Is God real?
Debate Rounds (4)
2nd round:starting statement
Good luck to whoever accepts, and thank you for choosing to debate.
God is defined as 'the greatest being that can be conceived'.
I presume that my BoP is to prove that God exists.
My definition of God that I will be going by is the Christian God, who is
By being supernatural, you are inmaterial. In science, you can only test material things as you can visually see and test them. Since you cannot test a supernatural being, any answer can be as valid since you can not be proven any less right or wrong. For example, you say God is the greatest thing, while I say Zeus, while a third party could say a flying spagetti monster. As bizarre as they may sound, being supernatural makes it where any supernatural being could be the right answer.
Omnibenevolent is all good. Now think of all the bad in the world. Do you believe that is acts of God or acts of te devil? If you said acts of God, then you admit God is not all good contradicting his definition. If you say it's acts of the devil, you are wrong. Isaiah 45:7 KFV GOD says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all the". God states he creates evil, proving he is not all good.
God is omnipotent or all powerful. Can God create a boulder so big he couldn't lift it? If he could he would not be omnipotent as he could not lift it, but if he could not then he is not omnipotent as he could not create a boulder that big.
God is omniscient or all knowing. If God knows all then he knows what we are praying for, so what's the point in praying?
I will in the next round go into greater detail and tell how this definition contradicts itself even more by judging the 4 points against one another. Your turn
I thank Con for instigating this debate. According to Con's format, I can only provide an argument this round... Good luck to Con in later rounds.
Cosmological Argument from Contingency
P1: All physical entities has contingent existence.
P2: If the universe is defined as "all space-time, matter and energy", the universe has contingent existence.
P3: All contingent entities are the universe, so therefore the universe has contingent existence
P4: If the universe is contingent, there must be something that is non-contingent to prevent reductio ad infinitum
P5: The non-contingent being must be transcendental, because the being cannot create space-time, while existing in space and time.
P6: If all physical entities are contingent and the causer isn't contingent, the causer must be non-physical
C: Therefore, a being that is non-contingent, transcendent and non-physical must exist.
To refute this argument, you must identify a flaw, or logical fallacy in at least one of the premises; it will render the argument a non-sequitur.
Defense of premise one: This premise is a known posteriori - all physical entities we have observed, exists contingently.
Defense of premise two: "Universe"denotes "all space-time, matter and energy", so this avoids the fallacy of composition. Just because one refers to it as the "universe" does not imply that it is 'composed' of the properties, because it is all space-time, matter and energy.
Defense of premise three: all space-time, matter and energy are physical and exist contingently, if the universe is the latter then the universe exists contingently
Defense of premise four: It must be non-contingent to prevent reductio ad infinitum. There is a chain of contingent entities existing as we look back through time... However, this chain cannot last forever - Hilbert's hotel paradox deduces that an actual infinite cannot logically exist in our universe. Therefore, at one point, there would have to be a non-contingent entity to initiate the chain of contingent entities...
Defense of premise 5: This premise is a priori. If the universe is everything that was listed above, the being that created it, could not be a part of it. Therefore, the being must be transcendental.
Defense of premise 6: This is also a priori. If all contingent entities are physical, and we have deduced already that a non-contingent entity must exist, this being cannot be physical. Therefore it is non-physical.
Therefore, the conclusion logically follows from the premises - the argument is valid and sound.
Illustration that depicts the former:
Modal Ontological Argument (despite it being very unpopular, I will provide it anyway)
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists necessarily.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists necessarily, then a maximally great being that exists necessarily exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being that exists necessarily exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists. (1)
I would use modal notation, but it always screws up my format.
Premise one's validity can be depicted from this analogy: if man were to create a supercomputer, which simulates every possible world, the existence of 'God' must exist possibly. Therefore, if God exists possibly, then God exits necessary (according to system 5). Therefore, premise one is valid.
Premises 2-5 are all valid as long as premise one is valid as well...
Therefore, the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
I think these two arguments will do for this debate.
These arguments deduce that God must exist. Since I have proven that God must exist I fulfill my burden of proof. Since I have fulfilled my BoP, I defend the resolution.
Good luck to you next round, Con.
In the cosmological argument premise 4(aka p4) states that, "If the universe is contingent, there must be something non-contingent to prevent reductio ad infinitum".
From what I can find reductio ad infinitum translates to "leading back to the infinite" or "reduction to infinity". We know the universe is infinite, however. This disproves that there must be a God to stop infinity, as infinity already exist.
In Premise 5 aka p5 it says, "The non-contingent being must be transcendental,..." Which is saying how the being must be of or relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm. This is saying they are supernatural, of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe. The thing about supernatural beings is they can not be tested, as they are not physical nor visible. With that said, we can not test and see if they are there or not. I could say there is a demon in between you and the screen. You say it can't be there since you can't see it, I insist it's invisible. You say you can't feel it, I say it's non physical. For every claim you provide, I can give a reason and excuse.
In your Modal Ontological Argument premise 1 aka p1 states "It is possible that a maximally great being exist necessarily". Possible is defined as able to be done. Almost all things are possible. For example, "It is possible that a man could win the lottery". It's possible, because it is able to be done. You also can't prove me wrong. However, for your premise, I can't do an counter to your premise. "It is possible that a maximally great being doesn't exist necessarily".
I thank Con for a quick response. Hopefully we can get another one.
The first contention that Con mentions, is that God cannot logically exist because we cannot 'observe' God. Con opines that God doesn't exist because we cannot deductively corroborate His existence from a posteriori. However, this is false. As I have argued, if God were to exist, one of His properties would be transcendence. From Con's logic, nothing that exists transcendentally can possibly exist. Alike God, numbers exist transcendently... Just because we cannot physically observe an actual number, does not mean that they do not exist. The same applies for shapes. Unless Con manages to disprove the existence of numbers and shapes, this argument will remain invalid.
