The Instigator
quantummechanics97
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GodSands
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

The Existence of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
GodSands
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,108 times Debate No: 19122
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

quantummechanics97

Con

Hello, i noticed you like to comment on religious philosophy so i would like to prove to you that god, in fact, does not exist.
GodSands

Pro

Alright then, I will allow you to begin with the first arguments, against God. Go for it!
Debate Round No. 1
quantummechanics97

Con

The disproof of god is proven in many ways. The first is The Hypothetical Boulder Theory. If god is all-powerful with all tangible things, can he create a boulder so large that he cannot move it? If he can, then he will be failing to be able to move something, and therefore will not be all-powerful. If he can't then he will unable to do something and so again will not be all-powerful.
Here are more disproofs of god. Just to clarify, I will be defining god as a singular being who is:
1.All-just;
2.All-powerful;
3.All-merciful;
4.Immutable;
5.Transcendent;
6.Is ruler of the universe;
1.And is active in it;
7.Omnipresent; and
8.All-good.

1) Presupposition of Atheism
1.If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.
2.The claim that god exists is an extraordinary claim.
3.Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.
4.There is no extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor.
5.Therefore, the claim that god exists may be considered false.
This argument is often known as "Extraordinary Claims Means Extraordinary Evidence." To clear everything up, I will define an "extraordinary claim" as the following:
Extraordinary claim: A claim that contradicts the accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences in the world.
Fact: Extraordinary claims vary in their degree of extraordinariness. For example, allow me to provide three statements:
1.I ate a PB&J for lunch.
2.I won $1,000,000 in the lottery.
3.I rode a unicorn through the forest last night and saw the tooth fairy.
Statement 1 is the least extraordinary of the three. It would not contradict the laws of common sense, nor would it contradict our physical experiences. Therefore, little evidence is required for a person to believe the statement.
Statement 2 is even more extraordinary because most people do not win the lotto. This claim contradicts our laws of common sense as most people do not win the lotto. It also contradicts our personal experiences as most people have not won the lotto. However, we know that people do win the lotto, so if you see my ticket matches up with the numbers in the newspaper or on the news, then it is perfectly normal to accept it as truth.
The third one, on the other hand, is extremely extraordinary and highly unlikely. If you wanted to believe that latter claim, you would have to change your beliefs about:
1.The reporting of history.
2.The study of zoology.
3.The method of exploring the earth, etc.
Therefore, it is most rational to reject the account of the third statement as false, unless quite a bit of evidence was to be presented.
The claim that god exists is an extraordinary claim of the highest degree of extraordinariness. The claim is about a being who is not only different than all other creatures on earth, but also what we know about the universe. God is purportedly a being who is unfathomable and perfect in every manner—far different than anything on earth! Therefore, it is rational to reject the belief of god.
2) Incoherent Attributes
1.Paradoxes use logic.
2.Paradoxes prove logic wrong.
3.Therefore, paradoxes, or beings with contradictory properties, do not exist.
4.God is a being with contradictory properties.
5.Therefore, God does not exist.
It is possible that a being with unusual powers or characteristics may exist, but a being with contradictory features cannot exist. When I state that a being's attributes are "incoherent," I mean much more than the attributes of that being are strange or mysterious, but that they are contradictory. For example, we know that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) cannot exist as it is impossible to be both invisible and pink.
There are numerous contradictory properties that are ascribed to traditional theism; however, the tradition is incoherent.
a) Omniscience (all-knowing) v. Omnibenevolence: Knowing pleasure in sin
A human terrorist: Can know by direct acquaintance the experience of satisfaction derived from unjustly killing a human being.
God: Cannot know this by experience since he cannot sin and is omnibenevolent.
In this case, a human being can know something that god can't know. But god is supposed to be omniscient, so god must know it. But god can't know it. Thus, the syllogism is as followed:
1.A human being can know what sin is and can take pleasure in this.
2.God, because he is omnibenevolent, does not know what it is like to take pleasure in this.
3.God is omniscience.
4.Because he is all knowing, he must know what it is like to take pleasure in sin.
5.God cannot sin because he is omnibenevolent.
6.For God to know what it is like to sin, he must have sinned (necessary truth).
7.God does not exist.
An omnibenevolent God cannot know by personal experience the pleasure felt by a terrorist at killing large numbers of civilians. There are many other examples of cruelty or torture that can also be used to describe this. When I say that God is omnibenevolent, I mean that he is morally perfect. This precludes God from enjoying suffering or torture.
b) Omniscience v. Omniscience: Making a mistake.
Humans: Can know the experience of finding out he or she made a mistake.
God: Cannot know this as he is supposedly all-powerful and perfect in every manner.
In this case, God cannot know what it is like to make a mistake. Thus the syllogism is as followed:
1.God is perfect, all-powerful, and all-knowing.
2.Because God is all knowing, he must know what it is like to make a mistake.
3.If God knows what it is like to make a mistake, God made a mistake.
4.God knows what it is like to make a mistake.
5.Hence, God knowing what it is like to know what it is like to make a mistake makes him not perfect and all-powerful.
6.Hence, God does not exist.
c) All-knowing v. Omnipotence
Human beings: Know what it is like to learn how to do something.
God: Already knows everything, so he cannot know what it is like to learn or how to do something.
So in this case a human can perform the action of learning, which god cannot, so it would seem that a human can also perform actions that an omnipotent being cannot.
In this case, humans can perform the action of learning, which God cannot, so it would seem that humans can also perform actions that an omnipotent being cannot. Thus the syllogism is as followed:
1.God is omniscient.
2.God is and always has been omniscient.
3.A being's omniscience entails, among other things, that it has all experiential knowledge.
4.Having all experiential knowledge entails knowing what it is like to learn.
5.God knows and has always has known what it is like to learn.
6.Knowing what it is like to learn entails having learned something.
7.Having learned something entails that one has gone from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge.
8.God has gone from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge.
9.There was a time when God was in the state of ignorance.
10. God has not always been omniscient.
11. God has always been omniscient and has not always been omniscient.
12. Therefore, God does not exist.
GodSands

Pro

I really am not in the mood to debate...But here is a few arguments, I do not expect them all to be argued.

  • TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
    (1) If reason exists then God exists.
    (2) Reason exists.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

  • COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
    (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
    (2) I say the universe must have a cause.
    (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
    (4) Therefore, God exists.

  • ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
    (1) I define God to be X.
    (2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

  • ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
    (1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
    (2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

The Ontological Argument

The first purported proof of the existence of God is the ontological argument. The ontological argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the laws of logic alone. It dates back to St Anselm, an eleventh century philosopher-theologian and archbishop of Canterbury, but was also used by the French philosopher René Descartes. It argues that once we mentally grasp the concept of God we can see that God’s non-existence is impossible. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a perfect being that could not possibly fail to exist.

The First Cause Argument

The second purported proof of the existence of God is the first cause argument, also called “the cosmological argument”. The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end.

The Argument from Design

The third purported proof of the existence of God is the argument from design, also called “the teleological argument”. The argument from design seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe is ordered.

The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang.

The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, if it is successful, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator that takes an interest in humanity.

The Moral Argument

The fourth purported proof of the existence of God is the moral argument. The moral argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that there are moral laws.

Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally?

To answer this, we only need to look at the authoritative nature of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as is the one that commands them; a command of a ruler carries more authority than a command of a citizen. Moral commands, though, have ultimate authority; they are to be obeyed under all circumstances. Their authority transcends all human authority, and they must therefore have been commanded by a being whose authority transcends all human authority.

The existence of moral laws, the argument concludes, thus demonstrates the existence of a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation.

Summary

Together, then, these arguments claim to prove the existence of a perfect, necessary, transcendent being that created the universe, has authority over it, and takes an interest in humanity. This, if it could be accomplished, would be more than enough to show that the Christian conception of God, and those conceptions of God related to it, are close to the truth.

Debate Round No. 2
quantummechanics97

Con

quantummechanics97 forfeited this round.
GodSands

Pro

Con has forfeited this time. This debate therefore has not been a success due to her forfeiting. And I could argue her first arguments but it would be quite futile at this time. That's all.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by quantummechanics97 5 years ago
quantummechanics97
I withdraw my argument as it is not my own.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
You could have at least reworded it, or give me credit.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Nice Copypasta from my debate.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Nice Copypasta from my debate.
Posted by GodSands 5 years ago
GodSands
I am not best pleased that you have gone and copyed and pasted a debate to only re-post here. I hate that, it's cheap and lazy.
Posted by quantummechanics97 5 years ago
quantummechanics97
logicrules, totally like the screen name btw, when you say negative, what side are you talking about?
GodSands, cant say the same bout the screen name, but in your comment you are assuming what you initially set out to prove...your comment comes from a very christian point of view...which initially is the incorrect way to convince someone, you have to take his/her argument and refute it. like i just did with yours... btw thanks for accepting this argument i will have my side posted in a sec
Posted by GodSands 5 years ago
GodSands
Objectively speaking, God is neither a negative nor a positive, since for God everything is defined through Him, and if God does not exist, everything is defined through anything. Subjectively speaking on the other hand, negatives and positives exist because we have no control over any actuality, but we can only modify an actuality mentally so that it can adjust to our likibility. In the same way good and evil exist, to God of course before evil existed, good was not good at all, instead it was simply natural to God. But given a contrast (evil), good is now like a positive and evil is a negative to God.

I believe that you can prove a negative just as well as you can prove a positive. For example, someone might say, 'Prove that there is no car in the garage.' another says, 'Ok!' and open the garage door and shows that there is no car in side. Proving that no car exists in the garage.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
This will be good....first time in history of thought that a negative will be proved.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
This will be good....first time in history of thought that a negative will be proved.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
quantummechanics97GodSandsTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Gave Pro points for conduct/arguments since even though his arguments were not impressive, they were at least his own.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
quantummechanics97GodSandsTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism is an automatic 7 point loss.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
quantummechanics97GodSandsTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.