The Instigator
JGHOSTBOY
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
IslamAhmadiyya
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God is unlikely to exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
JGHOSTBOY
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,224 times Debate No: 36471
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

JGHOSTBOY

Pro

First Round is acceptance only

I SUPPORT the topic.


Relevant Definitions:
1. God: noun A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

2. Exist: intransitive verb Have objective reality or being.
3. Unlikely: adjective Not likely to happen, be done, or be true; improbable.
4. Evidence: noun The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
5. Logic: noun Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Debate Specifications:
This debate is attempting to solidify the probability or improbability of God's existence, contingent on a logical argument advocated by substantial evidence. For that reason, it would be preferable for CON to be an actual believer of a monotheistic religion in order to eliminate the use of semantic ploy and distinguish our arguments with unique perspectives (atheist vs. theist). The Burden of Proof will be on CON, as he is attempting to negate the topic; if the BOP shifts, I will further advocate my argument. I wish my opponent luck and hope for an enjoyable debate.
IslamAhmadiyya

Con

Salam
That means peace in Arabic.

I accept this debate, and wish you good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
JGHOSTBOY

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, I look forward to an intriguing and intellectual experience.

Argument Exposition:
The foundation of my argument coincides with the popular atheist notion that there is no substantial evidence to advocate any characteristics, the existence, or the presence of a God. This contention will be further elucidated by various assessments that both support this case and attack those presented by CON. The Burden of Proof is on CON to scientifically prove the likelihood of God’s existence using logic and substantial evidence that follow the criteria of scientific theory.


For a theory to be considered scientific, it is expected to be: (1)
1. Consistent (internally and externally)

2. Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities, explanations)
3. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
4. Empirically testable and falsifiable
5. Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
6. Correctable and dynamic (changes are made with new data)
7. Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have done and more)
8. Tentative (admits that it might not be correct, does not assert certainty)

Arguments:

Religion is man-made

The Bible, Tanakh, and the Al-Qur’an are all man-made scriptures manifesting artificial qualities and characteristics of a God whose existence is dependent solely on faith. God’s attributes were appointed by men whose perspective was void of scientific knowledge, resulting purely in an unsubstantiated conjecture that was appropriate for the time period. The fact that religion’s foundation is synthetic and scientifically unjustified further protests the validity of God’s existence, and almost guarantees its artifice. Faith was the only method of establishment during this primitive and rudimentary era.


However, there is still no objectified explanation for why humans would embrace a concept that has no evidence supporting its validity. In an article he published in the L.A. Times, J. Anderson Thompson, M.D., suggested:

For example, we are born with a powerful need for attachment, identified as long ago as the 1940s by psychiatrist John Bowlby and expanded on by psychologist Mary Ainsworth. Individual survival was enhanced by protectors, beginning with our mothers. Attachment is reinforced physiologically through brain chemistry, and we evolved and retain neural networks completely dedicated to it. We easily expand that inborn need for protectors to authority figures of any sort, including religious leaders and, more saliently, gods. God becomes a super parent, able to protect us and care for us even when our more corporeal support systems disappear, through death or distance.” (2)

God is only an object of psychological attachment, a figure of our imagination that provides emotional security in times of need. Both God and religion are consequences of neural psychology and composition; elements of cognitive belief that enable humans to work effectively in small groups and restrain human instinct. Belief in God is a form of mental self-preservation for those who are indoctrinated by a religious childhood or religious influence. God exists only in our minds.

God is a psychological mechanism that acts as an object of attachment and psychological self-preservation; it exists only mentally, not physically or metaphysically.

Evolution surpasses Intelligent Design

Biological evolution and abiogenesis are two scientifically reinforced theories that respectably predict how life may have begun and how a species develops over time. Intelligent Design, however, is a religious assertion that all life was created by an Intelligent Being, such as God. Not only does this unjustified belief defy methodological naturalism, it fails to follow procedures of scientific discourse. Because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and attempts to relate the origin of life and natural history with scientifically unverified supernatural causes, Intelligent Design can only be considered a pseudoscience, and is not in any way substantial evidence for the existence of God, nor is it a reputable scientific theory.

