The Instigator
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Tied
17 Points
The Contender
Microsuck
Con (against)
Tied
17 Points

It is Probable That God Exists

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 8 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,061 times Debate No: 23872
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (8)

 

KeytarHero

Pro

Microsuck wishes to revisit a debate I was forced to forfeit last time, so I will re-issue this debate. I will be arguing that it is probable that God exists. Note that I am arguing for God's probability. This means that I do not have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt, just that I have to show how it is probable God exists.

God will be defined as the Judeo-Christian God, an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being.

However, due to space limitation I will not be able to make the strongest cumulative case possible for the existence of God. So that Con will be able to adequately respond, I will choose two or three of what I consider to be the strongest arguments for God's existence.

I look forward to a challenging and interesting debate.
Microsuck

Con

I accept this debate and fully understand the time/character limit that is dealt with. Likewise, I will use only 2-3 of the strongest arguments for atheism. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
KeytarHero

Pro

I would like to thank Microsuck for debating this with me.

I will use two logically airtight arguments supported by two of the leading Christian apologists/theologians alive today: The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as supported by William Lane Craig, and the Ontological Argument, as supported by Alvin Plantinga.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows:

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. [1]

Premise 1 -- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This premise is actually uncontroversial in academic circles. There is a First Principle, that is, a principle that is self-evident and are the foundation of knowledge. Without them nothing could be known. This principle is the Principle of Causality, which states that every effect needs a cause. As such, something cannot come from nothing. Nonbeing cannot produce being.

Premise 2 -- The universe had a beginning.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics affirms that the universe is running out of usable energy and, hence, cannot be eternal. We also see that the universe is expanding, and at an accelerated rate. [1] As we see the universe is expanding more and more rapidly, and the universe is running out of usable energy, the universe will inevitably run out of usable energy and result in a "heat death." As the universe is expanding and not static, we can see that the universe, indeed, had a beginning as it is not eternal.

We can also approach this from a philosophical viewpoint:

1) If an infinite number of moments occurred before today, then today would never have come, wince it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of moments.
2) But today has come.
3) Hence, there was a finite number of moments before today; the universe had a beginning. [2]

Conclusion -- Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument argues from the Cosmos to a Creator. It is an argument that uses deductive reasoning to show that since all the parts within the universe require a case, so the universe, which is made up of all the individual parts, requires a cause. Take all the individual parts away and the universe ceases to exst. The universe must require a Creator because something cannot come from nothing on its own. Nothing is literally nothing -- it doesn't even exist. It doesn't have the power to do anything, or create anything because it literally is not there. Anything that begins to exist needs a cause, and this cause must come from outside itself.

The Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument for God's existence goes like this:

1. It is possible that God (a Maximally-Great Being) exists.
2. If it is possible that God (MGB) exists, then God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds.
3. If God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds, then God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds.
4. If God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds, then God (MGB) exists in the actual world.
5. If God (MGB) exists in the actual world, then God (MGB) exists. [3]

This argument follows modal logic. It is logically airtight. All that is needed to support is premise one. If premise one is supported, then the argument is irrefutable.

Premise 1 -- It is possible that God exists.

It is important to note that when a philosopher refers to a possible world, they are talking about a "hypothetical situation," a world in which something may be possible, although it doesn't actually exist. The world we live in now is the actual world. Unicorns exist in some possible worlds because the concept of a horse with a horn is not logically incoherent. But unicorns do not exist in the actual world. The number two exists in all possible worlds, and therefore in the actual world.

It is important to note that the OA does not "imagine" God into existence. Ontologically, a being can be described in one of three ways: Impossible entities exist in no possible worlds, like a square circles. Contingent entities exist in some possible worlds, like unicorns. Necessary entities exist in all possible worlds, like the number two. No one created the number two, it just exists necessarily. It can't not exist.

