Debate Rounds (3)
I am vague as to which "God" I am referring to. However, this is purely so we avoid scripure as I prefer a much more philosophical approach rather than diving into theology. Miralces can of course be mentioned, but we will focus on its concept, rather than a specific miracles and their credibility.
For the sake of the argument, here's some assumptions:
Faith: believing/ being sure of something without definite (100%) objective truth/evidence.
Throw in any more defintions if necessary we'll improvise as it goes on.
Lets have just 1 argument and/or some rebuttals per round. Stay on topic. Throw in anything required that is also relevant.
Con accept the challenge in your first round. Give an intro, say what your favourite colour is, what you had for breakfast; whatever. Enjoy yourself. Don't mind my spelling.
I'm not looking for a break-through-in-philosophy type argument, I don't have much time, don't go crazy with the bibliography mate, and good luck.
Very common argument. So fortunate am I that it was proposed, and then instantly rebutted, by the same person: Thomas Aquinas.
It is a classic case of "can an unstoppable force move an immovable object?". The problem with this question is that it instantly contradicts itself- it does not make sense. You cannot say "unstoppable force" and "immovable object" as two adjacent propositions : since you first established that "there is an unstoppable force" it is completely illogical to then say "immovable object"; the foundation is that there is an unstoppable force, nothing can stop it; ergo there cannot suddenly appear an immovable object- you just said that there is a force that cannot be stopped, then how come this object cannot be moved by this force? Because you contradict yourself and make illogical premises, so your conclusions will be completely invalid!
So how does my breakdown of the argument above relate to God? It has an identical concept: once again, you first state with the premise and assumption, "can God"- God being omnipotent- he can do everything; and then make the proposition "can't lift": this, like above, is a contradiction. You are contradicting yourself as you first state "God" (instantly implying omnipotence) does not logically correlate with the next proposition "can't lift". You first said he can do everything, stop saying "can't"- how does your conclusion make any sense if the premises are illogical. You see- one makes one's own argument an illogical contradiction as a priori for God paradox- when simply the paradox is created within its own illogical stance and the "logic" itself is invalid, making absurd propositions.
Next up- the burden of proof is upon me- perhaps an argument against the Schrondigers cat scenario, which is a very good assumption for anything: unless proven, it is both.
Classic, yet ever so powerful, causation argument.
Everything has a cause, and this cause has an effect, which in turn has a cause.
We know that the big bang portrays a beginning/start- it is an effect- what is its cause?
It is illogical to say that it created itself, for to create itself it must exist before it existed, which is an illogical paradox. Therefore, a cause outside of the bounds of the universe must of have caused this effect (beginning of the space/time).
The most logical "cause" of the big bang is a deity, as it exists outside of the bounds of the space/time continuum.
"What was the cause of God" is the most basic refute, and I will happily respond to it so that you won't sweat typing it out. The first premise is "everything has a cause". This is logically derived by a posteriori- "truth" by the means of empirical evidence. This evidence all stems from the universe and its bounds and our perception of it- for example, we know that me punching someone in the face (the cause) has an effect- a bruise on the cheek, and that cause (me punching) itself was an effect from another cause (i.e. me being angry). But here's the catch- all this is derived from the universe and its constricted dimensions and nature. God is outside of these bounds of the universe and therefore does not need a "cause" as cause and effect are concepts only found in the universe (since this is all that we are exposed to). This is where the trail of "cause and effect" stops. Not at the big bang, as it is part of time/space of the universe and its logic, but rather, stops at God who in theory does not require by any means a first cause. He is of nature outside of the bounds of logic reasoned by us and logic offered by the universe. He is eternal. He has no beginning, so he needs no cause. Here is, in a sense, is the a priori "proof" for Schrondiger's cat that is necessary to determine if he exists or not- which from what we derived by pure reason, as far as we know- he does exist.
Care to extend, rebut or propose anything? :)
First of all, let's address the controversy of "the big bang". In this case, it does not matter if you believe in it, and there's no point of persuading you (I assume you're a creationist). When I said "big bang" I was simply referring to the beginning of the Universe- its just that the big bang is a good common ground and is quite widely accepted; neither does it disprove the existence of God. The point still remains. Replace "big bang" with "the beginning of the cosmos" if you feel necessary and the argument is still viable.
You shot a barrage of dilemmas, and some of them have the same focal point:
-Everything is predestined, so we have no free will (like you said, whats the point of prayer)
-Evil, suffering and our imperfection (all related)
-Why does he make us?
Let us start with the last point. The most common theist answer is that he is love, and so therefore there must be the beloved: the beloved being us, humans, whom he loves. Or just say its a mystery. The problem does not need an answer as it is unimportant (regards to existence).
Let me also point out that the questions "why did he make us" is by no means an argument against his existence; rather, an inquisitive notice that only serves to fulfill our curiosity- our own existence would be the evidence for his existence.
What about everything being determined? The issues of free will has several philosophies. For this argument, let me point out determinism (the concept that because of scientific laws, cause and effect, we have no choice over our will) and interventionism (the idea that we have free will because of an external agent e.g. a soul has an impact on earthly actions outside of the realms of the universe- it can transcend both in an out).
Determinism (or even compatabilism, which follows determinism but gives a slightly different definition of free will) argues very consistent logic that there is no free will. However, only when it omits the existence of God (or a soul) is it viable, other than that, interventionism is perfectly reasonable philosophy to follow and at the end of the day it comes down to subjective belief as to what you agree with. As far as we are concerned, we reached a conclusion that God exists with no rebuttal- so we assume he is real, ergo souls are real, ergo there is free will (as souls do not succumb to determinism).
Nevertheless, if you are referring to scripture (from the top of my head, there's one about God knowing you from the moment you were made in your mothers womb) we are diving into theology, which I prefer to steer away from. Neither do I know what point exactly you are trying to make when you say "predetermined" as you have the BoP and fail to present it. I tried my best at answering it.
What then is the thesis response to evil and suffering? Once again, Thomas Aquinas comes to the rescue. Using the analogy- 'there is a wolf and a rabbit. For the GOOD of the wolf (eating, which is ultimately survival), there must be the BAD of the rabbit- being killed and eaten by the wolf'. The point here is that for good to exist there must be evil- the natural order of the world. Perhaps we must experience evil to perceive goodness- after all, you only know that you feel happiness because you've suffered in the past, otherwise, you would not be aware of it- God wants us to be aware of our morality. Perhaps suffering is a preparation for paradise.
One would argue "Why didn't God just make everything perfect. Why have this Natural Suffering. Humanity would be better off without it". One of the many answers would be, that he loved us so much he gave us free will- he did not want mere slaves with no choice but to worship. Is the gift of freedom not the greatest sign of benevolence? Does a loving father not allow his son to make his own decisions? Dammit. No more letters remaining. Continue later :(.
RamishSaqib forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wipefeetnmat 1 year ago
|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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a strong argument and rebuttal.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.