The Instigator
o0jeannie0o
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
james14
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Looking to debate a Christian or atheist. You pick the topic (religious)

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 1 vote the winner is...
james14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 966 times Debate No: 66018
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

o0jeannie0o

Con

Looking to debate a Christian or Atheist only.

Any topic to do with religion, you decide. You must clearly state the topic in the first round as well as your main arguments.

This is an informal debate. As long as spelling and grammar can be comprehended they are fine. 5000 letters, 24 hours.

If you are a Christian: the bible is not a valid source of facts, quoting the bible is fine but it cannot be your reasoning i.e.: "the bible says it so its true". (You must be debating about your [the Christian] god/beliefs.)

If you are an atheist: please don't aim the argument at Christians specifically. For example "your bible is not a good religious text". I am not a Christian and I probably agree.

If you are a voter: please note this is an informal debate. as long as the message is clear spelling and grammar should not be deducted. Forfeits are grounds for loss of conduct points.
james14

Pro

Hello.

I am a Christian, and I wish to debate the topic:

Assuming that the universe had a beginning and has a supernatural cause, Polytheism is illogical.
which could be also called:
Assuming the universe had a beginning and has a supernatural cause, that cause must be singular and infinite.

These are my arguments:
1. "God" is defined as an infinite creator.
2. My definition of God is the only one that could have created the universe. This will require some evidence, obviously, so bear with me:
a) "infinite" basically means "limitless." An infinite set of numbers is a set that never ends, one that has no limits;. For God to *logically* NOT be infinite, there would have to be something God could not do, some area that He was lacking.
b) If God was the creator of the universe, He would have to be outside time and space since He created both. To avoid infinite regression He would have to be self-existent and uncaused, a Being of Pure Actuality and no Potentiality who logically could not not exist in order to be the uncaused causer of the universe.
c) This Being cannot change. This Being must be without limits in order to be the cause of those same limits. Since God created time, He cannot be bound by it. Since God has no potentiality (potential to come into existence or potential to change) there can be nothing greater than Him (something with fewer limits), or else that Being would be the true uncaused causer.
d) Quite simply, God must be infinite (unlimited) in regard to character qualities, (He must have a character since the Cause of a being with potentiality cannot endow what it does not have), space, time, and matter, as He was the cause of all of the above. Therefore, He cannot be limited. I am sorry if my above explanations confused more than they helped.
3) There cannot be more than one infinite God. This is because to be categorically infinite, as I said before, something must be without limits. Two objects with the same (lack of) limits are identical and there could be no distinction between the two. There must be something to separate the two. To support this point I bring up the example of two infinite lines. You could argue that as two different infinite lines can exist, two infinite gods could exist. You would be wrong. Two different infinite lines can exist only if they are differentiated by spacial dimension or plane. A Being outside of all dimensions and planes could not be so differentiated. To put this point more plainly, two infinite beings could not exist because to differentiate between the two one must have what the other lacks. But if a being lacks something it is not infinite.
4) This does not preclude angels and other supernatural caused "created" beings with potentiality. But they cannot be called Gods (as defined), and the result is that polytheism falls.

Thanks for the debate.

Please don't attack my Christianity. Just debate the topic as stated.
Debate Round No. 1
o0jeannie0o

Con

"God" is defined as an infinite creator

Gods definition is this:

God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshiped in some religions

: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired

With this I must conclude that god is only defined as an infinite creator to some but not all people. If you look at the other definition god is defined as various beings or spirits or even just as a person who is greatly loved or admired.

For the sake of argument I will agree with your definition to a point. Not as an infinite creator but as a creator.



How the universe was created

you said:

"that the universe had a beginning and has a supernatural cause" ... "If God was the creator of the universe, He would have to be outside time and space since He created both. To avoid infinite regression He would have to be self-existent and uncaused, a Being of Pure Actuality and no Potentiality who logically could not not exist in order to be the uncaused causer of the universe."

A universe has no fully known cause, although there are many popular theories. The big bang is theorized that the universe happened from almost a state of nothing. I believe you are assuming that something had to be the “pusher” or the person who started it all. Thing is there are many theories on how that may have happened and I believe polytheism could be considered a logical reason behind that “push”

Take this example: a group project has started. Each member in the group has a specific duty. One has to create space, one creates time, the other creates stars, and so on. They have created a universe yet they are outside this universe. This group could have created many universes or just one. They have the power to change any thing they like within their “duty” and no one person can change everything. (polythism)

(no one knows if the universe is limitless or not. so yes in this example this is a universe inside a much huger universe)

This can be conjoined with the multi-verse theory and that one with say the Cyclic Universe (big bang / big crunch) theory. Although it is not likely, it isn’t illogical.

In summary as it is confusing my theroy is:

there are a bunch of cyclic universes, each one can create other universes wrapped up inside their own, their own universe had no initial push.

Cosmic Evolution in a Cyclic Universe

Paul J. Steinhardt, Neil Turok

http://arxiv.org...



ATTN: Wiki is Not A Reliable source for facts!

For definition use of multi-verse only, Not to be used a a scientific source.

http://en.wikipedia.org...





james14

Pro

Didn't you read the reasons I gave why my God was the only one that can be relied upon as a First Cause?

"With this I must conclude that god is only defined as an infinite creator to some but not all people. If you look at the other definition god is defined as various beings or spirits or even just as a person who is greatly loved or admired."

Under this definition you could say that polytheism is true just because some people think it is. We are not debating what people think is the truth but rather what IS the truth.

"[The] universe has no fully know cause, although there are many popular theories." True enough. I would say that God was the cause, but I do not expect everyone to agree with me. That was why my topic was framed by the assumption that the universe had a supernatural cause.

You maintain that a group of "gods" could create earth. This is true, but if there were more than one then they couldn't all be infinite, and as a result there would have to be a higher Being than them. That Being would deserve the name "God" (according to my definition) while the limited supernatural creatures could be called "angels" or "djinn" or something like that. Supernatural, but not Divine.

It should be obvious that the universe does have limits. The fact that the universe is expanding is commonly known.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
This expansion is obviously expansion in size. In fact, scientists believe the universe was (at the beginning of time) extremely small. How could they say it was small unless they had "limits" to go by?

At the end you seem to either change your mind or offer alternative explanations. You bring up the "multiverse." I am no cosmologist and find the topic very complicated, to say the least. But even if the multiverse or the cosmic rebound theory was true (which is exceedingly unlikely), the laws of thermodynamics mean that the universe must have had a beginning. Cosmic rebound would require energy. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that no new energy can be created. The 2nd law states that entropy either increases or remains constant. As energy is always being lost, at one point the universe must have started. If we know that my car only can hold a certain amount of gas and burns gas all the time, then we know it must have been filled up at some point previously. Similarly, simply because the universe contains a finite amount of energy which is constantly being wasted, at some point it must have contained maximum potential energy, which would have been the start. This start requires God,

Anyway, that point is irrelevant. My topic assumed a creator God, a definition you even accepted!

I think I have succeeded in rebutting you, and just in time too. I look forward to your response.

By the way, not to be rude, but you seem to be inventing your theory as you going along. I highly discourage the practice.
Debate Round No. 2
o0jeannie0o

Con

"Didn't you read the reasons I gave why my God was the only one that can be relied upon as a First Cause?"

Yes I did read them, although they where a bit hard to read.


"By the way, not to be rude, but you seem to be inventing your theory as you going along. I highly discourage the practice"

Yes I am making up a theory, A theory that is logical yet with supernatural cause, which you said could not be done. I am using theroy to create a universe in which a polythistic point of view isnt illogical. This is what I assumed the debate is about not about definitions and technicalities. “Assuming that the universe had a beginning and has a supernatural cause, Polytheism is illogical.”

I am not saying anything that isn’t based on logic and possibilities.


You maintain that a group of "gods" could create earth. This is true, but if there were more than one then they couldn't all be infinite, and as a result there would have to be a higher Being than them.

You defining god as infinite is making it impossible for polytheism to exist. Yes that is illogical because polytheists believe that each deity has its own area of expertise.

The cyclic universe theory is one that the universe creates its self, then is crushed under its own weight and collapses. This is not a supernatural cause, yet with the multi-verse theory a different universe could be created from this initial naturally created universe. This means that there is no Ultimate god as you suggested.

With the cyclic universe there is no cause or no supernatural cause. I did not go against your rules as this inst “our universe” (within my theory). The beings created by this “natural” universe are gods who are not infinite. These gods could have created our universe together and that would be defined as supernatural within our universe (the created universe).

A confusing theory but not illogical as you stated.

I didn’t say the universe was limited (like in a box), In fact I know the universe is expanding. The created universe doesn’t have to be limited to be contained within my natural universe.

Because thermodynamics! A side bar outside of this debate:

A lot of Christians claim that the law of thermodynamics proves that the universe had to come from somewhere. They then struggle when told god had to come from somewhere saying that god is outside of the universe or is all powerful, “the laws of the universe don’t apply to god they say”. Why do the laws of the universe have to apply to the creation of the universe? The creation of the universe happened before the universe was created!



"My topic assumed a creator God, a definition you even accepted!"

I used your defined a creator god just no ultimate god. Checkmate.

james14

Pro

"You defining god as infinite is making it impossible for polytheism to exist [sic]. Yes that is illogical because polytheists believe that each deity has its own area of expertise."

I went into detail why God has to be infinite. I assume what is my opponent's attempt to imagine a universe which is "created" at one point but still doesn't need a supernatural cause:

"The cyclic universe theory is one that the universe creates its self, [sic] then is crushed under its own weight and collapses. This is not a supernatural cause, yet with the multi-verse theory a different universe could be created from this initial naturally created universe. This means that there is no Ultimate god as you suggested."

First: the universe cannot create itself, because it would have had to be there before it existed to do so. A mother cannot give birth to herself for this very same reason. An event cannot logically be its own cause. Yes, this wouldn't be a supernatural cause (which I discriminated against in the 1st round), but it also isn't a logical cause.

Oh, I see what Con is trying to do. The Universe creates itself, and then God creates a different universe from that self-created universe. This is sheer ridiculousness. If the god (or gods) isn't ultimate, then what is? A limited deity implies a greater deity. Know why? To distinguish between and limit them, they must be lacking, which means there must be an attribute that one does not possess. For us to know that there is an attribute that one does not possess, one of the other gods or this theoretical universe must possess that attribute and be the cause for this unevenness in attributes. That God would thereby be unlimited, and the ultimate cause.

But, again, there is no evidence for multiple universes or anything in this theory. Therefore, even if my logic is somehow faulty inductive reasoning still stands against it. I wasn't expecting this issue to be brought up, to be honest! We are talking about OUR world, not some science fiction hypothetical.

"A lot of Christians claim that the law of thermodynamics proves that the universe had to come from somewhere. They then struggle when told god had to come from somewhere saying that god is outside of the universe or is all powerful, 'the laws of the universe don"t apply to god they say.' Why do the laws of the universe have to apply to the creation of the universe?

Everything that has a beginning has to have a cause. That is a law of logic that applies in all universes. The law of thermodynamics was just used to help you see that the universe did have a beginning. Although your claim that the universe was created by another universe complicates things, we can still say that for your universe to be the ultimate cause (requiring no cause of its own) would require it to be God, basically, infinite and without limits. A universe that does not run out of energy and has no beginning or end sounds not much like a universe (the universe would also have to be outside of space to have created another ex nihilo universe, another point fatal to your argument) and more and more like God.

"The creation of the universe happened before the universe was created!"

This is equivalent to saying I sat down before I sat down. No I didn't. The two events are actually one event, which means they happen at the same time. So you are incorrect. The creation of the universe happened when the universe was created.

"I used your defined a creator god just no ultimate god. Checkmate."
Don't say "checkmate" when you haven't even answered my arguments as to why we must have an Ultimate Cause, a being which possesses no potentiality and just actuality. I backed up my definition with evidence you never even considered.

To conclude: my opponent is coming up with theories far more ridiculous than Christianity. Universes that create other universes. Universes without natural laws. Events that happen before they happen. Coalitions of limited deities working together.

Your voting decision should not require much deliberation.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
I like to play devils advocate. I dont mind defending most things that i dont necessarily believe. I just couldn't do Christianity as there isn't any logic to most off it (in my opinion).
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
That's the point, you want to find something you can argue.

I am for all purposes an atheist. I firmly believe there is no probably no God. By probably I mean not sufficient enough evidence to prove there is one.

That is just affirming that statement.

_______________________________________________________

The last affirmation is that religion on balance causes a great deal of harm to society. simple enough
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
I am mostly interested in where you differ from a scientific perspective specifically. You already mentioned the word 'magic', but I'm not sure what you mean when you say that.
Posted by ChandanB 2 years ago
ChandanB
how exactly are you going to argue with an atheist?where do you differ with them?I am an atheist and am interested in picking up this debate.
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
Here is a vid of my beliefs i made because i was sick of explaining things: https://www.youtube.com...

sorry about the music being too loud
Posted by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
I am an eclectic wiccan. I believe in science, magic is self fulfilling prophecy, Gods are representations.

he debate is set so you have to have completed one debate in your past., Just to weed out the forfeiters.

Mikal I dont get your statement are those potential topics?.. I agree with you for the second one but could probably argue the other two.... mostly i want to have to think.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
God probably exists - con

The bible is not a valid source of information - pro

Religion on balance is detrimental to society - pro
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Tell me a little about your beliefs and maybe I can find a good topic.
Posted by Ja50n 2 years ago
Ja50n
I'm going to be a bit busy this week but i'd be happy to debate you on the topic of
"God cannot be all knowing or objective" and I would be on the side of Pro.
Posted by IvenMartin 2 years ago
IvenMartin
Assuming
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
o0jeannie0ojames14Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro. In the final round con says checkmate, a bit too self confidently. Arguments to pro because as pro pointed out con is making up her theory as the debate goes, and arguments should be based on known facts, not a self created hypothesis.