The Instigator
stubs
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
HunterSego
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
stubs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,594 times Debate No: 24408
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (7)

 

stubs

Pro

First round is for acceptance and clarification only.

The rest of the rounds are used for arguments and rebuttals

For this debate God will be defined as a maximally great being as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, I am not referring to any specific deity. Hence doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are irrelvant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.

The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable.

No semantics

Good luck
HunterSego

Con

I accept this challenge.

I may not be able to debate through every round because I am very busy on vacation.

When voting, I encourage you to please try to ignore your bias, that goes to both theists and atheists.
Debate Round No. 1
stubs

Pro

I would first like the thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as well as thank HunterSego for accepting this debate on such a critical issue. C.S Lewis has said, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." [1] That being said, I am still not referring to any specific deity, as mentioned in round one.

The ontological argument:

1: It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2: If it is possible that God exists, he exists in some possible world.
3: If God exists in some possible world, He exists in every possible world.
4: If God exists in every possible world, He exists in the actual world.
5: Therefore, God exists in the actual world
6: Therefore, God exists
7: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

When philosophers talk of possible worlds, they just mean the way the world might have been. A possible world is not a planet or universe. It is just a world description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world is to say that no matter which description is true, the entity will be included in that description. We can use unicorns as an example. Unicorns do not in fact exists, but there is some possible world in which unicorns exists. There are many mathematicians that think numbers exists in every possible world. That is to say they exists necessarily. God is the greatest conceivable being. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. What would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and he would exists in every logically possible world. Let's look at the implications of this. If Gods existence is even possible, then if follows that God must exist. If a maximally great being exists in any possible world, it exists in all of them. That's part of what it means to be maximally great. So if Gods existence is even possible, he exists in every possible world, including the actual world.

The atheist has to maintain that it is actually impossible for God to exist. The atheist has to say that the concept of God is not even possible in any possible world. Take for example a married bachelor. There is no possible world in which a married bachelor exists. My opponent would have to show that God is something like a married bachelor, not existing in any possible world. The problem is that God does not seem to be incoherent in that way. The idea that a being is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and exists in every possible world is coherent.

Please note that when I say, "the atheists has to maintain that it is actually impossible for God to exist" I am not changing the burden of proof which is that it is "more probable." However, if Gods existence is even possible, it logically follows that God necessarily exists in the actual world which is far and above my burden of proof to show that it is, "more probable."

Good luck to my opponent in his arguments.

Thank You
[1] http://www.brainyquote.com...
HunterSego

Con

I am very excited to be able to debate stubs on this topic! I thank the scientists and engineers (and whoever else was involved in the development of our modern technology) for making the computers and the Internet that we can use to debate.

I am going to show how Pro’s argument doesn’t explain how it is more probable that there is a god. I am going to copy Pro’s argument directly below this to be used as a reference for my rebuttal.

1: It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2: If it is possible that God exists, he exists in some possible world.
3: If God exists in some possible world, He exists in every possible world.
4: If God exists in every possible world, He exists in the actual world.
5: Therefore, God exists in the actual world
6: Therefore, God exists
7: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

1) It is also possible that a magic banana that flies around our universe exists too. Anything is possible.

2) Yes, but a possible world is nothing more than an idea. Therefore, it is irrelevant to reality.

3) Not necessarily. You have no way to really know what god is, if it existed, so you have no way of knowing if he can be in another possible world other than your man-made idea of god. A possible world, like I pointed out, is just an idea. So far your argument has nothing to do with reality.

4) No, this is a huge flaw. Because your idea of god exists in a fake “possible world” doesn’t mean that he is in our real world. Pro even says, “Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true.

5) This is basically a restatement of your 4th point. I will again state that what is in a possible world is irrelevant to our reality. Even if god may have existed in a possible world, that doesn’t make it any more probable that it would be in our reality.

6) Pro is continuing to repeat the same idea. A god cannot exist just because he could have existed in an idea.

7) Again, same idea as his 4th, 5th, and 6th point.

Later in Pro’s argument, he talks about how if a god is possible, it must exist because he is a “maximally great” being. How do you know this? No god has ever been observed so how can you know all of this information about it? I could say that my magic banana is maximally great, and then if it’s possible, he exists! That is ridiculous logic. You cannot make up what something you don’t know to have an advantage.

