The Instigator
Sargon
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
johnlubba
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God probably does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Sargon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,918 times Debate No: 35831
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (4)

 

Sargon

Pro

Ave.

This debate is about whether god exists. I will be arguing that god probably does not exist. Con will be arguing that god probably exists. The winner of the debate will be the person who proves their case beyond a preponderance of the evidene.

The first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. For the second round, both sides will present their opening statement. For the third round, both sides will rebut their opponents opening statement. The final round will be used for further debate and closing remarks.

General expectations of conduct should be followed.

God is defined as the personal (rational and conscious, omnipotent cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists.

Vale.
johnlubba

Con

I have accepted this debate on the pre-tense that I may not be able to keep up with my opponents high level of thinking, I have seen Sargon debate already on this site believe he is a very knowledgeable and skilled debater, I am still hoping to win this debate but the hope isn't very high as I may not be able to comprehend the high level of thinking my opponent has displayed on other debates.

With that said and done, I will proceed and accept the Challenge, Sargon has to show that it is more likely that God doesn't exist, his argument does not need to prove God doesn't exist and neither does my argument need to prove he does, But I need to show that it is more likely that God does exist.

I thank Sargon for setting up the debate and look forward to a healthy exchange......
Debate Round No. 1
Sargon

Pro

Ave

Contemporary philosophers and theologians who affirm the existence of god believe that god is the cause of the first state of time. The theist conception of god as causing the universe logically entails god creating the first state of time. This first state of time includes the beginning of material reality. If there was a first state of time that had a cause, it follows trivially that its cause was outside of time. The pertinent issue becomes: ’’Was there a first state of time?’’. In this debate, I will show that the notion of a first state of time is contradicted by the evidence from physics, primarily the theory of relativity.


I will assume, for practical reasons, that the A-theory of time is true. Only the present exists, and past, present, and future really exist. The only way for god to exist, as defined by R1, is for the A-theory of time to be true. Ergo, there should be no complaints from the other side about assuming A-theory.

I will start off by defining important terms. A state of time is an instantaneous point. One hour after the Big Bang, two hours after the Big Bang, etc.. A first state of time is an interval of time which is preceded by no other state of time, and is followed by every other state of time that exists. It is represented by a beginning point with no end point. A ray from Euclidean geometry is a good example of this. (A represents the beginning point. The arrow represents the absence of an end point.)



A half-open state of time is a state of time that has an endpoint, but no beginning point. It is the opposite of a ray in Euclidean geometry, which has a beginning point but no end point. One could think of a half-open state of time as a backwards ray. There is a point such as C, and to the left of C is a line that extends infinitely. This ‘’backwards ray’’ has an end point, but no beginning point, so it is like a half-open state of time.



These terms will be important for the rest of the paper.


There are two ‘’types’’ of mechanics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics deals with things on the scale of atoms, and quantum mechanics deals with things below the scale of atoms. Classical mechanics is the most important mechanism for this specific argument. The theory of general relativity is part of classical mechanics, and it describes space-time and how gravity functions. Since Einstein elucidated general relativity in 1915, physicists have derived metrics from his equation that describe the universe. A metric describes the geometric and causal structure of space-time. Physicists such as Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaitre, Howard Percy Robertson, and Robert M. Walker have, over time, derived metrics from relativity . These are called Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRK) metrics. The FLRK metric describes a universe that is homogeneous, isotropic, and expanding. These metrics also state that every finite interval of time is half-open (http://plato.stanford.edu...).

If every state of time is half-open, then this creates problems for a first state of time. A first state of time has a beginning point, but no end point, as every other state of time follows from it. This contradicts the theory of relativity in one important way. The theory of relativity tells us that every state of time must be represented with an endpoint, but no beginning point. The first state of time is a state of time, but it is represented by a beginning point with no end point. Since every state of time must be represented by an endpoint with no beginning point, and a first state of time is represented by a beginning point with no end point, a first state of time cannot exist. (In simple terms, every state of time must look like the second picture, and not the first picture. A first state of time would look like the first picture. Therefore, it cannot exist.)

The problem this presents should be obvious to the careful reader. God is defined as having the attribute of causing the first state of time. No such state of time exists. It not only doesn't exist, but it can't exist, because it contradicts the rule that every state of time is half-open. Now we have a conception of god with an attribute that cannot be actualized. The only conclusion we can reach is that god does not exist, because an attribute of god cannot be made real.

The possibility of simultaneous causation also gives the atheist an explanation of matter without reference to god. At the Big Bang, there was simultaneous causation, which is supported by EPR correlations (http://www.worldscientific.com...). Simultaneous causation is the idea that ‘’the causal order must not be the temporal order because of the possibility of cause and effect being contemporaneous.’’ ( http://plato.stanford.edu...) The possibility of simultaneous causation allows us to explain the existence of matter without reference to a personal cause. Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time. This diagram should help you understand this idea.



The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows us that atheism explains the universe better than theism. The WFU has been developed by scientists such as Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin. Quentin Smith, professor of the philosophy of physics at West Michigan University, explains the theory: '‘’Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses.’’ Anyone interested in the physics of this should read about sum-over-histories, which I have included a link about in the references page. Quentin Smith also explains the evidence for this theory: ’Hawking’s theory is confirmed by observational evidence. This theory predicts our universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe -- our universe has been expanding ever since -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation. Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.’’ The problems that the WFU of the universe presents for an omnipotent cause of the universe are also elucidated by Smith: ‘’For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.’’ (http://www.infidels.org...) Once can say that god created the universe with a 95% chance of coming into being, but Ockham's razor would tell us to prefer the naturalistic explanation, as the theistic one is ad hoc. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)

From my argument, we can reach the following conclusions. 1: A god who caused the first state of time cannot exist. 2: An omnipotent cause of the universe is improbable.3: The origin of matter can be explained through simultaneous causation. Ergo, god probably does not exist.

Vale

johnlubba

Con

I would like to begin by thanking Sargon for his well delivered argument and also show my appreciation for trying to deliver the complexity of his argument in rather simplistic terms.

I will now begin trying to rebuttal the arguments put forward by my opponent...

To begin with my opponent attacks what he defines as the most classical example of theism, and that is that the universe and/or time has a first state,

This form of argument does not apply to my conception of God, and is not applicable to my understanding of God. Of course it would not be acceptable for me just to assert this as my opinion, and I do not suggest you accept it solely on my opinion either.. What I do propose is, that you consider what I am about to present as an acceptable and valid philosophical proposition for the existence of God and his attributes, I do not need to necessarily believe in my proposition, but just show that Pro's argument is incompatible with my conception, and in any case my proposition could still also be correct. I will be arguing for Gods existence from an eastern philosophical viewpoint and will introduce Vedic literature into the argument. The Vedas are arguably the oldest and most complete and compiled philosophical texts on the planet, and is still the oldest living practiced philosophy on the planet. So my conceptions are not entirely mine but are from a very well established authorized and recognized philosophy....

http://www.sacred-texts.com......

Pro argues that there can not be a first state of time or matter for that fact, and I also agree with him, only his definition only strengthens my case for God as the creator, in other words Pro has done all the hard work from a scientific point of view which strengthens my case, I will provide a scriptural texts from the Vedic literature, namely the Bhagavad Gita, I would also encourage the reader to follow the link for the purport to the scripture for a more elaborate explanation as it will take up to much space if I was to copy and paste it. it goes as follows.

Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 13.20

http://vedabase.net......

Also

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be...

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Bhagavad-gita As It Is 2.12

http://vedabase.net...... Again Please read the purport for a more elaborate explanation.

Above I have shown that from a Vedic conception of God and material energy, that both material nature and Living entities, ( Which implies Spiritual nature ) are without beginning and also without an end. which is what I believe Pro is arguing for at least from a materialistic point of view.

The problem this presents should be obvious to the careful reader. God is defined as having the attribute of causing the first state of time. No such state of time exists. It not only doesn't exist, but it can't exist,...Pro

Great as that only strengthens my claim

because it contradicts the rule that every state of time is half-open. Now we have a conception of god with an attribute that cannot be actualized.....Pro

Actually you just confirmed my conception of God's attributes and material energy as having no first state...

Conclusion for the first part of Pro's argument.... is that Pro's scientific argument only strengthens my case for the existence of God according to Vedic texts, there is no first state of time everything including material energy is without a beginning.

But Wait......

I took the debate with the condition that God is the cause of the universe, and indeed I still defend that, God caused the material universe by way of expansion of energy, ( which has always existed ) This energy could have been contained in a singularity or even a black hole, indeed the Vedic literature supports this, by claiming the God creates and annihilates the Material Cosmic Manifestation over and over again and at the time of annihilation he again absorbs the material energy into what I assume to be a singularity.

The whole cosmic order is under Me. Under My will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under My will it is annihilated at the end.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 9.8

http://vedabase.net...

So here we see that the beginning of every creation is only the end of a previous creation, the material energy exists by way of God's impersonal inferior energy, which is uncaused, God then decides to create the material universe by way of expansion after each and annihilates by way of re-traction.

Conclusion....God causes the universe by way of expansion of his inferior impersonal material energy, which is uncased the same as God is uncaused.....

I am running out of space to continue as in-depth as I would like and am concerned that I will not be able to cover everything.....

But I have a quick proposition for Pro.......

If the universe and it's infinitude of complexity with also has the potential for powerful complex minds, such as the human mind,.....If the universe is able to spring into existence or for that matter exist timelessly without a cause, Then why does God who is a powerful intelligent mind with an infinitude of complexity also need to have a cause?

I would like Pro to answer this question for me?

It seems to me rather unfair that Pro is asking me to accept that a complex universe which has the ability the potential for intelligent minds can exist timelessly or arise without any need for a cause, But that God himself can not also exist as an intelligent mind without any need for a cause.

Below I will offer a quote from Steven Hawking's who himself like Einstein was rather confused when it came to acknowledging the existence of God, of course it's evident that Steven publicly confirmed his atheism with the very famous announcement that God is not need to light the blue touch paper because we have a law such as gravity, but this has received heavy criticism from philosophers which we can delve into another time as I do not have much space left... But I will still like to offer this quote from Steven which I suggest undermines his atheism and calls for the existence of God to be necessary.

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" ?

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

http://www.goodreads.com...

I thank Sargon for instigating the debate, I can only hope I have provided a sufficient enough response to his first argument, I will also ask Sargon to make a concession for my rebuttal in my second round and not following the format and waiting until the third round, the argument I wished to establish would not have sat well and with the argument Pro established without me offering refutations first.

Back to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Sargon

Pro

Ave

We are debating god defined as ‘’the personal (rational and conscious, omnipotent cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists.’’. If Con wants to think of god in a different way, then he’s free to do so. However, he’s not free to provide arguments to support the existence of his idea of god, and not the one the resolution says we’re debating. Any argument presented that supports a god other than the above definition cannot be considered permissible when it comes to voting. I tried to work out a definition of god with Con before the debate, and it seemed like he agreed with the one in R1. He also accepted the framework and definitions in R1. Therefore, it is fair to disregard any arguments that do not relate to god as defined in R1.

In the last round, I presented an argument against there being a first state of time. Every state of time must be represented by an end point with no beginning point, and since a first state of time is represented by a beginning point with no end point, it cannot exist. Since a first state of time cannot exist, a god who causes time cannot exist. Con does not disagree with this argument, and accepts it as true. He just says that it supports the Vedic idea of material reality existing forever. This does not matter to the resolution at all. We are not debating whether the Vedas are true. We are debating on the probability of god existing. Con agrees that the argument is true, so by implication, god defined as the resolution cannot exist. Does it contradict his conception of god? Maybe not, but that’s irrelevant, because we’re not debating the probability of his god existing. Therefore, this argument counts towards my case for the voting. Con even agrees that the god we're debating can't exist, since he accepts the arguments premises and conclusion.

There is also a difference between ‘’there is no first state of time’’ and ‘’time existed forever’’. Con confuses the two many times in the debate. Even if every state of time is half-open, it does not mean everything existed forever. This would contradict the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem, which states that our universe cannot be past-eternal (http://www.newgeology.us...). It also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Instead, my argument is that there is no first state of time, but the universe still had a ‘’beginning’’ in the sense that every state of time must be less than 13.9 billion years old, the age of the universe. In algebraic terms, if T represents a state of time, then every T < 13.9 billion years ago. As you go back into time, you never reach T=0, because that would be a mathematically impermissible singularity. Time looks like this instead: t=… 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001…, ad infinitum. There is clearly no first state of time for god to cause. However, none of these states of time existed more than or equal to 13.9 billion years ago. There is not a first state of time for god to cause, but time did not exist forever either. This diagram should make the concept more clear.

Time on Con's view:

What time looks like if every state of time is-half open, and there is no T=0 state.


If every state of time is half-open, and there is no T=0 state, then it is incompatible with Con's view of time. As you can see from the two diagrams, a Vedic view of time would have states of time such as T= 20 billion years ago and T= 400 trillion years ago. However, on my view of time, such states of time cannot exist. There is no room for Con to say things like 'Pro's scientific argument only strengthens my case for the existence of God according to Vedic texts'. In reality, it explicitly contradicts Con's argument.

Con tries to explain how god created the universe. The first thing he says is that 'God caused the material universe by way of expansion of energy'. There is no evidence presented to prove that this is true. He also says that energy existed forever, which is not given any evidence as well. Another assertion is that 'This energy could have been contained in a singularity or even a black hole'. No evidence is given for this as well! The entirety of Con's argument is a bare assertion. A bare assertion is a logical fallacy comitted when a premise is assumed to be true just because the person presenting it said so (http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...). I'd like to employ Hitchen's razor, which states 'that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'.
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Con asks why god has to have a cause if the universe doesn't. I never said that the universe didn't have to have a cause. The only thing that came close to this was when Quentin Smith said the universe had a 95% chance of coming into being uncaused. However, Quentin Smith is not talking about uncaused in the typical sense. He means to say that the universe came from something which had no cause. Quentin Smith says the following: 'Now Stephen Hawking's theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding.' (http://www.infidels.org...) The universe wasn't uncaused, but came from something that existed outside of time. Something that exists outside of time doesn't need a cause, because timeless things don't have beginnings.

I presented an argument which showed that matter could form by simultaneous causation. Atoms A, B, and C come into existence at the same time, and they all cause each other. Con completely ignores this argument in the last round. This argument is a dropped point. This means that there is an explanation of matter without reference to god. Therefore, god probably did not create matter, and another attribute of god cannot be actualized.

Let's review the debate, and see who supported their case better. The resolution states "God probably does not exist". The winner of the debate should be the person who proved their case beyond a prepoderance of the evidence. Con's burden was to show that an omnipotent, personal, conscious agent caused the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists is probably real. Con did no such thing during this debate. I would say that he didn't even try to. The Wavelength Function of the Universe demonstrates that an omnipotent being did not cause the universe. Con didn't respond to this argument. This means that the trait of being an omnipotent cause cannot be actualized. The theory of relativity shows us that a first state of time cannot exist. God can't cause 'space-time' or 'everything else that exists', because he can't cause time, as it has no beginning point. This is another trait of god that cannot be actualized. Con even agrees with this argument. Simultaneous causation shows how matter could have formed without god. Con doesn't respond to this argument as well. It's therefore improbable that a personal cause created matter, so another trait of god cannot be actualized. We have two reasons to think that an omnipotent being did not create the universe or matter, and none of them received any answers in the debate. We also had a reason to think that god cannot have caused time, which Con even agreed with. I believe I showed that god probably does not exist beyond a preponderance of the evidence.

Vale
johnlubba

Con

Firstly I will begin by thanking Sargon for his participation, I am grateful to be having this debate.

It seems to me that Sargon has heavily misunderstood my argument and has therefore misrepresented my case and also I believe he has also misrepresented his own case, as I will also show below.....

I will now begin to summarize the debate so far and then offer some closing thoughts.

Firstly

Sargon begins the second round by accusing me of introducing a new concept of God which does not relate to the definition of God in round 1.. I did no such thing and indeed the God defined in round 1 is compatible with this debate, What is not compatible with my conception of God is Pro's conception of God, Pro claims that God can not be the creator of the universe because there is no first state of time, in other words time was without a beginning,

The problem this presents should be obvious to the careful reader. God is defined as having the attribute of causing the first state of time. No such state of time exists. It not only doesn't exist, but it can't exist...Pro

So above we see Pro advocates no such thing as a first state of time, he offers an example of an arrow pointing back infinitely and ends at the present, although the present hasn't ended and neither do we have to assume it will.

Now here is where Pro's confusion kicks in, In round two, Pro offers a diagram of an arrow that points back only 13.9 billion years, at the most, Pro is suggesting here that there has to be a first state of time, between the now present and 13.9 billion years ago. simply because time can not go infinitely into the past... Although we find here that Again in round two that Pro also proposes an infinite past.... He wee see Pro claim you can never reach the beginning of time...

As you go back into time, you never reach T=0, because that would be a mathematically impermissible singularity. Time looks like this instead: t=" 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001", ad infinitum. There is clearly no first state of time . Pro

Pro contradicts himself by claiming that as you go back in time you can never reach the beginning therefore it has no first state but then goes on to claim the time indeed had a beginning....it was about 13.9 billion years ago....The problem with this logic is one proposition cancels out the other, Either we accept time goes ad infinitum into the past or we accept time began 13.9 billion years ago....Pro seems to be using faulty logic here.

Again Pro states....

In round 2, I presented an argument against there being a first state of time. Every state of time must be represented by an end point with no beginning point,.....Pro

Here we can conclude that there is no beginning point to time, Which is exactly compatible with the Vedic scriptural Verse I provided....

Material nature and the living entities should be understood to be beginningless. Their transformations and the modes of matter are products of material nature.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 13.20

Both indicate no beginning point......

Now, Pro asserts that the universe began to exist up to and not exceeding 13.9 billion years ago,

I would like to bring to everyone's attention that this is where the confusion is coming from Pro's side....Pro asserts the universe can not be eternal in the past but time can go into the past ad infintum.....This is the difference, The universe began to exist, but time has no first state.

..I do not dispute that the universe was created, I say the universe is created from an expansion of a singularity which is energy that is absorbed or retracted by God and this is confirmed by the purport of the scriptures I provided..... I will copy and paste the purport for further clarity...

Both material nature and the living entity are eternal. That is to say that they existed before the creation. The material manifestation is from the energy of the Supreme Lord, and so also are the living entities, but the living entities are of the superior energy. Both the living entities and material nature existed before this cosmos was manifested. Material nature was absorbed in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Maha-Visnu, and when it was required, it was manifested by the agency of mahat-tattva.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 13.20 Purport....

Above we see that material nature was absorbed in God, who is without a beggining....... This perfectly fits Pro's description of reality and of God.

A being which is without beginning, just like Pro advocates time is without beginning, but then claims time began with the Big bang and does not go back ad-infintum as Pro originally stated...so Pro is rather confused here and is confusing me also.

Now concerning the big bang, Pro offers a quote where an excerpt states....

He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius.

Pro offers no definition of the word Timeless in the above quote so I will offer my own definition...

1 archaic : premature, untimely
2
a : having no beginning or end : eternal
b : not restricted to a particular time or date....

http://www.merriam-webster.com.........

Here we can define 'Timeless' as an eternal state, which is perfectly compatible with my above description of God and his attributes.

In this way we can see that matter can be absorbed into a singularity where things can become timeless and are not restricted by time, in other words it can exist eternally or timelessly, in this state and it is again let loose when the creation begins....

My intention here is to show that the material creation can exist inside a singularity which is not restricted by time but can still begin to exist at a certain point in time...In other words the material can be timeless but the creation can have a starting point, as Pro suggests, around 13.9 billion years ago......

Pro also asserts I dropped arguments for his spontaneous causation argument which represents atheism better, I did no such thing, in-fact I offered a quote from Steven Hawkins which I asserted undermines his atheism even if they reach a unified theory they are still left with the question as to what breathes fire into the equation for a universe to describe, Pro never addressed this point so I suggest it was he who dropped this point and not I.

I am again running out of space and am again unable to go in-depth as I would like, But I would like to offer some reputable western cosmologists and scientists opinions who salute Vedic litterature. As opposed to the only the atheist Physicist view.

"Access to the Vedas is the greatest privilege this century may claim over all previous centuries"

" Robert Oppenheimer, Father of Modern Atomic Bomb

The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on super imposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One. " Erwin Schrodinger, Well known Quantum Physicist

I go into the Upanishads to ask questions. " Niels Bohr, Well known Quantum Physicist

"Vedic Cosmology is the only one in which the time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology."

-Carl Sagan

http://www.archaeologyonline.net...

http://hitxp.wordpress.com...

I am now out of characters.

I would like to thank Sargon and finish by asking the reader to recognize that the scientific arguments Pro presented are very compatible with the Vedic conception of God. Thus God more than likely exists

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Actually Miles, I apologize, I mistook the definition of Classical to mean something else entirely, I did not realize it had to derive from Roman or Greek thought, If I knew that then I would never have taken the position I took.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
The debate was not that the Christian God exists but God exists or does not exist, The Vedic God is also compatible with all the attributes defined in round one, I am not so stupid as to introduce a God that isn't compatible...
What I did fail to do was establish those attributes by showing how He is defined as having such attributes, mainly because Sargon went first and most of my characters were used trying to refute the complexity of his argument and I simply do not have enough experience as a debater to notice that I failed to establish that......But is all honesty the God I presented is certainly qualified to posses such attributes, so I whole heartedly reject your statement, that say's

The problem though is that we"re not asking whether these arguments disprove the existence of his concept of God, but whether they undermine the existence of the God defined in round one. Remember, the concept of God this debate is supposed to be about is the God of classical theism, the personal Creator of time, space, matter, and energy. Con agreed to this definition of God, so I just don"t understand why he"s going into Vedic concepts of God.

I explained before I started that the Vedic philosophy is arguably the oldest and most complete compiled philosophy on the planet, it doesn't get any more classical than that, also I also declared they are fully authorized and recognized religion and not just something I whimsically made up.

This does not qualify Sargon to ignore my arguments or that my conception of God is irrelevant to his argument.....

Other than that I fully appreciate te depth of you RFD.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Miles I fully appreciate your RFD, only one thing I wish to question, and that is why you think that the Vedic conception of God does not qualify as the God defined in round one.

The God of the Bhagavad Gita is as defined (rational and conscious, omnipotent cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists.......

Why is this overlooked?
Posted by Miles_Donahue 3 years ago
Miles_Donahue
Sargon (Pro) Vs. Johnlubba (Con)

A Debate Review

Category: Philosophy

Debate No: 35831

(Part 1 of 6)

It seems that most kalam-type debates I"ve read are quite difficult to follow, and this one is no exception. I think part of the reason for this is the arguments Sargon gives for atheism. They delve into extremely complicated topics which the average layman will find difficult to follow and understand (e.g., there being no first state of time in a universe with a finite lifetime, the Wave-Function Universe, etc.). Nevertheless, this in no way implies that his arguments are false or unsound, just that we need to be patient if we are to properly assess them. In Pro"s preliminary statement we learn that the burden of proof will be shared between Pro and Con. Pro will give arguments for atheism, and Con will give arguments for theism. We are also given a definition of God as, "the personal (rational and conscious), omnipotent cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists." Because Con agreed with the shared burden of proof and this definition of God, if he is to win the debate he must show that God, so defined, exists. With that in mind, let"s get on to the debate.
Posted by Miles_Donahue 3 years ago
Miles_Donahue
(Part 2 of 6)

Pro opens with three arguments for atheism:

1. There can be no first state of time for God to create.
2. Simultaneous causation can account for the origin of matter.
3. The wave-function model of the origin of the universe is incompatible with an omnipotent Creator.

I have my reservations about the soundness of these arguments, but such a critique will have to wait for my own debate with Sargon. For time"s sake, I will repeat what I said in a previous debate review. **Let"s consider (1). Pro"s case here is difficult to follow, because he doesn"t define his terms as well as he should. First, at the start of his argument, he states that a state of time is an instantaneous point. But then two sentences after that, he says a state of time is an interval of time. An interval of time is a non-zero period of time, while an instantaneous point is a period of zero duration. I think "instant of time" is more appropriate than "state of time", and "moment of time" is the appropriate name for a non-zero period of time. I"m not quite sure which definition Pro needs in order for his argument to work.

Second, he defines a half-open state of time as a state of time which has an endpoint, but no beginning point. But if a state of time is interpreted as an instantaneous point, it has neither a beginning point nor an endpoint. So it seems we need to construe "state of time" to mean "moment of time", for then the definition works. It seems this would imply that a half-open moment of time is infinite in the past, for Pro compares it to a ray, which is infinite in the "later than" direction, to use temporal terms. But then at the end of the next paragraph, Pro starts talking about finite half-open moments of time. Pro needs to define his terms more clearly if we are to understand his argument. If he can successfully do this, I think he"ll have a good argument for atheism on his hands.
Posted by Miles_Donahue 3 years ago
Miles_Donahue
(Part 3 of 6)

Let"s turn to (2). This is an eminently interesting argument, which raises all sorts of intriguing questions about the nature of causality. Again, I"ll limit myself to clarifications rather than criticisms. Time and again, Pro gives examples of simultaneous causation to bolster his case for (2). The problem though is that while the possibility of simultaneous causation is a necessary condition for the truth of (2), it isn"t a sufficient condition. What Pro needs to do is give us examples of circular simultaneous causation. The EPR experiments only show simultaneous causation, not circular causation. But this won"t affect Pro"s case, for Con never made this objection.

(3) is also a very interesting argument which I"ve looked into a bit myself. The only comment I will make is this: Pro should simplify and clarify this argument, if he can, for I don"t think many people will understand it.**

Let"s turn now to Con"s opening remarks (round two). Upon reading it, I was immediately struck by the fact that he didn"t engage any of Pro"s three arguments directly. Rather, he argued that they don"t undermine his conception of God, and he really only says this about (1). The problem though is that we"re not asking whether these arguments disprove the existence of his concept of God, but whether they undermine the existence of the God defined in round one. Remember, the concept of God this debate is supposed to be about is the God of classical theism, the personal Creator of time, space, matter, and energy. Con agreed to this definition of God, so I just don"t understand why he"s going into Vedic concepts of God.
Posted by Miles_Donahue 3 years ago
Miles_Donahue
(Part 4 of 6)

Another thing to notice is that Con gave no evidence for the existence of either the classical God or of the Vedic God, and therefore has not met his burden of proof. Merely showing that current cosmology is compatible with a certain concept of God in no way shows that such a God actually exists. Current cosmology might be compatible with atheism as well, and so we would have to take an agnostic position about the existence of God. Because the question of current cosmology"s compatibility with a Vedic God is irrelevant to the debate, I will not go in to Con"s comments on that subject. Con asks Pro to explain why God should have a cause if the universe needs a cause, but Pro never said that God needs a cause, so these remarks are irrelevant.

Pro"s first rebuttal (round three) seems to me spot-on. He points out that the God they"re debating is not the Vedic God, and so it"s irrelevant whether his arguments don"t disprove such a God. Rather, they are debating the existence of the God of classical theism, and originally Con agreed with this. This, in my mind at least, is enough to undermine Con"s entire opening statement. Pro goes on to show that "time existed forever" and "there was no first state of time" are not the same statement, although the former implies the latter. The following quote is extremely helpful in terms of clarification,
Posted by Miles_Donahue 3 years ago
Miles_Donahue
(Part 5 of 6)

"Instead, my argument is that there is no first state of time, but the universe still had a "beginning" in the sense that every state of time must be less than 13.9 billion years old, the age of the universe. In algebraic terms, if T represents a state of time, then every T < 13.9 billion years ago. As you go back into time, you never reach T=0, because that would be a mathematically impermissible singularity. Time looks like this instead: t=" 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001", ad infinitum."

