The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God more than likely does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 991 times Debate No: 71339
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

The Debate

I as Pro will seek to provide argument to support the proposition that God (as defined) does not exist is more likely true than false.

Con will at the minimum seek to negate Pros arguments.

Definitions

God - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being.

Rules

No new arguments to be presented in the last round.

First round is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in the first round.

Any questions or problems ? Feel free to bring them up in the comments section before accepting the debate so we can have a chance to reach agreement before starting the debate.
1Credo

Con

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. In order to win this debate, my opponent must provide at least one sound argument in favor of the claim "God more than likely does not exist" in addition to refuting any arguments I present in favor of God's existence. I look forward to a good discussion!
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank 1Credo for accepting the debate & look forward to a challenging debate.

Definition

God - An omniscient, omnipotent, all loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being.

God exists vs God does not exist & occams razor

Occams Razor is explained as such...""Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 " 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected." [1]"

Take pretty much any instance of suffering. A child tortured, animals eating each other alive, an earthquake causing bricks to fall on people. can be made compatible with the claim that God exists and God allowed these things to happen.

Seeing that both hypotheses explain the absence of such a Gods action the existence of such a God and it's divine decision making requires more assumptions that the non existence of such a God as such accompany razor enjoins us to go with the hypothesis God does not exist.

Divine Silence Part 1) God neither confirms nor denies

Chances are you have already encountered in your life time assertions about what God wants. Whether it be keeping slaves, denying same sex marriage, stoning homosexuals to death, denying contraception, denying woman to drive, forcing woman to cover up nearly all of their body, the torture/killing of heretics/non believers etc etc all of this and more has being justified on the basis of being the will of God and failure to comply puts one at risk of divine punishment, either in this life or the next.

This is serious, in some cases this can be a matter of life and death.

And yet for all these claims made and justified in the name of God, whether written down a few thousand years ago or made only yesterday your fellow human beings are quite free to pronounce loudly & often what God wants taking comfort in the knowledge that God will not contradict them and as such are free to exploit such a fact of this world.

Such divine silence is what we would expect if such a God did not exist. As such I submit this as another reason to support that it is more likely that God does not exist.

Divine Silence Part 2) Lack of comfort and understanding in time of need

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" - Matthew 7:11 KJV

Austin Dacey argues..."A loving father who must bring their daughter to the hospital to have a painful medical treatment will explain the reasons why he does what he does. If she can't understand the reasons he will at least make sure she feels his presence and comfort and receive some assurance that there is a reason even though she can't see it right now. So there is every reason to think we especially should be aware of any justification reasons that God has. What we in fact find is that many of those who go under go terrible anguish such as holocaust survivors report feeling totally abandoned by God in their time of need. Of course many victims of disease, starvation, natural disaster die very young, having never ever believed in him" [2]

Once again such divine silence is what we would expect if such a God did not exist. As such I submit this as another reason to support the position that it is more likely that God does not exist.

Prayer to any God has not being shown to work

There are heaps of people who will testify that they prayed to God, and God responded to that prayer by healing them. From that itchy spot on the back of their neck to stage 4 lung cancer and everything in between.

But here is the problem, if you give me say 1 billion people and we pray to the sun, and say pray over many different things over a 10 year period, as a matter of probability we are going to get alot of hits. That is to say outcomes which could be seen as answered prayer.

Some people may even think this would be a good reason to believe in the healing power of the sun..........it wouldn't, this would just be confirmation bias. The same kind of confirmation bias that some religious preachers/leaders take advantage of in persuading others of their religious claims.

No one can show (even with all the incentive in the world to do so, cause they want to justify they have the right religious belief/God) that praying to their God, or to God in a particular way is any more effective than praying to the Sun, or a so called imaginary/false God in this area.

This is what we would expect if God did not exist.

God & the best possible world (or not)

Consider the following argument....

1) If God exists then we live in the best possible world
2) More likely we don't live in the best possible world
C) Therefore more likely God does not exist

Wikipedia explains Leibniz reasoning as such... "Leibniz' solution casts God as a kind of "optimizer" of the collection of all original possibilities: Since He is good and omnipotent, and since He chose this world out of all possibilities, this world must be good"in fact, this world is the best of all possible worlds." [2]

Yes you can assume that God exists and therefore the world we live in must be the best possible world, but that is just begging the question for the existence of God in the first place and not questioning if we live in the best possible world.

