The Instigator
Juan_Pablo
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Logic suggest that some sort of creative, conscious God may exist . . .

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,251 times Debate No: 35823
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (2)

 

Juan_Pablo

Pro

Often what people argue when they say "God doesn't exist" is that a Christian God doesn't exist. Empirical evidence to refute the Bible or to refute the nature of the God in the Bible is often presented to argue the claim that God doesn't exist. But this sort of reasoning is flawed.

God may in fact exist and it [God] may not be all too kind a character. A God might exist, for example, that created man only to waste away the time, to play with mankind as a cat plays with mice; consider what happened to the dinosaurs. God might alternatively be a God with natural limits, too, that can control physical phenomena and the fate of the universe only to a limited degree, but that genuinely concerns himself with the affairs of mankind and intelligent life elsewhere.

My position is that logic suggest that a creative, conscious God may in fact exist - and that there is evidence to even support its existence. Con will argue that God does not exist, and he will present arguments to support his claim and also to refute mine.

Con should begin his arguments in ROUND 1; ROUND 4 will be reserved for our final statements on this topic.

(Serious debaters only.)
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Definition of God

Pro did not define God. However, it seems as if he is going to argue that conceptual laws of logic exist in every possible world. If he is going to argue for a God that grounds the laws of logic, then the definition of God he is indirectly endorsing is a necessary being. A necessary being is one that exists in all possible worlds. God is also commonly defined as a supernatural creator, regardless of religion. So, we will define God as:

"a necessary being, who grounds the necessary laws of logic, and created everthing else, but him."

I do not see why Pro would object to this definition.

Modal Ontological Argument(s) for Atheism


The essential structure of this particular subset of modal arguments that I am going to be putting forward will be a regurgitation of Ryan Stinger's framework:

A. It is possible that p.

B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.

C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p.

D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)[1]

God is a necessary being, which entails that God, if possible, necessarily exists (which entails existence in every possible world). This inference is founded on the modal axiom S5[2], which is a basic axiom in modal logic. Now, in order for a Modal Argument for Atheism to work, the variable p has to be filled with that which will logically entail C is true. I am going to provide a quick list of such things which are prima facie metaphysically possible. It is possible that:

(i) All sentience is physically realized

(ii) The universe was created by a mindless, supernatural mechanism

(iii) Naturalism is true

(iv) The laws of logic are contingent, and not necessary

*This possibility needs defending. Even if the laws of logic were contingent to humans minds, the nature of existence itself (which the contingent laws describe) could still be necessary. However, there is no reason to think the nature of existence is conceptual, like the laws of logic. Therefore, TAG loses its weight as it assumes a necessary mind has to exist to ground necessary conceptual laws. However, if we look at the laws as that which is contingent but describes that which is necessary; there does not seem to be problem.

I could go on...We will call the set of all potential plugs for p, Set E. Each possibility mentioned is just as intuitively warranted as the premise that God is possible, and we can easily think of others then the ones mentioned.

To defeat the argument above, the theist would have to show that God is indeed possible, and thus necessarily exists in every possible world independent of TAG. However, the warrant for the possibility of God is just as justified as any one one of the variable plugs. So, why is the modal argument for Atheism more plausible? There are more plugs for the Atheistic argument than there is for the Theistic argument, and each plug for the Atheistic argument seems just as plausible as the one for the Theistic argument. Take this premise:

It is possible that f

We will plug f with "God exists". Since Set E has more members than f, which has just one member, and each member of Set E is just as probable as f, then by sheer numbers alone, at least one member of Set E is likely to be true over f.

Possible Objection to Above Argument

One might try and claim that these apparent possibilities can be plugged in for f, making a set just a rich as Set E. For example:

(i) God created the universe.

(ii) Jesus was the son of God.

(iii) God spoke to Abraham.

(iv) The Ten Commandments were given by God.