Because this clarification is so helpful, I advise Sargon to include it in his opening speech. His opponent and readers will have a better chance of understanding his first argument. Moving on, Pro says that his argument (1) is incompatible with the Vedic conception of an eternal universe and time. This seems quite right. Pro goes on to quote Quentin Smith to clarify what he means by "uncaused." Again, I have some criticisms of Pro and Quentin Smith"s position on the WVU, but that will have to wait. This clarification was also quite helpful, and I suggest to Sargon that he include it in his opening statement.
Posted by Miles_Donahue 3 years ago
Miles_Donahue
(Part 6 of 6)

Con begins his closing statement (round four) by asserting that he is not introducing a new concept of God into the debate, because his concept of God is compatible with the definition of "God" given in Pro"s preliminary statement. But this seems patently false. On Con"s view, matter and energy are eternal. The universe only "begins to exist" in the sense of changing form from an inert state to an expanding state. But here the universe is really eternal. For this reason, the Vedic concept of God is not compatible with the definition put forward in Pro"s first statement. He also claims that Pro contradicts himself when he says that time had no first state and yet time is not beginningless. But it seems to me that Pro gave definitions of these terms in the previous round which show that they are not contradictory statements.

Con rightly points out that Pro"s third argument, the WFU, is compatible with his view of God, because on the WFU, the universe exists timelessly at the plank length. But this remark is irrelevant, for as I"ve said they"re not debating the Vedic concept of God. I would like to reiterate that Con gives no arguments for the existence of either his God or the concept of God defined in round one. For this reason, he has not met his burden of proof. Pro"s first argument stood up against Con"s criticisms, Con raised no objections to Pro"s second argument, and Pro"s third argument was not refuted. I must conclude therefore that Pro has met his burden of proof in showing that God, appropriately defined, does not exist.

Pro therefore has my vote in this debate.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
What exact wisdom and knowledge was it? The argument from matter existing eternally? Magic800

No, no, it much more in-depth than that.

In 2004, a 2m statue of the dancing Shiva was unveiled at CERN, the European Center for Research in Particle Physics in Geneva. The statue, symbolizing Shiva's cosmic dance of creation and destruction, was given to CERN by the Indian government to celebrate the research center's long association with India. A special plaque next to the Shiva statue explains the significance of the metaphor of Shiva's cosmic dance with quotations from Fritjof Capra: "

http://en.wikipedia.org...

and even more so that just particle physics.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Miles_Donahue 3 years ago
Miles_Donahue
SargonjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
SargonjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 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: Great debate by the both of you! You were debating a very complex subject, yet neither seemed to lose grasp of it. I applaud both Pro and Con. RFD: Conduct - While Con was more polite, I felt he was a bit... too polite. I didn't count this against you. (Indeed, the only reason I didn't give Con conduct was because there was nothing wrong with Pro's conduct.) However, just be careful. Some might view that as ingratiating yourself to the viewers and your opponent. "Trying too hard" if you will. S/G- Con used a lot of commas where periods would've been appropriate. Args- In the end, I think Con mad an admirable attempt. However, he failed to argue that God could exist from the definition produced in R1. The God Con proposed wasn't shown to be personal, rational etc... Sources- Both sides sourced well, and I do not hold the same opinion as the previous voter on Con's final sources. Great job both of y
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
SargonjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro, to be honest I think Con was fighting an uphill fight after he conceded there is or was no first state of time. Both provided amazing arguments, and everything was virtually equal. Due to the fact of that concession, Pro was able to refute all of Cons points with logical rational reasons. For this reason Pro
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
SargonjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments