The Instigator
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
FritzStammberger
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

The Evidence Points to Atheism

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 4 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,637 times Debate No: 30146
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (43)
Votes (4)

 

Magic8000

Pro

Resolution: The Evidence Points to Atheism.
BOP is shared

Rules:
No Forfeits
No Fallacies
No Insults
72 Hours to Post
8000 Characters Max
1 Week Voting Period
Start your arguments in round 1

Structure:
Round 1: Pre-debate info and Con's arguments
Round 2: My arguments + rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Conclusion, no new arguments or rebuttals. Keep under 1000 characters.
FritzStammberger

Con

  1. the cosmological argument from contingency
  2. the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
  3. the moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties
  4. the teleological argument from fine-tuning
  5. the ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality

"These are, I believe, good arguments for God’s existence. That is to say, they are logically valid; their premises are true; and their premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their negations. Therefore, insofar as we are rational people, we should embrace their conclusions."

-William Lane Craig
http://thegospelcoalition.org...

I agree,
Fritz

Debate Round No. 1
Magic8000

Pro

I would like to thanks Fritz for accepting

My Arguments

Argument 1: Non Cognitivism

The Argument from Non Cognitivism is formed like this,

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
A. Primary Attributes
B. Secondary Attributes
C. Relational Attributes.
2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.



Argument 2: Argument from Reasonable non-belief.

Theodore Drange formed the argument like this

1.God is omniscient.
2.God is omnipotent.
3.God wants everyone to believe in him.
4.Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists.
5.Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration.
6.Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration.
7.However, atheists manifestly exist.
8.Therefore, the god described by the first three conditions does not exist.

Also formed

1.God either does or does not reveal his existence
2.If God does not reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief
3.If God does reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief, only knowledge
4.The problem of vagueness indicates that there is an unclear ground for belief.

Argument 2a: Application to Bay’s Theorem.

We can apply any one of these arguments to Bay’s Theorem, which is a Theorem on calculating the probability of something. We'll use this one.

For a better understanding of Bay’s, I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Bay’s starts with taking the probability of hypothesis being true based solely on the background knowledge and nothing else. We will assume the background knowledge of God existing is 50/50. Now we must get the probability based on evidence. We have a lot of experience with beings that have these characteristics of wanting to give evidence, having the power to do so and actually doing it. They’re called humans. If we have 1000 humans who want to give evidence they exist and have the power to do so, there wouldn’t be any reason at all for someone not to give that evidence. Let’s be really generous and say there exists 50 good, unique, and valid reasons for not giving that evidence. This would mean our probability for God’s existence would be 50 or 0.5 and against would be 950. Our equation with answers is below.

0.5*0.5 = 0.25
P= -----------------
0.5* 950 = 475 + 0.25= 475.25
0.25/475.25 = 0.0005

Meaning there’s only a 0.0005% chance God exists.

The resolution is affirmed.

My Opponent's arguments

1. Contingency
2. Kalam


I will respond to both cosmological arguments. The first premise of the contingency is

Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
and Kalam is
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

These are however wrong

Physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause or contingent reason is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. As other events such as Quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause. [1][2][3]

All Con says is the name of the arguments, but these arguments if valid only show the universe had a cause. Con needs to prove that cause is God and the reason of the universe's existence is because of God. The arguments are irrelevant until Con proves otherwise.


3. The moral argument

Con gives us the moral argument, but a typical definition of "moral" is assumed. I need Con to define "morality". Keep in mind Con's definition can't include a reference to God, otherwise his argument is begging the question, by stating the very thing he's trying to prove that morality comes from God. If Con doesn't include a reference God than the conclusion (that God exists) can never be reached.

For example, why does Con think something like murder is wrong? Saying "Because God says so" is circular and saying "The victim is suffering" would need proof that in a universe where no gods exist the victim wouldn't suffer.

Euthyphro dilemma

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" -Socrates

In modern terms it would be formed

"Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"

If the first is true, then there's an objective standard of morality above God.
If the second is true, then morality is just might makes right, it would make good arbitrary to what God commands.

4. Fine-tuning argument

Since Con just says "the teleological argument from fine-tuning" I can only go so far. Con needs to provide specific examples.

The fine tuning argument is actually a good argument for atheism

“Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us.... a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size & enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. That’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size & age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely & sparingly, & that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) & by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal...Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one." -Richard Carrier [4]

Paul Doland has this to say about the fine tuning argument [5]

I've coined a phrase to describe the "fine-tuning" argument. I call it the "astonishment index." People find the universe, well, astonishing--and rightly so. It is quite amazing that it exists. And the "fine-tuning" argument seems to argue that the more astonishing the universe is, the more unlikely it is to exist without a creator. Thus, Collins seems to be saying that the probability of the universe existing without cause is inversely proportional to the astonishment index. But no matter how high the universe ranks on the astonishment index, God must rank even higher. So the probability that God has no creator must be even lower than the probability that there is no creator of the universe!

5. Ontological argument

The ontological argument can prove anything if its reasoning is valid

Gaunilo's island
  1. The perfect Island is that than which no greater can be conceived.
  2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
  3. If the Perfect Island does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater island, id est one that does exist.
  4. Therefore, the perfect Island exists in reality.

Hercules refutation

  1. Hercules is the greatest warrior in history.
  2. A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not.
  3. If Hercules only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater warrior
  4. Therefore, Hercules existed

Thanks! Back to Con

Sources in link below

[1] http://tny.cz...

FritzStammberger

Con

Argument 1: Non Cognitivism

3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A. (A. Primary Attributes)

List of God's known attributes

http://www.theopedia.com...'s_known_attributes

Eternal

Holiness

Unchanging

Impassable

Infinite

All-powerful

Everywhere-present

All-wise

All-knowing

Simple

Self-existent

Self-sufficient

Immaterial

Good

Love

Gracious

Merciful

Just

Sovereign

http://www.theopedia.com...'s_known_attributes

Argument 2: Argument from Reasonable non-belief.

"atheists manifestly exist."

- only for now. At some point in the future the atheist will be confronted with the reality of his creator. We all will.

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."

King James Bible Mathew 12:36

- Yes this is from the bible.

- The bible has demonstrated its authenticity by fulfilling over 2000 prophecies to the letter.

Argument 2a: Application to Bay’s Theorem.

response - God exists, he came and dwelt among us in bodily form as Jesus Christ. Jesus is a historical figure. No competent historian will deny the historicity of Jesus Christ. Therefore - God exists.

1. Contingency

2. Kalam

All Con says is the name of the arguments, but these arguments if valid only show the universe had a cause. Con needs to prove that cause is God and the reason of the universe's existence is because of God. The arguments are irrelevant until Con proves otherwise.

Response:

Classical argument

  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
  2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;Therefore:
  3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

Contemporary argument

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

  1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
  2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
  3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org......

Proof that the cause is God: The attributes of this cause must match the attributes in (A. Primary Attributes) as written above near the top of this page

This proves the universe had a beginning, and had a cause and the cause was God and we know at least some of Gods attributes.

I encourage you to become a Christian and follow the living God, repent from sin and serve Him in the name of Jesus Christ amen. find a new testament and read it with an open mind and ask yourself if this might be the true God.

3. The moral argument

Murder for fun is wrong because it is against Gods will. Anything contrary to Gods will is wrong.

it is wrong regardless of how you feel about it. Objectively wrong.

question Do you affirm objective morals? or do you think morals are subjective?

Euthyphro dilemma

"Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"

or

"would you still have knocked over the pot if I hadn't said anything?"

-oracle in "the Matrix"

I want to just state here that there ARE some mysteries of God that He has simply not revealed to us at this time. We can't pretend that we know everything about Him, he is unsearchable in some ways.

I'll ponder this question for a bit…

I think the fine tuning argument is very sound.

You posted nothing but conjecture, and speculation. I cant seem to even extract 1 coherent argument in there. could you maybe summarize all these quotes for me into an argument.

lastly..

Ontological Argument

"The Ontological Argument is an attempt to prove God’s existence, first postulated by Anselm. In brief, it states that

- God is a being of which no greater thing exists or can be thought of.

Therefore,

since we can conceive of God as the greatest of all things that exist, then God must exist."

http://carm.org...

Job 38

King James Version (KJV)

38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;

27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?

29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.

31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?

35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?

36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?

God IS a being of which no greater thing exists or can be thought of.


I now ask you to present a positive case for atheism. What is your "evidence"?

Debate Round No. 2
Magic8000

Pro

Argument 1: Non Cognitivism

Con lists various attributes and claims they're primary attributes, but this is wrong. They're secondary. Strongatheism.net explains why [1]

It is important to note that the question is particularly, "What is God?", rather than inquiring as to the capacities, actions, or character traits of such a thing. The inquiry posed by the ANC(Argument from Non Cognitvism) demands a comprehensive presentation of the identity of whatever that is which the theist is asserting. This is necessary for two reasons:

Firstly, if one were to say that, "The dress is beautiful", and I were to respond by asking, "What is a dress?""it would hardly be a help to me for that individual to respond, "It has a nice design and is comfortable". While it being comfortable and being designed attractively may play a factor in its being called beautiful, my question has not been answered. I have not asked for further secondary characteristics of the dress, but rather what the dress is itself that it has the capacity to be called "beautiful".

Similarly, when the Strong-Atheist inquires, "What is God?""the theist"s reiterating of the various capacities and secondary character traits found in scriptural texts and elsewhere is insufficient. The question inquires specifically into what "God" is, rather than what "God" can do, likes to do, or has done."

..To say that an "unie" possesses wisdom in proportion to its nature"while stipulating that such wisdom is different in kind from man"s wisdom and that the nature of an "unie" is unknowable"contributes nothing to our understanding of "unie" or to the meaning of the attributes when applied to an "unie.

...Primary Attributes: or fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existant"s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified

Secondary Attributes: the character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise.

...none of these descriptions actually answer our question....all relational attributes"dealing with comparisons between whatever the theist means by the term "God" and the universe, or humanity in general. The remaining premises are secondary in nature, observing what abilities or characteristic traits "God" has as a result of His metaphysical nature as an existant. But what "God" is as a metaphysical being"the primary attribute of the term itself, remains unprovided.


Argument 2: Argument from Reasonable non-belief.

Con completely ignores my argument. Saying one day atheists won't be atheists does nothing to refute the argument.

1-2. Cosmological Argument

Con says
Proof that the cause is God: The attributes of this cause must match the attributes in (A. Primary Attributes) as written above near the top of this page

This is a baseless assertion. Con hasn't justified or proven the attributes. Until Con gives the attributes with reasons why they fit, the argument is irrelevant to the debate.

3. Moral Argument

Murder for fun is wrong because it is against Gods will. Anything contrary to Gods will is wrong.

The argument is
1. It objective morals exist, God exists
2. Objective morality does exist
3. Therefore God exists

However, now we know Con defines morality as what God wills. So the argument is

1. What God wills is objectivity moral
2. Therefore God exists.

Con is begging the question here.

I do lean more to the side of objective morals existing. We don't need a God to account for these morals

The unit of ethics is values. Values are things that one must work to gain or keep (a simple example of that is nutrition). These values are short-handed ways of expressing moral principles (ex. "we need to eat because otherwise we die"), and moral principles are short-handed way of expressing scientific or social facts (such as the facts about metabolism).

The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly.

By evaluating what values are being effected by a given action in its context, we can express a sound moral judgment on that action (this was a good thing to do, this was a bad thing to do). This is true regardless of your actual moral system " we all have values, implicitly or explicitly. The real argument is about those scientific and social facts and what values they entail. There cannot be any argument on whether there are objective moral principles: it"s a discussion about as ridiculous as asking whether the Earth exists. We all need to act to survive.
[2]

Simplified
(1) Actions have consequences.
(2) These consequences are within the province of causality, since they are material.
(3) Therefore, the relation between actions and consequences is objective.
[3]

Euthyphro's dilemma

Con says he's not too sure on this one. I can say the same on objective morality. If one can't account for objective morality. If objective morality was proven, it doesn't follow God put them there.

Just above this, Con says.
"Anything contrary to Gods will is wrong"

Michael Martin reformed the question.
"Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?"

4. Fine Tuning.

Con claims these arguments aren't coherent, but doesn't explain why. I also asked Con to provide a specific example of fine tuning.

Here's the summery
If the constants were fine tuned by a natural process, we would expect the universe to be extremely large, old, mostly deadly, and life should be rare.
...a god does not need vast trillions of star systems and billions of years to make life. He doesn"t need vast quantities of lethal space and deadly matter. Only a godless universe needs that.[4]

The fine tuning argument seems to say the more amazing and complex the universe is, the more likely it had a creator. God would need to be more amazing and complex to create this universe, but theists say God is uncaused. So the universe under theistic reasoning needs no God to become amazing and complex.

5. Ontological Argument.

Con again ignores my response, yet he did clear up what version of the Ontological argument he's using.

"God is a being of which no greater thing exists or can be thought of. Therefore, since we can conceive of God as the greatest of all things that exist, then God must exist."

I can conceive of a more powerful being that can eliminate the former ad infinitum. Furthermore if God is suppose to be the greatest thing that can be conceived. Yet 2 Gods would be better than 1 and 3 God better than 2 ad infinitum.

The Ontological argument can be defended, because "God" is a meaningless word. It works with any meaningless word

1. An "Orgh" is that than which no greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
3. If the "Orgh" does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater thing exists or can be thought of.
4. Therefore, the "Orgh" exists in reality.

Con needs to give "God" a meaningful definition before we can discuss any arguments whatsoever, but specifically with the ontological argument.

The resolution is affirmed. Back to Con!

Sources in link below
[1] http://tny.cz...
FritzStammberger

Con

Argument 1: Non Cognitivism

you want to know what God is?

God is a mind.

Argument 2: Argument from Reasonable non-belief.

- Atheists do NOT exist.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

Romans 1:20

Kalam

my opponent must show that something, namely (the entire universe from molecules to men) came spontaneously from absolutely nothing (which is repulsive to logic and reason). Unless and until he does that, the Kalam cosmological argument remains sound.


attributes:

- "Until Con gives the attributes with reasons why they fit, the argument is irrelevant to the debate."

- Reasons why they fit - we have a written history of God revealing these attributes over time. written by 60 authors (most who have never met) over thousands of years yet is an integrated message system that never contradicts. This is super natural evidence from outside time and space that affirms this premiss.

Morality

you said

"The basis of ethics is causality:everything has consequences"

but you said in round 2

"Physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause."

which is it?

Your augment is inconsistent. Atheisms is an inconsistent world view. You argue one thing but live the opposite.

If you want to have a consistent world view that defines

- meaning

- morality

- purpose

try theism.

If you want to keep living self contradictory and inconstantly then try to be atheist. However,

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

Romans 1:20

YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE.

Debate Round No. 3
Magic8000

Pro

Argument 1: Non Cognitivism

Con states God is a mind, but is this really a primary attribute? Let's look at the definitions of "mind"

Dictionary.com defines mind as

noun
1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind. [1]

These are all clearly secondary attributes and don't give us a meaningful definition of "God". I can't have a positive belief in a God until a meaningful definition exists. We can only say "God" doesn't exist, referring to the word "God" (as the concept "God" has no meaning).

It may be a primary attribute if Con wants to say God has a physical brain, but this would be contradicting a secondary attribute that Con gave.

Argument 2: Argument from Reasonable non-belief.

Con contradicts himself here. First he says atheists exist for now, then he claims all atheists know God exists. This is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. If I take a polygraph test, Con could just use some ad hoc rationalization like "You're just in denial". Besides, it doesn't answer the argument. Why would God make atheists know he exists and let them deny it. That's just nonsensical.

1-2. Cosmological Argument

Con clearly doesn't understand the burden of proof, he also commits the fallacy of excluded middle and the argument from ignorance. If Con makes the claim that God is the cause of the universe, he must prove it. If there was no naturalistic model for the universe"s origin, this doesn't prove God.

Con also strawmans me, by saying I must prove something came from absolutely nothing. I never stated this, nor said absolute nothing ever existed.

There's many models where the universe comes into existence without the help of a God.

But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. Keep in mind E=mc^2 shows energy and matter are basically one in the same, they can transform into each other The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. [2]

Edward Tryon said

The laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible. [3]

Tryon"s model has been falsified, however there's updated models, such as Alexander Vilenkin"s quantum tunneling model. His model states the universe came from an uncaused quantum tunneling event. [4] [5]

We clearly don't need Con"s God hypothesis for the origin of the universe. There are scientific explanations that make predictions and have explanatory power. So why should we accept Con"s hypothesis?

... have a written history of God revealing these attributes over time. written by 60 authors (most who have never met) over thousands of years yet is an integrated message system

Fan fiction is the same way.

that never contradicts. This is super natural evidence from outside time and space that affirms this premiss.

There's a contradiction in the dates of Jesus" birth.

It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts. [6]

Even if it were true, it doesn't necessarily entail that God exists. If a book existed that contradicted another book of a higher standing, it probably would've been deemed not divine and wouldn't be in the bible.

3. Moral Argument

Con claims I contradicted myself, but Con is clearly strawmanning me. He"s making a category mistake, confusing ethical causality with physical causality -which refutes the first premise of the Kalam and Con hasn't objected to-.

Con claims in order for a world view to be consistent, it must define meaning. I see no justification for this.

Consistent is defined as

1. agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent.
2. constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc.: a consistent opponent.
3. holding firmly together; cohering [7]

What does this have to do with purpose or meaning? We can easily give our lives purpose and meaning. It doesn't matter if there's no objective purpose.

Con basically forfeited this section, same with the fine tuning and Ontological sections.

The resolution is affirmed. Back to Con!

Sources
[1] http://dictionary.com...
[2] Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam
[3] Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397.
[4] http://www.mukto-mona.com...
[5] http://pdfcast.org...
[6] http://www.infidels.org...
[7] http://dictionary.com...
FritzStammberger

Con

does a watch have a creator? does a car? does a computer?

Obviously yes!

yet.. you honestly think that the world which contains all these things has no creator?

You make yourself "god"

good luck with that.



Debate Round No. 4
Magic8000

Pro

Conclusion

Con has yet to give a definition of God with primary attributes. Thus none of his arguments are meaningful. He doesn't back up his definition.

On my second argument, he says atheists exist, then says they don't. He doesn't even try to take on my argument.

Con doesn't defend the first premise of the Kalam and doesn't back up his reasons for believing the cause is God.

Con ignores my objections to the moral argument, then confuses ethical causality with physical causality.

Con ignores my request for a specific example of fine tuning and responses, then eventually drops it.

Con doesn't even try to address me on the ontological argument.

In his last rebuttal round he basically forfeits.

Let the voting begin!
FritzStammberger

Con

My Conclusion

1. "Con has yet to give a definition of God with primary attributes. Thus none of his arguments are meaningful. He doesn't back up his definition."

Listen to me very closely, Jesus. Jesus IS Lord.

He is perfectly Just and Righteous. and all the other things I listed in round 2.

2. "On my second argument, he says atheists exist, then says they don't. He doesn't even try to take on my argument."

- Your argument begins "We will assume the background knowledge of God existing is 50/50"

- I will not assume that, I am not interested in your ASSUMPTIONS.

THIS ARGUMENT FAILS, IT IS AN ASSUMPTION.

3. "Con doesn't defend the first premise of the Kalam and doesn't back up his reasons for believing the cause is God."

- Yes I DID back it up with the contemporary argument which states:

  1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
  2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
  3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org.........

I also clearly provided proof that it was God:

"Proof that the cause is God: The attributes of this cause must match the attributes in (A. Primary Attributes) as written above near the top of this page"

So I DID defend the first premise of the Kalam AND backed up my reasons for believing the cause is God.

4. "Con ignores my objections to the moral argument, then confuses ethical causality with physical causality."

- In the universe that you are defending ethical causality IS physical. or should I say fizz-ical. because you believe we are just fizzing chemicals, you fizz atheist and I fizz christian. YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY in your atheist universe because YOU HAVE NO FOUNDATION.

5. "Con ignores my request for a specific example of fine tuning and responses, then eventually drops it."

Here you want an example?

EVERYTHING IS FINE TUNED.

you dropped ALL of my arguments.

6. "Con doesn't even try to address me on the ontological argument.

In his last rebuttal round he basically forfeits."

Ha! I didn't "forfeit" I just didn't feel as though I needed to present anymore evidence that atheism is CLEARLY not true.



You can dance around in circles all you want but the stark reality of the matter is staring you right in the face. You were created by an all powerful, all knowing all loving creator who indowed you with near super natural abilities and gave you the complete freedom of choice. He is trying to shape you into a real Man but he can't if you keep resisting Him and being like a spoiled teenager who say's "I don't need my father, I don't need nobody, I'll take care of my self." well we all know that this BOY eventually grows up and becomes a MAN and reconciles with his father or his family or his friends or whatever. So stop living in sin and unholiness and repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ who will forgive you and wipe away your sins and transgressions against him and give you eternal life. amen.

Debate Round No. 5
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
LOL anti.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Hitler was anti-atheist, he vowed to rid Germany of atheists.
Maybe anti-atheist and Hitler could have been lovers!

Aye Magic! :-D8
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
Fritz messanged me to vote. Id vote 7 points against you
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
Magic= owned
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
If we do discover any god like manifestations, it would definitely have nothing to do with the perceptions (truly mis-perceptions) of Christianity, Judaism nor Islam.
That's for certain!
Aye M8! :-D-
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Mathematics has naught to do with showing god does not exist.

The only evidence for their god is in their scriptures.
Since there scriptures have been shown to be negligent in detail and knowledge of reality.
It cannot have been dictated by any omniscient being: Thus the omniscient being does not exist.
Since Genesis stories in all religions have got it entirely wrong: There is no omnipotent creator neither.
Since both the major monotheistic religions texts demonstrate an extremely malevolent, narcissistic megalomaniac for a god.
There is no great Omni-benevolent god either.
Also their scriptures depict that we (male and female?) were created in this god's image, there must be a huge human like manifestation lurking around, none found, no that doesn't exist either.

Judging on the stupidity of scriptural proof for their god.

It cannot possibly exist!

Aye M8! :-D-
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
No Magic! 99.99% Atheism is RIGHT!!!!!!
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
"Pro puts forth Tryon's explanation for why God isn't needed, but then refutes his own model."

Garret, did you read what I said after I talked about the tryon model? Clearly not.

You also misunderstood the argument from NC. It's not about non-contradictory definitions. It also doesn't help you to say "God" does not refer to anything that exists, it actually helps the NC argument.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
:YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE

OH SNAP!

God: 1
Atheists: 0
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
I meant 96% chance atheism is true
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Orwell 3 years ago
Orwell
Magic8000FritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con simply lifted arguments from WLC, and didn't even explain them, but simply named them: conduct to Pro. Pro went into more detail and provided higher quality links than Con: argument and sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Magic8000FritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because of Pro's over use of quoted material. Arguments to Con because: -- Pro demands a description of God's physical attributes when Con made it clear God isn't physical. -- Con provided multiple, non-contradictory definitions of God but Pro kept claiming he never provided one. -- Pro demands Con must use naturalistic means to prove something supernatural. -- Pro puts forth Tryon's explanation for why God isn't needed, but then refutes his own model. Con was more consistent in his arguments. Con did a horrible job refuting the "existence of atheists prove God isn't real" argument, but it was an invalid argument in and of itself, so neither side gets points for it. There's many more reasons I have arguments to Con but I don't have room to list them. Con's grammar was horrible. FritzStammberger, please use better grammar from now on.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
Magic8000FritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Writing a detailed analysis of each and every arguments would go beyond space limits. I will point out as much as I can: (1) Con's round four arguments was clearly short and weak and he names arguments rather than making them himself; (2) Con stated "Proof that the cause is God: The attributes of this cause must match the attributes in (A. Primary Attributes) as written above near the top of this page" However, he did not support why Kalam's cause must match those attributes and that was challenged; (3) Pro presented the Hercules / Perfect Island rebuttals to the Ontological argument and those were unrebutted; (4) Pro argues Con's morality argument is circular and that is unrebutted; (5) Con dropped the fine-tuning argument until the final (no new arguments or rebuttals) round. Arguments to Pro. I will also award Pro conduct since Con violated the final round rules w/ over 1,000 characters.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
Magic8000FritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke a rule, hence I give conduct to pro. Con's S&G is always bad, so that point goes to pro too. Pro also used more sources.