God more likely than not can be proven
Debate Rounds (3)
i actually have been needing to perhaps come to grips with the idea that perhaps God could be proven. some one pointed out a pretty basic idea... the laws of thermodynamics.
i've always thought it cheap to say "well, as long as we can conclude more than likely an uncaused caused caused everything... even if that's just particles existing etc, a primordial soup, a ticking time bomb etc.. then God exists". to make it more meaningful.... you'd have to prove something beyond that, before that, etc, that the uncaused caused equals
but with the laws of thermodynaics, we realize that matter is constantly breaking down. (there are some who say the universe will go out with a bang, not a whimper, but the laws in any case say we break down to nothing). this means that if we did have this supposed bunch of stuff... it would have to have went back up and up in terms of energy levels, infinitely. in a sense, this is somewhat just another way of thinking about the infinite causal chain of objects (if God could just be, could'nt that?)... but given we know the big bang started out at a point and exploded to to speak, we're talking about not so much an infiinte pool table balls knocking each other, so to speak, but rather an infinitely rising mass of energy.
this is too counter to what we are familiar with in everyday life. sure, an uncaused cause is not directly analogous to a bike rolling etc as we don't see those everyday and so perhaps we sholdn't conclude it'd have to exist just because we see causes and effects.... but we can say it'd be more problem a cause based situation, even if it's an uncaused cause. based on laws we know, an infinite energy level is not part of anything we could say more than likely exists.... right? how could we have a chain of energy breaking down with a definite ending point, but not a definite starting point? wouldn't that be contradictory? the energy that was put into the system would then be finite, it ended, there's a certain amount of energy that was in the chain by virtue of the end.... yet if there was no beginning and an infinite amount of energy, it would have to have an infinte end, too, as there was an infinte amount of energy going into it.... which isn't what we observe, we observae an end that should be able to then be measuring total energy.
if God is the uncaused caused beyond trying to define that as being mass that could exist, and would have to be before that mass occurred... that suddenly become very significant.
i know some try to point to quantum level, and say that random ness does occur, which means existence could just be random per similiarities to our world. but to my understanding, random quirks occur from other random quirks, and only in mass, which has to occur to begin with. ie, i dont think you find quantum stuff in a vaccum. we'd have to assume quantum particles exploded into something... if we assumed there were quantum soups in the beginning and it is found in a vaccum. we dont see quantum stuff exploding into anything other than other quantum stuff, though, and from preexisting mass. it'd have to have been a unique event that we're unfamiliar with for it to be quantum soup into mass... but it's contrary to what we know so far. if it was mass first, that brings us to the macrolevel that we see in every day life and all that that entails as mentioned.
in a very real sense, though, our knowledge of trying to prove God, continues to become debateable as our knowledge of the cosmos exists, leaning about quantum stuff, etc.
so i'm not sure i see a way except to admit that the most basic idea of an uncaused cause, in a meaningful sense, beyond random partiles and randomness etc, makes sense. (as is all that was posited by most theologians anyway)
it is much like the proverbial cue stick hit the balls. that stick is by definition beyond time and space and our laws. it might not be "intelligent" as we like to think etc... but it's more than likely there by reason of this cause and effect world we live in.
1) Existence exists.
2) For God to exist He must transcend existence.
2.1) God by definition created everything.
2.2) Therefore God created existence.
2.3) Therefore God transcends existence.
3) Nothing can transcend existence.
4) Therefore God cannot exist.
Argument 2; Argument from lack of evidence.
1) There is no testable scientific evidence of God's existence.
2) If God existed there would be testable scientific evidence of Gods existence.
3) Therefore it is unlikely that God exists.
1) Every mind that exists must have a physical brain.
1.1) Every mind in our experience is produced by a brain.
2) God is a mind.
3) Therefore God must have a physical brain.
3) If God has a physical brain, then He must exist somewhere in the universe.
4) If God exists somewhere in the physical universe, then there should be testable scientific evidence of His existence.
5)There is no testable scientific evidence of God's existence.
6) Therefore God most likely does not exist.
1) All knowledge comes from the senses.
2) God by definition cannot be observed by the senses.
3) Therefore God can never be known to exist.
P.S. Hardly any serious philosopher takes these arguments seriously, but I want to see if my opponent can refute them.
1. you are defining yourself into a contradiction. either we imply God as part of existence, or we don't. we have to keep our definitions clear. you can't define yourself into a contradiction.
2. we have empiriical proof in the world around us. we can glean the nature of existance from that, and draw conclusions from that.... inferences, not deductions, but they are conclusions nonetheless. also "likely" exists or doesn't is actually kind of vague, so you could spin it either way. honestly that's why i quoted the title of the debate the way i did, to give wiggle room. but i'd still say it's not unreasonable to say "more than fifty percent" likely that God exists, given our ferences, and the vague but important ways we define God.
3. it's kind of ridiculous to say Gd must have a brain. as something that transcends our existence, that would be the opposite of what we'd expect. also, as to the testable evidence stuff, see number 2 response. also, it's conflating God's brin with God's existence. it should have said "no evidence for his brain", which would be more self evidently ridiciulous
4. its an inference, again, from what we know, and based on the vague way we define God. "an uncaused cause" etc
sensibletheism909 forfeited this round.
dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
sensibletheism909 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a really bad debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.