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

The God of Abraham probably does not exist

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 513 times Debate No: 59073
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)




2. Opening arguments
3. Refutations/ new points
4. further refutations
5. Any brief clarification/ refutation and closing.

BoP: Shared.

Abrahamic God: "The Abrahamic God in this sense is the conception of God that remains a common attribute of all three traditions. God is conceived of as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and as the creator of the universe. God is further held to have the properties of holiness, justice,omni-benevolence and omnipresence."



Greetings and Salutations!
I thank my friend Khalif for starting this debate, and I wish him the best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Well, I must admit, I'm relatively disheartned because Ajab accepted, I was kind of just looking for something to entertain myself with, while watching debates, but now this is an intense academic encounter. I also have a feeling were going to get into a lot of formal logic:(
Now I am holding a negative position, so the bulk of my participation in this debate will be refutation, however I shall offer a few arguments.
The Problem Of Evil:
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent god would wish to preventall evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Evil and god as described by theism can not logically co-exist.

The problem of evil is a very old argument and theologians have had thousands of years to address it. So what do they say? The response is usually free will. But if there's a god, there is no free will for anybody.

Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):
1)An omniscient god knows the future.
2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. An omniscient god knows your actions.
4) You don't have free will.

So if there is a god, there is no rational way to combat the problem of evil.

Implausability Of An External Observer:
1) God is omniscient
2) God would observe all quantum superpositions
3) Observation collapses quantum superpositions
4) God would collapse all quantum positions superpositions
5) All quantum superpositions are not collapsed
6) God does not exist

Paradox Of God and Free Will(I am presuming Ajab thinks god has free will):
1) God knows the future
2) God knows what actions he will perform
3) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)
4) God's actions are predetermined
5) God has no free will.

Preemptive Refutations:
On The KCA:
This is a terribly presumptuous argument.
A) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
B) The universe began to exist
C) The universe has a cause
D) That cause is god
It presumes
1. Everything non-eternal has a cause
2. The universe has a cause
3. The universe has a supernatural cause
Assumption1 is false. In quantum physics particles come in and out of existence with no cause. Further more something comes from nothing, this is demonstrated by experiments regarding the Casmir effect.
Assumption 2 might be true. I will elaborate on axiom two in my discussion of plausible cosmological models.
Assumption 3 is so absurd that it ISN'T EVEN FALSE. One could never know if the universe has the transcendent cause; it isn't even testable.
This violates Occam's razor.
If it is true everything has a cause and the universe has a cause, then why can' the universe be the cause of its self.
Saying the universe has a transcendent cause raises unneeded questions that CAN'T EVER BE ANSWERED.
Assumption 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.
(I didn't discuss premise B, because it's probably true, but it is not necessarily true. There are eternal models.)

On Design:
Now the watch maker argument assumes design is an apparent attribute one would assume.
If there's a watch, someone who knows what a watch is would infer design, but one with no concept of a watch, would most likely conclude that the watch is naturally there.
Also how do you come to the conclusion the universe is designed? We have not experienced other universes to compare it to.
With the argument from design you encounter an infinite regression.
If anything with intelligence comes from prior intelligence, then god must have been designed. Is god not intelligent?
It is absurd to argue everything intelligent comes from prior intelligence but the most intelligent being conceivable doesn't.

God-less Cosmology Models:

Self Contained Models Of The Universe:
-The Oscillating Universe
This is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed.

-Hartle Hawking
I really like this one because the universe has a begining but no cause.

Any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.
Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension."
The point isn't that any of these are the right model, rather that there are self contained models.

Christianity/ Theism Is A Poor Cosmological Model:
Theistic Cosmology basically states god created the universe. This is not a good cosmological because it is excessive and it not testable. It also makes no predictions and this is because there is an infinite by Start Savin" href="../../Is-Christianity-illogical/1/">DEGREE of flexibilty. Any theist could just say "god made the universe that way".

Well I think that's enough to get the ball rolling. Lol, I can't wait to read Ajab's response, in the form of a 500 page book discussing the history of theology, ethics and modal logic and contemporary perspectives.


I must also admit a certain sense of sadness. I expected Khalif to take one argument and run through it properly with explanation, instead he has listen different premises, which he has not defended, and thought that that suffices. It does not. Secondly I should remind everyone that the resolution reads: 'The God of Abraham Probably Does Not Exist' which is `71;¬p and he must show that. According to the rule: Onus probandi incumbet ei qui deciet, non ei qui negat, he has the burden of the proof, for the burden is determined simply by the resolution. On the other hand I do not have to show that the Abrahamic God necessarily exists (`33;p) but only that the Abrahamic God probably does not probably not exist, or `71;¬(`71;¬p). This cannot just as well be said by (`71;p). I need not give an argument for God's existence for the resolution does not read: On Balance God Probably Exists" but: 'The Abrahamic God Probably Does Not Exist'. So we phrase the entire debate so: ((`71;¬p)⊕(`71;¬(`71;¬p). The negation of the resolution is not to argue opposite, so says the resolution. I will still though, out of courtesy give an argument. I need only remind the voters that I am not compelled to do so, even if there is a shared burden of proof. My shared burden is to show that this resolution is more likely negated logically, and that is not to prove God's existence. I also give an argument because Khalif has in the rules made the second round for arguments not contentions. Though the judges must vote on how well Khalif now tackled my arguments, and defends his own, while I if I do either, prove my arguments or tackle his, I win. This is then the structure of onus.

With that let us begin, I understand that the opening argument is for positive material only, which puts a bad taste in my mouth since I would never have argued a single argument from Khalif's pre-emptive arguments. He could have used this space to elaborate his premises more. Also I have an issue with his sources, instead of using them on certain points he simply adds a list at the end. I could list a hundred sources like that, no sources are supposed to help at certain points. There is one more point, please remember that when Khalif talks about omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence they seem to take on the forms of absolute constructs. I remind the readers that where I can show from Abrahamic sources how these qualities are at times subjective I am not conceding, in fact am making a viable argument because the title of the resolution reads: 'The God of Abraham Probably Does Not Exist'.

The argument that I will be arguing for was not mentioned by Khalif in this preemptive arguments. It is my own conception of the Ontological Argument. It bases itself on the belief that since the Idea of God exists in cognition, and could not have been made up it is necessarily true.

The argument will need however a precursor explanation. The first thing I need to explain, which will help me in the refutations as well is the importance of a priori/a posteriori and how it is applied. There are three a priori which I refer to viz. Time, Space and Number. I mean two things when I state a priori: the first is the condition upon the mind such that the mind, to understand any phenomenon needs to apply causality, quality, and quantity. We cannot comprehend Quantum Mechanics because it goes against causality, we cannot understand infinity because it digresses from both quantity and quality. The mind is bound by this a priori. The second I need to assert is that this a priori exists solely in the mind, so that nor Time, nor Space, and nor Number are physical entities.[1] Since it is clear that Space-Time is effected by mass, and mass is physical while God is metaphysical it should be clear that when we talk about God we talk about a Being who transcends Space, Time, and Number. For the proof of Einstein I cannot but cite the Equivalence Principle and how it is proved by the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation of the nucleo-synthesis.[2]

Let us them move onto my argument. I present to you the Ontological Argument which I shall first state in premise-conclusion and then in logical terms so as to show that it does indeed make sense. Or at least I wanted to show it in Modal Logic but for some reason it is not working here. It converts the letters into something weird. I just hope the ones above are safe from all this.

1. The idea of God exists in cognition independent of experience.
2. If an idea of cognition which exists independent of experience exists it is either false or necessarily true.
3. If an idea of cognition which exists independent of experience is false then it is imaginative.
4, The idea of God cannot be imagined.
5. Ergo the idea of God is necessarily true.

1. The idea of God exists in cognition, and is independent of experience:
(1.1) The first of that which we must prove is that the idea of God exists. For this we must first understand what we have come to know as an idea. An idea is then a faint reflection, either of an impression which includes the passions, or a faint recollection of something.
(1.2) When I talk about the idea of God I talk about the idea of the tri-omni a priori Being which we all possess. This idea need not refer to the properties of God, but only to the faint recollection of God that we possess, the very predicate God himself.
(1.3) If my opponent argues that idea of God is garnered from direct experience he has conceded for he accepts that we can physically feel God, thus making God a reality. If he states that by experience he means hearing from others the belief in God then I counter by asking, where did the first person gain the idea of God from? I say independnt of cognition because Ontology can only apply to those phenomenon which are a priori, for other phenomenon could be imagined by taking the recollection of impressions but since no impression precedes the idea of God it cannot be imagined.

