The Instigator
DrewMcD
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
usernamesareannoying
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Is God real?

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 1 vote the winner is...
usernamesareannoying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 493 times Debate No: 72261
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

DrewMcD

Con

Do you believe God is real? I will be taking the con part of the argument, and I challenge you to try to prove God is real. Rounds will be set up like this:
1st round:acceptance
2nd round:starting statement
3rd round:rebuttals
4th:conclussion
Good luck to whoever accepts, and thank you for choosing to debate.
usernamesareannoying

Pro

I accept.

God is defined as 'the greatest being that can be conceived'.

I presume that my BoP is to prove that God exists.

Your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
DrewMcD

Con

While one definition of God(and not the one I will be going by) I will discuss your definition. What your definition is saying is basically God is the greatest thing ever created. This, however, is just an opinion. We also can't test to see if their is something greater than God, as he is supernatural, but I'll explain that in a minute.
My definition of God that I will be going by is the Christian God, who is
1.supernatural
2.Omnibenevolent
3.Omnipotent
4.Omniscient
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
usernamesareannoying

Pro

Prologue

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.


Arguments

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:
<br />The uncaused cause in the diagram would be

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.


Closing statements

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.


(1)
http://www.angelfire.com...


Debate Round No. 2
DrewMcD

Con

Good luck to pro in the later rounds.

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".
usernamesareannoying

Pro

Prologue

I thank Con for a quick response. Hopefully we can get another one.

Rebuttals

Testing God?

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.


Omnibenevolence

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.


Omnipotence Paradox

"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.


Omniscience Paradox

"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.


Closing Statements

Do you reckon we can get one more round in by the end of the night? Anyway, good luck Con.


(1) https://glosbe.com...
Debate Round No. 3
DrewMcD

Con

Pro makes VERY good points, so I will try my best to prove them wrong.
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.
usernamesareannoying

Pro

Prologue

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.

Closing Statements

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.



Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
No problem dude. It happens :)

Your case still works under the pretense of the provided definition; it shouldn't hinder you...

Good luck in the debate, and I hope this will be a fun argument.
Posted by DrewMcD 1 year ago
DrewMcD
I apologize for not clarifying that. I went to change it once I saw the first comment but by the time I did you already accepted. I apologize, and yes the philosophers definition will be suffice and I will debate that also. Once again, I sincerely apologize. @usernamesareannoying
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
I will post case tomorrow. But this is just a message for Con. I do not need to deductively validate God's existence from a posteriori; priori will suffice.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Wait what? No-where in the resolution, nor your round one did you specify the Christian God. Hopefully, the definition widely accepted by philosophers will suffice?
Posted by DrewMcD 1 year ago
DrewMcD
@illegalcombatant I am going by the Christian God definition which is that he is
1.supernatural
2.omnibenevolent
3.omnipotent
4.omniscient
Posted by Illegalcombatant 1 year ago
Illegalcombatant
Think you should define "God" other wise some one can just define God as pure energy or something.....

Energy exists therefore God exists.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
DrewMcDusernamesareannoyingTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
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.