So God, if he exists, is a Maximally Great Being, so must exist in all possible worlds. He is a necessary entity. A Maximally Great Being is defined as a being that possesses all qualities that are better to have, which are defined as great making properties (such as love, wisdom, and power). He would have them to their maximal extent. He would also possess no qualities that are bad to have, like imperfection and corruption. These are defined as lesser-making qualities. Therefore, God has necessity, which is better to have than not to have.

As such, premise one is supported and as such, the Ontological Argument stands as proof of God's existence.

I look forward to Con's rebuttal.

[1] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 399.
[2] ibid.
[3] Plantinga, Alvin (1998). Sennett. ed. The analytic theist: an Alvin Plantinga reader. Wm. B. Eerdmans, pp. 65-71.
Microsuck

Con

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to debate you. I will basically use the same arguments that I used in the SPinko tournament.

PART 1: A CASE FOR WEAK ATHEISM

Weak Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. [1] This differs from strong atheism as it is the positive (or affirmative) belief that no gods exist. [2]


1. ATHEISM IS THE DEFAULT POSITION

A. WHAT IS THE NULL HYPOTHESIS?

The null hypothesis is the "practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect., [3]
Basically, the null hypthesis demands evidence. Unless you provide evidence for your assertion, the null hypothesis basically states that it is best to reject such an assertion.

Examples

You would do this on a daily basis. If I said to you that God spoke to me last night and called me to be His prophet, you would have every reasonable right to reject my assertion until I provide evidence that God called me to be His prophet.

Next, let's say that your wife has cancer and I have a magic sandwitch that will heal her and I'll give it to you for $50,000. You'd be a fool to pay the money and neglect medication for something which has no effect on cancer. [4]

Formulation

1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.
2. The claim that a God exist is an extraordinary claim.
3. Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that God exists may be considered false.
4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that God exists.
5. Therefore, the claim that God exists may be considered false.

What evidence has my partner brought forth for the existence of God? None. As we will see in my rebuttals.

So, what is an extraordinary claim? An extraordinary claim is any claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world.[5]

As we see, atheism is the default position. My partner does not believe that Muhammad split the moon [7] or that the Egyptian god Isis exists.[8] Or even better yet, that St. Genevie ordered a cursed tree cut down and monsters sprang from it. [9] Why is that? Simply because there is no evidence.

PART 2: A CASE FOR STRONG ATHEISM

As defined above, strong atheism is the affirming belief that no gods exist. Why can we be confient about such a claim? Well, there are many reasons why though I will bring the argument from non-belief.

C2) THE ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF.

It is an undeniable fact that humans disagree on issues regardding religion (indeed, we wouldn't be having this debate if that were not the case). Moreover, it is equally undeniable that in Theism, there is differences between mythology. Because all religions contradict each other, they cannot all be logically correct.

Doug Krueger formulates it this way: [10]

Let set P be defined as the set of the following propositions:
(a) There exists the god of theism.
(b) The god of theism loves humanity, and
(c) This being wants each person to be saved by having certain
beliefs sufficient for salvation, such as beliefs P1...Pn.

Beliefs P1...Pn represent whatever beliefs in addition to (a) and (b) would be required for salvation on any given version of theism. One may add to set P as members of P1...Pn any additional propositions such as "Jesus died for your sins," "Jesus rose from the dead," or similar propositions. Let us stipulate for the sake of simplicity that anyone who believes the propositions in set P is saved, and anyone who does not believe them is not saved.

This simplified argument from nonbelief, then, is the following:
1. If god exists, then god wants what is best for each person.
2. What is best for each person is that he or she is saved.
3. Therefore, if god exists, then god wants each person to be saved by having the beliefs of set P.
4. If god wants everyone to be saved by having the beliefs of set P, then everyone would have the beliefs of set P.
5. Not everyone has the beliefs of set P.
6. Therefore, god does not want everyone to be saved by having the beliefs of set P.
7. Therefore, god does not exist.

PREMISE 1: IF GOD EXISTS, THEN GOD WANTS WHAT IS BEST FOR EACH PERSON.

IF god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent (which I presume is also what you mean by 'god', also given that you are a Christian), then by moral definition and requirement, God will want what is best for each person.

