The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

My opponent can neither disprove gravity nor an almighty God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,826 times Debate No: 6294
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (187)
Votes (11)

 

wjmelements

Pro

"an almighty God" means just that. It is not specifically the God of Abraham, but can also mean a god not worshipped. The concept of an almighty God is what's being debated.

"gravity" is the theoretical force that attracts mass together in our universe. http://www.merriam-webster.com... (definition 3)

"My opponent" means CON, also known as the contender.

"can neither disprove...nor" means not being able to prove false either concept http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

So, in order for my opponent to win, he must either disprove the concept of God or the concept of gravity. There must be no doubt that one or the other exists for CON to win.
In order for PRO to win, PRO must keep a possibility of both existing at the end of the debate.

As my opponent has this burden of disproof, as it should be called, I will allow CON to go first. I will post my points in the next round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

If god is ALMIGHTY, he has any and all POWERS. CREATING something more powerful than almighty constitutes a POWER. Something more powerful than almight cannot be CREATED

: 1. A->P (assumption, definition of Almighty)
: 2. P->C (Assumption, and pretty darn obvious, that's one heck of a power :D)
: 3. ~C (assumption, definition of Almighty)
: 4. A (Assumption of the existence of God)
: 5. P (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
: 6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
: 7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

First off, even after thorough examination, I do not understand the code that my opponent has put forth. I ask that he put this into compete sentences.
"Something more powerful than almight cannot be CREATED"
Correct. I am not arguing that there is anything more powerful than almighty. Gravity is lesser than an almighty God, because it would have been created by an almighty God.

My opponent concedes that gravity exists.
Therefore, he has agreed that it does exist.

Gravity and an almighty God are logically similar.
Both have yet to be scientifically observed or even scientifically explained.
However, their effects have been observed (orbits, nebulas, etc. for gravity) and (the universe for an almighty God).
Both logically have to exist, however.
Every effect in the universe is the effect of a cause. (Cause and Effect)
Falling, dropping, sinking, etc. are all examples of the effects of gravity. The cause of these effects are universally linked to gravity. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
The existence of the universe must have a cause, and it is not unreasonable to assume that it is an almighty God.

The argument that God must have a cause, too, is void, because an almighty God is not subject to the rules of logic that it created. Further, an almighty God could be outside of the universe (not part of it), especially since it is presumed that this almighty God created the universe.

Therefore, both gravity and God exist.
I ask my opponent to organize his first argument in a way that can be understood.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"I do not understand the code that my opponent has put forth."
It's symbolic logic.

"I ask that he put this into compete sentences."

If he is Almighty, then he has all powers. If he has all powers, then he has power to create something more powerful than almighty. But, no power to create something more powerful than almighty than almighty is possible. Since we can derive from this that if an Almighty God exists, he has such a power, the premise that such God exists is necessarily false.

"
My opponent concedes that gravity exists."
Correct. I am not attacking that clause of the resolution, only the other one.

":
Gravity and an almighty God are logically similar.
Both have yet to be scientifically observed"
The observation of two objects attracting one another has occurred many, many times. This is precisely what gravity IS, attraction between objects.

"Both logically have to exist, however."
No, the latter logically cannot.

"
Every effect in the universe is the effect of a cause. (Cause and Effect)
Falling, dropping, sinking, etc. are all examples of the effects of gravity. The cause of these effects are universally linked to gravity. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov......
The existence of the universe must have a cause, and it is not unreasonable to assume that it is an almighty God."
You're making the unjustified assumption that the universe is an effect.

And by definition, since the universe is defined as the totality of existence, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have a cause (such cause would have to exist, and therefore already be a part of the universe). Therefore, it is not an effect.

:The argument that God must have a cause, too, is void, because an almighty God is not subject to the rules of logic that it created.
The rules of logic, i.e. the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction are axiomatic, you cannot attempt to deny them without making use of them. They are fundamental precursors to anything and everything. Without them, everything both is and is not, there can be no concepts, no definitions, let alone a God.

"Further, an almighty God could be outside of the universe (not part of it)"
"outside the universe" means "outside existence." Nonexistent.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and for clarifying the symbolic logic for me and for the readers.

First, the universe is an effect. Everything in it is an effect. Further, it is an effect, having brought upon by a cause, being the almighty God. To say that something isn't an effect is less justified than saying that something is. Saying that rain is not an effect or that a ball falling is not an effect is unjustified. Just because a cause is not fully understood does not mean that an effect is not an effect.

"If he is Almighty, then he has all powers. If he has all powers, then he has power to create something more powerful than almighty. But, no power to create something more powerful than almighty than almighty is possible. Since we can derive from this that if an Almighty God exists, he has such a power, the premise that such God exists is necessarily false."

Summary: a God cannot be almighty because being almighty means that it can create something greater than almighty, which cannot exist.
However, one cannot create something greater than itself. A creater creating such a thing would make himself still greater than what was created. Therefore, there is no contradiction. The creater would still be almighty, and its creation would be lesser than itself.
Almightiness is not self-contradictory.

Gravity and God being similar in not being able to be fully understood links them. By conceding one, my opponent concedes the other. The logic used to disprove one applies to both. My opponent's logic is voided by this concession. Any logic that voids a truth (gravity) is void.

"Without (the laws of logic), everything both is and is not, there can be no concepts, no definitions, let alone a God"
To say that an almighty God is almighty means that the God has power over the laws of logic. Therefore, this logic cannot be more powerful than an almighty God and cannot defeat it.

"And by definition, since the universe is defined as the totality of existence"
Universe-the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated http://www.merriam-webster.com...

My opponent has incorrectly used the definition of universe to make a logical argument. The universe is the totality of physical existence. Since physical existence would be created by an almighty God, that almighty God does not have to physically exist. Since the universe would be created by an almighty God, that almighty God does not have to physically exist among the universe. An almighty God would not be physically limited to anything; therefore it can exist.

Both gravity and God exist. Logic proves their existence. Cause and effect poves that they must exist. I ask that the voters vote accordingly. I thank them for taking the time to read this debate.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
First, the universe is an effect."
Ipse dixit.

"Everything in it is an effect."
I assume you're not a Christian then, Christianity asserts free will. And, ipse dixit.

"Further, it is an effect, having brought upon by a cause, being the almighty God. "
Begging the question.

"To say that something isn't an effect is less justified than saying that something is. Saying that rain is not an effect or that a ball falling is not an effect is unjustified."
This is because we have observed causes for balls falling and rain falling. And because, unlike universe, a cause for rain is not a contradiction :D.

"Just because a cause is not fully understood does not mean that an effect is not an effect."
It nevertheless leaves you unjustified in stating that it is an effect, if you have no evidence there was ever a cause.

"
However, one cannot create something greater than itself. A creater creating such a thing would make himself still greater than what was created. Therefore, there is no contradiction. The creater would still be almighty, and its creation would be lesser than itself."
Greater than itself, and not greater than itself. Contradiction. Further, one can create many things greater than oneself. Hitler created paintings. Whatever your opinion of his paintings, you cannot possibly believe them "worse than Hitler" lol.

"
Almightiness is not self-contradictory."
Considering how you JUST DETAILEd another contradiction in it... yes it is.

"
Gravity and God being similar in not being able to be fully understood links them. By conceding one, my opponent concedes the other."
A horse and a unicorn are similar in being hooved animals, therefore if one exists both exists.

Non sequitir.

"The logic used to disprove one applies to both."
Ipse dixet. You have to actually USE similar reasoning to my argument to void gravity before you can assert that.

"To say that an almighty God is almighty means that the God has power over the laws of logic."
To identify something "over" the laws of logic is a contradiction, logic governs identification. Anything not covered by logic does not have an identity-- does not exist.

"Universe-the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"
So God is the creator of all postulations, including false ones? what kind of absurd Almighty being would postulate something without making it?

"Since physical existence would be created by an almighty God, that almighty God does not have to physically exist."

Physical, broadest definition: #
3.

# Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.

http://www.answers.com...

If God created material , he is relating to them. Physical. It is impossible for something nonphysical to interact with (therefore impossible to create) something physical.

:An almighty God would not be physically limited to anything; therefore it can exist.
Existence implies limits, the limits of logic, of having an identity. Existence, indeed, is the state of having an identity in reality. Nothing can exist without a limit somewhere.

:Both gravity and God exist. Logic proves their existence. Cause and effect poves that they must exist.
Again, ipse dixit. Logic disproves their existence, indeed, the requirements of an almighty God are incompatible with logic.
And cause and effect prove nothing until you've established that something is an effect. Your attempts to do so so far in regard to the universe are circular.
Debate Round No. 3
187 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
""The laws of logic isn't too physical, yet it still interacts with the physical world. Is time physical?"
Logic is certainly physical, it pertains to the world of matter. So is time.

Probably the only thing GS has right here :)
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
Anything that reacts to to asolid is physical. Time reacts by age and decy. Its like this: The universe is made up of tiny picels like a telivison. Once time reaches a mesurment of 10 to the -43 the measurment will disapear, vanish out of the 4th dimension. Same goes for soilds, shape, angle, weight etc. However those properties will vanish from the universe at a mesurment of 10 to the -33. You think if you kept cutting something in half you will go on forever. If you think that you are not living reality. Where does the matter go? I would only conclude it going to the real world, the spiritual universe. Thats quantom physicis. Which more that less proof Gods and the spiritual worlds existence.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
Time is physical yes.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
The laws of logic isn't too physical, yet it still interacts with the physical world. Is time physical?
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
"Christianity asserts free will." God knows what has happened as it is the past. Everything has happened for God but not for us. In that sense there is no free will. And arn't you happy, to imagine if there was, would, what I think, would cause delamores all the time. In that there would be no order in that each other would calash together spiritually. God I think has made a spiritual universe so we can not mold our way but we can have guidence. God knows what we will do, so we will also ways be with God.
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
Haha, is that Tintin, Beemor? Man it's been a while...
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
"I wouldn't say you can disprove God when your igorance is so high."

Well I would say that 'what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.'

"Its just stressful when people think they know, and clearly do not."

Tell me about it. As far as I can tell, GodSands, you're the only one around here who claims to KNOW whether there's a god one way or the other. Most other people (theists and non-theists) state their belief and give reasons as to how they arrived at that belief. By contrast, you pretend to be God's messenger boy without even offering logical arguments for his existence.

Logical Master is a Christian who has clearly thought long and hard about his beliefs. Ragnar_Rahl is an atheist who has clearly thought long and hard about his beliefs. You are the only one who thinks they know.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
>GodSands calling someone else dumb
http://i58.photobucket.com...
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
Ragnar_Rahl if you think the physical world is all there is, your mind is surely inprisonend. That physicality is the least of what exists when atoms are made up of everything and that what you see is merely your mind and conscience, you only see a millionth of what actually exists physicarlly. I wouldn't say you can disprove God when your igorance is so high. Our conscience and mind and soul is not tuned into this physical universe. Your is so poor that you can not even conprhend God. Through all the media and presentation of the physical world which blinds you from the real world. Its just stressful when people think they know, and clearly do not.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Gravity is a physical force.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 mecap 8 years ago
mecap
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Vote Placed by adamcp90 8 years ago
adamcp90
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by cto09 8 years ago
cto09
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by DisgracedFish 8 years ago
DisgracedFish
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
wjmelementsRagnar_RahlTied
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:13