The Instigator
Moelogy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
QueenDaisy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 864 times Debate No: 103335
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Moelogy

Pro

So I have been spreading this rumor around that I left Islam and became an atheist lately mostly to play the devil's advocate. These did not happen and I will never become atheist but I was merely trying to collect as many as rebuttals as possible.

I will be arguing in this debate that the case for God is extensive and is most often underrated. I will be using science, philosophy and logic to form the foundations for my arguments for God. I am a Theist and my opponent should most likely be an atheist who denies the existence of God.

Definitions :

Universe - all of space, matter, time and energy

God - The necessary, uncaused, omnimaximal, timeless, spaceless being.

Exists - to have an objective being or existence.

Rules :

-no trolling
-no forfeits
-no semantics (tweaking definitions of the dictionary)

Rounds :

Round one - acceptance
R2) arguments
R3) Rebuttals + arguments
R4) Rebuttals
R5) Rebuttals

BOP : Burden of proof will be shared. The opponent (who is most likely an atheist) will have to demonstrate that God does not exist. Since claiming that the natural reality is all that exists and that there is no supernatural reality is a claim. Whoever claims that God does not exist is making a negative claim and therefore should prove it. Proving a negative claim is possible because you can prove that there are no muslims in the U.S. senate, there are no dinosaurs on the face of the Earth, the sun does not orbit the Earth. all of those were negative claims that should and could be proven. The most logical position taken if you reject the claim that there is a God would be an agnostic, who claims that he simply does not know since you would still have no evidence for/against either sides. No arguments against religion shall be made since you could disprove all religions and you still would not undermine or even address the reliability of God.
QueenDaisy

Con

I accept, and will oppose the motion that God exists. I look forward to an interesting and productive debate, and wish my opponent the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Moelogy

Pro

Argument from Fine Tuning:

P1) There is incomprehensibly improbably fine tuning of the universe for life (sometimes, even for the universe to exist)
P2) The only logical explanations are chance, necessity or design
P3) It is not due to necessity or chance
Conclusion : The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.

P1) One example is If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of 1 part in 10^10^123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. This is only one constant.

Most of the sources and the examples of fine tuning can be found here [1].

P2) True unless my opponent wants to provide any other explanation.

P3) Necessity : Some constants do not even have to exist and you would still have a universe (hostile to any form of life, however) [2] therefore they are not necessary constants

Chance : The possibility that the universe would have had this perfect match of constants has been estimated by two of the best mathematicians of our time (Penrose and Lennox) to be 1 in 1^10^123 based on only one constant [3] [4] [5] . according to mathematicians, anything with the possibility of 1 in 10^50 is basically impossible [6] [7]

It takes less faith for design.

"This is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all . . . it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - Paul Davies

"WHEREVER PHYSICISTS LOOK, THEY SEE EXAMPLES OF FINE-TUNING." - Sir Martin Rees

"THE REMARKABLE FACT IS THAT THE VALUES OF THESE NUMBERS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN VERY FINELY ADJUSTED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE." - Stephen Hawking

"IF ANYONE CLAIMS NOT TO BE SURPRISED BY THE SPECIAL FEATURES THE UNIVERSE HAS, HE IS HIDING HIS HEAD IN THE SAND. THESE SPECIAL FEATURES ARE SURPRISING AND UNLIKELY." - David Deutsch

Implications : The deliberate designer would have to exist before the universe existed (to design some of the constants required for the universe to even exist) and is therefore independent of nature (supernatural), universe and its dimensions (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, etc.). The traits of this supernatural designer proves it is most likely God.

Modal Ontological Argument:

P1) It is possible that a Maximally Great being (MGB) exists
P2) If MGB is possible, he exists in some possible world
P3) If MGB exists in some possible world, he exists in all possible worlds
P4) If MGB exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world
Conclusion : MGB or God exists

Premise one) It is definitely possible for God or a MGB to exist in some possible world since it is not a logical contradiction.

Premise 2) If MGB is possible to exist, it logically follows that he exists in some possible world since existing in some possible world would lend truth to the possibility of his existence.

Premise 3) a maximally great being is by definition, one which has all the properties favorable to have than not. His existence would necessitate having all the great properties to the fullest extent. One great property that he would have to the fullest extent would be the property of necessity. a MGB would be categorized as a necessary being rather than a contingent being for it is greater and to a fuller extent to exist in all possible worlds (necessary) rather than to exist in some possible world (contingent). Therefore, a MGB would have to be a necessary entity. a necessary entity by definition is one that exists in all possible worlds including the world that we currently live in i.e. the actual world.

Premise 4) If God exists in the set of all possible worlds, it logically entails that he exists in this actual world since this world is possible to exist and does exist. Some might claim that reality and the actual world is an illusion or some computer stimulation, however, this has been disproven by Rene Descartes' "I think therefore I am".

Conclusion : If God exists in this world, then God exists in the actual world.

Question begging?

Some critics and skeptics might say that the argument uses God's definition to prove the existence of God. However. This is maliciously false since the argument uses the philosophy of ontology. [8] Moreover, the skeptics of such argument fail to recognize the difference between "de dre" and "de dicto". [9]

Unicorns?

Some claim that the argument could be used to argue for the existence of a single horned horse or the unicorn. However, proponents of this objection fail to realize the distinction that unicorns are contingent entities while a MGB entails necessity of his existence.

Kalam Argument

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2) The universe began to exist
Conclusion : Therefore the universe has a cause

Premise one :

A) Ex nihilo, nihil fit

The first premise that whatever begins to exist must have a cause has been substantiated by multiple philosophical principles like ex nihilo, nihil fit. Using a variation of reductio ad absurdum, whoever denies this premise will have to propose that whatever begins to exist does not have a cause and can pop into existence from nothing and by nothing. However according to ex nihilo, nihil fit, out of nothing, nothing comes since nothing is NO THING and NO THING has no causal powers since it has no thing to attribute these causal powers to.

B) Reductio Ad Absurdum

If the first premise is false and its negation is true then we should expect that whatever begins to exist does not have a cause and can pop into existence from nothing and by nothing. If this is the case, why do not bikes, cars and houses pop into existence from nothing and by nothing? The simple answer would be that it is ridicolous and impossible for something to pop into existence from nothing and by nothing. According to the law of non-contradiction, if the negation of the proposition that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is ridiculous (as evidenced by the impossibility of things like cars, houses and bike to begin to exist from nothing and by nothing and by no cause), then the affirmation of the proposition is undeniable.

Virtual particles?

Skeptics will propose that the first premise falls under virtual particles that do come into being from nothing. This is simply false. Virtual particles are the result of quantum vacuum energy fluctuations and they do come from something ... quantum vacuum energy.

Premise two : The universe began to exist.

A) Big bang

According to the best data and evidence we have from cosmology, the universe began to exist 14 billion years ago.[10]

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology." [11]

- Stephen Hawkings

B) Second law of thermodynamics

This law states that usable energy turns to heat and atoms become disordered overtime. If the universe is eternal, there would be no usable energy and only heat by now since all of the usable energy would turn to heat. However, there is usable energy therefore the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. This is inductive reasoning and allows judgements about the parts (entropy in closed systems in the universe) and the whole (heat death of the universe itself). [12]

C) Reductio ad absurdum

Singularity and infinite sequence of events. If the singularity of the big bang or the universe is past-eternal, then it would have to undergo an infinite past sequence of events before getting to the big bang meaning that the singularity would never get to the rapid expansion of the big bang due to being eternally stuck in past infinity before getting to the big bang (infinite regress). Skeptics would like to point out that B theory of time deals with this issue. However, invoking b theory does not resolve anything since now the singularity is travelling through an infinity of equally real time for an eternity and is thus stuck in past-infinity and would never get to the big bang due to being stuck in infinity and due to infinite regress. But the universe did get to the big bang (evidenced by CMBR, redshift of galaxies, etc.).