PREMISE 2: WHAT IS BEST FOR EACH PERSON IS THAT HE/SHE IS SAVED

Also uncontroversial. The Bible tells us that God is not willing that ANY should perish. (2. Peter 3:9) and he desires a personal relationship with each and every one of us.

PREMISE 3: THEREFORE, IF GOD EXISTS, THEN GOD WANTS EACH PERSON TO BE SAVED BY HAVING THE BELIEF SET P.


As defined above, the belief setp is on represent whatever beliefs in addition to (a) and (b) would be required for salvation on any given version of theism. One may add to set P as members of P1...Pn any additional propositions such as "Jesus died for your sins," "Jesus rose from the dead," or similar propositions. Let us stipulate for the sake of simplicity that anyone who believes the propositions in set P is saved, and anyone who does not believe them is not saved.

Support once more comes from the Bible as Jesus "is the way the truth and the life" (Jn. 4:6); hence we cannot be saved apart from the belief in God. God desires us to believe in him for Salvation.

Out of room.

__________________


Footnotes and Sources

1. http://wiki.ironchariots.org......;
2.http://wiki.ironchariots.org......;
3.http://en.wikipedia.org......;
4. The magic sandwitch is a term coined by Thunderf00t on his "magic sandwitch show" to show the folly of faith. It is basically a tongue-in-cheek parody of religion. Just like atheism, no one has been able to provide PROOF and EVIDENCE that the lack of believe in sandwitchism is accurate and correct. The only logical VIEWPOINT is to conclude that it is correct. It also parodies that anyone who neglects to give the magic sandwitch and pay the 50k to someone dying of cancer is a moral monster because it may have healed him. To see more, see http://rationalwiki.org......;
5. This definition was provided in the Kruger-McHugh debate on the same topic. He also formualted the syllogism provided for the argument. For more, seehttp://www.infidels.org......;
7. This was one of many of Muhammad's "miracles" that are left without evidence. If you look at the Muslim claim of evidence for the moon split, it isn't much different than Christian's arguments for the resurrection! See http://www.answering-christianity.com...... more information.
8. Today, people still worship the pagan gods of the myths such as the Egyptian and Greek/Roman mythology. It is preserved today in the Wiccan tradition and in pagan mythology. Seehttp://www.wicca-spirituality.com......;
9. You can read more about this story in Richard Carrier's essayWhy I don't buy the Resurrection Story. "As David Hume's puts it, 'Why don't these things happen now?' http://www.infidels.org......;
10. This is from the Doug Krueger - McHugh debate. URL founded in source 5



Debate Round No. 2
KeytarHero

Pro

Thank you again to Con for debating this with me.

Con has not addressed a single one of my arguments, so I extend them all into the next round. Of course he may have just been concentrating on an opening argument, in which case I'll wait until the next round to address any rebuttals he makes. Additionally, his assertion that I have presented no evidence is baseless. I have presented philosophical evidence to make my case.

Part 1: A Case for Weak Atheism

Weak atheism is aptly named -- it is a weak position to hold. For if atheism is simply "lack of belief in gods," then this would mean rocks and cats are atheists. Additionally, you cannot prove this position true so it cannot be used to argue against a Theistic position, especially when evidence is presented for the Theistic position.

1. Atheism is the Default Position

A. Null Hypothesis

Here Con is confusing types of argumentation. I am using philosophical evidence to make my case. One does not require physical evidence to prove something in the metaphysical realm.

Con's examples are also irrelevant. We are debating the existence of God. If Con claims to have had a vision to be God's prophet, then yes that would require evidence. That is because anyone can claim to be a prophet, as many false prophets have. God has given us a test to see if a prophet is genuine. We need to test the prophet to make sure they are genuine. Also, it would be foolish to trust a "magic sandwich" to try and cure cancer over getting medical treatment. This does nothing to show that we need physical evidence to prove God's existence. To claim we do is to not understand the purpose of philosophy.