There is another flaw in Pro’s possible world argument. If a god existing in a possible world means that it’s in our real world, then that means that every idea of a god or of gods is true. That would be pretty contradictory to many ideas of god.

Pro stated that I (an atheist) have to maintain some ideas. The first one is that I have to maintain that it is impossible for a god to exist. No, I do not because it is possible for anything to exist. The argument is about probability. His second idea for the atheist to maintain is that the idea of god isn’t possible in a possible world. Two things about this, I don’t have to prove that a god doesn’t exist and possible worlds are irrelevant. It is possible for anything to exist in any possible world. Pro continues on using an example, a married bachelor, for how I have to prove that a god is impossible. I don’t have to prove that a god is impossible, the debate is about probability. Pro claims that he’s not changing the burden of proof even though that’s what he’s doing. Pro doesn’t have to prove that a god is real (something Pro couldn’t do) so I don’t have to prove that a god is impossible. The debate is about probability of a god’s existence.

== My argument ==

As Con, my position is that the existence of a god, specifically the Christian god, isn’t highly probable. I have 3 points to explain why the existence of god is improbable.

1) An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

Making the claim that there is a magic, all-knowing being without any evidence is ridiculous. The chances of this god being real are incredibly low and there hasn’t been any proof to back up the potential existence of that god. If a god really wanted all people to follow him, wouldn’t he prove his existence? According to Pro, he could if he wanted to.

2) No god has ever been observed.

There has never been any legitimate proof of a god or anything supernatural. Concepts for the creation of our universe such as the Big Bang Theory have been observed, such as the expansion of our universe [1]. We are just studying concepts such as the Big Bang and are finding evidence. Religion has been around for thousands of years without evidence. We don’t need a god concept to be here.

3) Religion is a man-made concept.

Every idea of religion was made by people. There is no legitimate proof to the contrary. Religion was arguable created by people’s need to know the unknown. This makes a god’s case very weak, not only is there no proof for a god, but the idea of god was created by man. This shows that the probability of a god existing, are incredibly slim.

[1] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
stubs

Pro

Thank you for your response.

"1) It is also possible that a magic banana that flies around our universe exists too. Anything is possible."
+ You expanded on this further down in your argument so I will address it there. I just don't want you or anyone thinking I am skipping over it haha.

"2) Yes, but a possible world is nothing more than an idea. Therefore, it is irrelevant to reality."
+ I agree largely with what you said. A possible world is not reality. All it does is describe a way that reality could have been.

"3) Not necessarily. You have no way to really know what god is, if it existed, so you have no way of knowing if he can be in another possible world other than your man-made idea of god. A possible world, like I pointed out, is just an idea. So far your argument has nothing to do with reality."
+ Let us remember that we have defined God as the greatest conceivable being. This means that God has all the maximally excellent qualities. One of those maximally excellent qualities would be being metaphysically necessary. Premise 3 is that if God exists in some possible world, He exists in every possible world. It logically follows that if God is a metaphysically necessary being and he exists in some possible world, then he exists in every possible world.

"4) No, this is a huge flaw. Because your idea of god exists in a fake "possible world" doesn't mean that he is in our real world. Pro even says, "Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true."
+This is totally irrelevant to the 4th premise. If God exists in every possible world, then he exists in the actual world. This premise is totally uncontroversial.

"5) This is basically a restatement of your 4th point. I will again state that what is in a possible world is irrelevant to our reality. Even if god may have existed in a possible world, that doesn't make it any more probable that it would be in our reality."
+ What is in a possible world is irrelevant to our reality if we are talking about contingent things, such as unicorns. However, God is a non-contingent being. He either exists necessarily or does not exist due to impossibility. If God exists in a possible world it logically follows that we would exist in every possible world and therefore the actual world.

6+7 I have nothing to refute.