2. An idea can either be false, or would be necessarily true:
(2.1) This I believe is sufficiently shown from logic, though I believe a good amount of sense can also prove it. While there may be a wonderful debate about morality being right or wrong where grey areas could be introduced, when we discuss the idea of an object, that being God, in cognition we can say that either that idea corresponds to God or it does not. There is no grey here, either this idea of God is true or it is false, while I do not like semantics if Khalif will feel the need to debate this I will happily engage him.

3. A false idea, independent of cognition, must necessarily be the result of imagination:
(3.1) I fear that I will once more be called esoteric; I have, I swear, tried to keep this simple. Let us examine the different faculties of the mind, other than those of sensations*. The first faculty that man possess is reason. This we may rule out here for if the idea of God has come to us from reason, then it must necessarily be valid. To insinuate otherwise would lead to all sciences being incorrect, and we know that Mathematics and other sciences can be reasoned, where the observations are coherent with reason, so reason is a sound faculty.
(3.2) The only other faculty of the mnd which we may not explain is that off Imagination. It is clear that our conceptions of monsters, and sea lions show the power of imagination. Though one thing need to made clear, that imgaination does not come up with new ideas. It conjoins old ideas into newer, more complex ways to form the appearence of new ideas. Imagination takes the decaying thought of reality and alters its form, that is it. I have no further proof for this other than to challenge my opinion to present me an imagination completely unconnected to reality. This is where the contentions of 'the perfect island' to Ontology are debunked, by showing that Ontology will only apply to metaphysical constructs we have clarified this misconception. Our point then is to show that the idea of God did not originate from any alteration of form, it was not imagined. It is important to know that Imagination cannot yield a simple idea, a simple idea is one which cannot be distinguished into parts. So while an apple is a compex idea for it can be broken into color, taste, et cetera, concepts such as pain are simple. I give this argument ab absurdo that my opponent show me a simple idea which is imagined. For if one conceptualizes sweetness one must identify an object. Imagination cannot yield a simple idea, if our opponent insinuates otherwise let him show us such an idea.
*We have already ruled out sensations with respect to the idea of God.

4. That the idea of God cannot be Imagined:
(4.1) The first and foremost thing we need to realize is that the idea of God is a simple idea. We cannot divide our idea of God into color, or taste we have but a simple idea of His Being. Seeing how we understand that imagination cannot yield a simple idea we but conclude that the idea of God is not imagined and we can end our argument here.
(4.3) We shall not however end here, we shall provide another proof. That we understand that God is a priori is clear by His very defintion. We know that God transcends Space, Time and Number, for God is not of physical mass, and that God is tri-omni. My argument is simple, that the human mind is bound by a priori and therefore could not have come up with an idea of God which is a priori. The human mind can only imagine and combine ideas which it has gained a posteriori, since all its ideas are a posteriori and bound by Time, Space and Number, it is not possible that two physical ideas can combine to create a metaphysical idea. Take the idea of Quantum Mechanics we could not have imagined what is decayed for it is above that. I am lost for examples for this only applies to a priori ideas which are scarce, I am however confident of the logic we used. It is not possible that an a posteriori mind come up with an a priori idea. We shall explan more later.
Debate Round No. 2


The reason I didn't spend the whole round on a single argument, is because it is unnecessary. All my arguments are fairly simple and self-explanatory, but if you wish I'll be more thorough.

But first let's look at this ontological argument. Well first we should be weary of an argument that tries to define something into existence. I find it it interesting that Ajab thinks that we cannot imagine the idea of god. I'm sure he thinks all other concepts of god are imagined, but let's see if we can imagine god.
1) I can observe that I have certain attributes(intelligence, power, and goodness).
2) I can conceive of a being with the same attributes but of a higer magnitude
3) Follwing the same line of thought, I can conceive of a being who knows everything, can do anything and is all good.

Well I think 1 and 2 are obvious but I have a feeling he has a problem with 3. "we cannot understand infinity because it digresses from both quantity and quality." Well I'm not sure he meant this; Ajab is familiar with mathematics and I'm sure he knows that all mathematicians have a concept understand infinity. I will wait to explain 3, until Ajab offers an objection.
It seems all we need to imagine a god, is an idea of ourselves. I'd like you to go into more detail on why we can't understand infinity.

Attributes: Ajab says : " lease remember that when Khalif talks about omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence they seem to take on the forms of absolute constructs. I remind the readers that where I can show from Abrahamic sources how these qualities are at times subjective"
Well, I don't know how something can be objective and subjective.
Omnipotent: "having unlimited power; able to do anything." I would like Ajab to explain how this is non-absolute. I have read the Koran, throughout it says "He is able to do all things". Well, I think it's obvious that a being can't be omnipotent and not be omnipotent but let's use syllogisms because they're cool.
1) If a being is omnipotent , it can do anything.
2) If a being is omnipotent, then there is nothing that the being can't do.
3) If there is something that the being can't do, then the being is not omnipotent.
4) An omnipotent being can't exist, therefor doesn't exist.
5) If a being must be omnipotent, in order to exist, then the being can't exist

1 is true by definition, 2 is a derivation of 1, 3 naturally follows, 5 follows from 4. So I shall have to defend 4.

1) An omnippotent being can create an object it can't lift.
2) If an omnipotent being can create an object it can't lift, it can't lift the object, thus it isn't omnipotent
3) If it can't create an object it can't lift, then it is not omnipotent.
4) Omnipotence is impossible.
I know this is a logical impossibility, but omnipotence means able to do anything. In response most theists say god can only do which is logically possible. Which is the same as saying god can do anything, but that which is logically impossible, This is to completely concede omnipotence. I think we have good reason to think omnipotence can't actually exist, and so it follows that being that is necessarily omnipotent, can't exist.

Even If Omnipotence Were Possible, God Still Can't Exist.
Remember god is also defined as omniscient. Once again, omniscience and omnipotence is negated by the problem of free will.

1) God knows the future(true by virtue of omniscience)
2) God knows what actions he will perform(true by virtue of omniscience)
3) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)(true by virtue of omniscience)
4) God's actions are predetermined(true by virtue of omniscience)
5) God has no free will.(true by virtue of omnisciece).

I don't think I should have to go through a whole bunch of logical and philosophical jargon, all my arguments are simple and hinge upon definitions.
Also, the problem of evil seems to negate omnibenevolence.
So, I think Ajab has to demonstrate his god can exist before he asserts that the god must exist.
This may be due to my own ignorance, but it seems to me if god can't exist, then the argument fails. It seems akin to arguing for the existence of a square-circle. Also I'd like to note that most apologists don't take the ontological argument seriously anymore. Even Kant objected to it.

Quick responses: I don't accept that we can't understand quantum physics. I don't even know what you mean by that. I understand that we probably don't know everything about quantum mechanics, but it's obvious we seem to have a good understanding. I'm sure you understand Schrodinger's equation and uncertainty, so I don't exactly know what you mean, when you say we don't.

Also I'd like clarification on what it means to exist outside of time and space. If something exists in no time and no space, it seems to be synonymous with something that doesn't exist.


Heh, since I am closing this account, I concede.
Debate Round No. 3


Well my opponent has conceded :(. Vote pro. Maybe we can continue this sometime. I was looking forward to maybe experiencing the first successful ontological argument in its 1000 year history.


I would have beaten you Khalif. :P
Here is what you do, accept my friend request and I will challenge you to this debate. LEZZ DO DES!
Debate Round No. 4


Let's :) ! If you do, Anselm's spirit will be at rest and he will go to a metaphysical perfect island.


The simple refutation would be that you determined 'qualities' of God could be imagined not the Being of God. Also you did not tackle my analysis about how God is a simple idea...
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
They're not strawman arguments or "Half-truths". I gave 4 simple arguments and 2 of them are basically the same thing. I wasn't aware you were supposed to give a 10,000 character essay on one argument, however I will in the future. I didn't mean to Gish Gallop lol, I hate him :(
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Gish Gallop if I ever seen one, lol
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
infinite degree of flexibility*
my theism is a poor cosmology model section went haywire :(
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con's concession
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Plz no ontological arg itz zo zkarry
Vote Placed by Domr 2 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.