The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
baggins
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1H

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,428 times Debate No: 8542
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

TheSkeptic

Con

Note: the "1F" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes.

[Definition - Existence]
http://dictionary.reference.com........................
1. the state or fact of existing; being.

*NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY.

[Definition - Valid]
http://dictionary.reference.com........................
1. sound; just; well-founded
2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

*NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). Let's try to avoid semantics, and get a good hearty debate going.

Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not necessarily mean it exists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is how the debate will play out:

Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. If my opponent chooses to affirm a metaphysical supreme being, then he/she need to define it's properties (otherwise they'll be nothing to debate). THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles).

Try to not list too many, ranging from 1-3 is preferable.

Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such.

I hope we have a good debate!
baggins

Pro

Having a look at my earlier debate[1], TheSkeptic challenged me to this debate. As I confessed there, that post consisted of some of my half formed ideas. I was curious to see, how the logicians at debate.org approach my argument. Indeed this was the kind of response I was looking for. I hope this will enable me to mould my arguments more logically and forcefully.
I would like to sincerely thank my opponent for his effort.

Normally, I like to go on with commonly understood meaning of most words, avoiding syntax based logics. However, a particular irritant is present here, which is critical for this debate and must be resolved. The problem is: the meaning of word `existence' is cyclic.
[Definition - Existence]
http://dictionary.reference.com...
1. The fact or state of existing; being.

I am not this definition as wrong. My contention is: This problem is inherent in the concept (`Existence' needs `exist' for existence! ).

I am going to propose an alternative for the purpose of this debate, and I hope that my opponent will accept it as reasonable. I am going to define existence using an assumption. The assumption is: "we exist".

Is this assumption correct? I can think of no way to verify whether we really `exist'. Indeed many philosophers (notably among Hinduism and Buddhism) consider everything as illusion (Maya). But this is a harmless assumption. If we don't exist, this debate is immaterial.

Starting from the assumption: `we exist', I discuss the thesis in 4 steps. Existence of God will be evident after step 2.

1. If nothing exists - then nothing exists:

It is a simple statement - proving itself. This also means - something is never going to emerge out of nothing. Our statement is true - independent of time. Even if we manage to conduct an experiment and show that something is emerging out of nothing, it just means - something is happening along time axis. A framework has to exist - in which these physical events can take place. This framework may have nothing to do with space or time or universe as we know it.

2. For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothing:

Something cannot come out of nothing (from last statement). There has to be some entity which defines existence. Either the entity is there or nothing is there. Since we exist, this entity is present. From now on we address this entity as God. The self-existing God has to establish everything which exists. So we can consider God as the creator of everything.
Let me repeat. God has to be self-existing. If this is not so nothing would exist. That would go against our assumption that we exist. I will not be entertaining any questions about who created God. God has to exist by himself.

3. We are not God
We are not self-existing beings, capable of defining reality. We are extremely limited. We are insignificant specks in a universe which is mind bogglingly big. We are dependent for our lives on cells and small scale beings. I don't see any need to elaborate more, unless I am challenged on this.

4. God is All Powerful
This is an attempt to establish God's power. We have established God as a self-existing creator of reality. I think we can safely state that God is `All Powerful' - capable of doing whatever he intends.

---

God is `Self Existing', `All Powerful' and `Creator'. In terms of Islam the corresponding names are: `Al-Qayyum', `Al-Qadir' and `Al-Khaliq' [3]. These three characteristics match with all monotheistic religions I know (Islam, Sikhism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and partially - Christianity and Hinduism). One property, central to all religions, but which I am not defending here is `God is good'. (Sadly, this is often forgotten by the followers)

---

1. The original debate: http://www.debate.org...
2. These are the 99 names (characteristics) of Allah. http://www.islamicity.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate challenge, and I hope it goes well.

To clear up any confusion, my opponent is apparently arguing for the existence of the Muslim conception of God - commonly known as Allah (I will refer to his god by this name from here on). The stated definition and characteristic (99 of them!) are listed on the bottom of my opponent's 1st Round. Refer there for a reminder on the meticulously long definition.

Secondly, my opponent attempts to rewire the meaning of existence. I agree that the definition I have given is somewhat tricky and circular. However, I don't want to delve into such a discussion, it is a topic for another time (defining existence is a debate in itself, just like the problem of defining time). My opponent suggests that we agree that "we exist", and I am compliant. Let's avoid petty semantics and get into the actual of the argument, which I'm sure both I and my opponent desire.

So now I will refute his argument for the existence of God in a linear fashion:

====================
Argument #1: If nothing exists - then nothing exists
====================

My opponent is wrong in saying that something will never emerge out of nothing via quantum physics. Phenomena such as virtual particles[1][2], are direct evidence to the contrary. Thus, a simple empirical example shows that this entire argument is wrong.

It should also be noted that in quantum physics, there is no such thing as "nothing". A perfect vacuum is a conceptual exercise found only in philosophy - the theories of quantum physics state that no volume of space can be perfectly empty[3]. Even here, "fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence." Again, disproving my opponent's argument.

====================
Argument #2: For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothings
====================

Wait, my opponent contradicts himself. In his previous argument, he stated that something can't come out of nothing. But now he said that some mysterious entity called God can? I ask of him, and the burden is his: how exactly is an entity "self-existing"? Exactly what is this mysteriously vague philosophical, if you can call it that, term? If you do not expound on this unbacked claim, then there is no reason for me to refute it.

====================
Argument #3: We are not God
====================

Well, of course I agree with this statement. This isn't so much an argument, but a small subpoint in my opponent's previous argument. So let's ignore this point,as it is of little use.

====================
Argument #4: God is All Powerful
====================

This is an a mere assertion on my opponent's part. WHY must God be all-powerful? Why can't an entity who is only shy of being omnipotent be self-existing as well, or create the universe? If there is another entity that can do the same, then my opponent's argument doesn't do much. I will explain this more in my following argument:

====================
Counterargument #1 - None-unique proof
====================

My opponent's entire argument -- which can be stated as being the First Cause argument -- falls prey to the flaw of being non-unique. Because even if we are to assume it is correct, he STILL hasn't proven his burden. Simply put, we can ask him: why must your conception of God be the one who created the universe? Why Allah, instead of Jesus Christ? Or Zeus? Or Ra? Or an INFINITE AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE GODS?

This is the problem with the first cause argument -- and many others -- when trying to argue for the existence of a specific god.

===================
Conclusion
===================

My opponent's argument fails in two major aspects: it's empirically outdated, and it's non-unique. I await your response.

---References---
1. http://www.infidels.org...
2. http://science.jrank.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
baggins

Pro

I am afraid that my opponent has failed to understand my arguments completely. This is surprising considering the systematic approach, which he followed in the first round. It is possible the flaw was there in my ability to explain.

I want to defend a Metaphysical concept of God. I have explained three characteristics of God which follow from my logic, and which I am prepared to debate.

As an aside, I pointed out that these three concepts are present in most religions. I proved it in case of Islam, by providing the reference at end of my post. My opponent is free to use the term Allah. That does not mean I will defend all the names of God in this limited debate. The only intention I had in posting the link was to establish that the concepts I am defending are not something that I just made up.

My definition of `existence' was accepted as just a `syntax' issue. In reality - it was extremely important for my chain of logic. It will become more obvious below. I expect at least a part of the debate to centre on the definition.

Argument 1: If nothing exists - then nothing exists
The objection to this centers around a scientific phenomenon. I had tried to anticipate this objection - but it was conveniently ignored. I am forced to go into little detail.

Spontaneous pair production, which makes perfect vacuum impossible, is an implication of uncertainty principle. Around Plank's scale (10^-34), there is always some uncertainty in measurement. It is not possible to say that a region is having 0 particles with 100% certainty. This means there is some probability that particles will be created spontaneously - rendering perfect vacuum impossible.

The particles in this case are coming into existence because of space and time, which are full of these uncertainties. Had there been no space and time, governed by the uncertainty principle, there would have been no particle production. Please note how I have pushed the argument one-step deeper into science. Next time when I do it - it might not be that easy to follow.

There is currently a speculation (speculation, not established fact) that big bang was some kind of major form of particle production. The problem this might present is - before big bang, there was neither time nor space. So was it a creation out of nothing? I am sure some kind of framework (unscientific term) has to exist (independent of space and time) to allow this kind of phenomenon.

Again note how I am trying to push the argument deeper into science - even though we don't yet understand the argument itself! My assertion is - we can always do that. Why? If we fail to do that - our original statement will become false. The statement is self proving, i.e. If nothing exists - then nothing exists.

What is this 'exist' we are talking about. It follows from our assumption - 'We exist'.