Once again consider the misery that is being inflicted on some child. If one just one less child was not to suffer, not to suffer being drowned, or eaten alive by a lion, or death by aids or a million other things that children suffer and die from, are we to believe this was necessary in order to achieve the best possible world by such a God ?

You can retreat to the mere possibility, but what about plausibility and reasonableness. Is it plausible and or reasonable too believe that we live in the best possible world ? I submit that it is not.

As such since it is more likely that we DON'T live in the best possible world ergo it is more likely that God does not exist.

Moral Paralysis

If we operate on the assumption that God exists it leads to moral paralysis. Remember if God exists then unnecessary suffering does NOT exist because any and all suffering only happens if and only if God permits it. Also the suffering that God permits only happens if it is logically necessary for an adequate compensating good.

Should we release child rapists from prison ? should we cease to prevent by force those who would rape and torture children ? informing then we are sorry, we didn't realize that the suffering they caused was a necessary condition to bring about a greater good.

"Many babies each year are born with Down's syndrome. Most of these babies, with normal paediatric care, will grow up healthy. A significant number, however, have intestinal obstructions that will kill them if they do not receive an operation. Without the operation, dehydration and infection will cause these babies to wither and die over a period of hours and days. Today this operation is relatively simple, but not long ago these babies could not be saved . . . This baby (one born in the past with this) suffers for days, then dies." [4]

Should we seek to stop any and all medical treatment to children because their suffering is necessary to bring about a greater good ? Of course we won't....................well most of us.

It is more consistent to combat suffering if you operate on the presupposition that unnecessary suffering does exist. But this can only be the case if God does not exist.

I look forward to Cons reply.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://www.youtube.com...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] God? Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, William lane Craig and Walter Sinnott Armstrong, 2004, Oxford University Press, p84.
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro

Rebuttal

Occam's Razor


My opponent appears to be referencing Occam's Razor in arguing that the simplest explanation for suffering on earth is that God does not exist. I fail to see how this conclusion follows. It seems to me that at a minimum, the existence of suffering does not make God's existence any more or less likely. In fact, it could be plausibly argued that evil could not exist if there were no God, so that our disgust of "suffering" is only possible while God exists. At any rate, it certainly does not seem as though the conclusion "God does not exist" follows from the existence of suffering, nor is this conclusion by any means the simplest one, as Occam's Razor requires.

Divine Silence (1)

My opponent points out the various demands made by world religions (denying same sex marriage, contraception, etc.) I would note that we aren't debating a specific God or religion in this debate. The subject of the debate is whether or not it is likely that God exists, not whether or not it is likely that the Christian God, or the Muslim God, exists. So, even if my opponent is correct about divine silence (which I don't for a moment concede he is) it does nothing to show that God does not exist. It's entirely possible that God is not concerned about worldly matters and that the claims of various religions are unfounded.

Divine Silence (2)

My opponent argues here that the lack of comfort from God is evidence against His existence. Aside from the fact that billions of people feel comforted by God every day (this fact on its own defeats the argument), this argument fails for the same reason as Divine Silence Part 1 fails, namely there is no reason to think that God (if He exists) has a responsibility to comfort people. I'd again remind my opponent that we aren't debating the God of any particular religion.

Prayer

Again, my opponent requires a God of which prayer is necessary. We are not debating any specific God, so this argument is irrelevant. With that being said, there is no reason to think that prayer does not have long-term effects (whether those effects be later in one's life or in an afterlife).

The Best Possible World

My opponent has given a deductive argument:
1) If God exists then we live in the best possible world
2) More likely we don't live in the best possible world
C) Therefore more likely God does not exist

I take issue with the second premise in this argument ("More likely we don't live in the best possible world"). The question is not whether or not the world we live in is the "best" from our perspective, but rather it is whether or not the world we live in is objectively the "best". What reason do we have for thinking that the world we live in is not the best possible world? I can't seem to think of any. My opponent suggests that a world in which there is even one less death (or any instance of suffering) is a better world than ours. My first objection is that my opponent hasn't given any reason to think that suffering leads to a "non-best" world. Perhaps it is through suffering that we gain more in an afterlife. Perhaps the balance of suffering vs non-suffering in this world is such that a maximal amount of individuals will inherit an afterlife. My second objection is that my opponent hasn't given any reason to think that there could be a world which contains (1) freedom of the will and (2) less suffering. But even if my opponent was able to show this, he would still have all of his work ahead of him in proving that suffering leads to a "non-best" world. Until this second premise is justified, we have no reason to accept the conclusion of the argument.

