Resolved: On balance, Noetic science can be accurately used to prove the existance of God.
I would like to thank famousdebater for accepting this debate.
This debate is not about whether or not God exists, but whether Noetics can be used to prove the existance of God.
First Round is terms and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con.
Second Round is for Opening arguments. No rebuttals are to be posted.
Third Round is for Rebuttals.
Forth Round is for Rebuttals and Conclusion.
No semantics, the definitions that are provided are the ones to be used.
No Sparks arguments.
Sources may be placed in the comments section if need-be.
If any of these points are broken then it shall result in a forfeiture.
Noetics- branch of metaphysical philosophy concerned with the study of mind as well as intellect (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
God - the omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent creator of the universe.
Existent - having being; existing.
I accept. Could you confirm who has the Burden Of Proof is on. Is it on you or is it shared?
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
C3 If Reality is mental than God can exist.
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.
Continuing we can see that God can be proved mathematically on this grounds proving God as we can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property 
Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things.
Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation."  The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. 
Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax.
2. (Weatherson, B., 2008, "Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Properties", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.))
5. (Kurt G"del (1995). "Ontological Proof". Collected Works: Unpublished Essays & Lectures, Volume III. pp. 403"404. Oxford University Press.)
There isn't really much I can say at this point in the debate and I hope that I do not lose because of this round. I do not believe that Noetic science can accurately be used to prove the existence of God and in order to prove that I will need to directly respond to my opponent's arguments so for now I will just show how science can accurately disprove the existence of God. In order for me to debate this topic I do not have to show how Noetic Science disproves God, all I need to do is show that noetic science doesn't prove the existence of God. I will do that in R2.
Contention 1 - Natural Selection
Natural selection is Darwin’s most famous theory; it states that evolutionary change comes through the production of variation in each generation and differential survival of individuals with different combinations of these variable characters. Individuals with characteristics which increase their probability of survival will have more opportunities to reproduce and their offspring will also benefit from the heritable, advantageous character. So over time these variants will spread through the population.
Natural selection was Darwin’s most novel and revolutionary idea, but in truth (like all the best ideas) it is very simple. Despite its simplicity, since the publication of the theory right up until today, it has widely been misunderstood. Ernst Mayr, in his book One Long Argument (1991) provides a useful way of breaking down the process into just five facts and three inferences, or conclusions, drawn from the five facts; they can be linked in a flow diagram:
The first inference is drawn from three facts which Darwin observed in the natural world around him. He saw that organisms produce more offspring than is required to replace themselves, so population sizes should increase rapidly (think about the number of frogspawn laid each year, or how many eggs a spider lays). That’s fact one: a fancy word for this over-reproduction is ‘super fecundity’. However Darwin saw for himself, and confirmed his observation with others, that population numbers tend to stay at about the same level (you don’t see a doubling of the number of frogs or mice in your garden each year do you?): that’s fact two. What accounts for this disparity? Darwin found the answer with another fact: resources, such as food, water or places to sleep or mate, are limited. A major influence on Darwin observing this fact was his reading the work of Thomas Malthus who published a paper stating that the human population was increasing at a rapid pace and would soon run out of food, water and space. These are three simple facts which Darwin put together to draw a simple conclusion: individuals compete with each other for scarce resources.
Next, Darwin made two other observations about individuals. First he had come to the conclusion through his work on theH.M.S. Beagle, when he was working on barnacles and later pigeons, that individuals are unique and that individuals vary in almost every aspect: that’s fact four, and you only need to take a cursory glance round a group of people to see that it is true! Finally fact five: Darwin had taken to breeding pigeons to investigate variability further. He performed many crosses between different breeds of fancy pigeons to look at whether their offspring had the same variations. He also collected lots of observations from various animal and plant breeders to help him draw out the conclusion that these individual differences are heritable: they are passed on from parent to offspring.
The next two inferences demonstrate Darwin’s genius. Darwin could see that if individuals must compete, and if they are all unique, some individuals will have variations which give them a survival boost so they will have more opportunity to reproduce and leave a greater number of offspring. These offspring will inherit the variations which made their parents successful, so they too will have an advantage. Over time these successful variantions will spread through the population – the population will change: that is evolution! Simple, isn’t it?
Darwin himself wrote ‘an unverified hypothesis is of little or no value’. To verify his ‘hypothesis’ Darwin collected a vast number of facts from a wide range of fields. He assembled reports from other naturalists, as well as from his own work and observation, to support his five facts. His greatest challenge perhaps, was to convince people that species really are variable and that this variation is suitable for natural selection to act. Darwin chose to demonstrate this using artificial selection and production of various breeds of domestic animals and plants as an analogy for natural selection. You can read more about how he did this by clicking here.
Darwin added to his bulk of evidence throughout his lifetime, for example with studies on humans. Since 1859 the scientific community has been busy testing his theories, and alternatives, to see what best holds up. The wealth and diversity of evidence is now vast and includes evidence from the DNA record, fossil record, and from case studies section.
As for the argument itself, it does not disprove God at any means. I never said that God constantly worked with humans on Earth like Mother Hovered, but that he created the universe and that was all. My opponent is trying to use the creation Straw man where that God seemingly waved a magic wand and everything was there. That's not the truth. God was more like a Watchmaker. He created the universe and walked away from it even though it began to break and fall appart. Even the Catholic Church today is accepting evolution and the Big Bang as part of religion. (http://www.inquisitr.com...) There is no actual link to my case from this argument or even the debate. It's like we are speaking about types of Cars and my opponent is suddenly talking about cats. This argument must be thrown out for these reasons.
I would still like to hear comments about the debate and there be votes, but just be sure that they are tied.
|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:||0||0|