Formulation

Now, regarding Con's syllogism, his argument is invalid.

The first premise fails. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. They require ordinary evidence like any other claim.

Consider this: If I tell you I have a brown dog with four legs, a wet nose, and a long tail, you would believe me. This is because you have experience with dogs. You know what they are like. You've seen many of them. But if I tell you I have a purple dog with six legs and four tails, you would rightly require evidence. What kind of evidence? You would have to see the dog. You would require the same evidence that led you to accept the first claim.

Also, the second premise fails. God exists is no more an extraordinary claim than to claim that the universe came from nothing. The law of causality states that all effects have a cause. To claim that the universe came from nothing is unscientific because all effects need a cause. You and I needed a cause of our existence (our father's sperm mixed with our mother's egg). The universe, likewise, requires a cause of its existence. This cause must be outside itself because it would be impossible for a thing to cause its own existence. Therefore by Con's own definition, atheism would even be an extraordinary claim because claiming that the universe just came into existence on its own contradicts accepted physical laws; that is, things don't just come into existence from nothing (that is, non-being cannot produce being).

Con's argument fails. Additionally, what I believe or don't believe is not the issue here (and as an aside, Con's seventh footnote is clearly false -- there is overwhelming historical evidence that Christ's resurrection happened, as I have even argued in another debate with Microsuck). [1] The difference between Christianity and the claims of these other religions Con brings up is that there is, indeed, evidence for many of the claims of Christianity. But again, this is a red herring. It has nothing to do at all with the arguments I presented.

Part 2: A Case for Strong Atheism

C2 -- The Argument from Non-Belief

I agree with Con that since all religions contradict each other, they cannot all be correct. That would violate the law of non-contradiction. However, just because all religions disagree does not mean that they are all incorrect or that they all, at least, don't contain some truth (for example, if Christianity is the true religion, then any religion that teaches we should love each other would still contain truth, even though its central claims are false).

Now, Doug Krueger's argument is actually correct. God wants each person to be saved by having the beliefs for salvation. However, it doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. Con offers a simplified version but he has actually offered a non sequitur.

I agree with Con's first two premises and first conclusion (which are, ironically, the only ones he defended). These are all uncontroversial. Christians believe these. However, Con's fourth premise fails. God has given us all free will. Therefore, we have the choice to choose to do good or to do evil. We have the choice to believe in Christ or to reject Christ. Go wants everyone to be saved, but not at the expense of free will.

Con has not addressed any of my arguments, and Con's own arguments fail. I look forward to our next round.

[1] http://www.debate.org...;
Microsuck

Con

Thanks Pro. Just a quick note, I am using many footnotes, so please read them as it will enhance the understanding of the argument.

----------->ADDRESSING PRO'S OPENING ARGUMENTS<----------------

My opponent chooses two arguments for God's existence: The Cosmological Argument (CA hereafter); and the Ontological Arguent (OA hereafter). Both have serious flaws and I will attept to shoot down the argument.

C1) THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.

1. Everything tht has a beinning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Observaion 1: Divine attributes are not known


My partner's Burden of Proof is to show that there is a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and has the basic attributes of the Judeo-Christian God. The prolem with this argument is that it cannot meet the Burden of Proof. Why think that this cause is God? Moreover, why think that it is your God? God can be the cause, but be evil. Consequently, my opponent hasn't met his BoP.

Attack on p1 - Everything that has a beginning has a cause

Unless we know that this premise is correct, then the whole argument fails. Do we?Not really. Scientists have found that particles of energy may come into existence, completely uncaused, in empty space. [1]

Attack on p2 - The universe began to exist

My partner's whole case rests on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I disagree that the universe began to exist. Why? Because there is no such thing as 'nothingness':

"In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris 1990: 25) " [2]

So, there is really no such thing as a perfect vacuum. What does this mean? It means that there has always been something that has existed in the form of energy. It is possible that the Universe as we know it began as a quantum flucuation around 10-15 billion years ago. [3]

You see, the term 'nothing' is not used in physics like our everyday understanding of the absence of anything. The contentions that the 'nothing' of physics is not nothingness. Space is never truly empty -- but we don't need to be exegetical dispute here, since t is quite true that Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum fluctuations occur in preexisting spacetime which always exited.