Argument 2: For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothing

My opponent objected:
"Wait, my opponent contradicts himself. In his previous argument, he stated that something can't come out of nothing. But now he said that some mysterious entity called God can?"

No. God has to exist by himself. God has to be self-existing.

"I ask of him, and the burden is his: how exactly is an entity "self-existing"? Exactly what is this mysteriously vague philosophical, if you can call it that, term?"

This 'mysteriously vague philosophial' follows from our assumption, 'we exist'. There has to be a self-existing entity, existing in the same sense that we exist.

Argument 3: We are not God
Both of us have accepted this point. This point is self-evident. Yet it is important in my chain of reasoning.

Argument 4: God is All Powerful
My opponent objected:
"This is an a mere assertion on my opponent's part. WHY must God be all-powerful?

If we accept that God is the entity which defines everything's existence, God is going to have full control over everything. He has to be All Powerful.

Counterargument 1 - None-unique proof:
This logic is based on wrong assumption that I am defending just the Islamic concept of God.

While I believe, I can modify my arguments to prove existence of one God - I see no reason to do the hard work in middle of a debate. Maybe some other time.

---

I admit there is a possibility that my rival was unable to understand my logic due to flaw in my communication skills. This is for the voters to decide. The more likely explanation is that he thought that my logic is identical to first cause argument. He just proceeded to post the boilerplate arguments used by atheist against the first cause logic.

I am waiting for REAL rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Con

My opponent believes that I have failed to understand his arguments completely. While part of the reason is my opponent's muddled description of god (as an example), I admit part of it was my error. But it's only a slight one, because my opponent's arguments are nothing more than just pushing the problem back further. He simply moves the focus from a scientific one to a philosophical one, and concludes god exists while never filling in the many gaps he has created. I will expose those gaps of error.

First, we need to make clear what the definition of God is in this debate. My opponent stated three qualities that defines this god: that he is "self-existing", omnipotent, and the creator of reality/existence. I was somewhat confused, as he threw in a list of Allah's name and his details. Nonetheless, I'm sure we both are clear on god's definition, as it is necessary in determining if he exists or not. Since we are arguing about the existence of this supreme metaphysical being, and not a specific god of a religion today, I will now refer to it as simply 'god', for this is most befitting.

My opponent "expects at least a part of the debate to center on the definition" of existence, but I implore him to go further. Does he really want to delve into the issue of defining existence? It's a complicated matter, and it can easily take up this entire debate, which makes the topic quite irrelevant. He can attempt so, but until then I'll simply state that something exists if it is part of objective reality.

====================
Argument #1: If nothing exists - then nothing exists
====================

So my opponent simply, as he puts it, pushes back the problem one step. He focuses his argument not on acausality, but the situation in which a spacetime framework is absent. He states that something must have "allowed" for the phenomenon of the existence of spacetime, and here is where he inserts god. There are many flaws with this kind of thinking:

1. What reason does he have to believe that something came before the Big Bang? If we are to believe the the Big Bang is an expansion of spacetime, then time was part of the Big Bang. Therefore, one could argue that NOTHING was before the Big Bang since it wouldn't make logical sense. It would be akin to saying that something is north of the North Pole.
2. If God is outside of spacetime, then how can he make decisions? How can he create things? If there isn't time, then events can't logically follow after another.
3. If God is acasual, why can't the universe be as well?

====================
Argument #2: For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothings
====================

>>>"No. God has to exist by himself. God has to be self-existing...There has to be a self-existing entity, existing in the same sense that we exist."<<<

My opponent not only begs the question, but once again makes fuzzy philosophical claim. As stated before, if God can be self-existing, why can't the universe? Why couldn't the framework of spacetime have existed forever? My opponent believes God has no creator, but there must be something about God that allows for this. Otherwise, it is a double standard to say that the universe is incapable of the same feat.

====================
Argument #3: We are not God
====================

We both accept this point, no further discussion is needed. I will simply include this point to avoid confusion about the numbering of arguments.

====================
Argument #4: God is All Powerful
====================

>>>"If we accept that God is the entity which defines everything's existence, God is going to have full control over everything. He has to be All Powerful."<<<

Again, my opponent makes several hidden leaps of reasoning:

1. When did we accept that God 'defines' everything's existence? In fact, saying that an entity X defines entity Y's existence is absurd, let alone to say it defines the existence of everything. If my opponent wants to get away with saying such flimsy phrases, then he needs expand on this.
2. Even if we are to grant the idea that God created everything, does this make him omnipotent? So far, my opponent has yet to connect this point. What logical or rational reason do we have to believe that creating everything means you are omnipotent? Why can't an entity who isn't omnipotent create everything? When we are dealing with such subjective words like "all-powerful", it really brings the issue into the spotlight.

