The Instigator
Chrysippus
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
Xer
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

Logic Analysis: These arguments disprove the existence of God.

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 13 votes the winner is...
Xer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,414 times Debate No: 10011
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (13)

 

Chrysippus

Con

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate.

Logic is often a poorly used commodity where religion is concerned; whether arguing for or against the supernatural, many fallacious arguments are posited and accepted as truth.

I stand against the idea that the spiritual can be proven or disproven by physical evidence, or that any system of reasoning that claims to have answered this question is failsafe. I challenge all reasoners to prove their assertions in formal debate.

I contend that the arguments my opponent will post against the existence of God are not logically sound.

RESOLUTION: These arguments disprove the existence of God.

DEFINITIONS: By accepting this debate, you agree to accept these definitions for this debate.

God: the one Supreme Being; perfect, omnipotent, omniscient; the creator and ruler of the universe. His known attributes include goodness, holiness, wisdom, independence from His creation, immanence within His creation, immutability, immeasurability, and eternity. (Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com... )

Disprove: to prove (an assertion, claim, etc.) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Exist: to have actual being; be; to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

FORMAT OF DEBATE: By accepting this debate, you are agreeing use this format for this debate.

My opponent will post:
-Any relevant definitions they choose, other than the terms I have already listed;
-Two or three arguments against the existence of God, with at least a couple sentences of explanation; not simply statements. He will be arguing that God does not exist; not that he probably does not exist, or might not exist.

Please label each section clearly, to keep the arguments separate.

In my R2, I'll post my opening refutations of each of my opponent's arguments in order, and from there we have a debate. Hope this is instructional and enjoyable for both sides!

To my opponent; best of luck!
Xer

Pro

I accept the definitions and such and such. This debate should be fun. I would wish Chrysippus good luck, but I don't believe in luck... or wishes for that matter. So instead, I will bid Chrysippus good tidings.

============================================================================
Arguments
============================================================================

Contention 1: Omnipotence paradox.

:::::Premise 1:::::

***God must be omnipotent to exist***

omnipotence [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]
- the state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power

"Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?"
1. Either God can or can not create the rock.
2. If God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
3. If God can not create a rock in the first place, then God is not omnipotent.
4. God is not omnipotent.
5. God does not exist.

:::::Premise 2:::::

***God must be omnipotent AND omniscient to exist***

omniscience [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]
- the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge

1. By definition, omniscience demands the knowledge of everything - including the past, present, and future.
2. If God knows what is going to happen in the future, God is not able to omnipotently change the future because the future is limited to what God knows will happen.
--->God is not omnipotent.
3. If a God can omnipotently change the future, then God could have not known about the future in the first place.
--->God is not omniscient.
4. God does not exist.

Contention 2: Problem of evil.

***God must be omnibenevolent to exist***

omnibenevolence
- the state of being omnibenevolent; having unlimited goodness, being morally perfect

evil [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]
- morally objectionable behavior
- that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune
- the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice
- morally bad or wrong
- having the nature of vice
- having or exerting a malignant influence

1. If an omnibenevolent God exists, then evil does not exist.
2. Evil exists.
--->Evil exists in the form of human actions, like when humans torture and murder other humans.
--->Evil exists in the form of natural disasters, like when tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes decimate everything in their path, including human life.
3. God is not omnibenevolent.
4. God does not exist.

Contention 3: Who created God?

1. Everything needs a cause. [causal law]
2. God is a part of everything.
3. God needs a cause.
4. If God was caused, then God's creator needs a cause.
5. This sets up an infinite regress, which is not logically valid.
6. God does not exist.

============================================================================
Conclusion
============================================================================

If any one of my arguments, contentions, or premises stand at the end of this debate, then I would win. If I have shown God's existence to be logically impossible in at least one way, then I win. Sorry for pretty much saying the same thing twice, but I just want to make this as clear as possible. This debate should be interesting the rest of the way out. I look forward to Chrysippus's reply.
Debate Round No. 1
Chrysippus

Con

I thank my worthy opponent for accepting this debate; now we get to the fun part!

"If any one of my arguments, contentions, or premises stand at the end of this debate, then I would win. If I have shown God's existence to be logically impossible in at least one way, then I win."

Naturally.

I will deal with my opponent's first and third contentions this round, and save the question of evil for my next round.
----------------------
REFUTATIONS:
----------------------
Refutation of Contention 1: Omnipotence paradox.

:::::Premise 1:::::

***God must be omnipotent to exist***

"Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?"
1. Either God can or can not create the rock.
2. If God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
3. If God can not create a rock in the first place, then God is not omnipotent.
4. God is not omnipotent.
5. God does not exist."

First, this argument assumes several things, not necessarily valid:
a) God is bound by the laws of non-contradiction
b) God is bound by the laws of physics
c) God and any physical rock He creates exist in the same paradigm
d) God exists in an area with a central gravity ("lift" implies weight and the concept of up/down)

We will assume the first of these is true, for the purposes of argument. The other three I contend, as being inconsistent with the nature of God.

If God exists, He is spiritual in nature. By definition, God is both present throughout His entire creation and independent from any of it. Lifting is a human term, valid only for beings with:
a) physical existence
and
b) local gravity source.

To anthropomorphize God in this way is not a valid method of disproving his existence. Zesus or Thor could be disproven this way, as they were semi-physical in nature; a truly metaphysical God cannot.

Further, omnipotence refers to God's unlimited ability to control, create, destroy, and change His creation. God is omnipotent, and can create an infinitely large stone if He so chooses; but He will always be able to change what He creates. This argument thus makes a false dichotomy; a logical fallacy that invalidates the conclusion.

:::::Premise 2:::::

***God must be omnipotent AND omniscient to exist***

"1. By definition, omniscience demands the knowledge of everything - including the past, present, and future.
2. If God knows what is going to happen in the future, God is not able to omnipotently change the future because the future is limited to what God knows will happen.
--->God is not omnipotent.
3. If a God can omnipotently change the future, then God could have not known about the future in the first place.
--->God is not omniscient.
4. God does not exist."

3 approaches to this:
1. Omniscience includes "middle knowledge;" God knows everything that would happen IF; and changes the future to fit His plans. http://www.iep.utm.edu...

2. God, if He exists, is outside of time. It is absurd to speak of what "is going to happen" in regard to God; He exists in the Eternal Now, where our past, present, and future are all before him at the same eternal moment. If he is omnipotent, He can change any part of the timeline as He chooses; if He is omniscient, He knows what happens at any point in time because of those changes.

3. Omniscience includes all possible universes. If God knows everything, He must know all possible results of all possible choices; the real future is the one He chose to come into existence through His actions on the real past.

If any of these alternate approaches are valid, my opponent's argument is invalid. Also, these alternates are not mutually contradictory; all three of them could conceivably be true, making this contention that much less plausible.

Refutation of Contention 3: Who created God?

"1. Everything needs a cause. [causal law]
2. God is a part of everything.
3. God needs a cause.
4. If God was caused, then God's creator needs a cause.
5. This sets up an infinite regress, which is not logically valid.
6. God does not exist."

This argument is an application of the paradox of existence (if the universe had a beginning, what came before?) to God's existence. It has, however, several fatal flaws when considering the nature of Deity.

This argument presupposes several things:
a) that God, if he exists, is affected by the laws of nature
b) that God, if he exists, is bound within our linear temporal framework,
c) that an infinite regress is not logically valid. He did not establish why his claim to this effect is valid.

The "causal law" refers to physical, temporally bound phenomena. It is a distillation of our observations here in time; everything we have ever seen has a beginning and an end, a cause and an affect. However, by definition, God is eternal.
Hence, the term "everything" in my opponent's argument does not include God.

DEFINITION:
Eternal: without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ).
4. Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

As God is non-temporal in nature, it is absurd to speak of something as having been before Him or after Him; "before" is meaningless when taken out of the framework of time.

A cause must precede the thing caused;
Nothing can precede God;
:. God cannot have a cause.

Furthermore, God cannot be subject to the laws of nature. He is by definition independent of the physical universe (independence from His creation). If He exists, he created the universe and it's laws; why should He be subject to them?

A quick note on this line: God is by definition infinite in power, knowledge, and extent; immeasurable is the term used. All physical phenomena can be measured. Therefore if God exists, He cannot be physical in nature. But a spiritual entity is not bound by the laws of physics; therefore all arguments that attempt to contain God within the rules of the physical universe are invalid.

I return this debate to my opponent, and look forward to his reply.
Xer

Pro

============================================================================
Defense
============================================================================

~~~C1. P1.~~~

The definition of lift is to "raise from a lower to a higher position" [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]. My opponent then forfeits that God can not lift things with physical independence and a local gravity source. Omnipotence is defined as having unlimited power. If God, no matter what paradigm it exists in, can not raise the stone as previously described from a lower to a higher position - then his power is limited. Omnipotence absolutely demands the power to do anything and everything - and by God not being able to do something - then God is not omnipotent. Thus, God does not exist.

~~~C1. P2.~~~

RE.1

This argument makes no sense whatsoever and I'm going to ask my opponent to expand on this. Also, Molinism has to do with free will - which isn't what my argument is about.

RE.2

This argument does not refute my argument either. If God knows everything (like my opponent claims), then changes something of everything (like my opponent claims), then everything becomes a different everything (given), and God therefore didn't know an everything (conclusion) - therefore God is not omniscient.

RE.3

This is an approach to free will ("choice"), which is a straw man because it has nothing to do with my argument.

~~~C.3~~~

I will forfeit this contention - it doesn't work well in this debate with the definitions and resolution and such.

============================================================================
Conclusion
============================================================================

Both premises of contention one still stand. Also, my opponent hasn't even tried to counter contention two yet. The resolution is affirmed as of right now.
Debate Round No. 2
Chrysippus

Con

I apologize to my opponent for doing this to him; but I am going to have to forfeit this round. I ask his permission to post an argument, however brief, later tonight or early tomorrow morning;as things stand I have no respinve reay for his arguments.

Again, my apologies to my worthy opponent.
Xer

Pro

Xer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Chrysippus

Con

Chrysippus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hurstman 7 years ago
Hurstman
This debate had good arguments but poorly conducted
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Chrysippus: Some people on this site don't understand what debate is all about. They think they need to give points to the side they agree with, even if the debater did a poor job for whatever reason. This is especially the case when the debate has something to do with a metaphysical concept.

Mangani, EinShtoin, TxsRngr, NYCDiesel and mds1303 aparently don't understand what a debate is.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
OK, this isn't right. Look, my opponent won this by default; I conceded this debate due to unexpected lack of time. Thus, arguments go to Pro. It was, though unavaoidable, discourteous of me; conduct goes to Pro. Everything else tied.

That is my RFD. There should be no votes for Con.

@Daniel: I also am in the position of believing my own position but voting for my opponent. I heartily hope I shall never have to concede a debate again...
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Nags is obviously afraid to take my debate. It has been 16 hours since he said he would accept, and hasn't. One more day and I'll open it up to any poor soul braver than Nags.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Yeeeeah... that was addressed in the debate.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
If God could create a rock too heavy to lift then God wouldn't be all powerful. If God could not create a rock that God could lift, then God is all powerful, since God can lift all rocks, or nothing is too heavy for God.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
That's it dude. Exactly it. It's not because I am extremely busy with school and everything else. Calm down. I'll accept it.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
I submitted a challenge to Nags, but haven't received a response. Guess he knows he'd lose...
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Mangani, I've read all of your comments in this debate and it sounds like you want to continue debating the issue. Maybe you have the time where Chrysippus didn't. I suggest you start a new debate rather than continuing to comment on this one. I will be happy to follow it and vote for you if you do well.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Actually, this is what he said about omnipotence:

"First, this argument assumes several things, not necessarily valid:
a) God is bound by the laws of non-contradiction
b) God is bound by the laws of physics
c) God and any physical rock He creates exist in the same paradigm
d) God exists in an area with a central gravity ("lift" implies weight and the concept of up/down)"

He said the argument "assumes" these things are valid. He then went on to say God was independent from his creation, and not "bound" by the laws to which his creation is bound (time, physics, etc).

Implicitly accepting a point does not concede a point, especially when in reality it is irrelevant to the topic. Evil is irrelevant to the concept of God.

But I digress... as an independent observer you vote as you see the arguments.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mds1303 7 years ago
mds1303
ChrysippusXerTied
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 
Vote Placed by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
ChrysippusXerTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
ChrysippusXerTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by dankeyes11 7 years ago
dankeyes11
ChrysippusXerTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
ChrysippusXerTied
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 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 7 years ago
TxsRngr
ChrysippusXerTied
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 
Vote Placed by EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
ChrysippusXerTied
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 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
ChrysippusXerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
ChrysippusXerTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
ChrysippusXerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07