Despite this property of God not pertaining to the definition, I will rebut nonetheless. We cannot objectively conclude that the world would be 'more good', without evil. Evil cannot exist without free will. Some may argue that free will is more important than the eradictation of 'evil' as a whole. Morality is subjective, your opinion is equally valid as mine - the argument is moot.
"Can God create a boulder so big he couldn't lift it? If he could he would not be omnipotent as he could not lift it, but if he could not then he is not omnipotent as he could not create a boulder that big."
God cannot exactly 'lift'. Your argument is logically incoherent in this context; you are suggesting that matter can exist outside of space. Nevertheless, if this hypothetical rock were to exist, it would be impossible to 'lift'. 'Up' would literally be in every vector, so there is no way to distinguish what is up, down, diagonal etc. I know what this argument is intended to demonstrate... However, until Con proposes a non-sophistry example of the omnipotence paradox, the argument is moot.
"God is omniscient or all knowing. If God knows all then he knows what we are praying for, so what's the point in praying?"
I commend that the definition of 'God', does not entail the Christian God. Nonetheless, Con's example is not a contradiction of omniscience, so the argument is a red herring. Despite it seeming pointless, this argument does not convey an oxymoron.
Cosmological Argument from Contingency
"From what I can find reductio ad infinitum translates to "leading back to the infinite" or "reduction to infinity""
This should source should help you, "An argument that creates an infinite series of causes that does not seem to have a beginning." (1)
"We know the universe is infinite"
No. No we do not. I ask you to provide a source for that assertion.
" This disproves that there must be a God to stop infinity, as infinity already exist."
Con hasn't cited a source to ratify that affirmation... Until he does, this premise remains valid.
"Which is saying how the being must be of or relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm."
Transcendence denotes "outside space-time".
"This is saying they are supernatural, of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe."
Not exactly beyond the observable universe; the whole universe.
"The thing about supernatural beings is they can not be tested, as they are not physical nor visible"
I need not prove God's existence from a posteriori, the rendition could be reversed, you cannot disprove God's existence from a posteriori. My arguments defend the resolution.
"I could say there is a demon in between you and the screen. You say it can't be there since you can't see it, I insist it's invisible. You say you can't feel it, I say it's non physical. For every claim you provide, I can give a reason and excuse."
As interesting as that is, it commits the shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy. Without evidence of it existing in the first place, there is no reason to believe it.
Modal Ontological Argument
"However, for your premise, I can't do an counter to your premise."
Con drops the Modal Ontological Argument. Until it is refuted, I defend the resolution - I win the argument. The argument deduces,
∃◊X → ∃◊X ∴ ∃!X
(x being God). In English: there exists a possibly necessary God, which implies the existence of a necessary God, therefore, there exists only one God.
Do you reckon we can get one more round in by the end of the night? Anyway, good luck Con.
My source for the universe is infinite is this: Diameterpossibly infinite, at least 91 billion light-years (28"109 pc) in diameter[source:wiki]. Also, one of the greatest minds ever Albert Einstein said,
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity...".
Modal Ontological argument where I stated "can't" was meant to be "can" and was an correction by my phone. The sentence before and after that sentence was my argument(starting with "In your Modal Ontological Argument".
That is all I have. If we had another round maybe I could give more reasoning, but at this moment and at the best of my own personal knowledge, this is the best argument I can give.
I do have to thank Pro, as he has taught me a lot over this debate. My viewpoints has not changed, but he has taught me different concepts and aspects that I will look into in the future, and maybe in the future we could debate again, next time I will be better prepared. Even though he will most likely win, I do say thank you for debating, and great opposing arguments. I apologize for the lack of argument in this round, but we will get the round over with like you wsnted, and if you would like a better argument, in the future we can do it again, as I promise I will be better mentally prepared and more knowledged. Thank you.
Thanks for the debate.
My adversary dropped all of his initial arguments, so he has not fulfilled his BoP.
Cosmological Argument from Contingency
For further clarification of this argument, it is constructed upon the A-theory of time. A-Theory of time postulates that time has tenses; past, future present etc. This seems the most logical in comparison to 'B-Theory'. In fact, B-Theory of time postulates that the flow of time is an illusion, and that time is tenseless. However, this would completely contradict our perception of time...
Nonetheless, this argument remains valid, because Con did not cite his sources; he cannot direct me to an entire website and expect me to find the exact same paragraph where he found his information. He then proceeded to quote Einstein, but however, no evidence was proposed that claims the universe is infinite. If we just 'believe' Einstein without evidence, that would be an appeal to authority fallacy. Hilbert's hotel paradox deduces that an actual infinite cannot exist - Con would also have to refute his logic...
Modal Ontological Argument
This is Con's refutation to the first premise in the argument: ""It is possible that a man could win the lottery". It's possible, because it is able to be done."
"Possibility", in this context refers to existence in at least one 'possible world'. This is not a multiverse theory. Possible worlds are hypothetical renditions in relation to how our actuality could have been.
Therefore, the argument remains valid.
I thank Con for this debate. Since I have refuted all of Con's arguments, and both of mine remain valid, I defend the resolution. And I am up for a future debate; whenever you want one, just PM me or something.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had very strong arguments, that Con hasn't rebutted. He acknowledged them, however, he never rebutted them fully. Grammar mistakes on Con's part, Pro takes grammar. Pro used the only sources. Conduct to Pro because Con had quick responses that barely even rebutted anything. Pro rebutted all of Con's arguments solid.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.