The Christian God probably does not exist
Debate Rounds (5)
2: Opening Arguments
3: New points/ Refutations
4: New points/ Refutations
5: Refutation/ Closing
Christian God: " Christians believe God is the creator and sustainer of the universe (e.g. John 1:1-3, Col. 1:16-17, cf. Gen. 1:1). God is also all-powerful (or "omnipotent"), all-knowing (or "omniscient"), all-present (or "omnipresent"), and all-good (or "omnibenevolent")"
Firstly, just think about the Earth: .its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
What a coincidence... How many chances there are that Earth got all this features just by the accident?
Secondly, think about DNA. How we already know DNA is a code. Scientists already know that the genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. There is no way at all that this thing could have appeared by itself. It just impossible. Only mind can create it.
Thirdly, lets think about ours universe appearing logically. Everything which has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause. But God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn"t need a cause.
If gravity had been a little greater, all stars would have been red dwarfs, which are too cold to support life-bearing planets. If it had been a little smaller, the universe would have been composed exclusively of blue giants which burn too briefly for life to develop.
Changes in the strength of either gravity or electromagnetism by only one part in 1040 would have spelled disaster for stars like the Sun.
If the nuclear strong force were increased by 1%, almost all carbon would be burned into oxygen; an increase of 2% would prevent the formation of protons, yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5% would have given us a universe composed only of hydrogen, without any stars.
Had the nuclear weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned into helium (making water impossible, for example). If it had been appreciably stronger, then the Big Bang would have proceeded past helium to iron, making stars impossible.
The ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism makes it possible for helium and beryllium to have a resonant frequency of exactly the same value as that of an excited state of carbon (the so-called "Hoyle state"), allowing the helium and beryllium to bind together to form carbon in the centre of stars. The Hoyle state (which our basic models say should not even be there, but is!) is 7.65 MeV above the ground state of carbon-12, but if it were a mere 0.06 MeV more or less than this, then the abundance of carbon in our universe would be very different. Without carbon there would have been no life.
The spectral energy range of starlight is very close to the molecular binding energies of organic molecules. If it was to greatly to exceed this range, living organisms would be sterilized or destroyed; but if it was far below this range, then the photochemical reactions necessary to life would proceed too slowly for life to exist.
The length of time that our Sun is able to continue to burn is constrained by both the strength of the gravitational force and by the ratio of the mass of the electron to that of the proton.
A fine balance must exist between the gravitational and weak interactions. If the balance were upset in one direction, the universe would have been constituted by 100% helium in its early phase, which would have made it impossible for life to exist now. If the balance were tipped in the other direction, then it would not have been possible for neutrinos to blast the envelopes of supernovae into space and so distribute the heavy elements essential to life.
The difference between the mass of the neutron and that of the proton is also part of a very delicate coincidence which is crucial to a life-supporting environment. This difference prevents protons from decaying into neutrons, which, if it happened, would make life impossible. If the neutron mass failed to exceed the proton mass by a little more than the value it does, then atoms would simply collapse.
If the initial spread of matter in the universe had been a little less uniform then the non-uniformities would have condensed prematurely into black holes before stars could form, but if it had been a little more uniform, the inhomogeneities would have been insufficient to condense into galaxies.
Intelligent life would be impossible except in a universe of three basic dimensions. For example, it is due to its basic three-dimensionality that the world possesses the chemistry that it does, which furnishes some key conditions necessary for the existence of life. In addition, the brain can only form in a 3D world. In 2D, neurons forming links to other neurons in the brain would be unable to cross over each other in order to reach all possible target neurons. In 4D, there would be too much "space", meaning that those same neurons would find it almost impossible to seek out and find any other neuron.
Water, on which life obviously depends, is one of the strangest substances known to science. It is such a simple molecule, consisting of just two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, and yet:
It has one of the largest temperature ranges over which it exists in a liquid form. This has allowed there to be sufficient liquid water on the Earth for life to be able to continue throughout the many climatic changes that the planet has undergone in its history.
If the H-O-H bond angle was very different from what it is, ice would not be able to form an open structure with very little strain on the bonds. As a result, ice is less dense than water - in fact, it is the only substance to be less dense in its solid form than in its liquid form. If ice was more dense than water, all icebergs would sink to the bottom of the ocean and, because heat rises, the water immediately above the ice would cool and freeze, and, eventually, all of the Earth's oceans would freeze from the bottom upwards. As it is, the ice form a protective layer on the surface of the liquid ocean, enabling sea creatures to continue living below while the ice is frozen above.
Water also has a higher specific heat than almost any organic compound. This property allows water to be a store of heat and so stabilize the environment (otherwise the land would repeatedly bake and freeze).
The thermal conductivity of water is also higher than that of most liquids, which again permits water to act as a temperature stabilizer on the environment (otherwise oceanic hot- and cold-spots would cause extremes of temperature).
Water has a higher heat of vaporization than any known substance. This makes water the best possible coolant by evaporation, and living creatures use this to control their temperatures.
Water's high surface tension, exceeded by very few substances, serves to make biochemical reactions more rapid, by allowing the water to "stick" to the molecules involved in the reactions and dissolve them.
If all this fine tuning implies design, then there must be a designer. The universe has such a high degree of co-ordination and the values are so critical that such a universe could not have come about by chance. Somebody created it.
Well I was really hoping to hear new arguments for god's existence but once again the argument from design and the KCA are asserted. I shall deal with these next round.
Arguments From Divine Incoherence:
These arguments shall demonstrate that the Christian god probably doesn't exist, because the existence of such a god would result in utter incoherence.
Problem Of Omnipotence:
God is defined as omnipotent. Omnipotent: " (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything."
P1)If God exists, then God is omnipotent
P2) It should be the case that there is nothing that god can't do
P3) There is something that god can't do
C1) God does not exists
P1 is true by definition.
P2 is a derivation of P1
P3) Is a contentious point, that if true shall negate P2
C1 necessarily follows from the premises.
Defense of P3 via syllogism:
P1) An omnippotent being can create an object it can't lift.
P2) If an omnipotent being can create an object it can't lift, it can't lift the object, thus it isn't omnipotent
P3) If it can't create an object it can't lift, then it is not omnipotent.
C4) Omnipotence is impossible.
The common objection is that this is a logical impossibility and god is bound by the logical absolutes. However to say god is bound, is to concede omnipotence. However it get's even worse than that. God can't even do all that is logically possible.
P1) An omnipotent god can be evil
P2) An Omnibenevolent god can't be evil
C1) A god that is defined as omnipotent and omnibenevolent can't exist.
It is not a logical impossibility to be evil. Humans are evil all the time, so it's logical possible, however god can't be. So the Theist usually says god can do that which is of god's nature. So this basically means god can do what god can do, which can be said for anyone.
The Problem Of Evil(Epicurean Paradox):
P2)God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
P3)An omnibenevolent god would wish to preventall evils.
P4)An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
P5)An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
P6)A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
P7)If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
P8)Evil exists (logical contradiction).
C1)Evil and god as described by theism can not logically co-exist.
The problem of evil is a very old argument and theologians have had thousands of years to address it. So what do they say? The response is usually free will. But if there's a god, there is no free will for anybody.
Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):
P1)An omniscient god knows the future.
P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong.
P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.
C1) You don't have free will.
So if there is a god, there is no rational way to combat the problem of evil.
Problem Of Omniscience And Free-Will:
P1) If god exists, he has free will and is omniscient.
P2) God knows the future
P3) God knows what actions he will perform
P4) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)
P5) God's actions are predetermined
P6) God has no free will.
C1) God does not exists.
(True by virtue of omniscience)
So as defined god's existence Is In coherent.
Implausability Of An External Observer:
P1) God is omniscient
P2) God would observe all quantum superpositions
P3) Observation collapses quantum superpositions
P4) God would collapse all quantum positions superpositions
P5) All quantum superpositions are not collapsed
C1) God does not exist
" Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics)."
Conclusion: God's traits are self-contradictory and render the existence of such a being incoherent and impossible. Before Con assert's god as the reason for anything, she must demonstrate that such a being can even logically exists. My premises are self-explanatory, but if I must explain more, I will state the laws that validate my arguments, given god's attributes (Law of non-contradiction.Law of excluded middle). In my next round I will refute Con's arguments.
1) If there's no christian god bible must be fake cause it's a word of God and the people who wrote it must be cheaters. But it has told us about the events that really happened in future. For example:
The birth of the man named Jesus was foretold in old testament 1,000 years before Christ was born! (And Jesus was a real historical person. science proved it) I mean maybe after 1000 years in a place you live will be born a man named John. But how can you know it ? There's no way to guess it correctly, somebody has to told you. Somebody who knows and it has to be a higher person cause there's no way for a simple human to know it. That's how Bible defends itself from being fake.
2) Often It's easier to prove devil's existence because he visits us much more often. You're free to call devil's possession a brain damage, but there're hundreds of stories how possessed people start to spit tacks from their mouth, how they start to talk latin (no matter that they never new this language) or how they start telling sins of a priest etc... Of course it might be fake but there're too many stories (usually they coincides) and documentaries,even videos. Devil is a biblical person, so if it's real. then bible must be real either and therefore christian god must be real.
