The Instigator
turnerjb04
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
A341
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Islam or Atheism? - Which makes more sense?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 499 times Debate No: 48431
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

turnerjb04

Pro

I would like to argue that if we use our reason, our rational faculties we will come to the conclusion that Islam definitely makes more sense than atheism, and due to characters limit I would like to just present argument in this round to verify the claim.

Argument #1 - Islam makes sense of the origins of the universe

Now we have all had questions come to us such as, why does the universe exist, why is there something rather than nothing? In response to such questions the grand father of neo-atheism Bertrand Russell said that: "The universe is just there. And that"s all." He claimed that the universe was eternal and if the universe is eternal it implies it must have an infinite past, but the question is can we have an infinite past, does the infinite make sense in the real world. Admittedly of course infinites do exist in the realm of mathematics, but this isn't physical reality what I am referring to is whether you can have a quantifiable infinite in the real world. I would argue that it is absurd to believe you can and that it gets you into real logical problems, for example; if I had an infinite amount of balls in this room and I took five away how many would I have left? Some may say well you have an infinite amount still left or you have infinity minus five, but this is absurd because in reality if I take five balls away I should have literally five less than before if not then it makes no sense and thus leads to absurdities. Rather infinite is never actualised, but it can be a potential. For example; If I had four bananas and added one to it I have five and then add 100 to it I have 105 then add 1 billion then 1 trillion and so on the number would always be going higher and it would be heading towards infinity, but still always be finite because you can always add one more banana even if you have a massive number it can never reach infinity, so it makes no sense to think that this can exist in the real world which means that the universe can not be eternal or infinite, but must have had a definite beginning in the finite past. As philosopher David Hilbert asserted; "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought...the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." [2] Consequently we can confirm that the universe cannot be eternal and must have had a definite beginning in the finite past.

We also know that the universe exist due to astrophysical evidence that scientists have discovered, that the universe came into being due to the Big Bang

So since we can confirm that the universe must have had a definite beginning there are logically four explanations for how the universe began to exist.

1.It came from or via nothing
2. It was self-created
3. It was created by something else created
4. It was created by an uncreated creator

Now let us discuss the four possible answers to how the universe began, starting with the first, could the universe come from or via nothing.

It is totally irrational to say that something can come into existence from nothing when there is absolutely nothing at all or that being came come into to existence from absolute no being, how can you have something when there is in fact nothing at all. In relation to the universe prior to the big bang or it coming into existence there wasn"t even the potentiality of the existence of the universe, but then how could the universe become actual if there wasn"t even the potentiality of its being. If in fact all things could come into existence from nothing why don"t we see this happening all the time? Why can"t computers, horses, bread and milk pop into the middle of your living room? Why is it only a universes that can come from nothing, what makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can"t be anything about nothingness that favours universes for nothingness has no properties, nor can anything constrain nothingness, since there isn"t anything to be constrained, why can"t this be seen or observed? The fact that it never has seemingly answers the question. This idea is completely irrational and illogical it is so absurd that even the atheist physicist Doctor Peter Slezek admitted, "Only in academics could people be so ridiculous. Such claims, if made seriously outside of the seminar room would be evidence of clinical derangement." [3]. From nothing, nothing comes, you cannot get something from nothing and how can you get something when there isn"t anything? Looking at it from a mathematical perspective 0 + 0 + 0" will never give you one. Consequently we can say that the universe didn"t come from or via nothing.

Could the universe have been self-created? Philosophically, the universe couldn"t have created itself because that would imply a paradox. It would mean that something can exist and not exist at the same time. The logical ends of this explanation are tantamount to saying that your mother gave birth to herself! Recently, the world renowned physicist, Stephen Hawking in his new book The Grand Design argues that the universe did self create due to the law of gravity,

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing""[4]

But his view on nothing, as previously mentioned, is not really nothingness but is space filled with the quantum vacuum,
which is part of the universe. In essence Hawking is telling us that the universe can create itself, but it has to already exist for it to do that! Concerning the law of gravity, well that is just a mathematical equation that describes nature. This law is part of the universe, which can also be described as a force of attraction between material objects. Therefore, how can this force exist before matter, in other words the universe?

To assert that the universe created itself would be absurd and self refuting, because in order for something to create itself it would need to exist before it existed!

