The Instigator
Typhlochactas
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
qopel
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points

It is more probable that god exists: qopel debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 10 votes the winner is...
Typhlochactas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,922 times Debate No: 31739
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (119)
Votes (10)

 

Typhlochactas

Pro

Ave! This is a debate challenge to the DDO user qopel. If anyone who is not qopel should accept this debate, then it results in an automatic forfeit and win for myself. Qopel does not allow challenges or messages, so I'm simply hoping that he would read this while browsing around DDO.

God is a maximally great being, and by definition, you cannot conceive of anything greater than god.

Most probable is inferencce to the best conclusion. If we have competing hypothesis, then the most plausible one should be accepted.

Exists means to be a part of reality.

For rules, I think we should just follow general ideas of DDO conduct. Sources are not needed for this debate, but they can be included. Burden of proof is on myself.

Vale!
qopel

Con

In order to prove something to be more probable, real numbers must be used. My opponent has taken on the burden of proof, which also means he must provide the actual numbers that prove that it is more probable the God exists.

Without the numbers, there is no proof.

Without proof, my opponent must admit defeat.

Since it is impossible to obtain actual numbers that are accurate as to the probability of a God, I declare myself the winner of this debate.

Thank you for the easy win.
Debate Round No. 1
Typhlochactas

Pro

Ave!

Probability
Qopel (hereby referred to as Con) claims that he automatically wins the debate because I haven't given any numbers about the probability of god existing. Sadly, his reasoning is deeply flawed. In the first round of the debate, I defined probability as inference to the best conclusion. I did not define it as what is statistically most likely. All of reasoning is based off of a horrendous misunderstanding. I personally find this ironic, because his arrogant chortling was actually an embarrassing mistake for him.

Anyways, let's move on to the arguments for the existence of god.

Contingency Argument
P1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
P2) The universe exists.
P3) The universe has an explanation of its existence.
P4) The explanation of the universe is not due to necessity.
P5) The explanation of the universe is due to an external cause.
P6) The external cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.
P7) If god existed, he would at least have the traits of being spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.
C: The external cause of the universe is god.

Principle of Sufficient Reason
For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs. Due to this principle, the universe could not have existed without cause.

The Universe is Not Necessary
It is easy to conceive of some logical state of affairs where the universe does not exist. There is nothing in logic that would require the universe to exist necessarily. From this alone, we have very good reason to believe that the universe does not exist necessarily.

There is also the problem of an actual infinity. If the universe exists necessarily, then it existed eternally. If the universe existed eternally, then it existed an infinite amount of time ago. But this would mean that there would be an infinite number of events before the present moment, making this debate impossible. Ergo, the universe could not exist necessarily.

Something cannot come from nothing
The universe could not have come from nothing. If the universe had come from nothing, then that 'nothing' would have the property of something coming from it. Nothing is the state of having no properties. If the universe came from nothing, then it wouldn't be nothing at all!

Virtual particles are given as an example of something coming from nothing. But virtual particles don't come from nothing! They come from the quantum vacuum, which consists of known physical laws, and fundamental asymmetries

The Need for a Necessary Cause

The universe didn't come from nothing. The universe isn't eternal or necessary. The only option left is that the universe had an external cause of it coming into being. Since time began to exist during the Big Bang, the cause must be sans (without) time. Ditto for space and matter. The enormous power required to create the universe to exist suggests that the cause is omnipotent. Finally, the cause must be personal because it decided to bring another state of affairs into existence.

In conclusion, the most plausible explanation of the universe coming into being is a personal, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent, necessary being.

Ontological Argument
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Possible World
A Possible World is a Maximal Description of Reality, not planets or a universe. It's just a way reality might be. Imagine a huge conjunction where propositions, p, q, r, s " and worlds, W1, W2, etc:

A possible world is a conjunction which comprises every proposition or its contrary. Such a conjunction yields a maximal description of reality"nothing is left out. So by negating different conjuncts in a maximal description of reality would yield different worlds:



W1 = p, q, r, s "

W2 = p, "q, r, "s "

W3 = "p, "q, r, s "

Only one of these worlds can be the actual world, that is a world with all true conjuncts. Possible world conjuncts must be capable of being true individually and together. For example, The prime minister is a prime number isn"t even possibly true!

Saying God exists in some possible world means the proposition: God exists is true in some maximal description of reality. Thus God is "maximally excellent" in every possible world: God has "maximal greatness."

To have Maximal Excellence is to possess great making properties. Great making properties are things like omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection, etc. But we can gradually discover what a great making property is, without undermining the objective notion that God would, by definition, possess all such properties.


Maximal Greatness is thus possibly exemplified. But then it must exist in a maximally excellent way in every possible world, including the actual world, therefore God exists.

Moral Argument
P1) If god does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not ext.
P2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
C) God exists.

Moral Truth Exists

There are three forms of moral relativism, all of which claim that objective morality does not exist. This has obvious implication on the moral argument, because premise two can't be true if relativism is true. So, it is vital to demonstrate that moral truth exists.

Descriptive relativism argues that moral conflict exists. This view doesn't have any implications on the objectivity of morality. If I say that voodoo practices are justified by physics, and Victor Stenger tells me otherwise, then the logic implies that there must not be any truths to be known about physics! But there are truths to be known about physics, so descriptive relativism can't disprove moral truth.

Meta-ethical relativism argues that when there is moral conflict, no side is actually right or wrong, because objective rights and wrong do not actually exist. However, there are good reasons to believe that right and wrong actually exist. The following is an argument for moral truth.

1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoral

2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarily

3) Some objective moral knowledge exists

4) Moral truth exists

Ergo, meta-ethical relativism cannot be true.

Finally, we approach normative relativism. This argues that since there is no objective right or wrong, we should be tolerant of other people's actions and behaviors, even if we find them to be wrong. However, this presents us with a contradiction. Tolerance is treated as a universal moral value that we should all act by. A moral relativist in America thinks we should tolerate other moral systems, and a moral relativist in Brazil would believe the same. On relativism, everybody should be tolerant of other people's morality. Ergo, tolerance is assumed as objectively moral, making normative relativism self-contradictory.

God and Objective Morality
"'An objective moral prescriber is necessary for objective moral prescriptions, and an objective moral standard is necessary for objective moral values. God is a maximally great being, and since it's intuitively greater to be the standard of moral perfection rather than exemplify it, then it follows that God would be the moral standard were he to exist, which makes him uniquely qualified in issuing commands. Therefore, God is the most plausible and least arbitrary standard, necessary for moral reality.'" -Apeiron, DDO philosopher of science and geophysicist/

Conclusion: inference to the best conclusion makes god most probable.

Vale!
qopel

Con

No matter what my opponent wants to claim, probability can not be obtained without actual numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

A hypothesis can not prove probability.
Even though my opponent has defined probability "as inference to the best conclusion", without numbers, the best conclusion can not be determined.

My opponent has therefore not met his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
Typhlochactas

Pro

Ave!

Probability
In the first round of the debate, I defined the most probable hypothesis as the hypothesis that is reached when we make inference to the best conclusion (or explanation). Inference to the best explanation is when you choose the hypothesis that most plausibly explains the data and relevant evidence. Inference to the best explanation does not require any numbers. Let's think of an example.

I live in an apartment with a pet dog. I have wrapped several Christmas presents to send to my relatives for the holiday. As usual, I leave to go and work for most of the day. When I return home, the Christmas presents have been chewed up, and there is wrapping paper everywhere. There are no signs of forced entry, and my dog was the only living thing inside the house. Now, there are many explanations of why the presents might be destroyed. Hypothesis 1 states that the dog chewed off the wrapping paper and spread it around the house. Hypothesis 2 states that extraterrestrials transported themselves into my apartment, unwrapped the presents, and threw the wrapping paper around the house. Using inference to the best explanation, we would naturally choose Hypothesis 1, because it fits best with the evidence and data. Nowhere in that exercise of abductive reasoning did need to use numbers.

(Note: data just means a set of facts about the situation. I live in a house. I have a dog. Dogs have teeth. It does not mean mathematical data.)

For the purpose of the debate, the most probable hypothesis is the one reached through abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation. If Con doesn't like this definition, he shouldn't have accepted the debate. Instead, he accepted the debate, and is now trying to redefine probability differently from the definition he agreed to. Ladies and gentlemen, this is simply poor conduct on the part of Con.

Contingency Argument
Extended.

Ontological Argument
Extended.

Moral Argument

Extended.

Vale!

qopel

Con

My opponent started out by saying "Most probable is inference to the best conclusion."
The only way to determine the probability of the best conclusion is through numbers. 51% or higher is the best conclusion.

The example my opponent gave can only be proved with real numbers. There is an equal chance that both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 can happen. Without the use of data using numbers, inference to the best conclusion is just a guess based on what you believe happened. It's based on faith...Just because dogs have teeth, doesn't mean aliens don't have teeth.

To really find out the probability, you can find out how many times hypothesis 1 occurred by looking up the amount of reported instances that such a scenario happened.
Then you can also do that with hypothesis 2.
Once you have the data, you can clearly determine the best conclusion with NUMBERS.

The debate clearly is about the probability that God exists.
Probability is based on NUMBERS.
I'm not trying to re-define what probability means...my opponent is trying to do that by avoiding numbers.

Unless my opponent can provide numbers to support the "inference to the best conclusion", there can be no clear proof of probability.

I accepted the debate expecting numbers to support the inference to the best conclusion based on the definition of the word "probable". Now my opponent refuses to provide numbers.

No numbers=no way to determine probability.
Debate Round No. 3
Typhlochactas

Pro

Ave!

Probability
'The only way to determine the probability of the best conclusion is through numbers.'

We are making inferences to the best conclusion by way of abductive reasoning. I showed in the last round, abductive reasoning does not require mathematics. It only requires data (not in the math sense) and facts about the situation.

'51% or higher is the best conclusion.'

This is a bare assertion. Even if I accepted the logic, wouldn't 50.1% be the minimum?

'The example my opponent gave can only be proved with real numbers.'

Refer to the above statements.

'There is an equal chance that both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 can happen.'

Hypothesis 1 and 2 are only in equal in the sense that they are both possible. With abductive reasoning, we are trying to decipher which one is the most likely. Abductive reasoning isn't about impossibility or possibility, it's about probability and improbability. This observation does not recognize that distinction.

We know that dogs are capable of chewing the wrappng paper off of the presents. We know that dogs have been known to do such events in the past. We know that there is nothing unlikely about a dog doing such a thing. Why invoke aliens if the dog hypothesis is plausible?

'Without the use of data using numbers, inference to the best conclusion is just a guess based on what you believe happened.'

No. It's an inference based off established facts and data (not in the mathematical sense, again). It is not an inference based on your own belief.

'It's based on faith...Just because dogs have teeth, doesn't mean aliens don't have teeth.'

Con is missing the point: why think that aliens with teeth did it, when the dog hypothesis makes the least amount of assumptions? It's not that aliens couldn't have done it. It's that the hypothesis is implausible because it makes more assumptions than competing hypothesis.

'To really find out the probability, you can find out how many times hypothesis 1 occurred by looking up the amount of reported instances that such a scenario happened.
Then you can also do that with hypothesis 2.
Once you have the data, you can clearly determine the best conclusion with NUMBERS.'

Assumptions made by hypothesis 1: zero
Assumptions made by hypothesis 2: at least three
(aliens want to ruin my presents, aliens exist, aliens can travel into my apartment)

We can choose hypothesis 1 over 2 because it makes the least amount of assumptions, so it is more plausibe. The 'data' in this case is the assumptions that each hypothesis makes. Based on the data, 1 is more plausible than 2. You do need numbers to determine which of these hypothesis are more plausible.

Inferences to the best conclusions are based on the plausibility of the hypothesis, which is determined by the assumptions of the hypothesis, the explanatory scope of the hypothesis, the ad hoc-ness of the hypothesis, etc. It does *not* require numbers.

Contingency Argument
Extended.

Ontological Argument
Extended.

Moral Argument
Extended.

Vale!

qopel

Con

OK, I stand corrected. Probability is anything over 50%

My opponent suddenly uses NUMBERS
"Assumptions made by hypothesis 1: zero
Assumptions made by hypothesis 2: at least three"

The funny part is, the numbers are wrong!
Dogs also want to ruin presents, Dogs also exist, Dogs also can travel into apartments

So the assumptions are equal. 3 : 3

Well, thanks for proving my point. Numbers are needed to prove probability. If you can provide numbers for your example, you can provide numbers for your existence of God.

So, extend your arguments all you want. Without numbers it's worthless.
Debate Round No. 4
119 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
Get the "F" of my debates, KeytarHero. I don't want you voting on my debates.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
When the opponent agrees to take on the full burden of proof, I was in the default position of winning until my opponent proved otherwise. I didn't concede anything! The debate was clearly about probability. Probability requires numerical data, which I used a source to define. My opponent failed to provide numerical data to prove probability. Any other argument doesn't prove probability, so I don't even need to address it. I had no burden of proof, he did.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
Jarhyn was the only one who understood why I didn't need to respond to arguments that didn't prove probability. At least not everybody here is ignorant about what probability is and what burden of proof means.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
@KingDebater This was not a "traditional" debate, since my opponent agreed to take the full burden of proof. If he makes an argument that does not contain numbers and data supporting those numbers, he is not proving probability. If he is not proving what the debate was supposed to prove with his arguments, the augments can be ignored and dismissed.

It's like when you are in a court house. The prosecution has the burden of proof to find guilt. The defendant doesn't have to argue at all, because the defendant doesn't have to prove himself innocent. He's already innocent until proven guilty.

In this debate, I won until the challenger proved otherwise (he had the burden of proof), and his arguments didn't prove probability, because they didn't contain numbers. Very simple.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
When I am in a debate that says "It is more probable that god exists" and my opponent doesn't supply any numerical data, just arguments, and he has the burden of proof, he FAILS to prove any probability and loses the debate, no matter how good his arguments are and no matter if I respond to those arguments or not. Arguments don't prove probability. I don't have to respond to any arguments that don't prove probability...since I don't have the burden of proof.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Traditionally in a debate, to concede an argument is to accept it. You conceded all of Pro"s arguments and made none of your own.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
@Fanboy Why would JARHYN need to mask his non-biased non-vote bombs?
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
@KingDebater 100%?! Where do the numbers come from?
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
The thing is that his arguments did actually support the resolution. The last time I checked, 100% is more probable than 0%. Pro offered arguments in his favour but Con did not, so Pro deserves to win.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
I'm done wasting my time with cheaters, liars, cut and pasters, semantic players, definition distorters and people who don't understand what burden of proof means. The whole voting process is BS. Hardly anybody actually reads the debates and votes on that. Most just vote bomb or vote based on how others vote. What a joke this place is. The dumbing down of America continues.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
TyphlochactasqopelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con's abusive debate tactics. Probability is not all about numbers. To establish something as more probable than not, you can make an argument that shows something's probability. It does not have to be about numbers. Additionally, Con did not even try to address Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
TyphlochactasqopelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: countering 4 points from king
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
TyphlochactasqopelTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering History
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
TyphlochactasqopelTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments stood in the end and Con never really contested them. Pro used more and better sources.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
TyphlochactasqopelTied
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: Conduct to Con because although Pro copy & pasted his arguments, Con didn't even try to respond to Pro's arguments. Spelling and grammar is a tie. Arguments to Pro because Pro made some and Con ignored them. Sources to Con because he actually used a source.
Vote Placed by po.osullivan 3 years ago
po.osullivan
TyphlochactasqopelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: "Probability is [an]...estimation estimation of how likely it is that something will happen or that a statement is true." Thank you for the source Pro. Would you be able to debate the (Weak) points now?
Vote Placed by kingsjester 3 years ago
kingsjester
TyphlochactasqopelTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fleshed out with this debate was going to be about and Con ignored Pro's framework. When you are accepting a persons debate and that person has framework you are also accepting their framework. Con was highly rude in his first speech so conduct gooes to pro. Pro made more convincing arguments going off the framework he presented and Con ignored Pro's arguments so arguments go to pro. S&G goes to pro because i am balancingout Jarhyn's vote, you cannot give a person S&G because someone coppied and pasted. This has nothing to do with S&G. Finally reliable source go to pro to also balance out Jarhyn's vote. Yes Qupel did use a source but it was not a reliable one.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
TyphlochactasqopelTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I am countering Jarhyn's conduct point because voting is supposed to be based strictly on what goes on in the actual debate, not on what goes on outside the debate. I am also counterying Jarhyns S&G points because he admitted he was just trying to give Qopel extra conduct points. There's only one point for conduct. The S&G point is for S&G. I am giving Arguments to Pro because (1) Con ignored all of Pro's arguments, and (2) Con only responded with one absurd argument which Pro rightly objected to. Pro was using "probable" as a synonym for "likely," and common use dictates that these words can be used (and frequently are used) wholly apart from attaching numbers to them. One can know that one thing is more likely than another without being able to attach a number to it. I can't believe anybody could possibly take Con's argument seriously.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
TyphlochactasqopelTied
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: Pro made arguments. Con refused to talk about them.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 3 years ago
Jarhyn
TyphlochactasqopelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: First, none of PRO's arguments actually support probability, as CON explained. Second, PRO in the 51/50.1 statement made gross semantic red herrings. SHAME ON PRO! Third, I am using S&G as a second conduct point because PRO is re-posting arguments that have been shown to be wrong in other debates. SHAME ON HIM AGAIN. Also, source to CON for actually using a source.