However, it is the same part of each proposition doing the work; "God". The mentioning of "God" just equates to "God Exists" which means that all 5 apparent possibilities are just the same proposition! The "created the universe" aspect in (i) is completely superfluous; as with the unnecessary additions pertaining to the rest of them. (iii) for example, says "God spoke to Abraham", but it essentially states "God exists" "and spoke to Abraham". However, it is the "God exists" doing all the work, the "and spoke to Abraham" is trivial. Thus, (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) with regards to f are really just the same premise pertaining to which part of each premise is doing the work.

It seems as if we can conclude that Atheism is more plausible than Theism based on my argument above. Set E is inherently going to be more rich than f by default due to the nature of the propositions. It is much more likely that a member of Set E holds, than it is that proposition f holds.

"[I]t is more plausible that at least one of the modal arguments for atheism is sound and that the modal ontological argument is unsound than that all of the modal arguments for atheism are unsound and that the modal ontological argument is sound." - Ryan Stringer

Both TAG, and the MOA for God are less plausible than myargument.

Sources

[1] http://www.infidels.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Juan_Pablo

Pro

My opponent argues a condition which I want to counter. He presents a definition of God which defines him as the creator of everything, including the laws of nature and the laws of logic. I suppose this is one valid presentation of a conscious creator of the universe, but I'm going to present a definition of God which doesn't REQUIRE him [God] to conform to this definition. In the set of all things that God can be, God can also be a conscious creator of the universe that created the universe, as in "arranged it" and "constructed it", but not necessarily a God that created the fundamental ESSENCE that makes-up the universe (i.e. space-time, energy), and it's very much possible that the laws of logic and laws of nature WERE NOT created by God, but exist NATURALLY and INDEPENDENT of a conscious creator, though the conscious creator can EFFECT THEM, MOLD THEM to some degree.

EXAMPLE: Man is a conscious material construct. Man does not create the laws of nature and laws of logic, but man can still effect and mold the universe (transform it).

The Set of all things that a CONSCIOUS CREATOR could be includes Gods that DID NOT create the laws of logic and of nature, but that can still modify the universe to a degree. Therefore the restrictive definition that my opponent places on God would apply to some Gods that might exist - but not all Gods that could exist and manipulate the fate of the universe.

Despite my opponents definition of God, which applies to a category of things that can be categorized as God, and also have the capacity to manipulate the universe - (but not all, which he happily admits to in his Modal Ontological Argument(s) for Atheism ) - his argument, which he borrows from Ryan Stinger, is unsound with respect to different categories of God. This is because Ryan Stinger defines God as a being that, if he exist, exist in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS and UNIVERSES, beyond our own. I argue that this would not be true for all possible definitions of God.

EXAMPLE: I sit at location X in California. I do not sit at location X on Mars. I therefore do not exist in all possible worlds and locations!

APPLYING THIS TO ONE DEFINITION OF GOD - THE CASE OF PANTHEISM:

God is the universe (pantheistic argument). The universe is everything INSIDE the universe. The universe excludes everything outside the universe (other universes).Thus God does not exist EVERYWHERE, but has boundaries.

This is an example of a definition of God that that does not fall into Ryan Stinger's definition of God. Even more, there are already examples of beings that are conscious but are not in every possible world or universe: humans are examples of conscious beings with boundaries.It's possible that the God that manipulates this universe also has boundaries, much as humans do with respect to the extent of their manipulation.

My opponent is wrong to say that no Gods exist because the logical argument he uses to defend his proposition does not apply to all possible Gods that could exist, as I demonstrated above (I will however concede that Ryan Stingers argument is valid for the particular definition of God which he proposes; though his definition of God is only a small subset of the greater set of all Gods that can exist that manipulate this universe).

GROWING EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

There is an active debate among scientists that recognize that our universe is just right for COMPLEX and INTELLIGENT BIOLOGICAL LIFE. One focal point of this debate is whether our universe was constructed by an intelligent designer(some scientists/philosophers even suggest that the UNIVERSE itself could be the conscious designer, and is possessed with a kind of basic consciousness that naturally exist in the mechanical fabric of the universe; Physicist Bernard Haisch, etc.)

This possible "evidence" for an intelligent designer derives from the fact that so many of the universe's physical attributes are just right to support complex biological life. For example, if the electron mass was slightly less than what it is or slightly greater, it would be impossible for matter to congregate and to form the "matter" world we see today. A vital constituent of known biological life - water - would also be impossible.

This is just one example out of many to support the growing dilemma in science that the universe may have been fined-tuned for biological life. Some scientists are trying to refute this argument now by claiming that our universe is one of countless universes (the "Mutli-verse hypothesis") but that ours happens to be one just right for life (this is a play on the "Anthropic Principle"); others claim that this scenario invites more assumptions that can never be verified.

My opponent is wrong. Evidence shows that an intelligent designer is viable, even natural and necessarily possible if the universe is fundamentally possessed of consciousness, as some physicists claim. Even then, alternative Gods can exist that are not bounded by his definition!
Rational_Thinker9119

Con






Introduction


Pro talks about all the things God "could" be, and God "could be" something different than my definition entails. However, God "could be" different than any definition we use in a debate. If I define God as X, My opponent could say that God "could be" Y. This is intellectual dishonestly folks. We have to use a specified definition in this debate, or else we are not debating anything! Also, the laws of logic would be part of God's nature, not something he created. Pro never defined God, so he left the door open to my definition. Also, my definition was based on a TAG version of God, which should have been expected since Pro claimed he was going to argue God from logic. If he does not like it, that's too bad, as Pro did not define God in the beginning. My definition is self-evidently beyond fair. He mentions a Panentheistic definition:

"God is the universe (pantheistic argument). The universe is everything INSIDE the universe. The universe excludes everything outside the universe (other universes).Thus God does not exist EVERYWHERE, but has boundaries."

However, the above is problematic. This is not a definition that includes consciousness, or a living being. Pro is just calling nature, "God". You can call nature "a fork" but that is just semantics. I was under the impression my opponent wanted to have a serious debate on God's existence, however, it seems as if I was mistaken.

Even if my definition does not apply to every type of God that exists, the rules never said my argument had to attack any type of God that can exist. Pro claimed he was going to be presenting TAG, so my definition was in line with a TAG definition. Once more, Pro did not define God in the beginning, thus he left the door open to my definition. I am not going back on it. Pro also does not have the right to make me go back on it.

Modal Ontological Argument(s) for Atheism

Since Pro ignored my argument, it stands. I showed Atheism is probably true using the Modal Argument for Atheism. This wins me the debate alone. Pro implied he was going to use TAG, so I used a TAG definition. This is more than reasonable.

Intelligent Design

This argument has nothing to do with logic suggesting that God may exist. I thought the resolution involved Pro showing God exists using logic, not fine-tuning. This is a bizarre debate that I never should have accepted, as Pro clearly does not know what he is doing. Additionally, he mentions how the universe is just right for life. However, there are many explanations which do not involve God. Paul Davies believes that due to time loops, and the quantum "fuzziness" at the beginning of the universe, that humans beings collapsed the wave-functions of the past to get our fine-tuned constants. So, God wouldn't fine-tune the universe, in a sense, we would using backwards causation to do this by observation of the universe essentially. Now, retro-causality has been confirmed as a real phenomenon in Quantum Mechanics[1]. So, the universe is fine-tuned for life, but not to due to a God outside the universe, or even a God inside the universe. Human beings are enough. Now, retro-causality does not always lead to a paradox. The universe could be engaged in a self-consistent causal loop:

"There's a famous story, I think originating with Richard Feynman, about the time traveler who goes back in time and, in an adaptation of the grandmother-killing scenario, decides to shoot his younger self to see what would happen. He takes a rifle with him, seeks out his younger self and raises the rifle to shoot through the heart. But his aim isn't very good, it's a little bit wobbly, so he hits his younger self in the shoulder instead, merely wounding him. The reason his aim isn't so good is because he's got this shoulder wound from an earlier shooting incident! So you see, it's possible to conceive of temporal loops of that sort without encountering a paradox." - Paul Davies[2]

Note how this is not intelligent design, but simply intelligence engaged in a time loop collapsing quantum fuzziness. Thus, the universe being just right for us, could be due to us and not God or any multiverse. There are many ways to explain the apparent fine-tuning without appealing to God.