"Later in Pro's argument, he talks about how if a god is possible, it must exist because he is a "maximally great" being. How do you know this?"
+Well in the first round of this debate I defined God as a maximally great being. The first round was specifically for acceptance and clarification. If you had a problem with the definition of God then I would have been willing to discuss it, but it is far too late now. I know some people might take that as a loss of conduct for con because he asked to change a definition in the middle of the debate, but I ask that not be a reason to deduct him the conduct point. I don't want a good debate ruined by something stupid like that if the voting happens to be close.

" I could say that my magic banana is maximally great, and then if it's possible, he exists! That is ridiculous logic."
+I was looking forward to hearing this (: A banana that is maximally great is logically incoherent. Let's think about this. A maximally great banana would have to be metaphysically necessary. That is one of the qualities of something that is maximally great. However, bananas can be eaten. If the banana can be eaten then it is not metaphysically necessary! If the banana cannot be eaten then it is not a banana! The idea of a maximally great banana is just a logically incoherent idea.

"There is another flaw in Pro's possible world argument. If a god existing in a possible world means that it's in our real world, then that means that every idea of a god or of gods is true. That would be pretty contradictory to many ideas of god."
+ This is a false statement. All the ontological argument proves true is a maximally great being. Other religions such as Hinduism have hundreds upon hundreds of gods which are not maximally great. They have a sun god, moon god, wind god and so on, but none of them are maximally great. The ontological can be used only for maximally great beings which corresponds to the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam respectably. As I said in the first round, I am not referring to any specific deity, just a maximally great being.

"Pro stated that I (an atheist) have to maintain some ideas. The first one is that I have to maintain that it is impossible for a god to exist. No, I do not because it is possible for anything to exist."
+ This is also a false statement. There are many things that cannot possibly exists due to the law of contradiction. Things such as a married bachelor or a triangle with four sides exist in no possible world.

"Pro claims that he's not changing the burden of proof even though that's what he's doing. Pro doesn't have to prove that a god is real (something Pro couldn't do) so I don't have to prove that a god is impossible. The debate is about probability of a god's existence."
+ I am sorry if you feel that I am trying to change the burden of proof. That is not what I am doing. I was just pointing out that if God exists in some possible world, he exists in all of them, which mean he exists in the actual world. Therefore, if Gods existence is even possible, then if follows he exists in every possible world. The only way he would not exists in the actual world is if he could not exists in any possible world.

1. Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
+ Not at all! I believe KeytarHero gave an example like this (all credit to him). If I said I had a brown dog with 4 legs what kind of evidence would you need? Just to see the dog. If I said I had a purple dog with 6 legs what kind of evidence would you need? Just to see the dog. Extraordinary claims do not require any extraordinary evidence. Just regular evidence.

2. "Concepts for the creation of our universe such as the Big Bang Theory have been observed, such as the expansion of our universe [1]. We are just studying concepts such as the Big Bang and are finding evidence."
+ The big bang theory is not contrary to the existence of a maximally great being. The maximally great being could have caused the big bang to occur.

3. "Every idea of religion was made by people. There is no legitimate proof to the contrary. Religion was arguable created by people's need to know the unknown."
+ I think everybody can realize this is just the genetic fallacy. Even if religion was just created because people want to "know the unknown" it does not make it false by any means.

Conclusion:
My opponent used much of his second round by informing us that possible worlds do not actually exist and have no bearing on reality. I agree with most of what he said even! Other possible worlds do not describe the actual world. They only describe the way things could have been. Con has not given us any reason to believe that if God does exists in a possible world, then he does not exist in every possible world and therefore not in the actual world. He also tried to parody the ontological argument with the maximally great banana, but I believe I have shown that to be just a logically incoherent idea. I thank my opponent for his argument and look forward to hearing his next round.
HunterSego

Con

To make reading my responses easier, I am going to copy what Pro said and type my response under that in the same way that Pro did. My responses will be typed between apostrophes. I did have to take out a few of Stub's statements to fit the character limit, sorry. *'s where I had to delete his statement's.


*

‘Pro goes on to point out how a banana isn’t a good example because it is food. The example being a banana had nothing to do with the point of the example. I just randomly selected a banana. It’s disappointing that Pro had to take the banana part of the example so far.’

+ I agree largely with what you said. A possible world is not reality. All it does is describe a way that reality could have been.