On the nature of the cause:

- Nothing : Disproven in the first premise

- Natural processes within the universe like quantum mechanics : Catch 22. You need quantum mechanics to create the universe but you need the universe for quantum mechanics to happen. quantum mechanics can only happen in a vacuum or empty space. You would need the space dimension for that. But space can only exist in the universe, by definition.

- Natural processes outside the universe: There is nothing natural outside the universe because the universe is by definition everything that exists naturally. Moreover, the universe can not physically expand beyond its horizons because there is no space proving that the space dimension does not exist beyond the universe. [13] The obvious question then arises, if there is no space beyond the universe, WHERE do these natural entities exist?

- External cause

The external cause would be have to be independent of nature, the universe and its dimensions since it had to exist before the universe in order to create it. Extrapolating from this analysis, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, etc. (Independence of the universe and dimensions) and the cause must be supernatural (independence from nature). Only two things fit this description : abstract objects and God. But we all know abstract objects like numbers or triangles do not create anything and have no causal powers like creating a car, house, let alone universe. Thus, God is the spaceless, timeless, non-physical, immaterial and supernatural creator of the universe.
QueenDaisy

Con

In keeping with the format outlined by Pro in R1, I will not offer any rebuttal in this round.

Before I begin presenting arguments, I would like to clarify something- (a)gnosticism and (a)theism are separate issues. (A)theism is about belief- you do (not) believe in a God. Whereas, (a)gnosticism is about certainty- if you are (un)certain about something, you are (a)gnostic about it. These are completely separate issues, in that one can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, and so on.
[See source[1] for a visual representation of this]

Now, atheism is not the active belief that God does not exist- that is gnostic atheism. Rather, it is the group of any number of positions among which one does not positively believe in a God- it can also include those who have never heard of the concept of a God, those who just shrug in disinterest, and so on.
Someone who simply says "I have no idea whether or not a God exists" may not call themselves an agnostic atheist, but that is what they are- if you don't know whether a God exists, you also do not believe in any given God(s).

With that side note out the way, I'd like to begin presenting my arguments:

Omnimaximality, and the problem of evil:

So, omnimaximality- this includes omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, and so on. In short, God is everywhere, is perfectly good, is infinitely powerful and knows everything. Such a being is fundamentally incompatible with the world in which we live.
To quote the Greek philosopher Epicurus:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

[See source 3]

In layman's terms, if God is all-powerful and all-good, then he must stop all bad things from happening (as he can and wants to). There are bad things out there, and so God cannot exist.
Now, this is where religious people usually respond either by saying "well there's some upside to the bad thing that you haven't realised" or "But without bad things, we couldn't appreciate good things".
Once again, though, God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence lay waste to both of these claims- God could have caused the "upside" of the bad thing to happen without the bad thing itself (made the omelette without breaking the eggs, so to speak) and would want to do so, if omnibenevolent.
Likewise, though it may be the case that we do need to experience bad in order to appreciate good, God could easily have created us, and the universe, such that we do not need to experience bad in order to appreciate good, and, if omnipotent, would want to do so.

In short, God does not exist, because omnimaximality is inherently incompatible with the world in which we live.

[See sources 4:6 for further explanations of the problem of evil].

Omnimaximality- inconsistencies:

There are a number of questions which reveal the inconsistency of omnimaximality:

Can God create a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it? If he cannot, he is not omnipotent. If he can, he cannot lift such a boulder, and thus is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is self-contradictory.

Can God learn something? If he can, he is not omniscient, since there must be something he doesn't know in order to be able to learn it. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent, as there is something he cannot do (learn). Omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible.

Can God go somewhere he has not yet been? If he can, he is not omnipresent, as there is somewhere he has never been. If not, he is not omnipotent, as there is something he cannot do (go somewhere new). Omnipotence and omnipresence are incompatible.

Can God do evil? If he can, he is not omnibenevolent, since he is capable of evil. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent, as there is something he cannot do (evil). Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible.

These show that the very concept of a God is inherently paradoxical, and thus a God cannot exist.

Brute force method:

Imagine I were to ask you to prove that the local zoo has no dragons in it. The simplest way to do so would be to simply go to the zoo, observe and identify every animal in the zoo, and show that none of them are dragons, and hence prove there are no dragons in your local zoo.

This is the only way to positively prove something does not exist within some set- observe every element in the set, and show that none of them are the disputed item. This is relatively simple to do with small numbers of animals. Imagine, though, if instead of 50 animals, there were a hundred billion.
You simply couldn't check every single animal- it would be logistically impossible. Instead, you'd simply have to look at the animals you can see- if you see a dragon, problem solved. If you can't see a dragon, you have to search for evidence of the dragon- after all, if there's a sheep that's on fire, that is a pretty compelling reason to think there may be a dragon nearby.
However, if you see no dragons and absolutely no evidence for dragons, but simply see sheep as far as the eye can see, would you conclude there are dragons?
The rational conclusion is something along the lines of "It is extremely unlikely that there are dragons here, but in principle I cannot be 100% sure due to the logistics of brute-forcing such a large search space". If you reach this conclusion, you do not positively believe that dragons exist- you are an agnostic a-dragon-ist.

This same logic can be applied to God- we cannot observe God directly, and nor can we find any evidence of any God(s). This is exactly what we would expect if we were living in a universe in which there is no God. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that a God exists, but in principle we cannot be 100% sure due to the logistics of brute-forcing the entire universe. This conclusion is agnostic atheism- we do not positively believe that God exists.

This leads me nicely into Hitchens' Razor:

"That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence"

[See source [7]]

This principle is useful and it readily dismisses the premises of many common theistic arguments. I will expand on this further in the rebuttal sections.

So, to summarise my arguments:
1) God does not exist because omnipotence and omnibenevolence are fundamentally incompatible with the real world.
2) An omnimaximal being is necessarily self-inconsistent. Thus, omnimaximality is impossible and God does not exist.
3) Brute forcing God's nonexistence is impossible, so the logical conclusion is agnostic atheism due to the lack of evidence in favour of God.

Sources:
[1]: https://www.google.co.uk...:
[2]: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com...
[3]: http://rebirthofreason.com...
[4]: https://www.youtube.com...
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]: https://www.youtube.com...
[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Moelogy

Pro

R1) Problem of evil

The whole argument Con provided fails for an unexpected reason : they fail to define what evil really is. Evil whether climate change, starvation in africa, etc. are all the results of man-made choices made in the present or in the past. Man-made evil could be explained by the freewill that God gave humans. God provided human with the capacity to think and make their own choices (whether their choices were to donate to charity or colonize Africa). Everybody will be judged accordingly. Those who did good decisions and created good on this Earth like build schools, donate to charity, fundraise for specific causes, etc. will be rewarded accordingly. Those who did evil in this world and caused mischief (colonized and decimated africa, climate change, etc.) will be punished accordingly. The free will of humans is compatible with what you would expect if there was a divine supreme judge who has granted his test subjects free will in order to test them and to get as accurate of results as possible since their decisions and what they will be judged on is not influenced by him and mostly the result of their decision-making. The coup de gras to this rebuttal is that nobody can agree on what is evil. If you take your kid to get him vaccinated against a virus, they will feel pain of the needle and they will call you evil and cruel for letting them through this and not intervening to stop this 'evil' but is the parent really evil for trying to protect their child from a virus? The less common source of evil like natural evil such as hurricanes, lightnings, etc. is used by God to test the faith and the strength of the belief of the people who are undergoing this crisis. Things like diseases, volcanoes etc. are used by God to test the patience, love and faith of his test subjects to him.

