The Case For A Creator
Debate Rounds (5)
God is defined as 'the greatest conceivable being'.
My burden of proof is to show that God doesn't exist.
Please begin with your opening argument.
Many atheists believe that there is no such thing as a God who created beings. To prove that this argument is wrong, I bring a pencil. A pencil is a very simple tool, that almost everyone uses on a daily basis. They are cheap, simple, and effective. But if I told you that a pencil was created by it self you would say I am crazy. So if a pencil, a simple pencil can"t create itself. How can you tell me that our entire universe came into existence from nothing. Planet Earth is an amazing place, but it is very complicated sort of like a Rolex Watch, also the positioning of the Earth just shows how wrong evolution is. If we were a little closer to the sun we would all burn, a little farther we would freeze. Next if the world is millions of years old, how come the oldest tree recorded is only about 5,000 years old. Also the longest-lived coral were 2,742 years and 4,265 years.
In a christian perspective, "perfect" means sinless. In Hebrew, perfect means complete. THe definition of creation is "the action or process of bringing something into existence." It is a process, nature is still a process. God is not finished with nature.
Pro uses a 'God of the Gaps Argument' to deductively prove God's existence. He proposes that a pencil cannot create itself, therefore God must have done it. This is evidently fallacious, as there is no abductive, inductive, nor deductive link to the resolution.
Pro then uses a teleological approach to affirm the resolution. He states that we exist in the goldilock's zone. Ok, but if we consider how many planets there are in the observable universe, we can clearly deduce that the chances of a planet not existing in the zone would be infinitesimally small.
I don't know what Pro was asserting when he says that the positioning of the Earth apparently refutes the theory of evolution.
For the rest of his arguments, he tries to refute the non-existence of the Christian God. This does not pertain to the resolution and is therefore a red herring.
Sorry, I will post my arguments next round.
Since my opponent did not state any other argument, I will only state one.
The intentions with this argument is to convey that one of God's intrinsic maximums are sophistry. By doing this I will violate the definition of God, which would then fulfill my BoP.
This argument will assume the following syllogism:
P1: The concept of omnipotence is incoherent
P2: If God is defined as possessing omnipotence, then God is incoherent
C: Therefore, God is incoherent
I will now demonstrate why the concept of omnipotence is sophistry and completely paradoxical. It would be reasonable to first define, "omnipotence": "an agency or force of unlimited power" (1). If God were to truly possess omnipotence, then by definition, he cannot have a limit, for that would contradict the denotation of 'omnipotence'. But, this argument postulates why this is in fact, sophistry. If God does not have a limit, then God would be able to create a God that is more powerful than itself. If God cannot, then God is not truly omnipotent. Yet, if God can, then it would completely contradict the definition of God - nothing can be greater or equally great when in comparison to God. Therefore, the syllogism is valid and the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
It seems like my opponent has taken a teleological approach to prove God's existence. However, this is only abductive... Deductively, this would commit the appeal to probability fallacy, so unfortunately it will not suffice.
"my argument of Goldilocks zone was meant that it is near impossible for a bang or whatever theory you believe to perfectly place the Earth where it is."
In fact, the Big Bang Theory only postulates that the universe expanded from a singularity. There is nothing incoherent regarding the placement of the earth. Considering that we are the one of billions of billions of planets in the observable universe, the placement is not unfathomable.
The rest of Pro's assertions are not backed up with sources.
"If God were to truly possess omnipotence, then by definition, he cannot have a limit, for that would contradict the denotation of 'omnipotence'. But, this argument postulates why this is in fact, sophistry. If God does not have a limit, then God would be able to create a God that is more powerful than itself. If God cannot, then God is not truly omnipotent. Yet, if God can, then it would completely contradict the definition of God - nothing can be greater or equally great when in comparison to God."
But this paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence (all-powerful) Omnipotent does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that He can do anything that"s possible according to his nature. For example the Bible tells us that God cannot lie (Hebrew 6:18 ASV : that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us) Surely this isn't because he lacks power the power to do so, or because he doesn"t know how to; rather, it is because his holiness make it impossible for him to lie. Lying would contradict his own nature, for God is truth (John 14:6). God can only do those things that are consistent with his nature. He cannot lie because it is against his nature. Note being able to lie does not mean his in not all powerful. The point is that GOd cannot do something that is in violation of his own existence or nature. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with God"s nature and consistent with his desire. What critics, evolutionists, and atheists are doing is they are trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove that God doesn't exist because of logic. This doesn't work and the paradox and argument are invalid.
I would like to repeat my earlier argument and add a few sources:
"For my next argument I would like to bypass my argument and say somehow the Earth and everything came into existence. Then what? Astronomer and Mathematician Fred Hoyle calculated the odds for a one-cell animals to emerge by chance, and the result was a 1 in 10^40,000 chance. He concluded that the odds for a complex human to emerge by chance were too high to calculate. Biophysicist Dr. Harold Morowitz calculated the time it would take for simple bacteria to reassemble after all the chemical bonds are broken. The answer was 10^100,000,000,000 years. So the claim that human being were emerged by chance is invalid, therefore there is a greater being that made us."
For my next argument I would like to use the term problem with evil. Many people ask themselves if God is just, loving, etc. why would he allow tsunamis, cancer, murder, etc. This is a common misunderstanding and in fact it is what caused Steve Jobs to back away from God and become an atheist. My response is that God does not cause evil, he allow evil to exist. For example lets look at the law of gravity. God created the law of gravity as a mechanism to sustain life on earth. If a person jumps from a building and dies, did God kill that person? No, the law of gravity did! Also good cannot exist without evil. Good and evil, according to this position, are relative terms, like up and down or past and future; we cannot have one or the other, we have to have both.
"But this paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence (all-powerful)"
In fact, no; no it doesn't. I already defined omnipotence from a prestigious dictionary; it is valid and we ought to argue with it.
"He can do anything that"s possible according to his nature."
Even by your definition, it is fallacious; if that is the case, then God is not 'all powerful'. Since God is bound by logic... A God that would truly be all powerful, ought to be able to surpass logic.
My opponent then uses the bible as a source; this is not a valid source, and I commend that Pro does not use it to verify his argument. I can write in a book as well, and state the complete opposite... Which one is more valid? Neither; without deductive evidence, his argument is not valid.
" Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with God"s nature and consistent with his desire."
This is hedging; Pro contradicts the definition he provided earlier, and commends that God is in fact not 'all powerful'.
I would like to begin with a quick prologue to this argument: This is known as an abductive argument, which means that it is an argument for the best explanation for something we don't know... As this argument does, it appeals to probability. However, since this is only abductive, a deductive argument would supersede the veracity of an abductive argument; for a deductive argument infers a definite answer... That's what I would like to use to refute this argument...
Reverse Modal Ontological Argument
P1:It is possible that a maximally great being does not exists.
P2:If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
P3: if a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.
P4:If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.
P5:.If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.
C: Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.
Through modal axioms, it is not incoherent to postulate that God cannot exist. Therefore, through modal representation, this argument is valid:
P2) ◊~(∃x) ⊃ ◊~(∃x)
P3) ◊~(∃x) ⊃ ~ (∃x)
P4) ~ (∃x) ⊃ ~(∃x)
P5) ~(∃x) ⊃ ~(∃x)
C) ∴ ~(∃x)
Therefore, the conclusion logically follows from the premises and the argument is sound.
Since deductive reasoning supersedes abductive reasoning, Pro ought to refute the two proposed arguments to win the debate.
pyevchik forfeited this round.
Please ignore the forfeit and make the vote regarding the rounds that were fulfilled.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.