Could the universe have been created by something else created? This is not an adequate explanation for the origins of the universe. The universe could not have owed its existence to another state of temporal physical existence. To maintain such an explanation would be equivalent of expanding the boundaries of the universe, as all things which have a temporal beginning exist within the universe. Also, if temporal physical existence owes itself to another temporal physical existence ad infinitum, it doesn"t explain anything. Rather it highlights the absurdity of an infinite regress, and that there has to be a beginning to the temporal physical states, which logically must be a non-physical state.

Take the following example into consideration. If the universe, U1, followed another temporal cause U2, and U2 followed another temporal cause U3, and this went on ad infinitum we wouldn"t have the universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go to infinity. If U1 depended on its coming into being on a chain of infinite temporal causes, U1 would never exist. As the Islamic Philosopher and Scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes,
"There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of non-existents, as Ibn Taymiyyah explained. The fact, however, is that there are existents around us; therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes." [4]

Therefore the best explanation for how the universe began is that is came to be due to it being created by an uncreated creator. From conceptual analysis of this cause/creator we come to some startling conclusions:

1. This cause must be One - Based on the philosophical principle of occam"s razor, which posits that we don"t multiply entities beyond necessity and that the simplest, yet most comprehensive explanation, answering the most questions is the best explanation. Thus we conclude that this cause must be One.

2. This cause must be uncaused/eternal - This is because of the absurdity of the infinite regress of events that it would lead to if it wasn"t uncaused.

3. This cause must be Powerful - This is because this cause created the whole universe and all that is around us from the planets, to galaxies and so on.

4. This cause must be all-knowing - This is because this cause created the universe with physical laws and a lawgiver implies knowledge or an intelligence.

5. This cause must be transcendent - This means that the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. This is obvious as the creator of something is not going to be a part of what it creates.

6. This cause must be immaterial - This is clear because since the cause exists apart from the universe it must be non-physical or immaterial. Also a cause is not going to be like its creation/effect, for if you create a house you are not going to be a part of it you can"t become a brick, rather you are outside of it. The cause/creator of matter is not going to be made up of matter.

7. This cause must have a will and therefore be personal - This is a significant conclusion to come to, but how else can an eternal cause bring into existence the finite universe without choosing to bring it into existence, choice indicates a will and a will indicates a personality.

So we have concluded the traditional Islamic view on God

References:

[1]http://study.abingdon.org.uk......
[2] David Hilbert, "On the Infinite," in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an introduction by Paul Benacerraf and Hillary Putnam (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), pp. 139, 141.
[3] http://thereforegodexists.com......
[4] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. 2011, page 180.
[5] http://www.jaafaridris.com...... accessed 1 October 2011, 10:32AM.
A341

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument.

The first argument is a cosmological argument.

The starting point, the idea that the universe isn't eternal is at once both true and not true. It is true that an actual infinite at least seems impossible but it is not necessary as time as we know it couldn't have existed before the big bang "time only came into being as that primordial singularity expanded toward its current size and shape." [1]. Essentially the universe can be eternal without and infinite needing to exist. this invalidates:

"1.It came from or via nothing
2. It was self-created
3. It was created by something else created
4. It was created by an uncreated creator"

The fourth option presented also begs the question does the "uncreated creator" need an actual infinite to exist for a past eternity?

"This cause must be uncaused/eternal - This is because of the absurdity of the infinite regress of events that it would lead to if it wasn"t uncaused."

For what it's worth this does violate the second law of thermodynamics [2] but I recognize the weakness of this argument.

"This cause must be all-knowing - This is because this cause created the universe with physical laws and a lawgiver implies knowledge or an intelligence."

This in itself is logically flawed, even a divine being must assume that they are not living in whatever their equivalent of a dream world. This makes omniscience logically impossible. But again this is a small distinction.

"So we have concluded the traditional Islamic view on God"

This argument is also used by many Christians and Mormons, the characteristics are broad enough to where they can be applied to more or less any god.

I look forward to my opponents next argument.

[1] http://science.howstuffworks.com......
[2] http://www2.estrellamountain.edu......
Debate Round No. 1
turnerjb04

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his rebuttal, but I was expecting an argument for his side for even if my argument was wrong we have no reason to think that atheism is more sensible we would have to take a neutral stance.