Moral Paralysis

My opponent argues that if God exists then unnecessary suffering does not exist. I don't see any reason to think that this assertion is true. It seems to me that when the existence of free will is considered, unnecessary suffering is inevitable. Perhaps a world which contains both (1) free will and (2) suffering is greater than a world which contains neither. In any case, the burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate his argument to be sound. It seems as if the blame for the suffering in our world is being shifted from ourselves and our own free actions to God. I don't think it's reasonable to blame God for the suffering that we inflict upon others, but as I stated previously, there is also no reason to think that suffering does not lead to good.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.
Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.
Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

Now, just what sort of viable candidates are there for a "cause" of the universe? It seems to me that there are two (if my opponent has any suggestions, I invite him to bring them forward): an abstract object (a number, shape, etc.) or an unembodied mind (God). We can then ask ourselves, "What sorts of qualities must a 'cause' of the universe have?" It seems to me that the cause of the universe must be transcendent (this entity must exist outside of space and time), immaterial (this entity cannot have a physical substance as it exists outside of space), beginningless (in order that this entity could have created the universe without an infinite regress), and extremely powerful (after all, it must take some degree of power to bring about a universe). But, clearly, abstract objects don't stand in causal relations (the number 3 can't cause anything). So, we are left with only one viable candidate for the cause of our universe: God.


Summary

I have refuted each of the arguments my opponent presented in favor of his position. In addition, I have presented a sound argument against his position. As my opponent has taken on the burden of proof in this debate, he must (1) refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument and (2) resurrect (no pun intended) at least one of his own arguments by demonstrating it to be sound. Until he is able to accomplish both (1) and (2), we can reasonably conclude that it is just as likely that God exists as it is that He does not exist.

Thank you.

http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank 1Credo for their opening arguments.

Opening remarks

In this round I will among other things attempt to defend my arguments and examine whether the Kalam argument as presented by Credo1 now referred to as the Con should be accepted.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Timeless causation options/lack of information about timeless things

After the argument claims the universe has a "cause" it then gives further argument what this cause has to be. Seeing the cause must be non physical, timeless, etc etc Con gives us two options a timeless (unembodied) mind and abstract objects (like numbers).

But how exactly did Con come to the conclusion that these things are the only two things that exist or even possibly exist in this timeless non physical realm ?. I don't know what does or does not exist in the non physical, timeless realm and I suspect either does Con.

Lets be clear here, this is Cons burden to carry, he doesn't get to try and shift the burden by asking questions to me or others and declaring justification until answered.

As such my counter here is that we have no idea what does or does not exist in such a realm.

What determines metaphysical possibility & impossibility ?

Consider the premise..."P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

Something should be noted here, the premise is NOT everything that begins IN the universe has a cause. Why does this distinction matter ? because it is making a claim not only about what can or can't happen in the universe but also outside and beyond it (for lack of a better term). That is to say it is a META physical claim, it is meta physically impossible for something begin to exist without a cause.

But what it the justification for this claim ? I will now examine Cons justification for this.

Absurdity does not justify falsity

Many things have being rejected as "absurd" yet have latter on have be found to be true. The problem with justification to the kind of absurdity that Con relies on here is that our every day experiences shape our commonsense/intuitions. These intuitions are then used on things which are NOT everyday experiences eg (what can or can't happen outside the universe) to support various claims of what should be accepted as false based on such violations of this commonsense/intuition and thus are "absurd"

As such I submit that Con use of appeal to absurdity should be rejected as a justification for their metaphysical claims.

What we observe (or don't) justifies metaphysical claims ?

Con may want to maintain that what we observe or don't observe justifies such a metaphysical claim but I think this backfires for Con as Wes Morrison explains...

"Here are some other well-attested empirical generalizations, each of which is incompatible with that hypothesis about the origin of the universe.

(A)Material things come from material things.
(B) Nothing is ever created out of nothing.
(C) Nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time.
(D)The mental lives of all persons have temporal duration.
(E) All persons are embodied.

