The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid.

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  
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: 10/9/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,485 times Debate No: 5658
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (6)

 

TheSkeptic

Con

Hello, after days of boredom I decided to start this debate.

Basically, my opponent will present 2 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD that he/she deems as valid and effective, while it will be up to me to try to disprove them accordingly.

My opponent will simply list down the title of the arguments, with perhaps a brief explanation of each, in their 1st Round. From Round 2 - 4, I will refute each argument and my opponent will defend them accordingly.

Hopefully both of us will get something out of this ;D
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Cosmological Argument (As made by Avicenna)

My Argument:

1. Many people imagine God.
2. Anything that is imagined exists, if only in the mind of a person.
3. God exists, if only in the mind of a person.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Con

ALAS!

Unfortunately, I will have to forfeit this round due to an annoying paper I have to write for my bumbling professor. I will ask of my opponent to develop his arguments in the 2nd Round if he wishes.

I'll be sure to be able to get back to him in the 3rd Round (hopefully).
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

No problem.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Con

~Counterarguments~

1. Cosmological argument

I contend that the universe is uncaused, and thus has no prior cause to the big bang.

The premise that everything has a cause is false on the part that there ARE things that come out of nowhere, e.g. with no cause. A perfect example of this is the virtual fluctuation. Vacuum fluctuations consist of electron, positron, and photons emerging spontaneously out of nowhere in a brief time, then annihilating each other leaving no trace behind. [1]

Other familiar examples are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain. Famous thought experiments such as Schr�dinger's cat represent the implications quantum mechanics has on the fully deterministic premise of the cosmological argument.

In terms of coming to the conclusion of God being the answer, I would ask of my opponent why God is exempt from the conclusion that everything must have cause.

2. My opponent's own argument.

My only refutation of this argument is to lament on my failure to explain my opening round more. If what I interpret his argument to be correct, then it states that God exists as a concept in one's mind, and thus does exist in this form. Of course, this is a conclusion that I can not refute. What I intended obviously, was to refute arguments for God's existence in REALITY, but I seemingly forgot to add this in my opening argument. Duly noted.

If however, my interpretation was wrong, then I apologize and ask of my opponent to expand on it in his round.

---Reference---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"The premise that everything has a cause is false on the part that there ARE things that come out of nowhere, e.g. with no cause. A perfect example of this is the virtual fluctuation. Vacuum fluctuations consist of electron, positron, and photons emerging spontaneously out of nowhere in a brief time, then annihilating each other leaving no trace behind. [1]"

"There are many observable physical phenomena resulting from interactions involving virtual particles. All tend to be characterized by the relatively short range of the force interaction producing them."

Note the "interaction producing them." They have a cause.

"Other familiar examples are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain.'

Quantum Physics does not mean that it doesn't have a cause, so I don't know what the relevance is.

"Famous thought experiments such as Schr�dinger's cat represent the implications quantum mechanics has on the fully deterministic premise of the cosmological argument."

Schr�dinger's cat only tells us that we cannot know everything, it does not mean there is no cause and effect. If you are equating cause and effect with determinism, then you are wrong. A cause does not determine an effect, but an effect needs a cause to occur. Everything is caused, maybe not determined, but it is caused.

"In terms of coming to the conclusion of God being the answer, I would ask of my opponent why God is exempt from the conclusion that everything must have cause."

He is omnipotent, so he is not constrained by logic. He can break that rule.

"2. My opponent's own argument."

Whatever, it's fine, we don't need to debate semantics.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Con

~Counterarguments~

1. Virtual particle

"Note the "interaction producing them." They have a cause."

--> If you were to carefully read the quote my opponent gave in his third round, you will notice that the phrase with "interaction producing them" is referring to the "many observable physical phenomena". His quote basically is describing a way of how virtual particles are characterized, not of how they are caused. It's of commonplace in quantum physics that in a vacuum fluctuation, virtual particles can and do emerge spontaneously without a cause.

So being the nature of virtual particles, the premise of the cosmological argument that all things have causes is undermined and defeated, since we do have hard scientific evidence that speaks otherwise.

2. Uncertainty principle

Quantum mechanics do have relevance in this argument, as examples undermine the deterministic premise of the cosmological argument. There is no way to predict where in the resulting interference pattern an individual photon will make its contribution according to the Uncertainty principle, something undetermined.

3. Schr��dinger's cat

Schr��dinger's cat describes quantum indeterminacy, a standard for for quantum physics. It describes the necessary incompleteness description of a physical system. That is the core of quantum mechanics, randomness and uncertainty.