Conclusion

Pro implied he was going to use TAG. I used a TAG definition of God, now in this round Pro switches the goal posts and argues for fine-tuning. I urge voters to knock conduct points off with regards to Pro, because what he is doing here is not very ethical. Even if fine-tuning leads to God, that doesn't mean that logic leads to God regardless. The resolution would still not be established. However, I showed that one can explain fine-tuning without God. Also, my definition stands as Pro never specified a definition in the beginning. Since Pro did not touch the Modal Ontological Argument, I have met my burden.

Sources

[1] http://www.popsci.com...
[2] http://www.edge.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Juan_Pablo

Pro

My opponent is frustrated and claims I'm being intellectually dishonest and unethical. However, I want to demonstrate that it is he who is being intellectually dishonest. He claims that I would be arguing the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) in this debate; TAG is defined as "the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a Christian theistic worldview" (1); it argues the existence of God in terms of a Christian worlview. I made it abundantly clear in ROUND 1 of this debate that alternative Gods could exist beyond the Christian God, even presenting several generalized possibilities. I made no claim I would be defending the possible existence of a Christian God and relying on TAG. My opponent's error.

My opponent claims that I ignored his Modal Argument for Atheism, which he presents as relying on Ryan Singer's validity framework to support the position that atheism is more logical, because you can plug in more to support p from the Set of E (claims that support atheism) than refute p from the Set of f (claims that support God); he also claims that the only position in the Set of f is "God exist". However, I did rebut his Modal Argument for Atheism because it relies on TAG - even presenting potential Gods that exist that would not be subject to the argument! (Example: God is the universe, God is a devil, etc.) I even stated that Ryan Stinger's framework can be valid for Gods that his cricitisms can be directed at (the problem of evil, the problem of apparent naturalism, etc.).

But to show that Ryan Singer's framework still suffers from a weakness that my opponent claims exist exclusively with the claim "God exist", I'm going to show that the Set of E is exactly the same thing as "it happened by chance". Thus Singer's framework, though useful, still suffers from the same weakness that he claims exsit with the Set of f - "God exist."

A) Natural Laws exist in this universe

Theist position: God (may have) created them. Atheist position: it happened by chance.

B) The electron mass is just right to allow matter to congregate, galaxies to form, complex biological life to develop.

Theist position: God made the conditions just right. Atheist position: it happened by chance - (multi-verse hypothesis or just amazing luck).

My opponent also presents a situation in which he argues that the multi-verse hypothesis need not be consulted to explain the ideal conditions for complex biological life in our universe. He restates an assertion by Paul Davies:

"There's a famous story . . . about the time traveler who goes back in time and . . . decides to shoot his younger self to see what would happen. He takes a rifle with him, seeks out his younger self and raises the rifle to shoot through the heart. But his aim isn't very good, it's a little bit wobbly, so he hits his younger self in the shoulder instead, merely wounding him. The reason his aim isn't so good is because he's got this shoulder wound from an earlier shooting incident! So you see, it's possible to conceive of temporal loops of that sort without encountering a paradox." - Paul Davies (2).

However, this scenario doesn't support atheism. It supports an intelligent designer and defines man as a species that that develops into God, ultimately evolving into a life form that can potentially alter the laws of physics, construct a time machine, travel back to the big bang, and alter the universe so that it can have just the right conditions to harbor biological life. Man becomes God, and potentially has the ability to construct news worlds with new physics. (Perhaps this is the supernatural God of this universe, who created my opponent. It's still God.) My opponent posited that a God would be required for this scenario of a time loop to be sound.


Conclusion

My opponent is exasperated. The truth is God very well may exist, and evidence is emerging that shows that the physical constants and the attributes in this universe are just right for COMPLEX and INTELLIGENT BIOLOGICAL LIFE. My challenger argues that empirical evidence isn't support for the logical argument that an intelligent designer may exist. How wrong he is! He should be knowledgable enough with logic to know that logic that is sound (factually true) isn't just valid, but is composed of propositions that are factual truth claims. Inductive logic is logic that is supported by propositions that assess data to reach a conclusion.

The argument for intelligent design does just this. The conditions of our universe are ideal to support complex biological life. That this universe was constructed by an intelligent designer is a perfectly feasible conclusion, considering the data.

If my opponent wants to continue arguing that atheism is more logical valid than the many varieties of theism, that's his burden to bear.

Sources

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.edge.org...
Rational_Thinker9119

Con




Introduction


First of all, my opponent is committing the fallacy of equivocation with regards to TAG. There are different versions of TAG, the one my opponent was claiming he was going to defend deals with just logic, and not morals or science[1]. Thus, there is no Christian worldview presupposed, and Christianity need not necessarily play any role pertaining to TAG. My opponent specifically stated that he was going to be arguing that logic leads to God, if that is not TAG, I don't know what is! Thus, my definition of God stands, because even though Pro said he wasn't defending the Christian God, TAG does not necessarily deal with the Christian God, as there are different versions of TAG. The one that deals specifically with logic is clearly the one the resolution implies. Thus, there is no basis for rejecting my definition of God. Even if logical absolutes are grounded in a necessary mind, that in no way presupposes Christianity specifically. Also, his "molding" of the laws nonsense did not get introduced until after I accepted the debate. Without a definition provided by Pro in the first round, the debate is open to my definition.

Also, he can't conflate Set E with "it happened by chance", as that is a non-sequitur! There is no reason to conflate "Atheism" with "it happened by chance". He just assumes this without any justification. Thus, his argument against Ryan Stringer's Modal Argument can be dismissed. It is based on a straw-man.

"However, this scenario doesn't support atheism. It supports an intelligent designer and defines man as a species that that develops into God, ultimately evolving into a life form that can potentially alter the laws of physics, construct a time machine, travel back to the big bang, and alter the universe so that it can have just the right conditions to harbor biological life." - Pro

Pro is just calling humans "God". That is just semantics. He can define a fork or spoon as "God" too but it means nothing. Thus, his argument above can be disregarded. Also, there is no time machine involved, just time loops and wave-function collapse. Additionally, humans don't transform into one life form in this scenario. Pro did not even pay attention to my argument, and it is rather embarrassing as all of his arguments are based on straw-man fallacies. My argument deals with time loops due to quantum mechanics, not time machines and God's. I am under the suspician that Pro barely even understands a word I said.

"My opponent posited that a God would be required for this scenario of a time loop to be sound." - Pro

No God, just humans.

Conclusion

Pro did not define God in the first round. Thus, the debate is open to my definition as long as it is not necessarily the Christian God. However, a necessary mind to ground the laws of logic to not necessitate Christianity, as Christianity could be false, and this necessary mind could still exist. Since pro alluded to the notion that he was going to argue God from logic, my TAG definition of God is more that justified. Pro did not respond to the Modal Argument for Atheism without resorting to straw-man, and petty tautology (calling the universe "God", or humans "God"). Also, Paul Davies shows why God is not needed to explain fine-tuning, thus, Pro's argument for God as I have defined, fails. My definition sticks, as Pro did not define God in the first round. Since these two propositions are true:

(i) The Modal Argument for Atheism succeeds
(ii) The fine-tuning argument for Theism fails

The resolution has been negated.

Sources

[1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Juan_Pablo

Pro

My opponent continues to stubbornly state the same thing over, like a boy with a toy hammer that thinks if he whacks something hard enough it'll eventually impale. Sadly for him that's not the way logic and critical evaluation work!

My opponent: "Since these two propositions are true:

(i) The Modal Argument for Atheism succeeds
(ii) The fine-tuning argument for Theism fails

...the resolution has been negated."

Succinct and cute. But so very wrong! As I have expressed to him over and over, Ryan Stinger's Modal Argument for Atheism DOESN'T APPLY TO THE SET OF ALL POSSIBLE GODS THAT INFLUENCE THE UNIVERSE AND ARE CONSCIOUS! Stinger's modal argument and validity framework is directed at an omni-benevolent being that has the power to create a complete universe, with biological life, from scratch instantaneously. It DOES NOT negate the possibility of alternative kinds of creative beings (which is a very large category), which he even introduces in Argument 5 under Generating Modal Arguments for Atheism of his electronic manuscript (1) as a modal argument againt the God he defines (specifically Biblical). Even more, Ryan Stinger acknowledges that his arguments are MODAL! That is they argue against the case for the God he defines on probability - not on certainty, against the declaration made by my opponent in the quoted statement above. However, though Stinger has an accurate validity framework, it ignores the condition that what can be interpretted as evidence of atheism can also be interpretted as evidence for theism, depending on theistic worldview.

Unlike my opponent's argument, seeing that there is more alleged evidence of atheism than for theism does not equate to atheism is true, theism is false; something which Stinger acknowledges about his modal argument. It does however increase probability that atheism is true if evidence for atheism is in fact greater, but that is ultimately a matter of interpretation.

Crucially, there are conditions that negatively effect Stinger's Modal Argument for Atheism for the God he defines. He argues that there are an infinite number of atheistic explanations for the origins of our universe and for complex biological life. However, not all explanations are going to be true. Only a small set of these possibilities are going to be true; the rest can be discounted as irrational, unworkable - ultimately UNSOUND! A theistic explanation can ultimately be one of the true ones!

Finally, Stinger's argument fails to discount all possible theistic Gods and conscious creative forces (recall Argument 5). As I indicated to my opponent, which frustrated him, pantheist believe and (some) assume a panentheistic interpretation of the Universe - that it is God, that it is conscious, and that it created complex and intelligent biological life. There are rational arguments that support this view that would utterly disprove atheism. The universe has apparently created all biological life; it wields power over mankind; it cannot be proven to not exist. For the pantheist, for example, God necessarily exist. No atheistic argument can discount that. The burden is ultimately on the pantheistic to show that the universe is conscious and is concerned with the affairs of mankind (which some claim can be done, depending on the progression of scientific discovery; Haisch, etc.). My opponent demands that I logically prove God without ever consulting science (an argument which I consider absurd and which is revealing of his understanding of logic); this is the closest I can get to it. I consider it a very nice argument for a theistic God.

This is one theistic interpretation which Stinger's framework utterly fails to discount.

My opponent: "The fine-tuning argument for Theism fails."

He uses a solitary statement to justify this declaration: "Also, Paul Davies shows why God is not needed to explain fine-tuning, thus, Pro's argument for God...fails." Oh my god (or lack thereof), I'm ruined! Well, of course I'm not. Paul Davies - who now acknowledges that fine-tuning is very true (he once didn't) - argues that intelligent design remains a firm possibility (2), though he also presents alternative ways of handling the issue: the universe might be cyclical; the universe might be one of countless universes with different physics and different constants; intelligent life evolves to the point that it can produce other universes just right for life; the existence of universes is contingent on physical laws and constants that are favorable to biological life. Physicist Bernard Haisch offers his own explanation: The universe is possessed of a rudimentary consciousness that arises from the mechanical fabric of the cosmos; . . . some argue it can even learn things based on what's going on inside of it. But of course not all these explanations will be right.

My opponent is wrong: he cannot declare that atheism is true; theistic alternatives are just as valid. Some even scientically rational.