It might of course be said that while these generalizations apply within the natural order, they do not apply to the natural order as a whole or to its cause. But then, of course, one could reasonably ask why the same should not be said of the claim that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

It is also worth pointing out that prima facie, at least, quite a number of these generalizations have as much claim to be metaphysical truths as Craig"s premise 1. One might be left with the impression that the friends of the kalām argument are picking and choosing metaphysical principles to suit the needs of the argument they want to make." [1]

Mind & brain/matter connection

Mind-body dualism is explained as such..."in philosophy, any theory that mind and body are distinct kinds of substances or natures. This position implies that mind and body not only differ in meaning but refer to different kinds of entities. Thus, a dualist would oppose any theory that identifies mind with the brain, conceived as a physical mechanism." [2]

It gets worse for Cons position here. Cause not only can we use the same kind of reasoning to justify the metaphysical impossibility of a mind without a brain/matter there are other reasons to think that mind has a dependency on brain and/or matter as Austin Dacey explains...

"There are many highly specific correlations between specific mental phenomena and brain activity. That we would not expect if dualism is true. For example particular cognitive abilities such as language use and spatial reasoning are localized to particular regions of the brain. Brain injuries very distinctive changes to perception, cognition even personality. Some mental diseases like schizophrenia have being shown to have a genetic component. But why would this be if the mind was entirely independent of the brain ?" [3]

Under theism it is more likely that mind-body dualism is true since theism is already committed to the existence of such a mind, namely God and in Cons case a mind absent brain/matter as the cause of the universe.

Under non theism there is no such prior commitment and thus the fact that we find mind being dependent on matter is more likely if mind=body dualism is false and thus more likely God (as mind absent brain/matter) does not exist.

The universe did not begin to exist

Recall Cons premise which states..."P2: The universe began to exist."

Consider what it means for something to BEGIN to exist. This debate would be claimed to exist but not only that, that it BEGAN to exist, cause we recognize that it exists but also there was a TIME PRIOR when it did not exist. This can be formulated as such...

X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist

Absent the universe there is no "time" therefore there was no time prior when the universe did not exist, thus the universe did not begin to exist.

I submit this as a direct refutation that the universe began to exist.

Divine Silence Part 1) God neither confirms nor denies

Con says..."I would note that we aren't debating a specific God or religion in this debate."

Yes we are, the specific kind of God we are debating was defined at the start as..."God - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being."

Con says..."It's entirely possible that God is not concerned about worldly matters"

But this isn't just about so called "worldly matters" this argument deals with claims made about God it's self. Recall how I pointed out the fact that humans beings exploit a fact of this world that God will not contradict them, as God neither confirms or denies claims about it's self.

A rationalization for God doesn't change the fact that Gods absence here is what we would expect to find if God did not exist.

The argument stands.

Divine Silence Part 2) Lack of comfort and understanding in time of need

Prayer to God has not being shown to work

If prayer had being shown to work(outside of confirmation bias) that would be used for evidence in support of God (and rightfully so).

But it works both ways, Once again the fact that prayer to God has not being shown to work (outside of confirmation bias) is what we would expect to find if God did not exist.

Again rationalizations are a dime a dozen.

God & the best possible world (or not)

Moral Paralysis

God exists vs God does not exist & occams razor

Gods inaction is both logically compatible with the proposition God exists and choose not too act and God does not exist and thus did not act. Occamz razor enjoins us to go with the least assumptions (God does not exist).

Con says things like it could be argued......these are not arguments.

I will try to respond to Cons claims in those other area's where I did not respond in the next round.

I look forward to Cons replay.

Sources

[1] http://spot.colorado.edu...

[2] http://www.britannica.com...

[3] https://www.youtube.com...
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

Rebuttal

Occam's Razor

Here, my opponent argues that Occam's Razor is evidence against God's existence because it "enjoins us to go with the least assumptions (God does not exist)". The fallaciousness of this argument is trivial. If you were to say to me, "I've written an autobiography which contains information about my career", I'd have a couple of options: One would be to assume that (1) an autobiography of your life exists and (2) this autobiography contains information about your career. Another would be to assume (1) an autobiography of your life does not exist. Occam's Razor would tell us we ought to conclude that the option with the least assumptions is correct. So, on Occam's Razor, I ought to believe that you're lying to me when you tell me that you've written an autobiography which includes information about my career. This is ridiculous, of course, for then we couldn't believe anything that anyone told us about anything! I submit that Occam's Razor is not sound because it entails that we can never choose the option "x exists".