R2) Incompatible properties

The nature of omnipresence :

When theists speak about omnipresence, all they really mean is that God has incomprehensible power but this has nothing to do with how God uses this power. He could have incomprehensible power (omnipotence) and not use it all and still be omnipotent. He could have infinite power and only use it on tasks that are compatible with his nature and other properties and still be omnipotent. He can do whatever he wants. What he wants are determined by his other properties such as benevolence. Other questions like can God go to some place he has never been before or can he learn something are logically incoherent and they misunderstand God right in the first premise that God already knows everything and he is everywhere. This however does not necessarily take away from his omnipotence as proven before since he can do anything and any task he wants (infinite power) but what he wants and will do is determined by his other nature (perfect justice, mercy, love).

Boulder:

God can create a boulder as heavy as comprehensibly possible and he would still be able to lift it.

On omniscience:

No he can not know anything new because he knows everything. Therefore, since God can do anything he wants, he would not want to know anything new since it would go against his nature of omnipresence. Similar to how if you ask the strongest man in the world to open your pickle jar, he would be probably refuse. Not because he does not have the power or the capacity to do so, he just does not want to.

On omnipresence:

God is everywhere so this question is logically incoherent.

Evil:

Yes, God could technically create evil depending on the situation. For example, he created hell to punish the wrongdoers. Hell is evil but he created this evil in accordance with his other properties such as perfect justice.

R3) Brute method

"same logic can be applied to God- we cannot observe God directly, and nor can we find any evidence of any God(s). This is exactly what we would expect if we were living in a universe in which there is no God."

There is tons of evidence and arguments for God - Improbable Fine tuning of the universe, Ontology of God, kalam argument, contingency argument, argument from adequation, Personal experiences, etc.

To some the fact that there is something rather than nothing is good evidence for God and all they need. To some they will only believe in God if they can see and touch him. No body can agree on what counts as evidence.

Atheists are generally less open-minded to the evidence [1]

R4) Hitchen's razor

This is the same thing as the lack of evidence in Con's third argument.

Rebutted above in R3.

New arguments :

A1) Cosmological argument

Premise 1 : Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, whether in the necessity of its existence (necessary) or in an external explanation (contingency).

Premise 2 : If the universe has an explanation, it would be an external explanation due to the contingency of the universe

Premise 3 : The universe exists

C1) The universe has an explanation for its existence (from P1 and P3)

C2) The universe's explanation is grounded in a necessary cause due to its contingency (from P2 and P3)

Premise 3 is uncontroversial

Premise 1 defended :

Science )

To reject that everything has an explanation would be to undermine the foundations of science that entail curiosity and finding an explanation for everything. The law of cause and effect perfectly embodies this principle. The law of cause and effect bluntly states that every effect has an explanation in an external cause. This is of course assuming that the object is contingent. However, science agrees that abstract objects like numbers do not really have an explanation and they just are which means that abstract objects are necessary. This is a demonstration by science that everything has its own explanation whether in an external cause (law of cause and effect) or in the necessity of their nature (numbers).

Logic and philosophy )

Principle of sufficient reasoning (PSR): a well-accepted principle among ancient and contemporary philosophers alike is that everything has an explanation, cause or reason. To illustrate this, I will provide a scenario.

Imagine that you were hiking with a group of friends through the woods and you stumbled across a ball, You would intuitively wonder how it got there? You wonder to yourself why is this ball here? Did a kid throw it here? Did a previous hiker accidentally drop it? You definitely would not just waive it off as being necessary and it must exist there and its explanation is grounded in the necessity of its nature. You would intuitively assume that it must have had a cause or an explanation for being there. This scenario would not change based on the size of the ball or multiplying it by incomprehensible folds to the size of the universe

Premise 2 defended :

It is commonly held that the universe is contingent for two reasons: it had a beginning and it is changeable.

Background : a necessary entity is that which accounts for its own existence. In order to account for your own existence, you would have to be independent of others who will not change you or influence you at any time. Therefore you and your explanation would have to be eternal (no time for anything before it to explain your existence) and mute (no influence from others). a non-necessary entity by contrast is not eternal, had a beginning and can be changed and is contingent. a non-necessary contingent entity does not have an explanation in its own existence and therefore reuires an external explanation. [2]

The universe is changeable and is not eternal, and is therefore contingent and reuires an external explanation. I will demonstrate so using science, philosophy and logic.

Science)

On change : The universe changes all the time. Some stars are born, some die, some explode. Energy is transformed from other forms to heat. The second law of thermodynamics acknowledges this change and states that entropy tends to increase overtime in a close system. If the choas and disorder increases in a system, this is an illustration of change. If the universe changes, it does not have to be that way as in the preceding state, therefore it is contingent and does not have to be "one way" like numbers.

On the beginning : Scientists believe that the universe began to exist started expanding fourteen billion years ago. This is confirmed by the big bang which in its classical interpretation states that the universe had a start. [3]

Secondly, there is empirical evidence that the universe began expanding such as the CMBR and the redshift of galaxies. The BGV theorem entails that *any* universe that had been expanding over its history has had a space-time beginning (even if there is a multiverse).

Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics reveals that the universe can not be eternal because had that been the case, we would have no usable energy by now and the only available form of energy would be only heat.

If the universe had a beginning, it is not a necessary entity because its explanation does not exist within it and had to rely on something else to account for its beginning (an external explanation)

Logic)

On beginning : There is tons of empirical and definitive evidence that the big bang happened. However, assuming that the singularity prior to the big bang was past-eternal raises a few questions. If the singularity of the big bang is past-eternal, then it would have to undergo an infinite past sequence of events (due to being forever in the past) before getting to the big bang meaning that the singularity would never get to the rapid expansion of the big bang due to being eternally stuck in past infinity before getting to the big bang (infinite regress).

Implications : The external cause would be have to be independent of nature, the universe and its dimensions since it had to exist before the universe in order to create it. The cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, etc. (Independence of dimensions) and supernatural (outside of nature).
QueenDaisy

Con

So, to begin rebuttal:

Firstly, the argument from fine-tuning. There are several objections to this:

First, it is quite possible that all of the fundamental constants of the universe could be defined in terms of one another- that, while many numbers seem to have landed "just right" for life, this result was inevitable due to the nature of the relationships between fundamental constants. Such an idea is called a "theory of everything" [see source 8] or a "grand unified theory", and though we haven't yet completed one, physicists are making progress towards this in general relativity and quantum theory. This would explain that the universe was hospitable to life as a necessity, demanded by the relationships between the fundamental constants.
One such relationship is that the square of the speed of light is equal to the reciprocal of the product of the permittivity of free space with the permeability of free space [see source 9].

Secondly, cyclical universe hypotheses [sources 10 & 11], and multiverse hypotheses [sources 12 & 13], both make the odds seem less stacked against chance. Both would allow for many universes, each with their own fundamental constants, to exist. It could well be that in the vast majority of universes, there is no life, but, as life, we necessarily exist in one which has life. The addition of multiple universes makes chance a very plausible explanation, given that enough repeats of an experiment will eventually produce unusual results- if you toss a coin enough times, eventually you'll get a million "heads" in a row.

Thirdly, the fine-tuning argument smacks itself in the face in that can be used to dismiss itself. If we grant that it is indeed the case that the only explanations for something unlikely happening are chance, necessity, or design, then we can apply this to God: if God exists, his existence must be explained by chance, necessity, or design.
It is overwhelmingly less likely that God would come into existence by chance than that the universe would, given that God is so much more powerful, complex, and in all ways incredible.
My opponent has not explained that God's existence is necessary, and I'd like to see them do so. If they intend to simply assert that God is necessary without a supporting argument, then we may as well assert that the universe is necessary without providing a supporting argument. At this point, Occam's razor takes over as it favours the latter.
If God is designed, we've just pushed the problem back a step- we'd have to explain God's designer in much the same way.

So, to recap my rebuttal, a theory of everything would provide a reason why a universe with life in it is necessary, and multiverse and cyclical universe theories would provide an explanation of how the universe could be hospitable to life by chance. Most importantly, though, the fine-tuning argument's premises, when applied to God, show that we've only compounded the problem in that we now have to justify the necessity or chance existence of a God, rather than of a universe with life in.

Next, the ontological argument:
P1) is flawed: As I argued in R2, an omnimaximal being produces paradoxes which cannot be resolved in a consistent way.
P3) is a simple non-sequitir [See source 15]. Where did that come from?
"it is greater and to a fuller extent to exist in all possible worlds (necessary) rather than to exist in some possible world (contingent)."
Why? Is not a dragon greater than a goat, despite the former being nonexistent? There are many things which only exist as possibilities which are far greater than many things which exist in our world (as anything that exists in all possible worlds must).

Consider an analogous argument:
P1) My hamster is the nicest pet.
P2) It is nicer to be alive than to be dead.
P3) Therefore, my hamster cannot die.

The argument arbitrarily declares God/my hamster as the greatest/nicest being, and then arbitrarily declares that existence/being alive is greater/nicer than the alternative. The argument starts from nonsense, and produces nonsense. At best, we've deduced that the greatest thing which exists exists, or that the nicest thing which lives, lives.

Pro also arbitrarily declared that God is a necessary being- that is to say, that he necessarily exists. However, this was not substantiated, and so may be dismissed.

Kalam:
The Kalam argument tries to apply conventional, macroscopic causality to the origins of the universe- which needn't obey it. The universe regularly violates our understanding of causality, and this is shown in Causality Violation and Nonlinear Quantum Mechanics [Source 16] , and countless other scientific texts [see sources 17:19]. I recognise that this is very high reading and that not everyone has a degree in physics, but this is perhaps the most convincing refutation of Kalam if you can follow it: the universe's origin doesn't have to obey causality, as things violate our understanding of causality all the time- they just tend to be very small things (like particles) that do so.

If you can't follow this, there is also another explanation- cyclical universe hypotheses allow the universe to exist without violating classical causality. Given that there are a finite number of ways to arrange all the stuff in the universe, and that time could conceivably extend forever, eventually the universe must reach a state in which it has already been- completely identical in every way to what it was before. Such a system will behave exactly as it did before- it repeats itself indefinitely. Superficially, Chaos theory [source 20] appears to forbid this, but on closer inspection it doesn't: chaos theory states that extremely minuscule changes in a situation can lead to radically different outcomes, but we're talking about a system in which everything is *exactly* the same, due to the finite- although extremely large- number of ways to arrange everything in the universe, and the infinite amount of time to rearrange them.
This repeating system allows the universe to exist forever- the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time and will continue to exist for an infinitely longer time- it doesn't need to be caused to exist because there was never a point in time in which it did not exist.

So, the universe doesn't have to obey classical, macroscopic causality, but even if it did, cyclical universe hypotheses would allow it to create itself without violating such.

Pro's understanding of thermodynamics is flawed, and I will expand on this further in R4.

Pro mentions Hell- we could easily have another debate this long about the existence of Hell, so Pro ought not to assume its existence axiomatically.

"God can create a boulder as heavy as comprehensibly possible and he would still be able to lift it."

So, if God could not create a boulder heavier than that one (as would be required for it to be too heavy to lift) as said boulder is "as heavy as comprehensibly possible", then he cannot create said boulder. There is something he cannot do- he is not omnipotent.

"No he can not know anything new because he knows everything."

Hence, he is not omnipotent as there is something he cannot do (learn something new), and hence he is not omnimaximal, and hence he is not God.

"God is everywhere"

So there is nowhere he hasn't been. Thus, he can't go anywhere he has never been. Thus, there is something he cannot do, and he is not omnipotent, and therefore, not God.

Omnimaximality is still inherently paradoxical, and as such an omnimaximal being cannot exist.

I will respond to my opponent's first R3 paragraph in R4, as I have a lot to say and not enough characters left to say it.

With that, I wrap up my R3 speech.

Sources:
[8]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[9]: https://www.google.co.uk...:
[10]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[11]: https://www.accessscience.com...
[12}: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[13]: http://discovermagazine.com...
[14]: http://math.ucr.edu...
[15]: https://www.google.co.uk...
[16]: https://arxiv.org...
[17]: https://phys.org...
[18]: https://www.physics.utoronto.ca...
[19]: http://astro.kent.ac.uk...
[20]: http://fractalfoundation.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Moelogy

Pro

R1) Fine tuning

Interdependence of the physical constants

Con notes that the the physical constants of the universe are interdependent and thus the impression of fine tuning is down-scaled. However, this unevidenced "what if" scenario is simply false for multiple reasons. Firstly, most constants are determined by their equations independent of ANY other constants or at most only one constant where the change would actually make fine tuning less probable, one such example is the cosmological constant. Secondly, if this is true, it would be a very very rare situation because most constants address different topics within the framework of physics. For example, the improbability of the initial low entropy state (1 in 10^10^123) has absolutely nothing to do with the unlikely electron:proton ratio. These two constants for example are absolutely distinct, not interlated nor independent on one another. Moreover, it is possible, even more likely, for the universe to have existed without some of those vital constants to the development of life. This former point alone is enough to throw Con's unevidenced assertion out of the window since you can have constants not existing at all i.e. =0 and the other constants will exist fine without any influence from the absent constant which disproves the notion of interdependency.

Multiverse

No sophisticated atheist really takes this objection seriously. The obvious and self-proclaiming problem with this defense is that it violates occam's razor[1], that entities should not be multiplied unnneccesarily. The multiverse does exactly that. It multiplies a plethora and infinitude of universes to account for the fine tuning of one universe. The more logical, simpler and scientifically viable is the simpler one[1] namingly that one entity designed the cosntants of this universe rather than the atheist's desperate attempt at creating infinity of entities and universes to account for the fine tuning of this universe. Where did the other universes come from? Who created them? Who fine tuned their constants such as the cosmological constant or the initial low entropy to allow them to even exist? The explanation should give an answer rather than multiply the question by infinity. God's explanation is grounded in his necessity.

Cyclical universes

This attempt also suffers from the same problem as the multiverse. Moreover, this attempt is probably even worse than its deseperate brethern since this one violates the philosophical principle of infinite regress. Had the universe been trying random constants for a past-eternity, it would never get to the current state nor the big bang. The progonosis for this is that if the singularity of the big bang or the universe in general is past-eternal, then it would have to undergo an infinite past sequence of events before getting to the big bang meaning that the singularity would never get to the rapid expansion of the big bang due to being eternally stuck in past infinity before getting to the big bang due to infinite regress. If you are stuck in an infinity, you would never reach the current state since it would LITERALLY take you forever. Skeptics would like to point out that B theory of time deals with this issue. However, invoking b theory does not resolve anything since now the singularity is travelling through an infinity of equally real time for an eternity and is thus stuck in past-infinity and would never get to the big bang due to being stuck in infinity and due to infinite regress. But the universe did get to the big bang (evidenced by CMBR, redshift of galaxies, etc.).

God and design

God has his own explanation in his necessity as the agreed upon definitions therefore design would be the most scientifically viable explanation in accordance with Occam's Razor (One God entity vs INFINITE universe entities).

R2) Ontological

On the first premise


God is a possible entity to exist since it is not a logical contradicition. All of con's supposed contradictions have been debunked in the previous round but could be recaped in the following : God can do whatever he wants to do, but what he wants to do is determined by him and his other properties / nature.

