The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mestari
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Mestari
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,412 times Debate No: 22098
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (55)
Votes (1)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

There are many to choose from. Only one per debate.

Argument must be logical


First round is acceptence!

Mestari

Con

In this debate I will only be defending God as a necessary being.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA)
  1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
  2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
  3. The universe is an existing thing.
  4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Premise 1

An Overview of Modality

Modality is a typology of argumentation that bases its premises in the contingency or necessity of their content. Something is necessary if it could not have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are necessarily true; it seems reasonable that mathematical truths such as one plus one making two hold true irrespective of how the world may function. The world could exist in the exact opposite manner as it does now and one plus one would still make two. God is also a necessary being, a being that logically could not have failed to exist. It is in the very nature of God that he essentially possess all compossible perfections. Necessary existence is in itself a perfection, and thus God must possess it. That is to say that the very nature of God necessarily explains his existence.

Something is contingent if it could have failed to exist. Most things exist contingently. Each human might not have existed, their respective parents may not have met or may have opted not to have children. Thus, our existence is contingent. The universe appears to exist contingently as well. It seems that the universe may have developed in such a way that the planets were created in different positions, with different respects to habitability. The stars we observe may have been blindingly bright or too dim to see. The Earth itself may not have come into existence. As the universe is contingent, it cannot explain its own existence, for if its own nature entails its existence then it must have necessarily existed.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

The Principle of Sufficient Reason claims that all contingent beings must have explanations. I will defend several arguments that support the PSR.

First, it would seem that the PSR requires no defense. All evidence gathered by our sense perception seems to support the universal and undeniable affirmation this principle. Indeed, if we admit the first premise to be invalid, then there seems to lack any logical reason that things do not simply pop into and out of existence. However, it appears that there is no evidence to prove that this happens. For every existing thing there must also be an explanation of its existence.

Second, I would like to propose in support of the PSR: The Explanation of Negative States of Affairs. I feel this argument is best articulated by Alexander R. Pruss [2] in his book The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment:

Here is a pattern of explanation we all accept [...]“Why did the yogurt fail to ferment? It failed to ferment because none of the usual explanations of fermentation, namely, the presence of bacteria, were there to explain it, and there was no unusual cause. Why did the dog not bark? It did not bark because no stranger approached it and none of the other possible causes of barking caused it to bark.” These are perfectly fine explanations, and they are not elliptical for longer explanations, though of course they are not ultimate explanations since one may ask why no stranger approached the dog.

In these explanations, we explain a negative state of affairs by noting that the positive state of affairs that it is the denial of lacked an explanation. But now observe that this form of explanation presupposes a PSR, at least for positive states of affair, for if such a PSR does not hold, then one has failed to explain the negative state of affairs. If it is possible that a dog should bark without cause, then in saying that there was no cause for the dog to bark we have not explained why the dog did not bark. We may have explained why a nonbrute barking did not occur, but we have not explained why a brute, or unexplained, barking did not occur.

Our acceptance of the preceding explanations as nonelliptical is thus a sign of our tacit acceptance of the PSR.

With these arguments, I hold that the PSR is sound.

Underview of Premise 1

It seems apparent through modal logic that things may exist necessarily or contingently. That which exists necessarily will explain its existence through its own nature. The same cannot be said for that which exists contingently. However, the PSR successfully provides that all things which exist contingently must have an explanation. Thus, premise 1 holds true.

Premise 2

Premise 2 is rather simple. If the universe exists, it must exist contingently as elaborated upon in the overview of modality. The PSR holds that all contingent beings must have explanations. The existence of a contingent being cannot be explained solely by other contingent beings, for those contingent beings would require explanations from other contingent beings ad infinitum. Thus, there must be a first cause, a necessary being that explains the existence of all contingent beings. Bruce Reichenbach [3] argues, "the necessary being cannot provide a natural explanation for [the universe], for we know of no natural, non-contingent causes and laws or principles from which the existence of the universe follows. What is required is a personal explanation in terms of the intentional acts of some eternal supernatural being."

Now, the argument is not that God must exist because we do not currently have evidence of natural, non-contingent causes but rather that the idea of natural non-contingent causes is irrational. Consider this: a completely material cause is the first cause. This cause, known as N1, or the first natural cause, sparked the creation of the entire universe. N1 is a necessary being because as previously explained, an infinite number of contingent beings cannot explain their own existence. N1 is the reason the spacio-temporal world as we know it was created. It is the reason matter came into existence. But how is this possible? How can N1 create space and time? By definition, natural beings require space to exist within and are temporal. Also by definition, natural beings are composed of matter. How can that which is composed of matter also account for the creation of matter? On the other hand, suppose P1 is a necessary, personal being and serves as the first cause. Now we can logically explain the creation of space, time, and matter because a personal being may posses the qualities of being eternal, and may transcend the physical. It's will allows for the creation of that which it is not, the physical world. As demonstrated a necessary, natural being that is also the first cause is logically contradictory. Due to the inability for it to be anything but God, God himself must serve as the explanation of the universe's existence.

Premise 3

I do not believe that this premise will be contested by my opponent. If he, however, decides to raise the question of whether the universe exists I will gladly provide evidence in the following round.

Conclusion

The conclusion that the explanation of the universe is God cannot be logically denied if the 3 premises in support of it hold true. Thus for my opponent to reject the conclusion he must ascertain the negation of any of the 3 premises of the LCA. Indeed, this will be a challenging task for my opponent and if I succeed in defending all of the LCA's premises I shall win this debate.

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com.........
2. Pruss, Alexander R. The Principle of Sufficient Reason: An Explanation. 2006.
3. http://tinyurl.com.........

Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


Freedom at last!


‘The things that are perish into the things out of which they come to be, according to necessity, for they pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice in accordance with the ordering of time’ Anaximander of Miletus 610 BCE’


P1 something cannot come from nothing, is based on “the principle of sufficient reason” proposed by the Anaximander http://en.wikipedia.org...


This is not to be confused with something coming into recognition, or something popping out of recognition. For recognition is not all of reality. Like a pig or a worm, we might not even have the mental faculties to recognize other entities in the universe.


"come now, I will tell you--- and bring away my story safely when you have heard it--- the only ways of inquiry are to think: the one, that it is and that it is not possible for it not to be, the path of Truth, the other, that it is not and the necessary for it not to be, this I point out to you to be a path completely unlearnable, for neither may you know that which is not, nor may you declare it." Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE http://en.wikipedia.org...


Law of conservation mass and energy


P2 That is, what IS IS, and what IS not cannot be known. For it is not there to know about and so not there to claim. What IS IS the universe. It could never be what is not, because it is.


That is by law of non-contradiction nothing that exist can be created or destroyed.


Energy:


“Everything changes and nothing remains still... and... you cannot step twice into the same stream.” Heraclitus 475 BCE http://en.wikipedia.org...


P3 Energy is destabilisation by definition. The universe is in constant flux; energy cannot be created or destroyed, so universe is constantly changing. That is ‘The things that are perish into the things out of which they come to be, according to necessity’ Anaximander. That is what exist is always forming and un-forming, into new structures and out of old and new forms of existence are coming into and out of recognition whether mind or matter, and energy or whatever such form.


Bang!!!!!


P4 Even the in the big bang theory it only accounts for our empirical(recognition) of the world in the way we know it now. What they call the initial stage is not empty universe but a hot condensed state of matter. It is still existing, and moving, for heat is the movement of molecules. The change in stability of energy explains the explosion. Even before the condensation it could have been previously separated, and come together. Remember this is only



An untimely Fool


Well nobody likes to find out that Santa clause doesn’t exist, we tend to cling to that a little while longer even when we know it’s true. If you are not ready to grow up, you might want to skip this part. For fresh knowledge is not always happy knowledge. It’s interesting to me to see what people say that the universe has had an age so it must have been born; I never get the feeling of born-ness when I gaze as the sky from a hill top. For one thing most people don’t grasp as clear as they think is time. What is time?


Young Fool: what is time master?


The True: time is what happens.


Young Fool: Everything happens, that doesn’t help.


The True: You just need to ask the right question Young Fool. How does happens happen?


Young Fool: I don’t know, all I see is happenings.


The True: How do you tell them apart?


Young Fool: in relation to each other.


The True: and you have your answer.


Young Fool: hmmm. Oh


The True: think! About the differences!


Young Fool: oh okay, time is the difference of happenings?


The True: exactly


Young Fool: Time is the difference of change between something and another. Hmmm. So our time must be the change between movement of the earth and its axis, while a year is relative to the location of the earth around the sun. Yeah. That makes sense, just as an hour is synonymous with sand moving through an hour grass or water from a bucket, or change of a season. Are time is simply, comparing the motion/change of the earth spinning with other change. P5.That is time does not exist in the universe outside our minds. For time is an illusion.


The Fool: but what about my birthday and Chrismas and happy fun day!!


The True: The calender is abritrary, we all have to grow up someday Fool!!



The Universe Solved!


P1 something cannot come from nothing, is based on “the principle of sufficient reason”


P2 That is, what IS IS, and what IS not cannot be known. The universe IS, and thus it could never be what is not. Law of conservation Mass and energy By law of non-contradiction.


P3 Energy is destabilisation by definition. The universe is in constant flux.


P4 Even the in the big bang theory is only a temporary theory based only of recognition.


P5.That is time does not exist in the universe outside our minds. (via untimely Fool)


C1 Therefore all sufficient conditions have been met to explain the universe.


There for all Cons premises are rejected except for P5!!!


You heard it here first! Straight from the hill!


Vote for victory vote fool!!!!


Mestari

Con

Indeed the logic of a fool only appears within reason when hidden from the minds of the wise. A foolish mistake was made by the fool in failing to directly acknowledge any of the LCA's premises. I will begin this round by reminding the reader of several important facets of the LCA and then address my opponent's argument and provide comparative analysis.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA)
  1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
  2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
  3. The universe is an existing thing.
  4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Premise 1

An Overview of Modality

I would only like to rehash two key definition.

Contingent Existence - Existence that could have failed to exist, i.e. existence that is explained by an external cause. You and I exist contingently because our respective parents may not have met, or may have chosen not to have children. We could have, logically speaking, failed to exist.

Necessary Existence - Existence that could not have failed to exist, i.e. existence that is explained by the necessity of its own nature. The laws of mathematics exist necessarily. It would seem perfectly plausible that if the world existed in the exact opposite manner then two and two would still make four. A perfect being, or God, exists necessarily because necessary existence is an essential perfection and thus would be possessed by a perfect being. Take not that God's status as a necessary being does not offer proof of his existence. Necessary existence merely functions to explain why God exists, if he does. The LCA offers evidence for God's existence by means of argument to the contrary, in which no other explanation for the existence of the universe is possible. Note that necessary existence is equivalent to the state of being eternal. Something that exists necessarily cannot be created or destroyed.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

My opponent and I agree to the PSR. It is important, however, to notice that my formulation of the PSR is slightly more elaborate. Both the Fool and I accept the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit, nothing comes from nothing. My formulation, however, goes on to explain how that is true. It holds that the existence of contingent beings is explained by external causes and the existence of necessary beings is explained by the necessity of their own nature. This is a logical extrapolation that may be derived from ex nihilo nihil fit.

Premise 2

In the original presentation of the LCA I showed that the universe must exist contingently. I have also provided reasoning as to why the existence of contingent beings cannot be explained simply by other contingent beings, for those contingent beings would require explanations via other contingent beings ad infinitum. Therefore we may conclude that there must exist a necessary being that serves as the first cause which explains the existence of all contingent beings. I have just noticed that in the previous round I have limited my defense of God to proving the existence of a necessary being. As such, I could claim victory on the basis that the universe exists contingently; however, a victory by semantics was never my intent. Therefore I will expand my defense of God to Him existing as a necessary and personal being. That being said, my argument about N1 thoroughly elaborates on why a necessary and natural first cause is logically incoherent. Therefore, the only possible explanation of the universe is a necessary and personal first cause, God.

Premise 3

The Fool necessarily accepts premise 3 as a presupposition to her argument. There is no contest here.

Conclusion

The conclusion of the LCA cannot be logically denied if its three premises stand. My opponent presumes the truth of the first and third premise, and as such can only offer refutation to the third premise while maintaining consistency with her position.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Logic of a Fool

I would like to note that if my opponent continues without offering a direct rebuttal to the LCA and I at least attempt to refute her argument, then you have no reason not to believe the LCA while you have at least a minimal reason not to believe her argument and as such you should prefer my argument. Furthermore, if I prove that the LCA is compatible with my opponent's argument, then it has not been refuted and I will win this debate.

Conclusion

It seems important to note that the Fool's argument is not valid. There is no reason to hold the conclusion as true if the premises are true. Each premise proves an independent, unrelated fact. In order for my opponent to extrapolate that she has met all sufficient conditions to explain the universe, she must first identify those conditions.

Premise 1

We both agree to the PSR.

Premise 2

The law of non-contradiction does not hold that nothing which is or exists can be created or destroyed. My opponent derives this claim from the law of conservation of energy (LCE). The LCE, however, simply claims that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. However, we will note a very damning contradiction within the Fool's logic. The Fool accepts the PSR, so all that exists must have an explanation for its existence. Energy cannot have necessary existence because it could have failed to exist. If we note that there exists systems which are indeed open then it is perfectly plausible to claim that energy may be created and destroyed, and is therefore not eternal. Energy must then exist contingently. However, my opponent fails to admit that there is an explanation for the existence of energy. She simply postulates that energy just IS, what IS IS, because it IS. It goes without question that this argument is absurd and should be rejected as such. Now, even if we granted that the universe is an isolated system and thus the LCE applies to it, this by no means allows for the law of noncontradiction to explain that the universe itself could not be created or destroyed. The universe itself would be the system not the energy, and thus would be subject to creation and destruction. The universe remains contingent.

Premise 3

Premise 3 holds that the universe is in constant flux. Thus, by definition my opponent concedes that the universe is not eternal and thereby is contingent. Furthermore, this premise proves nothing. My opponent states that things begin and cease to exist. There is no link whatsoever to the conclusion. In fact, this provides yet another contradiction in my opponent's argument. He states that what IS IS and could never not be. However, if it could never not be then it would never cease to be, and as such could not see its existence end. Premise 3 contradicts premise 1 and therefore if there were any link to the conclusion, it would be denied.

Premise 4

Even if we granted that the change in stability of energy explains the big bang, it does not explain the existence of the energy. Premise 4 concedes that the universe exists contingently, yet my opponent only provides explanation via another contingent being. As shown through the second premise of the LCA, you cannot explain the existence of contingent beings simply by means of other contingent beings and there must be a necessary being that serves as the cause. You can refer back to the LCA's premise 2 for why this must be a necessary and personal being, God.

Premise 5

Even if time is relative, it proves nothing. The LCA is compatible with an infinite universe because an infinite number of contingent beings would still require a necessary being to coherently explain their existence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More compatibility arguments will be presented in the next round.

Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

Beware of change!

An Appeal to tradition is a common logical fallacy.

That is the inference that we should do something now just because we did it in the before.

The Fool has notices that it’s a DDO tradition that you when somebody presents a logical argument, that the way to refute it is to show a premise false. Therefore it becomes intuitive to think that we must always do it the same way.

But all GOD arguments are based from an absence of explanation, therefore it follows that any other explanation usurps a God argument, without even having to refer to it.

Talk about gravity!

All cosmological arguments of GOD are based on an appeal to ignorance.

They all consist of saying we don’t know the cause of something therefore that Cause is GOD.