You start by saying that the universe can be eternal and therefore invalidates the 4 options of how the universe began to exist. Well even if as you say "the universe can be eternal without an infinite needing to exist" this doesn't invalidate the 4 options at all. I gave the infinite argument as a way of showing that the universe is finite, but I didn't need to do that it is not the only way of showing it is finite it can also be shown through astrophysical evidence that scientists have found that the universe had a definite beginning in the finite past so this being the case means there are 4 possible answers and the fourth being the only plausible answer means that a uncreated creator namely God exists and brought the universe into existence, thus Islam is more sensible as unlike atheism it makes sense of the origin of the universe.

Please can you further explain why you reject the all-knowing attribute, frankly I didn't know what you were talking about, and yes I said that this is the traditional Islamic view on God, but of course it is the same in other religions too, but the question is about whether atheism or Islam makes more sense, not Islam or Christianity. So basically you haven't refuted anything from my argument you have seemingly agreed that the fourth option makes sense for the origin of the universe or at least you haven't said otherwise, you certainly have presented no good reason to deny my argument and haven't shown any arguments why atheism makes more sense than Islam.

Now I shall present a further argument for why Islam makes more sense than atheism because Islam makes sense of objective morality.

The argument at hand basically goes as follows:

1.If there is an objective or absolute moral law, this necessitates the existence of God
2.There is an absolute or objective moral law
3.Therefore, God, the Absolute Moral Law Giver exists

Firstly in order to understand the argument you must understand what is meant by a moral absolute. A moral absolute or objective morals are basic moral principles that are true whether anybody believes them to be or not. So when I refer to absolute morals or objective morals I mean that they are objective and absolute because they are not based on personal feelings or opinions and they are not dependant on individual perceptions in one"s mind. Examples would be; If the whole world agreed to the fact that eating a dead person is a good thing to do, it would still be an immoral thing to do or If the whole world claimed that it was morally good to torture babies for fun it would still be wrong or on the flip side kindness is a morally good thing not a bad thing, all of these would be examples of moral absolutes or objective morals.

Now I would take the above examples to be self evident, in other words I think they"re so obviously true that the burden of proof is on the person that denies absolutes to prove that they are not. Now what if somebody says well "I don"t think there are any absolutes", then the way to show them that in fact there are absolutes, is to find out what it is they care about most and treat it like it"s nothing but relative and you will get an absolutist come out of the closet real quickly. For example, a man went to the petrol station in order to fill up his car and somehow got talking to this guy about morality, the guy stated "I don"t believe that there are anything that"s true for everybody, I think live and let live, whatever is true for you is great, whatever is true for me is true for me." Now the man found out that the guy loved the environment and he believing in moral absolutes knew that he could make up a story that would bring out the guy"s true opinion on moral absolutes, so he began to tell him a story: "I don"t know what you going to think about me, but I"ve got a group of four buddies and once a month we take a bet of "50 each, then we go out and buy a 100 gallon barrel of sulphuric acid, we drive out to our near by lake and we go out to the lake and dump the gas in the lake and we have taken bets as to how many fish we will kill before we put the acid in the lake and whoever gets closest to the number of fish, wins the bet and do you know what its a blast." Now having listened to this the blood vessels of this guy were popping out of his neck and he was going red in the face, so the man said to the guy "well I"m not an expert on body language, but I believe what you think my friends and I were doing is wrong!" [1] Of course the guy did, but I thought he said morality is relative, well he said that, but clearly that isn"t his true opinion. Now the lesson here is that you can present a case to every person on the planet involving something they hold dear to, just like this and you will not find a single moral relativist. They are also many other reasons of thinking that there are absolute morals or objective morals, but due to characters limit I can only present two more reasons:

The ubiquity of basic moral behaviour and true altruism

It is widely recognised that there are basic standards of human behaviour that is ubiquitous (present, appearing, or found everywhere) across all societies, throughout all of history. Actions like murder, theft, assault and neglect of one"s families are generally seen as wrong. Moreover there exists true altruism (disinterested and selfless care for the well-being of others) across all cultures. So this suggest that there is this intrinsic sense of objective morals in all people.