‘Stubs confirmed again that he knows that a possible world is irrelevant to reality but he still continues to later say how it is relevant. He’s very inconsistent with what a possible world is and frankly, I don’t think that he really understands the concept.’


*

‘I did drift away from the agreed definition of god. I will admit that. But no matter what you say your made up being is, it doesn’t leave any possible world. A possible world is an exclusive idea. Any non-contradictory thing (so a married bachelor or a four-sided triangle couldn’t exist) can be possible. I could say that my maximally great banana that no one can eat or do anything to (it is equal to your idea of god) can be possible. It is the greatest thing conceivable. This just sounds silly but it’s the same idea, in some ways, as a god. The problem is that even if it is in a possible world, that possible world is an exclusive idea and it can’t come to our reality. Possible worlds don’t work like that!’

+This is totally irrelevant to the 4th premise. If God exists in every possible world, then he exists in the actual world. This premise is totally uncontroversial.

‘Here, Pro is again showing his lack of understanding of the idea of a possible world. Each possible world is an exclusive idea that has not a single bit of an affect on reality.’

+ What is in a possible world is irrelevant to our reality if we are talking about contingent things, such as unicorns. However, God is a non-contingent being. He either exists necessarily or does not exist due to impossibility. If God exists in a possible world it logically follows that we would exist in every possible world and therefore the actual world.

‘Pro tries to explain how his possible world idea is still valid. He states that a god is relevant to reality in a possible world because he is non-contingent. There is no proof however, that a god, if one existed, is non-contingent. A god and/or a maximally great being have never been observed to find out if they are non-contingent. I even if they were, a possible world is still an exclusive idea, thus a god in a possible world being non-contingent is still irrelevant to reality.’

+Well in the first round of this debate I defined God as a maximally great being. The first round was specifically for acceptance and clarification. If you had a problem with the definition of God then I would have been willing to discuss it, but it is far too late now. I know some people might take that as a loss of conduct for con because he asked to change a definition in the middle of the debate, but I ask that not be a reason to deduct him the conduct point. I don't want a good debate ruined by something stupid like that if the voting happens to be close.

‘This is true. I made a mistake here with the definition of your unproven idea of a god.’

+I was looking forward to hearing this (: A banana that is maximally great is logically incoherent. Let's think about this. A maximally great banana would have to be metaphysically necessary. That is one of the qualities of something that is maximally great. However, bananas can be eaten. If the banana can be eaten then it is not metaphysically necessary! If the banana cannot be eaten then it is not a banana! The idea of a maximally great banana is just a logically incoherent idea.

‘This is where Pro gets carried away with the idea of my example being a banana. How is my magic banana not metaphysically necessary? There is just as much evidence for my banana as your god! I defined my banana as maximally great, you can’t change its definition.’


+ This is a false statement. All the ontological argument proves true is a maximally great being. Other religions such as Hinduism have hundreds upon hundreds of gods which are not maximally great. They have a sun god, moon god, wind god and so on, but none of them are maximally great. The ontological can be used only for maximally great beings which corresponds to the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam respectably. As I said in the first round, I am not referring to any specific deity, just a maximally great being.

‘I’m sure that if you looked online that you could find many different, smaller religion with maximally great gods. I even made up one!’


+ This is also a false statement. There are many things that cannot possibly exists due to the law of contradiction. Things such as a married bachelor or a triangle with four sides exist in no possible world.

‘I talked about this a little bit ago. Things breaking that law aren’t possible but that wasn’t my point.’


+ I am sorry if you feel that I am trying to change the burden of proof. That is not what I am doing. I was just pointing out that if God exists in some possible world, he exists in all of them, which mean he exists in the actual world. Therefore, if Gods existence is even possible, then if follows he exists in every possible world. The only way he would not exists in the actual world is if he could not exists in any possible world.

‘That is actually what you are doing. I’ll let it slip though, it doesn’t matter at this point. Again, and I’ll bold this to signify how important this is, a possible world is an exclusive idea that is totally irrelevant to reality or any other possible worlds.

1. Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
+ Not at all! I believe KeytarHero gave an example like this (all credit to him). If I said I had a brown dog with 4 legs what kind of evidence would you need? Just to see the dog. If I said I had a purple dog with 6 legs what kind of evidence would you need? Just to see the dog. Extraordinary claims do not require any extraordinary evidence. Just regular evidence.

‘Ok, this argument wasn’t resting on the adjective extraordinary. I’d say that seeing a god would be pretty extraordinary though. Regardless of what you call the evidence, you don’t have any for your idea of a god.’

2. "Concepts for the creation of our universe such as the Big Bang Theory have been observed, such as the expansion of our universe [1]. We are just studying concepts such as the Big Bang and are finding evidence."
+ The big bang theory is not contrary to the existence of a maximally great being. The maximally great being could have caused the big bang to occur.

‘Pro took what I said out of context here. That is bad conduct. What I was saying about the Big Bang is that a god is not required with the theory. We have an explanation for how the universe started without a god involved.’

3. "Every idea of religion was made by people. There is no legitimate proof to the contrary. Religion was arguable created by people's need to know the unknown."
+ I think everybody can realize this is just the genetic fallacy. Even if religion was just created because people want to "know the unknown" it does not make it false by any means.

‘I didn’t say that religion was false by this, I was pointing out a fact about religion.’

I don’t want to paste Pro’s conclusion because I am running out of characters to use! Basically, he agrees that a possible world is irrelevant to reality and he talks about how my banana example is flawed. I apologize for not being able to copy what I said before he responded but there wasn’t enough room. I thank stubs for his response and I wish him luck in the final round.
Debate Round No. 3
stubs

Pro

With this being the last round, I would like to thank Huntersego one last time for his willingness to give up his valuable time to debate this topic with me. That being said, I did notice a few flaws in his argument, and he actually made a very good argument for me in his last round!

"Stubs confirmed again that he knows that a possible world is irrelevant to reality but he still continues to later say how it is relevant. He's very inconsistent with what a possible world is and frankly, I don't think that he really understands the concept."

I believe I gave a very good description of possible worlds in round 2. A possible world is the way the world might have been. A possible world is not a planet nor a universe. It is just a world description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. A possible world is irrelevant to reality in instances like unicorns. Unicorns exist in a possible world, but not in the actual world. They are contingent. A non-contingent being (such as God) either exist in all possible worlds due to necessity or no possible worlds due to impossibility.

"Pro tries to explain how his possible world idea is still valid. He states that a god is relevant to reality in a possible world because he is non-contingent. There is no proof however, that a god, if one existed, is non-contingent. A god and/or a maximally great being have never been observed to find out if they are non-contingent"

Being metaphysically necessary is one of the maximally excellent qualities. For it is better to be necessary than contingent. So when we defined God as a maximally great being, we have to believe his is a non-contingent being.

"This is where Pro gets carried away with the idea of my example being a banana. How is my magic banana not metaphysically necessary? There is just as much evidence for my banana as your god! I defined my banana as maximally great, you can't change its definition."

This was my favorite part of you last round (: For one a banana is not metaphysically necessary. I have shown that in the last round. Furthermore, you went on to make an argument for the theist! I defined God as maximally great. You defined your magic banana as maximally great. We are making an argument for the same exact thing! We are both arguing for a maximally great being, I just called mine God and you called yours a magic banana. This is almost exactly what Peter Atkins did in his debate against William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig said that God caused the universe and Peter Atkins said he thought it was a computer, a timeless, immaterial, all-powerful computer. All Peter Atkins did was replace "God" with the word "computer" and all you did was replace the word "God" with "magic banana."

"I'm sure that if you looked online that you could find many different, smaller religion with maximally great gods. I even made up one!"

This still does not have any bearing on my argument. I am arguing only for a maximally great being. Not a deity of any specific religion.

"Ok, this argument wasn't resting on the adjective extraordinary."

Of course it was. You said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While I already showed that this is false, extraordinary is a very subjective word. What might constitute as extraordinary evidence for me, may not constitute as extraordinary evidence for you.

"Pro took what I said out of context here. That is bad conduct. What I was saying about the Big Bang is that a god is not required with the theory. We have an explanation for how the universe started without a god involved."