3) My position is so easy, I can say on everything "God made that happen" but if you deny God existence and even try to ground your opinion you have to tell how everything happens by itself. For example how does the stuff I wrote about happen by itself and with nobody's will. if you're debating you can't just simply say "I have no idea how it happens but I'm absolutely sure it happens by itself lol"
Con did not address my arguments. Also I suspect Con is Plagiarising. If you type her 1st round into a Plagiarism checker, her argument appears to be verbatim or close to it. Also, it is odd she has a kinda scientific 1st round, but an utterly ridiculous 2nd round.
Con argues from vague prophecy, which is nongermane to the debate.
"I mean maybe after 1000 years in a place you live will be born a man named John. But how can you know it ? There's no way to guess it correctly, somebody has to told you. Somebody who knows and it has to be a higher person cause there's no way for a simple human to know it. That's how Bible defends itself from being fake."
So Con says there is a zero percent chance that I can't guess that a John shall exist in a 1000 years. Really?
I'm relatively sure if I guessed a John will be born in 1000 year's i'd probably be right.
Of course I can't be 100% sure, but there is no way to know that the biblical authors were 100& sure.
C1.B: circulus in probando and petitio principii
Con is basically arguing as follows:
P1) The bible is true
P2) The bible says the bible is true
C) The bible is true.
She does not adequately defend the P1
C2: The Devil:
The Devil is a figure in all Abrahamic religions. So I don't see your point.
Latin/Tunges: First, it's a non-sequitur to say god or Christianity is true due to people spouting unintelligble non-sense. Second, this can be neurologically addressed as a drop in frontal lobe activity and caudate activity.'
C3: argumentum ad ignorantiam
Con says:"My position is so easy, I can say on everything "God made that happen". This is not at all convincing or rational.
KCA: "Everything which has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause." NO.
This is a terribly presumptuous argument.
A) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
B) The universe began to exist
C) The universe has a cause
D) That cause is god
1. Everything non-eternal has a cause
2. The universe has a cause
3. The universe has a supernatural cause
Assumption1 is false. In quantum physics particles come in and out of existence with no cause. Further more something comes from nothing, this is demonstrated by experiments regarding the Casmir effect.
Assumption 2 might be true. I will elaborate on axiom two in my discussion of plausible cosmological models.
Assumption 3 is so absurd that it ISN'T EVEN FALSE. One could never know if the universe has the transcendent cause; it isn't even testable.
This violates Occam's razor.
If it is true everything has a cause and the universe has a cause, then why can' the universe be the cause of its self.
Saying the universe has a transcendent cause raises unneeded questions that CAN'T EVER BE ANSWERED.
Assumption 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.
(I didn't discuss premise B, because it's probably true, but it is not necessarily true. There are eternal models.
Cosmological Models In Which God Is Unneeded:
-The Oscillating Universe
This is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed.
I really like this one because the universe has a begining but no cause.
Any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.
Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension."
The point isn't that any of these are the right model, rather that there are self contained models.
1. Let's visit the multiverse. The multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation. Via BICEP2 Primordial gravitation waves have been detected, which is almost indisputable proof of inflation.
Inflation accounts for the:
1.Uniformity. The cosmic background radiation is quite uniform. Inflation adequately accounts for the uniformity. A uniform region expanded rapidly, evolving into our visible universe.
2. Mass density. Inflation predicts the omega should 1. The Planck satellite measures the omega as 1, which means our universe should be flat, which it is.
3.Small non-uniformity. The small non-uniformity in the universe is easily accounted for by quantum fluctuations, which have been observed in the CBR.
As explained the multiverse is a consequence of inflation. All the other predictions have come true. I would say that would constitute a good reason to think the multiverse is true.
Via inflation, some parts of the early universe expanded more than other, created bublbles of space time, which later developed into other universes, and our universe is just a bubble universe and requires no creator just a prior universe. The multiverse can be eternal.
Multiverse And Life Permiting Parameters:
All the "fine tuning" con described can be explained through the multiverse.
If there are an infinite amount of universes then some of them are bound to have life permitting parameters.
-More on the watch maker and design:
Now the watch maker argument assumes design is an apparent attribute one would assume.
If there's a watch, someone who knows what a watch is would infer design, but one with no concept of a watch, would most likely conclude that the watch is naturally there.
Also how do you come to the conclusion the universe is designed. We have not experienced other universes to compare it to.
With the argument from design you encounter an infinite regression.
If anything with intelligence comes from prior intelligence, then god must have been designed. Is god not intelligent?
It is absurd to argue everything intelligent comes from prior intelligence but the most intelligent being conceivable doesn't.
aiste0 forfeited this round.
aiste0 forfeited this round.
what a productive use of time...
aiste0 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: What an unfortunate waste of Pro's time. Conduct for the forfeits. Arguments for the lack of response--after several forfeited rounds, there's just too much unresponded case. Sources because Pro clearly has more and more reliable ones. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.