Is it likely that a God exists?
Debate Rounds (5)
Hey there! I am new here. I have viewed some debates on this site and I have educated myself about how to debate over the last week or so. I apologize if my debating style is poor - with practise comes perfection! I am only 15. If you are significantly older than I am, don't hesitate to accept, I want a challenge :)
People tend to define things in the first round, and assign a format to the debate; I will do the same!
"God" - "a person or thing of supreme value" (1)
Perhaps that one is a bit vague, maybe this one would define it better:
"God" - "T
So, I wish whoever chooses to accept this debate first good luck, and I hope we can have a heated discussion!
Oops, almost forgot, the format:
Round One: Pro - define stuffs, Con - Acceptance
Round Two: Pro and Con, opening arguments (no refutations)
Round Three: Pro and Con, more arguments if one wishes and refutations
Round Four: (Same as round three)
Round Five: Pro and Con, closing statements
And, if you have any problem with the debate, please post a comment first before accepting :)
Ah, thank you for accepting! I anticipate a very intellectual debate! Latin phrases kinda get thrown around here a lot, so I may as well do the same. I have to defend the resolution "Is it likely that a God exists?" I will be affirming the former...
Ok, the first argument that I would like to propose is known as the:
"Kalam Cosmological Argument from Contingency" - With my own style to it!
This definition will help me with my argument: "Universe" - " All space-time, matter, and energy, including the solar system, all stars and galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole" (1)
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.
C: If the universe has contingent existence, and the universe is effectively everything, there would have to be something that is non-contingent - external to the universe to cause it to come to existence.
To refute the argument, you would have to show a flaw, or logical fallacy in at least one premise - it would render the argument a non-sequitur.
Premise one is a posteriori (yay to Latin) - everything that has been observed, has contingent existence - relies on something else to exist. This premise is obviously limited to what we can see, but it is still valid.
Premise two is a logical deduction from premise two. "Universe" is literally another name for "all space-time, matter and energy", so this avoids the fallacy of composition. Just because you refer to it as the "universe" does not mean that it is composed of the latter, because it 'is' the latter.
Now, on to the conclusion. This argument infers a being that is non-physical, external to the universe and is non-contingent must exist. 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. It must be non-contingent to prevent reductio ad infinitum (everyone say "yay" to Latin! No? Sorry). I assume you have heard of Hilbert's hotel... It deduces that an actual infinite cannot logically exist in our universe. The being must be non-contingent, because if the being that apparently created everything else has contingent existence, it would mean that it would have a preceding reason to be caused... And this would just go on forever, which is impossible, as aforementioned...
This illustration should help:
The uncaused cause in the diagram would be "God", and all the other caused would be, whatever you want it to be really... From a star, to Sandra Bullock floating around pointlessly in space.
"Supreme" - " Greatest in power, authority, or rank"
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being 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. (2)
Premise one is a priori, because God is defined as "T . "Supreme" - " Greatest in power, authority, or rank" (so, pretty much the greatest...) (3)
Premise 2-5 are a logical deduction from the definition of God. To say that he does not exist is all possible worlds would limit his power, and since God is the most powerful, it is nonsensical to say that he cannot exist in every possible world.
Since I have made the claim that God is the most powerful, I now have to provide an argument to why God has omnipotence:
P1: God, is the most supreme being. We can think of a God that is attributed omnipotence, and we can think of a God that does not.
P2: A God with omnipotence is greater than one that does not
C: If God is the most supreme being, it would be nonsensical for a God not to have omnipotence, because it is not logically impossible
Premise one is, well, obvious. Anyone can 'think' of a God that has unlimited power, and one that does not.
Premise two is, well, obvious too. Something that has unlimited power, is greater than one that does not, because power contributes to 'greatness'.
The conclusion is a logical deduction from the premises. There are two problems with a God existing without omnipotence:
1 - To suggest that a God has limited power is nonsensical, because you can think of a God that has unlimited power
2 - Conceiving something that is greater than God is nonsensical, because God is defined as "the most supreme", as in, nothing is greater. So to say that something is greater than God is defying the definition of 'God'.
Therefore, if a God exists, God must have omnipotence.
That's enough arguments for one round. I might include the teleological argument in round two, depending on how well Con refutes the arguments already proposed.
It is unlikely that a god exists. The universe was created by science, only science. The Big Bang is what created our earth.
Then you wonder how . Life emerged from non life by naturalistic processes.
Everybody says that man was created by god, which is clearly untrue. If you look at animals in the primate family, you can clearly see the resemblance between humans and primates. Both of us act similarly to each other. Humans came from primates, not God.
Now think of creation this way. God "created" humans thousands of years ago. Thousands of years ago there wasn't anything close to technology. How is it possible to genetically create a man without any technology. We can't even do that now a days.
I was confused by this topic because I'm not sure if you were talking about God or Jesus.
Thanks for the quick response Con. I am glad you honoured the format.
Ok, I will begin with a rebuttal.
Con's argument takes the following format:
P1: The Big Bang happened
P2: Humans came from primates
C: A God doesn't exist
Now, there are several problems with this:
P = problem
P1: Both of Con's premises are red herrings
P2: The Big Bang and revolution are only theories
Defense of Problem 1: Con asserts that because the Big Bang happened, a God cannot exist. In the Cosmological Argument, I asserted that all space-time, energy and matter exist contingently, and therefore would require a non-contingent entity to exist, to prevent reductio ad infinitum. So, if I can prove that the Big Bang existed contingently, it would render Con's argument a non-sequitur. Firstly, for those of you who do not know how the Big Bang is, this illustration should help... This illustration also helps me verify how the Big Bang existed contingently:
Big Bang Theory- "It states that the Universe was in a very high density state and then expanded." (1)
As we can see from the diagram and what the Big Bang Theory theorises, for the Big Bang to happen, it would actually require space-time, matter and energy. To assert that the Big Bang created all space-time matter and energy, when it required space, a finite amount of time, matter and energy is fallacious. It is begging the question. It is like saying, "I exist, because I caused myself to exist".
This illustration also corroborates that the Big Bang actually needed a universe to happen: "Radius of the Visible Universe".
Since I have proven that the Big Bang exists contingently, to say that it was the 'causer' is invalid, for it does not prevent reductio ad infinitum. It is a red herring, because it does not fulfill Con's burden of proof - it does not refute the likelihood of a God existing...
Now, on to revolution: Con insists that people assert that Man was created by a God. This is an anecdotal fallacy. Nevertheless, he extends and says that humans are actually a part of the revolutionary track, like so:
(Annoying drawing positions itself annoyingly...) Nevertheless, we have all seen this before. Con opines that because evolution happened, a God cannot exist. He opines that because humans evolved, it would mean that a God couldn't have created them... If you were to think of it like a painter, and his painting, you would logically say that the painter painted the painting, and not the paintbrush. In this context, Con is saying that the painter did not paint the painting, because the paintbrush painted it. God could have created a chain of events that would definitely result in humans existing. It is a red herring, because it does not refute the likelihood of a God existing...
Defense of Problem 2: It is well known, they are only theories. Hence, "The Big Bang Theory" and "The Theory of Evolution".
"God "created" humans thousands of years ago."
I disagree, I believe humans evolved around 6 million years ago. (2)
"Thousands of years ago there wasn't anything close to technology."
I concur. God did not cause everything due to technology... He did so with omnipotence.
"How is it possible to genetically create a man without any technology"
"We can't even do that now a days."
Because we don't have omnipotence...
"I was confused by this topic because I'm not sure if you were talking about God or Jesus."
Uhhhh, God. Lol.
I am not sure Con understands what this argument entails... We are debating the likelihood of a "supreme being" existing.
Over to you Con.
You basically helped me with my point by putting the picture of evolution between the monkey and the human. If humans came from apes, than God didn't create them.
You keep talking about "omnipotence" and more "omnipotence". Omnipotence is a man with great powers, like superman, batman, even hulk. I mean, it's ridiculous to think that a man, just like us, could have superpowers or great powers.
By the way, there is evidence for the Big Bang: Gravitational waves were detected in the cosmic microwave background radiation
Another quick response from Con!
Con opines that I, in fact, helped him by posting the illustration of evolution, despite it being very binary. However, Con neglected the analogy that refutes his belief that if evolution is true, then God couldn't have created humans. This topic shouldn't be discussed, because it is a red herring - evolution does not refute God's existence...
The Big Bang Theory
I don't think Con has read through my argument... I never denied the theory, therefore, his argument is irrelevant and is still a red herring...
Con, the definition of omnipotence is infinite power. A man cannot be God, because he would be limited by the laws of physics. The argument is self-refuting. I never said that a man could have omnipotence. Have you even read my arguments?
Other stuff that needs addressing
"Maybe a long time ago there was a man that everybody thought was great, and they worshipped him."
I love stories.
"Since they believed he was great they turned him into "a god""
This is logically impossible; humans cannot physically attribute a 'man' omnipotence, omniscience, transcendence etc.
"Being "A god" doesn't mean anything"
Uh, yes. Yes it does. I defined God in round one... God is the most supreme being.
"So yes, maybe there was a god, but "god" didn't do anything great."
This is mere speculation... People's connotations of 'God' is irrelevant. There is no veracity to this argument. If we extrapolate the evidence that I have proposed, it deduces that God exists necessarily.
"There was never a god that watches you from the sky ,and accepts you into heaven. It's a myth. Like most ancient stories."
This is an argument from silence fallacy. Con presents no credible evidence to support his assertions.
Con's refutations for evolution and the Big Bang are irrelevant to the discussion. Con postulates that a man existed many years ago, who people referred to as "God". Con neglects the given definition for "God" and creates his own half way through the debate. He opines that a human being can possess omnipotence and gives false examples of made-up characters that are powerful. He has dropped my previous argument: The Cosmological Argument from Contingency and the Ontological Argument.
Over to you Con. Debates like this are normally discussed from philosophical arguments, for you can neither prove or disprove the existence of God through science... Anyway thanks for the quick reply and good luck to you in round four. And by the way, "God" does not necessarily mean the "Christian God", just a supreme being.
There probably once was a guy that went around preaching (since I heard you love stories) about religion, but there was never a "supreme being"
A being that is > everything else, is not logically impossible.
"It is impossible for a man to become "supreme"."
I concur, that's why I never made the assertion...
"To be supreme (which is more like a word that describes ancient heroes in myths) would mean to have something that separated you from the normal man."
Supreme means the greatest, or utmost.
"There might have been a "god" but he was not supreme. There was nothing about him that made him supreme, no powers, nothing."
I agree. Unfortunately this does not refute God's existence...
Con has left my arguments uncontested, meaning that he hasn't been able to negate the resolution.
Thanks for the debate, Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.