But this is nonsense, because nothing follows from I don’t know but I don’t know. I don’t know is the absence of information. You can’t get information from 0 information, Just as we can’t get something from nothing.

Aka (? ->?) Not (?-> God) You can’t go from I don’t know to I know its GOD. For that it is a Direct Contradiction. For its saying ~know & Know at the same time. Let know=K (~k&k)

Even such a claim, would only mean that the word GOD=I don’t know. AKA GOD =0

These arguments cannot logically even get off the ground.

Doctor Fool here to examine the illness of the LCA argument

P1. Dissected and exposed Fallacy=F

‘Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.’

F1. Intentional distortion of the Principle of Sufficient Reason

The principle of Sufficient Reason states that there is Reason for everything.

It is false and a Lie that it means there is an explanation for everything. An explanation entails that there is a Knowable Reason. There could be and infinite number of reasons for things in or out or about the universe, that we will never know. There has been an intentional dishonestly within the chain of knowledge in the US(This is only in the US). To confuse the population of this interpretation and also that the Big Bang Theory states that something came from nothing.

F2. The principle of Sufficient Reason refers to a sufficient condition, which is represented as a logical conditional.

  1. (Classic Logic) x->y mean that x is the sufficient condition of y, but y is the necessary condition of x. So x is dependent on y. That is if there is no y there is no x. (~y->~x) = (x->y)
  2. (Advanced Logic) x is within the framework of y. So Y(x) Where y predicates x.

What is important to note is that if God is the cause then he is dependent on what he caused. That is what makes something a cause, is the affect or else it wouldn’t be a cause at all. But this is absurd of any notion of an un-pantheistic God.

F3. “Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence” is pure NONSENSE!

Why? Because existence, exist!!!!!! Existence=Existence ‘How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown’ (Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE)

Any possible explanation, cause or GOD would not exist. So it’s impossible by any rationality that God exist for even he is no match for the contradiction of existence. When did faith suddenly not become good enough?

F4. ‘either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.’ is another Fallacy.

Nothing could be a necessary cause in its own nature, for it would violate the principle of sufficient reason. That is as we work down the chain of causes within something there would have to be bottom within it that is uncaused. There eventually it will always depend on a cause.

F5 ‘Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence’

Thus if God exist then he would need an explanation, our definition of him is of his existence but not how he began to exist. So this premise will never be true.

Doctor Fool: Well it seems this premise had as lease four different types of AIDs! So we must reject this one for the health of Humanity.

Oh dear another infection!

P2. Dissected and exposed Fallacy=F

‘If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.’ The Con

F1 Semantic fallacy

Language is made of or organized sets of physical symbols (in this case words) to refer to a reality.

Here the word God a physical symbol, is used to back label explanation. But to prove that there is an explanation says nothing about what that explanation is. The word God here only refers at best to an explanation. No other mean can be inferred by this argument.

Thus the symbol God refers the word 'explanation' which has no reality.

F2 Within universe explanation fallacy

One problem is that the ‘explanation itself ‘is in the universe, in the form of a mental conception. So it could never be of the existence of the universe for the universe is the cause of its existence. That the knowledge depends on seeing outside but we are always within. Therefore all such explanations are nonsense.

logical form

P1. All explanations are in the universe

P2. This explanation is God

C1. Therefore god is in the Universe!?

F3 Let U=universe E=explanation G=God Bold assertion fallacy.

‘If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.’ The Con

It is not logically sound that if the universe has an explanation if follows by necessity its GoD!!!!???

NONSENSE!

Doctor Fool: Well you only had three in here but at least it’s better than P1. (P2 rejected) But here take some of these pills from the hill and maybe we could save the next one.

I get high with a little help from my friends

Doctor Fool: oh you look cheery! Maybe a little too cheery!

P3 the universe is an existing thing.

Doctor Fool: I forgot to mention the Side effects. They are irrationality, ignorance and bold assertions.

Could have, would have, should have

The Con: Contingent Existence: Existence that could have failed to exist.

The Fool: This is nonsense, for the past i locked, that is, it already has happened, aka it’s been determined therefore it could not have been any other way.

Post-determination Fallacy

The Fool: For what we mean normally is that under different conditions it could have been different. But the conditions have been set already. Therefore it could not have been different. (all past contingencies refuted)

It’s sufficient at best!

F1. The Con: Necessary Existence - Existence that could not have failed to exist, i.e. existence that is explained by the necessity of its own nature.

The Fool: Existence exists by its own nature Nonsense. it is use that define things, but it never follows that something other then universe(all things that exist) exist in its own nature.

F2. Fallacy begging the question

Since we are in the universe any claim of outside the universe begs the question.

F3. Bold assertion fallacy

The Con: Note that necessary existence is equivalent to the state of being eternal.

The Fool: You can’t dictate truth.

Bible distortion

F1. The intention of the word universe is to mean all things that exist. The unification of all verses, the word comes about in around 1500’s. There is no Universe in the original bible. It’s just earth and sun. That it! Somebody has been manipulating Gods word. Secondly before the printing press for 1500’a years the bible has been copies, interpreted and translated by hand!!! Most often by people of Governing Authority who have all the reason to change it in their favour. Therefore anything in the bible is at best probabilistic. The certainty of the Bible is FAITH BASED. Therefore not logical, and thus nothing can be used in a logical argument.

F2. Subject universal fallacy

The Con: A perfect being, or God, exists necessarily because necessary existence is an essential perfection.

The Fool: Perfection is a completely subjective term, it doesn’t make sense to say it exist our side of a subjective frame work.

Sorry Fool Fans

No more room,but the Fool shines on for you! In round 3. Vote for Glory Vote FOOL!


Mestari

Con

The Fool makes blanket statement that all arguments for God are arguments from ignorance. The LCA does not claim that because we do not know the cause of the universe, the cause must be God. The LCA states that we do know the cause of the universe. This will be addressed in my defense of the PSR where I discuss types of explanations.

Premise 1

Overview of Modality


Let's start with my opponent's F4 and F5 in response to my first premise. My opponent claims that God must have an explanation in F5 and I agree with this. Now if he would like to read premise one in its entirety we would see that the explanation may either be within the necessity of his own nature or in an external cause. I have already explained why God is a necessary being and will not repeat myself here. As for F4, my opponent claims that necessary existence violates the PSR. This is false, however, as the PSR does not claim that everything must have a cause but rather an explanation. If everything needed a cause then we would arrive at the absurd conclusion that everything is contingent. But again, solely contingent beings cannot explain themselves for it would force an ad infinitum regress. From this logic alone we can see that there must be an uncaused cause, or a necessary being which could not have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are necessary beings for they could not have failed to exist. Nothing caused the laws of mathematics to be true. My opponent concedes that down the chain of causes something would have to be uncaused, and this is my view as well. What he calls an uncaused cause, I cause a necessary being. There is no difference. To refute the possibility of a necessary being is for the Fool to be inconsistent with her own stance.

Next comes the arguments labeled as objections to P3. My opponent claims that everything must exist necessarily for the past is locked. This logic leads us to accept the following: You have the option of voting for me or my opponent. You also have the option of allocating many different point combinations. Indeed, there are many possible votes you could give. However, let's say you decide to vote for me.

The fool: AH HA, I've gotcha now! You voted for him, therefore you could not have done otherwise, because you already did it!

It seems quite absurd to believe that you never had a choice in voting for me, and that you couldn't have voted for the fool.

Next is my opponents F3 response to my third premise. I would claim that if the nature of something could be changed, then it's nature is contingent and not necessary. As such, if something is contingent it is not eternal.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

Let's first talk the concern that an explanation necessarily entails a knowable reason. I would say that this claim is irrelevant. Based on an extension of modal logic we can know that just as beings exist contingently or necessarily, everything may be explained contingently or necessarily. My opponent concedes to this when she accepts the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit in her original presentation of the PSR, or that nothing comes from nothing. When asked, "why did the dog bark," we can offer only two types of explanation. The first is that something caused the dog to bark. The mailman approached, or the dog was hungry. The dog's barking was contingent. The other is that it could not have happened any other way. The dog could not have not barked. The dog's barking was necessary. Indeed, when explaining the PSR in this manner it becomes quite clear that we need not know the reason that the dog barked to know that there was a reason.

But how is that when the LCA claims the know with certainty that God is the reason that the universe exists? Well this is simple. The LCA utilizes argument to the contrary in order to prove why the is no other possible explanation for the universe than God. As we know that the is and explanation for the universe, and no other explanation is possible, the only possible explanation is then God. Here is another point of the LCA where my opponent may believe I am arguing from ignorance. But why, asks the fool, do we assume that the last possible explanation is God? Is there not an unknowable explanation? This is a wise concern, I respond, however the LCA's argument to the contrary concerns itself simply with types of explanations rather than what the explanations are, and as God is a type of explanation himself, we need only prove that every other type of explanation is impossible. By proving that the why must be God, we prove that the what must be God when asking what caused the universe.

Next my opponent distorts what necessary and sufficient conditions are. In X -> Y, yes X is the sufficient condition of Y and Y is the necessary condition of X. However, the conclusion my opponent draws is false. X is the sufficient condition because X is sufficient for why, in that X allows Y to happen. Y is the necessary condition because Y's existence necessarily proves X, in the Y could not have happened if X did not cause it to happen. In other words, God -> Universe makes God the sufficient condition for the universe, in that God allows the universe to exist. The universe is the necessary condition because the universe's existence necessarily proves God's existence, in that the universe could not have existed if God did not cause it to exist. When reformulating my opponent's claim into a more laymen idea, we see that God is not dependent on the universe. Yes, there is a relationship between God in the universe in that God caused the universe, but without the universe there would still be God, and without God the universe could not be. The universe is dependent on God, not the inverse.

My opponent follows-up with by asserting that it is absolute nonsense to claim that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. He supports this with Parmenides of Elea. After realizing that my opponent solely defends her statements with greek philosophy, the misunderstanding becomes evident. Greek philosophers interpret existence in an outdated manner. This is why my opponent's support for existence is simply what IS IS. There is no logic behind this claim, just an observation that what IS IS. Modality clarifies by placing logical conditions on existence. That is not to say that Paramenides' claim is invalid. Paramenides and many other greek philosophers were simply explaining necessary existence as opposed to contingent existence. We now know that the quality of being eternal that they speak of apply only to necessary beings.

Premise 2

First my opponent provides an objection from semantics. This is answered when I discussed types of explanations. God is a type of explanation and thus by rejecting all other answers to why the universe exists, we arrive at what caused it to exist.