Biological Evolution: The change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations (3).
Abiogenesis: A natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds (4).

These two scientific disciplines are the most consistent, effective, and empirically testable theories concerning the origin and development of life, unlike Intelligent Design. Although no theory or belief, despite scientific justification, can be truly disproved, Intelligent Design is the most unlikely of all theories.

Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific or logical argument for the existence of God.

The Omnibenevolent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent God does not exist

First and foremost, it is important to address the logical integrity of God’s “omnibenevolence.” All monotheistic religions credit God with being infinitely good, all-loving, and supreme, yet evil still exists within society. If God is omnibenevolent and omnipresent, evil should not exist whatsoever.

Evil is logically incompatible with God's attributes, thus God cannot be omnibenevolent.

However, a theist may argue the following:

1. An aspect of morality is observed.
2. Belief in God is a better explanation for this morality than any alternative.
3. Belief in God is thus preferable to disbelief in God.

I would argue that morality is relative to the society around it, and is thus not objective. It is impossible to distinguish between good and bad because each individual perception of it is unique. For example, one may believe that murder is bad, and another may think otherwise. Thus, all humans are both evil and moral, and the choices dependent on these traits are relative to one’s own free will, not the supposed omnibenevolence or omnipresence of God.

Morality is not universal, it is relative to individual perception; thus, God cannot be omnipresent.

Addressing God's "omniscience" with the use of empirical logic suggests:

1. God is omniscient.
2. God has a free will.
3. Entities with free will have non-determinate futures.
4. Omniscience entails foreknowledge.
5. If an entity knows the future, the future is not non-determinate.
6. From 3, 5: Hence, there are no omniscient epistemic agents who have free will.
7. Hence, God is not omniscient and/or God does not have free will.

An Omniscient God does not exist due to empirical logic and contradictory attributes.

The validity of God being “omnipotent” is not as susceptible to scientific scrutiny as it is to a logical paradox. The Omnipotence Paradox states: “If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.” (5). Thus, an Omnipotent entity cannot exist.

An Omnipotent God does not exist because it is paradoxical.

Creationism is scientifically unsupported

Creationists have a very opaque and naive understanding of natural selection, contesting that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of God, without strict scrutiny or acknowledgment of modern scientific disciplines and theories. My argument, “Evolution surpasses Intelligent Design,” has already established that natural selection is most likely responsible for the creation of life, but the question regarding the origin of the universe (and Earth as a result of the universe’s existence) is still open for discussion. The most common argument for theism is the “Cosmological Argument,” which states:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Thus, the universe had a cause.

Although sequentially these three points may be true, but the certainty of the third point is still debatable. “The Big Bang Theory” is the most prevalent astrological theory to date, but is commonly perceived to be paradoxical. If the Big Bang Theory caused the universe, what caused the Big Bang? According to modern scientific theory, the universe may have had an “uncaused cause.” For example, spontaneous quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (6). The foundation of this principle states:

ΔEΔt ≈ h/2π

Meaning, that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This scientifically reinforces the notion that “something can be created from nothing,” which could subsequently lead to the Big Bang.

Creationism fails to recognize modern scientific theory, which ultimately remonstrates any conception of God's involvement in the creation of the universe.

Another inconsistency in this “proof of God” is the committal of logical fallacy, known as “infinite regression.” If the universe had a first cause, what caused the first cause? Or, if God created everything what created God? If God is of purely metaphysical properties, then quantum fluctuations or any other scientific explanations do not apply to God.

The existence of God commits multiple logical fallacies, including infinite regression.

Conclusion

Bold and italicized statements are the points that CON has to refute in order to shift the Burden of Proof. I challenge CON to disprove these points with scientifically, empirically, and logically reinforced rebuttals.

Sources:

(1): http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2): http://articles.latimes.com...
(3): http://biology.about.com...
(4): http://en.wikipedia.org...
(5): http://www.princeton.edu...
(6): http://abyss.uoregon.edu...

IslamAhmadiyya

Con

I thank the Pro for his arguments, I'll first refute his arguments and then give him my own arguments to refute:

(1)Religion is man-made

(1.1)Yes, all of these religions created have been created by man, but all of these religions are based off the teachings of the messengers that were sent to this world by God. Many religions still follow teachings of the original messengers, but lots of omissions and additions can be found which were created by man.

The truth is that God did not create all these religions, mankind has created it. After the messengers have passed, their followers have changed the original teachings of the messengers and have developed new ones. The true belief of God can only be found when you study the original teachings of the messengers, and from that point on, you can come to the true understanding of the true religion, the true way one must follow God.

(1.2)The very first sentence of the words you have quoted by Thompson, "For example, we are born with a powerful need for attachment..."[1]

This is proof that God has created the human tendency to find and need God from the very natural development of man in the very beginning. The messengers were simply humans appointed by God to open the minds of their people to FIND God.

God did not create all these religions, mankind has, God has only sent down one message through the messengers. Humans are also born with a natural inclination to find God. The only way to connect with the metaphysical is through our mind (mental powers), and our spirit (spiritual powers). This does not mean the metaphysical cannot exist.

(2)Evolution surpasses Intelligent Design

(2.1)Since Pro has defined Evolution, I will define the first part of Intelligent Design for him.
'A proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.'

If you properly understand God, you can find that Evolution and Intelligent Design are not contradictory and that it makes sense that a mastermind was behind Biological Evolution, Abiogenesis, Natural Selection, Intelligent Design, Fine Tuning, and all of that. The clause that Evolution surpasses the theory of Intelligent Design does not destroy the fact that God can exist.

The concept of Evolution does not contradict the former part of Intelligent Design if God were to exist. It is reasonable to believe that there was a mastermind behind Evolution, one who guided the process of Evolution and transformed inorganic compounds to organic compounds and created life from something that wasn't living at first.

(3)The Omnibenevolent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent God does not exist

(3.1)I would like to quote Matt Slick from the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry.
"...we have to realize that when we want to define something like free will, knowledge, perfection, holiness, etc., we need to start with God as a standard and not man. When we start with a people as a standard of what is right and wrong, or what free will is, then we will probably end up in error."

(3.2)Omnibenevolence

(3.21)The evil that exists within society is not by God, but from man. But it is indeed true that evil still exists, whether it is by God or by man. But if we are comparing evil with God, we need to look at it from God's perspective. God CREATED death, disease, destruction, so these things are not evil for God, but evil for MAN. God could easily create a world where the natural tendency to murder is GOOD. But God has created all of these things and then from His messengers, commanded us to do with is right, and forbid what is evil, for US, not for HIM. This does not contradict with God's Omnibenevolence.

God remains Omnibenevolent despite what we humans consider as Evil within this world which is in essential a creation of God. God Himself dictates for mankind what is morally good and evil.

(3.3)Omnipresence and Morality

I am confused here, wondering what morality has to do with the Omnipresence of God. Yes, morality is different from person to person, society to society, that does not mean God's presence does not exist everywhere.

William L.C. makes a good argument about morality and duties.[2]

  • If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

  • Objective moral values and duties do exist.

  • Therefore, God exists.


(3.4)Omniscience & Free Will

The Pro has addressed God's omniscience using empirical logic.

This website here however has a short, yet simply decent reply to that.[3]

Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise.

(3.5)Omnipotency of God

The word 'Omnipotent' is sometimes misunderstood with All-Powerful/Raw Power.


Check this link out, short and simple answer.[4]

(4)Creationism is scientifically unsupported

(4.1)I have already explained earlier that Evolution and Natural Selection do not contradict with Intelligent Design and Creation, and I will go a little more in depth.

God is the Eternal Source behind the existence of this universe, He is the reason behind the Big Bang. Pro has brought up the Cosmological Argument and I believe that is a good argument for the existence of God that something cannot come from nothing.

God was the source of the Big Bang, God is the source of Natural Selection, God is the source of Intelligent Design, God is the source of Fine Tuning, God is the ultimate source of Evolution, God is the source of Creation.

If I may, I would like to compress ALL of these different elements and simply call it the 'Elements of God's Creation.'