Universal human intuition of objective moral categories

The third point is that all of us have an intuitive perception that there is a realm of objective moral facts. For if I were to show you an image or video of someone torturing an innocent child, I am sure just by looking at it we would all be filled with tremendous revulsion and disgust regardless of our philosophical views on morality. For those who wish to appeal to evolution as being the grounding for objective moral truths, if in fact evolution was wholly responsible for moral behaviour we need not have any intuition about good and evil, moral behaviour could be just as natural and involuntary as breathing or sneezing. Yet we all have this intuition that some things are objectively bad or good, without question.

So what we have learnt suggests that in fact there is a moral absolute and these moral principles impose duties on us, we are not to torture little babies, we ought to be kind to others and so on. The question is though, where does this moral law come from? Now in the Nuremberg trials after World War II, where the Nazi"s were to be held to account for the actions they had done, some of the Nazi"s defended themselves by actually appealing to moral relativism, by saying everything is relative, what gives you the right in Britain or USA to tell us what our values ought to be in Germany and in reply one of the judges said, you're forgetting that there is a law above the law. In other words, above human law, there is an absolute law by which we can judge the rightness or wrongness of human law, for we know where human law comes from, it comes from law givers, therefore it makes sense to think that the absolute moral law, comes from an absolute moral law giver or givers, but by the philosophical principle of Occam"s razor, it makes more sense to say it came from One Absolute Moral Law Giver rather than givers, because if you have two explanations of something that both explain the fact, you ought to choose the simpler explanation rather than the more complex one. This is the most reasonable and rational explanation of the objective or absolute moral law, that there exists an Absolute or Objective Moral Law Giver, namely God.

So now lets us tie together all that we have learn"t to the three premises mentioned at the start.

1.If there is an objective or absolute moral law, this necessitates the existence of God

This is because God is the only concept/idea/truth that transcends human subjectivity, to provide us with that foundation or basis of the objective or absolute moral law. In other words the existence of an absolute or objective moral law, provides evidence of an Absolute Moral Law Giver who legislates this law, (best explained by God) and in fact it would therefore necessitate His existence for this is the only explanation of objective moral laws existing, because if you take God out of the picture and we just came here by chance and evolved over time and are just a complex set of bio-chemical reactions, there can be no such thing as objective moral laws, it makes no sense.

2. There is an absolute or objective moral law

This is made clear by the examples that I have given above, which makes it clear and safe to say that there exists an absolute moral law.

3. Therefore, God or the Absolute Moral Law Giver exists

This is because as said above, God is the only concept/idea/truth that transcends human subjectivity, to provide us with that foundation or basis of the objective or absolute moral law. In other words the existence of an absolute or objective moral law, provides evidence of an Absolute Moral Law Giver who legislates this law, which of course is best explained by the existence of God. A transcendent being, outside space and time, who created and brought the universe into existence and imposed physical laws on the universe just like the moral laws He imposed on us.

So Islam also makes more sense than atheism as unlike atheism it makes sense of absolute or objective morals that exist in the world.

References:

[1] youtube - Arguments for the Existence of God - JP Moreland, PhD
A341

Con

"I would like to thank my opponent for his rebuttal, but I was expecting an argument for his side for even if my argument was wrong we have no reason to think that atheism is more sensible we would have to take a neutral stance."

Most atheists become atheists because theists (be that Muslims, Christians, Hindus, ect) have not met the burden of proof.

Here are my basic arguments from atheism:

1. The burden of proof is on the believer and has not been met yet. All the arguments I have seen so far have been refuted.

2. If you believe in a god you must either deny cosmology or accept that the universe will inevitability end in a heat death [1]. Why would a god choose to create a universe which will inevitability come to an end?

3. The definition of god ("A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.") is logically flawed. An omniscient cannot be omnipotent as they already know what they are going to do meaning they are not capable of choosing what they do.

Essentially the evidence for atheism is in the refutation of arguments for theism as the burden of proof is on the believer.

"You start by saying that the universe can be eternal and therefore invalidates the 4 options of how the universe began to exist. Well even if as you say "the universe can be eternal without an infinite needing to exist" this doesn't invalidate the 4 options at all. I gave the infinite argument as a way of showing that the universe is finite, but I didn't need to do that it is not the only way of showing it is finite it can also be shown through astrophysical evidence that scientists have found that the universe had a definite beginning in the finite past so this being the case means there are 4 possible answers and the fourth being the only plausible answer means that a uncreated creator namely God exists and brought the universe into existence, thus Islam is more sensible as unlike atheism it makes sense of the origin of the universe."