(1) Ryan Stinger.
(2) http://www.discovery.org...
Rational_Thinker9119

Con





Introduction


Pro keeps on mentioning how Ryan Stringer's argument does not apply to all conceptions of God. The debate outline never specified that that my arguments had to fall in line with any type of God thinkable. That would clearly be unreasonable. Pro's only criteria was that we weren't specifically discussing the Christian God. If there is a necessary mind who grounds necessary laws, that could be true without Christianity being true. Since Pro alluded to the notion that he was going to be arguing God from logic, along with the fact that Pro never specified a definition; my definition suffices. Even if my opponent did not mean to present any form of TAG, there was still no specific definition of God outlined.

Modal Argument For Atheism

Pro claims:

"However, though Stinger has an accurate validity framework, it ignores the condition that what can be interpreted as evidence of atheism can also be interpreted as evidence for theism, depending on theistic worldview." - Pro

My opponent did not demonstrate how evidence for Atheism can be interpreted as evidence for Theism. Regardless, since there are more possible plugs for Set E, than f, due to the very nature of such propositions, then the odds of at least one of the Atheistic plugs going through is high. Also, the variables for p only deal with possibility, if any plug for p is even possible then Theism is necessary false via modal axiom S5.

Pro also claims:

"Only a small set of these possibilities are going to be true; the rest can be discounted as irrational, unworkable - ultimately UNSOUND! A theistic explanation can ultimately be one of the true ones!" - Pro

Even if only one of the plugs for p of the succeeds as being possible, then Theism, as defined, is false. Since Set E is much richer than set f (which only consists of the proposition "God is possible"), then odds are high that the Modal Argument For Atheism succeeds, over any similar counter-argument for Theism.

Pro once more engages in the red herring fallacy by mentioning how the argument does not touch all conceptions of God. This is irrelevant, as my burden is not to successfully argue against any type of God, but simply: God. Pro did not define God in the first round, so the debate was open to my interpretation.

Pro states:

"For the pantheist, for example, God necessarily exist. No atheistic argument can discount that." - Pro

The Modal Argument For Atheism discounts that. Pro cannot just assert God is exists in every possible world, he needs to argue for the possibility of God. As it stands, Pro has presented no evidence for God's existence at all. As I already showed, the fine-tuning argument does not require a God as an explanation. It is not even the best explanation.

Fine-Tuning

Yes, Davies admits that intelligent design and a multiverse is a possibility. That does not entail plausibility. Either way, the burden of proof is on Pro to show why fine-tuning leads to God, instead of fine-tuning leading to Paul Davies' theory or any other. Appealing to mere epistemic possibility here does not cut it as an argument for God. I never claimed Paul Davies' argument was an argument for Atheism, just that it shows that fine-tuning does not necessarily lead to God. The argument from Paul Davies was a rebuttal to Pro's argument from fine-tuning, it was not a positive argument for Atheism. Since this was his only positive argument for God, and he admits that it is just as plausible as Paul Davies' theory (as if they were equal), then he essentially concedes this debate. This was supposed to be a positive argument for God, not an argument from mere possibility! Paul Davies' account for fine-tuning is plausible, as information travelling back in time has been verified in quantum mechanics[1]. This depends on non-realism, which is confirmed by Bell's inequalities[2] and Leggett's inequalities, and the before-before experiment[3].

Conclusion

-- Definitions

Pro did not define God in the first round, and had a criteria restricted only to the notion that we were not discussing the Christian God specifically. My definition of God is sufficient, as it does not necessarily speak on Christianity. Pro should have specified a definition in the first round.

-- Modal Argument For Atheism

Pro did not really have any argument against the notion that Set E is inherently richer than f. This means that the Modal Argument For Atheism shows that Atheism is way more probable than Theism. It is almost 100% due to how rich Set E is.

-- Fine-Tuning

Pro concedes that there are many explanations for fine-tuning. However, Pro failed to argue why God is the best one, or the only one we should go with. Therefore, he did not even come close to establishing God's existence in any sense.

The resolution has been negated.

Sources

[1] http://www.popsci.com...
[2] http://phys.org...
[3] http://www.quantumphil.org...
Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
No worries my friend, I see no reason in continuing the conversation anyway. We already had the debate on it, lets just leave it at that.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
I have to go, rational_thinker. I'll reply later if you leave any comments.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"This can apply to any worldview"

How so? You still have not given one example of a variable plug for p (we'll say p instead of f, because of the definition you provided) that is not "God exists" which entails the necessary existence of God. It seems you are just conjuring your position out of thin air with 0 warrant at all.

"It isn't directed specifically at the subject of metaphysics."

Yes it is. S5 deals with possible world semantics, which is definitely rooted in metaphysics.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
The S5 modal axiom is the following: "if possibly necessarily p, then necessarily p." This can apply to any worldview (it's often used in philosophy to refute or offer evidence for a proposed phenomena). It isn't directed specifically at the subject of metaphysics.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Well, f is suppose to be evidence for the theistic worldview."

F is supposed to a be a possibility, from which "God necessarily exists" follows from logically.

"Stinger is saying with his reductionist argument that the set of f can be reduced to "God exist [as in God did it]". But that's not true in every theistic worldview"

Not reduced to "God did it", but "God exists".

"The set of f is larger than 'God did it'."

I did not say anything about "God did it", I said something about "God exists". However, "God did it" is the same as "God exists""and did it". However, once more, it is the "God exists" doing all the work, with the "and did it" meaning nothing in context.

"The number of evidence claims in favor of a theistic worldview would be different, too. So different theistic worldviews would be more probable than others."

Theistic worldviews are less plausible, as f can only be filled with "God exists". Set E is much larger, making a theistic worldview under a modal framework extremely improbable.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Rational thinker: "No it doesn't, because f can only be plugged with one thing 'God exists'." Well, f is suppose to be evidence for the theistic worldview. Stinger is saying with his reductionist argument that the set of f can be reduced to "God exist [as in God did it]". But that's not true in every theistic worldview (or even in the one he criticizes, so he's wrong. The set of f is larger than "God did it". The number of evidence claims in favor of a theistic worldview would be different, too. So different theistic worldviews would be more probable than others.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
If you use a different definition of God besides a necessary being, then modal axiom S5 won't work. The only way for God to be necessary under modal axiom S5 is if God is possible. You have still not plugged in the variable f with something that is NOT "God exists". Thus, your claims of there being more plugs is hollow, and nothing more than a bare assertion.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
It is like you are just ignoring everything I am saying, and you refuse to begin to even comprehend a simple concept.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Thus the modal argument INCREASES the probability that other theistic worldviews are true!"

No it doesn't, because f can only be plugged with one thing "God exists". How many times do I have to say it? Set E can be filled with more things than just one, thus the odds of Atheism being true are so much more plausible than Theism. If you change the definition of God, then you have no argument, and your whole position is self-refuting. I suggest actually learning the argument, before trying to refute it.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Rational_thinker said: "The plug for f can only lead to God if we are discussing the specifically defined God." Bingo! That's exactly what I'm saying!

Rational_thinker added: "If you want to have a different definition of God, the the modal ontological argument for theism wouldn't even work!" Actually, I disagree. I think his modal argument can be used for other theistic worldviews; the problem, however, is that more plugs now get introduced into the set of f - "evidence that supports the theistic worldview". Thus the modal argument INCREASES the probability that other theistic worldviews are true!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AdvocatiDiaboli 3 years ago
AdvocatiDiaboli
Juan_PabloRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro said that some sort of Creative conscious God may exist. Con has not shown that would COULD NOT. Only that there were better reasons to think one doesn't. The chance of one existing by the ambiguously used word "may" makes this an unwinnable challenge for Con. Con accepted an unfalsifiable challenge. Con has shown to be fooled by words in the challenge before which can make entering a debate similar to walking into a mine field. One should pay closer attention to the details before stumbling into a challenge like this.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
Juan_PabloRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is using the fact that it's impossible to disprove a universal negative as positive evidence for a god. This, coupled with the wording of the resolution and his failure to define precisely what he meant by the term "god" in round 1 renders his arguement at best misleading and at worst dishonest.