The Instigator
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
MrAmazingDuck
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: God Exists

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 3 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 534 times Debate No: 72361
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

tejretics

Con

Definitions
God - an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, sentient, and perfect being who is the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority
Omniscience - the definitive, certain knowledge of everything
Omnipotence - the ability to perform any action whatsoever, natural and supernatural
Sentient - able to feel or perceive subjectively

Rules
1. All arguments must be according to the definitions.
2. Burden of Proof lies with Pro via. the Russell's teapot analogy.
3. Logic cannot be ignored; it must be rebutted.
4. Appropriate conduct must be maintained: no profanity, insults, trolling, or any other inappropriate behavior. The violating argument will be reported to DDO authorities.

Format
Round 1 is for acceptance only.
All other rounds can have rebuttals and arguments.
MrAmazingDuck

Pro

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Con

The first round was for acceptance only. I request Pro to waive Round 5 as Pro presented an argument in Round 1. If Pro does waive or forfeit Round 5, I request voters not to penalize Pro for this minor and irrelevant violation.

Arguments

1. The Big Bang
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] In further explanation of this, let me illustrate the function of quantum fluctuations. due to the possibility of uncaused quantum fluctuations, 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.Planck’s constant has the appropriate units of energy and time (Joule, second). Planck’s constant is small, so the uncertainties are vanishingly small on a macroscopic scale. [5] 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 the effect of a quantum fluctuation. These fluctuations are caused randomly, released from the quantum vacuum. [6] 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. [7] Since the change originates in the preexistent quantum vacuum, the fluctuations need not be triggered by a personal cause and perfectly explains the Big Bang. Now, let me offer proof of the big bang. In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the CMB radiation, an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band. 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. 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. 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. [8][9]

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. [10]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. Thus, omnipotence is impossible.


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. [11][12][13] 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. In the debate, God is the source of moral authority, but morality cannot exist if God knows the future. Hence, omniscience is impossible.

4. Law of Parsimony
The law of parsimony, a derivative of Occam's Razor, states that the simplest explanation is a priori most likely. That God does not exist is the simpler explanation, viz. a sentient, intelligent being is not needed to create or "rule" the universe via. the Big Bang and quantum fluctuations, hence this conclusion. [14]

Rebuttals
1. This argument doesn't argue for God, thus is irrelevant to the resolution.
2. In essence, this is a teleological argument. As stated in "the Omniscience Paradox" argument, all thermodynamic systems [eg. the universe] are governed by entropic graduation and disorder; this teleology is mere human assumption and is via. randomness.

References
[1] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York (2010). ISBN-0-553-80537-1.
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[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] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] Hawking, S. “The Beginning of Time”. Stephen Hawking: The Official Website. Cambridge University. (http://tinyurl.com...)
[7] Browne, Malcolm W. (1990-08-21). "New Direction in Physics: Back in Time". The New York Times.
[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[9] http://tinyurl.com...
[10] Savage, C. Wade. "The Paradox of the Stone" Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967).
[11] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA.
[12] Münster, A. (1970), Classical Thermodynamics, translated by E.S. Halberstadt, Wiley–Interscience, London, ISBN 0-471-62430-6.
[13] Bailyn, M. (1994). A Survey of Thermodynamics, American Institute of Physics Press, New York, ISBN 0-88318-797-3.
[14] http://tinyurl.com...;

Other non-cited references
1. 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.
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...;
4. "Purtill on Fatalism and Truth". Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.
5. Viney, Donald Wayne (Spring 1989). "Does Omniscience Imply Foreknowledge? Craig on Hartshorneby". Process Studies (Center for Process Studies) 18 (1): 30–37.

MrAmazingDuck

Pro

The Argument from Change

The material world we know is a world of change. This young woman came to be 5'2", but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.


As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.


Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.


Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will


Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals

1. This argument does not argue for God as described in the definition, thus is irrelevant to the resolution.
2. Change is via. graduation, which in turn is via. time. Time, as described before, is the entropic graduation of the universe. With the second law of thermodynamics, one can conclusively say that time is the entropic graduation of the universe, viz. any thermodynamic system (eg. the universe) has its fourth dimension caused by the gradual emergence and re-emergence of disorder. [1]
3. Pro states that change can only be caused by will. Here, Pro has not fulfilled their BoP to verifiably prove that change cannot be caused by a non-sentient external force (eg. entropy).
4. Pro has not proven that nothing changes itself; nonetheless, I have accepted it and provided the argument for entropy.

Arguments
Pro has not rebutted or refuted any of my arguments. Because of the lack of rebuttal, I presume Pro has accepted my argument against teleology. Hence, I extend all my arguments from Round 2.

References
[1] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA.
MrAmazingDuck

Pro

MrAmazingDuck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tejretics

Con

I extend all my arguments.
MrAmazingDuck

Pro

MrAmazingDuck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tejretics

Con

Extend. Vote Con because of forfeiture.
MrAmazingDuck

Pro

MrAmazingDuck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=================================================================
>Reported vote: qwzx // Moderation action: Removed<

Voted for Pro (choose winner). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Both copied and pasted their arguments... but Con copied more sites and did not cite the websites he copied}

[*Reason for Removal*] No proof is provided that either side plagiarized, and this is a *lie* - Con provided extensive citations about where he got his information.
==================================================================
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Pro used http://wri.leaderu.com... as a source but did not cite it [he copy-pasted the argument *entirely*]
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
Well this debate was a bust.
Posted by Futurepresident2048 1 year ago
Futurepresident2048
I'm definitely voting con cause I hate when people do really long essays for a debate. Keep it short and sweet.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Again? Stop with these debates!!!!! Can't you do like a sip topic of this debate?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
tejreticsMrAmazingDuck
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
tejreticsMrAmazingDuck
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
tejreticsMrAmazingDuck
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, Pro didn't follow the conduct and didn't construct a reasonable argument or even rebut any of Con's arguments.