Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.
Debate Rounds (5)
I would like to thank MagicAintReal for accepting this debate ahead of time.
This debate is about God's existance.
First Round is rules and definitons by Pro and acceptance by Con.
Second Round is for Opening arguments, no rebuttals.
Third Round is continuing of Opening Arguments. Rebuttals are permitted.
Forth Round is for Rebuttals.
Fith Round is for rebuttals and conclusion.
No Sparks Arguments.
No semantics, the definitions provided shall be the definitions used throughout the debate.
Burden of Proof will be shared.
Sources may be placed in the comments section if need be.
Minimum ELO to vote is 2000.
Deviations from these rules shall result in forfeiture of the Conduct point or the debate by the said violator.
God - the omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent creator of the universe.
Likely - probably.
Existent - having being; existing.
Contention 1: The Modal Ontological Argument
Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William Criag: The Argument is bellow.
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 
Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P 
This would mean if a MGB is possible then it exists in at least one possible world. Under this model it would have to exist in all possible worlds qua maximally great especially since MG entails absolute exsistance. Since this world is part of a string of possible worlds then God has no choice, but to exist in this world.
A statement is a priori = one can see that it is true using pure reason and given an understanding of the meanings of the words in it. We don’t need empirical evidence to know that it’s true. A priori statements seem to be true necessarily.
A statement is a posteriori = our evidence for its truth is empirical, or based on data that we receive via sense experience.
1. God, by definition, is the greatest possible being.
2. A being that does not exist in the real world is less great than a being that exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds.
3. Suppose that God (the greatest possible being) does not exist in the real world.
4. If the greatest possible being does not exist in the real world, then He is not as great as the possible being who is just like him but who does exist in the real world.
5. But the greatest possible being can’t be less great than some other possible being. To say that “the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible” is to say something that’s necessarily false, because self-contradictory.
6. The supposition in 3 is false. God does exist in the real world. And he exists not contingently, but necessarily, or in all possible worlds. It is impossible for God not to exist. 
Here we can see that Point 6 is completely true. If we had this maximumly great being of some sort we could see that even if we took him out of our universe that there would still be a Maximumly Great Being. Thus we can simplify to see that when combined with the S5 argument of the Ontoligcal argument that God is Possible in All worlds and because of this we can see that it's a posteriori for God to Exist and arguing otherwise is futile.
Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.
(1) Everything that began to exist had a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) The universe had a cause
(4) If the universe had a cause, that cause is God
(5) Therefore, God exists 
The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.
Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created.  The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere. Even if we look at Tyson's theory on how this universe started and that it is a multiverse we can still see that the universe, this one, had a beginning.
For the 4th Premise I will be arguing Monistic Idealism which is bellow. We can see that since it had a cause the cause was transcendent meaning that it was timeless and spaceless. Only minds are from this sphere and if I can prove that God is a Mind/sphere then I win the debate.
P1 Mind is mental
P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental
C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental
P3 Mind interacts with reality
C2 Reality is mental
P1: Mind is mental.
P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).
P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).
C: Mind is not matter.
Metaphysical Solipsism shows that all exists within our own minds. Though we may think there is a world out there it is all actually in our minds.  Thus a world has to exist within our own minds and there are several reasons why this is completely true. It makes perfect sense since it isn't prima facie impossible and thus must be accepted as a solid fact, not to mention that it is perfectably reasonable and a sound argement. If we can see that the mind was matter, then it would be impossible to exist appart from matter itself. Things that are Metaphysically impossible are not even imaginable. Can you imagine a Square Hexigon? No, such a thing is perposterous. We can thus see that Metaphysical solipsism is consitstant with Metaphysically possible. Here we have to apply the Indentity of Indiscernibles.
∀F(Fx ↔ Fy) → x=y.
This is reflected by showing that these things are distinguished by some differential, but in the case of, let's say clones for the sake of arguing, is just a replication of it's own molecules. This is centered on the basis that all things have an individualistic characteristic and in the case of God it is the existance of it's own mind and it's consciencousness that shows this. I shall give an example bellow.
There are 3 Sphere, Sphere A, B, and C
Each have the same qualities.
Each of these Spheres exist in world 1.
Sphere A exists in World 2, but Sphere B and C cannot due to their likeness characteristics. 
We can see that this is a logically coherrant case and thus is sound. We can also see that due to the theory of Truely Large Numbers that there is a great chance that this world is that of a Solipsism one as many studies have shown. (but that's for another debate)
P2: Seperate Substances cannot interact
I will now debunk substance and property dualism for this to be true.
This is best cleverly sumed up by the phrase "Mind over Matter" where they argue that there's escentially two distinct things: Mind and Matter.  Though the key question here is if the mind is seperate from matter than how does the mind and the brain interact? We would have to see in order for the consciousness and matter to interact there would have to be some sort of interaction. (See image bellow) The trap here is that since there is a linkage here we can see that there cannot be two seperate things since they would have to be interlinked. Thus the theory here is false.
So you may concede to the above dualism, but then you might say, alrighty, if that is true then the mind must be a property of the brain. Though if this was true then it would lead to epiphenomenalism and that there would be no free will since everything that we do would have been created by some reaction in the Physical aspect.
Though this is completely false as this leads to an interesting contradiction of itself. Say I weigh 180 lbs (not my actual weight, but it's an example), the property of me would be 180 lbs. Now tell me, have you ever gone outside or to the zoo and seen 180lbs? No something that weighs that, but the 180 lbs by itself? Thus we can blatently see that it is an abstract that exists only as a property. It can only exist as a property of something else.
If we remember my Solipsism argument from earlier we can see that the mind can exist by itself and thus it cannot be a property like the 180 lbs as the mind isn't a property thus it wouldn't be consevable much like the 180 lbs.
P3: Mind interacts with reality.
This almost seems like it's the most obvious here, so I'll try to not spend a whole great deal of time here. We can take many examples, but let's take pain for the greatest example here. I get hit in the head with a foul ball at a baseball game. Outside of the fact that I would probably have been KO'd we can see that the mind affects what I feel. I would feel a massive amount of pain and if it was great enough then I would lose consciousness and the mind would go dormant to protect itself and me as a person.
Thus the reality is mental and God has no choice but to exist.
Since there has been no demonstration for god, the demonstration cannot be replicated or used to make accurate predictions about the nature of this creator of the universe; there's no reason to believe that "god exists" is true.
Furthermore, the origins of our universe do not require/allow for a creator, thus no god is needed.
Our universe has zero total energy, because the spatial curvature throughout the universe is zero.
All of the positive energy (+matter) is cancelled out by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in our universe so that the total energy of the universe is in fact zero.
As a total energy set, matter and gravity in the universe would look like [+matter, -gravity] = 0.
So, without a big bang, matter and gravity are at [+0,-0] = 0
There is no matter or gravity to speak of and of course the total energy is 0.
In this zero energy state, there is no space/time/matter/energy/gravity...nothing.
How do we know what this nothing is?
In our universe of space and matter, when you strip "something" of particles, radiation, and energy, you are left with nothing but empty space; this empty space is full of quantum fluctuations.
Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate as well.
This is what nothing is.
But the sub nuclear particles are something, right?
They never statively exist; they exist and don't exist at the same instant, and it is this fluctuation that makes up nothing.
There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period.
What is nothing?
It is a state of fluctuating sub nuclear particles and their forces called quantum fluctuations.
That link is a great video for explaining nothing = quantum fluctuations.
So, when there was no space or time at [+0,-0] = 0, there were quantum fluctuations where space and time fluctuated in and out of existence with the sub nuclear particles and their forces.
The zero energy [+0,-0] = 0 quantum fluctuations are an unstable state, because of the constant fluctuating of these sub nuclear particles.
These quantum fluctuations, nothing, are so unstable that energy is guaranteed to be expressed from these quantum fluctuations.
Unstable [+0,-0] = 0 --> The Big Bang [+1,-1] = 0
At the big bang, we have (+1) some matter and (-1) some gravity, which now allows for stative space and time.
The universe expands [+10,-10] = 0
Inflation accelerates [+100000,-100000] = 0
So from zero energy quantum fluctuations [+0,-0], there was the big bang [+1,-1] = 0
Something [+1,-1] from nothing [+0,-0].
The big bang left cosmic microwave background radiation behind.
With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation.
NASA has measured it with an anisotropy probe located on a space shuttle called WMAP.
The radiation is basically uniform except for minor thermal variations proportional to the variations we've measured in quantum fluctuations.
So we know that from quantum fluctuations, the Big Bang was expressed, not created, thus there is no creator of the universe, because there was no creation; creation is a temporal concept that requires time, and at [+0,-0] there is no space or time; there was no time for creation to happen.
There is no need to infer a god to explain our universe's origins, and it is nonsensical to talk about a temporal concept like creation without time; I argue a creator of the universe is therefore also nonsensical.
I reject the claim that god exists, because no god has been demonstrated physically, contingent on physical reality, or logically, and there is no need to infer a creator of the universe.
All logical arguments for god presuppose god's existence, use special pleading to avoid infinite regresses, use post hoc regression that fails to account for natural fluctuations, or appeal to ignorance; all arguments for god have false premises or contain fallacious logic.
I reject the resolution based on such.
I plan to address Pro's logical arguments/graphic organizers for god next round...
I thank my opponent for a timely response. I shall continue my opening arguments as in accords with the rules then I shall go into my rebuttals against my opponent's Zero Net argument.
Contention 3: TA Arguement
Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.
1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.
Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." 
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. 
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.
Last year scientists have actually found ripples in time and space continum. I believe that it actually helps prove the existance of God than disproves it. We can see after the Big Bang there was gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds.  We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.
6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. 
For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.
Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.
"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." 
Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. 
I enjoy space science as I'm sure my opponent does which is why he provided this argument. The only issue is that the argument is false. Why's that you may ask? Because of the universe's structure.
Zero Total Energy Implies this equation:
+1-1=0 (I'm using 1 to have it make a little more sense for some of these arguments) The only issue here is that this theory has no room for universal exspansion. The theory also imposes that the universe can last forever on the basis that there is little to zero energy used. 
