The Instigator
Lazarius
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SubjectiveMorality
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God's existence is intrinsically impossible

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 1 vote the winner is...
SubjectiveMorality
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 41163
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Lazarius

Pro

I affirm the position that it is intrinsically impossible for a God to exist.

Contention One: Cause
The laws of conservation of matter and energy clearly state that is impossible for matter and energy to be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing. [1][2] This of course means that anything currently existing within space-time must be composed of matter from something else, or converted from other energy. Now, since my definition of God has not been contested, we will be using it, including the part where we define God as having created the universe. The big bang, or any sort of beginning phenomena you care to imagine, would obviously require some type of energy. So God is a being that uses some kind of energy. Again, as we already know, energy does not come from nowhere. Obviously, since the only thing that could have come from nothing is nothing itself, we know that God is synonymous with nothing, or nonexistence. So God is intrinsically impossible.

Contention Two: Omnipotence
Omnipotence has been defined as the ability to do literally everything, as this is even borne out by its roots, omni (all) potence (capability). [3] So we know that under the currently used and currently uncontested definition of God, God has teh ability to do anything. What this entails is a long string of paradoxes. For example, if God can do anything, then God must be able to think of something that He can't do. In which case, He wouldn't be able to do it, and wouldn't be omnipotent. God would have to be able to create a rock that weighed so much that he couldn't move it. If he can't create the rock, He isn't omnipotent. If he can create the rock, then He can't move it and isn't omnipotent. God would have to be able to create another omnipotent God that could beat Him in an armwrestle. Which would mean that since one of the two Gods couldn't beat the other in an armwrestle, one of them wouldn't be omnipotent. So omnipotence itself is intrinsically impossible, and so under our current and uncontested definition, God is intrinsically impossible.

Contention Three: Omniscience
Omniscience is defined as knowing everything that can be known or having infinite knowledge. But knowing everything isn't really as testable as is needed. Firstly, how would a being know that they are omniscient? Well of course they know, after all, they know everything, including their own omniscience. Right? No, that's circular reasoning. Additionally, the being might think they know everything, and could be wrong. For example, if a God knew infinitely many things except one, say that there are aliens in Andromeda, then they wouldn't know that they didn't know there were aliens in Andromeda. And so they would go along thinking they knew everything and in reality not. In fact, the God would have an infinite number of things they didn't know, because they wouldn't know about the aliens, wouldn't know that they didn't know about the aliens, wouldn't know that they didn't know that they didn't know baout the aliens, etc. Which brings me to another point. What is knowledge? Is it a simple fact? If so, then even if you list off everything that God knows in an infinitely long list, you could still create a second list which just adds "God knows this:" in front of everything on the first list, creating a new list of things God doesn't know just as long as the first.

Contention Four: Omniscience/Omnipotence
So assume the following scenario. Some engineers get together and start designing a skyscraper. So God sees this (because he is omnipresent) and says to himself "I know that when the skyscraper is finished, I will have to chop it in half with a meteor." So ten years later the skyscraper is done. So God says to himself "Time to destroy it with meteors." Now God can do one of two things: destroy it with meteors, or not destroy it with meteors. If he decides that he will destroy it, then he was right when he said he knew what he was going to do. However, this means that God cannot not destroy the skyscraper. This refutes the fact of his own omnipotence. And after He destroys the skyscraper, he can't change his mind and undo it, because then he would be wrong when He said he knew he would destroy it. So what if He doesn't destroy it? Then this means that when He said that he knew He was going to destroy it that He was wrong, meaning that God isn't omniscient. So it is intrinsically impossible to be omnipotent and omniscient, meaning it is intrinsically impossible for a God to exist.

These are my four main reasons why I believe that it is intrinsically impossible for a God as we have defined to exist.

[1] wikipedia.org

[2] wikipedia.org

[3] dictionary.reference.com

[4] dictionary.reference.com
SubjectiveMorality

Con

I thank my opponent for requesting this long-awaited, particular debate.

