The Instigator
MikeNH
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sargon
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

The Best Evidence/Argument For God's Existence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Sargon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,663 times Debate No: 41898
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

MikeNH

Con

Pro will present his or her best single argument/evidence that a God exists and I (CON) will respond directly to it. I do not need to prove that God does not exist, I will be responding to why this evidence/argument is not sufficient to believe a God exists.

Con must present their case in the first round.
Sargon

Pro

Ave

Definitions

Cause-- an efficient cause. In other words, the efficient cause is the thing that produces the effect
An artist is the efficient cause of the painting.

Universe--
connected or contiguous spacetime

Begins to exist--

A. X begins to exist at t if and only if x comes into being at t.
B. X comes into being at t if and only if (i) X exists at t, and the actual world includes no state of affairs in which x exists timelessly, (ii), t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from any t'<t at which x existed by an interval during which x does not exist, and (iii) x's existing at is a tensed fact.

God-- the personal cause of the universe

Introduction and Contentions


In this debate, I will be defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The premises of this argument are quite simply and easy to understand. After outlining the argument, I'll give a defense of each premise.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. If the universe has a cause, there exists a personal cause of the universe.
5. Therefore, there exists a personal cause of the universe.

Premise 1

This premise states that everything which begins to exist has a cause. Note that I'm not asserting that everything in the universe which begins to exist has a cause. Rather, I'm stating that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

1.1) Our intuitions tell us that everything that comes into being has a cause. Imagine yourself on a game show, and the host knows everything about the universe. The trillion dollar question is: Could the universe have popped into being, from nothing, without a cause? Would anyone honestly answer "yes" to this question? Our intuition therefore gives us prima facie warrant to accept the first premise as true. Note that I'm not making the argument that everything which is counterinuitive is false. Rather, I'm saying that absent of any overriding reason to deny our intuitions about reality, we should affirm them.

1.2) We can also formulate what I call a "causal hypothesis". This causal hypothesis states that "there is no thing that comes into being without a cause". A hypothesis is probably true if it's always confirmed and never disproven, and makes bold predictions that can be falsified. [1] It's apparent that the causal hypothesis is always confirmed and never disproven. Everywhere we look, we see causality around us, yet we never see acausality. It's apparent that the causal hypothesis makes bold predictions, because it says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is a bold prediction because you only need one example to prove it's wrong. It's falsifiable because the discovery of an uncaused event would disprove it. Therefore, the causal hypothesis is probably true, and the first premise true as well. Note that this is not an a priori argument for the first premise, but an
a posteriori argument that comes from empirical evidence.

Premise 2

2.1) This second premise is experimentally confirmed by Einstein's general theory of relativity. Indeed, denying the second premise is equivalent to denying Big Bang cosmology. Physicists derive equations from Einstein's general theory of relativity called Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metrics [2], which tell us about the universe we live in. These metrics state that our connected space-time is expanding [3]. If space and time are expanding, then we can extrapolate this expansion backwards to the beginning of the universe at T=0, where everything in the universe is contained at a singular point. This demonstrates that the universe did not have an infinite past, but rather, a beginning.

2.2)
P1) The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
P2) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
C) Therefore the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.

The first premise is non-controversial. The series of events grows after every day passes. Today, the series of events is n, but tomorrow, it will be n+1. Therefore, the temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.

As for premise two, it's clear that you can never get to infinity. For any number you add to n, the series of events, you can always add one more. N+1, N+2, etc. The number aleph zero in Cantorian mathematics, which represents infinity, has no number that precedes it. If you are able to reach aleph zero by counting, then this would involve passing through a number that precedes it, which is mathematically impossible. Therefore, you can never reach an actual infinite through successive addition. Rather, you only get a potential infinity, which reaches towards infinity but never gets there.

Since the temporal series of events is formed by successive addition, and you never reach infinity by successive addition, then the temporal series of events cannot be infinite. [4]

Premise 3


This follows logically from Premise 1 and Premise 2.

Premise 4

4.1)
P1) The cause of the universe is either a conscious being or an abstract object.
P2) The cause of the universe is not an abstract object.
C) The cause of the universe is a conscious being

How do we know that the cause is personal (conscious), rather than an abstract object that caused the universe? The answer is that abstract objects, by their very definition, exert no causal influences on the world. Abstract objects, in order to be abstract, must satisfy what is called the "Causal Inefficacy Criterion", which states that "An object is an abstract object if and only if it is causally ineffacious". [5] Causally ineffacious means that they posses no causal powers. Therefore, an abstract object cannot cause the universe because they possess no causal properties.