I would strongly argue that I took none of what you said out of context. I disagree that the big bang is an explanation for how the universe started without a god being involved. The Big Bang theory only describes what happened at the big bang, and then describes the expansion of the universe after. The Big Bang theory does not describe what caused the big bang to occur.

"I didn't say that religion was false by this, I was pointing out a fact about religion."

Okay, then it is not an argument and is irrelevant to the debate.

Conclusion:

I do agree that most of the possible worlds are not reality (I say most because the actual world is a possible world.) God is a non-contingent, metaphysically necessary being. That means that if he exists in a possible world, he exists in all of them. HunterSego has not shown this to be false, nor has he shown that God does not exist in any possible world. He continued to try and parody the ontological argument, but only made an argument for the same being I was arguing for. The resolution has been affirmed.

Thanks to HunterSego for the debate and thank you to the readers/voters.
HunterSego

Con

For my final response, I will be copying what Pro has said and will be typing my response below his text with apostrophes.

I believe I gave a very good description of possible worlds in round 2. A possible world is the way the world might have been. A possible world is not a planet nor a universe. It is just a world description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. A possible world is irrelevant to reality in instances like unicorns. Unicorns exist in a possible world, but not in the actual world. They are contingent. A non-contingent being (such as God) either exist in all possible worlds due to necessity or no possible worlds due to impossibility.

‘Pro is still continuing to say that a maximally great god in a possible world has to be in every possible world and our world. This is flawed and Pro is just ignoring the problem! A possible world is an exclusive idea, even if a non-contingent god is in a possible world, it doesn’t affect other possible worlds. Pro couldn’t get that basic concept.’

Being metaphysically necessary is one of the maximally excellent qualities. For it is better to be necessary than contingent. So when we defined God as a maximally great being, we have to believe his is a non-contingent being.

‘It doesn’t matter what a god is in a possible world. It doesn’t affect reality. I have explained this too many times.’

This was my favorite part of you last round (: For one a banana is not metaphysically necessary. I have shown that in the last round. Furthermore, you went on to make an argument for the theist! I defined God as maximally great. You defined your magic banana as maximally great. We are making an argument for the same exact thing! We are both arguing for a maximally great being, I just called mine God and you called yours a magic banana. This is almost exactly what Peter Atkins did in his debate against William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig said that God caused the universe and Peter Atkins said he thought it was a computer, a timeless, immaterial, all-powerful computer. All Peter Atkins did was replace "God" with the word "computer" and all you did was replace the word "God" with "magic banana."

‘I have shown that a banana can be metaphysically necessary. A god sounds less crazy than a magic banana even if they do the same things. I’m not sure how you took my banana example as an argument for the theist. I was demonstrating how my magic banana only is relevant to the one possible world that it’s in.’

This still does not have any bearing on my argument. I am arguing only for a maximally great being. Not a deity of any specific religion.

‘I don’t have anything to say for this.’

Of course it was. You said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While I already showed that this is false, extraordinary is a very subjective word. What might constitute as extraordinary evidence for me, may not constitute as extraordinary evidence for you.

‘Regardless of what you think of the adjective, you just tried to veer away from the argument and you never even tried to show any evidence. Your whole rebuttal was talking about an adjective that had nothing to do with the argument, that’s sad.’

I would strongly argue that I took none of what you said out of context. I disagree that the big bang is an explanation for how the universe started without a god being involved. The Big Bang theory only describes what happened at the big bang, and then describes the expansion of the universe after. The Big Bang theory does not describe what caused the big bang to occur.

‘The Big Bang is an explanation for there not needing to be a god. All I meant to show I that a god wasn’t required for the creation of our universe.’

[Pro’s] Conclusion:

I do agree that most of the possible worlds are not reality (I say most because the actual world is a possible world.) God is a non-contingent, metaphysically necessary being. That means that if he exists in a possible world, he exists in all of them. HunterSego has not shown this to be false, nor has he shown that God does not exist in any possible world. He continued to try and parody the ontological argument, but only made an argument for the same being I was arguing for. The resolution has been affirmed.

‘Pro continues to even say that I have not proved his possible world argument to be false even though I have done it many times! I did parody your argument with the magic banana for an example of how it’s false and it also showed how silly your god concept is. My magic banana is just as likely as your idea of god.’

Throughout the debate, Pro kept avoiding that possible worlds are exclusive ideas that aren’t relevant to each other or to reality. Pro never showed how it is more probable that a god existed and based his argument on a fallacy. Still, I thank Stubs for debating me on this topic. This was a great, yet fun, challenge. Lastly, I thank the readers for taking their time to read through this long debate.

Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
I understand what you are saying. Wiki defines being as, "an extremely broad concept encompassing subjective and objective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this use is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being")" So I am not convinced that a "being" necessarily die and decay. I am convinced that banana's can be eaten and digested. Basically yes, human beings can die, but unless we get into semantics of how we define "being" I don't think it necessarily means they die and decay.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I'm not saying the parody is valid, I'm just wondering what is it that makes a 'being' ok to be necessary but not other things?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"" I could say that my magic banana is maximally great, and then if it's possible, he exists! That is ridiculous logic."
+I was looking forward to hearing this (: A banana that is maximally great is logically incoherent. Let's think about this. A maximally great banana would have to be metaphysically necessary. That is one of the qualities of something that is maximally great. However, bananas can be eaten. If the banana can be eaten then it is not metaphysically necessary! If the banana cannot be eaten then it is not a banana! The idea of a maximally great banana is just a logically incoherent idea."

Just curious Stubs, if a maximally great banana cannot exist because all bananas we know of can be eaten, and thus cannot be metaphysically necessary. Then, why can a being be metaphysically necessary? Beings die and decay, like bananas get eaten, and thus, beings cannot be necessary by using your same logic here, no? You can say this being is different than physical beings, well, why couldn't the banana be different than other bananas?
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
Summary:
A phenonmenal 2nd round from Pro. I was excited to read it. The debate was disappointing only in that Con was not informed on the topic or subject matter. Con used a litany of fallacies and Pro had to spend time defining concepts rather than debating the heart of the academic issues.
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
R3 Pro –
1) To be addressed
2) Pro offers some starting clarity to possible worlds. Hopefully he will give a full explanation later.
3) Pro rightly defines God as the philosophical GCB.
4) Pro rightly points out the complaint is irrelevant.
5) Pro explains the attributes of God that apply to possible worlds by defining God as a necessary being.
6) & 7) need no refutation

Definition of God:
Pro points out this needed to be handled in round 1.

Magical Banana:
Pro shows the certainty that a magical banana is NOT God.

Maximal Being:
Pro has to spend time teaching the concept of a maximal being verses one that is not maximal.

Burden of Proof:
Pro rightly points out that he is not shifting BoP but showing that the definition MEETs the BoP. Con is confused again.

Extraordinary claims:
Pro gives a great analogy from another Debater. I am interested to see if Con gets it.

Big Bang:
Pro cites that a creator is not contradicted by the Big Bang.

Religion is man made:
Pro cites that here is the genetic fallacy. Even if religion was created by man all of its claims could still be true. This is called a truth basis concept.

R3 Con:

Con again repeatedly displays he does not get possible worlds reasoning or the definitions of items used within the syllogism.

He really should have wondered why philosophical scholars hold this to be valid.

Con displays that he does not understand a philosophical conceptual God verses a personal God claim.

Con then displays a lack of understanding on how a magical banana is not a metaphysical entity. Claims distinction unknown to Con.

Con claims to have made up a maximal God concept. Again displaying he does not know what is being discussed.

Con spends the rest of this round spinning and pointing. It hurts to read.

R4 Pro:

Pro spends the entire round having to define for Con what the concepts and words are defined as.

Can made this round a waste.

R5:

Con spends around just showing he
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
Pro Rd 2 –
Phenomenal layout for the existence of God.

Con rd 2 –
Con came across as petulant. Though I love a witty sarcastic barb as much as the next person, thanking scientists is petulant. Who created the scientists to thank? Who created an orderly universe that science can even function? It displayed low intellect and petulance in response to a heartfelt call upon Jesus.