Next my opponent claims that we cannot provide an explanation for the universe that lies without it, for our conception of that explanation is within the universe. I would say that this argument is simply a linguistic trap. Sure, our conception of that explanation is within the universe, but that does not mean the explanation cannot exist without the universe. My conception of Earth is within my head, but quite surely the Earth exists outside of my head.

Then my opponent accuses me of the bare assertion fallacy. What I find humorous is that she does this by simply addressing the wording of the premise without even acknowledging the entire round I dedicated to explaining it along with the other premises of the LCA. It seems to be a bare assertion to claim that an argument you have not read is a bare assertion.

Premise 3

F1 and F3 have been refuted in my overview of modality. F2 is addressed in my defense of P2.

Bible Distortion

My defense does no come from the Bible, thus this is irrelevant.

Subject Universal Fallacy

It is logically inconsistent to claim that existence is not a perfection, for one could not make that claim if they did not exist.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


‘The LCA does not claim that because we do not know the cause of the universe, the cause must be God.’


To say everything has an explanation is false. The PSR says that there must a reason. Not an explanation. An explanation implies information. No information is ignorance. Therefore it is an appeal to ignorance.


Doctors Fool Second Opinion: Reconfirmation


P1 F=Fallacy R=rebuttal A=Re-affirmation


RF4 Con: ‘As for F4, my opponent claims that necessary existence violates the PSR.’ This is false, however, as the PSR does not claim that everything must have a cause but rather an explanation.


AF4 The Fool: PSR(The Principle of sufficient reason) claim that everything has a reason. It is synonymous with the following:


1. P->Q (in fact this is exactly what it is which is just long linguistically state of the logical conditional)


2. If there is something it must conform something. aka something coming from nothing is not a sufficient condition.


3. For every effect there is a cause. Aka a cause is sufficient condition for and affect.


And explanation is not a sufficient condition for anything but knowledge.


We need not look any further then the title Principle of Sufficient Reason, where Reason has been equivocated with explanation, (Equivocation fallacy), making your source an Unwarranted appeal to authority fallacy. The principle of sufficient condition is a priori knowledge, in that all inferences we make presuppose the concept. We couldn’t be rational without it. Using it and defining it are not the same.


RF5 Con:My opponent claims that God must have an ‘explanation’ in F5 and I agree with this.’ Strawman Fallacy


AF5 The Fool: No I claimed it does not follow that we can know all explanations about all that exist. I have rejected this clearly; by saying there are many things in the universe that we cannot explain. And we may never explain them all. I said according to CON aka Not Fool, ‘everything that exists must have an explanation.’ That is God existence cannot be explained by his definition that is as perfection and therefore necessary. The defining of god is not the same as the existence of god. You need to prove such perfection; he is also defined as the creator. Begging the Question. Defining something doesn’t prove its existence.






Note F1, F2 and F3 Still remain as well for Cons premise 1



More of the same


The Con: But again, solely contingent beings cannot explain themselves for it would force an ad infinitum regress.


F1 The Fool: The PSR presupposes determinism therefore making everything a necessity by its cause and its cause being a necessity by its cause.


F2 An infinite regress is not by necessity false in any sense. We simply explain in math that a line segment has an infinite amount of points between A and B. It’s perfectly understandable explanation.


F3 Con is confusing that we could never know all the causes with there must not be and infinite amount of causes.. And I agree that we many never know. I don’t know is a sometimes the best answer.


F4 Nothing need be explained by its own nature, we could simply understand the universe how that which we refer to came about. (The universe is always changing.)


F5 Lastly we only have only recognized cause in the Universe, anything reference to the cause of the universe begs the question.


F6 But even if we allow that, it would be based on inductive inference. E.g. in the past the sun has come every day. But it doesn’t follow logically that it will come tomorrow. Inductive inferences are experience based. Not logically inferred. So like all science they could never give 100% certainty. Aka not a logical proof.


I no he didn’t


F6 Con: Based on an extension of modal logic we can know that just as beings exist contingently or necessarily, everything may be explained contingently or necessarily. Begs the question


The Fool: not only does it bed the question, but he principle of sufficiency reason, which was defined by Anaximander of Miletus 610 BCE, is not compatible with Modal logical at all. As I said if there is a reason for everything then nothing is contingent. And that is the failure of Modal logic all together.







Universe explained


P1 By Principle of Sufficient Reason something cannot come from nothing.


P2 Law of conservation


The First and most important point is that the Big Bang only states that the constituents of the universe were a singular. This is stated clearly as a condensed hot state of matter which is made up of elements that make up the universe that we know it today. This can’t be expressed enough. That is there is no ex nihilo (out of nothing) factor in any way at all in the big bang theory. Ex nihilo is purely theological conception only.


Secondly Existence=Existence ‘How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown’ (Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE) By the law of Non-contradiction.


P3 Energy is destabilisation by definition. The universe is in constant flux; energy cannot be created or destroyed, so universe is constantly changing


P4 It is the forms of existence that change not existence itself.


‘The things that are perish into the things out of which they come to be, according to necessity,’


That is what exist is always forming and un-forming, into new structures and out of old and new forms of existence are coming into and out of recognition whether mind or matter, and energy or whatever such form.


P5.That is time does not exist in the universe outside our minds. (via untimely Fool)


I didn’t say time is relative. I said its an illusion to think it exist outside our mind. only change exist outside.


Therefore we can explain the universe without supernatural explanations.


Vote Fool!


Mestari

Con

I thank Fool for the excellent debate; however, there are several key flaws in her arguments. For this round I will be addressing the final rebuttals she has made to the LCA.

Premise 1

Overview of Modality

My opponent's only refutation is her F6 under "I no he didn't". I would simply respond that the PSR is not incompatible with modal logic as it is founded in modal logic. She claims that everything has a reason and thus nothing is contingent. The labeling of contingency is not a claim to be unreasoned, but that the reason lies in an external cause, but there is a reason nonetheless.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)

Sadly, the Fool's primary rebuttal of the PSR comes down to semantics. She objects to my interpretation of the PSR stating that everything must have a cause. She instead states that everything must have an explanation. If we remember round 3, the Fool bases this objection in her belief that an explanation entails a knowable reason. I have addressed this perspective in my own round 3 and she has chosen not to acknowledge it. Don't let my opponent simply restate her arguments without defending them from my prior criticism. Furthermore, she goes on to reformulate the PSR in round 4 (Is this the 3rd or 4th version she has presented? I have lost count.) to state that everything has a reason. I would claim that explanation does not necessarily entail a knowable reason, but is equivalent in meaning to reason. A reason for why something exists is equivalent to an explanation for why it exists. If the reason is unknowable then so is the explanation, but that does not deny that there is a reason/explanation. Her final semantic strike on the issue is that an explanation is only a sufficient condition for knowledge, but again I would propose that in terms of modal logic (which the PSR is heavily based in) that an explanation, cause, and reason are all the same thing. It is inconsistent to state that the PSR does not require explanations but requires causes when a cause necessarily is an explanation and vice versa. My opponent labels my version of the PSR as committing the equivocation fallacy and thus my source is an unwarranted appeal to authority. I find this quite amusing as although Anaximander was the first philosopher to use the PSR, it is attributed to Gottfried Leibniz. Can confirm that with her OWN source from round 2. Leibniz was the first philosopher to formalize and successfully defend the PSR, so it appears incoherent for my opponent to refute his formulation. Even so, she claims that the source I used to defend Leibniz's PSR Alexander Pruss', The Principle of Sufficient Reason is an appeal to authority. Nowhere does my opponent explain how this is an appeal to authority, and I am so confident that it is not that I invite the voters to reread the part I quoted and if you find an appeal to authority you can disregard the evidence. But I assure you, no such fallacy is committed. Pruss explained a line of reasoning that we naturally accept and claimed that accepting such explanations for the negative states of affairs, we tacitly accept the PSR as I have defended it. Now, if my opponent is claiming that my citing of a source itself is the appeal to authority, then that once again proves that she does not even read my arguments. Nowhere did I say to accept it because Pruss said to, but because of the argument Pruss made, not because Pruss made it, but because it is true.

My opponent continues to claim that I am defining God into existence. This has nothing to do with the PSR but instead deals with my second premise, so I will address it later in the round.

The Fool ends her refutation of my first premise by iterating that the first three fallacies she proposed in my first premise still stand. I invite her to read my third round where I addressed every one of them. Just because I didn't say "F1, F2, and F3" does not mean that I didn't cite the arguments she was making and refute them. Again, do not let my opponent blindly spew out arguments without defending them.

Premise 2

My opponent begins by trying to tackle the paradox of infinite regress that arises from a series of solely contingent beings. Her first rebuttal is proposing that determinism makes everything exist necessarily. I have three responses to this. First, she must prove that determinism is true before she can claim it refutes my argument. To deny this is to affirm that it is legitimate for me to state that zombies disprove that the sky is blue. As debaters it is our burden to warrant our arguments rather than throwing around claims. It seems rather desperate to me that she would not only raise an entirely new objection to the LCA in the final round of the debate, but would refuse to warrant it. My second response to determinism is that it explains how things happened the way they did in a casual sense. It does not speak for why casual relationships exist themselves though. Sure, she can explain how X leads to Y, but it does not explain why X leads to Y, or more significantly why Y requires X to exist in the first place. In other words, it may explain how a contingent being came into existence, but not why it did. Knowing how does not make a being necessary. For a being to exist necessarily it must not have possibly failed to exist. The laws of mathematics exist necessarily due to their inability not to exist. You and I exist contingently because we could have failed to exist. Third, multiple worlds theory solves for the questions of determinism. Just because things have happened a certain way due to past events does not mean that the initial past events in the chain had to happen as they did. It holds plausible that those initial causes could have happened entirely differently in another world. Thus, each world, including ours, exists contingently as it developed as a result of certain events and did not have to develop the way it did.

Next she claims that an infinite regress is not necessarily paradoxical because there can be an infinite number of points within a finite distance. This is a red herring as I am not claiming that an abstract infinite regress is impossible, but that a concrete system containing solely contingent beings is paradoxical. Using points A and B as boundaries, you create a finite system. Solely contingent beings could not be explained by a finite system insofar as there would always have to be another contingent being that explains the first being in the casual chain. This is why infinite regress becomes a problem in concrete reality and not in abstract mathematical equations.

