The Instigator
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points
The Contender
daniel_t
Pro (for)
Losing
48 Points

Logic Analysis pt.II- These arguments disprove the existence of God

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 18 votes the winner is...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,070 times Debate No: 10338
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (100)
Votes (18)

 

Mangani

Con

*This debate was originally a challenge to Nags who has failed to accept the debate, so I am opening it up*

This debate is in response to a recent debate in which the Con missed opportunities to argue. I would like to continue this debate with the original opponent. The first Round may seem familiar, and I have made only slight changes from the previous R1 format.

RESOLUTION: These arguments disprove the existence of God.

DEFINITIONS: By accepting this debate, you agree to accept these definitions for this debate. The only definitions of God that both debaters MUST accept are the following:

God: The beginning and source of everything

God: 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Other definitions can be discussed for the sake of debate and argument, but are not essential to the premise. I submit the following:

God: in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty (http://www.yourdictionary.com...)

Other essential definitions:

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.
-It is the burden of Pro to prove that God does not exist. It is not the burden of Con to prove God "does" exist, rather to prove that he arguments presented by Pro are not irrefutable.

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.

Thank you, and good luck.
daniel_t

Pro

Thank you Mangani for opening up this debate to everybody. Your win/loss record is considerably better than mine, but hopefully I'm up for the challenge.

As I understand this debate, it is up to me to present a logical argument or arguments proving God, as defined by Con, does not exist. I accept that the proposition puts me in a difficult position.

It is my opinion that in the general case, questions of existence (either for or against,) must be empirical in nature, i.e., "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." [1] However, in this particular case the definition of God presented is so outrageous that He cannot exist without a logical contradiction and therefore does not exist.

So let's review what that definition is; Con has asserted that God is "The beginning and source of everything," in essence we are talking about a God that created absolutely everything in existence.

create: v.
1) bring (something) into existence.
2) cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actions.
[1]

I will present only a single logical argument against the existence of his God...

In order to create something, to be the "beginning and source" for it, in order to bring something into existence, the creator must exist before the created. This necessarily entails that something cannot create itself, and therein lies the problem with Con's definition of God.

Nothing can be the beginning and source of everything that exists, because it would have to be the beginning and source of itself, which is logically impossible.

To get out of this obvious problem, I expect my opponent will attempt to use the fallacy of special pleading. He will say something like "Everything doesn't include God" without any justifiable reasons to exclude God from the class. I expect you, the voter, will not let him weasel out with this fallacy so easily.

Alternatively, my opponent might claim that his use of the word "everything" was actually limited to something like "everything material" or "everything that had a beginning." Again, I'm sure the voters will easily see that this is nothing more than a variation of the special pleading argument above.

If my opponent tries for either of the above arguments, the burden of proof moves onto his shoulders. What demonstrable property does God have that allows him existence without being part of the set of everything that exists?

Lastly, he submits, but does not regard as essential, that God is eternal and infinite. I reject that definition and require that he prove that God has these seemingly impossible properties, and even if I accepted such a definition it would still mean that there is at least one thing that God did not, can not, have created; thus again God, as he defined it, cannot exist.

[1] Oxford American Dictionary
Debate Round No. 1
Mangani

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

My opponent brings up a contention to which he seems absolutely convinced is irrefutable. This is, however, a question clerics and scientists have asked for thousands of years. Science has a simple answer: The Law of Conservation of Energy. This law, an empirical law of physics, teaches that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

My opponent claims that my definition of God: "the beginning and source of everything", is a logical contradiction. Both science and religion disagree, as it is universally accepted that mass, time, and space had an origin. The origins can be debated, but the general consensus in science is "the Big Bang", and the general consensus in religion is "God created everything". Both claims are similar in nature in that there was an origin based in a singular energy source- science has not reached a consensus on the object or nature of that source, but the Law of Conservation of Energy leads the majority to believe that pure energy caused the dense mass which resulted in the Big Bang. Now, I am not arguing that the Big Bang theory is correct (which itself has many logical fallacies and becomes more and more un-scientific the more it is delved into), rather that it is not a logical contradiction to assume a non-physical origin of mass, rather it is what science points to.

Any discussion as to what God consists of- light, pure energy, spiritual energy- is theory as we cannot possibly grasp, nor has science explained the origins of physical mass. Because of this all I can prove is that my definition- "God is the beginning and source of everything", is not a logical contradiction.

My opponent's contention, however, IS a logical contradiction. There are only two logical options regarding the origins of the universe:
1- God made the universe
2- The universe made itself

The third option, the universe has always been here, contradicts empirical science. Unless my opponent can present a plausible theory that is outside of these two options, then his argument contradicts logic.

There are other, more widely accepted theories that, according to my opponent, are logical contradictions. Take for example, the Big Bang theory:
"The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point."- http://www.exploratorium.edu...

Where did the energy come from? Did the energy create itself? How long was the energy concentrated before it exploded, and in what state was the energy before it concentrated? If my opponent cannot answer these questions, then he cannot claim that my definition of God is a logical contradiction. My opponent claims every major scientist, including the most renowned scientist, mathematician, and physicist Stephen Hawking, who himself says that asking "what came before the Big Bang" is akin to asking what lies north of the North Pole, contradicts logic. My opponent has then become the sole arbiter of logic.
daniel_t

Pro

My opponent seems to have taken a rather curious tack. He has wound all over the map in attempting to avoid any special pleading on his part, and what he has done is completely fail to put even a minor dent in my logical argument, in fact he didn't even address it!

Let's look at his points in detail (For easier exposition, I will refer to God as Con defined Him, as "Con's God" or "his God"):

A: Law of Conservation of Energy.
(In which Con votes for Pro by denying his God's existence.)

Con tells us "The Law of Conservation of Energy... teaches that energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

Please note kind voters that if energy can not be created, then it is impossible for his God to have created it. Yet Con's definition requires his God to have created it (as part of *everything*.) What he has done here is presented us with yet another argument *against* his God's existence! If only I had known he was going to argue my side for me...

B: The general consensus in science: the Big Bang.
(In which Con tries to distract us from the debate at hand.)

What science has or has not proposed as the origin of the universe is absolutely not at issue here, this is a red herring of the highest degree. It has nothing to do with his definition of God or my logical argument proving that his God cannot possibly exist. In short the Big Bang whether true or false does not, cannot, explain how his God can create Himself. Self-creation is impossible.

C: The general consensus in religion: God created everything.
(In which Con brings up all those religious people.)

The general consensus in religion is not relevant to the logical argument I put forth. Even if every religious person on earth says God created everything that exists, He still cannot possibly have done so. There must be at least one thing that God didn't create (Himself,) and as such God so defined, cannot exist.

D: What is God made of?
(In which Con speculates on things not at issue.)

What God is made of is not at all relevant in this debate. The only question before us is, can his God exist. It is clear that He cannot as I already explained.

E: What is the origin of the universe?
(In which Con tries to change "everything" into "universe".)

Con says, "There are only two logical options regarding the origins of the universe."

Con's definition of God is that He created *everything* not just "the universe" however limiting my opponent may choose to make the latter noun. What Con cannot escape is that everything *includes* God and as such, God cannot possibly have created *everything*.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In summation, my opponent spent almost 500 words meandering around, but never lighting on, my logical argument. As such, I will simply re-iterate it, and because of Con's graciousness, I now have *two* logical arguments against his God.

Remember the definition of God for the purposes of this debate is the one Con decided on. God created *everything* that exists.

1) Nothing can be the creator of everything that exists because it would have to be the creator of itself, which is logically impossible.

2) Nothing can be the creator of everything that exists because, as asserted by Con, energy exists and cannot be created.