On the second premise


Con denies that necessity is entailed in the properties of a maximally great being. This is a focal demonstration of Con's philosophical ignorance and incompetency. In philosophy, there are two sets of properties. Great-making properties and lesser making properties. Greater making properties are those which are better to have than not and that make you "great" such as power, knowledge, goodness and necessity (existing in every possible world), by contrast, lesser-making properties are those which are negative to have such as evil, impotence, ignorance, contingency (only existing under certain conditions). [2] A maximally great being would have all of the great-making properties to the fullest extent including necessity since it is better and more powerful and great to have absolute and unchallenged existence in every possible world than for your existence to be limited to some possible worlds and to be contingent on a set of greater conditions that determine your existence. This obviously goes against the concept of God since God is the greatest (maximally great) and there could be nothing that determines or limits his existence.


On Con's childish hamster analogy


Frankly, this analogy is embarrasing to whoever proponent is proposing this. Not only does this analogy's premises shatter when applied in light of modal logic. The argument is not even close to comparable nor analogous to the ontological argument since a hamster is not a maximally great being. A hamster is not necessary but is contingent on the existence of his parents which shows that the hamster does not have one great-making property and is therefore NOT a maximally great being. Moreover, th hamster lacks infinite power and knowledge which shows that he is lacking another set of great-macking properties to the fullest extent and is therefore not a maximally great being. By contrast, God is by definition a maximally great being.


"God is a necessary being- that is to say, that he necessarily exists. However, this was not substantiated, and so may be dismissed." - Con


The ontological argument is designed to prove that there must be a maximally great and necessary being who exists in the actual world. This maximally great being matches perfectly with the definition of God in most scriptures of Sikhism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc. Moreover, this is a violation of the rules since Con agreed to the definition that God is a necessary being.

R3) Kalam

On inductive reasoning and the universe obeying its own laws

Con's argument that the universe does not have to obey its own laws since it is on the macroscopic level is an unevidenced bare assertion. Firstly, science presupposes the uniformity of nature and that the laws apply equally to everything and everywhere. If Con could provide some evidence to this he would not only win this debate, he would disprove science in its entirety. Secondly, this is false because we can apply our inductive reasoning and physical laws to both the parts and the whole and that's the whole goal of inductive reasoning. For example, scientists can take the physical laws such as the increase of entropy in a closed system overtime from the parts (closed systems within the universe) and apply that to the entire universe (heat death of the universe).


On quantum mechanics

Whoever uses this defense is either misinformed or frankly an intellectually dishonest person. This idea that something can just pop into existence from nothing and by nothing stems from Krauss' book "a universe from nothing". What the layman does not understand is that by nothing, Krauss actually means quantum vacuum energy. Quantum vacuum energy is NOT nothing, it is a sea of fluctuating energy that produces virtual particles as a result of those fluctuations. [3] Even worse, this vacuum fluctuating energy sea is goverened by physical laws and has a physical structure that can literally be observed. Krauss literally had to pull his book out of the shelves and sneak in the chapters "How you can get a universe from almost nothing." because his book and his ideas got humiliated within the scientific world. Nothing can pop into existence without a cause Con, There ain't no free lunch.

On Cyclical universes

1) Disproven by the BGV theorem.

This notion and mere speculation that the universe could go into an infinite and unending cycle has been disproven by experimental findings and theorems such as BGV theorem. The BGV theorem' conclusion is that the universe must have a definite space-time beginning and the results also extends to the quantum intepretation. [4] Alex Vilenkin has explictly that any universe which is in a cycle of big bang and big crunches is too unstable to even exist. [5]

2) Infinite regress

If the universe is past-eternal and has been going on for a past eternity trying on new faces violates multiple philosophical principles, but notably infninte regress. If the universe is past-eternal, it would have to go through an INFINITE past sequence of events (A theory) or experience an infinity of equally real events (B theory). However, if the universe has been experiencing an infinity of events such as a past infinity of big bangs and big crunches, it would never get to this big bang since it would literally be STUCK IN INFINITY of big bangs and big crunches and would literally take forever to get to this big bang i.e. would never get to this big bang. But it did get to this big bang as evidenced by the CMBR, redshift of galaxies, etc.

R4) Miscellaneous

Boulder

He would be able to create a boulder bigger than the disputed one but he would still be able to lift it since he is by nature omnipotent. Why does he have to be unable to lift it.

Knoweldge

Your argument is begging the question. You are presupposing God knows everything (omniscience) but he can not know how it feels like to know new things so he is not omniscient. I have no interest discussing such childness and tangents.

Omnipresence

Same as knowledge.

QueenDaisy

Con

On God's necessity:

Imagine we were discussing the existence of dragons, and I were to define "dragon" as any creature with wings and scales that is capable of breathing fire. After this, my job in the debate would be to demonstrate the existence a creature which has wings and scales and can breathe fire. What I would not be able to do, however, would be to point to a creature which has wings and scales, and from my definition of "dragon" assume that the creature must be able to breathe fire, and therefore that it is a dragon. This is a circular reasoning fallacy.
By the same token, Pro may not define "God" as necessary, uncaused and so on and then assume that any given thing being discussed must have said properties, and therefore that it is God (and that therefore God exists).

What we really mean by a definition is that *if* dragons exist, then they have scales, wings, and can breathe fire. We cannot use this to demonstrate the existence of dragons. Rather, we use this to know if any given thing we have demonstrated the existence of is a dragon. Pro must *demonstrate* that some entity which exists has the property of necessity (and the other properties listed) and then we may conclude that God exists.

On the relations between constants:

A number of physical constants have been shown to be related. See the relation I described in R3, backed up by source 9. One would not intuitively expect the speed of light to have anything to do with the permeability of free space, but it does. There are countless other cases of this in physics and so the evidence suggests it may be very likely that all the physical constants are related. If not, we can say with certainty that at least a large number of them are, and that reduces the supposedly overwhelming unlikelihood of a universe that is hospitable to life.
The unlikelihood of the universe being hospitable to life is a problem that is more readily explained by linked constants than by an omnimaximal deity- the former is far more likely (as it is far more simple) than the latter, unless evidence is presented to the contrary.

On the multiverse:

Occam's razor considers not only the *number* of things required for an explanation, but also the *complexity* of them. What would you be more surprised to see when visiting the beach: a million grains of sand, or a dragon? The dragon is less likely because it is complex. Likewise, if a God exists, it must be infinitely more complex than a multiverse, and so is much less likely than a multiverse.
"Who created them?" is quite obviously begging the question.

On infinite regresses:

Pro has neglected the fact that an infinite number of events can happen in a finite amount of time. Consider the sum:

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 and so on, with each number being half of the previous one.

The answer is 2. You can add an infinite number of things in a finite amount of time. Imagine the numbers represent the height a ball reaches after bouncing: the ball bounces an infinite number of times in a finite amount of time. Infinite regresses can and do happen. [See source 21 "counting past infinity" and 22 "supertasks" for more on this.]

On Ontological:

None of my contradictions have been debunked- it doesn't matter what God wants to do- can he create a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it? Whatever your answer, God is not omnipotent (as he either cannot create the boulder or he cannot lift the boulder).
This is proving the claim "Omnimaximality cannot exist" through a mathematical proof by contradiction [source 23:24]. We assume an omnimaximal being could exist, and show that this would negate itself (omnipotence is self-inconsistent, and is inconsistent with omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence, as argued above).

The "great making properties" and "lesser making properties" provided by Pro is completely arbitrary. What makes good greater than evil? What makes necessity greater than contingency?