These simple elements were used by God to create the universe and all the matter and energy within it, construct the universe, perfect the universe, and evolve this universe from one stage to another. If you look at it in this perspective, no contradiction exists. The contradictions only arise when one group, whether the religious folks or the Atheists deny actual facts and make up their own conclusions.

The reality of the matter is that both are both right and wrong.

I would reword the argument, creationism is not scientifically unsupported.[5]

Creationism fails to recognize modern scientific theory by their proponents and Evolutionism fails to recognize the intelligent source of its guidance by their proponents. Both Creation and Evolution were manifested by an eternal mastermind that created and perfected the universe in stages and are logical and rational proofs regarding the existence of a Creator.

(4.2)God is Eternal and was uncaused. God exists without a place, He was not created, He always existed. God created both time and space, therefore, He is not subject to it. Whatever God creates, He is not subject to it. God is boundless, timeless, spaceless. If God were not to exist, THEN the flaw of infinite regression would take place, as there would be an infinite number of events in the past and time would never reach here. God is the source that STOPS infinite regression.

If you understand God properly, there exists no logical fallacies, including infinite regression, among others.

---

I would like to now bring up my own arguments for God's likeable existence for my opponent to refute:

(5)The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
  • Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

  • If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

  • The universe exists.

  • Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

  • Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

In this argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion is unavoidable. The most supported explanation behind the existence of this universe is God. There are also other explanations, God remains the leading explanation and should add to the likeness of God's existence. That is how detectives work anyway, when multiple clues are all pointing towards the same general direction, they are victorious when they investigate in that general location and come to solid conlusions. Then later become firm in their investigation. This is what we must do to find God.

God is one of the explanations for the universe's existence.

(6)The Kalam Cosmological Argument
  • Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

  • The universe began to exist.

  • Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now we can come to many different conclusions regarding the cause of the universe. Yes, the Big Bang is one, and so is God, and there are others as well. The most reasonable explanation is that God caused the Big Bang to create the universe.

God could be one of the causes of the universe by causing the Big Bang.

(7)Moral argument for God's existence.

I mentioned this before and will present it as another likeable proof for God's existence.
  • If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

  • Objective moral values and duties do exist.

  • Therefore, God exists.

The moral laws of this world have to have come from somewhere. We humans KNOW in the back of our head that murder is wrong, lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong, etc. Many Atheists even follow the moral obligations found in religious scriptures! The reality is that the universe has somehow created this morals and evolved us humans to live by these morals. The most seemingly definite explanation regarding this is God.

The existence of morality is a likeable proof for God's existence.

(8)Scientific statements of the Qur'an

How is it possible that an illiterate man living in the desert had knowledge about science that we only know recently?

The scientific statements in the Qur'an are likeable proof for the existence of God, hence the time period of its revelation.

Sources:

[1] http://articles.latimes.com...
[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[3] http://www.comereason.org...
[4] http://www.hamzatzortzis.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
JGHOSTBOY

Pro

Thank you, CON, for creating a rebuttal against my arguments that honestly reflects your beliefs. However, your beliefs cannot be expressed as proof without substantial evidence.

Before I refute your arguments and provide additional ones, I would like to generally address your rebuttal:


This is an illogical rebuttal hinged solely on extremely unlikely assumptions drawn from no empirically testable or conclusive evidence, only common religious assertions that are dependent on one’s faith. FYI, faith is not the most reliable method of establishment, science and logic is. Instead of stating that “It is reasonable to believe...” or “Both Creation and Evolution were manifested by an eternal mastermind...” or “If you understand God properly, it makes sense...”, you should provide substantial evidence to support these unjustified claims. Semantic ploy is also not a strong argument against logic, e.g. “The word ‘Omnipotent’ is sometimes misunderstood with All-Powerful/Raw Power,” as it violates the prerequisites of this debate (R1). I challenge CON to provide indisputable evidence to support all of your claims.



Rebuttals:

CON
:
God is one of the explanations
for the universe's existence.