Why the KCA is wrong - The 'B' Theory

The B-theory states that both past, present, and future all exist in a rd or n+1d block, and the present is the current image seen o the progression throughout this lock, no more real than those before or after. [4] This makes sense to say taht the universe has had a past space-time boundary, it doesn't make sense to say it 'began to exist' as our bock was always there.

The KCA rest on the A-Theory of time [5] which unfortunately for my opponent, and Dr. Craig, most phsycists are B-theorists. [6]

C2) THE OA

The Ontological argument attempts to show that God, a maximally great being, exists by neceissity. As we will see, there are a ton of fallacies in such an argument and it doesn't prove God's existence.

Formulation

1. It is possible that God (a Maximally-Great Being) exists.
2. If it is possible that God (MGB) exists, then God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds.
3. If God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds, then God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds.
4. If God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds, then God (MGB) exists in the actual world.
5. If God (MGB) exists in the actual world, then God (MGB) exists.


Attack on p1 - It is possible that God (a MGB) exists


This is begging the question: What is a maximally great being and why can't we conceive of a MGB without it actually existing? Until my opponent answers these questions, we should reject this argument.

Why the OA is wrong - The Fallacy of Equivocation

This argument attempts to define God into existence which is something one cannot do. [7] You see, what you are attempting to do is define God two ways: 1) A god who exists in reality; and 2) A God who exists only in the mind. As such, this is the fallacy of equivocation. To understand the argument you are attempting to bring forth in the equiocated fallacy, let's review it as a syllogism:

1. Nothing greater than God-1 can be imagined.
2. God-2 exists.
3. God-1 is geater than God-2.
4. If God-1 does not exist, than we can imagine something greater than God-2.
5. But we cannot imagin anything greater than God-1.
6. Therefore, God-1 exists. [8]

That is the fallacy (and the absurdity) that you are arguing.

I am out of room and will defend my opening arguments in the next round. Good luck!



1. Vuletic, Mark I. "Creation Ex Nihilo - without God." The Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, and Freethought. The Secular Web, 2011. Web. 28 May 2012. <http://www.infidels.org...;.

Quantum fluctuations are completely random. One can argue that they are not really creation ex nihlo because they require the pre-existence of the universe. However, that completely misses the point. Moreover, we must still recognize that many events are not necessitated by an earlier state. "In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162) Quoted in the URL above.

2.Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science. New York: Prentice Hall. Quoted in the article, "Creation Ex Nihlo - without God." URL provided in reference 1.

3. This idea isn't far fetched as the understanding of modern physics do allow for this possibility.

4. For more, see http://plato.stanford.edu...

5. The A-Theory is just the opposite. It states that only the present exists and the future will come into existence later on. See the url above.

6. I'd like to thank Thrasymachus for first posting on the A-B theory of time in his debate with Mr.Infidel on the same topic at http://www.debate.org.... I did my own research to better understand the idea of the Theory of Time, which can become quite interesting and highy involved.

7. If we could, then why can't we define anything into existence even something as absurd as the tooth fairy?!

8. http://skeptico.blogs.com...
Debate Round No. 3
KeytarHero

Pro

Thanks, again, to Microsuck for his rebuttals to my argument. However, the KCA and OA that I have offered do not have serious flaws at all. In fact, they are logically air-tight. The only way to actually defeat the arguments themselves is to attack the arguments, not try to see logical fallacies where there are none.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Observation 1: Divine Attributes

The burden of proof is to show that it is probable that God exists, as these two arguments, in particular, show. The KCA, specifically, shows that this God is all-powerful (omnipotent), because He is able to create the entire universe from nothing; that is, from non-being to being. It also shows that God is all-knowing (omniscient). He created the universe, so He certainly knows all there is to know about it. There are other arguments to be used for a cumulative case, but as I stated in the opening round space only permits two arguments (leaving space for my opponent to present his case to leave room for rebuttals). The KCA clearly shows that there is a Creator who created the universe, since the creation of the universe must be from outside itself -- it is impossible for something to bring itself into existence because it literally did not exist before it did.

