The Instigator
Magic8000
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Talib.ul-Ilm
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Existence of God

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 1 vote the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 947 times Debate No: 34448
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Magic8000

Con

Hey, I see you're very anti atheist and I would like to debate you on God's existence.



God: The Judeo-Christian-Muslim Tri Omni (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, ect) Creator of the Universe.
Atheism: The Lack of belief in God(s)


Burden of proof is shared

Rules:
No Forfeits
No Fallacies
No Insults
72 Hours to Post Argument
8000 Characters Max
1 Week Voting Period
Start your arguments in Round 1
Only 3 contentions max.

Since this is a back and forth debate, each of us will only post up to 3 contentions for our case. Three will allow us to have plenty of space to refute and defend.

Since Pro is going to present his case in R1, in round 4 Pro will post

"For an equal number of rounds, no argument will be posted here as agreed."

Agreeing to this debate means you accept the rules above.
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

The Cosmological Argument


    1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    2. The universe began to exist.
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause.


This is an undeniable fact. Whatever phenomena comes into being, it has a cause to its existence. The universe has to have had a cause. An infinite regression is impossible. You cannot regress back through the chain of cause and effect for eternity. Eventually you must find yourself to the original uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, and I say you will find God there waiting for you.

The Change Argument

    1. Every change in reality has a cause.
    2. The universe was a change in reality.
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause.


This is almost the same argument from above, except with a twist. Change is defined as the act or instance of making or becoming different. Before the universe came into existence, there was no time, there were no laws of the universe, everything breaks down when you come to this point. Before we had reality as we know it, we had something else entirely, and this reality we know very little of. There must be something which is without change, changeless. I believe this changeless being to be God. But how can something which cannot think outside of its own reality bring about such a dramatic change in reality such as the universe?

The Sentience Argument
    1. Change in reality as we know it can only come from a thinking mind, a sentient mind.
    2. Before there was the universe and all of its fine-tuned and unchanging laws, there was nothing.
    3. Because only a sentient being can change reality as it knows it in its mind, God must have created the universe.


This argument is hard to explain. But basically, when you regress in the long, long chain of cause and effect, of change in reality, you must come to something that is changeless, that is uncaused. A natural mechanism that cannot think outside of itself doesn't really fit the magnitude and power, the beauty, of such a dramatic change in reality like the universe. I would argue that this uncaused, changeless cause of all that is, is sentient, capable of thinking outside of its own reality.

Think about it for a second, let your imagination go wild. You can think of many other realities, phenomena that simply can't exist in this universe of ours. But why do these things not exist in reality the same way they do in our minds? We do not have the power to create that which we think, however, God does.

Another issue with a natural mechanism as being the changeless uncaused cause, is that there must have been a point in time (time being defined here as the continued progress of existence) when nothing was happening at all, even if just for a brief moment. Now think of a machine, it doesn't work unless a thinking mind turns it on or programs it to turn on by itself. How can one justify the very first change in reality as being something that doesn't think, when only something that can think has the ability to truly create? So try to put yourself at that initial point of reality, of how everything was before it is now. Can the very first uncaused changeless cause be something which doesn't think? How else can change in the totality of existence come to be unless this being can think outside of its own reality?

Another thing about a natural mechanism that could replace God as the foundation of all that is, is the problem if infinity. A natural mechanism which cannot think, cannot choose to stop. It simply acts according to its nature, doing what must be done because it is the nature of itself to, well, naturally do what it is naturally there for. I'm not sure how many of you will understand what I am trying to say, and unfortunately, my vocabulary is very limited. Basically, what I am saying is that if this were the case, a natural mechanism would not suffice, because there would never be a point where there wasn't change in reality being done. The natural mechanism would simply continuously do what it is naturally meant to do. How did it decide to do this, creating, in the first place? If it can't think, then you could say that there is still the problem of infinity, as there was never a point where this natural mechanism wasn't still, so it's almost like the problem of infinity still exists. In fact, there has to be a point where it was still, and then began to move, to create. But why be still and then move unless it was a sentient being?

These are definitely questions that must be answered clearly by Con, in order for him to replace God with a natural mechanism.