The Cosmological Argument from Contingency is susceptible to reductio ad absurdum of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Let p be the conjunction of all contingent truths. If p has an explanation, say q, then q will itself be a contingent truth, and hence a conjunct of p. But then q will end up explaining itself, which is absurd. This can be formulated precisely as follows:

11. No necessary proposition explains a contingent proposition.
12. No contingent proposition explains itself.
13. If a proposition explains a conjunction, it explains every conjunct.
14. A proposition q only explains a proposition p if q is true.
15. There is a Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact (BCCF) which is the conjunction of all true contingent propositions, perhaps with logical redundancies removed, and the BCCF is contingent.
16. Suppose the Principle of Sufficient Reason holds.
17. Then, the Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact has an explanation, q. (From 15 and 16)
18. The proposition q is not necessary. (From 11 and 15 and as the conjunction of true contingent propositions is contingent.)
19. Therefore, q is a contingent true proposition. (From 14 and 18.)
20. Thus, q is a conjunct in the BCCF. (From 15 and 19.)
21. Thus, q explains itself. (From 13, 15, 17, and 19)
22. But q does not explain itself. (From 12 and 19.)
23. Thus, q does and does not explain itself, which is absurd.
24. Hence, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is false.

Essentially, this rebuttal is logically proving that God as in explanation does not explain itself, thus the Principle of Sufficient Reason is invalid.

CON: God could be one of the causes of the universe by causing the Big Bang.

The Kalām Cosmological Argument is a logically sound argument that follows the modus ponens structure of contemporary logic. However, in order to avoid the conclusion of this argument, "The universe has a cause," either premise 1, 2, or the Conclusion has to be disproved or susceptible to reasonable doubt. Aforementioned in my argument, "Creationism is scientifically unsupported," the Conclusion is subject to inquiry.


To quote my original argument against the Kalām Cosmological Argument, something you chose to ignore:

"The Big Bang Theory is the most prevalent astrological theory to date, but is commonly perceived to be paradoxical. If the Big Bang Theory caused the universe, what caused the Big Bang? According to modern scientific theory, the universe may have had an “uncaused cause.” For example, spontaneous quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The foundation of this principle states:

ΔEΔt ≈ h/2π

Meaning, that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This scientifically reinforces the notion that “something can be created from nothing,” which could subsequently lead to the Big Bang."

You still have not refuted this argument, and you are choosing to ignore scientific evidence. Both the Leibniz and Kalām Cosmological Arguments are not valid in a debate exposed to contemporary science, and, unless you can provide indisputable scientific evidence that supports the likelihood of creationism opposed to Quantum Fluctuations, the argument is not substantial.


CON: The existence of morality is a likable proof for God's existence.

Again, you are ignoring my arguments regarding these subjects! I specifically addressed the Moral Argument in my first argument, and I quote:


"I would argue that morality is relative to the society around it, and is thus not objective. It is impossible to distinguish between good and bad because each individual perception of it is unique. For example, one may believe that murder is bad, and another may think otherwise. Thus, all humans are both evil and moral, and the choices dependent on these traits are relative to one’s own free will, not the supposed omnibenevolence or omnipresence of God."

Although humans may "know in the back of our head" that murder, lying, stealing, rape, etc. is wrong, it still occurs. Whether or not we "know" its wrong is irrelevant. The fact that both evil and morality exists in society means that morality is not objective or universal. Moral values are only relative to one's perception of morality, not something appointed by a supernatural being.

CON: The scientific statements in the Qur'ran are likable proof for the existence of God, hence the time period of its revelation.

As you have not provided any of these actual statements, I have nothing to refute...


Arguments:

Argument from Parsimony (using Occam's Razor)

1. The Principle of Parsimony, contending that entities should not be multiplied needlessly, articulates that the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.

2. Natural theories (non-supernatural) adequately explain the development of religion and beliefs in Gods.
3. Supernatural theories are superfluous to explaining already established scientific phenomenon.
4. Thus, supernatural theories further complicate a logically and scientifically verified theory.
5. From 1, 4: Hence, natural theories are the most likely theories.

Inductive "Praxeological" Argument

1. An omnipotent and omniscient entity would not be subject to needs, wants, or desires, as these concepts are contingently human.
2. Creating the universe would require incentive.
3. Incentive is a need, want, or desire.
4. The universe exist.
5. Thus, an Omnipotent entity does not exist.

