The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence (2)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,018 times Debate No: 22678
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I felt that our debate ended abruptly and I think you felt the same way. I could of sworn I put the debate at 5 rounds and I did not expect to see some of the objections you made about the God Hypothesis. Lastly, I wanted and needed to respond to these objections and was disappointed that I could not get to them.

I heard of other debaters making an extension of their previous debates. So after careful thought, I decided to invite you to another debate where we can continue our previous debate. I will state the objections you made that I did not get to and we can start where we let off. I put it to five rounds just in case you continue to raise additional objections and its my burden of proof so I would need enough room to respond to your objections.

It's your call. FIRST round is acceptance ONLY

Now, for the audience, if CON decides to accepts this debate, I encourage you to read our previous debate we had in order to get a understanding of this debate and properly vote on who won this debate by evaluating both debates. Here is the debate number : 22281


I'd like to thank my opponent for instigating this challenge. Every other time I've done a continuation of a past debate it hasn't gone well, but this time I'm feeling lucky.

To save some time, let me recap what the arguments were in my last debate:

Pro's case
A1. Nothing is infinite in reality (I argued that this wasn't necessarily true, and had no scientific basis)
A2. Time must have begun (I argued that God's ability to create himself proves that this isn't necessarily true, plus the lack of scientific evidence around this point)
B1. Prime mover cannot exist in time since it created time (I pointed out this presupposes B4)
B2. As B1 for space dimensions (something the debate never quite got to)
B3. Must be changeless as lacks dimensionality (I pointed out this was nonscientific as things without dimensionality aren't testable)
B4. Cannot be abstraction since abstractions are not causes (I pointed out that God meets pros standard for abstraction and that abstractions are causes)
B5. Must be a disembodied mind if not abstraction (again, not scientifically validated - science relies on metaphysics, but metaphysical explainations are not scientific as that's arguing in a circle)
B6. Must be intelligent (downgraded by pro from omniscient) if created the universe (I pointed out that this is premised on our conception of what "intelligence" is, which is informed by the universe)
B7. Must be omnipotent to defy physics (I pointed out that it need not have done this, and besides defying science makes you unscientific by definition)

My Case (which was mostly left unrebutted - hopefully it will be looked at in more detail in this debate)
C1. Problem of evil
C2. Problem of loving too much
C3. Problem of personal relationship experience
C4. Omnipotence paradox
C5. Why us?
C6. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without time

In this debate, I won't be making any new objections, just defending those I have already made (but I'm happy to do that for five rounds if that's what it takes to make your refutations). I wish my opponent very good luck and look forward to reading his continued case.
Debate Round No. 1


1. A1. Nothing is infinite in reality
The induction my opponent uses to arrive at this absurd conclusion is twice wrong. First it's wrong because the conclusion is inconsistant with scientific observations, which violates the inductive method. Second it's wrong because it implies a commonality among any given subset of reality - for instance, that a pile of apples is evidence that time is finite. That leads to the paradox of all horses being the same color (, which is a logical fallacy.

Well first off, CON did not bother to show how my conclusions were inconsistent with scientific observations.
Second, CON needs to demonstrate by explaining how my particular demonstrate is a logical fallacy and not just assert that there is a logical fallacy because it sounds like a logical fallacy to him. That's how it works when you claim the other side is making a fallacy. You explain how your opponent's argument is flawed then give a similar example to reinforce it.

I was never trying to compare gravity to the God hypothesis but give a good example of the inductive method. So CON needs to articulate more clearly how my demonstration is a logical fallacy.

2. F. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without time.
"Pro makes this whole case (completely unrelated to my point, by the way) that time cannot be around for eternity, but eternity is a measure of time. If there was no time, there would be no eternity. If there is no eternity, God cannot be described as eternally existing. This is the contradiction I identified in round two, which hasn't been answered."

Well first off, Whether time is conceptual or not is not consistent with the debate topic because its mainly based on science not the metaphysical. However, for the sake of argument, I will go along with PRO's contention since I think it will be good in better clarifying and answering his objection since he seem's to be a bit confused on it.

Let me summarize it what I said before. There are two theories of time. The A-theory of time and the B-theory of time. The A-theory of time is the logical and concrete time where there's a series of "moments".The nature of a moment is "a beginning of the future and an end of the past." The assumption of an absolutely first moment would consequently carry with it the implication of a period of which is terminated by, and prior to, that first moment, and the prior time would itself contain moments. We as limited human beings can only understand this theory of time because we exist in it. I have already explained logically and concretely why this theory of time is what the universe itself operates under not apart from it.

The B-theory of time (or meta-time as some would call it) is the definition of eternity where it implies that time is just a concept or an illusion of human conscious. There is no such thing as past or future. There would only be one moment of time, which is referred to as the "NOW" or present, which means eternity cannot and is not a measure of time as we know it, according to CON. This theory of time is what I argued God to operate under since the universe cannot and does not operate under it.

3. A2. Time must have been "begun"
"Pro still argues that God created himself, but that nothing else can create itself, and still hasn't told us why, or provided any scientific backing to his claim. Even if it's possible for a cause and effect to be simultaneous, it still doesn't answer my argument."

Now, let me address this part of CON's argument to help everyone understand my argument in its entirety. I was not implying or trying to argue that GOD was chronologically prior to the universe but argue that he is Causality prior to the Universe. So when CON said " Let me get this straight - God is not real, but at the moment of creation this thing that is not real decided to become real for an instant for the purposes of creating a universe?" , I was not saying God decided to become a part of reality in a temporal sense but in a Causally non-temporal sense. Now, CON's counter argument to this claim was that there has to be a prior moment of time for Causality to make sense and exist.

My response was that the cause and effect could be simultaneous. The moment or time in which God caused the universe to come into being could be the moment the universe came into being making the cause and effect simultaneous, which would provide empirical evidence of its existence.Therefore, if CON'S very acknowledgement that they can be coincident in that way, then there is no reason why we could not have something that is timeless and be related to its effect timelessly. For GOD being within eternity or B-theory of time, there is no series of thoughts in time but only one eternal thought of everything like a snapshot from a camera.

Furthermore, the very act of creation would imply a direct causal relationship between the cause and the effect in which this cause did not stand before and therefore would be a change that brings God into time. What I argued was that the moment or time in which God caused the universe to come into being is the moment the universe came into being making the cause and effect simultaneous. So I think CON is confused because he has a lack of understanding for the concept of eternity or the B-theory of time because our human experience and perception of time operates only under the A-theory.

4.B1. Since it created a time dimension, it cannot exist in time dimension

See Item 3 above.

5.B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind
"I agree that science relies on metaphysics. I disagree that science is metaphysics, or that science can confirm metaphysics. If my opponent's claim is that science is premised on metaphysics, then using science to confirm metaphysics is really metaphysics confirming metaphysics, which is arguing in a circle. My opponent doesn't respond to that."

I actually agree with 99% of what CON said here as well. However, I disagree with CON when he said that science cannot confirm the meta physic. I am arguing that science can confirm God as the metaphysical exception. Even though God himself is metaphysical and therefore cannot be observed directly, he is still consistent with science and is the best explanation for the origins of existence. An example (but not an analogy as CON implies) would be Gravity, which I gave before.

Now, CON ask why it can't be an abstract object. I explained this already but I will explain it again. There are only two possible candidates we are aware of that can possibly fit the description of an immaterial, omnipresent, and eternal entity: either an abstract object (like a number) or a disembodied mind (or consciousness). However, abstract objects, like the number 9 cannot, cannot and ,thus, do not stand in casual relationships by virtue of its DEFINITION. Something is what it is. This is whats called the law of identity, which is a logical absolute.

Since it would potentially be impossible to explain how you can get a temporal effect with a beginning from an eternal cause, I mentioned how Only an unembodied mind would stand in causality since minds are metaphysical and have free will. Now, CON is challenging this claim by arguing that the term "mind" is just a synonymous term for the term "Brain". Unfortunately, I ran out of time, so I will address this in the next round along with anything else I did not address.


I thank my opponent for his continued responses. He's continued right from where he left off, which unfortunately means he is still ignoring the vast majority of my case and quite a bit of his own. It would be good to address those issues in this debate. Indeed somehow he's managed to answer even less of my points than last time.

A1. Nothing is infinite in reality
"Con did not bother to show how my conclusions were inconsistent with scientific observations"
Yes I did, several times. It was Zeno's problem from round two of the last debate.

"Con needs to demonstrate by explaining how my particular demonstrate is a logical fallacy"
I did. I said that it makes the assumption of commonality among reality, which is flawed because of the all horses are the same color fallacy. I even gave an example with the pile of apples. You can't pick a few observations and use that subset of observations to justify a greater generalisation - all observations need to be taken into account for induction to work. So you cannot, for example, ignore the observation that movement happens in making a complete conclusion about the existance of infinities. And you cannot prove or disprove this particular observation according to Godel's Theorum.

A2. Time must have been "begun"
My opponent more or less restates his previous points and then calls me "confused" for not accepting them. I agree time could have been begun. I also agree B-theory could be true, though to rely on it for the basis of a scientific point is invalid as it's nowhere near proven, and there is virtually no evidence for it. Yes, cause and effect can be simultaneous. I'll even admit God could create himself. But the problem is that under all of these conditions, time could create itself as well, as could space. God would be an un-necessary cause in the chain, and thus by Occam's Razor, be excluded. This is a non-sequiter fallacy - all of his many premises do not lead to the conclusion that time MUST have had something to begin it. There is no scientific evidence one way or the other. The simple fact is that we don't know.

B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind
First con argues science can confirm metaphysics when talking about God. This is useful, because this point is talking about disembodied minds, a distinct concept from God. Anyway, my opponent still doesn't explain why arguing for God from science isn't arguing in a circle. If God is the basis for science, then how can science confirm God without premising God's existence?

The law of identity is that everything is itself, ie, that 9=9. That doesn't stop 9 being other things as well, such as the number just after 8. The law of identity is not to be taken in a restrictive fasion but rather an inclusive fashion. So how can my opponent tell that the number nine is not the cause of the universe? If that is what it is, then so it is, according to the law of identity. After all, nine is immaterial. It's omnipresent, in that it will still be the same no matter where you go. And it's eternal - 9 will still be 9 at the end of the universe. The best part is that the existance of the number nine has been confirmed countless times by observation - God has not.

I look forward to hearing the remainder of this point in your next argument.

C6. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without time
Yeah, I changed my lettering system to avoid confusion over A and B.

Here's the contradiction again. In time, God did not exist for eternity. He only existed since the dimension was created. And there we have the problem. If we say God existed BEFORE the creation of time, then we aren't making sense because BEFORE is a unit of time relative to something else. As a unit of time, it implies the existance of time outside of time, which would contradict the notion God created time. Notice that none of this has anything to do with whether time is conceptual. It's all based on the scientific principle that you can't apply unreal units to real things.

Let us presume time is not a dimension, time is just an illusion, what my opponent calls the B-theory. What if there is no before and after? Then time does not really exist, and therefore eternity does not really exist, since eternity is a measure of something that does not really exist.
Debate Round No. 2


"C1. The problem of evil"
I never said that Evil or Good was subjective but I said that Evil and Good are subjective in CON's worldview. There is no such thing as objective morality because we are just molecules in motion.

"C2. Problem of loving too much"

Well Like I said before, the logical absolutes apply to God as well. This means , According the law of identity, A can ONLY be A . God who is supposed to be absolute/First cause can only be ALL-good by definition of being ALL-good. Its the "ALL" part that is important to understand here when claiming he can also be evil. This means based the definition of God, it excludes the idea that God can be evil as well by virtue of being absolute or perfect. As humans, we are not perfect because we are contingent beings. In other words, the law of identity by itself would not exclude the attribute of evil but the definition of God would exclude it and therefore the law of identity would exclude it in the process

"C3. We know personal relationships must depend on some kind of similarity in sociology, but God is almost the opposite of us and all our limitations."

I am not exactly sure why this is considered a logical contradiction so CON would need to elaborate on this. Nevertheless, in a materialistic sense, yes we would be the opposite of God. However, when it comes to the mind which I will argue in a moment is a separate entity, The only difference between God's mind and ours would be that one is absolute and the other is a contingent entity. Now, in terms of empiricism, I would argue that God has manifested himself in the person of Jesus Christ. However, since I would have to use the historical method and we are doing this within the realm of science, so I will abstain from that.

"C4. Omnipotence paradox"

According to the law of non-contradiction, God cannot be All powerful and not all-powerful at the same time

"C5. Why us?"

See item C3

"B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind"

Before I start to explain why we have no reason to believe CON's proposition that the mind/brain are identical, I am going to explain why we have every reason to believe that they are separate entities. However, I don't want people to be mistaken for the argument that the soul is completely independent from the brain as CON suggested. That is a separate claim. I'm arguing that the mind is a different entity that is causal in nature. Here we go:

First, What neuroscience has done is provide us with a more detailed picture of how the human mind is influenced by certain events in the brain. It has not changed the general nature of that picture. The fact that much of what happens in our minds is influenced by what happens in our bodies was something known by the first self-conscious human beings.

Second, not everything that goes on in our minds is causally determined by what goes on in our bodies. Sometimes what goes on in our bodies is a result of what goes on in our minds. For example, the movements of my fingers as I type this response is ultimately produced my mental events or Con choosing to accept my debate topic led to an intention to type up a response. Here we have mental-to-physical causation. What explains both this choice of mine and the physical events in my body that are ultimately produced by this choice? The explanation is the purpose that I provide an answer to your question. A purposeful explanation is a teleological explanation. It is well known that those who identify the mind with the brain typically deny that any of us freely (indeterministically) make choices for purposes. Materialists like CON are typically determinists who insist that the only legitimate kind of explanation is a non-teleological explanation. Causal explanations are the most well-known and frequently used kind of non-teleological explanations. Those who exclude the possibility of teleological explanations are often called naturalists.

Third, I believe it is important to note that some of the world's foremost neuroscientists have believed that the mind is immaterial. These neuroscientists have been well aware that stimulating the brain can produce some intriguing psychological results. One of the pioneers in the field of neuroscience was Wilder Penfield. In his fascinating book The Mystery of the Mind, he writes the following:

When I have caused a conscious patient to move his hand by applying an electrode to the motor cortex of one hemisphere, I have often asked him about it. Invariably his response was: "I didn't do that. You did". When I caused him to vocalize, he said:" I didn't make that sound". You pulled it out of me.When I caused the record of the stream of consciousness to run again and so presented to him the record of his past experience, he marveled that he should be conscious of the past as well as of the present. He was astonished that it should come back to him so completely, with more detail than he could possibly recall voluntarily. He assumed at once that, somehow, the surgeon was responsible for the phenomenon, but he recognized the details as those of his own past experience. (76)

Penfield goes on to note that, "There is no place in the cerebral cortex where electrical stimulation will cause a patient . . . to decide (77). This is consistent with my point that choices are undetermined events with a teleological explanation. In light of his work as a neuroscientist, Penfield concludes the following: For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier and logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements´┐Ż (80).

Another famous neuroscientist who believed that the mind is immaterial was Sir John C. Eccles. He and the widely respected philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper wrote a book entitled The Self and Its Brain in which they argued that the human mind is best understood along interactionist dualist lines (the mind and brain are separate entities that causally interact). In conclusion, neuroscience provides no evidence whatsoever that the mind is identical with its brain. Those who believe (like CON) that it does provide such evidence bring their naturalist convictions to the evidence. In other words, they are already naturalists (materialists) before they do their neuroscience.

Fourth, we might ask why neuroscientists like Penfield and Eccles believed in the immateriality of the mind, even though they were well aware of the causal dependency of many psychological events on brain events. I believe that part of the answer is that they did not confuse the concept of the correlation of two events with the concept of the identity of two events. It simply does not follow from the fact that two events are correlated that they are identical. Correlation does not prove causation, so this is a logical fallacy on CON's part.

There is the fact that movements of bodily limbs like arms and legs are correlated with events in the motor cortex of the brain. No one believes, however, that movements of arms and legs are identical with their causal antecedents in the brain. Upon reflection, it is just as obvious that there is no good reason to believe that psychological events are identical with brain events simply because the two are correlated.

CON's claim that mind/brain is only the product of the universe and biochemical reactions is even self-refuting on his part. If These physical properties are limited only by other physical properties, then that means there is no such thing as logic in CON's worldview. Logic is the process of proper inference. If biochemical reactions are all CON is thinking, then all his counter arguments and supposed refutation of claims that what he perceives to be logically true and necessary is nothing more than chemical reactions in his brain.

I ran out of space, So I will address the other objections later.


I'm glad my opponent responded to some of my other arguments in this round. Since he did not continue to defend the points from last round I'm considering them dropped. Remember, for the affirmative to meet their burden of proof, ALL of the points from lists A and B must stand, and none of the points from list C may stand.

C1. The problem of evil
Pro claims that whether good and evil are subjective depends on our worldview. This is the very definition of subjective morality - if there is no single common morality for all of humanity (which pro apparently admits) then morality is objectively subjective. Since that's true, it is a logical contradiction to call something omnibenevolent and admit benevolence is subjective. Omni requires objectivity, but in morality is there is no objective right or wrong. If you're interested in how I arrived at this conclusion, I explained it in the last debate.

C2. Problem of loving too much
Regardless of why God cannot do something (commit evil in this case), which is what my opponent debates, I'm more interested in the fact that God cannot do something at all. God cannot be both omnipotent and unable to do something, and yet my opponent's claim is precisely both of these things. The contradiction has not been addressed at all by my opponent.

C3. We know personal relationships must depend on some kind of similarity in sociology, but God is almost the opposite of us and all our limitations.
This isn't a logical contradiction, it's a scientific one. Science says relationships are defined by being relatable (hence the term), but God cannot be relateable as he is different in every sense from ourselves. The only appeal he makes is to his theory that minds operate outside of sociology, which is a claim not supported by science. It's like saying "to prove scientifically that God exists, I'm going to prove science doesn't apply to God". You can't use non-science to prove something and call that a scientific proof.

C4. Omnipotence paradox
My opponent restates the paradox - God cannot be all-powerful and not all-powerful, yet if God cannot create a rock he can't lift he is not all-powerful. What my opponent now needs to do is disprove the paradox, rather than restate it and calling that a refutation.

C5. Why us?
This has NOTHING to do with C3 - this is about why God did not create a better world given his onmibenevolence. It is more closely related to C1 than C3, but even there is it distinct - where C1 asks why God does not correct evil, C5 asks why evil was allowed to exist in the first place.

B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind
I'm going to dispute that brain/psychological events (which is a silly and unscientific dichotomy my opponent invented last round - not a logical fallacy I ever made) have either correlation or causation, because they are exactly the same thing. A brain event is a psychological event - it doesn't cause one, nor is it correlated with one. My evidence for this is Occam's Razor - there is no need for an external processor of psychology if it is all explained by what happens in the brain, so unless there is actual evidence to the contrary, one should not be assumed. Since there is no evidence that my opponent has brought up, and bearing in mind that he has the burden of proof anyway, the only reasonable assumption to make is that my opponent's talk of correlation and causation is worthless.

Of course, none of this discussion focuses on the actual dichotomy that we're dealing with (again made up by my opponent) between abstractions and disembodied minds. It simply focuses on the one, with no concern for the other.

My opponent presents a lots of arguments for why correlation is more likely than causation (though again, both are false). First he argues that "much of what happens in our minds is influenced by what happens in our bodies". I agree - your brain will cease to function if your heart stops pumping, for instance. I fail to understand why this makes disembodied minds more likely.

Then my opponent continues that "Sometimes what goes on in our bodies is a result of what goes on in our minds". I agree with this also - our bodies may react to a memory, for instance, because it was triggered by an associative network. What explains the choice is the fact that memory, perception and learning exist. For instance, in coming up with this response, I percieved that I was in a debate, I learnt this information, I got an email telling me I had to respond because it was my turn, this triggered my memory, I learnt that I would write a reply when I got up the next day, I percieved it was the next day, this triggered my memory, and I wrote a response. I suspect my opponent went through a similar process. Every action every individual takes can be explained by a combination of genetics (the extent to which the genetic factor is true is disputed), perception, and memory. My opponent explains it with reference to purposes, but purposes are contingent on memory. A purpose is a construct, not a cause of action. And that's why the brain doesn't have a section for storing purposes. You can trigger memory with electricity, perceptions with drugs, and to a limited extent you can trigger genetics as well with designer babies. However, you cannot trigger a single purpose without triggering a memory, as a purpose, in psychology, is by definition a series of links between memories pertaining to causes.

Next my opponent appeals to the authority of a select group of neuroscientists. If I wanted to prove the sun revolves around us, I would simply need to cite all the great thinkers and scientists who believed that. Of course that's not actually proof, and that doesn't change the fact I'd be dead wrong.

Finally my opponent explains that not having disembodied minds means logic does not exist. I fail to understand why the existance of disembodied minds means logic automatically comes into existance. What is logic? Ultimately it's a set of laws based on our observations, for instance, our observation that an apple is an apple. There are organisms - bacteria, for instance - that do not understand this and as a result do not percieve this element of logic. That's why logic can be derived from observation and memory, with no need for disembodiment.

I should suffix this discussion by saying I'm not a naturalist. In my view science depends on finding out about things we don't know about yet, and naturalism denies this before it is tested. I do not. I do not deny God because of a lack of evidence, although that doesn't change the fact that my opponent has produced literally no evidence for God. I deny God because I do not deny logic. This makes me an athiest, but not a naturalist. I'd appreciate if my opponent wouldn't make such assumptions about my beliefs in future.

I look forward to reading what my opponent has to say next.
Debate Round No. 3


C6. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without time

Well first off, CON never explains how he is defining time in the first place. Second,
CON again is contradicting himself when he says that eternity is a "measurement" of time. Measurements involve limitless and eternity means infinite or limitless amount of time or a timeless entity. As for myself on the other hand, I made it very clear to CON earlier that I was NOT arguing that GOD was "Chronologically" prior to the universe but arguing that he had to have been "Causally" prior to the Universe. Therefore, when I said God becomes real I did not mean in a temporal sense. Also CON even accepted that cause and effect can be simulatanoues so I don't get why he continues to argue this point.

A2. Time must have been "begun"

The induction method I was using was only there to provide evidence and describe this cause. When it comes to providing evidence of a cause at all, I was using the law of cause and effect which states that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Therefore, CON will be engaging in what is called the "Taxi-cab" fallacy "when one hops in and assumes a certain system of thought or worldview in an attempt to make a particular point but then jumps out of the system of thought when it suits their fancy".