4.2) Some might argue that a non-conscious force caused the universe. This explanation is more implausible than a personal explanation. If a non-conscious force was floating around before the beginning of the universe, then why did the universe come into being? It's not as if the force willed the universe into being, because will requires a conscious mind. Why would a timeless and immaterial realm with an impersonal force suddenly give rise to a physical world? This is completely inexplicable if a non-conscious force caused the universe, but a personal cause has no such issues, because we can say that the personal cause willed the universe into being.

A personal explanation is therefore the best explanation of the universe, affirming premise four.

Premise Five

This follows logically from the premises established. Therefore, god exists.

A Preliminary Address of Quantum Mechanical Concerns

I have some room, so I'll address the claim that quantum mechanics refutes the first premise. This argument fails to understand that quantum indeterminism is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that there are empirically equivalent interpretations that are deterministic. Bohmian mechanics, for example, is a deterministic interpretation which
"has the property that in a world governed by Bohmian mechanics, observers see the same statistics for experimental results as predicted by quantum mechanics." [6] The physicist Brian Greene wrote that "This {Bohm's mechanics} approach agrees fully with the successful predictions of standard quantum mechanics...."[7]. The book Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity also notes that "Bohmian quantum mechanics is mathematically consistent and consonant with all experimental results..". [8]



Vale

References
[1] The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pg 6, pg 9, pg 50, pg 51
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] A Universe from Nothing, pg 3
[4] Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, pg 32
[5] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[6] http://arxiv.org...
[7] The Fabric of the Cosmos, pg 206
[8] Einstein, Relativity, and Asolute Simultaneity, pg 32








Debate Round No. 1
MikeNH

Con

Thank you very much for accepting the debate. I look forward to the discussion!

I will focus my first response on premise 4 of your argument, and break it into pieces so I can respond to each claim clearly.

Contention #1


My first issue is with the first sub-premise in premise 4.1:

"P1) The cause of the universe is either a conscious being or an abstract object."

While you later explain this further, and with fear of sounding like I'm nit-picking, I simply must point out that this premise, as-is, creates a false dichotomy by creating a situation in which you propose that those options are the only two possible options, and that if one is false the other is necessarily true. (1) I acknowledge that it seems you speak to this later in 4.2, but the argument to demonstrate that P4 is true that you presented as a syllogism is unsound because of the fallacy in the first premise. (2)

What you could say for the first premise, which doesn't commit the aforementioned fallacy, is say the cause of the universe is either a abstract or non-abstract. It would seem from everything else you stated that you would agree with this, and I don't disagree with your definitions and your subsequent claim:

".......Therefore, an abstract object cannot cause the universe because they possess no causal properties."

I would say that with my 're-writing' of your first premise, in bold above, coupled with your quote directly above this, we might be in agreement that the "cause of the universe" would need to be something that is "non-abstract". If you would accept this correction/distinction, you then would need to demonstrate that this non-abstract cause must be a conscious being, which I get to in the coming remarks.

Contention #2

"Some might argue that a non-conscious force caused the universe. This explanation is more implausible than a personal explanation. If a non-conscious force was floating around before the beginning of the universe, then why did the universe come into being?"

I don't know if I would quite agree with the grammar of the last sentence of the above quote. My understanding of space-time is that speaking about anything "floating around outside of space" or "before the beginning of time" is nonsensical. When we talk about 'floating around' or 'before' or 'after', we are doing so directly within the context of space and time. All I can say in response to this is that such claims don't seem to make sense, and if you'd like to discuss them further I'd ask that you clarify for me. (I come back to this later)

Contention #3

"It's not as if the force willed the universe into being, because will requires a conscious mind. Why would a timeless and immaterial realm with an impersonal force suddenly give rise to a physical world? This is completely inexplicable if a non-conscious force caused the universe, but a personal cause has no such issues, because we can say that the personal cause willed the universe into being."

3.1.

My first issue with the above is that it is another logical fallacy, namely an argument from ignorance. (3) Just because something is inexplicable doesn't make it untrue. Without the germ theory of disease, and a basic understanding of other biological concepts, diseases were entirely mysterious to our ancestors, and positing supernatural causes provided explanations that seemed to have "no issues" explaining why this happened, but we all know now that this was a fallacy based on our ignorance. Just because we don't have an answer to the question "Why would a timeless and immaterial realm with an impersonal force suddenly give rise to a physical world?", doesn't mean that your alternative is true.

3.2.

My second issue with the above is the idea that consciousness or a "conscious mind" existing without a brain. My understanding of consciousness is that it requires a brain. It seems as if this idea is similar to the concepts I discussed, namely that something could happen 'before time' or exist 'outside the universe'. It seems to me to be some form of a category mistake (4), when you talk about these things, but this may be due to differences in definitions. I'd rather not beg the question, so I'd like for you to perhaps expound on this idea that consciousness could exist without a brain/matter, or if I misunderstand help me to better grasp this concept.

Contention #4

"A personal explanation is therefore the best explanation of the universe, affirming premise four."

I have pointed out that premise 4 of your main argument is based on a number of fallacies, primarily an argument from ignorance, which therefore renders the argument as presented unsound. I look forward to your response.

Sources:

(1) http://rationalwiki.org...
(2) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
(3) http://rationalwiki.org...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sargon

Pro

Ave

I want to begin by noting that the defenses of P1 (1.2, 1.2) and P2 (2.1, 2.2) stand at this point in the debate. Con doesn't dispute that P3 is entailed by P1 and P2. This means that P1, P2, and P3 of the argument are affirmed. Now, let's turn to the contentions offered by Con in his last round.

Contention One

Con's criticism can be answered by simply rewriting the argument to incorporate the options I gave in 4.2. The argument would therefore look like this:

P1) The cause of the universe is either a conscious being, an abstract object, or a non-personal force.
P2) The cause of the universe is not an abstract object or a non-personal force.
C) The cause of the universe is a conscious being

As Con implicitly says, contention one was more of a nitpick rather than a counterargument. Before I move on to contention two, I want to note that Con agrees that the cause of the universe cannot be an astract object. This part of the first premise is therefore affirmed.

Contention Two

Con's criticism is slightly pedantic. The ontological status of the non-personal force is analogous to "floating around". I was not attempting to give it a literal position in space and time. It's a device for conceptualizing this non-personal force, not an exact description.

Furthermore, we don't have to describe the non-personal force as existing before time, but simply sans time. This gets around the criticism from Con that there is no before time.

Contention Three

3.1) Con states that my argument is really an argument from ignorance. This is the logical fallacy where you state that "X is true because it has not been proven false" or "X is false because it has not been proven true". Con has failed to specifically identify what portion of my argument makes this fallacy.

Rather, my argument is an argument about comparing two hypotheses on the origins of the universe. Hypothesis A is better than Hypothesis B if it explains some fact about the universe, F, better. Hypothesis A, which states that a personal cause brought the universe into being, explains the beginning of the universe through a will of a personal being. Hypothesis B, which states that a non-personal force caused the universe, fails to explain why, or even how, the universe began to exist. Therefore, a personal cause is more plausible than a non-personal force.

What part of my argument states that X is true because it has not been proven false? Nowhere in my debate have I said that a personal cause brought the universe into being because the idea hasn't been proven false. What part of my argument states that a non-personal force didn't bring the universe into being because it hasn't been proven true? My argument only states that a non-personal force probably didn't bring the universe into being because it's explanatorily inferior to another hypothesis. The charge that my argument makes the fallacy of ignorance is unsupported.

3.2) Con has not provided any proof that a mind has to have a brain, so I could stop right here. As he suggests, it begs the question to object to the argument based on the idea that mind depends on a brain. Furthermore, the idea that it's meaningless to speak about things outside of the universe is an atheistic assumption, because it would make the idea of god meaningless.

Contention Four

This isn't a contention; It's a summary.

Conclusion

This is a short and simple round on my part, because most of my contentions were agreed to, and Con's arguments were easy to respond to. Thanks to Con for the debate.


Vale






Debate Round No. 2
MikeNH

Con

Response #1

"P1) The cause of the universe is either a conscious being, an abstract object, or a non-personal force.

