The Instigator
Spekx
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ThreePointOneFour
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is there a God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 74073
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Spekx

Pro

This first round will be an acceptance round and arguments for this round will not be accepted.

I would ask that any opponent who accepts argues the reasons why there is no God through reason and known science (sources must be cited). I want a respectful debate void of mudslinging and name calling, a debate that focuses on the known facts and pure reason.
ThreePointOneFour

Con

I will accept the challenge to present the reasonable position that no god exists. By god I am assuming we are debating the god as described by the majority of US Christianity.

These definitions seem to be reasonable:

DEFINITIONS:
God- The perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe. (http://www.merriam-webster.com......)

Exist- to have actual being : to be real (http://www.merriam-webster.com......)

I look forward to an interesting debate and look forward to learning a few things. Good luck to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Spekx

Pro

First I want to thank the Con for accepting this debate, and I wish him luck as well. I will affirm to both him and everybody else that I accept and agree with his definitions of the words "God" and "Exist". However I will use the term "Supreme Being" meaning his definition of "God" if that's acceptable.

So the question that arises is how can a reasonable person be certain that a Supreme Being exists? Which I think is both a good and fair question. But to answer that I think we need to contextualize it with what we know of our Universe and how big a role the cause-and-effect linear time progression effects how the laws of physics work in our time/space. In our Universe a cause (catalyst) always proceeds an effect (result).

For example:
My mother had sexual relations with my father and got pregnant (cause)
I was born 9 months later (effect).

So I can say that the reason that I exist is because of the actions of my parents. Then it logically follows that the reason they exist is because of the actions of their parents and so on and so forth going all the way back through my familial generations to an origin. This is linear time and how we make sense of our own understanding of where we come from. It makes sense all the way until you get back to the point where there are no people.

Evolution is often touted as the proof that there is no God. I would even go further to say it is the reason that many people self-identify as Atheists. While evolution attempts to explain life's diversity it offers no cause for the origin of life itself that allowed for the evolutionary theory to be considered plausible. This rather benign study is referred to as abiogenesis or biopoieses is the study of the creation of life from non-life (source https://en.wikipedia.org... ). It is an area of study abounding in hypotheses but completely lacking in scientific substance. The only physical proof they seem to have is evidence of self-replicating RNA strands. However our current understanding of the intricacies of molecular bonding are still woefully inadequate (source http://arstechnica.com... ).

So what does all this have to do with a God?

The primary problem with there being no God is the logically fallacy of infinite regression. You go back and back and back until all matter and energy are condensed into a single singularity (Big bang theory). But without being able to explain where that matter and energy came from you hit a brick wall. There is in fact NO reason why matter and energy should exist in our universe at all. Without a catalyst (cause) its impossible to have a effect (creation of the universe). But this necessitates another important question.

If everything has an origin then where did God come from?

The fact is that other dimensions outside of our own exist (source http://www.sciencedaily.com... ) Here is a snippet from the sourced article......

"Don't worry if you can't picture a 10-dimensional world. Our minds are accustomed to only three spatial dimensions and lack a frame of reference for the other six, says UW-Madison physicist Gary Shiu, who led the new study. Though scientists use computers to visualize what these six-dimensional geometries could look like (see image), no one really knows for sure what shape they take.

The new Wisconsin work may provide a long-sought foundation for measuring this previously immeasurable aspect of string theory.

According to string theory mathematics, the extra dimensions could adopt any of tens of thousands of possible shapes, each shape theoretically corresponding to its own universe with its own set of physical laws."

(end of cut and paste)

This means that in theory you could have a dimension in which an effect (God's creation) proceeds a cause (????). It also stands to reason that this provides a platform to assume an afterlife but that is another debate entirely.

The fact that we live in a linear time space in which a cause always proceeds an effect is to me absolute proof positive that a Supreme Being exists.
ThreePointOneFour

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this great conversation. I hope you find this debate an interesting challenge and a worthwhile exchange of ideas.

In this debate we can affirm only one of the following propositions; either a god exists or no god exists. It is as simple as that.

If no god exists then I am already right, and the debate is over. However, if I"m wrong then we have a situation in which we can divide the remaining proposition, "god exists", into two categories:
1) a god that manifests himself in reality in some detectable fashion, or
2) a god that does not.

Please notice these are two, mutually exclusive propositions and, being analogous to the antecedent, one, and only one, of these propositions can be true.

A god that is undetectable is in fact indistinguishable from a god that "does not exist". We can rule out this proposition because no one can justify this god"s existence.

That leaves us with the remaining proposition. A god that manifests in reality and is detected by some fashion.
This is the situation that many believers claim to be the case. In other words, they, the believers, claim they are "god detectors". They will say, they have either experienced something in their life or they have reached some logical conclusion that they have some epistemologically sound foundation upon which to base their belief. The bottom line is that this is where the believer will fail to prove his case. It is his burden to demonstrate, without relying upon fallacy, how "we" can detect god. He would now be arguing for a detectable god. Also, a detectable god is a falsifiable god.

Now, I have made a positive claim that no god or gods exist. This, however, is not a universal claim for all possible gods. I will point out the fact, that, even if I am unable to provide sufficient evidence for the proposition "no god or gods exist", any incompleteness in my evidence would not, in itself, justify the opposite proposition that a god or gods would, in fact, exist. The justification for this disclaimer is supported as follows. We are, in fact, debating the existence of a being that lacks the quality of being a well-defined entity. In the mind of every believer there exists a god who possess as many variations in desires, character and ontology as exists in the diversity of character, imagination and understanding possessed by all the believers. It is certainly possible that I have not provided evidence for a god I am unaware of, that is, I could have sufficiently supported my rational for the god I believed to be central to the discussion and just argued for the wrong god. Given the great number of gods that people have claimed to have existed throughout history, if there is an error, then it is more likely that this argument missed the mark for your god than it is for the negation of my no god or gods exist claim. Moreover, my failure would not "prove" gods existence, if it did, then this would in fact be the "go to" argument for all theists and believers to use as their justification and warrant.
Debate Round No. 2
Spekx

Pro

Thank you Con for your thought provoking and intelligent argument. However at this juncture I will have to flat out disagree with you......

You are stating that something cannot exist without our (human science's) ability to detect it. This is illogical and this is why. Prior to the creation of high powered microscopes we (people) had no means to detect anything in the microscopic universe. Things like germs, molecules, and atoms were not real to us (people).

However does that mean that those things did not always exist?

Things can and do exist prior to our ability to detect them.

I cannot prove that God exists, no more then you Con can prove that he does not. At this time the most we both can say is that science has not progressed to the point to where there can be a definitive answer to that question based on pure known and provable facts.

This is why I specified that our arguments would include "pure reason". I have attempted in my previous argument to show that the linear time cause and effect nature of our own dimension (or Universe) REQUIRES a God. Because without one you are left with an "Eternal" single singularity made up of all the condensed matter and energy in the universe (Big Bang Theory). But that in itself goes against science and the second law of thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics also known as the law of Increased Entropy (Source http://www.allaboutscience.org... ) Here is a snippet.....

"Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase."

(end of cut and paste)

Which means its IMPOSSIBLE that this singularity that contained all the condensed matter and energy in the universe is eternal. Which means that the people who believe no God exists need to explain where all that matter and energy came from and why the singularity formed in the first place.

Again I will state that the linear time progression in the cause and effect nature of our universe absolutely necessitates a catalyst. I call that catalyst God.
ThreePointOneFour

Con

Both Con and I must shoulder the burden of providing evidence for our positions concerning the existence of god. So far Con has failed to advance a single smidge of evidence that supports his proposition that a god, or supreme being exists. Instead of providing sound evidence for his position Con has opted to initiate the debate with a strong counterattack of arguments that have not even been advanced? Then Con brought in a big bag of straw men, lined them up and knocked a couple over. Meanwhile I have supplied con a sound challenge, not based on the tired and defeated cosmological argument but something that is firmly planted within the principle of analogy. When I read the beginning of Con’s argument and examine the arguments he anticipates are stoppers for the non-existence of god it becomes clear that the overarching fallacy that he intends to prove god with is the Argument from Ignorance. Stuffed in the middle is the cosmological argument. It’s just turtles all the way down.

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

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven then, presto the believer arrives at his presupposed and definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not "wait" upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone.

Which I think is both a good and fair question. But to answer that I think we need to contextualize it with what we know of our Universe and how big a role the cause-and-effect linear time progression effects how the laws of physics work in our time/space. In our Universe a cause (catalyst) always proceeds an effect (result).

For example:
My mother had sexual relations with my father and got pregnant (cause)
I was born 9 months later (effect).

In Con’s opening statement he makes a small mistake in the timeline of life on earth and I am not sure what if anything is going to come of this anachronism. People only go back to a common ancestor a few million years or so. However space/time breaks down at the plank time boundary of the theoretical big bang some 13.8 billion years ago.


I don’t think that abiogenesis or biopoieses is the study of the creation of life from non-life.

It is the study of the origin of life from non-life, not “creation”.

The primary problem with there being no God is the logically fallacy of infinite regression…

Ironically Con is the one proposing the logical fallacy of infinite regress. This is not the position that any atheist I know of takes. Unbelievers who defend their position do not resort to use the origin of the universe, better known as the cosmological argument. They are usually happy as am I to explain that this is not relevant to the argument. This is not something that is relative to the debate of whether or not a god exists.

Con makes a couple of false claims:

1) Evolution is often touted as the proof that there is no God.

2) If everything has an origin then where did God come from?

Con begins with these two straw man arguments. Con needs to focus on the elements of the debate presented and refrain from introducing someone else’s arguments as they are not my arguments.

Con then starts another argument disputing abiogenesis. I did not bring this argument up and it is OK with me that Pro has difficulties with abiogenesis. This is not something that is relative to the debate of whether or not a god exists.

Also Con incorrectly conflates the big bang theory with a singularity and then straw mans this into the fallacy of paradox. The big bang theory does not go beyond or explain anything beyond the plank time boundary. We don’t have any scientific model that maps a singularity. This tirade is not necessary in the proof or disproof for god or gods.


The fact is that other dimensions outside of our own exist (source http://www.sciencedaily.com...... ) Here is a snippet from the sourced article......

Con makes a pretty big mistake in offering the claim that additional dimension are “outside” the time and space of our universe. He fails to understand the science dimensional space.

Below is my address to Con’s next rebuttle…………………………………………………………………………………

Per Con’s debate outline I agree that he will have a tough or impossible time providing detectable evidence, i.e., empirical evidence for the existence of god. However, given the nature of our capabilities to comprehend the world and reality we must use reliable methods that will accurately map reality. I have, however, introduced my argument based on an appeal to analogy which is a sound argument planted in reason, the very thing Con requires.

Con believes science lacks the means or method to prove a negative. First, science is not in the business of proof. Proof has no business in the empirical world. Proof is reserved for the world of geometry, set theory, etc.

Con’s lack of evidence is the strength of my argument, so far he has yet to advance any evidence. In the absence of evidence, therefore, we have evidence for the contrary.

You are stating that something cannot exist without our (human science's) ability to detect it. This is illogical and this is why. Prior to the creation of high powered microscopes we (people) had no means to detect anything in the microscopic universe. Things like germs, molecules, and atoms were not real to us (people).

Con claims that I am being “illogical” (definition from Webster - means irrational, unreasonable, etc.) when I said: “A god that is undetectable is in fact indistinguishable from a god that "does not exist". We can rule out this proposition because no one can justify this god’s existence”. I challenge con to produce evidence for something that is fits in the categories of being both real and being completely undetectable to us.

Also, it is Con’s logic that is inconsistent. Everything Con uses as an example was detectable prior to “high powered microscopes”. I think Con will agree with me that molecules of air have been detectable well before microscopes, i.e., we can see the effects of wind. Germs were detectable long before we knew what they were. The word atom comes from Demacritus who was born in Greece in BCE. https://the-history-of-the-atom.wikispaces.com...

I cannot prove that God exists, no more then you Con can prove that he does not. At this time the most we both can say is that science has not progressed to the point to where there can be a definitive answer to that question based on pure known and provable facts.

I don’t have to “prove” it’s not true, I just have to show where Con’s assertions are more unlikely than likely. I offer as analogy, the pseudoscience of divination, homeopathy and astrology. Science has shown that these notions are untrue and thoroughly falsified. Science has provided evidence that is so compelling and contrary that it is perverse to believe otherwise.

As I have already stated addressing Con’s previous round of arguments, rebutting these arguments are not necessary to my case. I won’t follow these any further into their rabbit holes.

Con still needs to present evidence for the existence of god and until he does, my evidence from the principal of analogy is the leading argument.

Both the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are terrible arguments for the existence god. If there were any merit to these this conversation would not be necessary. I will however in the spirit of the debate give two quick references to back up my position. Please take the time to watch the debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig on the Cosmological Argument.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://www.patheos.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Spekx

Pro

Ok CON, first off lets correct the fact that I am PRO and you are CON. From here lets break down the "highlights" of your last argument.

You said "Both Con and I must shoulder the burden of providing evidence for our positions concerning the existence of god."

I agree and that is exactly what I have been doing since the start of this debate.

You stated "Instead of providing sound evidence for his position Con has opted to initiate the debate with a strong counterattack of arguments that have not even been advanced?"

Yes indeed, this isn't my first picnic I've debated this very topic several times before on other websites and am familiar with all the usual arguments.

Then Con brought in a big bag of straw men, lined them up and knocked a couple over.

Let's look at my "straw men"......

Charge 1. The argument from ignorance.

If I stated that the reason that God exists is because science has not proven that he does not, this would be an argument from ignorance. However I gave reason why the existence of this universe is directly correlated with God's actions. This is in fact his (Con's) "straw man" argument to avoid challenging the arguments I have put forth.

Charge 2. My misunderstanding of the concept of time.

In Con"s opening statement he makes a small mistake in the timeline of life on earth and I am not sure what if anything is going to come of this anachronism. People only go back to a common ancestor a few million years or so. However space/time breaks down at the plank time boundary of the theoretical big bang some 13.8 billion years ago.

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org... ) Here is a snippet.

"Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang

While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the universe's history. The Penrose"Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.[80]

There may also be parts of the universe well beyond what can be observed in principle. If inflation occurred this is likely, for exponential expansion would push large regions of space beyond our observable horizon.

Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:

Models including the Hartle"Hawking boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[81]

Brane cosmology models[82] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[83][84][85]

Chaotic inflation, in which inflation events start here and there in a random quantum-gravity foam, each leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[86]

Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning."

(End of cut and paste)

Please read carefully the last line of the copy/pasted line, the fact is science is very much divided on what time is and when exactly it began.

Charge 3. Is the question of abiogenesis relevant to the discussion of whether or not there is a God? I think that it is very relevant to the discussion. If one is to suppose that there is no God or Supreme Being, one needs to develop answers to the question of where life came from without one (or many). You Con are very much correct that a lack of evidence for abiogenesis is NOT proof against the theory. The fact the nothing definitive has been found by these study's should be taken into consideration for anybody weighing the possibility of God's existence

Charge 4. My "conflating" of the big bang theory with the singularity (Source: http://science.howstuffworks.com...) Here is a snippet from the sourced article.

"Today, when we look at the night sky, we see galaxies separated by what appears to be huge expanses of empty space. At the earliest moments of the big bang, all of the matter, energy and space we could observe was compressed to an area of zero volume and infinite density. Cosmologists call this a singularity."

(end of cut and paste)

I wonder how I could've conflated the fact that without a singularity you couldn't have a big bang?

Charge 5. I think science is obligated to prove a negative (God's existence).

No, I think since is obligated to prove how our universe came into existence, as well as where life originated from. I will simply source the work of noted atheist scholar Richard Carrier about proving a negative (Source: http://infidels.org... )

Lastly after lengthy criticisms of my arguments CON writes "Both the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are terrible arguments for the existence god"

I was completely unaware of the fact that it has already been proven that our universe had a beginning and is not eternal/timeless etc. (Source; http://www.technologyreview.com... ) Looks like I don't have to argue the absurdity of a timeless/eternal singularity anyway.

Since its been proven the universe has a beginning how did this singularity that contained all the matter and energy in the universe suddenly pop into existence?

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle

BTW thanks for posting that video debate I thoroughly enjoyed it!
ThreePointOneFour

Con

I want to apologize to Pro for incorrectly referring to him as Con in Round 2 and 3. I also want to thank Pro for staying on topic and refraining from a Gish Gallop which ensures no argument can be discussed in detail. I want to thank Pro for his arguments and for following up on my sources and references.


Charge 1. The argument from ignorance.

If I stated that the reason that God exists is because science has not proven that he does not, this would be an argument from ignorance. However I gave reason why the existence of this universe is directly correlated with God's actions. This is in fact his (Con's) "straw man" argument to avoid challenging the arguments I have put forth.

Pro has not “directly correlated” the existence of the universe with gods actions. Pro leaves too many unanswered questions on the table and falsely assumes his correlation. Pro has failed to demonstrate that a non-sentient being couldn’t have created the universe. Pro has failed to demonstrate that the universe didn’t always exist.


Charge 2. My misunderstanding of the concept of time.

In Con"s opening statement he makes a small mistake in the timeline of life on earth and I am not sure what if anything is going to come of this anachronism. People only go back to a common ancestor a few million years or so. However space/time breaks down at the plank time boundary of the theoretical big bang some 13.8 billion years ago.


(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...... ) Here is a snippet.

"Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang

While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the universe's history. The Penrose"Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.[80]

There may also be parts of the universe well beyond what can be observed in principle. If inflation occurred this is likely, for exponential expansion would push large regions of space beyond our observable horizon.

Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:

Models including the Hartle"Hawking boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[81]

Brane cosmology models[82] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[83][84][85]

Chaotic inflation, in which inflation events start here and there in a random quantum-gravity foam, each leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[86]

Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning."

(End of cut and paste)

Please read carefully the last line of the copy/pasted line, the fact is science is very much divided on what time is and when exactly it began.

Charge 3. Is the question of abiogenesis relevant to the discussion of whether or not there is a God? I think that it is very relevant to the discussion. If one is to suppose that there is no God or Supreme Being, one needs to develop answers to the question of where life came from without one (or many). You Con are very much correct that a lack of evidence for abiogenesis is NOT proof against the theory. The fact the nothing definitive has been found by these study's should be taken into consideration for anybody weighing the possibility of God's existence

Charge 3 betrays Pro’s own method of starting with his conclusion and then projecting this faulty method as my starting point. For example Pro supposes there is a God or a Supreme Being, originally argued from Anselm’s Ontological Argument and is an “a priori” argument, for the existence of God.

Pro projects my position as one that, “supposes that there is no God or Supreme Being.” I however claim there is insufficient evidence for any god and therefore until there is sufficient evidence there is no rational reason to think one exists. Pro can’t show why a small magic man in a baggy blue suite that died long ago wasn’t the creator of the first living organism. Pro has not shown why his god is a better answer to abiogenesis than Vishnu or my man in a baggy blue suite. He simply asserts his god carries the most weight and doesn’t show how or why.



Charge 4. My "conflating" of the big bang theory with the singularity (Source:
http://science.howstuffworks.com......) Here is a snippet from the sourced article.

"Today, when we look at the night sky, we see galaxies separated by what appears to be huge expanses of empty space. At the earliest moments of the big bang, all of the matter, energy and space we could observe was compressed to an area of zero volume and infinite density. Cosmologists call this a singularity."

(end of cut and paste)

I wonder how I could've conflated the fact that without a singularity you couldn't have a big bang?

Charge 5. I think science is obligated to prove a negative (God's existence).

No, I think since is obligated to prove how our universe came into existence, as well as where life originated from. I will simply source the work of noted atheist scholar Richard Carrier about proving a negative (Source: http://infidels.org...... )

It is totally illogical for Pro to source Richard Carrier in support of Charge 5. Carrier’s Infidels article completely follows Carrier’s position that proving a negative is something that can and is done, logically, rationally and probabilistically. To quote Carrier: i.e., there are no Green Martians. ”Thus, when finally deciding what to believe, it is clear that the best policy is to assume that all unprovables are false, until such time as they are proved. In other words, it is reasonable to disbelieve a proposition when there is no evidence.” (Source: http://infidels.org...... )



Lastly after lengthy criticisms of my arguments CON writes "Both the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are terrible arguments for the existence god"

I was completely unaware of the fact that it has already been proven that our universe had a beginning and is not eternal/timeless etc. (Source;
http://www.technologyreview.com...... ) Looks like I don't have to argue the absurdity of a timeless/eternal singularity anyway.

Since its been proven the universe has a beginning how did this singularity that contained all the matter and energy in the universe suddenly pop into existence?

Pro is challenging me to show “how” the universe popped into existence. How does the inability to accurately explain the origin of universe also explain the existence of God? Isn’t this an argument from ignorance?

A can’t explain B, therefore God exists and he created the universe.

A can’t explain B, therefore a small brainless man in a baggy blue suite created the universe. The brainless man was also indifferent and died a long time ago.


Sum of Pro’s claims

Abiogenesis and the beginning of the universe are not sufficiently explained, therefore God must exist. The God that is responsible for Abiogenesis and the beginning of the universe exists presently and did not cease to exist in the past. There cannot be non-sentient cause to for life or the universe. There cannot be a natural cause for life or the universe. Time and the universe could not have always existed.

Pro still has not shown how or even better, why, these claims are true.

Debate Round No. 4
Spekx

Pro

To be honest I did not even read Con"s 4th round argument before posting this.

Rather then wasting time quibbling with him over definitions I will simply make my case to the reader themselves. Those people who will ultimately vote and decide who the winner of this debate is.

I have to point out that so far (until the 3rd round) Con has made only two attempts to prove that it is unlikely that a being such as God exists. The first, was the weak attempt to define God out of existence (his 2nd round argument). The second was his attack against me that "I believed science was obligated to prove a negative (meaning God"s existence)". This seems to be the entirety of his argument for why there is no God. But has he proven that either of those points are factual or true with our observable universe? I submit that he has not.

Is there a God? The answer to this cannot be defined by our ability to detect him for two reasons. Con made an argument that people as far back as the 5th century knew about the atom. But science says that modern humans have been around for 200,000 years (source; http://anthro.palomar.edu... ). So presumably the people from back then until the 5th Century had no idea what an atom was let alone the ability to detect it. Does this mean that atoms did not exist prior to our ability to detect them? The answer is a resounding no! The second problem with that statement is that I could take the position many scientists take with abiogenesis "Science has not progressed to the point where we have the answer". Why then, is it erroneous to assume that science has not progressed to the point to where we can detect God?

When considering God"s existence one must ask themselves one question. Why does anything exist rather then nothing?

I would appeal to the readers logic at this juncture. Everything in our observable universe is finite. This means that everything has a beginning and an end. From black holes, to nebulae, to stars, planets, moons, planetoids, asteroids, meteorites and other forms of space debris. In fact there are no objects in our observable universe that have no beginning and no end. Thus I fail to see a basis in observational facts to assume that anything (including our universe) is past-eternal.

Is it reasonable to assume that the universe is past-eternal? Some models of the universe suggest that our universe is constantly expanding and contracting again. Performing the big bang event over and over during the course of its existence. Other models suggest an infinitely large universe. But even if one of those models were to be proven true, science would still have to explain where the original matter and energy of the universe came from. In this I would disagree with noted atheists who see no reason for a God.

It"s a logical fact that from nothing, nothing comes. There is no fear among scientists that another singularity will suddenly appear in our solar system and rapidly expand, causing the destruction of our planet. This is because science knows what I have already told you. If such a singularity were to form it would necessitate a catalyst or a cause for its existence.

As for my cosmological argument, it finds its foundation in the work of world-renown theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (a non-believer in God). In his book "A Brief History of Time" page 9 (New York Times bestseller paperback edition) he says this;

"In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had a been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"

(end of quote)

On pages 140-141 of the same book he expounds on this point a little more.

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started--it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

(end of quote)

So, Hawking is flat out telling us that if the universe had a beginning then it was caused by a creator (see previous quotes). So it would seem that all I have to do is provide evidence that the universe had a beginning and by extension I can infer that a creator (or God) exists. Please note that this is completely contrary to Con"s assertion that my cosmological argument is terrible evidence for the existence of God.

I have already posted the article that shows that the mathematics of eternity suggests that our universe had a beginning. The big bang suggests that our universe had a beginning. What we know about the cause-and-effect linear time progression of our universe requires a beginning. All signs point to the universe coming into existence at some point in the distant past.

I will end by saying this. The question of God"s existence is a reasonable inquiry that everybody should take the time to study. God"s existence (or lack thereof) is not a question of science but a question of reason. The question that everybody needs to ask is; is it more reasonable to assume a God exists or not? I believe that everything about how our universe operates points to a beginning, and by extension to a creator.

Thank you to Con for participating in this debate, and thank you to the readers and voters who will participate in the judging of this debate.
ThreePointOneFour

Con

The challenge in this debate was to present reasons why there is no God through reason and known science.