Next she claims that I simply don't know all of the causes and thus conclude that there cannot be an infinite number of causes. I agree that we may not know all of the causes, but this does not premise my argument. My argument comes from logic and modality. A system of only contingent beings, either finite or infinite, is logically incoherent. Logically there must be a necessary being that serves as a first cause. Even if there is an infinite number of causes, it must have a definitive beginning in a necessary cause.

Her next argument (F4) supports the LCA. If the universe is not explained by its own nature, it is then contingent. If it is always changing then it is not eternal or necessary and thus is again contingent. The Fool has just proved my second premise true.

Next, she must explain how we are begging the question in order to raise an objection with the fallacy. Simply throwing out fallacies in bare assertion is not a very convincing style of debate.

As for inductive inference. I would say first that inductive inference is logical, and second that the LCA is a deductive argument.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally my opponent presents her opening position once again. Remember that I have refuted it in round 2 and she has not defended it from those refutations.
Debate Round No. 4
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
1 Con made no refutations against time only being only an internal concept.

2 Con didn't refute that matter, energy is created nor destroyed.

3. Con didn't even mention anything about the universe having to begin to
exist.

4 Con was not able to refute the difference between what we recognized as existences as appose to the Reality existence.

5 Con was not able to refute that infinite is not a false claim.

6 Con was not able refute my reinforced argument of an appeal to ignorance.

7 Con did not refute the past is determined and thus a necessary condition of the present.

8 Con was not able to address perfection outside the definition or even the subjectivity of perfection for that matter.

9 Con was not able to account for certainty of empirical science.

10 Con was not able to assert ex-nihio of the universe from the Big bang theory. Thus the existing universe needs no explanation of beginning.

11 Con was not able to refute that the principle of sufficient condition is strictly deterministic principle.

12 Without that Con cannot claim Ex-ilo. Without that cons argument has no foundation.

13. Note F1, F2 and F3 were brought up Con but not refuted.

14. Con didn't even attempt to refute the clarification of Universe explained argument.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
I thought you were done?
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
I you were done. lol
Posted by Mestari 4 years ago
Mestari
Are you still rambling on?
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
1 Con made no refutations against time only being only an internal concept.

2 Con didn't refute that matter, energy is created nor destroyed.

3. Con didn't even mention anything about the universe having to begin to
exist.

4 Con was not able to refute the difference between what we recognized as existences as appose to the Reality existence.

5 Con was not able to refute that infinite is not a false claim.

6 Con was not able refute my reinforced argument of an appeal to ignorance.

7 Con did not refute the past is determined and thus a necessary condition of the present.

8 Con was not able to address perfection outside the definition or even the subjectivity of perfection for that matter.

9 Con was not able to account for certainty of empirical science.

10 Con was not able to assert ex-nihio of the universe from the Big bang theory. Thus the existing universe needs no explanation of beginning.

11 Con was not able to refute that the principle of sufficient condition is strictly deterministic principle.

12 Without that Con cannot claim Ex-ilo. Without that cons argument has no foundation.

13. Note F1, F2 and F3 were brought up Con but not refuted.

14. Con didn't even attempt to refute the clarification of Universe explained argument.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
lot you said you were done alond time ago. Why are still responding. You havent been able to defend anything you said.. lol. THeir are 12 days left and intellegent people. You keep speaking beyond what you could possibly know. The main purpose here is EXPOSURE.
Posted by Mestari 4 years ago
Mestari
You haven't made any coherent arguments in the debate and the comments section is not the place to start. Once again, I'm not going to continue arguing with you. The debate is over. If you have something to say you should have put it in the debate.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
I already know the form of the argument, because I looked up its abstract and it presuppposes reason is synonmous with explanation. And it doesn't even give an explanation(oh the Irony!!!!!) why it makes any sense to think that.

Secondly I clearly refuted it. Thirdly I am quite a scholar of philososphy in my own right. Don't let my bad spelling and occasional missing of the words fool you. I speak a few languages. Make sure you assume that you may not be grasping the information, before you assume its incorherent. That is he purpose of the Principle of Charity. (look it up) You be making a Paradox of Ignorance Fallacy. As I explained with the math book analogy. Aka the ending always appears incoherence but as you learn through the book, you start to recognize its coherence.(even though in reallity is was coherent) As you are slowly recognizing about my argument the more we talk about it. ;) (aka Recognition vs Reality. fallacy)
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Because I looked up its abstract and i presuppposes right away that reason is the same as explanation. And it doesn't even explanation(oh the Irony!!!!!) why it makes any sense to think that.

Secondly I clearly refuted it. Thirdly I am quite a scholar of philososphy in my own right. Don't let my bad spelling and occasional missing of the word fool you. I speak a few languages. Make sure you assume that you may not be grasping. before you assume its incorherent. You be making a Paradox of Ignorance Fallacy. As I explained with the math book analogy. Aka the ending always appears incoherence but as you learn through the book, you start to recognize its coherence.. As you are slowly now the more we talk about it. ;) (aka Recognition vs Reality. fallacy)
Posted by Mestari 4 years ago
Mestari
I love how you reject a piece you have not read as crappy. I never cited it as an appeal to the author, but so that you could read the argument itself.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
The_Fool_on_the_hillMestariTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not meet the burden of refuting Con's argument. Spelling and Grammar to Con because Pro's haphazard formatting makes it difficult to follow her line of reasoning. Sources to Con because Con showed in the final round how Pro contradicted her own sources.