Premise 1 -- Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

We know this premise to be correct. These particles do not come into being uncaused, they come into being through quantum fluctuations. Using quantum mechanics equivocates on the definition of "nothing" because in philosophy, "nothing" is literally "non-existence." It literally does not exist. Additionally, just because these particles may appear uncaused does not mean that they are. Scientists may one day discover a cause. Thirdly, these particles are only uncaused if you accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, which is one of many. There is no reason to presuppose it is true (and assuming it must be true to attack the KCA is begging the question).

Premise 2 -- The universe began to exist.

I have already addressed this in my defense of premise 1, but nothing literally does not exist, as Con even concedes. This is such a thing, ontologically, as nothing but it literally does not exist. Con has not shown why the universe has always existed, he just asserts it. Con even concedes "nothing" does not exist in physics. You can't disprove a metaphysical argument by appealing to physics. "Nothing" is a perfectly valid concept in philosophy. I have already shown why the universe is not eternal, and why it requires a Creator.

B Theory of time.

The KCA does not have to rest on the A theory of time, with respect to Dr. Craig. However, Con has offered no proof that the A theory is wrong. He uses an appeal to authority fallacy to argue his point. However, at the beginning when the universe was created, time was also created. It had no past at the beginning, but every point after that had a past. There is no reason to assume that the past no longer exists once it goes by.

Con's arguments against the KCA fail.

The Ontological Argument

Again, this argument is logically air-tight. It argues from modal logic. The only way to disprove this argument is to attack premise one. If premise one succeeds, the rest of the argument succeeds.

Premise 1 -- It is possible a Maximally Great Being exists.

This does not beg the question. In fact, I defined what a Maximally Great Being is in round two. Please review it.

Equivocation.

I also explained why the argument doesn't define God into existence in round two. We are arguing for a God who exists necessarily, one who exists in reality. There is no equivocation on my part here.

Con's argument likewise fails. God is a maximally great being because he has all qualities which are better to have, to their maximal extent. This argument does not argue from "thought," but from "possible worlds." God is a maximally great being because He is an necessary being; that is, He exists in all possible worlds, which includes the actual world (the one we live in).

The two arguments I have presented make a logically airtight case against God, and the arguments that Con presented have not shown any of the premises wrong. It is very much probable that God exists.
Microsuck

Con

Thanks pro. I will defend my opening arguments.

C1) PRESUMPTION OF ATHEISM

1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.
2. The claim that a God exist is an extraordinary claim.
3. Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that God exists may be considered false.
4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that God exists.
5. Therefore, the claim that God exists may be considered false.The Null Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis


My opponent accuses me of confusing types of argumentation. My opponent is using philosophical evidence to make a case whereas I am using physical evidence to prove something in the mtaphysical realm. However, I disagree. The argument does not say that it MUST be physica evidence, it can be reasoned logic as well. As I am a pearlist (Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic), it would be perfectly acceptable to use philosopical arguments to prove God's existenc. This argument shows that there is neither physical OR metaphysical evidence.

I cite a few examples that attempt to show that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My opponet admis that if I had a vision to be God's prophet that it will require evidence so why is your God different? What about the God of Christity's prophets make them not require any evidence. Sure, God has given us a test, yet false prophets can also perform the same tests! [1]

The magic sandwitch i rightfuly absurd but it serves the point at showing that there is no evidence against the magic sandwitch and therefore (according to fundamentalist logic) that the MS must be real.