Divine Silence (1)

Again, we are not debating the God of any specific religion in this debate. So the presumption that we ought to know what God wants of us does not hold. My opponent's entire argument here depends on the assumption that God takes interest in what is done in His name, an assumption which has no basis in this debate as we are not discussing the God of any particular religion. So, the divine silence argument has no foundation and as such it does not stand.

Divince Silence (2)

My opponent has dropped this argument. This argument does not stand.

Prayer

Once again, this argument makes the assumption that God takes an interest in human prayer, an assumption which has no basis in this debate as we are not discussing the God of any prayer-endorsing religion. So, this argument has no foundation and as such it does not stand.

The Best Possible World

My opponent has dropped this argument. This argument does not stand.

Moral Paralysis

My opponent has dropped this argument. This argument does not stand.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I'll now address my opponent's objections to the KCA:

"how exactly did Con come to the conclusion that these things are the only two things that exist or even possibly exist in this timeless non physical realm ?"

Recall my statement in the previous round where I said that I can think of two candidates for the cause of our universe, both of which transcend space and time: (1) an abstract object (a number, shape, etc.) and (2) an unembodied mind (God). I think explicitly went on to state that if my opponent could conceive of an additional candidate for the cause of our universe, he ought to bring that candidate forward. So, once again, it seems to me that there are only two candidates. As my opponent has not suggested an additional candidate, I can only assume that these are the only two candidates he can conceive of as well.

"As such my counter here is that we have no idea what does or does not exist in such a realm."

This is false. We know that abstract objects transcend space and time. We also know that God, if He exists, must transcend space and time.

"Absurdity does not justify falsity"

When I say a proposition is "absurd" I mean to say that the proposition in question is incoherent. So, when I say that the proposition of infinity existing in reality is "absurd", I don't mean it's crazy, strange, etc.; I mean to say that the proposition "Infinity exists in reality" is incoherent. This incoherence is demonstrated in the coin example I gave in my opening statement, as well as by other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel). So, contrary to my opponent's statement, absurdity (incoherence) does justify falsity. If a proposition is incoherent, the proposition cannot be true.

"(A)Material things come from material things.
(B) Nothing is ever created out of nothing.
(C) Nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time.
(D)The mental lives of all persons have temporal duration.
(E) All persons are embodied."

(A) There must have, at some point, been a first material "thing". Otherwise, we would fall into an infinite regress. So, there must have been at least one material thing that has not come from another material thing.
(B) This point supports the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Unless you're willing to believe that our universe is eternal (a proposition which is incoherent), then our universe had to have been created by something.
(C) This depends on what you mean by "cause". There are things which cause other things outside of time. One example: 2 and 2 cause 4, despite the fact that numbers transcend space and time.
(D) I don't see how this point is relevant, even if it were true.
(E) If, by this, you mean to say that all humans are embodied, then I'd agree with you. But again, I don't see the relevance of this point. If you mean to say that all entities are embodied, then this is of course false. Abstract objects are an example of entities which are not embodied.

"Mind & brain/matter connection"

I don't see any reason to think that the mind is entirely independent of the brain, so this objection doesn't really take us anywhere.

"Absent the universe there is no "time" therefore there was no time prior when the universe did not exist, thus the universe did not begin to exist."

My opponent seems to be arguing that if time began to exist, then there should have been time before time began to exist. But this is absurd. There cannot be a "time" before time itself began to exist. I contend that there was nothing (no space and no time) before the universe began to exist. As I state in my justification for the KCA, this contention is supported by both scientific and philosophical evidence, neither of which my opponent has even attempted to refute.

Summary

Recall that the burden of proof in this debate rests on the shoulders of my opponent. He must show that "God more than likely does not exist". So far, he has dropped three of his original arguments. Two of the other arguments are completely invalidated by the fact that we aren't debating the God of any specific religion. The final argument (Occam's Razor) is not sound for reasons that I've described in my objection to the argument (which can be found above). Moreover, my opponent has failed to give any reason to think that either of the two premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument are not more likely true than false. As such, the Kalam Cosmological Argument in favor of God's existence stands.

My opponent has yet to present a sound argument against God's existence. In addition, he has not succeeded in refuting the Kalam Cosmological Argument. As my opponent has (thus far) failed to carry the burden of proof in this debate, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that the debate resolution should not be affirmed.

Thank you.

Sources

http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Opening remarks.

I thank Con for their spirited reply.

I did say last round I was going to get to those other arguments later on so contra con I did not drop them & as such is where I will begin for round 4.

Divine Silence Part 2) Lack of comfort and understanding in time of need

Con made the point that people would claim that they have felt Gods comfort in time of need. I agree. I once again remind Con of that God was defined as..."God - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being."

Recall the analogy of a loving father that will ensure that their daughter will understand their suffering or at least ensure their loving comfort. So what is going on here ? does such a God exist and is being selective with it's comfort ? perhaps. Or perhaps rather the so called comfort that some people find is a product of their own minds and internalized religious beliefs rather than from a divine source.

I submit the latter is the more plausible option.

God & the best possible world (or not)

Con presents various possibilities in this area but makes no argument for why they should be accepted as more likely true than false. This does nothing against my argument here cause my argument is NOT that it is with absolute certainty we don't live in the best possible world just the more modest, more likely we don't live in the best possible world.

Con objects that there is insufficient justification to claim that it is more likely we don't live in the best possible world. Let's look at the two options.........

1) We live in the best possible world
2) We don't live in the best possible world

This is X or Not X, there are only two options here, it's one or the other.

As a matter of probability there is only one best possible world and all other possible worlds are not the best. All things being equal as a matter of probability you should expect to live in the non best world.

Con calls into question the connection between suffering/well being and non best world, I don't think this is a good reply.

Consider If Con was set on fire. Con would be of the view that the harm of his well being by being set on fire is a lesser state than say the improved well being of not being on fire. But if we reject such a paradigm of harm and well being and lesser and better worlds then why help Con in such a situation ? After all maybe it is a better state of Con and the world to be if Con just burns.

With that in mind consider what Sam Harris says...""9 million children die every year before they reach the age of five...That's 24 thousand a day, a thousand an hour 17 or so a minute. That means before I can get to the end of this sentence some few children likely will have died in terror and agony" [1]"

Logically possible we live in the best possible world ? sure, plausible ? no.

Moral Paralysis

Con disputes the claim that the existence of God logically entails the non existence of unnecessary suffering.

Consider the following statement................the all knowing, all powerful, just, loving God allowed an act of suffering to happen which was not necessary to achieve a greater good. The claim is self refuting.

As such, if God (as defined) exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist.

Recall how In the argument that it only makes sense to stop or attempt to stop suffering if you work on the assumption that unnecessary suffering does exist. But the existence of unnecessary suffering exists only if God does not.

Con makes a vague appeal to free will, but did not develop an argument on those grounds. As such the moral paralysis argument still stands.

Cons Kalam Cosmological argument

Timeless causation options/lack of information about timeless things

Recall my first objection was that we have no idea what does or does not exist in the non physical timeless realm.

Con can't solve the ignorance objection by pushing questions unto me and I even warned him of that in the previous round............they did it anyway.

Cons own what seems to him is insufficient to overcome the ignorance objection of such matters. As such we can't say with any degree of confidence that those are the only 2 things that exist or possibly exist in such a timeless non physical realm.

What determines metaphysical possibility & impossibility ?

Absurdity does not justify falsity

Recall how I argued that absurdity does not justify falsity when we apply our common sense formed by everyday experiences to the non everyday. (eg what is true of false outside of the universe)

Con doesn't dispute that but rather claims that something beginning to exist without a cause is "incoherent". That's obviously false since it is understood. But to give you a taste of something that is incoherent consider..............gibby jabby sloppy fook.

Con's claim is baseless, I can just as easily assert that a timeless person unemboided is incoherent. Would Con accept that claim ? of course not.

What we observe (or don't) justifies metaphysical claims ?

Recall how I argued that if accept our own observations justify metaphysical claims like Con did when they sough to justify the meta claim of that which begins to exist must have a cause we can like wise justify such meta claims like all persons are embodied or the meta claim of persons can only have mental lives of temporal duration.

Con claims not too see relevance here, well Con, if all persons are embodied that means you can't have a unembodied personal cause which refutes your personal unembodied cause of the universe. Same with all persons mental lives are temporal ergo no timeless mind.

Con can't justify their metaphysics in a CONSISTENT way without refuting their own argument.

What isn't an option is for Con just to pick and choose to his own liking which meta claims should be accepted or rejected just to make their argument work and avoid refutation.

The universe did not begin to exist

Recall my argument and formulation of what it means for something to begin to exist as..."X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior where X did not exist"

Con agrees there was no "before" the universe.

As such the there was no time prior where the universe did not exist and thus did not begin to exist.

This refutes the claim that the universe began to exist.

Mind & brain/matter connection

Recall the argument here that what we find evidence wise it what we would except to be the case if the mind was dependent on brain/matter.

Also recall that this is more likely to be the case if non theism is true since theism is already committed to the existence of at least one mind not dependent on the brain.

Con merely claims he can't see the problem here.

The argument stands.

Divine Silence Part 1) God neither confirms nor denies

Once again God is defined in this debate as having specific attributes...God - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being

To claim that God exists and chooses not to act in such a way because of indifference is a way to rationalize such a lack of evidence. Never the less the lack of evidence we what we would expect if such a God does not exist.

God exists vs God does not exist & occams razor

Con ridicules a mis-representation of occams razor. People believe in things all the time yet are not in violation of occams razor. If you have good reason to believe in a more complex (more assumptions) proposition then the razor allows that. But if you don't then the razor comes into play to cut down the more complex competing propositions.

Gods inaction can both be explained by it's choosing not to act and it's non existence. Using the razor you know what to do people.

Sources

[1] https://www.youtube.com...
1Credo

Con

I've been really busy and I don't know if I'm going to have time to finish this debate. My apologies.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Extend all arguments from the previous round.

Closing arguments

With Con not responding to argument in the last round and no new arguments to be made in the last round as per rules I have nothing to add.

I thank 1Credo for participating in this debate and hope any reader is more enlightened and perhaps thought about things they had not thought about before or perhaps in a different way.

Peace out.


1Credo

Con

Thanks to Illegalcombatant for the debate!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I was wondering... What was the character limit of each round?
Posted by Search-The-Scriptures 1 year ago
Search-The-Scriptures
So atheists need God.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Christians often make the claim that God does exists so atheists will give the evidence and refute the Christians claims about God.
Posted by Search-The-Scriptures 1 year ago
Search-The-Scriptures
Why do ya'll even need God to start a debate?
Posted by Search-The-Scriptures 1 year ago
Search-The-Scriptures
If God does not exist, why are you arguing about HIS existence?
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Don't worry @Illegalcombatant, I'll take care of this one. :)

@FlyerGuy2015 the argument "look around you" has been refuted so many times. This is an argument often used by creationists. Yes, life is filled with amazing things. But we know how it works. We know the sky, we know oxygen, we know the moon, and all of it. We just can't explain the start of everything. Which is when the Big Bang theory comes in.

Now you can say "what started the Big Bang", and what I and scientists will tell you is we don't know. No one knows. Then you can say "God started the Big Bang and created everything". But then who or what created God? Also that's a God of the Gaps argument. "I don't know, therefore God did it".

You see we believe that the energy and the matter that created the Big Bang had already existed. But then creationists want to go a step further and say God created the Big Bang, and God has always existed. So we can argue and go back in forth saying "God was always around", "no matter and energy was always around" but all this will do is cause the argument to go into circles, and will get us no where.

We can explain how things are created such as planets, the sky, stars, galaxies, etc. what we cannot explain is the origins of life and the solar system/universe. We don't know what created everything. But we can learn the process of how thing's are created, we just don't know the origins of everything.

If you wish to continue, perhaps we can have a debate. :)
Posted by Illegalcombatant 1 year ago
Illegalcombatant
@ Flyerguy

As a matter of principle I don't do debates in the comment section of my own debates cause that is like doing two debates for the price of one.

Never the less if you think you have a rock solid argument you can always create your own debate.
Posted by FlyerGuy2015 1 year ago
FlyerGuy2015
Look Around You....The Air,The Sky,The Moon And The Entire Solar System Cannot Exist ON Its own.Reply aND aSK fOR fURTHER dETAILS
No votes have been placed for this debate.