For example, We know that gravity accounts for planetary orbits, why masses fall to the ground on earth, etc... But, we cannot explain why gravity "is" or where it "comes from". We just have to take it as a brute fact. In other words, CON is special pleading here and wants to arbritraily stop at the beginning of the universe. The God hypothesis can also be considered a brute fact and the explanation for the universe to come out of nothing as CON even admitted.

Now, when it comes to the issue of providing evidence for the attributes of this cause, I have made it clear to CON that Direct empirical evidence is not required in science. Of course, you cannot prove an infinity directly. Indirect evidence is also valid in science and CON did not dispute this. Subatomtical particles would be an example of evidence being observed indirectly. Does CON deny the existence of these entities?

"B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind"

Well first off, CON is confusing potentially which involves metaphysics with actuality which involves the physical world. This means science premising God's existence as possible does not automatically mean science is also confirming God's actual existence. This is why its not circular.

Second, I explain the difference between abstract objects and Minds. One can cause effects in time according to expereince and empirical observations and One cannot. You cannot find the number 9 in nature or freeze and weight it as CON suggest:

Now this leads me to what I said about minds and brains, So I will talk about it now.

"B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind"

Again, just like he did with the universe itself, CON wants to special plead with the brain as well. He seems to forget about the law of cause and effect altogther, which is what I am using as evidence for the mind. He again does not want to apply this physical law. The mind would be the cause and the brain would be the effect, which is I cited neuroscientists AND what they said last round. They ,unlike CON and me, actually have the precise knowledge and understanding about the subject. This is not an appeal to authority because they are experts on the field and they provided evidence and explainations of what I said earlier. None of them actually confirmed what CON said about the brain.

Now, CON's argues another thing I said. I realized after the last round that what I said about a mind disembodied was not the correct way in saying it. This is because it technically sounds like an argument for a soul from a human being. Souls are considered contingent entities, and claiming there is a disembodied mind implies this since , although they can be causal in nature, they are dependent on a brain like a projection are something. For now on, I am calling it an absolute mind to be more clear and accurate. I will provide an additional argument by elaborating on this point in the last round.

"B7. Since all this defies the laws of physics and biology, it must be omnipotent"

I don't get CON's objection here. By God creating and intelligently designing everything/universe, it ends up demonstrating and proving omnipotence since he is responsible for anything and everything.(especially if its out of true nothing)

"B6. Since the universe is pretty good for human survival, it must be omniscient"

Here was my actual argument for omniscience just in case some people were confused. Also, CON never addressed this:

Since the universe is semi-infinite in the future according to the BGV theorem, there's potentially an infinite number of mathematical relations out there to be discovered. Each of these relations by definition represents a small amount of cosmic intelligence waiting to be understood, so it follows that the universe must necessarily possess an infinite degree of mathematical intelligence.
This not only suggest that the cause is intelligent but the degree of intelligence and knowledge would be infinite. Thus, the attribute of this cause must be omniscience.


I'd like to thank my opponent for his continued rebuttals. As you might have noticed, my opponent has dropped all but one of my points from last round. Here are my responses to what he's just told you.

A2. Time must have been "begun"
I never admitted the God hypothesis can be accepted as a brute fact. I argued that if it is possible for God to be the cause, that necessarily means it must be possible for time to cause itself. Furthermore I showed that this entire point was without basis as it relied on a theory of what time is that hasn't been proven (unlike, for instance, an infinity, which I've already shown can be proven by scientific observation in the previous debate, or a subatomic particle by the same method). The fact that there is time provides no indirect evidence for the beginning of time, because that would be presupposing knowledge about dimensions that we simply do not possess. So if time can come out of nothing, why the requirement for God? My opponent offers no response to my Occam's Razor argument.

My opponent appeals to the taxi-cab fallacy, which would hold true if I was giving God a different treatment to the alternative hypothesis. Actually, I'm being 100% consistant. There is no evidence for time beginning, just as there is no evidence for God - even the supposed "indirect evidence" is really based on obervations that presuppose time - so it's wrong to say (equally, in both instances) that we have evidence for either.

B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind
I'm not going to bother with the second refutation as I've already addressed that in our previous debate and my opponent did not respond. Second, my opponent says premising God's possible existance to confirm God's existance is not circular. My argument was that metaphysics is assumed in science and thus cannot be confirmed by science. Science does not say "it is possible for logic, math etc to be true", science says "logic, math etc ARE true". So my key point is unrefuted - metaphysics cannot confirm metaphysics.

Next pro claim's I'm special pleading (ironically, his claim seems to be that I'm ALWAYS special pleading, which implies that my pleading isn't special at all, but I digress). Cause and effect applies where one thing causes another. Correlation applies where one thing is the same as another. Both concepts presuppose the existance of two unique entities - in this specific case, the existance of "mind" independant of "brain". I don't think it's valid to presuppose that because that's what we're arguing over. In any event my opponent provided no evidence in support of that. My opponent has kept citing the OPINIONS (not the research) of a SELECT GROUP (not a metaanalysis) of neuroscientists, who my opponent admits are experts and thus carry AUTHORITY. Hey look, it's the three arguments I raised last round that my opponent didn't respond to - I even summed it up nicely with my Sun and Earth analogy. Unless my opponent can provide scientific proof that the mind is independant of the brain, he is appealing to authority. Nobody is an expert in what they don't know or understand, and how could neuroscientists understand this "mind" my opponent talks about if it's entirely distinct from their field of research. The people who'd come closest would be the psychologists, but they aren't going to confirm my opponent's theory either. Also the use of a select group of researchers indicates that even if there was some evidence, it's far from being a "settled science" and thus cannot be considered to be more likely than no.

My opponent renames disembodied minds to absolute minds, further making stuff up to suit his case. That's fine by me. Now he has to prove that thinking exists absolutely, even without a brain. I hope my opponent doesn't put too much new stuff into the last round and focuses on summarising, as otherwise we'll end up with another unsatisfactory conclusion, despite my best summarising efforts.

B7. Since all this defies the laws of physics and biology, it must be omnipotent
My opponent doesn't get my objection. Simply put, if you defy science, that makes you unscientific, just because it proves you are not bound by science. It also proves you cannot be proven using what you can defy, since you defy the proof by definition. It's a simple contradiction of terms to say that God defies science and God is scientific. Furthermore, creating everything is not evidence for omnipotence as not everything exists. Lots of stuff doesn't exist, and I think that will be fairly self-evident to everyone.

B6. Since the universe is pretty good for human survival, it must be omniscient
Mathmatical relationships exist where we look for them. That's because they're a human construct, and since we're a product of the universe, it makes sense that the universe would seem to have many of them. What I think my opponent is driving at is that since the multiverse contains infinite information, the creator of the multiverse must have known infinite information. That's like saying the creator of chess knew every single possible move combination. It just does not follow that because you create something, you fully understand it.

C6. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without time
My opponent criticises me for not defining time. For clarity, I shall define it however pro wants to define it. Second, pro argues I am contradicting myself by calling eternity a measurement. That would only be self-contradictory if I also said it wasn't a measurement, which I didn't. I continue to argue the point because my opponent has not yet made the extra step from agreeing God was not chronologically before the creation of time (a self-refuting notion anyway, as before time there was no chronology) to saying God is not eternally existing (which would imply time is eternal also). If God is not eternally existing, it contradicts the description of God my opponent gave at the beginning of our previous debate.

In conclusion, my opponent continues to fail his burden of proof. I look forward to our final round.
Debate Round No. 4


kenballer forfeited this round.


As you can see, my opponent has forfeited this debate. I encourage you all to vote con because pro, as I demonstrated last round, has not upheld their BOP and has forfeited the debate.

Pro has instead decided to engage me in a message conversation, and I will reply to him there in a day or so, but in the context of this debate, I believe the winner is clear.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
I'll accept this when my internet starts working again at my place, hopefully tommorrow.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits.