The Instigator
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Maria_Magalhaes
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God probably doesn't exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 597 times Debate No: 44607
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

theta_pinch

Pro

The argument from physics

1. Outside of the universe time doesn't exist.
2. God transcends space-time.
3. Therefore God exists outside of space-time.
4. God is outside of space-time and outside of space-time time doesn't exist(1 and 3.)
5. Therefore God doesn't exist.

Basically God can't exist because if he does he's in a place where time doesn't exist and nothing can exist in a place where time doesn't exist.
Maria_Magalhaes

Con

I will like to start asking you some questions, so we can debate this, based upon similar understandings.

1. What is time? And why do you claim nothing can exist in a place where time doesn't exist?

In a very simple approach, supposing time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole. In a place where everything is stationary and there's no progression, where the past, the present and the future are the same, there will be no such thing as time. Therefore this place doesn't exist?

2. What's your understanding of "transcends"?
Transcend: be or go beyond the range or limits of (a field of activity or conceptual sphere).
According to this, a being transcendent to space-time, exists in space-time and beyond. Therefore, only according to this point, you could only claim that God cannot exist beyond space-time. Not that God exists, exclusively, outside space-time.
You also claimed that God couldn't existed in a PLACE where time doesn't exist. So, you took God from the sphere of time, but let him exist in space? (place: a particular position, point, or area in space.)

I believe, that you think that there are many dogmas inside religions, that prevent people from thinking about certain subjects, and deepening their knowledge and evolving. But you're not resolving this problems by trying to approach metaphysical matters through physics .

3. According to Albert Einstein, who did some good contributions for our understanding of this subjects, "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live."
So if we admit that space and time do not actual exist in physical terms, would you claim that we don't exist too?

For the 2" round, besides expecting your answers to the questions I made throughout, I also hope that you can prove the existence of time and space, unless you change your claim from "God doesn't exist" to "Nothing exists" or something like this. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Pro

1. What is time? And why do you claim nothing can exist in a place where time doesn't exist?

Time is a property of space as described in general relativity. Space and time are connected; effecting one effects the other. Now as to why a being can't exist where time doesn't exist; the answer is that space and time are linked; you can't have time without space or vice versa so where time doesn't exist space doesn't exist and therefore the laws of physics which allow for life don't exist outside the universe.

2. What's your understanding of "transcends"?
Transcend: be or go beyond the range or limits of (a field of activity or conceptual sphere)

As in be beyond the range of; meaning outside of space-time.


According to this, a being transcendent to space-time, exists in space-time and beyond. Therefore, only according to this point, you could only claim that God cannot exist beyond space-time. Not that God exists, exclusively, outside space-time.
Well for God to be God he can't be confined to our universe but he can't extend beyond the universe because then he would be frozen in time. In fact God must have originated outside of our universe to create it but outside our universe there is no time or space so nothing can originate beyond our universe.

You also claimed that God couldn't existed in a PLACE where time doesn't exist. So, you took God from the sphere of time, but let him exist in space? (place: a particular position, point, or area in space.)

Bad choice of words, but that was the only way I could think of describing it.

3. According to Albert Einstein, who did some good contributions for our understanding of this subjects, "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live."

He also created the concept of space time, and time dilation which pretty much negates your statement. In time dilation time LITERALLY SLOWS DOWN. For example if you took a spaceship to speeds very close to the speed of light, time would slow down and you would age less than a person on earth. No amount of thinking is going to make you age slower and this effect is actually proven with muons. In labs muons moving at different speeds can be produced. The faster one has a longer half-life; no amount of thinking is going to change that.


PROOF SPACE-TIME EXISTS

According to relativity gravity is actually the warping of space time; if this concept is true then we'd expect light from stars and galaxies to be bent, and that's what we observe. Because of those observations we know that something must be being warped and the only answer is space time because the warping of anything else wouldn't produce the same effects. This is proof that time is linked to space: gravitational fields slow down time! The only way a space warp could produce that effect is if time is linked to space.
Maria_Magalhaes

Con

1. You're saying that without time, there's no space. Therefore you can't exist in a place where's no time, because that place doesn't exist. But instead of saying that God can't exist without a place to exist, you're saying that he needs time? Or do you think, if time could exist without space and vice-verse, God would need both?

I would also like to invite you to deepen your understanding of the concept of time:
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu...

2.You finished this first point by concluding, " therefore the laws of physics which allow for life don't exist outside the universe."
In the second point you stated "Well for God to be God he can't be confined to our universe but he can't extend beyond the universe because then he would be frozen in time."

First, the state of frozen time goes completely along the definition of God. Imagine Time as a simple line that you've drawn in your math book. It stands still, frozen, and you can see it in all its extent.

Second, are you just claiming that God needs physical laws to exist and can't exist needing them? Why didn't you wrote this from the beginning, instead of that confusing reasoning of time and space?

3. I'm sorry to tell you, but all this arguments about the correlation between space and time are utterly pointless. Have you just tried to claim that if two events of one reality affect one another, that reality, as those events, must exist?
I will give you the chance to withdraw this claim. And you may try a different approach to prove the existence of this reality, without which, you're claiming, God can't exist.