1)Really a magic banana? Con seems to not understand that lack of evidence where evidence is expected is contrary evidence. It also lacks an understanding of claims distinction.
2)Con Misunderstood the possible worlds argument completely.
3)Con knows nothing about the philosophical greatest conceivable being
4)Con again misunderstands the possible worlds.
5)Con does not realize this is a new statement upon logical flow.
6)Con misses it again.
7)Con misses it again for the 4th time in a row.

Really Con should not have taken a philosophical debate when he knows nothing of what the syllogism represents.

1) Extraordinary claim -
Con cites language bias a fallacy as his rationale. Claims there is no evidence when it is common knowledge evidence abounds. He presupposes God does not exist to deny evidence. Also he makes an extraordinary claim himself within providing extraordinary evidence.

2) No God has ever been observed.
How could he possibly know this? Also how could he invalidate hundreds of millions of observations by merely stating "nuh uh"?
Cites religion does not offer evidence, which is a factual error.

3) Religion is man made,
This is a mere assertion with no evidence or citations.

All of Con's statements required sources that were not provided.
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Numidious,

You completely missed the point. You said:
1.> Everything that exists has a cause.
I said:
2.> What caused infinite volume of space?
You said:
3.> Dark matter fills space.
I said:"Uhm, ok, but not infinitely. What about the infinite amount of space left over?
4.> You said:" I thought I was being quite clear!"

Look man. Infinite volume simply means...no matter how much stuff you put in, there will always be room left over, whether you throw matter, dark matter or a Snickers bar into it. Nothing is massive enough, or dense enough.

Furthermore, nobody is arguing whether dark matter exists. It has NOTHING to do with the argument in fact. It's just more stuff that DOES NOT EXIST IN HIGH ENOUGH VOLUME TO FILL THE ENTIRETY OF EMPTY SPACE.

You clearly cannot answer the question.
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
yeah - I'll be away for a couple of days though, so someone's going to have to keep fighting the war for objectivist atheism while I'm gone :/ .
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
@GenesisCreation

First of all I was not referring to the fact that the space was "empty" rather than that it was infinite. My response to your question concerning what made the infinite empty space was quite clear, I thought. I don't know, but the chances of it being a god are infinitesimally infinitesimal - there are an infinite number of other explanations, all just as plausible and with the same amount of evidence (0). I don't believe in any of them yet because I don't believe in things for which there is no evidence.

But as for the dark matter you ask a a fair question - how can the universe be moving if it is filled with dark matter?

This website explains dark matter and dark energy better than I can. http://www.edinformatics.com...

But "Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted theory to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate." I should have said dark energy, but the point that there is something there still stands.

Also, the ability to describe an indescribable god as a god is unexplained...
Posted by MikeyMike 4 years ago
MikeyMike
@Stubs: I see what you're saying.

@GenesisCreation: I feel like I could learn so much from you. In a sense you're like me, you don't believe that science and God are opposite to each other and in fact believe they work hand in hand.

On a side note, I would appreciate it if everyone involved in all this commotion in the comment box would continue to do so, it's entertaining(not in a condescending way) this is genuinely riveting.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
stubsHunterSegoTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments RFD.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
stubsHunterSegoTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by MikeyMike 4 years ago
MikeyMike
stubsHunterSegoTied
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 said nothing that sufficiently rebutted Pro.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
stubsHunterSegoTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to admit, even I am not very convinced by the ontological argument. I haven't studied the argument in enough detail, but from what I've read, it logically follows, but it doesn't seem to convincing. However, Con's arguments failed to attack the nature of modal logic.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
stubsHunterSegoTied
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: Stubs presented the Modal Ontological Argument in favor of God's existence to show that is more probable that he exists than the alternative. Con's rebuttals were extremely weak, especially the banana parody. Pro demonstrated that a banana is a contingent item, and maximal greatness entails necessity and an entity cannot both be contingent and necessary in this context at the same time (and this in turn, debunked the parody). While I disagree that this argument proves God, Pro won this debate.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
stubsHunterSegoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Another case of not understanding the nature of modal logic. Also, Con's own arguments against theism were weakly stated and defended. On balance, Pro was the better debater. However, Pro's comment that Con shouldn't get misconduct for something "stupid like that" (redefining God) only made me want to cite Pro for misconduct instead.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
stubsHunterSegoTied
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: RFD in comments