Argument from Ordered Complexity

1. Ordered complexity requires an explanation.
2. God is a being of ordered complexity.
3. Thus, God requires an explanation.
4. God does not and could not have an explanation (e.g., the result of the evolutionary process or the work of a higher God)
5. Thus, God does not exist.

Argument from Emotional Incapability

1. Emotions have both physiological and cognitive components, making emotions dependent on the immediate environment (1).

2. If God is a supernatural or metaphysical entity, it is external from any environment.
3. Hence, God is unable to exhibit emotions such as love, goodness, mercy, etc.; God is emotionally incapable.
4. Without the ability to express emotion, God's authority has no purpose, relevance, or overall effect on humanity.
5. It is unlikely for God to exist without purpose.
6. Thus, it is unlikely for God to exist.

Sources:

(1): http://psychology.about.com...
IslamAhmadiyya

Con

IslamAhmadiyya forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JGHOSTBOY

Pro

I am assuming CON has either depleted his available time (three days) or CON has no logical arguments advocating the likelihood of God's existence that fulfill scientific criteria. Thus, the only option available at my expense is to utilize this opportunity to administer more robust arguments to further solidify the logistics of my contention.

Arguments:

The Aggregate of Qualities Argument

1. If God exists, God must necessarily possess all of several remarkable qualities (including supreme goodness, omnipotence, immortality, omniscience, ultimate creator, purpose giver).

2. Every one of these qualities may not exist in any one entity and if any such quality does exist it exists in few entities or in some cases (e.g. omnipotence, ultimate creator) in at most one entity.
3. Therefore, it is highly unlikely any entity would possess even one of these qualities.
4. There is an infinitesimal chance that any one entity (given the almost infinite number of entities in the Universe) might possess the combination of even some two of these qualities, let alone all of them.
5. In statistical analysis a merely hypothetical infinitesimal chance can in effect be treated as the no chance to which it approximates so very closely.
6. Therefore, as there is statistically such an infinitesimal chance of any entity possessing, as God would have to do, all God's essential qualities in combination it can be said for all practical and statistical purposes that God does not exist or is HIGHLY unlikely to exist.

The Man and God Comprehension Gulf Argument

1. Man is finite (in time, space, and power etc).

2. God, if he exists, is infinite (in time, space, and power etc).
3. Therefore, mankind cannot possibly recognize God or even know that God exists.

The 'God Has No Explanatory Value' Argument

1. God, if he exists, must be the ultimate being and provide the answer to all our ultimate questions - otherwise he is not really God.

2. Yet, even supposing as a hypothesis that God exists, the questions that God was supposed to finally answer still remain (though in some cases God is substituted in the question for the Universe).
3. Therefore, hypothesising God's existence is only superfluously adding an extra stage to such problems and has no real explanatory value.
4. Therefore, according to Logic (Principle of Parsimony - 'that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity') we should not postulate God's existence and there is no adequate reason to suppose that God exists.
5. Therefore, we should suppose that God does not exist.

The 'This Is Not The Best Possible World' Argument

1. God, if he exists, must be omnipotent, supremely good, and our ultimate creator.
2. Therefore, an existent God (being supremely good and competent) would have created the best possible world (if he created anything).
3. As the world is inconsistent (between ages and people) it cannot all be the best possible world.
4. Therefore, as the world is not the best possible world, God cannot exist.

The Universal Uncertainty Argument

1. An uncertain God is a contradiction in terms.

2. Everything in the Universe must be fundamentally uncertain about its own relationship to the Universe as a whole because there is no way of attaining such certainty.
3. Therefore, even an entity with all God's other qualities cannot have the final quality of certain knowledge concerning its own relationship to the Universe as a whole.
4. Therefore, God cannot exist because even any potential God cannot know for sure that it is God.

The 'Some Of God's Defining Qualities Cannot Exist' Argument

1. God must have certain characteristic qualities (such as providing purpose to life), otherwise he would not be God.

2. But it is impossible for any entity to possess some of these qualities (such as providing purpose to life since we can find no real purpose and therefore we in practice have no ultimate purpose to our lives) that are essential to God.
3. Therefore, since some of God's essential qualities (such as being the purpose provider to life) cannot possibly exist in any entity, God cannot exist.

