The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Tejretics v. Lannan13, Resolved: God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/22/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,429 times Debate No: 72105
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




This is a debate about the existence of God and a direct challenge to Lannan13. Thanks to Lannan13 for pre-accepting this debate and making all chosen modifications to the rules/definitions.

1. All arguments must pertain to the definitions and rules. Any deviation from the established rules/definitions will result in the violating argument to be declared void. A second violation will result in the violator's complete forfeiture of the 7 points.
2. Appropriate conduct must be maintained. No insults, profanity, and trolling. Any violation of appropriate conduct will result in the argument being reported to the DDO authorities.
3. Burden of Proof (BoP) lies with Pro. Proof cannot be from religious texts such as the Quran, the Bible, and the Bhagavad Gita.
4. Logic must be accepted or rebutted, not ignored by claiming, for example, that God is beyond logic.

72 hr/argument, 5 rounds, max. 10,000 characters (DDO max. limit)
Open voting; Select Winner point system

Round 1:
Con - rules, definitions
Pro - opening arguments

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

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

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

Round 5:
Con - concluding arguments, rebuttals
Pro - waives this round

God - the sentient, intelligent, and benevolent personage who is the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being who wields maximal and great levels of power
xist - have objective reality and being
Sentience - the ability to perceive or feel

If Lannan13 has any objections to the rules whatsoever, he may contact me via PM. Thanks again to Lannan for accepting this debate.


Contention 1: The 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 CriagThe 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. [1]

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 [2]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.

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. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]

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. [3] 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.
Now at this point you're probably asking yourself, okay Lannan that shows that the universe began at a point, but what does this have to do with God? This is that there is nothing known prior to the creation of the universe meaning that it since there is no determining factors to what happened before we must assume that it's personal and uncaused. This can be see by one asking how can a timeless rift be given such a temperory effect of the begining of time? One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe if not omnipotent. Thus for this reason God Exists.

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." [4]
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. [5]
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. Now I know what my opponent had brought up and I agree with a lot of it, however, 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. [6] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."- Genesis 1:1

You see, back then they didn't have a large understanding on the universe and how things worked so we can definately see books like the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran to probably not be science text books. If God had shown humans this we can see that they would probably be like Nastrodamus's description of the German Blitzkreig by calling the NAZI panzers Metal beasts or how he wasn't able to describe skyscrapers and such, but you get my point. People didn't have the best information and how things are now and it wasn't until just a couple hundred years ago before we began to make improvements in Space and Science.

Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the term the "Big Bang," has stated, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." [7]

Next, we can see that the Big Bang here also highly applies to my 3rd Contention from my last round of Thomistic TA. The next 5 points are add on by Hugh Ross to the original 5 points and this helps show that the Big Bang proves the existance of God.

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. [8]

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." [9]

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. [9]

1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
3. Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
4. Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157
5. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. González (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79
6. (
7. (
8. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
9. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)
Debate Round No. 1



1. Ontological Argument

How is it directly taken that it is possible that a “maximally great” being exists? Here, let us assume that “maximally great” refers to this debate’s definition of God: “the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being.” How can it be directly assumed that it is possible? Since Pro has full BoP, Pro must prove that it is possible.

My next rebuttal concerns the application of ontology to the inverse. Hypothetically, let us consider this:

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.

P2: Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist in some world.

P3: Existence is certain; i.e. if anything X exists in, say, Pakistan, you cannot say X does not exist in the United States; it exists in the United States because the simple fact is that it exists (i.e. it has being). If it exists, then it exists everywhere while not being present everywhere. Existence everywhere is not ubiquity.1

P4: From P3, therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.

Thus, the ontological argument is invalid and void for two primary reasons – the reverse application of ontology and P1 not being proved.

2. Kalam Cosmological Argument

Pro says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The proper statement is energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Now, let me show you how the Big Bang would be possible via quantum fluctuations. 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.2 In further explanation of this, let me illustrate the function of quantum fluctuations. due to the possibility of uncaused quantum fluctuations2, there need not be a personal cause for the Big Bang.3 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.4 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.5 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.6 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.7 That is why the uncertainty principle is not observable in the macroscopic world. 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.8 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.9 Since the change originates in the preexistent quantum vacuum (with minuscule amounts of uncaused measurable energy), the fluctuations need not be triggered by a personal cause and perfectly explains the Big Bang. In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band.10 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. 11 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. 12 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.13 14

The inflation of the universe after the Big Bang.

Let me also present some rebuttals for some possible questions relating to this argument.

1. Quantum mechanics implicitly assumes the existence of space and time, so how can the laws of quantum mechanics create space and time?

-> The quantum vacuum, with a finite, measurable amount of energy, remains permanently existent and is, in terms of particle physics, practically “eternal”. Hence, space and time can emerge from an abstract fluctuation that is eternal.

2. What is the origin of the laws of physics?

-> The laws of physics do not need an origin; they are random limitations caused by the Higgs field. Any change in the density of energy in the Higgs field will result in a change of the laws of physics.

3. How can energy exist without the universe?

-> Gravity is permanently existent, according to recent research. The energy inherent to gravity created the universe from the quantum vacuum, that is essentially “nothing”. The quantum vacuum is preexistent without origin.

3. Thomistic TA

My first rebuttal is the dysteleological argument, the opposite of the TA, used to disprove God:

P1: A maximally great, benevolent being would create objects/beings with optimal design.

P2: Objects and beings do not have optimal design.

P3: Therefore, God did not create the universe or is not maximally great and benevolent.15

The perceived “teleology” of the universe is actually because of randomness. The universe was created due to the emergence of minuscule disorder; the disorder of the universe results in random emergence of teleology and dysteleology. Disorder is measured as entropy and governs the creation and destruction of the universe. By the second law of thermodynamics, time is rate of entropic graduation.16

Arguments & Conclusion

Occam’s Razor

The Occam’s Razor principle states, “If an object or being X that is not acceptable to the general understanding of nature need not exist and its doings can be explained by something compatible with the general understanding of nature, then X most likely does not exist.”17 The creation of the universe has been explained. Therefore, God, most likely does not exist. As the BoP is on Pro, Pro must rebut this with proof. Also, how do you prove the only thing that could have created the universe is God?


[1] Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Dell Publishing Group, New York. (1988) ISBN-978-0-553-10953-5.

[2] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, New York (2010). ISBN-0-553-80537-1.
[3] Faulkner, Danny R. "Quantum Fluctuations May Kill Big Bang Evangelism." Answers in Genesis. (

[4] Empedocles (490-430 BCE), et al.
[5] Heisenberg, W. (1927), "
Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German) 43 (3–4): 172–198
[6] P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor, and D.B. Newell (2011), "The 2010 CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants." (
[7] Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A 67 (4): 42105
[8] Browne, Malcolm W. (1990-08-21). "New Direction in Physics: Back in Time". The New York Times. (

[9] Mandelshtam, Leonid; Tamm, Igor (1945), "The uncertainty relation between energy and time in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics",
Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR (ser. Fiz.) 9: 122–128. English translation: J. Phys. (USSR) 9, 249–254 (1945).

[10] Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). “A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s.” Astrophysical Journal 142: 419.
[11] The Polarbear Collaboration (October 2014). “A Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background B-Mode Polarization Power Spectrum at Sub-Degree Scales with POLARBEAR” (PDF). The Astrophysical Journal. (

[13] Moulay, Emmanuel. “The universe and photons”. FQXi Foundational Questions Institute. (

[14] Hawking, Stephen. “The Beginning of Time”. Stephen Hawking: The Official Website. Cambridge University.(

[15] Boyd, Gregory A. (1997) God At War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. IVP Academic, Downer’s Grove, Illinois. ISBN 978-0-830-81885-3.

[16] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 47,57.

[17] "Simplicity." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.



Okay guys I'm back so let's get this show on the road.

Contention 1: Ontological Argument

I'll be confronting this issue on a two pronged attack. First will be a "proof" while the second is refuting my opponent's points.

On the matter of proving God, we can actually do it by mathematics one 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 [1]
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." [2] 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.


\text{Ax. 1.} & \left\{P(\varphi) \wedge \Box \; \forall x[\varphi(x) \to \psi(x)]\right\} \to P(\psi) \
\text{Ax. 2.} & P(\neg \varphi) \leftrightarrow \neg P(\varphi) \
\text{Th. 1.} & P(\varphi) \to \Diamond \; \exists x[\varphi(x)] \
\text{Df. 1.} & G(x) \iff \forall \varphi [P(\varphi) \to \varphi(x)] \
\text{Ax. 3.} & P(G) \
\text{Th. 2.} & \Diamond \; \exists x \; G(x) \
\text{Df. 2.} & \varphi \text{ ess } x \iff \varphi(x) \wedge \forall \psi \left\{\psi(x) \to \Box \; \forall y[\varphi(y) \to \psi(y)]\right\} \
\text{Ax. 4.} & P(\varphi) \to \Box \; P(\varphi) \
\text{Th. 3.} & G(x) \to G \text{ ess } x \
\text{Df. 3.} & E(x) \iff \forall \varphi[\varphi \text{ ess } x \to \Box \; \exists y \; \varphi(y)] \
\text{Ax. 5.} & P(E) \
\text{Th. 4.} & \Box \; \exists x \; G(x)


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. [3]

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. Also note how God is capitalized here. This is because this actually proves the Christian God. Not just a deity. [4]

My opponent argues the opposoite by simply adding the word NOT, but that is false. For this let's observe the triangle. When we apply it to this theory we can see that this is an apriori argument that shows that God exists, by simply adding the phrase not in the statement is like stating that the triangle has 4 sides.

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

My opponent takes the majoirty of this arguments and argues for quantum flucuations, but he fails to realize that I too did the same and argued for thier existance in my last round and henceforth are null and void. He doesn't realize that 99% of what he says I actually agree with, but there is a few things I disagree with.

Firstly my opponent doesn't actually refute the KCA, but just dances around it. He never shows how the universe hasn't a cause. He instead spends most of his time on explaining the universe HAD a beginning which only proves my second point. He attempts to refute the KCA, but goes about it the wrong way. It still stands that this theory can exists as once again we can simply apply the S5 argument that my opponent has dropped and we can find that this theory is indeed true. We can also see that it is true that if a being did create the universe then he would have to be some supreme being and that would most likely be that of God. I further extend my arguments here seeing that they weren't truely refuted by my oppoenent. We can also see from the bellow graph that once again looking at space time we are indeed exspanding and by using this model the universe does indeed have a beginning and hence a Creation. It's highly common knowledge that the universe is exspanding and we can see by using the Borde Guth Vilekien Model of comparing Blue and Red shifts we can see that through high accuracy that the universe is exspanding and hence revealing that the universe had to have orinated and have had a finate beginning at some point of time.

Contention 3: TA Argument

My opponent brings up the dysteleological argument, but he FAILS to explain premise two and does not show how objects do not have optimal design.

Furthering I would like to report that my opponent DROPPED my Hugh Ross add on to this argument so I'll extend that across the board.

Contention 4: Occam's Razor

Here St. Thomas Aquianas posted a writtings while using the Occam's Razor in his novel, "Summa Theologica," he is quoted saying, "Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article." [5]

Here once again we can see that the teleological argument ties in here and is key for showing that God does exist and is permissible under the Occam's Razor.

1. (
2. (Kurt Gödel (1995). "Ontological Proof". Collected Works: Unpublished Essays & Lectures, Volume III. pp. 403–404. Oxford University Press.)
3. (
4. (
5. (
Debate Round No. 2


1. Pro asserts that existence and having the properties of God (as asserted in the debate: "the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority") are necessarily positive. Pro has not shown how necessary existence is a positive property; thus, Pro has not fulfilled his full BoP.
2. How is the existence of God
3. Pro has not proven Definition 1. Why is it necessarily positive for x to be God-like? X can be God-like with negative properties. Pro defines positive as "good". While God may be benevolent by this debate's definition, any being x need not be good to be God-like (if and only if the properties ascribed to God in this debate are plausible). This is an essentialist argument by morality, but that morality is definite cannot be proven; morality may be definite, variable, or even nonexistent (by nihilist philosophy). [1]
4. If necessary existence is always positive, then existence must be relative; if existence is certain, then the existence of perceived negativity is impossible viz. everything in definite existence is positive.
5. Pro states that he proved the Christian God's existence; this assumption is that the God of this definition's sole property is omnibenevolence. If there is negativity in the universe, then God (being positive by Pro's own theorems) is not the ruler of the universe nor is he the source of all moral authority. [2]
6. Here, Pro's assumption is that existence is greater than non-existence. Pro has not fulfilled his BoP and has not proven existence is greater thus.
7. Existence is
not an attribute. Since God has objective reality, then unreality does not have impact on objective agencies or even subjective agencies. [3]
8. My point is that if you can argue something incorrect with ontology, then it is not valid proof of anything.

1. Here, I said that quantum fluctuations show that the creator of the universe does not need to be "spaceless, timeless, immaterial, etc." Since they can be caused by gravity, the properties ascribed by KCA is not necessary. If the universe had a finite beginning, why does it have to be a source of moral authority or the supreme being? This merely proves the existence of a Deistic God.
2. The finite beginning of the universe is irrelevant to the existence of God. The finite being could still be
uncaused quantum fluctuations; as mentioned, the singularity-expansion of the Big Bang (my image also showed expansion) was probably not caused by a cause external to gravitational spacetime (the space-time continuum was created by the Big Bang as time is the rate of entropic graduation, but the gravitational continuum of gravitational time was uncaused and a force of negative energy from the quantum vacuum). [4]
3. Here, too, the necessity of a ruler of the universe is not seen; thus, this is unchallenged.

1. "Optimal" is defined as "most favorable." Once more, this brings the Problem of Evil into consideration; if God was a benevolent designer, then he would not have created negativity (in the moral sense, which Pro implies exists by ontology). Thus, this design is not optimal. [2]
2. Pro's TA relies on the existence of teleology, which has not been proven. Thus, the dysteleological argument still stands.
3. I did rebut the Hugh Ross argument's P4, "the only thing that could have caused the universe is God." Pro has not refuted this, so I extend the rebuttal.
4. As already described, Hugh Ross' definition of time is fairly inaccurate. Gravitational time is the dimension which implies permanent non-universal "cosmic passage", viz. the rate of gravitational existence at its very base. [5] Ordinary time is the rate of entropic graduation. This has not been rebutted nor refuted. [6]
5. The Thomistic TA does not imply the existence of God by the definition.

I have rebutted all your proof with regards to the existence of God. Now, once more, the non-existence of God is unchallenged. Pro has full BoP. As proof has not been provided for the existence of God and all God's purported tasks can be explained via. science, the likelihood of the existence of God has fallen; thus, Aquinas' interpretation of Occam's Razor is incorrect [i.e. higher agent simplicity is disproven, hence this conclusion - C1 from previous arguments in extension].

As all my arguments still stand, my case remains unrefuted.

[1] Cartwright, R. L. (1968). "Some remarks on essentialism". The Journal of Philosophy 65 (20): 615–626.
[2] Kekes, John (1990). Facing Evil. Princeton: Princeton UP. ISBN 0-691-07370-8.
[3] "Ontological Arguments." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. []
[4] Hawking, Stephen. “The Beginning of Time”. Stephen Hawking: The Official Website. Cambridge University. []
[5] Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Dell Publishing Group, New York. (1988) ISBN-978-0-553-10953-5.
[6] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 47,57.


Debate Round No. 3


I extend all my arguments from previous rounds.



I'm sorry.
Debate Round No. 4


It's OK, @lannan. Don't exert yourself. I request voters not to penalize @lannan for their forfeiture; please vote based on the rounds already presented.



Ignore what my opponent says. I don't deserve any points. Give my opponent all the points.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
@philosurfer, in this debate's definition of God, I did not say God intervened in human affairs.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
Countless have forfeited debates.
Posted by ClashnBoom 3 years ago
See this is why I consider you a legend I mean has anyone else done that?
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
Working on the debate now.
Posted by philosurfer 3 years ago
In this debate's definition tejretics has obligated Iannan13 to defend a god of "theism" ...

Iannan13 is arguing for philosophically for "deism" ...

Huge difference!

I'm pointing this out because the arguments used in defense of god or gods like the ones Iannan13 use - though clever - do not secure a personal god who is actively involved in the physical world and human affairs.

The Ontological and Kalam Cosmological arguments are abused and misused in this way and its time the DDO members recognize it.

Iannan13, you can use these for deism BUT they do not secure specific gods of theism (Yahweh, El, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc.).
Posted by Dynasty2468 3 years ago
@tejretics dude go to princeton university when you're old enough-or when your brain is old enough.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I now understand why Iannan forfeited. He came out really strong. His arguments were very well constructed and proved a point. Con's arguments were also constructed well. Overall this was a great debate, but because Pro said to give all points to Con, I will do so. This debate had much potential and both sides were showing well put arguments and great rebuttals. It's a shame Pro forfeited. It's an interesting read.