Formulation

My opponent says that extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence and citexs an example. However, it misses the point. Showing a purple dog with 6 legs and 4 tails require evidence. The physical evidence for the dog is enough extrarodinary evidence to make such a claim. Remember, extraordinary evidence is any evidence that makes the extraordinary proposition more likely than not. So, what is extraordinary evidnece? PEARL: Phsysical Evidence and Reasoned Logic. Because you have given PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for the extraordinary claim, you have thus given extraordinary evidence. However, without such evidence, it is an extraordinary claim and should be rejected without evidence.

My opponent states that God is not extraordinary -- no more than to sa that the universe came from nothing. I believe I already responded to those objections in my rebuttal to the KCA showing that the universe does not need a cause of its existence.

C2) THE ARGUENT FROM NON BELIEF

My opponent admits that all religions contradict each other; hence they cannot all be objectively corect as it would violate the law of non-contradiction. My opponent rightfuly points out that they don't contain some truth. In fact, I believe that all religions, though they are not all objectively true, do have some (though very few) elements of truth within them.

My opponent agrees that God wants each person to be saved by having set of belief P; and as my opponent rightully points out, it doesn't prove God does not exist.

My opponent has pretty much accepted my whole argument; however, because I ran out of room, I will try to defend the other premises.


Let set P be defined as the set of the following propositions:
(a) There exists the god of theism.
(b) The god of theism loves humanity, and
(c) This being wants each person to be saved by having certain
beliefs sufficient for salvation, such as beliefs P1...Pn.

Beliefs P1...Pn represent whatever beliefs in addition to (a) and (b) would be required for salvation on any given version of theism. One may add to set P as members of P1...Pn any additional propositions such as "Jesus died for your sins," "Jesus rose from the dead," or similar propositions. Let us stipulate for the sake of simplicity that anyone who believes the propositions in set P is saved, and anyone who does not believe them is not saved.

This simplified argument from nonbelief, then, is the following:
1. If god exists, then god wants what is best for each person.
2. What is best for each person is that he or she is saved.
3. Therefore, if god exists, then god wants each person to be saved by having the beliefs of set P.
4. If god wants everyone to be saved by having the beliefs of set P, then everyone would have the beliefs of set P.
5. Not everyone has the beliefs of set P.
6. Therefore, god does not want everyone to be saved by having the beliefs of set P.
7. Therefore, god does not exist.

The argument basically follows very logically. It shows that God's existence is not probable at all; especially given the demographics of other religions. What does it mean? It means that your religious beliefs are often dependent upon the location in which you were born. To prove this, let's make a few observations.

1. If you were to be born in Saudi Arabia, the ratio from Muslims:Christians is well more than 10:1 [2]

2. In India, there is a much greater chance to be a Hindu than in any other part of the world. [3]

3. In the ancient world, nations had their own distinct, yet contradictory mythologies. [4]

If God is so concerned at getting us to the belief set of P, then why is it that he reveals himself to a small portion of the world and everyone has to learn about God through one or two persons? Thomas Pain said in The Age of Reason concerning these statistics:

"Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." [5]

Conclusion


I unfortunately will not defend my rebuttals because he cannot rebut mine. I have shown that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Based upon the argument from non-belief, we can conclude that God has been a failure in getting his salvation plan across. I urge a vote for the negative.

Case dismissed.

______________________________________________________________________

Sources

1. See Deuteronomy 18.
2. In fact, the Muslim population is 99%. http://www.nationmaster.com...
3. In India, there is an 80% population of Hindus. In fact, one of my school teachers from India happens to be Hindu. http://www.censusindia.gov.in...
4. To comare mythologies, see http://www.ancient-mythology.com...
5. The Age of Reason, part 1: Quoted http://classiclit.about.com....
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Rational, you are misunderstanding Theistic arguments. When we say something cannot come from nothing (or, more accurately, being cannot come from non-being), we mean on its own. For example, self-caused beings are a logical incoherency. A being cannot cause itself because it would have to precede itself in order to cause itself, which is impossible. This is why Theists argue that God is not self-caused, but uncaused, which is a crucial difference.