====================
Counterargument #1 - None-unique proof
====================

>>>"This logic is based on wrong assumption that I am defending just the Islamic concept of God."<<<

True, and I concede this point due to the fact that I misinterpreted your definition of God in the beginning (hopefully I got it right this time). My apologies. As a helpful hint, I implore of my opponent that perhaps next time he point out the definition clearly, as a misstep in communication can be disastrous when considering how rounds are limited.

====================
Conclusion
====================

As I said before, I apologize for my mistake in perceiving my opponent's definition of god.

However, there isn't so much as to say about this argument. It is filled with bouts of jumps of logic. He has to explain many fuzzy philosophical terms, for clarity is of utmost importance. He has to fill the jumps of reason for why an omnipotent god must be the creator of the universe. He has to reason why the supposed self-existence of god can't be attributed to nature as well.

I am waiting for REAL rebuttals as well.
baggins

Pro

I admit the possibility that communication gap, and the consequent loss of 1 round, may have been in part due to my sloppy writing skills. I thank my opponent for his effort. This time he has raised at least one objection which is directly related to my arguments (Difference between nature and God). This indicates that he has understood my chain of reasoning. But I wonder. He says:

"... My opponent's arguments are nothing more than just pushing the problem back further. He simply moves the focus from a scientific one to a philosophical one..."

My arguments have nothing to do with science. It can be classified under logic or philosophy. The only reason I am discussing science is a particular objection that uses a scientific phenomenon. Of course, I am not afraid of discussing science.

I had tried to give you a hint that you might want to object to the use of the term 'exist'. I have tried to not to define it by making it a part of my starting assumption. If you do not want to use it, I am definitely not going to highlight the weak points of my logic.

Let us have a look at objections one by one.

Argument 1: If nothing exists - then nothing exists
Before answer the objections, I would like to ask him. Does he really disagree with this statement. If nothing exists - can something exist? Nothing means nothing. No space, time, strings, quarks or 129 other 'frameworks', which are yet to be discovered.

Coming back to the science, my opponent should make up his mind. Was there no space and no time before big bang (as required by relativity) or did space and time exist all the time with all the uncertainties (as needed by quantum mechanics and his particle production experiment)? Science has not yet answered it. We are hoping that a yet to be born, but already named, 'Theory of Everything' will provide some clue. The Con has conveniently muddled up the two.

My opponent said:
"What reason does he have to believe that something came before the Big Bang? If we are to believe the the Big Bang is an expansion of spacetime, then time was part of the Big Bang. Therefore, one could argue that NOTHING was before the Big Bang since it wouldn't make logical sense."

It does not make logical sense because BEFORE is not defined when applied to big bang. This does not negate my argument in any way.

"It would be akin to saying that something is north of the North Pole."

A perfect example of how I might 'push back' an argument. There is nothing north of North Pole if you stick to the surface of earth. If you look at the globe and consider north as the direction from South Pole to North Pole - you get lots of thing north of North Pole. Just stare upwards from North Pole.

The next objection:
"If God is outside of spacetime, then how can he make decisions? How can he create things? If there isn't time, then events can't logically follow after another."

Dubious logic. How can you control a computer while you are not a part of it?

The events still logically follow each other as far as we are concerned.

As an aside, God's omniscience also requires that he remain outside the space-time. However, I don't want to start a debate on omniscience in the penultimate round.

The last objection of this section:
"If God is acasual, why can't the universe be as well?"

I refute it below (in argument 2 - where you have restated it).

Argument 2: For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothing

The objection is:
"As stated before, if God can be self-existing, why can't the universe?"

Interestingly, you have supplied the answer in the same paragraph.

"My opponent believes God has no creator, but there must be something about God that allows for this."

Indeed yes. The self-existing entity has something very special. It defines existence. Without such an entity, nothing would exist. That is why we call him God.

Argument 3: We are not God
Mutually agreed.

Argument #4: God is All Powerful
My opponent is unable to understand:
"1. When did we accept that God 'defines' everything's existence?..."

In argument 2. This argument is dependent on the previous arguments.

The next objection:
"Even if we are to grant the idea that God created everything, does this make him omnipotent?"

I am not talking about just creating things. I am talking about creating things where nothing existed. I do think that puts the creator in control of everything. I would definitely call that All-powerful.

---

My opponent believes that my arguments are full of 'fuzzy philosophical terms' and 'bouts of jumps of logic' and 'jumps of reason', which he is out to expose. In reality, he has presented only one worthwhile objection that has been refuted. I am sure he can do better.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Con

>>>"My arguments have nothing to do with science. It can be classified under logic or philosophy."<<<

This was in response to one of my statements stating how you push the problems one step back further. If you read more carefully, I did state that you were addressing philosophical issues instead of scientific ones, so you are the one who is clearly misreading.

The issue of defining existence shouldn't be a problem. I offered a basic definition of it in my previous round, and you seem to have no contentions against it. And yes, I accept the premise that we, being humans, exist. There shouldn't be much controversy over things like this, so I'll just address the arguments:

====================
Argument #1: If nothing exists - then nothing exists
====================

>>>"Before answer the objections, I would like to ask him. Does he really disagree with this statement. If nothing exists - can something exist?"<<<

No, but this was obviously not the intention of this point. When you addressed this, you attempted to come to the conclusion that some entity called God can be the only way out of this supposed problem. I attempted to address such intentions.

>>>"It does not make logical sense because BEFORE is not defined when applied to big bang. This does not negate my argument in any way."<<<

Have you even read my argument? I did agree that nothing can be defined to come before the Big Bang, since time is nonexistent. There is no "before" the Big Bang.

>>>"A perfect example of how I might 'push back' an argument. There is nothing north of North Pole if you stick to the surface of earth. If you look at the globe and consider north as the direction from South Pole to North Pole - you get lots of thing north of North Pole. Just stare upwards from North Pole."<<<

Actually, this is actually a perfect example of how you might distort an issue, rather than address the actual problem. In the same way you've purposely misinterpreted the analogy, you've abused the supposed problem of something coming out of nothing.

>>>"Coming back to the science, my opponent should make up his mind..."<<<

Concerning the issue of science, I offer that there can be several explanations. A feasible explanation could be that nothing "came before" the Big Bang because time did not exist then - this seems to be a popular explanation by physicists today. Another explanation can be offered by another minority view, in which hypothesis of string theory and multiverse come into play. I submit that these scientific explanations, while none are as solid as they can be, should not be superseded by some mysterious, unparsimonious entity called God. I will address this later in an argument of my own.

>>>"Dubious logic. How can you control a computer while you are not a part of it?"<<<

So you admit that this entity is even out of the framework of spacetime? This adds more to the incomprehensible nature of God - he is divorced from causality and comprehension. As stated in my previous argument, I will address this problem later in an argument of my own.

====================
Argument #2: For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothing
====================

>>>"Indeed yes. The self-existing entity has something very special. It defines existence. Without such an entity, nothing would exist. That is why we call him God."<<<

Again, you are merely sidestepping the problem in front of you. I specifically asked why God can be self-existing, but not the universe. What is in God's nature that allows for this special fact? There must be, if we are to assume God is self-existing, something supernatural about him. Again, the idea of God is divorced from human comprehension. As stated before, I will address this later in an argument of my own.

====================
Argument #3: We are not God
====================

Mutually agreed.

====================
Argument #4: God is All Powerful
====================

So by "defining everything's existence", you merely meant that he is a necessary precondition. Fair enough, though it was your own usage of language that leads to confusion.

>>>"I am not talking about just creating things. I am talking about creating things where nothing existed. I do think that puts the creator in control of everything. I would definitely call that All-powerful."<<<

Again, you 'think' that makes God omnipotent. There is a problem with defining a being as omnipotent. Exactly how is one to measure "power"? What operational definition do we have to say if something is more powerful than the other?

Power is inherently subjective unless it can be guided. For example, which gun is more powerful, an AK-47 or a M-16? If we are to ask this question at first glance, there is no feasible way to judge this. However, only when we take specific characteristics and compare them do we have a chance at determining which has more 'power'. Perhaps the speed of which the bullet travels, or how much damage it does. An AK-47 packs more punch in it's shot, but a M-16 is more accurate to use. It is only when we examine it closely can we even try labeling something more powerful than the other.

You can see the problem with quantifying power when you think of simple thought experiments. What act takes more power from God, the creation of a mountain or an ocean? The sun or the planets? There is no way of determining what takes more 'power' because we have yet to even define what act takes more power than the other! If we haven't even given a foundation for what 'power' is, then how can we truly call an entity omnipotent?

So even if my opponent is successful in showing that some acausal entity created reality, he has shown no reason for why it is omnipotent. If he doesn't show that it is omnipotent, which by his definitions he needs to, then he has lost this debate.

====================
Counterargument #1 - Problem with God's nature
====================

My opponent has made several claims about the nature of God. He has stated that he omnipotent and he is outside the framework of spacetime (effectively causality). These two unique aspects demonstrate a flaw in this conception of God. The phenomenon of the "unlimited attribute" is the central epistemological contradiction of God.

Let's examine the quality of omnipotence. It is meant to signify 'unlimited power', but there are contradictions found amuck. Can God make a square circle, or a married bachelor. The theist is commonly confronted with this dilemma, and he has responded by saying that God's power is limited to logical possibilities. That, fortunately, is not something I am seeking to exploit.

Instead, I turn my attention to the fact that for a being to be omnipotent, it has to exclude itself from causality. Mill pointed out the same thing, that the necessity of employing means to accomplish an end is the consequence of limited power. The very process of ACTING is a limit in itself. This means that for God to be truly omnipotent, he has to be acausal.

This then brings a problem. Here we are confronted with the theist telling us that this mysterious entity called God can do things in an unknowable way (it "wills" things) through some unknowable process. It is divorced from man's comprehension, an utterly unparsimonious explanation. It is an idea so absurd and far-fetched that the rational thing is to turn to science, which though not perfect is close to the answer, than this 'fantastic' creation.

====================
Conclusion
====================

When I say my opponent uses "fuzzy terms", I really do mean it. He has yet to assess what power is, let alone to give an operational definition for it. Not only so, but the nature of his God is divorced from comprehension, and is in nature utterly absurd.

I thank my opponent for this debate - vote CON.

---References---
1. See comments
baggins

Pro

baggins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
1. Smith, George H.. Atheism: The Case Against God. Amherst, NewYork: Prometheus Books, 1989.
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 7 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
something is never going to emerge out of nothing"...."(God) - who can create things out of nothing"

I hate this argument. You can make up any story to explain what happened before the Big Bang... BUT WHERE'S THE PROOF?! If something has to have a creator to have come into existence, the same goes for God. You can't just say he created himself, because you could say that about the Universe and it has just as much merit. In fact, it has more, because we KNOW the universe exists for one thing. Just because we don't know the answer it doesn't mean that the only solution is an all knowing all powerful entity that created himself. It's like giving up, not bothering to find the truth and just saying 'It was magic.' Thank goodness we don't all think like this or we would still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Ok, rant over :)
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
What do you mean pink unicorns? The flying spaghetti monster's in charge here.
Posted by PieofLife 7 years ago
PieofLife
"It's impossible. They couldn't be pink if they were invisible."

How dare you blaspheme the Great Almighty Invisible Pink Unicorns? You must repent and allow yourself to fall into the wondrous hooves of the Invisible Pink Unicorns or you will be smited and sent to the Invisible Pink Unicorn Hell, which consists of you being locked in a small room with GodSands and DATCMOTO for all eternity. All Hail the Mighty Invisible Pink Unicorns! All Glory and Power to the Invisible Pink Unicorns! Hallelujah!
Posted by scot2 7 years ago
scot2
So far it is a very interesting debate. I look forward to hearing more
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"It's impossible. They couldn't be pink if they were invisible."

Something can be colored but invisible at the same time, it just depends on who the observer is.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
"It is POSSIBLE that invisible pink unicorns roam Earth, but it isn't probable"

It's impossible. They couldn't be pink if they were invisible.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Yeah, but it only works when it finds out you are vote-bombing. It then proceeds to remove all votes the vote-bombing accounts did. Of course, I still regularly get hit every now and then, but oh well :)

I await your defense :D
Posted by baggins 7 years ago
baggins
Is there a vote-bombing removal system?

It looks like you want our great grandsons to be able to vote on this :). No problem!

I am preparing my defense.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Showing that it is very likely that god exists isn't a property of it. showing that something is possible does not mean it probably exists. It is POSSIBLE that invisible pink unicorns roam Earth, but it isn't probable ;)

And I prefer unlimited voting periods so that people who view it much later can still vote on it. I know there is a fear of vote-bombing, but many times the vote-bomb removal system takes care of it - no matter how long it takes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticbagginsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70