2nd Law of Thermodynamics- Ethropy of an isolated system, in this case the universe, that is not at equalibrium will move towards equillibrium over time.
3rd Law of Thermodynamics- As temperature approaches Absolute Zero the Entropy becomes more constant. 
What this means for this debate is that if my opponent is correct on this theory there would be no energy movement. We can already see that the universe is not at equilibrium as my opponent seems to think. If we observe the works of Stephen Hawking one can see that the universe is growing and exspanding, if we were at equalibrium then we should see no exspansion. In his book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking even addressed this issue by showing the following scenrios and equations.
+2-1=1, Universe is exspanding, current universe.
+1-1=0, Universe has reached equalibrium as matter and gravity are now equal.
+1-2=0, Universe has began to start to shrink back to the Big Crunch as Gravity excedes matter.
In this case we can see that due to BGV and the Radio background that my opponent brought up in his last round we can see that the universe is exspanding. With that said it would be practically impossible for this theory to be true, because it requires that the universe at equalibrium. It also ignores that things can be hotter, or sometimes, colder than temperature. A Kugleblitz occurs when the Temperature of an object gets so hot to the point that they create a black hole. There are several known Kugleblitzs in the universe and showing this can show an outright interesting factor as energy of an object can go to the point of nothing to the Big Bang energy levels itself. 
Remember that since God is transcendent and that of a mind that he opperates outside of the relm of spacetime as I have shown in my previous round.
1. Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157
2. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. Gonz"lez (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79
4. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
5. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)
6. (Edward P. Tryon, "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?", Nature, vol. 246, p.396–397, 1973.)
7. ( http://www.icr.org...)
8. ( http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com...)
The definition for god in this debate is "the intelligent creator of the universe."
However, if there's no time and no passage of time without the universe, then creator-->created cannot occur.
Creation requires stative time.
I would like to stress that creation is a temporal concept; creation requires time to go from creator-->created.
When we talk about the origin of the universe, we have to be careful with temporal concepts, because without time and the passage thereof, temporal concepts are nonsensical.
I will use my energy set again [+matter,-gravity] to talk about the "beginning," or the big bang, which is the origin of our universe.
In quantum fluctuations, without a universe, there is no matter/energy/radiation/particles/gravity/space/time...nothing.
At this state [+0,-0], which is no +matter or -gravity, there was no space.
Space and time are in fact a continuum...two sides of the same coin.
Space is merely the position of matter or the distance between matter; matter dictates space.
At [+0,-0] there was no matter, so there was no space, and therefore no time.
Instead, in quantum fluctuations, as sub nuclear particles exist and become annihilated, the forces between these particles exist and annihilate as well.
Space and time are merely variables that fluctuate in and out of these fluctuations.
Without a universe, In a quantum fluctuation, a sub-nuclear particle exists and is simultaneously annihilated by its antiparticle, and this pseudo moment allows for the fluctuated existence/nonexistence of spacetime and the forces between the sub-nuclear particles.
These fluctuations are an unstable nothing state, so energy is inevitable.
[+0,-0]-->[+1,-1], this is the big bang.
This shows that from (+0) no matter and (-0) no gravity, (+1) some matter and (-1) some gravity can statively exist, and only then is stative spacetime allowed.
If we can understand that time is merely a variable that only statively exists AFTER the universe, then we can see that a creation of the universe cannot be; there's no time or passage of time for the creator to statively exist and create.
So I reject that "the intelligent creator of the universe is more likely than not to exist" because the universe wasn't created, thus there was no creator, intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient or otherwise.
I must also point out that Pro has to demonstrate that:
1. there is likely an intelligent creator of the universe, while avoiding time paradoxes
2. this creator is omnipotent
3. this creator is omniscient
So, Pro attempts this logically...
Pro tries the MOA, or Modal Ontological Argument.
Despite Pro appealing to antiquity and authority by claiming that this argument has long been honored by philosophers, the argument itself isn't very good.
It can be dismissed by its unproven 1st premise.
"It is possible that a maximally great being exists."
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Without Pro demonstrating this particular possibility, we have no reason to believe in the possibility of a maximally great being.
So, we can't "see that we can already see" that it's possible. Pro hasn't demonstrated such.
Pro then attempts Anslem's Ontological Argument:
"God, by definition, is the greatest possible being" and "exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds."
God's necessary existence as the greatest possible being has not been demonstrated, and the set that includes "all possible worlds" is an unknown set; making a assertion of god's existence in this unknown set is certainly without evidence.
Now, my favorite argument for god is in fact the Kalam Cosmological Argument, because it was an attempt to take the infinite regress problem of "everything that exists has a creator" and change it so that god is exempt from this rule; this is a form of special pleading.
Before the Kalam argument, was the original cosmological argument that asserted that "everything that exists had a creator." This turns into an infinite regress, because if god exists, according to the assertion, then god must have a creator, and god's creator must have a creator, and god's creator's creator's etc...
So, the Kalam takes an infinitive verb phrase "to begin to exist," applies it to "everything that exists had a creator," and changes the assertion to "everything that BEGAN TO EXIST had a creator," which exempts god from being created, because he's always existed and never BEGAN TO exist.
This argument is two-fold fallacious.
1. It uses circular reasoning, or it begs the question.
2. It special pleads god's exemption.
1. By saying that things "begin to exist," you automatically create a set of "things that don't begin to exist" and a set of "things that do begin to exist." The problem is that the set of "things that don't begin to exist" ends up only having one thing in it, god, which makes separating "begin to exist things" and "not beginning to exist things" unnecessary; the assertion that god didn't begin to exist is simply repeated by saying that god is the only member of the "didn't begin to exist" set.
2. By asserting that everything began to exist, except for god, you are special pleading god's exemption to the assumed rule. Without an explanation of how god should be considered exempt from the category, exempting him is special pleading, thus it is flawed logic and we can reject your conclusions from such.
Pro then tries Monoistic Idealism:
"P1 Mind is mental
P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental
C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental
P3 Mind interacts with reality
C2 Reality is mental"
The mind is a construct of the brain. Constructs are contingent on physical reality. The mind therefore is not physical, rather it is contingent on the physical matter of the brain.
So, I agree that mind is mental, and I agree that nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental, but I reject that mind interacts with reality.
Constructs don't interact, they are merely contingent on physical matter. The mind doesn't interact with reality, the brain does. Constructs are not physical reality, they are representations of physical matter, thus they do not interact; the physical matter does.
I reject conclusion 2 that reality is mental
While I reject Solipsism's 2nd premise that solipsism is possible because there has been no demonstration of its possibility, I accept its conclusion that mind is not matter, because constructs are not matter themselves, they are contingent on matter.
So, I reject the sphere argument attempting to explain god's intelligent mind with the idea that solipsism is possible.
I also reject all of Pro's graphic organizers, because they inaccurately portray the mind as some physical entity rather than a construct contingent on a physical entity.
Pro's tries an example to show that mind interacts with reality:
"I get hit in the head with a foul ball at a baseball game. Outside of the fact that I would probably have been KO'd we can see that the mind affects what I feel."
Your brain, and its inner workings affect how you feel; the mind is just our representation of such; you're brain is doing everything.
Pro is conflating the brain with the mind.
Next round, according to the rules, I can address Pro's cosmological errors, assertion about teleology, and rebuttals to my explanation of the universe's origin and it's non relation to an intelligent creator.
I will respond to Con's inital argument then move on to defending my own.
Rebuttal 1: Zero Total Engery
My opponent does not address my refutation from Round 3, what-so-ever here. So I extend it across as I showed that this theory cannot be true, because if it was there would be no more exspansion of the universe as we would have come to a complete halt and the BGV effect would not exist, but to make matters worse is that my opponent even conceded that this existed in Round 2, meaning that he indirectly admits that the universe is still exspanding and thus the Zero Total Energy theory is incorrect. This is through the fact that if the matter in the universe equalled the gravity then there would be no growth and we would be moving toward a single point in the universe back to a singlularity and the Big Crunch. Due to this being incorrect we can see that this theory is bunk not to mention all the other arguments that my opponent has dropped in his last round from my refutations.
We can see that the Creator of the universe exists without time and space as I'll get into later in my Mind argument when I get to that later in my round. I would also like to note that this theory doesn't negate what-so-ever the existance of God. If my opponent wins this argument, somehow, then we can see that all it does is show that it came from the Big Bang. Of Which I believe that God caused the Big Bang and hence the universe.
Contention 1: Modal Ontological Argument
My opponent did not refute the argument here what-so-ever, but simply resorted to a simple refusing to acknowledge my argument. This argument will continue to stand until it is properly refuted by my opponent as shown in the pyramid bellow.
For the sake of arguing though I will continue to address my opponent's argument here. My opponent's only response here is that the first Premise can be proven without evidence. What is the argument behind that? My opponent has simply used the Contradiction section on the above pryamind and his statement should be discarded as such.
Anslem's Ontological Argument
Possible Worlds is also self explanitory. PW is simple in all other worlds it would be true.  Which I have shown and my opponent has dropped, however we can see that the Greatest Possible Being is self explanitory and doesn't exactly need an explination within itself as I have shown and it was dropped that God is A priori and A posteriori. So what does this drop mean? It shows that my statement on the sole fact that my opponent dropped it that it is true and empiracal. Not to mention that we don't need evidence for this and the fact that A priori was dropped this actually negates his own argument in having me have to prove myself as this now shifts the BOP to more of my opponent.
Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument
I will address my opponent's 2 step fallacy.
1. My opponent makes a random circle here. We can see that since God is transcendent then he doesn't interfear with Space-time, hence forth, God has always existed in this case and beginning to exist cannot affect something that is unaffected by Space-time.
2. I've actually explained this argument in my Monoistic Idealism by showing that God is transcendent and since he is unaffected by Space-time he is unaffected by time and hence has always existed.
P1 Mind is mental
P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental
C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental
P3 Mind interacts with reality
C2 Reality is mental
P1 was conceeded as true. My opponent states that the Mind cannot interact with reality, but let's take an interesting scenrio for a minute. Since it's getting close to Halloween I'll use a like example. Let's say you clone yourself. I don't mean just a twin, but everything like you in everyway, but it will be unable to have a consciousness. This is known as a zombie (excluding the decay and rotting corpse). We can see that it looks like you, talks like you, and it Physically like you, BUT it doesn't have the mind and hence not aware. Thus we can see that the mind is able to interact with reality, because if it wouldn't then we would all be mindless zombies like my opponent's clone in this example. Thus P2 is correct.
Thus Conclusion 1 is true.
Now on to Solipsism. My opponent accepts this argument as true though with one dispute, but I have already disproven it previously and hence my argument on Solipsism supporting God's existance stands with my opponent's concession.
Con then moves on to say that since the Brain affects your feelings and hence the mind isn't responsable and false. We must first observe that if these expirences where all physical that I would be able to view them in third person, but since I'm not able to do such a thing then we can see that these expierences aren't physical. We can see the very fact that all physical expierences are in third person, but since there are first person expierences we must also be able to expierence that are not purely physical.
1. ( http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de...)
I was simply following the rules for the round structure that dictated that I must use round 3 to focus on CONTINUING MY ARGUMENT...rebuttals were simply permitted.
The rules also dictate that this round (4) be used particularly for rebuttals, so Pro's complaint about "My opponent does not address my refutation from Round 3, what-so-ever here" ignores the rules.
Also, I will be refuting ALL of Pro's unfounded arguments this round, so Pro can no longer complain about it, and Pro will actually have to demonstrate god's existence, the creator of a universe that wasn't created, instead of supplying upwards of eight different logical "syllogisms" to prove his point.
Think about how you would prove any claim of existence to a friend...would it require eight different logical arguments or graphic organizers?
I don't think so, because when something exists, you can simply demonstrate it to your friend...regardless, I will point out the flaws and falsehoods of Pro's multiple attempts to reason god into existence.
To review. Pro has attempted:
1. The Modal Ontological Argument, which asserts a "maximally great being"
2. Anslem's Ontological Argument, which asserts a "greatest possible being"
3. The Kalam Cosmological argument, which asserts that all things begin to exist except for god.
4. Monistic Idealism, which claims that reality is a construct of the brain.
5. Solipsism, which also claims that reality is a construct of the brain.
6. Substance dualism, which ignores the mind's contingency on matter (brain), treating its contingency separate from matter.
7. Property dualism, which separates mental properties from physical properties, thus ignoring mental properties' contingency on physical properties.
8. An analogy that involves feeling pain, and asserting that this pain is from the mind interacting with reality without assigning agency to the physical matter/properties of the brain.
What's nice, is that in the round where the focus was supposed to be the continuation of my argument and rebuttals were merely permitted, I addressed ALL of these flawed arguments.
On to Pro's round 3 logical arguments.
First, I really liked the Stephen Hawking video...I don't really see how this demonstrates the existence of god, but good video anyway.
Pro attempts the teleological argument for god:
"1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists."
The 2nd premise has not been demonstrated.
Teleology is the idea that the material world/universe was designed with purpose. Since there is no evidence of a designer, and we know objects that appear ordered can exist without a purposeful organizer behind them, we have no reason imply purposiveness.
For example, since Pro asserted that the "Water Cycle...[has] purpose and [is] thus teleological by nature," I'll use a snowflake.
Think of a snowflake. We know snowflakes are a result of the water cycle, which pre-existed this human idea of purpose. Snowflakes appear to be arranged symmetrically and logically, because they are six-fold radially symmetrical; this is a quite complex shape that appears to be organized purposefully.
However, it is well understood that the snowflake is a result of the naturally occurring water cycle.
So simply because things may appear to be purposefully arranged, it doesn't mean that they are.
Is the symmetry of a snowflake proportional?
Then ask yourself, was there some "purposeful designer" of the snowflake?
The fact that natural processes like the water cycle can result in the order seen in snowflakes illustrates the lack of a need for a "purposeful organizer" (god) when discussing order in the universe.
So, without any demonstration of a designer, there is no need to accept premise 2 of the TA, because we have no reason to believe that there is a designer, let alone a purposeful designer; things can just exist without this human constructed idea of purpose.
Pro continues with equating "gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds" to the biblical creation account:
"The universe had a beginning in time."
Time began AT the beginning of the universe [+1,-1], thus the universe's beginning was not IN TIME, rather it began AT TIME's beginning. Without the universe, there is no time.
Also, ascribing a temporal concept like "cause" before time is nonsensical, because "cause" requires time to happen; no time, no cause.
I reject the idea the universe was caused by god, because of the temporal inadequacies of such a claim...and no god has been demonstrated.
I also maintain that the Hugh Ross quote is flawed, because it presupposes the existence of higher dimensions, which, despite string theory's popularity, has no experimental evidence; higher dimensions have not been demonstrated.
Without Pro demonstrating "another time dimension," we have no reason to believe there is such a thing.
I've also provided first round how the universe could come into existence without excess time dimensions.
Pro then attempted to attack my scientific understanding of the origins of our universe:
"The only issue here is that this theory has no room for universal exspansion."
My argument was when there was no matter/space/time that there were quantum fluctuations where time and space fluctuated in and out of existence, and that this nothing state is unstable, so energy is inevitable. This still allows for the expansion of space, because this fluctuating field is itself inflationary given the proportion of energy to space.
At the big bang, space was really tiny, so even the smallest of energy existing from quantum fluctuations, at the big bang, would proportionally be massive compared to the extremely small space; this is the inflation field.
Pro also complains:
"The theory also imposes that the universe can last forever on the basis that there is little to zero energy used."
The fact that the universe has zero total energy speaks more to the lack of the curvature of space throughout the universe. Energy is still used, it's just that all of the (+) energy used, in the form of matter, is cancelled out by all of the (-) gravity by way of gravitational force.
So a zero energy universe does not imply that the universe will last forever, because energy is still being used, it's just cancelled out by all of the negative energy.
Pro presents some numbers from Stephen Hawking that appear to be like the numbers I have provided for the zero energy universe.
The problem is, the numbers that I provided were merely hypothetical, used as a teaching aid in the description of how zero can be represented by a set; my numbers and Stephen Hawking's numbers are unrelated.
In a zero energy universe, energy still "moves," it's just that the total energy of the universe is zero, because of the interplay between matter and gravity.
I also assert that we know that the universe is expanding thanks to red shifts.
This idea of equilibrium is about entropy within thermodynamic systems. That would be explained by the (+) positive energy component, matter, of the zero energy universe. The zero energy universe DOES NOT violate any of the laws of thermodynamics, and all of the laws apply to matter, which is part of the zero energy universe in which we live.
Pro continues his assault on my science:
"if the matter in the universe equalled the gravity then there would be no growth and we would be moving toward a single point in the universe back to a singlularity and the Big Crunch."
Here's growth with respects to the zero energy universe...
Here's the big bang from quantum fluctuations [+0,-0]-->[+1,-1].
Here's expansion from the inflation field [+10,-10]
Here's the acceleration of expansion due to dark energy, which is part of (+) matter/energy [+100000,-100000].
Notice that all of these sets equal zero, but the "growth" of (+) matter still occurs.
"I believe that God caused the Big Bang and hence the universe."
This has two problems.
One, as mentioned before, "cause" requires time thus an intelligent being would need time to exist and then even more time to cause the universe without stative time to do it.
Two, without a MECHANISTIC explanation of HOW god caused the big bang, one can't assume a causer; if you don't know how it was done mechanistically, then how do you know that it was even done?
Hey Pro, how can something exist without stative time?
About the MOA Pro says:
"My opponent did not refute the argument here what-so-ever, but simply resorted to a simple refusing to acknowledge my argument."
Let me use the MOA to prove something that has no demonstration of its existence:
1. It is possible that a flagoiganberry exists.
2. If it is possible that a flagoiganberry exists, then a flagoiganberry exists in some possible world.
3. If a flagoiganberry exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a flagoiganberry exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a flagoiganberry exists in the actual world, then a flagoiganberry exists.
6. Therefore, a flagoiganberry exists.
Without me demonstrating a flagoiganberry, we have no reason to accept premise 1.
Pro's god is NO DIFFERENT than a flagoiganberry.
Like you might ask, "What is a flagoiganberry?"
I would ask "What is God?"
So, I'm not refusing to acknowledge Pro's argument...he's refusing to demonstrate his claims.
"We can see that the Greatest Possible Being is self explanitory and doesn't exactly need an explination within itself"
Just like a flagoiganberry?
I'm out of characters. Next round I will finish the litany of rebuttals that I must address, and conclude my argument.
I reject the god that Pro has not demonstrated.
I thank my opponent for this debate, however it is time for it to come to an end.
To clarify to my opponent and the voters, one can see that the rules do state that the refutations are permitted in that round while he stated that he addressed all of them except the TA argument I took him at his word for that, so I appologize for any misunderstanding there was there. Let's not hold that against us and move on in this debate.
My opponent almost argues exactly for me on this first part for the second premise. We can see here that the fact of it's utter design in nature and its perfect symmetry shows that there is a unique design behind this object. We can see the fact that he also conceded to the fact that there was a designer, but he counterd stating that nature does this and thus there's no God. This is false as we can see that due to the fact that there's a purpose here, of which my opponent did not refute. Concidering that this is now the final round we can see that you MUST hold this drop against my opponent as the sole fact that it has a purpose the fact of Teleogy is that all things have a purpose and that purpose is to God. The fact that this was dropped by my opponent has won me this argument as it shows that since things serve God, teleology, that God exists.
Zero Net Energy
I appologize here as since my opponent fused the two together here that I will have to address the two together, but I will try to stay down the flow of the debate.
We don't officially know this, that that my opponent's premise here can be true. Take for example a singularity. In the universe there are only two places where they could have been found; the Big Bang and Black Holes. Of which due to Hawking Radiation the Black Hole evaporates and disappears. Who's to say that the Universe as we know isn't just an offset of a Black Hole? If that would be true than my opponent's theory is false.  This would conflict with my opponent's, but not mine as in my case it would still show creation in a form, but for my opponent there was energy before the Big Bang and thus so we can see that the Zero Net Energy theory would be false. As shown earlier I argued that God is transcendent meaning that he is unaffected by Spacetime and thus my opponent's argument still doesn't affect the existance of God in this case.
My opponent wishes for me to argue for a higher demention, but I have been arguing for one the entire time, but yet he has seen to be ignoring it. It is that of Space-Time which some tend to concider a 4th demention where gravity can be seen to affect many things. That is why I have spent much of my time arguing that God is transcendent and outside of Spacetime which is the demention of which gravity is seen and has a dramatic impact on things. View the graph bellow for more details.
s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" />
Why it is true that the universe expanded from a small point massively which is something I agree which, but it is the later portion that we disagree on. We can still see that there is an issue with what my opponent is arguing here and it is that of the universe here. If we look at the theory we can see that the universe has no room for growth and it shows that the universe has reached it's climax point. We can agree the view of Red-Shifts as I even provided a similiar argument in Round 2 and in Round 4 on the matter, but yet my opponent seems to be misinterperating the argument. The red shifts show exspansion in the universe and under my opponent's argumentation we shouldn't see any shifts. He then argues that there's still expansion as + is the growth, but this is also false. We can see that the universe will eventually have all matter equal to the gravity and will begin to contract back to the singularity.  This itself disproves my opponent's argument as his shows constant growth while that is completely false. We can see that it will tapper off and begin to decline. I have provided a Gif to demonstrate.
s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="" />
Well there's a few things wrong with my opponent's rebuttal here. We can see that, as argued several times before, God is transcendent meaning that he exists outside of spacetime. Thus it is completely explinative that this is completely possible. We can also see if we use the S5 argument of which my opponent has completely casted aside then we can see that with this occuring we can see that this is simply true. 
Though what my opponent may say about this thing may be true, my opponent has committed the strawman fallacy here and instead of attacking the actually argument has instead argued around it. We can see that with his "flagoiganberry" that he simply conceding to the argument that God exists by shows it's usefulness. Which is a concession of this argument.
I extend across all other arguments due to my opponent running out of characters.
With that I thank you and please Vote Pro!
1. Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black Holes. London: Bantam, 1988. Print.
2. Ellis, George F. R., R. Maartens, and M. A. H. MacCallum. Relativistic Cosmology. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012. 146–47. Print.
3. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
I apologize to readers; many different and mutually exclusive arguments for god have weighed heavily on my character use.
At least my characters aren't ravaged by the phrase "we can see here."
I will get to Pro's assertions.
Pro's Anslem's Argument:
"Possible Worlds is also self explanitory. PW is simple in all other worlds it would be true."
Without knowing all of the possible worlds, you can't know if those worlds' properties involve a Greatest Possible Being (flagoiganberry) existing; the set of possible worlds is an unknown, undefined set, from which we cannot claim a necessary existence.
I didn't drop it.
Pro's Kalam defense:
"God has always existed in this case and beginning to exist cannot affect something that is unaffected by Space-time."
I had mentioned that the Kalam begs the question by affirming the conclusion in the premise.
The deep structure of the 1st premise is that there are things that began to exist, and there are things that didn't begin to exist.
The conclusion is that one thing, god, exists and didn't begin to exist, which makes "THINGS that didn't begin to exist" in reality "A THING that didn't begin to exist."
Premise - There are things that began to exist, and there is a thing that didn't begin to exist.
Conclusion - There is a thing that didn't begin to exist.
That, sir, is how you beg the question!
There's your circle.
Pro, without any demonstration of a higher dimension, or a mechanistic explanation of how something can transcend spacetime, you've given us bald assertions and specially plead that your god is the only exception to the beginning to exist rule.
Simply saying that god transcends dimensions and didn't begin to exist doesn't explain the mechanism by which these activities are being done, nor which part of the mechanism god imparts his agency.
If you don't know the mechanism, then how do you know "god transcending" is even happening?
Now I have to clone myself as Pro supposes:
"Let's say you clone yourself. I don't mean just a twin, but everything like you in everyway, but it will be unable to have a consciousness."
My clone's response:
Sorry, you said he lacked consciousness, so he couldn't respond.
"We can see that it looks like you, talks like you, and it Physically like you, BUT it doesn't have the mind and hence not aware."
Wait, now my clone can talk? Just like me?
Either I talk like an unconscious person, or there's some kind of flaw in this unconscious clone analogy.
"Thus we can see that the mind is able to interact with reality, because if it wouldn't then we would all be mindless zombies like my opponent's clone in this example."
The mindless zombie talks just like me? Therefore, without his "mind" he is able to interact with reality.
I am a very interactive talker, so I'm glad that an unconscious person shares my ability.
Pro talks about 1st person, and 3rd person:
"We must first observe that if these expirences where all physical that I would be able to view them in third person, but since I'm not able to do such a thing then we can see that these expierences aren't physical."
Is this a grammar argument?
"I would be able to view" is in 1st person, because the subject pronoun "I" is used.
Go ahead, try to make a sentence in 3rd person while only using the subject pronoun I and no other subjects.
So "I" itself can never do something in third person; "I" is a pronoun subject to 1st person and the "we" pronoun if used with another subject.
But I can look at myself. Looking requires eyes, and a brain, both of which are physical, and myself is also a physical entity. Seems like this 1st person experience is naturally physical.
Whew...on to Pro's defense of Teleology:
"the fact of it's utter design in nature and its perfect symmetry shows that there is a unique design behind this object"
Design implies intelligence, and the water cycle is unintelligent; the sun is unintelligent as it drives the water cycle. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom non-intellectually form a crystalline structure that is radially symmetrical, at freezing temperatures, which are also unintelligent.
This is not design, its a result of natural processes that yield a proportional shape.
The laws between atoms are unintelligent as well.
I didn't drop it.
"In the universe there are only two places where they could have been found; the Big Bang and Black Holes."
Finally a science claim! the word "singularity," I must reluctantly admit, means "Scientists don't know."
The singularity of a black hole is not related to the singularity of the big bang...scientists just don't know what's at the center of a black hole, and scientists are very close, but remain unsure about the big bang's singularity.
What is known is that the big bang originated from quantum fluctuations the size of a sub nuclear particle, and expanded to the universe we see today; I provided sources on that in the first round.
So the singularity in a black hole is UNRELATED to the singularity of the big bang; Pro has conjoined the two mutually exclusive ideas that simply mean "we don't really know."
So there is no reason to believe that the big bang originated from a black hole and there is every reason to believe that it was expressed from quantum fluctuations at [+0,-0].
"there was energy before the Big Bang"
Nope. Aside from the temporal issue with "before," at [+0,-0] there was no matter, therefore there was no energy.
After the big bang [+0,-0]-->[+1,-1] the zero energy universe allows for expansion [+1000,-1000].
This explains that the total energy is zero, but there is positive energy, which is part of the zero energy universe.
"God is transcendent meaning that he is unaffected by Spacetime"
Flagoiganberries are also unaffected by spacetime, and I don't need to support that idea with anything...no wait, that's crap, and so is an unfounded idea like god's transcendence; Pro never showed HOW transcendence is possible/necessary.
About the zero energy + quantum fluctuation argument Pro says:
"the universe has no room for growth and it shows that the universe has reached it's climax point"
I've shown growth with the theory...[+1.-1]-->[+1000.-1000]-->[+100000.-100000]-->[+100000000.-100000000], why are we to believe that the numbers can't simply keep increasing?
"We can see that the universe will eventually have all matter equal to the gravity and will begin to contract back to the singularity."
Nope, all of the matter and all of the gravity are ALREADY equal, and thanks to dark energy's "pushing out" of galaxies, there is no need to assume a crunch; all of the positive energy can increase as long as all of the negative energy increases as well.
Pro tries one last time to defend the MOA:
"We can see that with his "flagoiganberry" that he simply conceding to the argument that God exists by shows it's usefulness."
"We can see" that the MOA can be used to reason anything, including imaginary words that have no meaning, whose concepts have no effect on the universe, and whose existence has not been demonstrated...flagoiganberry shows why the MOA is not the best tool for determining if things exist or not, and it shows that a flagoiganberry and the god have the same level of demonstration...none.
1. Pro has to demonstrate a creator of the universe.
At zero matter and zero gravity [+0,-0] there is no spacetime; without time, creation, which is contingent on time, cannot occur and thus the universe was not created, and there's no need for a creator; the universe allows for time by having matter and space.
2. Pro has to demonstrate that the creator of the universe is intelligent.
Though there was no time for creation, Pro hasn't shown how an intelligent agent behind the big bang; if Pro had attempted to show that quantum fluctuations were intelligent, then maybe he could have made some ground on this, but Pro never demonstrated any intelligence involved in the universe's origins.
3. Pro has to demonstrate that the creator of the universe is omnipotent.
Though the universe was not created, Pro hasn't shown that this undemonstrative intelligence has every power.
In fact, other than calling god the greatest possible being, there is no mention of god being all-powerful by Pro in the debate; no support, no reason to believe it is so.
4. Pro has to demonstrate that the creator of the universe is omniscient.
Though creation is nonsensical without time, Pro hasn't shown how this impossible creator knows everything.
I didn't see any mention of god's knowledge or foresight throughout this debate, so without support for that, we really have no reason to believe that the undemonstrative, creator of the universe that wasn't created is not all-knowing.
5. Pro has to demonstrate that #1-4 are all likely true to meet his burden that "God is more likely than not to exist."
None of those have been demonstrated physically, contingent on physical reality, or logically, so we must reject the resolution based on such.
Quantum fluctuations [+0,-0]-->big bang [+1,-1]-->existence does not speak to creation or a creator, and is the current supported model of the universe's origins.
I reject the resolution based on such.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Longest RFD in history? http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/76263/
You are not eligible to vote on this debate