As I showed you there seems to be not concept of time (and therefore causality) didn't exist before the "big bang" [1]. What you are referring to (I think) is the "big bang" but you have to remember the big bang doesn't mean the start of the universe, there was a singularity before then (if the word before can be applied in this circumstance).

"Please can you further explain why you reject the all-knowing attribute, frankly I didn't know what you were talking about, and yes I said that this is the traditional Islamic view on God, but of course it is the same in other religions too, but the question is about whether atheism or Islam makes more sense, not Islam or Christianity. So basically you haven't refuted anything from my argument you have seemingly agreed that the fourth option makes sense for the origin of the universe or at least you haven't said otherwise, you certainly have presented no good reason to deny my argument and haven't shown any arguments why atheism makes more sense than Islam."

Basically any being has to assume that the information coming in through it's senses (or the divine equivalent) is accurate, therefore an assumption must be made and therefore any being cannot be omniscient. Here is a longer explanation from another debate:

""I think, therefore I am" is the only thing we can objectively know to go any further you must make three assumptions (the basil assumptions):
The assumption that we experience the universe through our senses,
The assumption that knowledge exists,
The assumption that models with predictive capability are more effective than models with only descriptive capability.

Any sentient being cannot know that any of these assumptions are true (even a god) and therefore there is an impossibility in the definition of a god ("A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.") and as a being cannot achieve omniscience it cannot fulfill all the characteristics necessary to be considered a god.

Further more there is a contradiction in omnipotence which is very easy to highlight. Can god create an object god cannot object effect? If god cannot create the object then god isn't omnipotent and if god can then god has something god cannot do either way omnipotence is impossible."

Onto your argument from morality.

"1.If there is an objective or absolute moral law, this necessitates the existence of God
2.There is an absolute or objective moral law
3.Therefore, God, the Absolute Moral Law Giver exists"

First I don't think you have shown that an absolute moral law actually exists.

Our understanding of morality can be easily explained by evolutionary psychology. In our ancient past we usually lived in very small groups surrounded by very close friends and family, in this environment altruism (or something which works very much like altruism) has an ultimately selfish side, it isn't unreasonable to expect that altruistic actions would be reciprocated therefore giving an advantage to those who were altruistic. This kind of idea, treat others like you would wish to be treated because you will be treated like that in return is the basis for human morality. [2]

Now we design a society we want to live in with equal rights for all because we want to live in that society. We are essentially just bags of chemicals but I don't see why that makes any difference.

Because your initial argument is flawed your conclusion is flawed also.

You hint at "we just came here by chance and evolved over time". I have not brought up the idea of creationism yet but is has so many logical flaws, I could go through them but I hope this is just a poorly worded statement.

[1] http://science.howstuffworks.com......
[2] http://www.youtube.com...... /watch?v=7XtvWkRRxKQ
Debate Round No. 2
turnerjb04

Pro

Firstly you begin by talking about this burden of proof that is on me to prove theism i.e. a God, but you are forgetting the title of the debate it is not about proving anything as such, rather we are just saying that which is more sensible to believe in so I would actual like to know what is more sensible about atheism and I guess the voters would too.

Secondly you ask the question "If you believe in a god you must either deny cosmology or accept that the universe will inevitability end in a heat death [1]. Why would a god choose to create a universe which will inevitability come to an end?" I think the response to this is very simple and I find the question quite strange really, because one of the most important aspects of most religions such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism, is that the whole world, the universe will come to an end, this is call the Day of Judgement or the Day of Reckoning, so I don't really understand the problem here to be honest.

Thirdly you suggest that in fact that because there was no time before the universe coming into existence there is no "causality" in other words no cause of the universe. This was a popular contention brought up by Stephen Hawking against God, but although he is a great physicist, Hawking shows how much of a shocking philosopher he really is. Firstly It is a common mistake to oversimplify the Law of Causality, assuming that it states: "Every effect must have an adequate cause which preceded it." In actuality, the law more correctly states: "Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause". The Law of Causality as a law of natural science only applies to that which can be empirically observed"namely, the natural Universe (i.e., that which is "material"), not supernatural entities. So, it does not even apply to God. But even if it did apply to the Creator, Hawking"s belief that there"s no room for the Creator since the Law of Causality requires a previous cause"which could not be the case if time did not exist before the Big Bang"is erroneous. Philosopher William Lane Craig explains that this argument rests on a pseudo-dilemma, since the argument does not "consider the obvious alternative that the cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang". Simply put: the Law of Causality allows for simultaneous causes.