God is all-powerful. Therefore, God can create something where there was nothing. But something cannot come from nothing without outside help, because that would be impossible. This is why the KCA also points to a Creator because if the universe has a cause, it has a cause outside itself. The cause could not come from within the universe itself.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
So being cannot come from non being, but God can make being come from non being? I always find it funny that theists say "you cannot get something from nothing", and then in the same breath, try to argue that God made something come from nothing lol

So which is it, can something come from nothing or can't it?
Posted by Reason_Alliance 4 years ago
Reason_Alliance
Followed from vote:

& the OA proved God to be possible- but it didn't stop there, given God's necessary nature, it follows that he must exist- which clearly makes God more probable to exist-- by that proof alone Pro shattered the resolution. Good job to both though this was a crap or get off the pot debate since it had the OA in it.... such a squirrelly argument!
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
I would like to echo the sentiments expressed in Innomen's RFD.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Additionally, Innomen, the arguments I used prove that God is how I defined him as. The Ontological Argument shows that he's omnibenevlot, the KCA proves that he is omnipotent and omniscient. That is the definition that I gave. It's not necessarily just the Christian God that I was arguing.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
I would urge TheOrator to reconsider his vote. Probable means "likely to occur or prove true, having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt, affording ground for belief."

Orator is trying to catch me on a technicality, but if I offer better proof than my opponent, I have proven it probable within the confines of the debate. Con did not adequately refute my arguments so I have proven it probable. Also, I did not use "these arguments don't have fallaces" as a rebuttal to the fallacies. I had already explained myself, so I pointed back to the original argument to show that I wasn't making a fallacy. There was no need to repeat myself.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Thank you, innomen.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Sounds good.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
I probably won't be able to get my argument up until tomorrow, just so you know. But I will get it in in time.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Edit: Source 1 http://www.infidels.org...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
KeytarHeroMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Basically Countering RA's reason of "Hume is old" essentially.
Vote Placed by Reason_Alliance 4 years ago
Reason_Alliance
KeytarHeroMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't help but noticed how out-of-date Micro's arguments were... Hume's maxim...? Moreover KH showed the KCA as best he could
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
KeytarHeroMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's refutations of the KCA were weak, but his attack of the OA is a straw-man. Alas, it's getting hard to find any substantial objections to the OA. Pro had better spelling. Con's argument from non-belief ignored free will.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
KeytarHeroMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: keytarHero had stronger arguments and a better structure. Microsuck clearly undermined the Kalam Cosmological Argument severely but utterly failed at refuting the Modal Ontological Argument (I think he didn't even argued against the version Pro put forward). Since Microsuck presented some of the weaker arguments for Atheism and none of the stronger arguments, and only successfully refuted the KCA and not the MOA, I give the win to KeytarHero. (i) Spelling/ Grammar to Pro (i) Sources to Con
Vote Placed by Hyperion1 4 years ago
Hyperion1
KeytarHeroMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD forthcoming.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
KeytarHeroMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons: The burden of proof is not that "it is possible" that God exists, but rather "it is probable". Even though the Pro establishes the possibility of the existance of an omniscent being he does not prove that it is probable. Also, saying "these arguments don't have fallacies" as a rebuttal to the fallacies shown is not a valid rebuttal, but I didn't count it. Sources: Con always used many sources for everything stated while Pro used one or two, if he used any at all.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
KeytarHeroMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had better arguments which I found more logically sound, though the KCA seemed shaky it was never refuted properly, and the quantum fluctuation argument seemed non convincing. I did not think CON was able to prove any of the premises invalid on the ontological argument. Cons main case (weak and strong atheism) seemed poor as well. All in all pro won args. Sources to con as pro relied on no sources or DDO sources, and only his round 2 sources where hugely reliable.
Vote Placed by innomen 4 years ago
innomen
KeytarHeroMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: slight edge to con. Pro would have fared better had he not confined himself to the Christian God, but rather to a less defined concept of a deity. Con had exceptional sources and footnotes. The five points that pro put forward were adeptly met by con, and so went the debate. Good job, but honestly I generally don't care for these debates - too many.