The hamster analogy is meant to highlight the absurdity of the ontological argument. The "maximally greatness" is irrelevant to the analogy. God is arbitrarily declared as maximally great just as the hamster is arbitrarily declared as maximally nice, and then the property of existence and being alive are arbitrarily declared to be greater or nicer than the alternatives, and from this we deduce that God must exist and the hamster must be immortal. The reasoning is the same: two arbitrary premises result in a nonsensical conclusion.

"The ontological argument is designed to prove that there must be a maximally great and necessary being who exists in the actual world."

It has failed to do so. Rather, it has demonstrated that *if* there exists a maximally great being, that maximally great being must exist. At best, it has gotten nowhere.

Kalam:

"Con's argument that the universe does not have to obey its own laws since it is on the macroscopic level is an unevidenced bare assertion. "

The evidence is in sources 16:19. Read them if you want evidence.

"Secondly, this is false because we can apply our inductive reasoning and physical laws to both the parts and the whole"

The entire point here is that inductive reasoning has its limits.

"Nothing can pop into existence without a cause Con"

Things can and do, all the time. You keep mentioning "quantum vacuum energy", but you clearly have no idea what it means. A quantum vacuum is what remains if you remove absolutely everything from an area of space- there is no matter and no energy. "Quantum vacuum energy" is misleading, because it sounds like it means quantum vacuums have energy. They don't. Really, quantum vacuum energy is the observation that small amounts of energy can spontaneously emerge in a vacuum for a short while [See sources 25:27], without cause. They happen simply because they are allowed to happen by Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.

BGV theorem:

Please elaborate. What is BGV theorem? How does it prove that cyclical universes can't exist?

As promised, I'll now respond to Pro's first paragraph in R3:

"Evil whether climate change, starvation in africa, etc. are all the results of man-made choices"

This is not true. Malaria, cancer, earthquakes, many terrible things happen that are not mankind's fault.

"The less common source of evil like natural evil such as hurricanes, lightnings, etc. is used by God to test the faith and the strength of the belief of the people who are undergoing this crisis. Things like diseases, volcanoes etc. are used by God to test the patience, love and faith of his test subjects to him."

Then he is neither omniscient nor omnibenevolent. The point in testing something is to gain knowledge about it- I test the car I designed to confirm that it works. I analyse a sample of rock to learn what its chemical composition is. If God is omniscient, he has absolutely no need to test us- he already knows the result of the test.
Likewise, he is not omnibenevolent- if he is willing to have someone tortured by malaria, famine, or a tsunami to "test" their love for him, then he is malicious.

The idea of free will is completely incompatible with the existence of an omnimaximal being, too:

Imagine I were to throw a rock at someone, and it hits them in the head, and they die. The rock is not to blame, because it had no control over what happened- everything about its trajectory, its velocity and so on was determined by me.

Now imagine I were to create and program a robot, and the robot were to kill someone. Once again, the robot is not to blame- I am. I programmed it in such a way that it would kill.

If God created us, he is responsible for everything about us. He decided how tall we are, our eye colour, and our personality traits. When he created us, he knew exactly how we would behave (due to his omniscience) and could have chosen to create us in a way which gave us any trait he desired or removed any other trait he desired (due to his omnipotence).
This makes us no different from the robot- the results of our actions was determined by someone else before we even existed. We cannot have free will if we have a God. You cannot blame mankind for the existence of evil.

So, to summarise my case thus far:
1) The apparent fine-tuning of the universe is more plausibly explained by relationships between constants or by multiverses or a cyclical universe than by God.
2) The ontological argument takes nonsensical and arbitrary premises, and produces more of the same.
3) The Kalam argument mistakenly tries to apply macroscopic, classical causality to the origins of the universe, which needn't obey it.
4) If you can't follow 3), cyclical universes are also a plausible mechanism of how a universe can exist without violating macroscopic, classical causality.
5) An omnibenevolent, omnipotent being is not compatible with the bad things we see in the world. These bad things cannot be explained by God testing us (as an omniscient being would have no need to test us, and an omnibenevolent being would not test us in this way), and nor can it be explained by free will, as if God exists, we cannot have free will.
6) Omnimaximality is internally inconsistent- omnipotence negates itself and pretty much everything else.
7) Given the absence of any compelling reason to believe that a God does exist, you should side with the agnostic atheist case- we do not believe in a God, but in principle cannot be 100% certain.

Sources:
[21]: https://www.youtube.com...
[22]: https://www.youtube.com...
[23]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[24]: https://www.youtube.com...
[25]: http://scienceblogs.com...
[26]: http://www.collective-evolution.com...
[27]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Moelogy

Pro

R1) Fine tuning

On God's necessity

Con attempts to work around the definitions provided. They violated rule 3 since Con agreed that the definition of God is necessary and therefore it is a violation of rules that Con is attempting to change this definition. If you do not like the definition, you should not have accepted the debate. Furthermore, Con provides a ridicolous analogy to a dragon. The argument has no substance. A dragon is a contingent being beyond a shadow of doubt due to the fact that it is contingent on the intercourse of its parents (law of biogenesis) which entails an external explanation and contingency. Furthermore, The dragon is not necessary and is not eternal since it came into existence at a definite point in the past (birth).


On the interdependency of constants

Con provides one example then clinges on to it to the whole debate then somehow reasons that a large amount of constants thus are interdependent. The constants of this universe are determined by their own euations. Most of these are determined by simple equations that do not include any other constants. For example, Boltzmann constant, Planck's constant, Gravitational constant, Hubble's constant, etc. Most literally have no relation with others and can even not exist without affecting others[1] The only ones that do is Con's example, Gravitational coupling constant and to a smaller extent, the cosmological constant. Some of the examples of fine tuning are not even constants but rather situations like the probability that intial universe would have been in a low entropy state which is 1 in 10^10^123. [2] To demonstrate how unlikely that is, it is like blindfolding a man and putting him in a room with a 103 TRILLION coins but taking one coin and painting it red .., The possibility of the blindfolded man pulling out the red coin out of all those trillions is the same as the universe having an intial state of low entropy. That is only ONE example. Multiply those by unlikely odds of other situations by the other unlikely constants and you will understand why the universe coming by chance hypothesis is laughable.

Multiverse

Again Con is being dishonest and redefines occam's razor. Occam's razor says word-for-word "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". One designer entity is simpler and more likely than infinite unaccounted-for unnecessary entities (universes within a multiverse). Con also says that is begging the question to ask who created the infinitude of universes in the multiverse. However, according to the principle of sufficient reason, everything has an explanation whether in its necessity (God, numbers, shapes) or in its contingency (multiverse, this universe, Con, zebras). The multiverse is changeable (new universes like our own is born, some recollapse) and it is not eternal (since new universes are born) thus the multiverse needs an external explanation. Moreover, what created the complex entity that supposedly shoots out universes? Is that entity necessary like God or is that necessary contingent and requires an external explanation in a necessary being like God? Who fine-tuned the constants of those universes to even allow them to exist? Who fine tuned their cosmological constant and their gravitational constant to even allow them to exist? If the machine or complex entity hvs been shooting out universes for a past-eternity, does it not suffer from infinite regress too? Multiverse creates more questions than answers which is against Occam's razor.

Cyclical universes

Con conceeded this point.

On infinite regress.

Con confuses infinite sets with converging infinities. The example that Con provided is a convereging infinity that does last forever and therefore does take an infinite amount of time. [3] The answer is actually not exactly 2 (it is rounded to 2). It is dependent on when the mathematician decides to stop in the series (since the series is infinite with no end, you can go all the way to 1/99999..).



R2) Ontological

On the first premise

Con notes that none of his contradictions have been debunked which is obviously not the case. He reuses the already refuted the omnipotence paradox. I have already noted multiple times. God has infinite power. He can create a boulder as heavy as infinity and he would still be able to lift it. He has infinite power to do what he wants. The uestion is designed to be logically incoherent. THe uestion presumes that God is omnipotent (can build a boulder so heavy) and he is not omnipotent at the same time (he can not lift it). The question in itself is a contradiction and makes no sense. Its like asking can God toad a 9, all of these are desperate non-sensical questions. Con has dropped the other supposed contradictions when he realized they do not make sense.


On the third premise and the making properties

The properties provided in the links are well-accepted within philosophical academia. You would have to debunk 5,000 years of philosophy first. However, good is greater than evil since evil creates destruction and corruption and because good creates prosperity. Necessity is greater than contingency because it is better to have absolute and authoritative existence that is not limited by anything (necessity) rather than to be limited or determined by outside greater factors or explanations (contingency). It is better if you are the greater being rather than to have someone or something else greater than you dictate whether or not you are even allowed to exist.


On Con's childish hamster analogy

Con seems to have skipped over my rebuttal. God is maximally great and the hamster is not maximally great since it is contingent. The agreed upon definition declares that God is omnimaximal and thus maximally great. If Con had problems with the definitions, he can not sneak them in at the end of the debate. Con should have not accepted the debate if they did not like the definition. The ontological argument is designed to prove that MGB exists whether you wanna call it hamster or God.


R3) Kalam

On inductive reasoning and the universe obeying its own laws

Con states that inductive reasoning has its limits but I have demonstrated that inductive reasoning applies to the parts (closed systems within the universe) and to the whole (the heat death of the universe). Con just seems to say that it has its limits but does not refute the evidence.


On quantum mechanics

Here Con demonstrates that they are SO ignorant on the subject of quantum mechanics. Con does not even read his own source which explictly says that "quantum fluctuations are the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space". THey are energy within space. Con is right that vacuum is what you get after removing all of matter, energy, radiation, particles, photons from space but what they found is that there is a background energy that they can not remove called uatum vacuum energy and it actually weighs something after removing all possible matter and energy. This background vacuum energy fluctuates and produces virtual particles. Fluctuating energy producing virtual particles is not nothing, Con. Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe [4]. This is a catch 22. You are using something within the universe to account for the origin of the universe. This energy is what fluctuates and not nothing. Again, I do not blame Con. They might be just misinformed or oblivious about this. If something from nothing would have happened, why did it only happen fourteen billion years ago, why not 5 minutes ago? I mean it is NO THING so there is nothing that is holding it back.

Cyclical universes

Con conceedes.

BGV theorem

BGV theorem is a theorem conducted by physicists Borde, Guth and Vilenkin which proves that cyclical universes are way too unstable to even exist and they are impossible to exist because once maximum entropy has been reached (which leads to big crunch, there is no reverse so no new big bangs and thus, can not account for fine tuning since they do not exist. It proves that this universe must have had a definite space-time beginning, even within a multiverse. Read the links provided in the previous rounds.

R4) Miscellaneous

Evil

Con says that most disasters are natural but I have already refuted that in my previous rounds by saying that God is testing the faith and patience of the victims. actually, alot of natural disasters are mankind's fault, for example, Earthquakes are caused by fracking. Con presupposes that since God is testing us that he is gaining knowledge and thus is not omniscient. The point of the test is to benefit the test-taker and not the test-maker. For example, what benefit does your teacher have when she makes a test .. nothing. You are the one who learns. In this case, the test-takers generally gain a greater strength in their patience and faith and personal experience with God. Con presupposes that if God created us then he is responsible for our faults. I ask them if their parents would go to jail if they commited a felony because their parents created them and is thus responsible.

Conclusion

The contingency argument goes unchallenged, Con provides feeble rebuttals which have been disproven over and over and half-defends my rebuttals (they only defend my rebuttals on the problem of evil and conceedes his/her other arguments).

Infinite regress rebuttal has not been disproven.

1- Occam's razor and infinite regress and accounting for fine tuning and origin of infiniy of universes refute multiverse and there are only 3 examples of interdependency
2- agreed definition of necessary and "great-making properties" are fullest extent to MGB
3- Heat death of the universe (inductive applies to the whole as well) + the evidence provided for P1 are metaphysical principles, not physical nor natural
4- BGV theorem and infinite regress and Occam's razor
5- Free will because if God controlled the outcomes of the test then there is no point
6- God can do whatever he wants but what he wants is determined by his nature. He can make a boulder as heavy as infinity but he would still be able to lift it
7- If you are not certain, then God is possible proving P1 in Ontological
QueenDaisy

Con

On God's necessity:

I agreed that *if* a God exists, it must have the property of "necessity". I did not agree that there exists some entity with said property. My (first) dragon analogy is meant to demonstrate this- we can agree that if any dragons exist, they must have scales and wings and be able to breathe fire without agreeing that such an entity actually exists.
To then use the definition to fill in the gaps and assume that any entity is a God or a dragon is clearly fallacious. That is the point of my analogy, and I feel Pro has wilfully misinterpreted that.

On constant interdependence:

There are plenty more examples of physical constants being related. For instance, sources 28 & 29 show the links between Hubble's constant, the cosmological constant, and as the latter is dependent on the gravitational constant, that, too.
I have never argued that it is conclusively proven that all the fundamental constants are related. I have, however, argued that it is undeniable that many of them are, and that it seems likely that they all are- far more likely than an omnimaximal being.

(Just a side note: Pro's numbers are laughably wrong. 10^10^123 is not even close to 103 trillion).

On multiverses:

As per my sand vs. dragons analogy, Occam's razor does not consider only the number of entities, but the complexity of them too. Another phrasing of Occam's razor is:

"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is."

[See source 30]

The existence of a God requires far more numerous and far more complicated assumptions than the existence of a multiverse, as God is far more complex than a multiverse- it would have to be, to have a property as incredible as omnipotence or omnibenevolence.

The rest of Pro's commentary on the multiverse was more question begging, and I needn't address something so clearly fallacious.

The multiverse hypothesis was invoked to explain the "fine-tuning" argument. It is no more susceptible to the Kalam argument than a single universe, and the ontological argument remains nonsensical in either case. It has not multiplied the problems as Pro asserts- it has solved one of them.

Cyclical universes:

I did not concede on this point. See, for instance, point 1) in my "summary of my case" in R4.

On infinite regress:

It would take a human infinitely long to compute the sum manually- adding one to a half to a quarter and so on. It does not, however, take infinitely long for an infinite number of events taking the corresponding amount of time to take place. For instance, if you had an infinitely long "to do list" and you did the first task in 1 second, the second task in 1/2 a second, the third task in a quarter of a second and so on, you would have taken 2 seconds to complete the list, despite having an infinite amount of tasks to do.
Now, logistically you couldn't move fast enough to do this, but that's not the point I'm making- the point is that it does not take an infinite amount of time for an infinite number of things to happen- that the big bang could still happen despite an infinite number of things happening before it.

Ontological:

Pro has *still* not even tried to answer the question of whether God could create a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it. The closest they came was that God could life a boulder "as heavy as infinity"- the implication being that God can lift any boulder that could conceivably exist. If so, then God cannot create a boulder that is so heavy he cannot lift it. As such, there is something God cannot do, and he is not omnipotent.

I dropped the other contradictions because I hadn't the characters to repeat them all, and nor do I have the space now. Go back to my first arguments and read the other questions I pose: These all prove that an omnimaximal being cannot exist using a mathematical proof by contradiction.

"The properties provided in the links are well-accepted within philosophical academia."

This is a bandwagon fallacy- the "great making properties" and "lesser making properties" are still completely arbitrary and meaningless, despite how "well-accepted" Pro asserts they are.