Rebuttals:

Contention One: Cause

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change"it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite. The law of conservation of mass, or principle of mass conservation, states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy (both of which have mass), the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is "conserved" over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed. The law implies (requires) that during any chemical reaction, nuclear reaction, or radioactive decay in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products. You argue that everything has to have a cause. Otherwise, its existence is intrinsically and scientifically impossible. However, energy (The strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity) and matter (Physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as distinct from energy) (According to its laws of conservation) neither came from something, nor can be destroyed into nothing.

So therefore, this would be self-contradictory.

Contention 2: Omnipotence

"God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself." - Matt Slick [11]

So, until done, it would not be contradictory to the claim that God has virtually unlimited authority or influence.

Contention 3: Omniscience

We define omniscience as the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge. So therefore, there is absolutely nothing he does not know.

Contention 4: Omniscience/Omnipotence

God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. Common among these are omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God. So therefore, that wouldn't be possible.

Conclusion:

My opponent presented four contentions in an attempt to show that God is impossible; all four are fatally flawed. I am an Atheist as well as my opponent, but these arguments are outdated and no good.

The resolution has not been established.

Source(s):

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

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

https://www.google.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Lazarius

Pro

Your arguments are good. You do good research on the specific topic were discussing and greatly examine arguments to take it down.
SubjectiveMorality

Con

Grammatical Error(s):

We're is a contraction of we are. Were is second person singular past, plural past, and past subjunctive of be. So therefore, judging from your sentence, we're is more appropriate for use.

Also, you clearly made no attempt to refute my arguments. So therefore, victory is close at hand.
Debate Round No. 2
Lazarius

Pro

Sorry about that.

You still haven't proved that God's existence is not intrinsically impossible.
SubjectiveMorality

Con

What you do not realize is that you instigated the debate. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Either I concede that I lose the debate, or I continously refute your arguments.

Also:

"you clearly made no attempt to refute my arguments"
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Trainers 3 years ago
Trainers
If God were to work according to the law of conservation of energy,would he be God? What if He created the energy and can manipulate it?
Posted by Bloodhuntr1 3 years ago
Bloodhuntr1
God is fake soz not soz
Posted by SubjectiveMorality 3 years ago
SubjectiveMorality
"S&G goes to Con for numerous spelling errors by Pro."

And yet, according to your vote, S&G was given to neither. Why is that?
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I am judging only off the information in front of me in this debate. Therefore with the information that is in front of me, we can see con has refuted pro. Pro could have refuted this, but simply gave con props for doing a good job. The only other claims after this was pro saying con has not refuted his points, which is false. This leads me to believe pro did not understand what he was posting fully.

With that being said and pro not contesting cons refutation. The only thing I can do is award arguments to Con.

Started off as a God debate and finished with a low side.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I am going to start with sources on this. Both had a lack of credible or valid sources. None of pros were even hyper links, granted that is not a factor but makes it hard to validate. All of Cons were either wiki, the dictionary, or a link to google. Just due to lack of viable sources on both sides, I am going to award this a tie. S&G goes to con for numerous spelling errors by pro. Especially in R2 where it is quite noticeable. The last thing we are going to cover is arguments. Pros claim on omniscience was mostly irrelevant to this debate and proving God can not exist in my opinion so I am going to judge off c1. In his cause argument Con claims that due to the laws of conservation of mater and energy "it is impossible for matter and energy to be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing." Then then tries to make the claim that it is impossible for God to exist because God could not have arose from nothing.

Con starts with this and refutes his claim

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change"it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite

He then goes a step further to claim that the total mass of reactants muss equal the mass of the starting products.

Con then finishes with this

"However, energy (The strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity) and matter (Physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as distinct from energy) (According to its laws of conservation) neither came from something, nor can be destroyed into nothing."

The way con claimed this refutes pros claims.

Note : Both Pro and Con are misrepresenting the law of conservation with the way they worded some of their arguments, but I a
Posted by Bender75 3 years ago
Bender75
Can you even explain thoroughly what god is before you make that claim.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
LazariusSubjectiveMoralityTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments