The Instigator
THEBOMB
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
IntelligentFemaleAtheist
Con (against)
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 2 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 464 times Debate No: 23169
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

THEBOMB

Pro

The terms of the resolution explain themselves. We shall be arguing the existence of a deity.

BOP is shared.

Without further ado, I pose this challenge.

Round 1 is for acceptance.
IntelligentFemaleAtheist

Con

I accept.

Con.

God does not exist.


Debate Round No. 1
THEBOMB

Pro

Thank you for accepting and I shall begin.

Definitions:

Deity- for the purposes of this debate, a deity is the supernatural creator of the universe who oversees the entire universe.

Rational- Consistent with or based on reason; logical (1)

Logical- Of or according to the rules of logic (2)

Logic- Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity (3)

Something logical is rational and something rational is logical.

Now for my syllogism and a quick defense/explanation of the points (I cannot fully defend the argument until an attack is made):

1. Existence is only intelligible if it has an explanation.

I do not except there to be too much trouble here. You can only know something exists if you can explain it exists.

2. The universes existence is therefore, one of two things:
a) unintelligible
b) has an explanation

3. A rational person cannot accept premise 2a by the definition of rationality.

This is especially true for the atheist. Who much of the time believes the universe can be scientifically explained. Thus, it is intelligible and has an explanation.

4. A rational person must accept premise 2b, the universe has an explanation. (The only other choice.)

5. There are 3 types of explanations:

a) Scientific: physical conditions + laws = an event
b) Personal: Explanations citing desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.)

6. The explanation for the Universes entire existence cannot be scientific.

There are no independent laws and physical conditions independent of what is being explained. The Big Bang theory, for example, fails to explain the existence of the entire universe. It fails to explain, on its own, where the Big Bang singularity "came from". The Universe as a total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be totally explained without an Archimidean reference point outside the system. I except much of the debate will be centered on this point.

7. The Universes existence is not essential.

The universe does not exist necessarily. The Universe does not have to exist. There could simply just have been nothing. There is a possibility for the Universe to have not existed in the form we see today. If the Big Bang, for example, had been slightly different large scale structure may not have existed. Therefore, the Universe is not essential. By definition, the universe does not have to exist.

8. A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe.

C. A rational person must believe a deity exists.

I wish my opponent good luck when they construct their arguments.

Sources:

1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
IntelligentFemaleAtheist

Con

The thing is, the way you are referring to a deity, is more in the sense of some higher power that caused the creation of the universe, which there obviously was. You have not referred at all to the fact deities and gods are worshiped and omnipotent, which is very hard for me, as I cannot deny that something 'sparked' the universe but not in the sense 'created' it as it is always changing... The thing is, the way you seem to be describing this 'god', you are using everything I agree with... So I don't necessarily have a strong counter argument against most of your points, of course the universes existence is non essential, but that seems to be countering a deity, because, surely for there to be a deity, there would have to be a universe. If there is nothing, there is no deity. The main flaw in your argument that I can point out and actually say I can counter easily is the fact that the big bag had to come from somewhere, as that completely contradicts the idea of a deity, as where did they come from? By that logic, is there an infinite amount of deities creating each other?

For points 1-5 I mostly agree, but I don't believe they back up your argument anymore than mine.

1. Existence is only intelligible if it has an explanation.

Agreed.

2. The universes existence is therefore, one of two things:
a) unintelligible
b) (intelligible) has an explanation

Logically.

3. A rational person cannot accept premise 2a by the definition of rationality.

For the most part I agree with this, but just because we haven't concluded an explanation does not mean that there isn't any; a less intelligent life form such as a dog cannot comprehend many things, but that does not mean these things are unintelligible. 2000+/- years ago people could not explain that the world was spherical, they believed it to be flat, this does not make it so. My point is; just because we don't currently have an answer does not mean there is no explanation.

4. A rational person must accept premise 2b, the universe has an explanation. (The only other choice.)

Agree, of course. As I just stated, I believe the universe has an explanation, as it must! However, it doesn't mean we should rule out science and jump to the conclusion of a deity in any means.

5. There are 3 types of explanations:

For the personal explanation I assume you mean that an effect is caused because a 'person' made it out of choice. If this is so, I agree with all this, but obviously all these explanations, especially b have a marginal lack of validity. Personal explanations when it comes to discussing the creation of the universe have no fact or ecological validity behind them, they are based on views and opinions not truth and cannot be tested, for something to be a personal explanation we would have to know the 'person' in question existed, as the 'person' causes the phenomena, instead of saying, heres the phenomena, there must be a person!

6. The explanation for the Universes entire existence cannot be scientific.

This is not rational or logical in any sense, yes the big bag theory cannot explain the entire universe, because we cannot go back in time to see what truly happened, nothing will be certain, but saying the big bag has to have come from somewhere also contradicts the idea of a deity, if you can explain where it came from, then I accept your point. AS for the Archimedean point, for this to be true we would have to assume the universe has boundaries and a shape such as a sphere, or would you prefer to assume this 'creator' or 'deity' was some invisible force that is everywhere? In the former case, as far as we humans can tell, the universe appears infinite, just like time itself, some may argue that the universe may be spherical like the earth, or a 4D shape of a doughnut or the Klien bottle, that is why it may appear infinite, but the main argument behind this is what lies outside, and if there is a creator of our universe, what is the creator of his?

7. The Universes existence is not essential.

Of course I believe in this, I don't have any counter argument to this, it is not essential, but this seems to contradict a deity, because, as I stated in my first paragraph, without a universe there is nothing, if there is nothing, there is no deity.

8. A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation.

To this I think we need to look at the bigger picture, for it to be a 'personal explanation' is referring to the fact the universe is, because someone made it that way. As I stated before, this seems like a very backwards view, instead of looking at what we know, you are taking the phenomena of the universe and placing a very illogical 'creator' into the mix just to make it intelligible, there is no proof in this 'deity/creator', it is just jumping to the conclusion that the universe is, because someone wanted it that way/someone created that way, without any evidence to base it around.

9. No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe.

Of course, I disagree, you have failed to really place any evidence on why the universe bust be here by a personal explanation rather than scientific or essential, and as I stated before, for there to be a deity, the universe would have to be essential! Unless of course you claim the universe is within another?

C. A rational person must believe a deity exists.

This is what I am trying to prove wrong.



Debate Round No. 2
THEBOMB

Pro

I thank my opponent for their response and I shall continue at once.

My opponent seems to mistake my syllogism for singular points, no in fact, points one through 9 all back up the conclusion: God exists. Now the crux of the argument in my opponent's introduction is "what made God?" Their answer is the universe. And the universe must have then created itself. But, they never provided any proof of the universe creating itself thus, creating god. My opponent basically goes on to say I committed an ad infinitum fallacy. Now, I will show with the first below syllogism, that God was never created because a "first mover" is necessary. I will use an adapted version of Thomas Aquinas's first mover argument. Then I will move on to defend my case.

1) Nothing can move itself

It is necessary for object "a" to be moved by object "b." One thing moves another thing. This is simply logic.

2) Some outside force must set another object in motion

Object "a" is moved by object "b" which is moved by object "c" etc.

3) There cannot be an infinite regress

There must be some starting point. The path shown above cannot go on forever else nothing would exist as there could be no beginning. Without a beginning you cannot have the middle nor can you have an end. Nothing would exist.

4) The universe exists thus, there must be a starting point

5) This starting point must be an outside force (outside of the universe)

6) This outside force could not be set into motion itself

There must be a first as an infinite regression is impossible.

C. This outside force must be the greatest possible being, also known as, God.

We have now, once again, established there must be a first cause or mover.

The defense of my own case.

Points 1 and 2, of my syllogism (all used to uphold the conclusion detonated by "C."), have been conceded by my opponent. I will start at point 3.

3. Rational person cannot accept 2a.

I am not saying there is no explanation. I am saying the universe must have an explanation even if we do not know it, the explanation still exists. Further down, my philosophical path, the explanation will become evident.

4. Rational person must accept 2b…

Conceded. I am not jumping to god; this is simply another "link in the fence."

5. There are 3 types of explanations:

The personal explanation simply means something (not necessarily a person) wanted the universe to be created.

6. The explanation for the Universes entire existence cannot be scientific.

My opponent states, "saying the big bag has to have come from somewhere also contradicts the idea of a deity, if you can explain where it came from, then I accept your point". As I showed above, the deity is the first mover, it came from nowhere. My opponent goes on saying, "as for the Archimedean point, for this to be true we would have to assume the universe has boundaries and a shape such as a sphere." My opponent misunderstands what an Archimedean point is, by definition, "an Archimedean point … is a hypothetical vantage point from which an observer can objectively perceive the subject of inquiry, with a view of totality." (1) There would have to be something which can scientifically be explained "outside" of the conception of the universe. Science can only explain what happens within the universe. There are no physical or metaphysical sciences dealing with what is not in the universe. I believe the rest of the argument made by my opponent is explained by my above argument formulated originally by Thomas Aquinas.

7. The Universes existence is not essential.

My opponent's objection has already been dealt with.

8. A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation.

Considering, for the purposes of this debate, I have disproven the first two (scientific and necessity) this is the only logical way left. Since, it is not scientific nor is it essential it must be personal. My opponent has provided no substantiated alternative to their being a personal creator. They say I am "taking the phenomena of the universe and placing a very illogical 'creator' into the mix just to make it intelligible" without providing any factual basis that is a scientific phenomena. They simply assert it. The universe is what it is because a deity wanted it to be this way. I have seen no scientific data proving the universe's creation was scientific. Logically there are 3 options, 2 have been shown to be incorrect. That leaves the last option. What "we know" is there can be no scientific explanation of the universe being set in motion from within the universe. Something outside the universe must have set the universe in motion.

9. No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe.

This entire objection has already been dealt with.

C. A rational person must believe a deity exists.

This is my conclusion stemming from points 1 – 9. They all work together to show this to be correct. Since, points 1 through 9 have been upheld the conclusion is upheld.

To finish up, I would like to point out that the BOP is shared meaning I have to show why I believe a deity exists, which I have done with the above syllogism, and my opponent had to show why they believe a deity does not exist, which they have not done. Simply attacking my case is not enough. Thus, my opponent's burden has not been fulfilled.

Source:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
IntelligentFemaleAtheist

Con

IntelligentFemaleAtheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
THEBOMB

Pro

*growl* a forfeit :( :(
IntelligentFemaleAtheist

Con

IntelligentFemaleAtheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
haha it's fine :P
Posted by IntelligentFemaleAtheist 2 years ago
IntelligentFemaleAtheist
oops at calling the Big Bang the 'big bag'!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
THEBOMBIntelligentFemaleAtheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: 4fit
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 2 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
THEBOMBIntelligentFemaleAtheistTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con.