I hope that CON can refute these, and my aforementioned arguments, logically and scientifically without forfeiting. Good luck.
IslamAhmadiyya

Con

IslamAhmadiyya forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JGHOSTBOY

Pro

It has come to my attention that IslamAhmadiyya cannot continue this debate. Thus, vote PRO.
IslamAhmadiyya

Con

IslamAhmadiyya forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
http://harunyahya.com...

check out this guy, he proved that evolution is a lie, Alhumdulillah
Posted by tahir123 3 years ago
tahir123
First of all the Quran is not man made, To this day no man has met its challenge and produced even a chapter like it,

Second of all Evolution is a lie, there have been so many hoaxes in evolution, such as the java man, lucy, and archeoraptor.

Third of all abiogenesis is a lie because we have yet to create life from nonlife

and finally objective morality exists and is incompatible with the atheist worldview,

If we are all going to die why does it matter if I kill someone? It is just rearranging atoms

Atheism is irrational.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 3 years ago
IslamAhmadiyya
Hello, I apologize for the delay of my time being here on DDO and the two forfeits, my internet was down for a while and recently came back up and on top of that, school has begun and I am afraid to say that I am busy now and cannot continue debating, hope you don't mind.

Maybe in the future I will have time, again, I sincerely apologize.

Salam
Peace
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
JGHOSTBOY,
thanks for the response.
When you say: "Let p be the conjunction of all contingent truths. If p has an explanation, say q, then q will itself be a contingent truth,"
How can it be that q is a contingent truth? At least as I understand contingent...?

As for the robust argument: I think you make a strong and coherent case in your first round. Your opponent responds. His arguments are reasonable arguments although they are articulated poorly in my opinion and not really defended at all. As for your arguments against the existence of God, they all commit the same basic fallacy. They are assuming a definition of "God" which is faulty to more sophisticated philosophers of religion and to the "classical theism" tradition as a whole. The problem is that your arguments hinge on "God" being basically the name of some personal being in a class of beings, rather than what is meant by classical theists by God is something a little more subtle but deeper than that. However, since your opponent fails to point this out, you are clearly "winning" the debate
Posted by JGHOSTBOY 3 years ago
JGHOSTBOY
Dmot,

I agree that CON's use of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is extremely weak for both your identified reason and the fact that CON has completely ignored and disregarded my comments on Quantum Fluctuation. It has been scientifically proven that the Law of the Conservation of Energy can be subtly violated, ergo energy can be created from the absence of energy.

Addressing your confusion regarding my refutation of the Leibniz Argument from Contingency:

The Principle of Sufficient Reason in the Leibniz Cosmological Argument from Contingency is: "Every contingent fact has an explanation." By proving that the explanation of all contingent truths explains and cannot explain itself, through reductio ad absurdum, the PSR becomes absurd and untenable. Basically, this argument is contesting that God as an explanation cannot explain itself; an untenable explanation cannot apply to a contingent fact.

I admit its a bit of a mind-bender, but it is a logically sound proof that utilizes a common form of logically-based argument, reductio ad absurdum, and is easily applicable to the Leibniz Cosmological Argument of Contingency.

Additionally, if you do not mind me asking, who do you believe has a more robust argument overall?
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
A few comments on this. Con, your use of the Kalam is very weak.

You say
"Now we can come to many different conclusions regarding the cause of the universe. Yes, the Big Bang is one, and so is God, and there are others as well. The most reasonable explanation is that God caused the Big Bang to create the universe."
I think that you need to provide reasons why God causing the universe is the best conclusion. Also, the big bang did not "create" the universe. It was more the first event in the universe. The debate isn't really between big bang and God...its a little more in depth than that.

Pro,
I do not understand your refutation of the principal of sufficient reason...could you explain?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
JGHOSTBOYIslamAhmadiyyaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. I think Con started out stronger than pro but missing the last few rounds severely weakened any chance he had of winning this.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
JGHOSTBOYIslamAhmadiyyaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I also support Islamahmadiyya's view, but he lost this debate due to his forfeiture, so my vote is a counter of glowing disco's vote.