmmmmmmmmm....

The Big Bang
The Big Bang was not merely an "enormous explosion of energy and light." [2] The Big Bang is based on the concept that the universe was in a very high-density state and then expanded. [3] The high-density state of the universe is described as a dense baryon-plasma sea with a singularity, i.e. a point in spacetime with infinite density and zero volume. [4][5] The Big Bang is described as the inflation of gravitational spacetime itself. 13.798"0.037 billion years ago, gravitational spacetime existed virtually within the quantum vacuum, a body in a vacuum state [i.e. having incredibly minimum levels of energy, theorized to be energy intrinsic to gravity]. [6] The Big Bang could have occurred without an initial cause via. uncaused quantum mechanical fluctuations, originating in the quantum vacuum. The uncertainty principle and mass-energy equivalence together show that the density of energy in the universe can increase or decrease based on the energy density of the Higgs field and the level of mechanical fluctuations. [7][8] Pro claims that the explanation as given in Genesis 1:3, "And God said: let there be light, and there was light," [9] is logical but has not offered any verifiable evidence for the same.

NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF quantum mechanical fluctuations, originating in the quantum vacuum.

The inflation of the universe after the Big Bang.

Causality
"Here is my simple question: why does this uncaused cause have to be God? Quantum mechanical fluctuations and gravity can be uncaused. [10]

"Supposing that the Big Bang emerged from a singularity of infinite density, it is hard to see what would constitute a reason for denying that that singularity itself emerge from some prior cosmological goings-on. And as we have reasons for supposing that macroscopic events have causal origins, we have reason to suppose that some prior state of the universe led to the production of this particular singularity." [11]

Quantum mechanical fluctuations is not supported by scientific proof and is merely theorized...
gravity is caused by mass (Note: God made mass)
Infinite density could have been caused by something supernatural...*cough* *cough* GOD *cough*

Teleology
"1. The perceived teleology of the universe is because of randomness. The universe was created due to the emergence of minuscule disorder; the disorder of the universe results in the random emergence of teleology and dysteleology. Disorder is measured as entropy and governs the creation and destruction of the universe. Via. second law of thermodynamics, time is the rate of entropic graduation in the universe. [13]
2. My opponent has not proven the base of their contention: "teleology exists." Hence, I here present the dysteleological argument, the precise opposite, as a rebuttal:

P1: An omnipotent, omnibenevolent being would create objects with optimal design.
P2: Perfect teleology, i.e. definitive optimal design, does not exist.
C: Therefore, either (a) God does not exist, or (b) God is not omnipotent/omnibenevolent. [14]"

He did make us perfect, but keeping us perfect from an embodiment of evil was impossible because he gave us free will. You did not give any examples of God's design flaw...

Ontology
"Pro concludes that all ideas have an equal basis in reality. Pro has not proven that human psychology draws conclusions only from reality and is, by Pro's analogy, definitively equal to that reality. But we can also disregard the existence of God via. ontology as follows:

P1: The non-existence of God in all worlds can be imagined.
P2: This imagination has a basis in reality.
C: God does not exist in any world."

Yes, God does not exist ONLY in the world of his/her eyes and mind.

Morality
"1. This argument does not argue for God as described in the definition, thus is irrelevant to the resolution.
2. Pro's argument rests on the assumption that morality is definitive and existed prior to humanity. Morality was most likely devised by humans as a concept of philosophical ethics to ensure the maintenance of social order in civilization. Pro has not demonstrated that morality is definitive and subject to a higher power.
3. Pro asserts that moral obligation cannot originate in human minds without illustrating any proof or explanation of the same."

Who taught you right from wrong, no one has ever just understood morality without any guidance or influence from other people? Why is it not logical that a perfect God introduced the idea of morality to humanity?

Arguments
"No God is likely to be true via. Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is a priori most likely. [16] In further explanation, if x need not exist [i.e. all events attributed to x are explained by another verifiable source], there are other explanations for x, and x is unverifiable, then x most likely does not exist."

1.Occams Razor is tautological and vague (so perhaps question begging in one sense). It still requires a definition of what is sufficient to justify not narrowing. Vagueness means that ego, agenda, lack of knowledge and misapplication can all interfere with its optimum functioning.
2.As its often applied--the values of simplicity and pragmatism don't always achieve truth. They may provide a truth--but an impartial truth and not necessarily the best or most comprehensive truth. (ie its only part of the puzzle).
3.Occams Razor is seems to erode, hide, or obscure systems theory and complexity. It undermines multi-dimensional answers if its abused. Some problems simply aren't simple.
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals
Logic
Pro poses a question - "can logic change?" This question is irrelevant to the resolution, as Pro has not
proven in any way that God can defy logic; logic is an essential limitation of existence itself, as proved by me via. semantics. And Pro also states the nonexistent word "hmm..."; I request voters to penalize Pro on S&G.

The Big Bang

Let me offer proof of quantum mechanical fluctuations. In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation is a change in the amount of energy in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. [1] According to one formulation of the uncertainty principle: ΔEW10;t = h/4π. Here, ΔE represents the uncertainty in energy, and W10;t represents the uncertainty in time; h is Planck's constant, which takes the value 6.626 x 10-34 joule-second. [2] The explanation is that, for a temporary period, the conservation of energy can be violated, and this is proven. The violation of the conservation of energy originates in the quantum vacuum via. mass-energy equivalence and is called a quantum mechanical fluctuation.

Causality
Via. quantum field theory, there exists a gravitational attraction prior to the existence of mass. This can further be simplified via. mass-energy equivalence, where with the existence of uncaused energy [caused by mechanical fluctuations], there can be an exertion of quantum gravity that creates a singularity. [3] Thus, this gravitational singularity need not be caused by an external force. This causality thus does not limit the Big Bang. [4]

Teleology
Pro has not rebutted my argument from randomness, nor have they proven that teleology exists. If teleology does not exist, then an ordering intellect most likely does not as a derivative of the dysteleological argument.

Ontology
The conclusion of the ontological derivative of God was that God does not exist in any world. Pro says Pro accepts this, but contradicts it by saying God exists in the world of his/her mind. Then that is only the subjective existence of God, but "exist" is defined as having objective reality. Pro has not argued against my rebuttal relating to metaphysical possibility, instead merely further asserting epistemic subjective possibility.

Morality
Morality is merely a way to survive derived from the human mind; I request Pro to fulfill their BoP [via. Russell's teapot] by proving morality is caused by a higher power.

Occam's Razor
1. Occam's Razor here justifies the non-existence of God simply because of the Russell's teapot analogy; by refuting all Pro's proof, I have used Occam's Razor to entirely shift the philosophical BoP to Pro, which Pro has not fulfilled. The interpretation of Occam's Razor, as stated, is valid, and these rebuttals do not refute the specific interpretation stated.

As Pro has not fulfilled their BoP with verifiable proof, I extend my arguments.

References

[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] Wald, Robert M. (1984). General Relativity. University of Chicago Press.
[4] http://goo.gl...;
Debate Round No. 3
qwzx

Pro

Please don't penalize me for hmm...

The Big Bang
None of your formulas explained how there is a change in the amount of energy in space in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Some questions to consider

Does the absolute truth exist= Yes

Do you know something to be true=Yes

Does Logic exist=Yes

Can Logic change= NO... If yes, then you have no problems with contradictions...

Is Logic made of matter or is it abstract=

If you said logic made of matter : Does matter change=if you said yes, then you contradicted yourself because logic=matter and does not change. If no, then you went against the physics and the law of conservation of matter.

If you said logic is not made of matter : then is logic universal or person relative=UNIVERSAL because if you believe that logic is relative, then you don't. If logic does not apply universally, then it does not necessarily apply to this debate.

You have admitted that absolute truth exists, that you can know things to be true, that logic exists, that it is unchanging, that it is not made of matter, and that it is universal. Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God. Therefore, While this proof is valid, no one needs this proof. The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.
Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
God does not send people to Hell for denying what they do not know, but for sin against the God that they do know. Why is God necessary for truth, knowledge, and universal, abstract, unchanging logic?

Knowledge: Unless one knows everything, or has revelation from someone (God) who does, something we don't know could contradict what we think we know.

Truth: If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electrochemical processes in our evolved brains, you would not get "truth" you would get "brain-fizz." Chemicals do not produce "truth" they just react. As Doug Wilson said, it would be like shaking up a can of Mountain Dew, and a can of Dr. Pepper, opening them, and watching them fizz. Neither fizz is "true," they just are. For truth you need someone (God) who transcends the natural realm.

Universal, immaterial, unchanging logic: For universal, immaterial, unchanging logic, you need someone (God) who is universal (Psalm 90:2), not made of matter (John 4:24) and unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Without God, who has universal knowledge, we could not know anything to be universally true. Without God, who is Spirit (not made of matter), we could not make sense of immaterial things. Without God who is unchanging (and logic is a reflection of the way He thinks), we would have no basis for expecting logic not to change.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by"i.e., strictly implied by"a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [1]
Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things. Godel himself had stated that, "Positive means that in a positive moral aesthetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [2] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultra filter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorems and math equation.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [3]

Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the theorems and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax. Also note how God is capitalized here. This is because this actually proves the Christian God. Not just a deity. [4]
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start referring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]

The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass and energy as it shows that Matter and energy cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Floyd has stated. We can also see that things are not spontaneous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly explode? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restricts nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regularity.

Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by science and philosophy. Craig argues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is expanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinite the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exist in an infinite chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somewhere.

This is that there is nothing known prior to the creation of the universe meaning that it since there is no determining factors to what happened before we must assume that it's personal and uncaused. This can be see by one asking how can a timeless rift be given such a temporary effect of the beginning of time? One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe if not omnipotent. .

dysteleological argument
Con has not given any examples of God's design flaw in last 2 rounds, penalize my opponent. The universe was created due to the emergence of minuscule disorder....what caused this disorder to exist.

Con has not answered to and has ignored that I said that Occam's Razor is unreliable.

All of Con's arguments are mere theories and are not facts in this debate.

An examples of widely accepted theories later proved wrong...

Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant"it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein"the Static Universe is often known as "Einstein"s Universe""who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.

How it was Proven Wrong:

a finite universe could theoretically become so dense that it would collapse into a giant black hole, a problem Einstein compensated for with his principle of the "cosmological constant." Still, the final nail in the coffin for the idea was Edwin Hubble"s discovery of the relationship between red shift"the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us"and distance, which showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the "biggest blunder" of his career.

Extend my arguments and please answer my questions

If God did not create life, where did life come from. Life is not just formed from energy...
tejretics

Con

I would like to note that Pro, who incorrectly accused *me* of copy-pasting my arguments, has copy-pasted the second half of their argument from the arguments of the user @lannan13. In Round 1, not copy-pasting was the *only* rule and Pro has violated it. This is plagiarism. I request voters to penalize Pro based on conduct.

Rebuttals
The Big Bang
The basic formula for the uncertainty principle *did* explain that the level of energy in a thermodynamic system may change temporarily. Energy and time are related by the relation explained in the formula according to one interpretation of the uncertainty principle. [1] The formula explains that the conservation of energy can be violated for a temporary period of time as a quantum fluctuation.

"It is often said that the uncertainty principle means energy is not strictly conserved in quantum mechanics—that you’re allowed to 'borrow' energy, as long as you “pay it back” in a time; the greater the violation, the briefer the period over which it can occur. Now, there are many legitimate readings of the energy-time uncertainty principle, but this is not one of them." [2]

These quantum fluctuations can change the energy levels via. the negative energy exerted by gravity to form a singularity that could cause the Big Bang. [3]

Logic & Truth
1. Pro's logic for knowledge: If x knows anything, they need revelation from an omniscient y. But where does y derive this omniscience from? And there is no proof for this logic.
2. Pro says truth cannot evolve from electrochemical processes. Pro has
not proven it.
3. Pro's only proof for the definite logic argument is the Bible. Why do you need someone? There is no scientific explanation. And Pro says logic cannot change, but has not proven it.

Godel OA
The axioms and theorems that Pro has presented are known as the Godel Ontological Argument. It is from here that Pro copy-pasted their arguments. Nonetheless, I shall rebut them.

1. Pro's axioms and theorems are all bare assertions, i.e. they do not have any verifiable proof to support them.
2. By Axiom 5, "necessary existence is a positive property." How is it a positive property? This assertion has to be proven or is void. If x exists, that does not necessarily mean x is positive in a moral sense. Positivity must be justified objectively by Pro to fulfill their BoP, which has not been done.
3. Axiom 5 also assumes existence is a definitive predicate of positivity, i.e. all existence is morally positive in an objective and subjective sense; this entails a debated probability on necessity.

KCA
1. While I agree with P1, I must nonetheless point out that Pro has not considered the exertion of negative energy by gravity, which could possibly cancel out all the positive energy to make the total sum of energy in the universe 0, i.e. the laws of physics *do not* restrict nothingness, via. the zero-energy hypothesis, which is logically consistent with existing laws. [4]
2. That the Big Bang spontaneously created the universe is a *myth*, with no scientific support whatsoever. The Big Bang was a gradual heating-cooling expansion from a singularity. [5][6]
3. I do not question the BGV theorem, which is accurate in stating the universe had a finite point, but why does that point have to be a sentient being?
4. I have already depicted and proven that quantum fluctuations could have caused the Big Bang. As Pro now refutes the Big Bang itself, I would like to state that CMB radiation as a B-mode polarization was measured at 150 GHz in 2014 by the POLARBEAR experiment. [7] CMB radiation is thermal radiation left over from the baryon-plasma sea of the universe during the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and act as proof of the Big Bang. [8][9]

"The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure: the stars and galaxies of today." [10]

Teleology
1. In their Round 1 argument from design, Pro *also* did not provide *any* examples for the prescribed teleology of the universe. Therefore, the penalization is equal and void. Nonetheless, I shall provide the example of prescribed [human] immorality. Why does it exist? Pro says humans have abused free will, but God can remove *that* aspect of free will of God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
2. Pro has not rebutted my entropy argument in any way. I extend it to this round.

Occam's Razor
1. Pro says Occam's Razor is unreliable. But that is the *general interpretation* of Occam's Razor and *not* my application of Russell's teapot via. Law of Parsimony. This was stated by me in the previous round and has not been refuted by Pro.
2. "All of Con's arguments are mere theories ..." I have *proven* quantum fluctuations, which Pro merely did not understand the formula of. I have shown the application of Occam's Razor. I shall now rebut Pro's other arguments.

General Rebuttals
1. If infinity is possible, it *still* does not prove God. This argument is irrelevant to the resolution. Also note that this argument was copy-pasted from http://www.toptenz.net...;
2. According to most scientific theories, life originated via. abiogenesis. How *can* God create life? If you oppose abiogenesis, then God is an organism, which asks the question: where did God come from?
3. Chemical synthesis, according to a scientific study, is a more likely explanation to life than design. [11]

This resolution is negated. Vote Con.

References

[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] Griffiths, D.J. (2005)
[3] http://goo.gl...
[4] http://goo.gl...;
[5] Lemaitre, Georges (1927).
[6] Hubble, Edwin (1929).
[7] http://goo.gl...;
[8] http://goo.gl...;- PDF. Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965).
[9] http://goo.gl...;
[10] http://www.mpg.de...;
[11] http://goo.gl...;
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
Interesting read.
Posted by Meservey99 1 year ago
Meservey99
God does not exist. I been where you on now and I did tons of research! God is just your imagination.a person can train there mind to believe in God .
According to the cross there is four seasons : spring , summer , fall , winter.
God is the sun. The sun judge the living and the dead and returns to earth everyday but someday it might not be there and we can't live without the sun . The sun helps earth grow food , give us light to see and to keep us healthy . Jesus is the fish zodiac and there is no God for all the gods people belive in have the same birthday , raised from the dead and make marcle happen .. The sun goes down means it's dead then it raise again and we can live ! Easter is about spring begins on earth .. The sun makes the season happen . The sun makes the flowers bloom and they leafs fall and the snow falling down .. Earth needs sun so living creatures can live even bugs . The son of God means the sun of God ( a marcle on earth ) . I did years of research and I went to catholic : birth to age22.. Christan 22-23 and athiest-budist- present. All the gods people believe in our zodiacs . Like u siad jEseus is fish zodiac .
Posted by DrewMcD 1 year ago
DrewMcD
qwzx* and round 2*. It's been a long day lol
Posted by DrewMcD 1 year ago
DrewMcD
qwzk- first round talking about omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and supernatural reminded me of our debate. Haha good debate btw, sorry If I seemed rude at certain times.
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
Lol, auto-win for Tej here.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Is Round 1 only for acceptance? And could you please change the system to a Select Winner point system if you can? [If you don't want to, I'll probably still accept, but just requesting]
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I did not copy and paste anything and that is a fact. I have asked for your vote to be removed. Please do not accuse me of copy-pasting. I framed *my own* arguments. Please check my debate. Thanks. And BTW, is BoP shared or with Pro?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SlovakiaKentros 1 year ago
SlovakiaKentros
qwzxtejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: qwzx. You used unreliable sources right off the bat, arguments for atheism isn't a source that would be credible due to selection bias. Pro makes an un-backed claim off the bat also, saying that he is "Supernatural" and as so can "Defy logic", but has no way of proving it other than the bias sources.
Vote Placed by DrewMcD 1 year ago
DrewMcD
qwzxtejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to rebuttal any of Pro's arguments, and gave valid points. Good job to both.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
qwzxtejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con made much more convincing arguments, even if some were the ones that I've heard before. He used sources, so he gets the win. I find issue with con's saying of "P1: The non-existence of God in all worlds can be imagined," and I woulda liked to see a real rebuttal against that
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
qwzxtejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con won this one. Pro had arguments, but they weren't well constructed or thorough. Con rebutted them easily and used solid sources to back him up. Con won by proving that the resolution was overall negated. Overall Pro should try to bring up bigger arguments in the future, he kind of went off the same arguments the whole time. BoP was on Pro, and Con rebutted it so well that Pro didn't fulfill his BoP.