I do not believe that Pro has provided any evidence that supports his claim that god exists nor has he adequately refuted my original argument.

I would like to thank Pro for the Richard Carrier quote used in his argument and for supplying me the source for the Carrier quote below. I believe this best describes my position and current conclusion that no god exists.

”Thus, when finally deciding what to believe, it is clear that the best policy is to assume that all unprovables are false, until such time as they are proved. In other words, it is reasonable to disbelieve a proposition when there is no evidence.”

In this debate is stated: we can affirm only one of the following propositions; either a god exists or no god exists.

If no god exists then I am already right, and the debate is over.

However, if I’m wrong then we have a situation in which we can divide the remaining proposition, "god exists", into two categories:
1) a god that manifests himself in reality in some detectable fashion, or
2) a god that does not.

These are two, mutually exclusive propositions and, being analogous to the antecedent, one, and only one, of these propositions can be true.
A god that is undetectable is in fact indistinguishable from a god that "does not exist". We can rule out this proposition because no one can justify this god’s existence.

Pro admits that god is undetectable.

“Is there a God? The answer to this cannot be defined by our ability to detect him for two reasons.”

Pro’s “undetectable god” therefore produces no effect in the world. Moreover, it stands to reason that Pro’s “undetectable god” also completely eludes investigation, spotting, recognition, observation, perception, identification and discernment.

Investigation can lead to detection. So what motivates us to investigate the world? Curiosity and the need to know compels us to seek understanding. Those things that are best understood are absent of contradictory explanations and are useful. Things that contain misunderstandings and contradictions are not useful and should be reevaluated or discarded.

Pro relies on the cosmological argument and presupposes god rather than using “reason and science”

Pro recruited some theoretical physics, (the Hartle–Hawking theory and Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems) to point out what they think about singularity, time and the beginning of universe. He then uses Hawking’s quotes to support his cosmological argument. Sadly Pro has resorted to a poor job of quote mining with his attempt to correlate the cosmological argument to Hawking’s thoughts on whether or not a god “could have, or not, in time” done his creating.

The problem with Pro’s argument is:

The cosmological argument comes from Anselm’s Ontological Argument and God is an “a priori” argument, for the existence of God. By using this argument you presuppose god. The rule of this debate is to use “reason” toward the conclusion of whether or not god exists and a presupposition of god’s existence is not a developed reason.

Pro stated: “I think since is obligated to prove how our universe came into existence, as well as where life originated from. I will simply source the work of noted atheist scholar Richard Carrier about proving a negative “

Pro completely supports my argument by using the Richard Carrier quote,

I believe that Pro was quote mining and didn’t read the article. It is totally illogical for Pro to source Richard Carrier in support of Charge 5. Carrier’s Infidels article completely follows Carrier’s position that proving a negative is something that can and is done, logically, rationally and probabilistically. To quote Carrier: i.e., there are no Green Martians. ”Thus, when finally deciding what to believe, it is clear that the best policy is to assume that all unprovables are false, until such time as they are proved. In other words, it is reasonable to disbelieve a proposition when there is no evidence.”


When Pro said “It’s a logical fact that from nothing, nothing comes.” This statement, when used as a proof of fact, is meaningless in this context since we can’t even say what, “nothing”, is. Additionally, this claim is both unverifiable and untestable since we have no examples of something that is nothing. The Uncertainty Principle trumps any notion of “nothing”.

I would like to thank Pro for starting this debate and for the cordial presentation of his arguments.

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
VI_spex is that you?
Posted by ThreePointOneFour 1 year ago
ThreePointOneFour
Good catch! When I was cutting and pasting I missed the "460" and just pasted the BCE. It's been a pleasure doing the debate. I'm interested in whether or not anyone else found this debate interesting.
Posted by Spekx 1 year ago
Spekx
Err I should correct one of my posts in the 5th round. Democritus (who first theorized about the atom) lived in 460 BC, Not in the 5th century. Doesn't really change the point of my argument though. There was several thousands of years between modern humans and Democritus.
Posted by ThreePointOneFour 1 year ago
ThreePointOneFour
I made the mistake of referring to Spekx as "CON" in my reply in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. I didn't realize this until after my 3rd round post. I apologize for the confusion this error can cause.
No votes have been placed for this debate.