When one sits in a seat, his legs form a lap. The effect of creating a lap occurs simultaneously with its cause"the act of sitting"though sitting is obviously the cause of making a lap. So clearly, causes can take place simultaneously with their effects. Renowned German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, in his book, The Critique of Pure Reason, under the heading, "Principle of the Succession of Time According to the Law of Causality: All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect," explains that, "The principle of the connection of causality among phenomena"applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous". He then proceeds to provide two examples of simultaneous causation, the first being the scenario in which the effect of a heated room occurs simultaneous with its cause"a fire in the fireplace. He explains that, "In this case, then, there is no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but they are simultaneous; and still the law holds good". He then provides the example in which a lead ball lies on a cushion and simultaneously causes the effect of an indention or "hollow" in the cushion. Again, the effect occurs simultaneously with its cause.

Logically, a cause can occur simultaneous with its effect. So, to argue that a cause for the Big Bang is unnecessary and even impossible since it must precede the Big Bang, is simply incorrect. It seems to imply a shallow understanding of the Law of Causality on the part of Hawking. A proper understanding of the Law of Causality reveals that the Law does not rule out the existence of a Creator even if the Big Bang were true, since the effect of the Universe could occur simultaneous with its causal activity.

Fourth you suggest that it is not logical possible for God to exist because there is a logical contradiction between the idea of God being omnipotent and omniscient, this was something made quite well known by Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion", but what people like Dawkins and Hawking continue to demonstrate is that although they may be good scientists they are terrible philosophers, so I was surprised that you chose to use this argument against the existence of God. The first thing that you must understand is that "omnipotence" does not entail the power to bring into being a self-contradictory state of affairs. The reason is that there is no such power; the very notion of such a power is incoherent, precisely because the notion of a self-contradictory state of affairs is incoherent. God"s power would be limited only if there was some power He lacked. Since there is no such thing as a power to make contradictions true, His inability to do so is no limitation on His power. (And if an atheist insists that an omnipotent being would have to have such a power, that only hurts his own case. For that enables the theist to say, in response to any possible objection that the atheist could ever raise: "Since God can make contradictions true, He can make it true that He exists even though your argument shows He doesn't!). Now, suppose A and B are logically coherent but mutually incompatible states of affairs. God, being omnipotent, can bring about either one. Suppose that in fact He wills to bring about A rather than B. Being omniscient, He knows that A rather than B is what He wills to bring about. Where is the conflict with omnipotence? Does His knowing that A is what He wills entail that He could not have willed B instead? No, He could have willed it; He just hasn't. Does the conflict lie instead in the fact that He can"t will A and B together? No, because A and B are logically incompatible, and (as we have seen) omnipotence does not entail the power to generate contradictory states of affairs.

It seems that what you have in mind is a situation where God decides to do A at one point in time and actually carries out His decision at some later point in time. Since at the time of His decision He infallibly knows what He will do later on (given that He is omnipotent) it is not open to Him to "change His mind" and do something different at that later time, and thus you conclude He is not omnipotent. However, There are two problems with this, though. First, even if this were the right way to think about divine action, Dawkins" conclusion wouldn"t follow. For what he is saying is that God cannot bring about the following situation:

S: An omniscient being infallibly knows that He will bring about A in the future and yet does not bring A about.

And from the fact that God cannot bring about S, it is inferred that He is not omnipotent. But the reason God cannot bring about S is that S is self-contradictory, and omnipotence does not entail the power to bring about self-contradictory states of affairs. As it happens, though, this is not the right way to think about divine action. From the point of view of classical theism, anyway, God is immutable and eternal. He doesn't "change His mind" because He doesn't change at all. Nor is there any temporal gap between His willing and His acting. Rather, God is altogether outside time. We make decisions and then carry them out moments, hours, days, or years later. God isn't like that. When He wills that A happen at such-and-such a point in time, we might have to wait for A to happen, since we are within the temporal order; but God doesn't, because He isn't. For Him, the whole created order " including every event at every point in time " follows from His one creative act.

You then go onto speak about the famous"omnipotence paradox", but this is such a silly argument against God that it is not even taken seriously in philosophy and academia as being a true argument. A key point to make in answering this is to highlight that "Omnipotence" is misconstrued as "all powerful". What omnipotence really implies is the ability to actualise every affair, rather than raw power. So God being able to "create a stone He cannot move" actually describes an affair that is impossible and meaningless, just like if we were to say "a white black crow" or "a circle triangle" or even an "amphibian mammal". Such statements describe nothing at all and have no informative value, they are meaningless. So why should we even answer a question that has no meaning? To put it bluntly the question is not even a question. Another way of looking at this is that since God is all powerful it means that He will always be able to do what He wills, as the creedal statement above mentions "and every affair is effortless for Him." Therefore omnipotence also includes the impossibility of failure. The questioner however is saying that since God is all powerful He can do anything which includes failure! This is irrational and absurd as it is equivalent to saying "an all powerful being cannot be an all powerful being"! To conclude, God can create stone that is heavier than anything we can imagine, but He will always be able to move the stone, what must be understood is that failure is not an aspect of omnipotence.

Now in regards to morality all I will say is this, even if the whole world agree it was okay to slaughter your mum or anyone who love dearly is this morally wrong? If you say yes then you agree with objective morals, if not then I would be quite worried to be honest, (not enough characters to say more on this).

Overall I don't think you have given very good objections to my arguments and still haven't shown that the uncaused cause of the universe isn't the best option to rational infer.
A341

Con

"Firstly you begin by talking about this burden of proof that is on me to prove theism i.e. a God, but you are forgetting the title of the debate it is not about proving anything as such, rather we are just saying that which is more sensible to believe in so I would actual like to know what is more sensible about atheism and I guess the voters would too."

No, I'm making the point that Islam and atheism are not comparable (at least easily comparable) because atheism is not a positive claim whereas Islam is.

""Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause". The Law of Causality as a law of natural science only applies to that which can be empirically observed"namely, the natural Universe (i.e., that which is "material"), not supernatural entities. So, it does not even apply to God. But even if it did apply to the Creator, Hawking"s belief that there"s no room for the Creator since the Law of Causality requires a previous cause"which could not be the case if time did not exist before the Big Bang"is erroneous. Philosopher William Lane Craig explains that this argument rests on a pseudo-dilemma, since the argument does not "consider the obvious alternative that the cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang". Simply put: the Law of Causality allows for simultaneous causes."

Even in the more advanced law's of causality time is required for it to have any meaning. The concepts of antecedent and simultaneous require time to have any meaning at all.

And if you think that "simultaneous" causes are adequate then this disproves the cosmological argument, it means that something can be it's own cause which means that a god is not required. If "simultaneous" causes are not possible then the fact that there was no time before the big bang disproves the cosmological argument.

You example of a lap is interesting... You do realize that there is no difference between a lap and thighs, the only difference is its position. If this is the best example you can get then I think you need to re-assess your argument.

"you must understand is that "omnipotence" does not entail the power to bring into being a self-contradictory state of affairs"

Yes it does, omnipotence: "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful". This includes the power to hold self contradictory states and yes brings up the omnipotence paradox.

"Now in regards to morality all I will say is this, even if the whole world agree it was okay to slaughter your mum or anyone who love dearly is this morally wrong? If you say yes then you agree with objective morals, if not then I would be quite worried to be honest, (not enough characters to say more on this)."

I have already explained why evolution explains morality (something you have so far not disputed) and really there is little objective morality. The closest you can get is a distinction between behavior that is normal and behavior that is pathological. That doesn't mean you cannot invent an unchanging morality (which is more or less what humans have done).
Debate Round No. 3
turnerjb04

Pro

turnerjb04 forfeited this round.
A341

Con

A341 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
turnerjb04

Pro

turnerjb04 forfeited this round.
A341

Con

A341 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by A341 2 years ago
A341
Ok. I'm sure I did something wrong, I could never figure out which argument to post.
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
I have forfited because I think you put missed out one of your arguments because the one you have for round three in this debate is four in the old one so let's skip four and just do rounds 5
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
turnerjb04A341Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides made excellent arguments. I believe that both scored points on different arguments. However, being ay heist I believe that I am not being objective enough in my assessment as such I vote for a draw.