On the hamster analogy:

This analogy uses "maximally nice" as analogous to "maximally great" in order to highlight the fallacious nature of arbitrarily declaring something (God/hamster) to be maximal, arbitrarily declaring some particular state (existence/being alive) to be more maximal than its alternatives, and to therefore deduce that the former entity must have the latter property.
The ontological argument for the existence of God is as nonsensical as my ontological argument for the existence of immortal hamsters.

Inductive reasoning:

"Con just seems to say that it has its limits but does not refute the evidence."

Evidence? What evidence? I have provided evidence that classical, macroscopic causality, and therefore out inductive understanding of the universe, have their limits (See sources 16:19). Unless I've missed something, Pro has not provided evidence to the contrary.

Quantum mechanics:

I have a physics degree. I'd assume that Pro does not. As much as I hate arguments from authority, I can't see what else can settle this here- who does it seem more likely has the correct understanding of quantum mechanics?
Yes, quantum fluctuations are a temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, but if they happen in a quantum vacuum, they are a temporary increase from zero to a non-zero value.
A quantum vacuum (the closest to "Nothing" which can be demonstrated to exist) produces energy which produces particles. That is something coming from "nothing".

"If something from nothing would have happened, why did it only happen fourteen billion years ago, why not 5 minutes ago? "

It does happen, all the time. That's what vacuum fluctuations are. As for why a universe hasn't spontaneously emerged, perhaps one has- hence the multiverse hypothesis.

(Since Pro put this twice) Cyclical universes:

Once again, I should point out that I did not concede.

BGV theorem:

Pro has not thoroughly argued BGV theorem, and is effectively just asserting it as far as this debate is concerned. As it was not presented with evidence, or such evidence was not explained, I may dismiss it without evidence, in accordance with Hitchens' razor.
I would also like to add that BGV theorem has many limitations, including that it assumes the universe is a closed system (it may be the case that it is not) and it relies on the second law of thermodynamics. The thermodynamic second law is a *probabilistic* statement (see source 31) that entropy is extremely unlikely to spontaneously decrease over time. However, given enough time, extremely unlikely phenomena will occur- by analogy, if you toss a coin enough times, eventually you get a million "heads" in a row.

On evil:

"Con says that most disasters are natural but I have already refuted that in my previous rounds by saying that God is testing the faith and patience of the victims"

An omniscient being would have no need to test us (as it would know the results of the test without performing it) and would not want to test us in ways as brutal as cancer or malaria.

"for example, Earthquakes are caused by fracking. "

Fracking can cause earthquakes. Most earthquakes are not caused by fracking.

"Con presupposes that if God created us then he is responsible for our faults. I ask them if their parents would go to jail if they commited a felony because their parents created them and is thus responsible."

My parents may be responsible for my existence, but they were not in control of what genes I got, nor were they entirely in control of my environment. They are not omniscient so couldn't know I would commit a felony, and so they are not responsible. God, however, is all of these things. As such, if God exists, free will cannot. Blaming the existence of evil on man's free will, then, is nonsense.

My case is as before:
1) The apparent fine-tuning of the universe is more plausibly explained by relationships between constants or by multiverses or a cyclical universe than by God.
2) The ontological argument takes nonsensical and arbitrary premises, and produces more of the same.
3) The Kalam argument mistakenly tries to apply macroscopic, classical causality to the origins of the universe, which needn't obey it.
4) If you can't follow 3), cyclical universes are also a plausible mechanism of how a universe can exist without violating macroscopic, classical causality.
5) An omnibenevolent, omnipotent being is not compatible with the bad things we see in the world. These bad things cannot be explained by God testing us (as an omniscient being would have no need to test us, and an omnibenevolent being would not test us in this way), and nor can it be explained by free will, as if God exists, we cannot have free will.
6) Omnimaximality is internally inconsistent- omnipotence negates itself and pretty much everything else.
7) Given the absence of any compelling reason to believe that a God does exist, you should side with the agnostic atheist case- we do not believe in a God, but in principle cannot be 100% certain.

Sources:
[28]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[29]: https://www.google.co.uk...:
[30]: https://www.google.co.uk...
[31]: http://umdberg.pbworks.com...
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by smurfy101 11 months ago
smurfy101
I know it's wrong. But every criticism could also be applied to the ontological argument for God.
Posted by Moelogy 11 months ago
Moelogy
"Therefore, it is **logically necessary** that a Worst Possible Argument exists, from which all other bad arguments derive their wrongness. "

This is false. The worst possible argument would by definition mean that there is a spectrum where at the other side of the spectrum would be the best possible argument. Plus, it is a bare assertion that the worst possible argument would have to influence all other arguments and make them bad as well.

"Since an argument which asserts the existence of an infinite necessary being is necessarily of a greater magnitude than one which asserts anything finite or contingent, and therefore more wrong if it is unsound, the Worst Possible Argument must be a logical argument for the existence of God."

Why would it be more wrong if unsound. You can not be "more" wrong.
Posted by smurfy101 11 months ago
smurfy101
I found a fun rebuttal to the ontological argument on reddit:

Given that Arguments vary in soundness, we can say that some arguments are more or less sound than others.

If some arguments are less sound than others, then there must exist an argument which is less sound than any others, the Worst Possible Argument.

Therefore, it is **logically necessary** that a Worst Possible Argument exists, from which all other bad arguments derive their wrongness.

Since an argument which asserts the existence of an infinite necessary being is necessarily of a greater magnitude than one which asserts anything finite or contingent, and therefore more wrong if it is unsound, the Worst Possible Argument must be a logical argument for the existence of God.

Therefore, the conclusion of the Worst Possible Argument is "Therefore, God Exists".

While it is possible for an unsound argument to accidentally have a correct conclusion, an argument which has an incorrect conclusion is more wrong than an argument which has a correct conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion of the Worst Possible Argument must be incorrect.

Therefore, God does not exist.

This is obviously full of errors, but every single one of them is also in the original ontological argument.
Posted by canis 11 months ago
canis
My mother can not swimm. Some "XZY" can probably not swimm. So my mother must be a/an/some "XZY"..Call that an argument ...
Posted by canis 11 months ago
canis
It not an argument in the first place..
Posted by Moelogy 11 months ago
Moelogy
Con could not even respond to the cosmological argument.
Posted by Moelogy 11 months ago
Moelogy
Con, your final rebuttal was awful. I will respond to them briefly.

"God's necessity"

You have agreed to the definition at hand. But then in one of the rounds, you said why does God have to be necessary? This is obviously dishonest.

"Constant interdepndecny"

Even if this is true. It does not account for fine tuning but merely brings down the scope of fine tuning a little bit. This interdependency is literally only based on 3 constants. Moreover, you did not account for situations like the initial low entropy state of the universe.

"Multiverse and occam's razor"

The multiverse is just as complex as God. Whatever entity is shooting out those universes would have to be very very complex not to mention the infinite complexity of the infinite universes.

"Infinite regress"

For the billionth time. convergent series take forever to happen, they would literally take an eternity because you could go all the way up to the task taking 1/999999... So you would never finish and end the series (no temporal end) because it would take forever. Where did she get the 2 from?

"Heavy boulder"

ffs. There is no too heavy for him. If he can create a boulder that heavy, why can't he lift it?

"evidence of macroscopic causality"

heat death of the universe derived from the second law of thermodynamics.

"BGV theorem"

I doubt con has a physics degree when they do not even know what this is.

"stupid hamster analogy"

Sure. If you have somehow redefined maximally nice and have proven that it is nicer to be alive than dead and redefined the word hamster and have demonstrated that this is ad hoc and have proven that your hamster is necessary and therefore nice in all possible worlds then he would be alive in this world. But your hamster is not necessary and is contingent on his parents.
No votes have been placed for this debate.