The Morality Argument

Without something to objectively define morality, it then becomes subjective and a choice purely on the part of the individual and the collection of individuals in a society. This means if I were a fluent enough, charismatic enough, charming enough, and so on individual, I could convince my society that it's okay to kill people from other societies because they are not as good as us, or simply because they are not us.

You can no longer say, "Murder is wrong", but only, "I think murder is wrong". There is nothing to decide morality objectively. It would then make morality into whatever one wants morality to be. Sure there are good reasons not to steal and good reasons to steal. There is a difference between greed and poverty. But there is nothing at the base, at the foundation, to say stealing is wrong in the first place. It is all subject to constant change.

I would argue that God is the best decider of objective morality.

The "Because I Said So" Argument
    1. Whatever I say is to be taken as factual.
    2. I say that God exists.
    3. Therefore God exists.


This is one of the most promising arguments that can be made. Natural law dictates that Talib.ul-Ilm is always right. This has been proven by the top scientists of today, during long hours of medical testing.

Lets think about this for a second. Can it really be that whatever I say is to be taken as factual? Yes, it can. Do you see now? I can't be wrong, because I am never wrong. For me to be wrong when I am never wrong is absolutely wrong. But everyone else is wrong, so for them to say something that is against what I say makes them wrong. The only reason they are ever right is because they are agreeing with me, and only because I am right, they are right. This is a natural law of the universe, which revolves around Talib.ul-Ilm.

    1. Whatever I say is to be taken as factual.
    2. I say that Magic is wrong.
    3. Therefore Magic is wrong.
Conclusion

I will now await Magic's response to my arguments for the existence of God.
Debate Round No. 1
Magic8000

Con

Thanks.


Cosmological Arguments


Pro gives different versions of the Cosmological argument. I know the sentience argument technically isn't, but it ties together; same with the change argument.


The first premise of the cosmological arguments is disputed and is far from undeniable. Quantum mechanics has put the premise in question.


Under the mainstream interpretations of quantum physics, quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause.


Although it would seem impossible that a particle could materialize from nothing—not even from energy—it so happens that no laws of physics are violated...” [1]


In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.” [2]



What I'm arguing here is not that quantum mechanics puts an absolute end to premise one, but that premise one isn't justified.


Sentience

One problem with this is, things like snow flake change by natural means. Other things like Crystal come naturally. Premise 1 is completely false, a mind isn’t needed in the creation of these things.


Natural Cause


Pro argues against a natural cause (what I mean by natural in talking about before the universe is non-sentient). Pro gives us 2 reasons to think it can't be a natural cause and must be a being.


1. Something must have chosen to bring the universe into existence.

2. Problem of infinity, the cause must always create.


1. Why can't this natural cause be going through different complex reactions infinity? There would be no need for a choice because the universe would be a result of one reaction.


2. Perhaps the thing still does exist. The thing could be creating universes still. It's still possible for the cause to have been destroyed in the creation of the Universe.


Furthermore, just because the natural causes we think of don't fit, this doesn't mean sentience was the cause. This would be an argument from ignorance. This leads us into the next problem.


Epistemological Issue


Your arguments attempt to inquire about the unknown. Time, space, and matter as we know it began at the Big Bang. What was before the Big Bang, we’re completely in the dark about. We can only know what was at the starting point of the Big Bang. We don’t know if time, space, and matter were existing before the Big Bang, only that they were brought about in our Universe by the Big Bang. We have no idea what was before, to inquire what was, is simply meaningless.


Our understanding is because of the Universe around us. We can reason because we observe the Universe around us and come up with things like causality. However, to apply our understanding outside the Universe, by using the understanding that we obtained by the Universe itself would be fallacious.


Ponder this analogy. In my room there’s a door, behind this door is a portal into another dimension. In this dimension there can be anything, things which we have no understanding of, things which are not possible in this world, things we could never conceive. There could be another set of laws, or they could be the same as ours. Is it really reasonable to make a positive claim of what’s in that dimension? I don’t think so. One can make arguments for what exists in it, but the conclusion can never be rationally accepted and such tasks would be useless since we’re ignorant of what’s in there. We can have inquire what’s in it, but we can never claim for sure what’s in there, without going in. Any claim is just as possible as another, since inside the dimension is meaningless to us.


Now, this dimension is before the universe. This debating over the cause is the same as debating what’s in the dimension. Claiming that a personal being caused it can’t be accepted, since there could be something that fits these attributes and not be personal. It's simply not a coherent concept.


Morality


Pro gives us the moral argument, however it's incomplete. Pro says without objective morality, there's subjective morality. Pro rejects subjective morality on the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences. Just because you wouldn't like it doesn't mean it's false. In order for Pro's

argument to be complete, he must prove objective morality exists. He hasn't done this.


I do think there is objective morality and I believe secular ethics are better than religious ethics.


Morality is objective because we evaluate actions and the laws of nature to come up with morality. We know that fire is hot, so why is it wrong to burn someone? Because as humans we all have an objective instinct to survive. As social creatures it's best to be moral to survive. If we didn't care about punishing murders or crying babies on the floor, the human race would have died out long ago. I don't want to live in a place that allows murderers to go free, thus I want to live in a place that doesn't allow murder. Meaning I too must follow the rules.


There's various problems with the idea that God sends down morality. For one, Pro is using this as an argument for the existence of God. So what do you mean by morality? If morality is what God commands, then the argument is circular. Since your argument is “Objective morality exists, therefore God exists” but morality refers to God, making you commit the fallacy of begging the question. If morality doesn't include a God, then it can never reach God as a conclusion. It would make Pro give a secular account of morality destroying his own case. The moral argument must include and not include God, a logical impossibility, meaning the moral argument fails.


Another problem was pointed out by a philosopher by the name of Socrates.

"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.


Because I said So


I don't have space to post my full response, but I will ask you this. If you're always right, then is the statement “This statement is false” true?


My arguments.


Problem of evil


1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.

2. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.

3. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.

4. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

5. 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.

6. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.

7. Evil exists (logical contradiction).


C. God doesn't exist.


Argument from Temporal Minds


This argument comes from DDO user Rational_Thinker1991 in one of his debates [3].


1. If God exists he is/ has a functioning atemporal mind

2. Mental processing is required for a functioning mind

3. Temporal duration is required for processing

4. A functioning atemporal mind cannot exist

C. God does not exist


P1

Pro has said this himself. It's the God of classical theism.

P2

This is self evident. It's what makes a mind, a mind.

P3

“A process requires an order of events with a series of steps; and thus a change from state ‘A’ to state ‘B’. This change means that a process at its most generic metric necessitates some sort of temporal emergence in order for a transition of states to be feasible. This is a widely accepted philosophical principle:

So construed, the notion of change is obviously bound up with notions of cause, time and motion” - Change and Inconsistency (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [4]

Change is intimately bound up with time.” – What is philosophy? (University of Florida) [5]”- Rational_Thinker1991

P4

Follows from above.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

Cosmological Argument
  1. An infinite regression of incidents of change in reality is impossible.
  2. You must be able to trace through the incidents of change in reality to find the First Principle.
  3. The First Principle must have been actionless at some point before it began the chain of incidents of change in reality.
  4. Therefore, the First Principle must either be a natural mechanism, or it must be God.
Con said: "What I'm arguing here is not that quantum mechanics puts an absolute end to premise one, but that premise one isn't justified."

What I am really arguing here is not cause and effect, but change itself. Change is the act or instance of making or becoming different. You cannot have an infinite regression of changes in reality, the totality of existence. This is impossible, this simply cannot be. So this means that when you make it to the First Principle, you find the creator of all that is.

Can Con argue for an infinite regression of incidents of change in reality? No. He must argue as to why the First Principle is a natural mechanism.

Sentience
  1. The First Principle may either be a natural mechanism, or God.
  2. The only thing capable of changing reality as we see it in our universe is a sentient mind.
  3. The idea of the First Principle being a natural mechanism begs the question: Why? Why change reality so much to bring about what we have today? Why not sit still and simply be?
  4. A machine must either be manually started or programmed to start on its own. The First Principle being a natural mechanism, is unlikely to have up and started itself for no apparent reason. It was either started, or it was programmed to start. A natural mechanism is not truly capable of sitting still, of ceasing change, without a cause. Everything about a natural mechanism begs the question as to what caused it to begin, because it is not sentient and self-aware, it would suggest that something outside of itself caused it to start, leading to the problem of infinity.
  5. Therefore the First Principle being God is more plausible.
Con said: "One problem with this is, things like snow flake change by natural means. Other things like Crystal come naturally. Premise 1 is completely false, a mind isn’t needed in the creation of these things."

Well. Yes. But that has little to do with the example I gave. Only a thinking mind can create and change reality as it is to something else entirely. Nothing else can create in this way. This makes it more plausible that God is the First Principle. That the First Principle is a mind that can change reality as it is currently, which at that instance would have been nothing more than the First Principle, to something much more.

Natural Mechanism

Con said: "1. Why can't this natural cause be going through different complex reactions infinity? There would be no need for a choice because the universe would be a result of one reaction."

This simply begs the question: Why? What caused it to begin this chain reaction of incidents of change after change until we have what we have now?

Also, there cannot be an infinite regression of incidents of change. There must be a First Principle that began the change, but to begin the change is an act that requires a reason. For the natural mechanism to simply begin the changes in reality for no reason makes no sense. It makes you think that something outside of it started this natural mechanism. There is just too much of begging the question.

Epistemological Issue

Con wants to believe that inquiring about what was before the Big Bang is meaningless. Then why challenge me to a debate where this inquiry is necessary?

Con said: "Our understanding is because of the Universe around us. We can reason because we observe the Universe around us and come up with things like causality."

Yes, exactly my point of sentience. We can reason because of the universe around us, we can see signs in the universe, a reflection of the First Principle. And unless Con would like to contest this, the greatest achievement in the universe is the sentient, self-aware mind. In the Qur'an, God tells us many times to look for evidence in His creation, to look for signs in the universe.

Con said right after: "However, to apply our understanding outside the Universe, by using the understanding that we obtained by the Universe itself would be fallacious."

Why? Why would it be fallacious? We only know what we know about quantum mechanics because of observing the universe.

Morality

I'll concede to Con on this. But he would most certainly have to concede that the power behind religious objective morality is changeless, truly objective. To be honest, people without God can have morals, however they will never have objective morals, timeless morals that are universal. Morality would be decided by the majority of society.

Problem of Evil

This is where Con should concede, and I'll show you why.
  1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
  2. A perfectly good being would allow his creation to have the potential for free will.
  3. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
  4. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
  5. 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 not prevent the existence of that evil, for that prevents free will.
  6. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, who created the universe with the potential for free will, then evil exists.
  7. Free will and evil exists.
Here is the problem with the problem of evil. It's not a problem. Why? Because to take away all evil is to take away free will. People can no longer make the choice to steal, murder, rape and perform many other acts of evil. And to take away the many natural disasters that occur simply because people die, would mean to completely distort the way in which the universe works. In order for Con to make any ground with this argument, he would have to show how the universe can be as authentic as it is now, without these natural disasters. But the explanation about free will and the evils of people is sound. Plainly put, evil is a necessity for the intention of the universe, because don't forget, traditional Theism holds that God will test us, and you can't really do that without free will in the mix.

Argument from Temporal Minds

Why is temporal duration a requirement for mental processing? I really don't see here how a functioning atemporal mind cannot exist. A mind is a mind. I would theorize that God is pure intellect, pure mind. But the power behind the mind of God compared to the power behind the mind of a human is very, very great. The mind of God would be capable of so much more than the average mind.

The "Because I said so" Argument

Con said: "I don't have space to post my full response, but I will ask you this. If you're always right, then is the statement “This statement is false” true?"

Everything I say is correct and true. If you mean by statement as your entire argument, then yes, that statement is false. It is true, however, that Magic8000 and I are the best of friends. He has always looked up to me as his mentor, as his role model. Never before has he ever met a man quite like me, and never will he. Because I said so, so shall it be taken as fact.
Debate Round No. 2
Magic8000

Con

Cosmological Argument


Pro committed a straw man fallacy. Nothing Pro said was relevant to my objection. I didn’t argue for an infinite regression. Premise 1 of your original argument isn’t justified, therefore your argument’s conclusion isn’t valid . Pro changed his argument to focus mainly on a regress. However if something can be uncaused, there’s no regress problem, because it didn’t exist for an infinite amount of time.


If a regress is impossible then how did God create the universe? In order to get to the point of creation, we have to pass an eternity with God. Pro must make a special exception for God, but then something else could fit other than God.


Sentience


What exactly do you define “change” as? Aren’t the things I listed changing reality?


Technically only physical things can change reality. A mind in and of itself can’t change anything except what goes on in its own mind. A mind still needs something physical to change. Try to type your next argument using solely your mind and nothing else. You still need physical arms and hands to do it.


Natural Mechanism


Pro’s inquire can be made against God.


What caused God? Where did he come from? What caused God to create the universe?


Pro would probably answer in saying God is outside the universe and can exist infinitely with no cause. Then I can say the natural cause existed outside of the universe infinitely and was just always on. The natrual cause isn’t a part of the universe, so it doesn’t need to begin to make reactions. It always made reactions.


Pro can’t object to this without making an objection to God.


Epistemological Issue


Pro doesn’t really answer this one. He just says he looks upon the universe and determines there was a first cause. You maybe at the most could claim there was a first cause, but to determine what this cause is like is what I’m arguing against. Pro then asks why is it wrong to do determine the cause from the universe, then makes an irrelevant comment about quantum mechanics. I already said why in my last round. We have no idea what was before the universe, that’s why. There could be things that we have no knowledge of before, so it’s wrong to make a conclusion about what was before. Going to my dimension analogy, do you think it’s wrong to make a conclusion about what’s in the dimension.


Pro asks, if I think it’s meaningless to inquire about before, why debate him on it. The point is you believe it’s not meaningless and are trying to defend that it’s not. This is like asking “If you disagree with me, why debate me on the subject?”


Morality


Pro concedes, however he then claims without God, you can’t have objective morals. Despite that I demonstrated this to be false. Morality has nothing to do with the majority and religious morality often has the same problems that religious people claim secular morality has.


The "Because I said so" Argument


Wait a minute... if “this statement is false” is true, then the statement would be false, meaning it’s not true, meaning Pro was........*gasp*....wrong! Meaning his argument is refuted, meaning I was innocent, meaning the police can’t arrest me because I wasn’t even there when that guy was killed. I mean sure his blood was all over me, but it wasn’t me.


Problem of Evil


Unfortunately, I’m not conceding on this. Because the free will defense is flawed.


First, Pro asserts we have free will. If Pro wants to have a free will defense, he must prove that free will exists in the first place. From what I’ve studied, you can’t make sense of free will philosophically or scientifically.


Second, why couldn't God make man in such a way that he would always freely choose good? If God is omnipotent he would be able to do such a thing. Don’t we all commit sin because our nature is flawed? Do we have the free will to never sin? Why couldn’t God make it so we always choose good in the same way that we sin.


Two other questions can be raised.


Is there evil in heaven?


And


Is there free will in heaven?


I'll expand on this when Pro answers these two.


Even with free will we're still limited. For example, many things can be done to a building


We can


1. Paint the building


2. Pee on the building


3. Punch the building


However we can't


4. Jump over the building


5. Turn the building into an invisible pink unicorn


6. Lift the building above my head


Does the inability to do 4-6 violate free will? Why couldn't God put evil in the same category as 4-6?


Free will doesn’t explain natural disasters or genetic problems in newborn babies. Pro said the universe would be distorted if there were no natural disasters. How? How would the Earth be any different? It would be great, I don’t see any distortion the the idea that the Earth won’t do something that will kill many. Natural disasters don’t happen all the time, so obviously the universe would be just as “authentic” since it would just be as it is a majority of the time. Nothing incoherent or distorted.


Pro says the God of classical theism tests us. However the God of classical theism also is all knowing. So he wouldn’t need to test anyone. If God tests someone, it’s because he wants to see what they’ll do; that implies he’s unknowing.


Argument from Temporal Minds.


It’s quite clear why we need temporal duration for processing. Mental processing is dynamic, but change can’t exist outside of time.


For state “A” to change into state “B” there must exist A before B. This would require time, otherwise “before” wouldn’t exist since “before” presupposes time. Time has past, present, and future states; these also obviously allow change. Something in the present would affect something in the future and something in the past affected something that happened which caused the present. However without time, these states don’t exist, thus no change can exist.


Thanks, back to Pro.

Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

The Cosmological Argument

I committed no straw man here. All that I did was make clear and establish that there must be a First Principle in reality where everything came from. So after having regressed back through each and every change in reality till you come to the First Principle, you must decide whether or not this First Principle is God or a natural mechanism.


    1. An infinite regression of change in reality is impossible.
    1. After regressing back through each incident of change in reality, you come to the First Principle where all change began.
    1. The First Principle must either be a natural mechanism, or God.


You no longer regress back any further when you reach the First Principle. The debate then comes down to whether or not this First Principle is God or a natural mechanism.

Con said: "If a regress is impossible then how did God create the universe? In order to get to the point of creation, we have to pass an eternity with God. Pro must make a special exception for God, but then something else could fit other than God."

The special exception is made for both God and the natural mechanism. But that's the point I am making, a natural mechanism doesn't suffice for the First Principle, only a sentient, self-aware God could suffice for this First Principle. Both God or the natural mechanism would be eternal.

Sentience

Con said: "What exactly do you define “change” as? Aren’t the things I listed changing reality?"

Change is defined as the act or instance of making or becoming different.

Con said: "Technically only physical things can change reality. A mind in and of itself can’t change anything except what goes on in its own mind. A mind still needs something physical to change. Try to type your next argument using solely your mind and nothing else. You still need physical arms and hands to do it."

Here he misunderstands what I am saying. The mind is not physical, and the mind of God would be omnipotent, all powerful.

The entire point of my analogy is that only in our minds can change of reality, though only in our minds, take place. The sun cannot think or imagine of a reality different to what we have, only sentient beings can actually imagine and create worlds, realities, outside of what we have today.

I would like to see Con show me something else which can imagine a reality different to our own other than the sentient, self-aware mind.

Natural Mechanism

Con said: "What caused God? Where did he come from? What caused God to create the universe?"

Nothing caused God, nor the natural mechanism. And both have simply existed. That is what I have been saying. After you have regressed back in time through each incident of change in reality, you come to the First Principle, that point in reality before we have reality as it is today.

As far as what caused God or the natural mechanism to create the universe, that is where my argument about sentience comes into play. Because it wouldn't quite make sense for a natural mechanism to simply exist, and then suddenly make such dramatic changes in reality as we see today. Only with a sentient mind can the choice of making change in reality in the first place happen.

Con has to show me how it would be logical for a natural mechanism to have just existed, and at one point, have been motionless, not causing change in reality. A natural mechanism would simply do what it is meant to do. It doesn't think or have the ability inside itself to imagine a reality different to its own.

God however, is a sentient, self-aware being. Capable of making that initial choice of changing reality, the totality of existence. As a sentient, self-aware being, God can choose to simply not change reality, and merely enjoy the bliss of His existence.

I am arguing that it makes more sense that the First Principle is God, and not a natural mechanism. It's Con's duty to show me how a natural mechanism would make more sense than a sentient, self-aware God.

Epistemological Issue

The entire point of this debate is about what was before the universe. Con is trying to simply wave this away, when it is the point of the entire debate.

The many religions that serve God, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and the rest are all considered to be Divinely Revealed messages to mankind. Your analogy would make sense if this debate were not about what was before the universe, and if these religions that surround the concept of God were not considered Divinely Revealed.

This debate is about the existence of God. And it will always come to what was before the universe, about things which we have very little factual knowledge of, that we can prove without a doubt. Because most religions that promote the idea of a sentient, self-aware God are considered to be Divinely Revealed, that is, messages sent down to us from God, we must debate about this unknown.

Morality

The point I was making is that morality without God is not changeless, eternal. It all comes down to the majority of society deciding what is morally right and wrong, and this is subject to change, always.

The "Because I said so" Argument

My mind just exploded.

The Problem of Evil

Con said: "First, Pro asserts we have free will. If Pro wants to have a free will defense, he must prove that free will exists in the first place. From what I’ve studied, you can’t make sense of free will philosophically or scientifically."

Did you or did you not choose to create this debate and challenge me? Are you going to suggest that you didn't make the choice to partake in this debate?

Free Will means: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Con has to show me how we are not acting without constraint of necessity or fate, how we do not have the ability to act at our own discretion.

But in all reality, there is evidence for both sides. Because I assume the position that Free Will exists, then my argument still stands, my reasoning behind the problem of evil still stands.

Con went on to say: "Second, why couldn't God make man in such a way that he would always freely choose good? If God is omnipotent he would be able to do such a thing. Don’t we all commit sin because our nature is flawed? Do we have the free will to never sin? Why couldn’t God make it so we always choose good in the same way that we sin."

Well. Think about it. It is free will, sentience, being self-aware and capable of choosing your own path that is indeed the greatest creation in the universe, unless you want to contest this. God has free will, so it naturally follows that He would create the universe with the potential for it.

And then Con goes into asking about evil in heaven and the like. That really doesn't pertain to the debate. But I suppose I would argue that we would have the ability, but would be stopped by the grace of God, possibly an overwhelming pressure upon us to not do it. Not to mention that there will be Angels in heaven, which could just as easily stop us. And lets not forget that when you make it to heaven, all is made clear, and you most certainly would not want to sin in such close proximity to God, the Angels, and all of the beloved Prophets.

Con continues.

How would the Earth be different if there were not volcanic eruptions and all of the like? This really doesn't deserve a response. The Earth is shaped the way it is due to many of these natural disasters. These natural disasters are apart of the making of the planet.

Just because you know everything, doesn't mean you don't create. An African woman in the Congo knows that by having children, she may very well have a daughter, and in doing so, will possibly subject her baby girl to a very harsh life full of abuse and rape, yet still does it. I would say this is where God's love comes into play, where He wants to gift us with life itself, instead of just keeping us from existing and ever experiencing it.

Argument from Temporal Minds

God transcends all, even time. I don't have enough character space to refute this.
Debate Round No. 3
Magic8000

Con

Cosmological Argument

Yes, you did commit a straw man because you never went after my objection. You just restated the argument. There's no regress problem if an event is uncaused because it has nothing to do with infinity.

Sentience

If change is making something different, then your argument is refuted. The things I listed do just this.

Minds being physical have nothing to do with my argument. Pro tries to say God is an all powerful mind, therefore can make changes. You're removing meaning from "mind". If a mind can create, you're then talking about a mind that has no meaning to us.

Pro then says minds are the only thing that can think of different realities.Thinking about possible worlds has to do with causality. There's no link to thinking about a possible world and causing that possible world in reality. The argument is flawed.

Natural Cause

Pro completely straw mans my hypothetical mechanism. I never said it just suddenly started to make changes. I said it reacts forever. One of those reactions had to create the universe, it was inevitable.

Pro hasn't shown a god makes more sense than a natural mechanism. He also tries to shift the burden of proof. The BOP on me was to show God doesn't exist, not that the universe was created by naturalistic means.

Epistemological Issue

Just because your argument assumed a coherent concept of what was before the universe, doesn't make it so. Someone could make an entire argument on an epistemological error, and in a debate it would be perfectly reasonable to point out such an error. We shouldn't just ignore the error because we"re debating about it. Should we not point out logical fallacies in arguments because it's necessary to debate the argument instead of rejecting it on a logical error? I think not.

Pro makes the argument that we must assume that before the universe is coherent because many religions believe so. This is simply the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Just because the majority of religious people believe it, doesn't make it so.

Pro hasn't refuted this argument, he just defended that we should debate it. Which was not the main point of the argument.

Morality

I've demonstrated that to be false.

Because I said so

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb? Depends on how you define 'change'.

Problem of Evil

Pro tries to make a case for free will by saying I obviously choose to debate. This is an argument from intuition. Intuition isn't a good way of determining something about reality. Take this picture for example.

http://www.weirdoptics.com...

Our intuition would have us believe these two lines are curved. Experimental evidence says otherwise. Go ahead, run your mouse along them in a straight line or take something straight and measure it. The lines aren't curved, they're straight. It is clear, if Pro wants a case for free will, he needs more than just intuition. Determinists say our choices are from background causes and desires from which we didn't choose. This would fit with the appearance of free will, however we wouldn't have it.

Pro then tries to shift the burden of proof. I wasn't making a claim that the argument is flawed because determinism is true, I was saying Pro"s argument doesn't work because he hasn't shown free will exists, with a comment that I've never been convinced of it. One can't assume their position is valid because the opponent hasn't shown theirs to be true, especially since I didn't have the BOP of proving determinism.

Just because there's some type of evidence for both sides, doesn't mean you can just assume your side. In fact it would be the opposite! The leg of Pro"s argument hasn't been proven.

Pro then tries to respond to this question
"Why couldn't God make man in such a way that he would always freely choose good?"

Pro"s answer is

"Well. Think about it. It is free will, sentience, being self-aware and capable of choosing your own path that is indeed the greatest creation in the universe, unless you want to contest this. God has free will, so it naturally follows that He would create the universe with the potential for it."

Does any of that seem to answer the question? Obviously you believe a god gave us free will to choose our own path, but we're still limited, as my building example proves. God could've limited free will, yet have evil not exist. Obviously you believe we can't choose to not sin, and you think this is not violating free will. Logically God could do the opposite in making us choose to not do evil without any free will violation. My objection hasn't been refuted.

Since Pro believes there's free will in heaven and believes you can't do evil there; why didn't God make Earth in a similar way? Since Pro thinks things will stop you from doing evil, yet have free will, there's no reason why a loving God wouldn't do such a thing. Such things stopping us from evil don't need to have us be aware of them, so people could still choose to believe or not and there would be no evil. This is the kind of world we expect to see if the God being debated existed, why do you see otherwise? Simply because such a God doesn't exist. The free will defense fails, the problem of evil still stands strong.

Natural disasters helping shape the planet helps my case. What kind of God would make natural disasters necessary, and have them be extremely deadly? It would seem like the planet wasn't made for life. Does the planet really need anymore shaping?

I wasn't saying if God knows everything that he shouldn't create anything at all. I was saying if God knows everything he shouldn't put us through tests of evil. That's completely different from not creating anyone at all. Pro yet again committed a straw man fallacy.

Since Pro"s argument attacked a straw man, his analogy is false. An african women isn't all knowing, or all powerful. I think everyone would agree, if this women knows with 100% certainty that her child will have a life of abuse and rape, knows how her child will react in such situations, has the power to give her a great life where slavery isn't necessary, and still sells he into slavery to test her child, then she is immoral. If it's defined that this women is all loving, then such a women doesn't exist.

Temporal Minds.

God transcending time is what makes this argument work. It doesn't hurt the argument, it agrees with it.

Conclusion

Pro never answered the quantum mechanics objection to the Kalam cosmological argument. His sentience argument was false on premise 1; change can happen without a mind and a pure mind can't cause things. Pro said minds can only think of possible worlds, but this has nothing to do with change or causality. Pro continued to straw man the hypothetical natural mechanism. He kept going back to it had to start, but I said that it didn't. Pro asks why debate if the epistemology is wrong, which doesn't refute my argument. Then he says we should assume before the universe is coherent because religions claim it is. Clear logical fallacy of the argument from population. Pro concedes on the moral argument, although he still made claims which I refuted. The because I said so argument doesn't explain why pop tarts toast faster in a vacuum.

The problem of evil was given the free will defense. Pro never proved free will exists and free will can exist without evil. Pro ignored the latter objection. Pro said God would test people with evil, I pointed out that if God was all knowing he wouldn't need to test anyone. Pro responded to this by stating God would want to create people out of love even though something evil may happen to them. Which was completely irrelevant. Rational_Thinker9119"s argument from temporal minds was never responded to successfully. First he said change could happen without time, when I showed this to be wrong, he just said God transcends time.

Thanks again Pro.
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

For an equal number of rounds, no argument will be posted here as agreed.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
Can't tell if pro's final argument is a reincarnation of Anti-atheist, or if it's a joke. I'll guess the latter.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 3 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
It's a joke. A thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, esp. a story with a funny punchline.
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
"The "Because I Said So" Argument
Whatever I say is to be taken as factual.
I say that God exists.
Therefore God exists."

Why would you say this in a debate?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Magic8000Talib.ul-IlmTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This was one of the easiest debates to judge. Magic argued that Quantum Mechanics undermines cosmological arguments, and Talib had no response but retreated to his change argument. Magic shut down the change argument by showing that most of the change that happens in reality is not due to intelligence or sentience at all (snowflakes for example). Talib did not defend properly that morality was objective, and his "because I said so" argument was just outrageous. Talib objected to Magic's Argument from Evil with the free-will defense, but Magic showed why that doesn't work because its based on the assumption that free-will exists in the first place. Magic also showed that being limited doesn't mean we do not have free-will. God could limit us to do only good and we would still have free-will. Talib did not understand the argument from temporal minds, and had bare assertion after bare assertion with regards to it. Pro had no sources either.