Let's see if Con can stay on topic during the next round and discuss my logical arguments that disprove the existence of his God, or will he continue to meander around discussing issues that are not germane to the topic at hand...

Thank you kind reader, and I look forward to your vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Mangani

Con

It seems my opponent has misunderstood my arguments, and is trying to con the readers into using his interpretation rather than my actual statements. Let's examine his contentions, and how my argument in R2 refutes his R1 position that my definition contradicts logic.

"A: Law of Conservation of Energy.
(In which Con votes for Pro by denying his God's existence.)"

-Not true at all. Let's further examine his statements so that I may explain, though I am sure the readers understood my initial point as it was pretty clear.

"Please note kind voters that if energy can not be created, then it is impossible for his God to have created it."

-Now, if we look at his initial contention: "Con has asserted that God is "The beginning and source of everything," in essence we are talking about a God that created absolutely everything in existence."

If God is the source of this energy, and God is not a creation, then his energy follows the laws of the Universe. This goes back to the religious attributes of "all powerful", "present everywhere", and "all knowing". See, my opponent fails to examine the entire Law of Conservation of Energy which also states that energy can only be transferred. One way in which energy is transferred is in (and this is why I mentioned the Big Bang theory) becoming so concentrated that mass is created as a result. This indeed is a theory, but scientists cannot move beyond this point. As I stated before, Richard Hawking says pre-Big Bang is God's realm. It is the Law of Conservation of Energy, and other empirical laws, that have prevented scientists from explaining the origins of the Big Bang due to the lack of logic these laws bring to infinite mass, and an always existent universe. This does not support my opponent's claim, rather it proves it is his position that lacks logic.

"B: The general consensus in science: the Big Bang.
(In which Con tries to distract us from the debate at hand.)"

-Not at all. The Big Bang is essential to defending the logic behind my definition as the Big Bang requires the same logic- everything came from ONE original source.

"the Big Bang whether true or false does not, cannot, explain how his God can create Himself. Self-creation is impossible."

-Right. And that is why we rely on the Law of Conservation of Energy to prove that the origins of matter lie in one extreme source of energy. Science fails to explain that source. My opponent cannot logically present an argument that thousands of physicists, cosmologists, and other scientists have failed to present. If he CAN, he has not done so.

"C: The general consensus in religion: God created everything.
(In which Con brings up all those religious people.)"

-This was brought up to show the relationship between the conundrum in science with explaining the origins of a universal energy source, and the consensus in religion that God is that energy source. Where they disagree, they actually explain each other because both are philosophically at odds, and both refuse to reconcile this point. God is the universal energy source of the Big Bang- however science eventually empirically explains the theory.

"D: What is God made of?
(In which Con speculates on things not at issue.)"

-Actually what I discussed was the impossibility of proving what God consists of, and this lack of proof being related to the lack of explanation for the origin of physical mass. My opponent is arguing the strawman here, and completely missing my point.

"E: What is the origin of the universe?
(In which Con tries to change "everything" into "universe".)"

-Should I address this? I will assume the readers agree that "everything" is "within" and "part of" the "universe".

My opponent makes the following statement as well: "God is that He created *everything* not just "the universe" however limiting my opponent may choose to make the latter noun. What Con cannot escape is that everything *includes* God and as such, God cannot possibly have created *everything*."

He continues to ignore the Law of Conservation of Energy. If God is the "source and origin" of "everything" (the Universe IS everything), then my contention is not contradicted. I never claimed God created himself. In fact I stipulated that God was the source of the universal energy of which the Big Bang was a result. This is not only consistent with science and logic, it is consistent with religion. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred, where does this energy come from? The energy is God- the source and origin of everything. He cannot be created, nor destroyed. He is, therefore, the only plausible infinite in science- a requirement in explaining any logical scientific theory of the origins of mass.

My opponent sums up his argument in two contentions that are easily refuted with my above arguments:
"1) Nothing can be the creator of everything that exists because it would have to be the creator of itself, which is logically impossible."

-My opponent is playing semantics, but ignores that even in the ignorance of religion God's energy is in everything, everywhere, and always. This concept follows the Law of Conservation of Energy. My definition of God follows this empirical law as well. My opponent claims this is logically impossible, but he cannot disprove the Law of Conservation of Energy. My definition- God: The beginning and source of everything (the only definition my opponent chose to debate) is not a logical contradiction.

"2) Nothing can be the creator of everything that exists because, as asserted by Con, energy exists and cannot be created."

-My opponent is playing semantics. He is stating that God cannot have created "everything" because God cannot create himself. He is ignoring, however, that outside of energy being a constant- everything else exists. Everything else came into existence through the concentration of non-created energy (because energy cannot be created). This is the basis of the Big Bang theory, as well as the Intelligent Design theory. In simple terms- something came from nothing. We don't know how, when, why, or even IF God "willed" himself into being. What we know is that the Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy is neither created, nor destroyed. We also know that scientists point to a Big Bang, that originated with the highest concentration of energy in universal history. What science cannot explain is the source and origin of that energy. It is logical, however, to say that God is the "source and origin" of everything- including that energy. My opponent has, thus, failed to prove that my definition is a logical contradiction.
daniel_t

Pro

My voters, I'm sorry you are having to slog through all the irrelevant issues that Con seems to want to press. Please don't let him distract you. If this were a more formal debate, Con would have already lost because of his lack of Topicality. He's the one that chose the resolution; he's the one that defined God, and we see that he's also the one who spent hundreds of words in round two talking about everything else.

In round three, he did manage to lightly touch on the issue at hand, so I will cover those first:

0)

"My opponent is playing semantics..." Con said this twice, so I feel it needs addressing specifically.

As I understand this phrase, Con is claiming that I "disagree on the definitions of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

My opponent defined "God" and I accepted his definition, "disprove" which I accepted, and "exist" which I also accepted. I have accepted every definition that he has presented.

On the contrary, Con is playing semantics with himself. Here in round three, he tries to *change* his definition of God so that it only requires that He create "the universal energy."

I'm sorry Con, you can't redefine your God at your whim, three rounds into the debate.

1)
Con says that I "cannot disprove the Law of Conservation of Energy." Why would I want to? It helps prove my argument! God cannot have created energy, therefore there cannot be a God who created *everything*.

2)
"""
[Pro] is stating that God cannot have created "everything" because God cannot create himself. He is ignoring, however, that outside of energy being a constant- everything else exists. Everything else came into existence through the concentration of non-created energy (because energy cannot be created).
"""

Finally, we see that Con has understood my argument, and it is important to note that he agrees with me! Both here and in section B (which I have below) he explicitly says that there are things that his God could not possibly have created, therefore his God could not possibly exist.

His initial definition didn't say, "God created everything else" or "God created everything except energy." He said, God created *everything*.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the rest of con's argument, I will go ahead and note it below, but only to show that it has nothing to do with the resolution or my proof.

A:

"If God is the source of this energy, and God is not a creation, then his energy follows the laws of the Universe."

Either Con's God exists, or it doesn't. In order for it to exist, it *by definition* created itself. Above, Con tells us "If... God is not a creation..." I expect the audience can easily see that if God is not a creation, then he couldn't possibly have created himself. Con's God can't possibly exist.

"... my opponent fails to examine the entire Law of Conservation of Energy which also states that energy can only be transferred."

The above changes nothing. By Con's own admission, energy was not created, yet God was supposed to have created it (God created *everything*.) These statements cannot both hold!

The rest of Con's comments in this section once again, deal with scientific claims about the origin of the universe. I say again, such claims are not at issue.

B:
"""
"Self-creation is impossible."

-Right. And that is why we rely on the Law of Conservation of Energy to prove that the origins of matter lie in one extreme source of energy. Science fails to explain that source. My opponent cannot logically present an argument that thousands of physicists, cosmologists, and other scientists have failed to present. If he CAN, he has not done so.
"""

Here Con has agreed with my contention that self-creation is impossible, but his God *requires* self-creation unless He doesn't exist.

Again, I have to remind you, the audience, that what science fails to explain is not at issue, it is not my job to prove any particular science correct, my only job is to logically disprove the existence of his God. His only job is to rebut my disproof. Con isn't doing his job.

C:
"""
This was brought up to show the relationship between the conundrum in science with explaining the origins of a universal energy source, and the consensus in religion that God is that energy source...
"""

I realize why Con brought up the argument, but it still seems to escape him that "the conundrum in science with explaining the origins of a universal energy source" is irrelevant. All that is relevant is his definition of God and my argument showing that his God cannot possibly exist.

D:
"""
Actually what I discussed was the impossibility of proving what God consists of, and this lack of proof being related to the lack of explanation for the origin of physical mass. My opponent is arguing the strawman here, and completely missing my point.
"""

What is he rebutting here? When did I ever mention anything about what God may, or may not, be made of? I'm not missing Con's point, I am saying that what God consists of is irrelevant. I don't need to explain the origin of physical mass, all I needed to do with present a logical argument disproving your God. I did that and you are going on and on about nothing important.

E:

"""
I never claimed God created himself.
"""

What Con claims is that God created *everything* and everything necessarily includes God, if he exists.

Way back in round one, I told you what Con would do and now he is, Con is using the special pleading fallacy to try to exclude God from the set of everything. What justification does he give? I'll quote it below:
"""
"""

That's right, absolutely no justification at all. What he says instead is:
"""
In fact I stipulated that God was the source of the universal energy of which the Big Bang was a result.
"""

Voters, take some time to review his round 1 argument, I'll wait... You will find that no where did he make this stipulation; no reference to "universal energy", no reference to the "Big Bang". What he *did* say was that God is "the beginning and source of everything," not just some paltry "universal energy" but *everything*. The fact is, Con didn't even use the phrase "universal energy" until this very argument!

I'm sorry Con, you can't redefine your God at your whim, three rounds into the debate.

============================================================

The only way Con's God could have created *everything* that exists, is if his God doesn't exist. The voters who know this obvious fact will vote Pro... I hope Con can do a better job of staying on topic for round four...
Debate Round No. 3
Mangani

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. It is unfortunate that my opponent has decided to engage in condescension and manipulation rather than respectful disagreement in his argument. In respecting the intelligence of the readers I will assume the majority of the readers will recognize my points have been clear, and that my opponent simply does not understand my points and so expects no one else will. My opponent, in an ad-hominem attack, is attempting to paint me as distracting when in reality I have sought to disprove my opponent's assertion that my definition of God is a logical contradiction by using generally accepted science which reaches similar conclusions as my definition.

In his first point labeled (0) in his R3 argument, my opponent clearly misunderstands my statement on his use of semantics. The semantics I was referring to was his claim of "creation of everything". He says God couldn't have created everything because he could not have created energy. This does not prove my definition of God is a logical contradiction for several reasons. Let's examine two:

1)- The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, rather it can only be transferred. My definition of God states: "The beginning and source of everything". This is the definition he decided to prove a logical contradiction per his R1 argument: "So let's review what that definition is; Con has asserted that God is "The beginning and source of everything," in essence we are talking about a God that created absolutely everything in existence.

create: v.
1) bring (something) into existence."

I assert that God is the beginning and source of everything. If energy is a constant, and cannot be created, my opponent's assertion is, then, a creation paradox which makes little sense. Something that is eternal is not temporal, and therefore has no beginning. Science recognizes that energy is eternal, and not temporal for it had to be present in order for the Big Bang to have happened. I assert that in the beginning this energy, in the words of John (though I do not ascribe to Christianity, I believe it is summed up best in this statement) was of God, this energy was with God, and this energy was God. God is the source of the energy, and both God and his energy are not temporal. Energy cannot be quantified without mass, and neither can God, the source of all this energy. Unless my opponent can prove an alternative to an eternal energy before the Big Bang, he can neither say that God requires creation. It is a scientific fact that energy does not require creation, yet my opponent asserts that God cannot be God because he could not create something that could not be created. THAT, my friends, is a logical contradiction.

2)- My opponent's contention is based on a logically impossible act, much like the omnipotence paradox. An example of this logically impossible act is creating a square circle. For God to exist as the creator of everything, he need not create himself as he is eternal. He need not create his own energy as his being the source of that energy would mean that energy is also eternal. Science has not proven the existence of God, but science empirically states that energy is eternal. Energy, then, like it's source- God- cannot be created. My opponent is requiring a logically impossible act to prove the existence of God. THAT is a logical contradiction.

My opponent goes on to accuse me of making changes to the definition which I did not. I mention it simply to show the readers what I am referring to, but I will leave it to the readers to judge whether or not I actually made this change, which I believe I clearly did not: "Here in round three, he tries to *change* his definition of God so that it only requires that He create "the universal energy."

My opponent then goes on to make his "bread and butter" claim in this debate: "Con says that I "cannot disprove the Law of Conservation of Energy." Why would I want to? It helps prove my argument! God cannot have created energy, therefore there cannot be a God who created *everything*."

Again the creation paradox, and the logically impossible act of creating that which cannot be created. I believe the Law of Conservation of Energy, though it doesn't prove the existence of God, it does prove that my definition of God is not a logical contradiction: God is the beginning and source of everything. Note I have NEVER stated God "created" energy, as I do not believe universal energy to be independent of God, rather OF God. Though my opponent claims this is changing my definition of God, it is not. It is completely consistent with my definition.

In my opponent's next contention he claims that I agree with him. This is not true. I presented the fact that energy cannot be created. He agreed with me. He then tried to turn this argument around against my definition, but I have already shown how his requirement is a logical impossibility. God is not temporal. Energy is not temporal. God is the beginning and source of everything. Science says constant energy is the source of mass through the Big Bang. Science does NOT go on to say energy created energy because that is a logical impossibility, but this does not change the fact that this energy is present. I postulate this energy is of God. This is not a contradiction of logic, rather it is consistent with science. My opponent attempts to place a beginning for the beginning. "God cannot be the creator of everything because he cannot create what cannot be created." It is illogical to require a logically impossible act to prove somethin exists, especially when you are using the very attributes of that thing in this circular reasoning.

My opponent repeats this point throughout the debate, and this round: "In order for it to exist, it *by definition* created itself."

"I expect the audience can easily see that if God is not a creation, then he couldn't possibly have created himself."

"By Con's own admission, energy was not created, yet God was supposed to have created it (God created *everything*.) These statements cannot both hold!"

"Here Con has agreed with my contention that self-creation is impossible, but his God *requires* self-creation unless He doesn't exist."

Get the picture? I have refuted this one argument in several different ways, using several different logical approaches. I will rest my case on this point as I feel the audience has enough information to discern logic from contradiction.

"my only job is to logically disprove the existence of his God. His only job is to rebut my disproof. Con isn't doing his job."
-My opponent has not presented an argument which disproves the existence of God.

My opponent accuses me of the Special Pleading Fallacy: Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.http://www.nizkor.org...

The problem with this assertion is that the circumstances surrounding everything but energy are empirical science. This is adequate justification, while my claim would have to exclude this adequate justification in order to actually be a fallacy. My claim is that science empirically states that energy cannot be created. God is the source of this energy. Both God and energy are eternal therefore exempt from creation through the Law of Conservation of Energy. My opponent, in turn, requires a logically impossible act to disprove God.

This statement sums up my opponent's argument: "The only way Con's God could have created *everything* that exists, is if his God doesn't exist."

I believe I have effectively shown how this reasoning lacks logic.

Thank you.
daniel_t

Pro

My voters,

Con attacks me personally in this last round saying, "... my opponent has decided to engage in condescension and manipulation..." (An obvious ad hominem.) Then accuses me of making ad hominem attacks! Go back and read my arguments again... Did I once speak to the person? You will find that the answer is a resounding "no".

I have attacked Con's argument and his argument alone. You may feel I have done so stridently and vociferously, but I trust that there is nothing wrong with that.

The quote below will show the fundamental problem with Con's position.

"""
I have sought to disprove my opponent's assertion that my definition of God is a logical contradiction by using generally accepted science which reaches similar conclusions as my definition.
"""

This is a debate about a single syllogism which presents two facts and makes one conclusion.

1. Self-creation is impossible (presented by Pro in round 1 and accepted by Con)
2. God created everything that exists (presented by Con in round 1 and accepted by Pro)

These two facts are in evidence, both have been accepted by Con, but they cannot both logically hold... Unless God doesn't exist!

I accept Con's quote above as absolutely correct. The problem is, none of the science he presented denied either of the two facts above so the conclusion *must* still hold.

What is Con's complaint?
"""
My opponent's contention is based on a logically impossible act, much like the omnipotence paradox.
"""

Of course it is! That is the only way to logically disprove something. I have shown that the existence of Con's God is logically impossible.

------------------------------------------------------------
The above is a complete summation of everything you need to know when voting. My opponent attacked me personally, and he was completely ineffective at destroying the syllogism. If you wish to read my responses the the rest of his last round, you can... but it really isn't necessary for the vote.

"""
In respecting the intelligence of the readers I will assume the majority of the readers will recognize my points have been clear
"""
Translation: Come on guys, you know that when I said "everything", I didn't really mean *everything*!

Sorry Con, words mean something. "Everything" means everything. This isn't the only time during the debate that Con had trouble with definitions.

"""
In his first point labeled (0) in his R3 argument, my opponent clearly misunderstands my statement on his use of semantics.
"""
Apparently, my opponent, much like Humpty-Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass" (http://www.sabian.org...), expects for us to be able to divine his unconventional meaning when he uses a word. (This is not meant as an attack, merely an observation.)

So what did my opponent really mean? I'll try and cut through the verbiage...

"""
I assert that God is the beginning and source of everything...
Science recognizes that energy is eternal...
... and this energy was God.
"""

Con tells us that
1) God exists.
2) God created everything that exists.
3) God did not create himself.

What are we supposed to make of such illogic?

"""
For God to exist as the creator of everything, he need not create himself as he is eternal.
"""

Special pleading again... I'll jump to where he addresses that.

"""
The problem with this assertion is that the circumstances surrounding everything but energy are empirical science.
"""

Please note kind voters that my opponent's definition in round one was not "God is energy" If he had said that, then the above would be relevant (and I wouldn't have accepted the debate.) What he said was that God created *everything*. His God is logically impossible.

"""
God is the beginning and source of everything. Note I have NEVER stated God "created" energy...
"""

The above is an obvious contradiction on Con's part. Con is telling us:

1) God is the beginning and source of *everything*.
2) God is not the beginning and source of energy.

Both cannot be true Con, yet you kept asserting both as true. The first by definition, and the latter through the use of evidence.

And on, and on. My opponent's argument was full of contradictions from round two on. God created everything! But God didn't create everything! You can't have it both ways Con.
Debate Round No. 4
100 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
There's been enough comment on this debate already; I won't add much to it.

Basically, I see this as having been a long fight with a strawman. Pro carefully and specifically addressed himself to disproving the idea that God could create Himself. I think he succeeded. I doubt there is much doubt left in any reasonable mind on that score.

Pity that it wasn't the resolution.

Pro did not bring out a single argument that disproved God's existence, even under the definition given.