P2) The cause of the universe is not an abstract object or a non-personal force.
C) The cause of the universe is a conscious being"

Firstly, I must point out the language in premise 1 is extremely vague and leads me to think that you might be creating a false trichotomy. You're discussing a being, an object, and a force, and its all just a bit too unclear for me to accept that premise 1 is necessarily true. Unless you were to re-word it so that you could be sure you are not violating the law of excluded middle, as I did when I re-worded the premise of your previous syllogism to say "the cause of the universe is either abstract or non-abstract.

If you claim the cause of the universe is either A, B, or C, and you define A as "a conscious being" and B as "an abstract object", the only thing I would accept as C would be "something that is not a conscious being and not an abstract object". I'm not trying to get into a semantic debate here, the language simply needs to be clear when making these sort of claims.

Secondly, at no point have you demonstrated premise 2, you have merely asserted it is true because one of the other explanations is inexplicable. While we may agree that something abstract cannot be the cause of the universe, you have not demonstrated that a "non-personal force", is not or cannot be the cause.

Response #2

"Con states that my argument is really an argument from ignorance. This is the logical fallacy where you state that "X is true because it has not been proven false" or "X is false because it has not been proven true". Con has failed to specifically identify what portion of my argument makes this fallacy."

I thought a "specific identification" of the fallacy was clear as my contention directly followed a quote with the following two sentences:

"Why would a timeless and immaterial realm with an impersonal force suddenly give rise to a physical world? This is completely inexplicable if a non-conscious force caused the universe, but a personal cause has no such issues, because we can say that the personal cause willed the universe into being."

You essentially asked why would an impersonal force create the universe (paraphrasing), then said it was inexplicable. After claiming it was inexplicable, you then concluded that your alternative explanation is "therefore the best explanation". This is an argument from ignorance because you are affirming that B is supported based on the fact that A has no evidence. "A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim." (1) Your argument relies on the idea that the first "premise is false because it has not been proven true" (2), and therefore the second premise is true, which is a clear cut argument from ignorance.

Pro seems to be trying to play a semantic game by subsequently watering down his premises/argument from necessary truth claims like "B is true" to claims like "B is the best explanation". This doesn't absolve him of committing the same underlying fallacy.

I maintain that one of the main premises of Pro's argument is based on an argument from ignorance.

Response #3

"Rather, my argument is an argument about comparing two hypotheses on the origins of the universe. Hypothesis A is better than Hypothesis B if it explains some fact about the universe, F, better. Hypothesis A, which states that a personal cause brought the universe into being, explains the beginning of the universe through a will of a personal being. Hypothesis B, which states that a non-personal force caused the universe, fails to explain why, or even how, the universe began to exist. Therefore, a personal cause is more plausible than a non-personal force."

Your hypothesis, namely that a personal cause willed the universe into being, fails to explain anything. You claim the hypothesis B fails to "explain why or how" the universe began to exist, but hypothesis A doesn't explain why or how this personal cause did it, it just claims that it did it. Saying a personal entity "willed" it into existence is equivalent to saying a non-personal entity "caused" it to exist. It explains nothing. EVEN IF it were to provide some explanation that actually had some substance to it, coming up with something that provides "some explanation" doesn't automatically make it the most acceptable position. An assertion isn't granted credence simply by virtue of providing some explanation. I explain this further and provide an example in my conclusion.

Response #4

"Con has not provided any proof that a mind has to have a brain, so I could stop right here. As he suggests, it begs the question to object to the argument based on the idea that mind depends on a brain."

I do not claim that minds/consciousness cannot exist independent of a brain, but I object to the claim because I have no reason to believe it is true. You are the one that has asserted from the start that a mind exists independent of a brain/universe. This claim has a burden of proof, which you have not met.

Conclusion

Pro's argument, which relies on a demonstrably fallacious premise and is based on the spurious assertion that this is simply a "better explanation" when it has yet to actually explain anything, has given me no reason to accept it. I will reiterate one of the main points I brought up in the opening round. I do not need to prove that God does not exist, I will be responding to why this evidence/argument is not sufficient to believe a God exists. In this context, I do not need to demonstrate that some alternative hypothesis is better than yours in order to reject it, I merely need to point out that yours does not provide sufficient justification in order to be held.

The only real reason Pro has provided to believe that some consciousness willed the universe into existence is that the alternatives he proposes don't explain the universe's existence. This argument is logically the same as:

P1. We heard a noise outside. (the universe had a cause)
P2. The noise was either a vampire or not a vampire. (it was either caused by a mind or not a mind)
P3. The idea that it wasn't a vampire provides no explanation for the noise. (if it wasn't a mind then it's inexplicable)
C1. Therefore the best explanation is that it was a vampire. (therefore it was a mind)

If you disagree with the structure/conclusion of the above argument, you will see that it is analogous to Pro's argument, and you should vote Con.

I once again look forward to your response.


Sources:

(1) http://www.skepdic.com...
(2) http://rationalwiki.org...
Sargon

Pro

Ave

I want to begin by noting that the defenses of P1 (1.2, 1.2) and P2 (2.1, 2.2) stand at this point in the debate. Con doesn't dispute that P3 is entailed by P1 and P2. This means that P1, P2, and P3 of the argument are affirmed.

Furthermore, my criticisms of Contentions 1, 2, and 4 from Con's round 2 have been left alone in his previous round.

Now, let's turn to the contentions offered by Con.

Respone One

Contrary to Con's claim, there is nothing "extremely vague" about the terms in P1. A conscious being is simply a being that can think, an abstract object is something like the number three or the word "love", and a non-personal force is an unconscious, non-abstract power which brings the universe into being. I would agree with Con if he considers the idea of a non-personal force to be ill-defined, and that's exactly why I'm so critical of the idea that it caused the universe. It's not a clear and well-explained concept which is lacking in explanation. At best, this amounts to a subjective dislike of the first premise.

Con says that I if I state that the possible causes of the universe are a conscious being, an abstract object, or a non-personal force, then the non-personal force has to be something that is unconscious and non-abstract. Well, that's exactly what I've done! If the non-personal force were conscious, then you would have a self-contradiction, because that's akin to saying that an unconscious force is conscious. If you state that the non-personal force is abstract, then the category of a non-personal force is redundant and falls into the second category "abstract objects". The first premise is worded in such a way that it's necessary for the non-personal force is unconscious and non-abstract. By his own standards, he should accept the terms.

Con states that I haven't demonstrated premise two. This only assumes the corectness of his own arguments against my proof of premise two.

Response Two

I asked Con to cite the specific part of my argument where I appealed to ignorance. Strangely, none of what he quotes has anything to do with appealing to ignorance. I didn't argue that a non-personal force could not have caused the universe because it has not been proven to be true. I also didn't argue that "A non-personal cause of the universe is implausible" because that statement hasn't been disproven. Rather,my argument just states that a personal cause is more plausible than a non-personal cause.

Con's outline of my reasoning is false. He says that I concluded that a personal cause is a better explanation than a non-personal cause because a personal cause has no evidence. That's not an accurate description of my argument at all. I concluded that a personal cause is a better explanation than a non-personal cause because it is explanatorily superior. In other words, it explains a fact about the universe better. There is all the difference in the world between saying "A is better than B because A is explanatorily superior", and "A is better than B because B has no evidence". It's the former argument, rather than the latter, that's being advanced in the debate.

Con argues that I've watered down my argument from "A personal cause is necessarily the explanation" to "A personal cause is the best explanation". I've contended from the very start of this debate that a personal cause is the best explanation. If you read my opening statement, then you'll find that I wrote: "A personal explanation is therefore the best explanation of the universe, affirming premise four." Con is accusing me of changing my argument, but this fails miserably, because my assertions have been consistent from the beginning.

Response Three

Notice that the fundamental problem with a non-personal force as the cause of the universe has not been solved. The question before is "Why, if a non-personal force was floating around sans the universe, did space and time suddenly begin to exist?". This is the problem from hell for anyone who asserts a non-personal force caused the universe. You can't give the answer in terms of will ("The force chose to create the universe"), because then you're dealing with a personal, rather than non-personal cause. You can't give the answer in terms of a mechanism ("Some process happened that led caused it to create the universe"), because then you're left with explaining why that mechanism happened to occur 13.9 billion years ago.

The ridiculous nature of a non-personal cause is even more apparent once we realize the universe we live in. We live in a universe with extremely fine-tuned constants. For example, if the neutron to proton mass ratio was different, then there would be too much helium, and stars would die too quickly for life to evolve. What's the probability that a non-personal force would cause, for absolute no apparent reason, such a complex universe, where life exists on a hairs breadth? Why didn't the non-personal force create a universe with nothing but horses, or water bottles, or cardboard boxes? Imagine all of the possible universes it could have led to, yet it led to once as complex as ours? It goes beyond stretching credulity to state that such a cause is a plausible explanation of our universe and its beginning.

Con argues that a personal cause of the universe explains just as much as a non-personal force. This doesn't make any sense given the evidence. The why is simply god's desire to cause the universe. The how is through his incredible strength (after all, he would have caused all space and time). There are more ways in which a personal cause of the universe explains more that have already been mentioned: the fine-tuning of the universe is more plausible given a personal cause than a non-personal cause, and the beginning of the universe at a certain point rather than another point. It's not all true to say that they explain just as much, given these facts which are unexplained by the non-personal force.

Response Four

The coherency of a mind without body follows from the arguments conclusion. If the universe had a cause, and the only plausible cause is a personal being, then it follows that an unembodied mind exists. If you deny a mind-without a brain, then you're eliminating all possible causes of the universe, violating P1. But since P1 is affirmed at this point, you can't deny an unembodied mind.

Response Five

The argument that Con offers in "Conclusion" is completely and utterly disanalagous to the argument I offered for P4. For one, P2 is not even close to being the same as my original P2. Secondly, the argument isn't equivalent because P3 isn't the same as my original P3. In his argument, P3 is obviously false, because there is a perfectly explicable non-vampire explanation of the noise. For example, the wind could have knocked something over and caused the noise. There is no argument that could be offered for his P3, yet I can offer an argument for how little a non-personal force explains, and I've done that in this debate. The idea that this argument is in any similar to mine should be rejected outright.

Conclusion

We find ourselves in amazing state of existence. We find ourselves in a world where everything that begins to exist has a cause. Nothing pops into being. Our greatest minds have devised physical theories which show us that our world has not existed forever, but had a beginning. This leads us to the inescapable question: What caused this beginning? What brought this complex and fine-tuned universe, where life is balanced on a hairs breath, into being? The most plausible answer is a mind which brought the universe into being. It explains why this universe would support life. It explains why the universe came into being at all. For if a non-personal force existed, why would it bother to create the universe, and what are the odds that the universe it randomly creates is so fine-tuned for life?

I look up into the sky, contemplating the beauty of the universe. How amazing it is that the universe was brought into being!

Vale

Debate Round No. 3
MikeNH

Con

MikeNH forfeited this round.
Sargon

Pro

Ave

Extend all arguments.

Vale
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 3 years ago
PeacefulChaos
I have a question on Pro's premise 4. More specifically, this quotation:

"The question before is "Why, if a non-personal force was floating around sans the universe, did space and time suddenly begin to exist?" ... You can't give the answer in terms of a mechanism ("Some process happened that led caused it to create the universe"), because then you're left with explaining why that mechanism happened to occur 13.9 billion years ago."

Wouldn't the simple answer to this be that the mechanism had a certain probability "X" of occurring? This would demonstrate why the mechanism simply didn't immediately happen with the non-conscious force floating around.

Thanks.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
I enjoyed this debate as well, Mike. I hope that job ends up well.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
Great debate - I started a new job and completely forgot all about this debate and my round timed out - C'est la vie... Much respect to my opponent for being devil's advocate and doing a fantastic job!
Posted by Installgentoo 3 years ago
Installgentoo
@Missmedic truly a euphoric comment, m'lady.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
there is no evidence for faith based belief or it would be called the science of religion
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Uhhhhh... Sargon, aren't you an atheist?"

He's playing Devil's Advocate.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
Yes, I'm an atheist.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
Much respect if he is, because this is one of the clearest and most coherent presentations of the Kalam I've come across. It's been said that it's the mark of a true intellectual to be able to take on your opponent's argument and defend it as if it was your own.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Uhhhhh... Sargon, aren't you an atheist?

And how do you make your words bold?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
MikeNHSargonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a pretty good debate because both debaters wrote very clearly and organized their posts very well, and neither ignored the others arguments. It is hard to say who would've won had Con not forfeited, but since he did, I gave arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
MikeNHSargonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF