The Instigator
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI
Pro (for)
The Contender
tfroitz1
Con (against)

It is probable that God exists

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 361 times Debate No: 105211
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI

Pro

First round is always about acceptance and setting up rules/definitions: The opponent can always post his argument here or rebuttal. I will as well, just for the sake of me holding the burden of proof.
For the sake of this argument, God will be a deity who created the Universe. To say it specifically, we will be discussing the existence of a God. Hence, we can not CITE the Bible as it presupposes the existence of God. I repeat we will not be CITING the Bible!
Now, if anyone during this debate, whether it be me or the opponent who fails his part in adhering to the rules, the opposing side will win. If both sides do break rules, the debate will result in a tie-regardless of what the votes say.
Rules (Non-negotiable)
- No ad hominems or name calling (I'd like to remain neutral on God and not call him names, for the sake of being civil): (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
- No quitting rounds, you must stay for all rounds unless disturbed by outside relationships. ie: loss of a family member or loss of wifi. If this is the case then we will subject our debate into a further one, with all our arguments being copied and pasted of course.
- No referring to the Bible. This is of course because the Bible presupposes the existence of God.
- Be civil, especially in the comment section. Say a religious folk comes on, be respectful to them. If you don't, it proves their point even more - The exception being if they are especially rude.
- No posting other sources as your "arguments", there is specifically a reason I gave the both of us 10,000 characters. Do not post youtube links to your way of thinking: summarize it here! The exception will be to post links you used of course.
The following are requests and not rules, do not let them sway your vote
- Please don't refer to God as anything negative. This is specifically because at times I can not even recognize if you are talking to God. ie: That stupid piece of filth --> God, just do it for the sake of clarification.
- Listen, we are here for a Socratic discussion and to learn. I noticed that in previous arguments, you seemingly did not respond to another person's arguments. This will not bode well.
Maybes: If you accept, we can do this like a parliamentary debate.
On the burden of proof - This is solely on the positive assertion, which is on me. I have the burden of proof! If the oppponent feels I did not do enough on my part, I will not respond to it unless I see it as necessary. I feel that this is fair as he is not there to judge me, but others are, that is, of course, the purpose of others voting in this debate.
Now onto my arguments!
My first argument will be based upon Aquinas's cosmological arguments, which essentially state that in our universe, every effect has a cause, which in turn must be caused by yet another cause, and so forth. This chain of events cannot exist in and of itself, for if each event was caused, nothing would come into existence. The existence of such events must, therefore, be attributed to something that remains independent of the said system. According to Aquinas, this separate event is God.
Now before you interject about the phenomena in Quantum physics where causes can, in fact, be caused by their own cause. It should, however, be noted that even in quantum mechanics, causality is still thought to be retained.The appearance of such matter spontaneously relies on the presence of quantum fields, which we have no explanation as to where they come from.
Now that we can discount this, for the most part, Anselm's cosmological argument can now be applied because any origin theories rely on the laws of quantum physics themselves No argument proposed as of now can explain the laws of physics having a presupposition of the Universe. Because the universe itself cannot exist without these principles, the laws of physics are, in a sense, a part of the chain of causality, and must be explained. My opponent may once again interject with the idea of the big bang, but even so, we would still need to know the cause of the big bang and it'd therefore not disprove the existence of a deity. Now, one could assume that we would still need a cause. However, Aquinas's argument does not require God to have a cause. Rather, it only says that everything that exists in our physical universe must have some cause. Thus, God, as a being that by definition transcends the physical universe, does not necessarily have to have a beginning or a cause. He is outside the series of events and therefore is not bound by the laws which are a part of that series.
My following argument for the existence of God will discuss how the Universe appears to be fine-tuned to allow for life to exist. It is here where I would like to make the interjection that I am not talking about the world being immoral but that life exists on the planet. To begin with, it seems that the Laws of Physics does not seem to a decree for why life exists in the first place.Everything from the amount of matter in the universe to the mass of leptons, if changed even slightly, would render life impossible. Therefore, the fine-tuning of our universe is almost undeniable. While it is difficult to determine the probability of such a universe coming about either by chance or by design, it is certain that it is much more likely that an intelligent designer would have made our universe than that it would come about by chance. Consider that a person who has lived independently of society found a watch, one where the piece had been designed for such a purpose to intertwine so well. Its symmetry and efficiency lead them to the conclusion that it is man-made. It is therefore highly improbable, that this object could occur in nature, and she is right to think so. Similarly, when faced with the complexity and apparent design in our universe, a philosophical tool called "inference to the best explanation" or "Occam's razor" says that we should assume that the universe was designed by an intelligent creator. This is known as the teleological argument.
My next argument would come from one of the most influential philosophers and physicists of all time, Isaac Newton. I do not mean to make this an appeal to popularity, but only want to highlight his name because I think it is significant to know how he thought.
Newton decreed that God existed based on multiple findings. Perhaps the most prominent being that he justified the idea of God is omnipresent. He said, "Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere....God is the same God, always and every where.
I will now break this down into a premise to conclusion type of argument
Every particle of space exists always, and every specific indivisible amount of time is everywhere. Hence, because nothing can be nowhere and everywhere, he is always and everywhere. The rest is unnecessary because it dives into virtue theory.
My opponent will most likely bring up quantum fluctuations and free will, I will, therefore, like to refute it before it is even said (From older argument).
Humans are wildly unpredictable beings. Hence, our actions have nothing to do with microscopic determinism. Quantum mechanics is governed by probability dynamics. The equation of quantum fluctuations does not in any way constitute exactness of the situation, but the probability. Essentially, they confirm that the violation of determinism is random. So, If human freedom to choose was simplified to quantum indeterminism, then we'd be saying that human choices are determined solely by chance. It's comparable to throwing a coin flip, we act accordingly off of that so it is determined by chance, not presupposed in any way.It is at this point that it does boil down to subjectivity and exactly why I did post definitions so we wouldn't meddle with semantics. If one considers an element of randomness to be sufficient enough to substitute as "free will" then they are free to choose so. However, there are, of course, already many factors to uncertainty, systems that are seemingly independent of quantum mechanics. Just one example is the microscopic atomic dynamic inside of everyone. It's influenced by everyday events (random) Also, consider the fact that quantum indeterminism disappears quickly when considering macroscopic objects. Consider the idea that it is room temperature where the thermal motion of molecules is random. The water that fills the molecules inside our brain will serve as a source of indeterminism for the simple idea of it being hot. This alone serves as a serves as a higher indeterminism than that of a quantum one.
We can now conclude that free will and determinism cannot be satisfied via quantum physics, hence we are given the question: If there are influences (like macroscopic dynamics) that are subject to microscopic indeterminism (like the thermal one given above), then what exactly helps us determine how to judge free will?
Hence, free will is a subjective matter.
Thanks!
My sources:
[1] D'Souza, Dinesh. "What's So Great About Christianity?" pages 87-88
[2] https://profmattstrassler.com...
[3]https://arxiv.org...
[4]http://crossexamined.org....
[5] https://cosmosmagazine.com...
[6] https://phys.org...
[7] https://plato.stanford.edu...
[8] http://www.discovery.org...
[9] https://www.space.com...
[10] https://www.edge.org...
[11] https://rsc.byu.edu...
tfroitz1

Con

I am absolutely OK with your rules. It is refreshing to argue this topic without the flood of bible quotes.
I also fully accept that the burden of proof lies on your side and I will therefore mostly respond to your case, even though I think there are arguments, which are mostly empirical, opposing the existence of god. I just want to ask a short and clear specification as to whether you are arguing for a deistic or theistic god, as this has an impact on the argumentation. From your arguments I think it is a deistic god you are arguing.

Now to your arguments.
You start of with the cosmological argument according to Aquinas, which describes a infinite regress, where you need god to terminate it. Now here are several problems.
First the overall description of causality, which uses the A theory of time. This view of time even though in some way possible isn"t that well compatible with our observation of the universe. Let me explain the essential parts.
There are A and B theory of time. The A theory says in general that there is a flow of time with a past, present and future in the sense, that the past doesn"t exist anymore and the future hasn"t started to exist. This doesn"t fit in with the notion of relativity of time (Einstein"s great work), as it supposes that time for different observers has relative different pace, which is inconsistent if the past cease to exist. To get a theory compatible with that, the B theory was devised and is now accepted. It say that time can be viewed as a fourth dimension and therefore the past is as much existing as the future and present is, as it is just like a travel through time, which is comparable to the travel through space. This would explain well the established fact of relativity and it also fits that time is established as the increase in entropy. There has been the attempt to reconcile A theory of time with relativity through saying that there is one right frame of time and all others are relative to that illusory. Now what would that right frame be? In a theistic explanation it could only be god. But now we are running into a case of circular reasoning. You need the A theory of time to establish causality, which in turn is used to establish god. But to use A theory of time you need to presuppose god, which makes it circular.
Why does causality not work under a B theory of time you might ask? This is easily answered by a description that Dr. Craig uses. If time is a fourth dimension, which is fitting to both relativity and for example the very promising string theory, it can be handled as those we already call dimensions. Lets therefore compare the two as we look at a line. A line has a start and an end, but you wouldn"t say that the line comes into existence at one of the edges, as the line exist unimportant as to where you are. Time fits into the same description. If something starts it doesn"t actually begin to exist but rather we come there on our travel through time. Therefore to say something is caused has no real meaning. This doesn"t say that we can"t view our world in the concept of causality, but rather that its basis aren"t fitting.
Now a second point: You say that the universe had a cause, which was god. You take this thought that everything must have a cause from the experience inside the universe. But now there comes the question whether our observation of the causality in the universe actually concerns with "beginning to exist". If we see something made from a new star in a supernova to the bike, which is manufactured, we aren"t observing the beginning of existence being caused, but rather the reassembly of matter into a new shape which follows a seeming cause. If we view it in this way, we have to conclude that there isn"t actually any observation of anything being caused to begin to exist, but rather just the observation of the reassembly of matter. We can go with this back to the beginning of the universe, were we have the only point where something, if we accept that it even had a beginning (which can be well doubted), began to exist. Therefore we have now observation that this isn"t possible to happen ex nihilo.
The next concern is with the way you view "causality" and the cherry picking you do. You view it as though everything in the universe has a cause (in quantum mechanics this isn"t that clear, but I grand you for now the benefit of the doubt). The thing is that besides everything having an efficient cause, which is the mover you describe, we also observe everything having a material cause. The problem is that by definition an immaterial god can"t produce a material cause. Therefore you have just picked out the efficient cause fitting to your got and applied it to the universe, while leaving out the material one which is just as important and observed.
Therefore I think we can neither say that everything has a cause, nor that god would even fit into the description needed for such a cause. Now if you say, that it works just because god is supernatural this undermines your following part about the physical laws, because If he as you say outside of physics he can"t be material to cause anything.

To come to the teleological argument you bring up, I have several problems with this one as well. First you say that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. The problem is that this claim directly contradicts everything we know of the universe, as the universe doesn"t even in the slightest appear to be fine-tuned for our existence. The absolute vast majority (all aside from this tiny speck of dust we call earth) the universe is absolutely not habitable for life and even the earth doesn"t fulfill this requirement. Additionally you say that even with the slightest change in the fundamental constants of physics, life would be impossible, but the only thing we can say is that life as we know it would be impossible. As long as you can"t give a clear definition of life and what allows for it to exist, you can"t make the claim that other constants would make it impossible in another form. Then you explain that if we see something having designed information such as a watch, we refer to the best explanation and conclude it is designed. The problem is that the universe is not at all similar to a clock as it is neither well tuned nor obviously designed. Our whole universe is a factory of information, which just arises from the laws of nature. For example if you see a meteorite hit a surface, and it leaves a crater, which has a lot of information and also could be said to be fine-tuned for if occurring due to a meteorite, still no one would infer that this crater has been created. We see therefore that natural laws are very well capable to build information which are similarly to the universe seemingly not designed. In fact they are even able to account for the big bang. If we look at string theory for example and see it as the most promising way forward in physics, it allows us to account for the seemingly inconceivable accuracy by which the physical constants are "tuned", as string theory allows for 10^500 different constitutions and would therefore give the possibility to account for many different values of these constants. This combines with the concept of the multiverse building new universes all the time, where string theory gives the different possible values needed to account for the "finely-tuned" constants, allows us to account for the universe. Whether they even are finely tuned can be doubted if we for example look at the entropy of the early universe, which was thought to be of the likelihood of 1 in 10^12 but it is after looking into the equations actually 1. We can"t expect that to occur with all of the constants, but we have the hope for a naturalistic explanation fitting the data. As according to all of our observations of the universe we can"t find anything supernatural, the thought to go to a supernatural explanation to be the best is in light, that there are promising ways to account for the phenomena (which isn"t even certain), not a wise move. I can"t say that we already know it all, but similar to the origin of the laws of physics, which could well be due to necessity as well as to a variable bringing it about in the multiverse, we have good reasons to believe that in a subject as young as cosmology we have good prospects to find such explanations. There I have to make one clarification, because it isn"t the problem to find some way it could have happened but rather to find a way which is consistent with observation and therefore the god hypothesis is just as bad because we have no evidence for this way to solve the problem either.

Let us come to your last point and directly start with the talk concerning free will. I absolutely agree with you that free will isn"t consistent with the either determinism or the quantum indeterminism as both wouldn"t entail free will at all. This though is much more an argument against a theistic god, as this would take the possibility to blame the existence of evil on free will.
Now your actual argument refereeing to Newton is, correct me if I am wrong as I don"t really understand the point you are making, that everything is at any time existent and that time is everywhere existent. This is absolutely consistent with the view of B theory of time postulating time as a dimension (but therefore isn"t going well with a cosmological argument). Now I quote you to ask you to specify what you actually mean with "Hence, because nothing can be nowhere and everywhere, he is always and everywhere". If I see it correctly, you say that because it is impossible to be both nowhere and everywhere, this is implies that god is everywhere. If this is what you mean I have to object as there is also the possibility to just be nowhere, which would therefore make god not existent. I agree that he can"t be both, but as I said it isn"t at all implying that him existing is the actual reality.

Thanks!
Debate Round No. 1
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI

Pro

I no longer wish to continue this debate as I have found a better site. Vote con (That isn't to say that I don't want to refute, just think it'd be a waste). Con has shown characteristics that are respectable and arguments that hold some validity
tfroitz1

Con

Ok then let us go through the rounds quickly.
Debate Round No. 2
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI

Pro

Backwardseden sucks
tfroitz1

Con

I would still be interested in your argument according to Isaac Newton.It would be nice if you could just clearify in one or two sentences what you mean or whether my interpretation was correct.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI 8 months ago
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI
The reason I am simplifying what I'm saying is that I do want to discuss this with the opponent and not you. If you want I can debate you afterward.
Posted by lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI 8 months ago
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI
It is here that I want to notate that just because something is fallacious, does not mean the argument is wrong. Also, the watchmaker analogy has not been refuted well enough for it to not be considered.
Posted by begtodiffer 8 months ago
begtodiffer
@lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI, Well, I'm obviously not going to refute your whole argument, of you want to know how each argument is flawed, you can look up actual debates where these are ripped apart. A couple of examples are-
In the cosmological argument, assuming that a god is responsible for the creation of the universe- argument from ignorance.
Saying that god is exempt from having been created- special pleading.

The universe is not at all tuned for life. A majority of the universe, and even the earth, can kill you. Life only evolves where it is possible to have it, if not the earth, life may have started on a part of another planet suited for it. Also, a change in the physical constants does not mean life wouldn't exist, it means life wouldn't exist as we know it.

Arguments like the watchmaker analogy have already been refuted, I responded to one in another comment. And please, don't bring up the ontological argument.
Posted by lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI 8 months ago
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI
Keep in mind to the opposition, I am not saying a loving God, but a deity.
Posted by lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI 8 months ago
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI
begtodiffer, what logical fallacies exactly?
Posted by lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI 8 months ago
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI
No, by agreeing to the debate you agree to adhere to the argument. If anything shows someone being uneducated it's you backwardseden. Stop acting like a pretentious fool.
Posted by begtodiffer 8 months ago
begtodiffer
I don't think this should be too hard for con. Round 1 just seems like every argument used by apologists to defend deism. Pointing out the logical fallacies of each one should be easy enough, provided con has the time.
Posted by backwardseden 8 months ago
backwardseden
@lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI - When you flat out lie to "me", I'm most certainly not going to accept any debate you have set up for "me". And since you flat out lied to me, who knows what tricks of dishonesty you would pull to win your debate(s) to others? I mean there's 0% chance that you came up with RD1 of this debate all on your own. You are NOT that intelligent nor educated enough to. I only read the first few sentences. But then again your entire undoing for your debate is "I repeat we will not be CITING the Bible". And then I rightly and justly stopped. Well first off who is this "we"? Um no its YOU only YOU. And secondly the bible is the ONLY thing you have in which no god would ---ever--- communicate in text form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. Period.
Posted by arugula278 8 months ago
arugula278
that is an impressive wall of text you got there
Posted by lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI 8 months ago
lIlIlIllIIIIllIlI
This was supposedly supposed to be a debate with Backwardseden, but he did not respond which is why I specifically would like for him to accept.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.