The Instigator
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
sengejuri
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: God Exists

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...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/18/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 834 times Debate No: 71823
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

tejretics

Con

This is a debate about the existence of God. There are some strict rules that apply with regards to this debate.

Definitions

1. God - an omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, and sentient deity, being, or spirit who is the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority.
2. Omnipotence - the ability to perform any action whatsoever; in this debate, absolute omnipotence
3. Omniscience - the state of having definitive and certain knowledge of everything
4. Sentient - can feel or perceive subjectively

Format
24 hours, 5 rounds, 10,000 characters
"Select Winner" voting system


Round 1:
Con - Rules, Definitions
Pro - opening arguments

Round 2:
Con - Opening arguments, rebuttals
Pro - arguments, rebuttals

Round 3:
Con - arguments, rebuttals
Pro - arguments, rebuttals

Round 4:
Con - arguments, rebuttals
Pro - concluding arguments, rebuttals

Round 5:
Con - concluding arguments, rebuttals
Pro - Waives this round (not direct forfeiture; post a message conveying forfeiture)

Rules
1. Appropriate conduct must be maintained.
2. Refuting logic is not accepted; you must rebut or accept it.
3. All arguments must pertain to the definitions.
4. Trolling is strictly prohibited.
5. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared. Not fulfilling BoP for propositions will result in the violating argument being null and void. Proof cannot be from religious texts.


Over to Pro to post their argument for Round 1.
sengejuri

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for opening this debate, good luck!

A few administrative points:

The debate format specified gives my opponent four rounds of rebuttals, but limits me to only three. I request that Con limit themselves to only opening arguments in the next round to make it equal. If this is not acceptable, then I know I agreed to this debate so I'll carry on and do my best. Just wanted to ask.

Furthermore, Con specified a shared BoP. You cannot 100% prove God exists, but you also cannot 100% prove he does not. As such, I submit that we seek to prove which option is most LIKELY. Once again, if my opponent finds this unacceptable, then I'll carry on and I wish them luck in proving that God 100% does not exist, because they would be the first person in human history to do so successfully.

On to arguments:

== Argument ==

My claim is that life and reality in the observed universe is best (best = most probable, most complete, most satisfying, and least extravagant) explained by God's existence.

Before starting my argument, we must first establish that the universe had a finite beginning. Both logic and scientific evidence has shown that the universe cannot have an infinite past. Logically, if an infinite sequence of past events had to occur in order to arrive at the present, then we could never actually arrive at the present because it's impossible to complete an infinite sequence of events. Scientifically, the theorem developed by cosmologist and professor of evolutionary science Alexander Vilenkin mathematically proves that the universe "cannot have an eternal past" and therefore must have had a finite beginning [1].

Given that the universe had a beginning, there are only 3 possible explanations for the origins of the universe as we observe it: physical necessity, chance, or design (If Con can think of a 4th, they are welcome to include it).

Physical necessity - There is no logical or empirical evidence to suggest the universe exists out of necessity. I fully realize that a simple lack of evidence is not a good reason to totally reject a proposal (Argument from Ignorance fallacy), but we are looking for the BEST explanation here, and I submit that an explanation for which there is no evidence is not the best.

Chance - This is a viable option, but it's so astoundingly improbable that it cannot offer the best explanation. Roger Penrose of Oxford University calculated that the probability of the universe's low entropy condition developing by chance alone is 1:10^10(123). [2] That's a 1 followed by more zeroes than there are atoms in the universe. This is an unbelievably inconceivable number - a probability so small that it flirts with the definition of impossible. I look forward to Con explaining why we should accept such improbability as the "best" solution to how life formed.

Design - Flipping Penrose's ratio around, there is therefore a 10^10(123) to 1 probability that the universe did NOT arise by chance, i.e., design is vastly more probable. But beyond probability, there are logical reasons to accept design as the best explanation for life: First, something cannot come from nothing, and nothing cannot cause something. Since we have already established that the universe (i.e., everything that exists) had a finite beginning, it means by definition that nothing must have existed before the universe. Therefore, if we accept the chance explanation, we must accept that nothing somehow caused everything by chance. However, since nothing cannot cause something, the most logical explanation is there must have been an intelligent cause. Next, all the scientific evidence we have available today indicates that life cannot come from non-life (abiogenesis). Many experiments have attempted to do it, and some have succeeded in forming basic proteins, but none have produced life. We do, however, know for a fact that life can produce other life, and that conscious beings can produce other conscious beings. As such, I submit that design is the better explanation for life's origins.

Looking forward to the next round.

[1] http://arxiv.org...
[2] http://www.evolutionnews.org...
Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals

The fourth is the inherent existence of energy. While the universe itself may not have existed forever (it is logically impossible due to the second law of thermodynamics), gravity could have existed in the universe. According to recent research, the Big Bang could have only been created due to the energy intrinsic to the universe; no sentient or external force could have caused it. [1][2] M-theory or unified superstring theory is a theory that states that all fundamental particles are bound by a minor level of quantum entanglement and resonate via vibrations of supersymmetric strings. [3] The theory supports 11 spacetime dimensions and further supports the fact that resonating particles ("God" in some Deistic faiths such as Taoism; an entanglement described as Tao, Brahman et cetera in various religions). Both the fundamental model of spacetime (the 4 dimension model) and the superstring model (11-dimension model) state that an external force cannot have influenced the Big Bang. [2] The energy intrinsic to gravity forced the creation of a singularity that caused the Big Bang.