As I did in the first round, I will tell you once again, there's no point in a trying to disprove metaphysical matters through physics. Is just like trying to disprove humanism through maths.
Besides, there are so many things to discuss inside physics. There are so many things changing and evolving, so many new discoveries... Why don't you try to discuss physics with physics?
I'm not saying that science can't help us improve our understanding of metaphysics, but it certainly isn't in in the way you're doing it.

4. In conclusion and in regard your love for physics I invite you again to see how mechanical quantum disproves your approach:

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com...

Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism, at least with regard to the human mind, is not "logically consistent with present quantum mechanics." And on the basis of quantum mechanics, Sir Rudolf Peierls, another great 20th-century physicist, said, "the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including [his] knowledge, and [his] consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing."

I hope you enjoy both thesis that I purposed you to read.
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Pro

Second, are you just claiming that God needs physical laws to exist and can't exist needing them?

Yes. Everything needs physical laws to exist but God can't be God if he needs them, but if physical laws don't exist nothing can exist.

Why didn't you wrote this from the beginning, instead of that confusing reasoning of time and space?


Because I got confused with my own reasoning.
Maria_Magalhaes

Con

I'm happy with your honesty. And since you didn't add much to your previous round, I will try to do the same and keep it short.

There is a serious relativism and subjectivity in regard of the real and absolute existence of the physical world that we know.
We can't just claim that nothing can exists without it, without even being able to prove its own existence.

Second, our understanding of our Universe and the evolution of our knowledge about it, if allows us to claim something, is that we don't know everything and even the physical laws that we are aware of, are relative and not absolute.
And I'm disappointed, because you should know this better than most of the people. You have the example of how Einstein and Quantum mechanics, showed that Newton physics couldn't be applied in other contexts of our universe. I even gave you that thesis about how quantum mechanics disproves a materialistic approach to our own existence.
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Pro

Second, our understanding of our Universe and the evolution of our knowledge about it, if allows us to claim something, is that we don't know everything and even the physical laws that we are aware of, are relative and not absolute.

Only some of the physical laws are relative like Newtons 3 laws. However others are absolute like the 1st law of thermodynamics: energy can't be created or destroyed.

I even gave you that thesis about how quantum mechanics disproves a materialistic approach to our own existence.

Quantum mechanics according to the article doesn't necessarily disprove a materialistic view of the universe; it says that there's another possiblity: the many worlds interpretation. As of now we don't know enough to say for sure whether the traditional interpretation or the many worlds interpretation is correct.

CONCLUSION

I presented my argument and adequately responded to con's arguments. Therefore: I have proven my case.
Maria_Magalhaes

Con

You're serious?? --'

Do you think that Newton knew that his laws weren't absolute? As all the physicists in the next 200 years??
You completely failed to understand my point.

The article ends like this :

"The upshot is this: If the mathematics of quantum mechanics is right (as most fundamental physicists believe), and if materialism is right, one is forced to accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that is awfully heavy baggage for materialism to carry.

If, on the other hand, we accept the more traditional understanding of quantum mechanics that goes back to von Neumann, one is led by its logic (as Wigner and Peierls were) to the conclusion that not everything is just matter in motion, and that in particular there is something about the human mind that transcends matter and its laws. It then becomes possible to take seriously certain questions that materialism had ruled out of court: If the human mind transcends matter to some extent, could there not exist minds that transcend the physical universe altogether? And might there not even exist an ultimate Mind?"

I just wanted to point out the fragility of our knowledge about our Universe and how even through a very physical approach there is more than a place to God to exist --' But you completely failed to understand it again.

Conclusion:

I'm not sure if my opponent was serious about his arguments trough out this debate... Since even his presentation of the topic didn't make sense, as he himself admitted.

I'm just disappointed... I tried to make it simple and to address every single approach of my opponent, but he completely failed to understand his and my arguments.

This debate wasn't worth the writing and it will not be worth to read... Unless it is for the article about Quantum mechanics and the one about the time... Is really confusing, but is interesting.
But the debate itself, was pretty worthless.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by OctavianUngureanu 2 years ago
OctavianUngureanu
1. Outside of the universe time doesn't exist.
2. God transcends space-time.
3. Therefore God exists outside of space-time.
4. God is outside of space-time and outside of space-time time doesn't exist(1 and 3.)
5. Therefore God doesn't exist.
I am an atheist but I am not convinced by your argumentation.
A relationship between space and time is a mathematical function that has limits where a value is divided by zero so....
The 2nd statement could be interpreted as the supreme being creating the univers. One can see the space-time as a face of the divinity.
I think this is the point of view of the agnostics, the point where is simplier to believe that a divinity can explain what science did not explained yet. The science is not aplicable to entities "before" the time (yet).
So the dabate you started has a flaw:
- you say "probably" which implies the probability of other argument being possible too.
A debate can start with the statement that "God doesn't exists" or "God exists". Probably doesn't or probably does are not excluding each other.
The String theory (in my "understanding") propose a plausible explanation even for periods "out of time". The Phisics explorations don't exclude the Multiverse, or a chain of universes expanding and dying.
So the space-time is not the ultimate reality (?). If a divinity exists or not apriori could be debatable.
I think that inside the space-time there is no divinity, science being a much better explanation. Outside the space time? Probably, probably not!
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
theta_pinch, if you would like to debate me on this same argument you've provided in R1, post a comment to my profile.
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
Lol. Maria_Magalhaes beat me to accepting it by 30 seconds...
No votes have been placed for this debate.