2. "He is omnipotent, so he is not constrained by logic. He can break that rule."

How exactly would you prescribe this characteristic from the existence of this universe? If you mean to say that God's omnipotence is a necessity to break logic, then once we step into this realm where science is abandoned and we are left with such useless claims as that, it's rational for us to apply Occam's razor. Since is this is the only contention my opponent may have (assuming he finds a way to trump quantum mechanics), then it is quite a pathetic point to use solely as an argument for the existence of God.

And if my opponent means the Christian God, then the cosmological argument is in itself, self-refuting. For even if it did show that Jesus Christ was the creator of the universe, it also means that this universe is fully deterministic, and thus no free will. In essence, the concept of salvation is discarded if the cosmological argument is to be taken true.

It basically breaks down to: God did it. We can't understand it (e.g. not constrained by logic) but He did it.

~Conclusion~

The cosmological argument my opponent presents fails with its premise that everything in the universe has a cause. I've shown how in quantum mechanics, there are commonplace things that are UNCAUSED. This is why the cosmological argument is refuted.

Secondly, if my opponent intended to prove the Christian God, or any specific god at that matter, it's non sequitor. He can't name the identity of the Creator from this argument, it's a jump in logic.

This is why you should vote for Con!
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles"

-Wikipedia

So, virtual particles are this nebulous thing, that don't even exist, in the common sense of the world. They are sort of like the imaginary number i. That doesn't show anything.

So, take his virtual particle argument off the board.

As for the uncertainty principle, that also doesn't prove anything. Yes, it shows that the universe is completely deterministic. The cosmological argument doesn't say that. It says everything has a cause. That does not mean determinism, as a number of effects could come from one cause. The effects aren't determined, so the cosmological argument does not advocate determinism.

Take that off the board.

Schr�dinger's cat goes away too, as it is just an argument against determinism.

On omnipotence:
I mean to say that we get infinite regress, or an uncaused cause. Both are illogical. Therefore, a being not constrained by logic is necessary to allow the regress or to cause itself. Also, it does not lead us away from science, it's like virtual particles in a sense. Science creates nebulous "things" when they are necessary to lead to something that we know to be true. Virtual particles, quantum physics, hell, sounds a lot like religion to me. Also, Occam's razor does nothing. All I stipulated was that an omnipotent being was required, you can't simplify that.

"And if my opponent means the Christian God, then the cosmological argument is in itself, self-refuting. For even if it did show that Jesus Christ was the creator of the universe, it also means that this universe is fully deterministic, and thus no free will. In essence, the concept of salvation is discarded if the cosmological argument is to be taken true."

a) I never mentioned the god known as Yahweh or Jehovah, I referred to a nebulous "God" that is necessary for existence.
b) Cosmological proof does not advocate determinism

"The cosmological argument my opponent presents fails with its premise that everything in the universe has a cause. I've shown how in quantum mechanics, there are commonplace things that are UNCAUSED. This is why the cosmological argument is refuted."

All you've shown is that quantum physics, like every other science will create nebulous concepts out of necessity. I created a nebulous "God." Of course, I mean create in a metaphorical sense, because otherwise, I'd be God.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 9 years ago
TheSkeptic
Well I'm fine with debating about Avicenna, but about your second argument I'm not so sure
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
"Hmm, your argument seems to validate God's existence in one's mind, not in reality. If that is so, it's not what I intended this debate to be about -_-"

Oh, sorry. Well Avicenna had a fun proof to debate.
Posted by TheSkeptic 9 years ago
TheSkeptic
Hmm, your argument seems to validate God's existence in one's mind, not in reality. If that is so, it's not what I intended this debate to be about -_-
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
I'm feeling more like Yahweh is what he means.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Whatever, I'll try anyways.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
God as in Yahweh, or god as in Deity?
Posted by TheSkeptic 9 years ago
TheSkeptic
"Haha?"

Habit.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Good point Zerosmelt.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
The sky is colorless, it just refracts blue and gray and purple crap.

Of course, that doesn't affect the validity, it just means it's unsound in another way :D
Posted by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
ooh ooh i've got one!

1. If the sky is grey on tuesday but blue on wednesday and is sometimes purple then God exists.
2. Yeah i'm pretty sure the sky has done that. lol.
3. Therefore God exists. ** Tah Dah!**

A totally valid argument.

(of course you weren't expecting it to also be sound were you?)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
TheSkepticLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
TheSkepticLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 9 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 9 years ago
KRFournier
TheSkepticLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
TheSkepticLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
TheSkepticLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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