Arguments to Con; all other sources tied. If anyone wants to disagree with me, talk to me in a PM please; I won't be coming back to this thread.
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
"Uhhh... sure. Whatever you say, coward"

I'm glad everyone can see your true colors now. When you are unable to defend your postion you resort to childish name calling. Perhaps you simply lack the maturity for a site like this?
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Uhhh... sure. Whatever you say, coward.
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
Sure he did. I'd suggest you try arguing more honestly in the future but since you don't believe in ethics that word hold no meaning for you I'm sure.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Yes, "failed", as in he intended to, but I opened it up and someone else accepted it.
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
*This debate was originally a challenge to Nags who has failed to accept the debate, so I am opening it up*

FAILED to accept the debate, as opposed to chose not to accept it? Con has a very leading way of writing. It does not seem very honest.
Posted by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
and is TO stubborn sorry
Posted by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
this is what happens when someone is to naive to recongnize he made a misinterpretation and is o stubborn to admit to it so during the whole debate he was confused with the definition and made his own interpretation of the information provided by con and instead of rebutting information and providing his own well he doesn't do a very good job he revolves this debate against mangani's many arguments and he just makes one "single logical argument that god doesn't exsist"
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Txs, the problem is daniel_t not only did not read my arguments, but he convinced himself in R1 that he already won the debate. The first thing I did in R2 was separate the science of God, from the religious attributes of God. I specified that science suggests everything has an origin, and I surmised that is God, while religion makes a similar claim in that God created everything. I believe I made it clear through my scientific arguments that I was supporting a scientific approach rather than a religious one, which is what my opponent kept trying to argue. My last statement in the second paragraph confirms this as I say "Now, I am not arguing that the Big Bang theory is correct (which itself has many logical fallacies and becomes more and more un-scientific the more it is delved into), rather that it is not a logical contradiction to assume a non-physical origin of mass, rather it is what science points to."

I even went on to re-state my premise: "Because of this all I can prove is that my definition- "God is the beginning and source of everything", is not a logical contradiction."

I asked the following, which my opponent does not answer: "Where did the energy come from? Did the energy create itself? How long was the energy concentrated before it exploded, and in what state was the energy before it concentrated? If my opponent cannot answer these questions, then he cannot claim that my definition of God is a logical contradiction."

My opponent has already acknowledged that in R3 I pointed repeatedly to my definition, and it's contrast with his manipulation of my definition (source and origin vs. creator). My arguments in R3 are hardly any different from my R2 arguments, and this is evident in his pleading to the audience that I have not made an argument. I relied on the intelligence of the readers to discern his attempted manipulation, but I see some have fallen for it nonetheless. That is the problem with people who vote without reading the arguments.
Posted by TxsRngr 7 years ago
TxsRngr
daniel_t, you are very dishonest and manipulative. You took my comment out of context. This is what I said: "It, at best, suggests there are errors in Con's wording of his definition in that it is not immune to your semantic attacks"

I did not say there were errors in Con's wording, and much less in his definition. I pointed out that your argument "at best SUGGESTS" there are errors in his wording "IN THAT IT IS NOT IMMUNE TO YOUR SEMANTIC ATTACKS". You are obviously too dense to understand my statement, though you have just confirmed your entire argument was based on a "wording" discrepancy rather than actually disproving the existence of God which is in FACT the premise.

To answer your question that began this back and forth in the comments section: will you explain it to me like a six year old?

Read the above statements.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
Manganidaniel_tTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Manganidaniel_tTied
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 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Manganidaniel_tTied
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 humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
Manganidaniel_tTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Manganidaniel_tTied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Manganidaniel_tTied
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 
Vote Placed by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
Manganidaniel_tTied
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 Crust89 7 years ago
Crust89
Manganidaniel_tTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 7 years ago
TxsRngr
Manganidaniel_tTied
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 GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Manganidaniel_tTied
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:03