Arguments

1. Proof of the Big Bang

In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band. [4] CMB radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions. The surface of last scattering corresponding to emission of the CMB occurs shortly after recombination, the epoch when neutral hydrogen becomes stable. Prior to this, the universe comprised a hot dense photon-baryon plasma sea where photons were quickly scattered from free charged particles. In October 2014, a measurement of the B-mode polarization, signals of primordial gravitational waves, at a frequency of 150 GHz, was published by the POLARBEAR experiment. [5] Models of cosmic inflation predict that such primordial gravitational waves should appear. Primordial gravitational waves are the result of three things: inflationary expansion of space itself, reheating after inflation, and turbulent fluid mixing of matter and radiation. [6] Proof of inflation is proof of the emergence of the universe from a singularity, a point in gravitational spacetime with infinite density and zero volume, created from the energy inherent to gravity. [2][7][8]

2. The Omnipotence Paradox

If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions (all actions include hypothetical one; "all" even includes nonexistent, or incomprehensible actions, which, by the rules of absolute omnipotence, require the ability to perform the same by the omnipotent being objectively). Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do. [9] By this debate's definition of "omnipotence", the omnipotence referenced here is absolute omnipotence, meaning that there are no limits to the Supreme Being's omnipotence by the terms of this debate. Thus, omnipotence cannot exist. To further expand on this paradox: Now, an omnipotent being ("X") can perform ANY action whatsoever, even if that action, hypothetically, does not exist [yet]. Now let us say X creates a yet non-existent action Y that it cannot perform. [X has the ability to create even that action by the definition of omnipotence] As Y is conceivable by X, X cannot perform Y, even if the action Y does not exist. "All" encompasses the action Y. Therefore, as X cannot perform Y (which X creates only later), X is not omnipotent. Once X creates Y, Y becomes an existent action that X cannot do. To make this argument more concise, for the sake of the argument, let us take an action.(Disclaimer: This is NOT an action that the Supreme Being according to the definitions given in this debate cannot perform; it has been selected randomly) Now, let X be called "Superman" (just for ease of understanding) and Y be the act of making a dog's curved tail straight. (this is taken from a famous folktale of Aladdin) Now, let us say that all dog's tails are straight. (only for the purposes of explanation) Therefore, dogs cannot have curved tails, so the act of making curved tails straight does not exist. One day, Superman decides to make some dog's tails curved and then uses his powers to ensure that the act of making a dog's tail straight is impossible even for him. Since this action is conceived of, it is a hypothetical action that acts as an idea. This action could not be performed by Superman even before it was created, as it existed as an idea, with the square ground rule that Superman could not perform it. Therefore, Superman is not omnipotent.

3. The Omniscience Paradox

(1) If God foreknows of some event E, does E happen necessarily, and (2) if some event E is contingent, how can God foreknow E's occurrence? Thus, omniscience implies the lack of contingency, and thus, by the definition of the existence of a Supreme Being, means everything is definite. This definitiveness is proof of the universe being completely entwined by order. But according to the thermodynamic measure of entropy, there is more than one way in which a thermodynamic system (eg: a region of the universe) may be arranged. This arrangement is variable, yet constant in the fact that the varied arrangements may coexist. Thus, there is, by definition, disorder in the universe. If there is disorder, then only one hypothesis of the possibilities of entropy may be predestined, and not more. Thus, foreknowing all the possibilities is impossible. [10][11][12][13][14][15] If you already know how everything will act, then you already foreknow it without deducting it by logic. If one already knows that something will happen, then that action is definite. "Knowing" is the act of having knowledgeability of a certainty. If something is a certainty, it is already predetermined. And a predetermined action lacks possibilities. There is no chance that no event is contingent. Definitiveness completely violates disorder in this universe. If there is definitiveness and God exists, then God is the only free will agent and we are unknowingly being influenced by God. But as there is absolutely no evidence for that, I will discredit this notion. If even one contingency exists, then God cannot be omniscient because no being can have certainty that a contingency can occur. As the existence of disorder is effectively proven by the laws of thermodynamics, lack of contingencies is impossible. The Bible is used as your only source in a rebuttal of yours, so I will use it as a source. The Bible says people must direct their actions on the basis of appropriate moral judgment and describes some as immoral. But if everything is predetermined, then moral judgment and immorality do not exist. Most other religions also believe that morality must be followed by God's law. Therefore, omniscience is impossible.

4. The Creation Question

The question "who/what created the universe?" is often the question posed by theists to cite the existence of God. But, if the answer is God, then the question can merely be deflected to "what created the God?" If something did create the universe, it was a singularity that acted as the starting point of the universe. The singularity was created by the energy inherent to gravity. [1]

Note: I will not make any new arguments in Round 5, so Pro will have nothing they need to rebut. In Round 5 I will only rebut Pro's previous arguments.

I shift the burden of proof to Pro. Maximum BoP lies with Pro as Pro is making a positive claim, according to the Russell's Teapot analogy. Nonetheless, I have fulfilled my BoP.

I laud Pro's arguments and eagerly wait for Pro's response. Thanks to @sengejuri for accepting this debate.

Sources

[1] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York. (2010) ISBN-0-553-80537-1.
[2] Hawking, Stephen. "The Beginning of Time". Stephen Hawking: The Official Website. Cambridge University. (http://www.hawking.org.uk...)
[3] Polchinski, Joseph. String Theory: Volume I. Cambridge University Press.
[4] Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s". Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.
[5] The Polarbear Collaboration (October 2014). "A Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background B-Mode Polarization Power Spectrum at Sub-Degree Scales with POLARBEAR" (PDF). The Astrophysical Journal. (http://iopscience.iop.org...)
[6] http://www.insidescience.org...
[7] Moulay, Emmanuel. "The universe and photons". FQXi Foundational Questions Institute. (http://fqxi.org...)
[8] Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Dell Publishing Group, New York. (1988) ISBN-978-0-553-10953-5.
[9] Savage, C. Wade. "The Paradox of the Stone" Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74–79
[10] "Purtill on Fatalism and Truth". Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.
[11] Viney, Donald Wayne (Spring 1989). "Does Omniscience Imply Foreknowledge? Craig on Hartshorneby". Process Studies (Center for Process Studies) 18 (1): 30–37.
[12] "Carnot, Sadi (1796–1832)". Wolfram Research. 2007.
[13] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 47,57.
[14] Münster, A. (1970), Classical Thermodynamics, translated by E.S. Halberstadt, Wiley–Interscience, London, ISBN 0-471-62430-6, pp. 49, 69.
[15] Bailyn, M. (1994). A Survey of Thermodynamics, American Institute of Physics Press, New York, ISBN 0-88318-797-3, pp. 14–15, 214.

sengejuri

Pro

I'm quite alarmed by my opponent's closing statement: "I shift the burden of proof to Pro. Maximum BoP lies with Pro as Pro is making a positive claim..." Absolutely not. Normally, yes, the BoP lies with whoever makes the positive claim. But Con clearly established a shared BoP in the rules, and shared it shall remain. The rules did not say anywhere that BoP would shift after Round 1.

== Rebuttals ==

Con's "fourth" possibility for the universe's existence is not, actually, a separate possibility. It falls under option 1 - the universe exists by physical necessity. To quote my opponent: "the energy intrinsic to gravity forced the creation of a singularity that caused the Big Bang." That's physical necessity.

A few problems with this. First, Con notes that M-theory postulates how intrinsic energy to the universe caused the Big Bang. This is circular logic. Given that the Big Bang created the universe, then it follows that the universe did not exist before the Big Bang. So how can the universe contain intrinsic energy if the universe didn't exist yet? This begs yet another question - if there was some kind of intrinsic energy or gravitational force floating around before the universe was created, where did it come from? I've already shown that the past cannot be infinite (a claim that Con did not dispute), so there must have been a finite point at which this intrinsic energy or gravity force entered the picture. Thus, if gravity is the initial force that started everything, Con still runs into the same problem - where did gravity come from, and what caused it to come into being?

Most damaging of all is the incomplete nature of M-theory. The "M" in M-theory tellingly stands for "magic" or "mystery" because the theory is far from complete and there is no consensus whatsoever in the scientific community as to which parts are accurate and which are not [1]. It is still very much a work in progress, and it can hardly be used as proof against God's existence.

The Big Bang: I do not dispute the Big Bang, because I don't think it excludes God's existence whatsoever. Theism essentially says the same thing - out of nothing exploded everything in an instant.

The Omnipotence Paradox: This is one of my favorites. It's commonly expressed by the question, "can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?" The problem with this supposed paradox is that it's a meaningless question. I like to explain this using a different example - can God kill himself? The answer is no, because God must be eternal. Death is the ultimate loss of power, so if God is omnipotent then obviously he cannot die. Does this mean his power is therefore limited because he cannot perform the action of killing himself? No, it simply confirms the definition of omnipotence - "an agency or force of unlimited power." [2] I realize Con defines omnipotence as "the ability to perform any action whatsoever" but that cannot include an action that destroys the ability to perform any action, because if it does then Con's definition violates the law of non-contradiction and is therefore useless. This is a linguistic trick that sounds clever, but it's actually a non sequitur.

So, let's get back to our big rock. If God has infinite power, then he would have to create a rock that exceeds infinite size in order to not lift it. But this is illogical, because nothing can exceed infinity. The act of lifting something requires moving an object from one point to another through space. So, in order to lift this rock of exceedingly infinite size, God would have to move it beyond the dimension of space. But this makes no sense, because you cannot move an object from one location to another in space if there is no dimension of space. So, we see once again that the question is actually meaningless, and has no bearing on God's power.

Furthermore, a stone so large that it defeats unlimited power cannot exist if we accept that God must be omnipotent by definition. If a God exists than he is the greatest thing that can possibly exist, and there can thus be nothing greater (like a really big rock). This entire concept is self-contradictory.

Since Con is presenting self contradictory scenarios as valid proof of God's non-existence, then I must also be allowed to respond with self contradictory answers. Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? Yes. Can he then go back and lift that very rock with his unlimited power? Yes.

Let's get serious - Con is trying to manipulate semantics and presenting self-contradicting proofs. This is a pretty weak form of argument.

Omniscience Paradox: Con proposes that the existence of entropy (disorder) in the universe proves an omniscient being cannot exist. Not so. Again, its important to keep in mind that we're discussing a supreme being who, if he exists, is outside of space and time. The entropy Con identifies is within space and time. So, it is quite possible that an omniscient being willed the existence of disorder in our finite dimension. What is perceived as disorder and entropy to us humans of limited observational ability and understanding may not actualy be contingent at all. Since we have no ability to travel back in time, there is no way to prove that events which occured in a seemingly contingent universe would have hapened differently. As such, Con really cannot say that such events are in fact contingent.

What created the god: I never understand why this question is seen as valid. God is by nature eternal. He needs no creator, because he is the only thing in nature that does have a finite begining. If god was created thn he is not god - the thing that created him is god. And then the cycle starts all over....

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals:

The Big Bang
According to the
physicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, energy can be produced by random, uncaused quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations are ripples across inherently existent gravity (gravity is always uncaused) that produce energy strong enough to concentrate into a gravitational singularity that begins to radiate energy as Hawking radiation. [1][2]

I clearly stated that both the M-theory superstring model of eleven dimensions AND the normal four-dimension model of the universe state that the Big Bang cannot be caused by an external force. [3][4] The energy came from random and uncaused quantum fluctuations in the universe.

For further reference, here is a diagram of the universe’s inflationary process:

The inflation of the universe after the Big Bang.

Therefore, there need not be a God to cause the Big Bang and most rational evidence suggests that there shouldn’t.

The Omnipotence Paradox
Rule 2 states that refuting logic is not accepted. In Pro’s rebuttal to the omnipotence paradox, Pro has assumed the existence of God. The statement “God must be omnipotent by definition” is incorrect. IF God exists, he is omnipotent. My point is, since omnipotence is impossible, God CANNOT be omnipotent by definition. Therefore, an omnipotent God’s existence is impossible. God either can or cannot. There is no philosophical “in-between”. For the purposes of this argument, ignore whether God exists or not and then address this paradox. I shall then respond to it.

Omniscience Paradox
If God has definite, certain knowledge, then everything is predestined and predetermined. Predetermined actions imply a lack of contingencies. If God knows everything, then even everything within the boundaries of spacetime is not contingent. But, within the boundaries of spacetime, disorder exists.*[5] According to the laws of Quantum Mechanic Wave Function, everything is determined by changes in the space-time continuum and all quantum waves differ. This difference is known as entropy. [4] Philosophically, only contradictions are definite and propositions are not.** [6][7][8]

Cosmic Question
If God is, “by nature, eternal”, then why can’t gravity and energy be so? If a certain object has a property, there is always a possibility that another object has the same property.+ Thus, the Cosmic Question is still valid.

Arguments
Moral Authority

How can a being have control over all moral authority? Morality is relative and a being acting as a supreme source of moral authority completely challenges the concept of probability. If everything is predetermined, then moral judgment and immorality do not exist. But a being as a source of moral authority challenges the concept of omniscience itself. Please substantiate.

Notes

*A slight inaccuracy – entropy is not disorder, entropy is a measure for disorder; the graduation of disorder. The rate of entropy in the universe is time (by the “monoverse” {i.e. single-universe} theory; the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the new dual-universe theory, that states that time can move backwards and is defined by gravity, not entropy.

**Russell, Bertrand (1872-1970); Russell’s Teapot analogy (see Reference 8)

+Schrödinger, Erwin (1887-1961)

Message

I laud my opponents arguments and am eagerly awaiting his response. Thanks to @sengejuri for participating so well in this debate.

References

[1] http://www.space.com...
[2] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York (2008). ISBN-0-553-80537-1.
[3] Stephen Hawking: The Official Website (http://www.hawking.org.uk...)
[4] Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Dell Publishing Group, New York. (1988) ISBN-978-0-553-10953-5.
[5] Bailyn, M. (1994). A Survey of Thermodynamics, American Institute of Physics Press, New York, ISBN 0-88318-797-3, pp. 14–15, 214.
[6] Bury, J. B. (1914). History of Freedom of Thought. London: Williams & Norgate. p. 20.
[7] Ramsey, Frank (1960). Theories. The Foundation of Mathematics (Littlefield Adams). p. 235.
[8] Russell, Bertrand. "Is There a God? [1952]" (PDF).The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943–68. Routledge. pp. 547–548. (http://russell.mcmaster.ca...)

sengejuri

Pro

Thank you Con for that response.

== Rebuttals ==

According to Con, physicist Alex Filippenko has shown that random quantum fluctuations can produce energy and therefore, the universe. However, upon examining Con's own source of this information, that statement is not quite accurate. Let's look at a few quotes from Con's article:

"Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang "" a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon "" could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist."

"'I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God,' Filippenko said."

"'If we're after the ultimate origin of everything, however, invoking the laws of physics doesn't quite do the trick. It may get us one step closer, but it doesn't take us all the way,' Filippenko said."

"The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'" [Filippenko] said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'"

"'The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now,' [Filippenko] added, 'one that we may never be able to solve.'"

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

So, quite contrary to my opponent's claim, Filippenko is fraught with self-doubt about the theological significance of these findings. He essentially agrees with my earlier rebuttal - that even if the laws of physics created the universe, that still demands an explanation for where the laws of physics came from. Indeed, it's quite possible that God used physics as his mechanism of creation. Filippenko even goes so far as to admit that a "divine spark was whatever produced the laws of physics." Con has yet to offer an explanation for this and thus my argument remains largely unanswered.

M-theory: Continuing to say that M-theory and its associated models show that the Big Bang cannot be caused by external forces is almost meaningless. As I stated before, the "M" in M-theory stands for "mystery" because no one knows if its true. Furthermore, no scientists agree on what M-theory really is or which parts are actually truth. It's an experimental theory, and it therefore cannot even be considered as a valid argument. Even if it were true, we've seen that according to Con's own sources it still doesn't disprove God's existence.

I'm still waiting for Con to provide this "rational evidence" they keep referring to that suggests there should not be a God.

Omnipotence paradox: Unless Con is willing to admit that I soundly and unquestionably defeated their argument here, then I did not refute it. By definition, refuting is actually showing something to be false, while rebutting is merely attempting to do so. [1] I believe what I wrote qualifies as a rebuttal.

I did not assume the existence of God, I assumed that if He exists, then he is necessarily omnipotent, as Con's own definitions imply. With this argument, Con is attacking the existence of omnipotence, not the existence of God. I quote: "Thus, omnipotence cannot exist." I fail to see how me writing "God must be omnipotent by definition" is any different than Con writing "If God exists, he is omnipotent." The difference is, at best, merely semantic.

As I stated in the last round, Con's whole argument for showing why omnipotence is impossible relies on self-refuting logic, sophistry, and linguistic tricks. Is this really supposed to be considered a strong argument? The strongest evidence for this is that the definition of omnipotence - the ability to perform any action - cannot include actions that limit the ability to perform any action. Such allowances are self defeating and render Con's definition meaningless.

Con says God either can or cannot - I agree. God CAN perform any action. God therefore CANNOT limit his own ability to perform any action. These two statements have the same meaning - because refusing to limit unlimited power is allowing it to remain unlimited (say that 10 times fast, lol), which preserves the definition of omnipotence.

Omniscience Paradox: I believe my rebuttal still stands. Con cannot prove that contingencies actually exist. Con cannot prove that changes in the space-time continuum are truly uncertain events. It is entirely possible that a supreme power is guiding these changes, and that there are no possible ways for them to occur apart from the ways in which they actually did. The only way to prove otherwise would be to go back in time and observe the same event occurring differently than it previously did. The shared BoP demands that Con show proof that Quantum Mechanic Wave Function is truly contingent.

Cosmic Question: God can be eternal because, if he exists, he is a spiritual being and not a physical one. He is not an object. Gravity is a physical property. Once again, this is kind of a silly question because if God was created, then whatever created him is actually God. So this question doesn't disprove God.

Moral Authority: Con makes the claim that morality is relative (subjective). In accordance with the shared BoP, I would ask them to show proof of this claim before I respond. As things stand, Con has given no reason to accept this as true.

== Remarks ==

I firmly believe that you cannot 100% prove God's existence or non-existence. For example, if God exists then he would be supremely perfect, supremely powerful, and supremely knowledgeable. Humans, on the other hand, are extremely flawed and limited in all three categories. Therefore, even if God did exist it would be impossible to use such a limited perspective to perceive, define, and understand such a supreme being. Even if omnipotence or omniscience seems impossible within the confines of human logic - it is entirely possible that some additional realm of logic exists beyond the capability of human understanding in which the divine operates.

This is why I proposed we seek to prove which scenario is most LIKELY (see round 1 for definition of likely). I have shown evidence that there is a 10^10(123) to 1 chance that the universe did NOT occur by random chance. I have also shown that the past cannot be eternal and therefore something had to cause the universe/laws of physics to begin. I have also argued that all the evidence we have available suggests that life cannot come from non-life, but evidence does prove that life can come from other life, and consciousness from consciousness. I hope my opponent will take the time to offer a response to these arguments in the next round.

Thanks for a great debate so far!

[1] http://www.vocabulary.com...
Debate Round No. 3
tejretics

Con

First, I accept that it is impossible to 100% prove or 100% disprove the existence of God; Pro and I have agreed that, therefore, the better option will be chosen. Note: I did not express any support for M-theory in the last round; Pro seems to have misunderstood me. I said that both M-theory and the generally followed model of non-string dimensions, 4 in number, state that the Big Bang cannot be caused by an external force.

Rebuttals:
Uncaused Quantum Fluctuations
As I mentioned previously, due to the possibility of uncaused quantum fluctuations [1], there need not be a personal cause for the Big Bang. [2] If there need not be a personal cause to the Big Bang, with a lack of evidence for a personal cause, we can discredit a personal cause entirely. I will show how there can be uncaused quantum mechanical fluctuations. What are quantum fluctuations? In classical physics, energy is conserved, i.e. it can neither be created nor destroyed. [3] Therefore, it would seem that the sudden appearance of energy, as required by the Big Bang model, would violate the conservation of energy. However, physicists think the uncertainty principle offers a way around this problem. [4] There is a formulaic interpretation of the uncertainty principle. Let ΔE represent the uncertainty in the amount of energy andW10;t represent the uncertainty in the time. Then the product ΔEW10;t is approximately equal to ħ, where ħ = h/2π, and h is Planck’s constant. Planck’s constant has the value 6.62606957 x 10-34 Joule-second. [5] Notice that Planck’s constant has the appropriate units of energy and time. Planck’s constant is very small, so the uncertainties are vanishingly small on a macroscopic scale. [6] That is why the uncertainty principle is not observable in the macroscopic world. However, on the scale of subatomic particles, the uncertainties can be large compared to the quantities involved, so the consequences of the uncertainty principle can be significant on the microscopic scale. This is, essentially, the effect of a quantum fluctuation. These fluctuations are caused randomly, released from the quantum vacuum. [7] Explained in a simpler manner, a quantum fluctuation is a change in the amount of energy in a point of space originating in the quantum vacuum. These fluctuations generally affect thermodynamic systems. [8]

Design
Penrose himself is against the concept of the universe being created by intelligent design. [9] Penrose's calculations are based on the assumption of the existence of negated probability. Gravity caused a random reaction that created the universe. The human mind refuses to accept randomness [1], but the universe is based on chaos and randomness. [10] You have not provided any arguments apart from the design ratios in relation to the existence of God. I request you to expand with a greater positive case based on the Design argument.

Argument & Conclusion
Since I have shown that, (a) Randomness is essential to the basic functions of the universe and (b) the universe did not need a sentient creator, I invoke the Occam's Razor principle [11] to state that the simpler explanation is more likely. Since the existence of God is not necessary, Occam's Razor states that God does not exist.

Message
I too must thank you for a great debate so far. I am looking forward to your argument.

References
[1] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York (2008). ISBN-0-553-80537-1.
[2] Faulkner, Danny R. "Quantum Fluctuations May Kill Big Bang Evangelism." Answers in Genesis. (https://answersingenesis.org...)
[3] Empedocles (490-430 BCE), et al.
[4] Heisenberg, W. (1927), "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German) 43 (3–4): 172–198
[5] P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor, and D.B. Newell (2011), "The 2010 CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants." (http://physics.nist.gov...
[6] Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A 67 (4): 42105
[7] Browne, Malcolm W. (1990-08-21). "New Direction in Physics: Back in Time". The New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com...)
[8] Mandelshtam, Leonid; Tamm, Igor (1945), "The uncertainty relation between energy and time in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics", Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR (ser. Fiz.) 9: 122–128. English translation: J. Phys. (USSR) 9, 249–254 (1945).
[9] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[10] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 47,57.
[11] "Simplicity." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
sengejuri

Pro

Thank you Con for that informative, albeit brief response.

As per the rules this will be my final round.

In their latest response, my opponent dropped almost every argument that has been presented so far:

Con still has not responded to my claim that life cannot come from non-life.
Con has not provided an explanation for the origin of the laws of physics, an explanation that even their own sources demand.
Con did not respond to my request for proof of the claim that morality is subjective.
Con did not counter my rebuttals of the Omnipotence Paradox.
Con did not counter my rebuttals of the Filippenko article.
Con has not disputed that the universe had a finite beginning.

As such, we are left no choice but to assume that Con has accepted my arguments and my rebuttals in these areas.

Con did provide a much more in-depth argument for Uncaused Quantum Fluctuations, which I will now discuss.

At first I was quite impressed with my opponent's seemingly detailed knowledge of quantum physics - that was certainly a complicated entry! But then I became less impressed when I discovered that almost all of Con's Round 4 argument is copy-pasted directly from a website called "Answers in Genesis" (which is ironic, because AiG is a creationist/Intelligent Design organization, more on that later). I'd like to express my deep disappointment that Con merely copied material from another website and presented it as their own argument. You can compare the two entries by clicking on this link and scrolling down to the section titled "Enter Quantum Fluctuations": https://answersingenesis.org...

So, Con bases their argument on information in an article published by Answers in Genesis. I wonder if my opponent actually read the entire article - because other than the short portion that Con quotes in their argument, the majority of the article is a critique of why Quantum Fluctuations are questionable at best. I will reproduce a sample here for demonstration purposes:

"There are at least three serious logical problems with this entire line of reasoning [Quantum Fluctuations]:
1.Quantum mechanics implicitly assumes the existence of time and space, so how can the laws of quantum mechanics create time and space?
2. The only way that we know quantum mechanics is (at least approximately) correct is because we can do experiments and make observations to verify its predictions. Even if we accepted at face value the claim that QM allows particles to "pop" into and out of existence, who has ever observed a universe popping into existence?
3. Point #2 is one of the big logical problems with the claim that the laws of physics can explain the creation of the universe. These laws have only been observed to be applicable within our universe. We thus have zero justification for believing that they would apply "outside" the universe."

So, there are at least two different instances in this debate where Con cites sources that actually, after a detailed reading, support my position. I believe this is more than enough reason to cast doubt on Con's claims about Quantum Fluctuation.

But.... let's assume that Quantum Fluctuation is valid and presents a true possibility for a godless universe. Is it therefore the best explanation available? In Round 1, I defined "best" as the most probable, most complete, most satisfying, and least extravagant option. Quantum Fluctuation certainly does not meet this criteria - it's not at all probable (Penrose's equation), it is woefully incomplete, and it's incredibly complex, as Con's highly technical Round 4 entry attests. Conversely, the existence of a divine design is exceedingly probable, totally complete, overwhelmingly satisfying, and extremely simple. So I agree with Con - let's invoke Occam's Razor, and let the voters decide which explanation is simpler and, therefore, more likely.

== Conclusion ==

I believe I have shown ample and largely unchallenged proof that God most likely exists. Conversely, I believe Con has not given substantial proof beyond semantic word games that God most likely doesn't exist. Once again, I'd like to highlight that my opponent has dropped, and therefore accepted by default, most of the arguments and rebuttals I've made throughout the debate. I'd also like to respectfully remind my opponent that they agreed to present no new arguments in Round 5. As per the rules, I will waive my Round 5 response.

Thanks for a great and challenging debate, I had lots of fun! Best of luck to tejretics.
Debate Round No. 4
tejretics

Con

My opponent seems to have a poor understanding of the Occam's Razor principle. The Occam's Razor principle states that if an object or being X that is not acceptable to the general understanding of nature need not exist and its doings can be explained by something compatible with the general understanding of nature, then X most likely does not exist. Thus, the Occam's Razor principle still stands with X as God, since the creation of the universe is explained by quantum fluctuations. [1][2]

Rebuttals
Life & Non-Life
Pro states that "life cannot come from non-life". Therefore, Pro is implying that life was created by a living being. And, by the context of this debate, that being is God. Hence, from this I conclude that Pro is implying God is an intelligent, omnipotent living being. First, I would like to rebut that there is no evidence whatsoever of living organisms existing before 13.798 billion years ago. Pro is stating that a living organism created the universe. The universe was created (13.798 ± 0.037) x 109 years ago, i.e. 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago. [3] According to most modern biologically accepted theories, life originated due to a process known as abiogenesis. [4] The origin of life is dated by most paleobiologists to be 3.48 x 109 years ago, i.e. 3.48 billion years ago. [5][6] The idea that a living organism created the universe is unacceptable by the laws of science. My opponent has not found any way to support the claim that a living organism could have existed 13.798 x 109 years ago; thus, I conclude that God is not a living organism.

Burden of Proof

Pro accuses that I have not fulfilled my BoP in various places in the debate. I shall now point out where there is a lack of proof in Pro's arguments. How do you prove that God is eternal? Pro keeps saying that God is eternal and beyond the universe, but there is a sheer lack of proof with regards to these claims. These claims, without any proof whatsoever, are void as they are not supported by adequate arguments. Pro also states that God cannot be limited by human logic; then this is the wrong debate. Rule 2 clearly says that you cannot say God is beyond logic. The God of this scenario is limited by logic.

Omnipotence Paradox
My point is, the same way the existence of God implies the existence of omnipotence, the existence of omnipotence implies the existence of God. If omnipotence doesn't exist, then God can't even be conceived to exist and vice versa. Pro has argued based on the vice versa argument, so I shall rebut them thus. Limiting one's power is considered an action. Action is defined as "the bringing about of an alteration." [7] If a being is omnipotent, they should be able to conceivably limit their power; yet, that limitation of power renders the lack of omnipotence. It is not a "word game". To prove it is not, I shall define game: a physical or mental activity or contest that people do for entertainment. [7] Thus, this is not a word game and is a valid paradox.

Penrose Ratio and Quantum Fluctuations

Penrose’s ratio states the high unlikelihood of the proposition that the universe came from chance. Pro’s conclusion was that the only other logical explanation was design, since there was no proof for necessity. Later, Pro claimed that the Big Bang and uncaused quantum fluctuations as well as the inherent existence of energy (which has been proven; energy always exists in the quantum vacuum, and is eternal) were drawn from the argument of necessity, which has no evidence. Now, I will show you how quantum fluctuations, and hence, necessity, was the cause of creation.

Pro’s Rebuttals

1. How can quantum mechanics create time and space?

-> The quantum vacuum, with a finite, measurable amount of energy, remains permanently existent [8] and is, in terms of particle physics, practically "eternal". [9] All quantum fluctuations emerge from the permanently existent quantum vacuum; hence, even without the existence of the proper space-time continuum, these fluctuations can provoke a reaction that can create the Big Bang.

2. Similarly, the only way you can prove the existence of God is by observation, since it is scientific evidence required. But Pro and I agreed it was impossible to 100% prove or disprove anything; so the logical option matters.

3. But since the energy is generated from the quantum vacuum, the existence of the universe need not be taken into consideration. The quantum vacuum is, in essence, "nothing". Yet, the minusculely small levels of preexistent energy in the vacuum can expand to produce further matter and energy. [10]

4. Why do the laws of physics need an origin? The function of the universe is random and governed by entropy and disorder. [11][12]

Conclusion


I have answered all Pro's rebuttals in relation to quantum fluctuations. I have also presented proof of the Big Bang. Now, with Occam's Razor, since God is more likely not the creator of life or the universe, I say that there is proof of the universe existing out of necessity (by Pro's definition). Now, by Penrose's ratio, the flipped version can apply to both design and necessity (once more, I say that it is Pro who called the inherent existence of energy "necessity"; I personally would ascribe it to a fourth category; nonetheless, I shall follow Pro's definitions).

Once more, I apply Occam's Razor, that says, " if an object or being X that is not acceptable to the general understanding of nature need not exist and its doings can be explained by something compatible with the general understanding of nature, then X most likely does not exist." As the creation of the universe is explained by natural law, I conclude saying that the percentage of possibility (by Penrose's ratio) falls on the hypothesis of a designer's existence. [1]

Message
Pro must waive Round 5 and, therefore, must not post anything related to this debate. I recommend Pro either forfeit the next round or simply post a message conveying forfeiture and nothing else. Rebuttals and arguments cannot be posted in the comments section.

References
[1] "Simplicity." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
[2] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York (2008). ISBN-0-553-80537-1.
[3] http://www.esa.int...
[4] Stearns, Beverly Peterson; Stearns, S. C.; Stearns, Stephen C. (2000). Watching, from the Edge of Extinction. Yale University Press. p. 1921. ISBN 978-0-300-08469-6.
[5] Noffke, Nora; Christian, Daniel; Wacey, David; Hazen, Robert M. (8 November 2013). "Microbially Induced Sedimentary Structures Recording an Ancient Ecosystem in the ca. 3.48 Billion-Year-Old Dresser Formation, Pilbara, Western Australia". Astrobiology (journal) 13 (12): 1103–24.
[6] Schopf, JW; Kudryavtsev, AB; Czaja, AD; Tripathi, AB. (2007). Evidence of Archean life: Stromatolites and microfossils. Precambrian Research 158:141–155.
[7]The New Oxford Dictionary of English
[8] Dittrich, Walter; Gies, H.(2000). Probing the quantum vacuum: perturbative effective action approach. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3-540-67428-4.
[9] Jean Letessier, Johann Rafelski (2002). Hadrons and Quark-Gluon Plasma. Cambridge University Press. p. 37 ff. ISBN 0-521-38536-9.
[10] Krauss, Lawrence M. (2012). A Universe From Nothing. Simon & Schuster, New York. ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8.
[11] Bailyn, M. (1994). A Survey of Thermodynamics, American Institute of Physics Press, New York, ISBN 0-88318-797-3, pp. 14–15, 214.
[12] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 47,57.


sengejuri

Pro

Round waived.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Dynasty2468 1 year ago
Dynasty2468
I am currently at round 3 *yawn* I'll vote tomorrow after I finished reading and looking up some complicated word/theory/paradox. And I have to look at the sources :/
Posted by Will22 1 year ago
Will22
Bravo both participants. This is the most deep and gratifying theological debate I have seen in quite some time.
Posted by 430miletime 1 year ago
430miletime
Being omnipotence is impossible to humans. No human can understand God completely. He is just to powerful for us to understand.
I would accept the debate but the rules are plain stupid.
I'll prove God exist in the comments.
Look at a computer, a computer requires coding. A person had to code the computer, the computer can't code itself. So there is a mind behind the computer. The DNA is a code. It is the genetic make up. How can the DNA code itself. There has to be a mind behind that.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
It means that once the debate is over, the resolution is complete.
Posted by Poe-vahkiin 1 year ago
Poe-vahkiin
Omnipotence is impossible. Research the omnipotence paradox. Amigodana, I'm afraid you are in fact incorrect. God is not the word, because in fact the bird is the word.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
What's resolved mean?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Have too many debates to do. Will reinstate this once I am done with them and the tournament I'm in.
Posted by amigodana 1 year ago
amigodana
Sorry my friend but God is the Word, and unless you recognize that definition then I cannot accept this debate.

I believe the Word of God and that is who He says He is.

(John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

(1 John 5:7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by philosurfer 1 year ago
philosurfer
tejreticssengejuri
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Not to continue to kick a dead horse - but this debate illustrates exactly why its good to distinguish deistic forms from theistic forms of god concepts. Its helpful usually always, especially in debates like these. tejretics - for being only 13 yrs. you put forward complicated ideas for most ppl to secure objective reality and certainty. If I was to give advice I would say to study the limits of Reason & Logic. Even logic & Reason have limitations and can't be applied in all matters equally in Human experience. For instance, science can tell me why and how my eyes (and brain) experience a painting (objectively); explains why light hits my retinas & signals are interpreted in my brain... YET science cannot tell us what it is like to be subjectively having an experience or about the meaning of experience itself. Further, even our objective methods (science) are still subjected to be filtered through our own subjective experience (our brains) & dimensional space/reality.
Vote Placed by Dynasty2468 1 year ago
Dynasty2468
tejreticssengejuri
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had good arguments and rebuttal. Both sides followed the rules (Unless I am....crazy?) Both sides presented their sources. Both sides had answered the rebuttal (I am pretty sure of that) So therefore I call it a tie. (I also beg the Con to stop posting the same debate over and over again)