The Instigator
MaskedSpartan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Great Question: Does God 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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 838 times Debate No: 76838
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

MaskedSpartan

Pro

Hello and welcome to this debate. For this debate, the term "God" will refer to the Christian concept of God, meaning the greatest possible being. Here are some ground rules:

1. Be respectful
2. 1st round is acceptance, 2nd is opening statements, 3rd and 4th is rebuttals and the 5th round is for concluding remarks
3. No new arguments after the 2nd round
3. No new objections after the 3rd round, the 4th round is for clarifications and crystallizing the arguments.
4. Have fun!
MagicAintReal

Con

I accept to debate the Christian concept of god as the greatest possible being. Thanks for the debate Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
MaskedSpartan

Pro


Today’s debate is on the existence of God. This is arguably the most important issue that we face in our lives; it affects everything. In the past, belief in God was considered to be just that, a belief. No evidence supported the assertion and atheism was considered the more intellectual position. Over the past fifty years that changed dramatically. There is over twenty, powerful arguments that point to the existence of God. As of 2015, there are no arguments for atheism that stands up to scrutiny. I ask that in this debate you consider and follow where the evidence goes, and make your decision on that. There is three arguments that I will present, starting with the argument from reason.

The Argument from Reason

There is two views of the world: Naturalism and Supernaturalism. For those who don’t know, Naturalism is the view that Nature is all that exists. Supernaturalism, I admit, sound something out of a movie. However, the majority of the world holds this view. Supernaturalism is the view that there exists something outside of nature: Supernature. Supernature is seen as either singular (God) or plural (gods or lesser divinities). The philosophical principle of Ockham’s razor, which states that plurality should not be posited without necessity, shaves away multiple Supernatures. This leaves us with Supernaturalism as the view that there is something outside of nature, which is God.

Now, imagine a coin. If I flip the coin and I tell you that it did not land on tails, what did it land on? Heads. It landed on heads, because that is the only other option. This is the same with Naturalism and Supernaturalism. If one self-destructs, the other is inevitable true. In a way, this whole debate is looking at a quarter. So much for the sophisticated image! We see that Naturalism self-destructs and the cause of this is the existence of reason.

Before I get into the details, let’s list the argument as follows:

1. Naturalism reduces reason to a closed system of physical cause and effect
2. This closed system of physical cause and effect cannot account for reason
3. Therefore, Naturalism is self-contradictory

Premise one describes a closed system of physical cause and effect. This essentially is the Naturalistic concept that everything is a product of natural laws. In addition to this, the closed system entails only matter existing. All there is on this system is matter being acted on by natural laws.

Premise two makes the assertion that this closed system cannot account for reason. Why is that? It is because on Naturalism, our reasoning abilities and outcomes are not due to commitment to truth, but rather on physical cause and effect. On Naturalism, all that is going on inside our heads is molecules in motion that are governed by natural law. Now, there is no natural law nor type of molecule that is committed to truth. What might seem like reasoning based on commitment to truth to you, is really blind, cause and effect. The question is, why should I trust a system for something that it was not intended to do? Why should I trust a system that truth is so foreign to, to bring me to truth? I shouldn’t, and you shouldn’t either. If one was to take Naturalism seriously, one would not take Naturalism seriously.

Naturalism is self-contradictory and even self-defeating. Back to the coin analogy, if it is not heads its’ tails. If it’s not Naturalism, it’s Supernaturalism. As I shown above, Supernaturalism leads to the existence of God.

The Cosmological Argument

Let’s go from philosophy to modern science, in particular, modern cosmology. In the very first verse of the Bible it is said that, “In the beginning, God made heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1). We now have scientific evidence that the universe began to exist. We can see that cosmic radiation, stars, planets, solar systems and even galaxies are moving away from each other. There is cosmological expansion. If we play the movie on rewind (a long film to watch!) we would see that all of the universe would condense to a single point of infinite density. Infinite density is a fancy way of saying nothing. Everything in the universe got so small that the universe ceased to exist. The universe came into being from nothing, in a flash of light. This is the standard theory of cosmology. It is what is taught in school all around the world. It is also what is described to a par in Genesis. When God created the heavens and the earth He commanded, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and in that instance, the universe was completely created. We can list the argument as a syllogism as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

We just looked at premise two, but what about premise one? It seems commonsensical. But, when people get desperate to dispel an argument, they object to anything. If something could pop into existence out of nothing, we would expect to see it daily. We would see elephants popping into existence in Times Square, we would see a whole army of penguins come into being out of thin air and start marching, I would even have to worry about a lion or a great white shark popping into existence right now and eating me! This is clearly absurd! With all silliness aside, premise one is actually a metaphysical principle. It applies both in and outside the universe. It is a widely accepted fact.

But, what then is this cause? Well, there is only two types of cause: natural causes and personal causes. A natural cause is nature acting on and a personal cause in a person acting on. A natural cause cannot be the case because nature came into being at the time of the universe. The universe can’t cause the universe! Therefore, the only cogent possibility is a personal creator of the universe. We call this creator God.

The Resurrection Argument

The past two arguments showed the evidence for a God. This argument seeks to show not only the existence of God, but the identity of God. As you probably guessed, this has to deal with the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus made some remarkable claims, all the way from claiming to be able to forgive sins, to being God. If Jesus did in fact rise from the dead on Pascha morning, then His claims would be validated and that would entail that God exists. Even more, it would show that the God that exists is the God of Israel, the God of Christianity. We can list the syllogism as follows:

1. If Jesus rose from the dead, then His claims are validated
2. Jesus rose from the dead
3. Therefore, Jesus’ claims are validated, entailing that God exists

Premise one is a universally accepted truth. Atheists and skeptics all accept this.
The controversy comes in premise two. In the twenty first century, now more than ever, there is a robust case for the Resurrection. There is five pieces of evidence that can be listed in the form of the “five E’s”:

E1. The execution of Jesus via crucifixion
E2. The empty tomb of Jesus
E3. The eyewitness evidence
E4. The extra-Biblical evidence
E5. The emergence of the early Church

E1.The crucifixion of Jesus is considered to be the most trusted fact about His life. This is in very little dispute and has been accepted for thousands of years. E2.To modern surprise, Jesus’ empty tomb was universally accepted by the entire ancient world. The religious authorities at the time did not say that the tomb was not empty. They said that that disciples of Jesus stole the body! Did they keep it in Peter’s basement and hope that the cops didn’t come knocking?! It is kind of funny to think about. The problem with this theory is that the Apostle didn’t have the ability, the opportunity, or the motivation. E3.We now possess an early Christian creed that dates back to, at earliest, twenty four months after Jesus’ crucifixion. This creed list 515 eyewitnesses to Jesus’ post mortem appearances. 515 people claimed to see Jesus after His death. Even more, some of the eyewitnesses were enemies of the early Christian movement.

E4.There is a multiplicity of ancient, non-Christian writing that mentions a religious leader, who supposedly performed miracles, who was called the Messiah and the Christ and who was crucified by Pontius Pilate who was named Jesus of Nazareth. Works included the Talmud, the Mishnah and writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the younger. The ancient equivalent on Pliny Jr. These references where within 60 years of Jesus’ life, if not sooner. Lee Strobel states that “this is like a news flash from the modern world!” E5.The emergence of the early Church is pretty remarkable. The leader of the movement was executed and humiliated in the capital city in front of thousands people and then 50 days after, in the same city, the Christian movement was in full swing with 6000 plus members. How could this happen if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. It couldn’t.

Summery

I gave three strong arguments for the existence of God. I said that there is no good arguments for atheism and I will show that in my rebuttal. Keep in mind that until my opponent shows that my argument from reason is shown false, all of their arguments are to be regarded as contradictory and fallacious. Thank you.

See sources in comments.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for the debate Pro.

When demonstrating something to be true, the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. Therefore, Pro has the burden of proof to demonstrate god's existence.
I reject the claim that the Christian concept of God exists on the grounds that no god has been demonstrated logically, physically or contingent on physical reality.

Pro has stipulated that Round 2 be opening statements only, so I will leave my rebuttals for Round 3, and begin with a thought experiment.

Imagine that you have a friend who claims that he himself as a human on earth, on a beautiful day, without any tools, vehicles, apparatuses, trickery, or optical illusions, can literally fly by jumping off of a building....just like a bird. Though you generally trust your friend, something about what he's saying doesn't match with reality. Everything about physics, air resistance, the human anatomy, earth and its gravity, that you understand to be true, seem to be in contrast with this extraordinary claim. However, your friend remains certain that he has the true ability to fly, and you remain skeptical; you continue to reject his claim.

Now imagine that you have asked your friend to demonstrate this ability, but he hasn't gotten around to doing it. So given no reason to believe humans can fly, you continue to reject his claim that he can fly, because none of it matches with reality nor has it been demonstrated.

If your friend then said to you that logically he must be able to fly, because you haven't proven his flying abilities false...would that sound logical to you? It shouldn't, because that's the argument from ignorance fallacy, and is an example I would like to reference throughout the debate. The fallacy is that the claimant demands disproof instead of just proving their claim.

Once the friend who claims he can fly demands disproof of his flying abilities from you, he has shifted the burden of proof from him demonstrating his flying abilities to you not falsifying his flying abilities. Let's say you didn't falsify him flying, because he never got around to demonstrating it...does that mean he therefore can fly?

Instead of him just getting up and showing that he can fly, he makes it your responsibility to demonstrate that he can't. Shifting the burden of proof is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Now, if you don't mind, take the following thought experiment and apply it to claims of god, instead of claims of the ability to fly. Anyone claiming that god must exist because their opponents can't falsify god are committing the fallacy...just like when the friend who claims there is no disproof of his flying abilities, therefore he must be able to fly.
Rather than just demonstrating their god's existence, they rely on the argument from ignorance to have their opponent demonstrate that god's negation is false.
In true logic, a proposition is true or its negation is true. Demonstrating that a negation is false, isn't true logic.

So I would like to use my thought experiment as a reference point to make cogent analogies to the otherwise nerdy debate jargon like "argument from ignorance", "false dichotomy", and, "special pleading", so that people may be faced with a real world example of fallacious logic.

I reject the claim that the christian concept of god exists, because no god claims have met their burden of proof; those who claim they can fly have not demonstrated their flying ability yet.

In my argument, I will demonstrate that:
1. Supernaturalism and Naturalism are not a true dichotomy; they are not true opposites.
2. Reason is a result of an active natural cognitive process contingent on physical reality.
3. Naturalism is actually the belief that all things are natural, or contingent on nature.
4. A coin is not a good analogy for Pro's use of the law of the excluded middle (if it's not heads, it's tails)
5. The Kalam cosmological argument, used by Pro, is another first cause argument with a special pleading fallacy.
6. Witness accounts of Jesus's resurrection are anecdotal evidence; this type of evidence does not meet the burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim as rising from the dead; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also results of a true claim must be able to be replicated.
Debate Round No. 2
MaskedSpartan

Pro


Thank you Con for that opening statement.

The Illustration

Con illustrated his/her thought process by telling of a friend that claimed to be able to fly, although gives no evidence to fly. I agree that the belief in God does require evidence. Sometimes this evidence is as simple as saying "I bet that those wise men wouldn't have believed that Jesus was God unless it was true" or sometimes it is more sophisticated in terms of a deductive argument. I gave three arguments for the existence of God to back the claim. So I was and am not advocating blind faith. Although, I do maintain that one could disprove the existence of something. All one has to do is show this claim to be self-contradictory or incoherent, given our knowledge of the universe, philosophy and metaphysics.

Con did say this that caught my eye, "everything about physics, air, resistance, the human anatomy, earth and its gravity...seem to contrast with the extraordinary claim." Although this was directed at the friend who though he was superman and could fly, I take it as an implicitly refering to God. I would like to say that nothing in physics, or even our knowledge or science as a whole shows God to be non-existent. On the contrary, there are several arguments from areas such as physics that point to a God. I will not go over them in this debate, but I will list some resources in the comment section for those who are interested.

Can We Prove God's Existence? What about the burden of proof?

Before I move one, I would like to issue a disclaimer, I and no one else can prove God's existence. I can provide evidence and arguements for the existence of God though. And until these arguments are shown to be false, it would logically follow that their conclusion, that God exists, would be more probable than their negation.

I will repeat what I said above for the burden of proof of athiesm. The reason is because I feel that it is an important topic. The atheist does have a burden of proof. The purpose of Con's flying story was (I think) to shift the burden of proof on me. To repeat, it is completly possible to disprove the exisence of God. All one has to do is show that the idea of God is contradictory or logically impossible. It is quite simple. One has the ability to disprove really anything! It is possible to show that a human can't fly. It is possible to show that there are no living dinosaurs on earth and can be shown that is is highly improbable that there is a teapot floating out in space. Even bizzar things like the celestial teapot can be shown without reasonable doubt to be absent. I am afraid that my atheist friend would require to provide some arguments for atheism.

Con's Argument

Con listed six things that will be elaberated on in the next rebuttal. I don't wish to attack straw men, but there are one or two things that I would like to adress. The first is the infamous assertion that is now almost a bumper sticker of atheism:

"Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"

I think that Dr. William Lane Craig, one of my favorite apologists, deflates this slogan pretty well. I will summerize his points with some of my own input. If we were to follow this assertion, there would be skepticsim for a whole lot of things that we regard as true. Take for instance, the lottery. The odds of that certain person, out of millions, winning the cash is remarkably low. It has been said that one has the same chances of winning the lottery whether one enters or does not enter it! I know this is an exageration, but it helps to demostrate the point. Should we doubt that Joe Shmuck (our lottery entering friend), won the lottery and the TV is lying to us because there is not extraordinary evidence? I think not.

In addition, this idea completly ignores probablility. When one is figuring out if something is probable, they have to see if the given evidence is probable even if the event/thing didn't happen/doesn't exist. Would it be probable that the TV would show the luckly numbers on the screen and announces that Joe Shmuck is the winner if that wasn't the case? Again, we have to look at this more closely.

Conclusion

Although I didn't say much, in fear of attacking straw men, I would like to overview what has been said. I listed three arguments for God's existence. If these arguments hold, then the God that exists would be reasonable, intelligent, non-material, timeless, non-spacial, incredibly powerful, personal and is the same God revealed to us by Jesus of Nazareth. My opponent basicly said that I need to have evidence for God, that he doesn't have a burden of proof and gave us a preview of what is to come. It turns out that Con does does have a burden of proof and that extraordinary claims, don't require extraordinary evidence. Over to you con.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thank you Pro for your points.

To respond to something Pro said in round 3 "I do maintain that one could disprove the existence of something."

So maybe when Pro thinks of something being disproved, Pro should try thinking about it as the burden of proof for this something has not been met. So disproving isn't really a thing; what Pro would consider "disproving" is really just people making a claim and failing to meet their burden of proof. So I agree that colloquially things can be "disproved", but what it actually means is that the burden of proof for that thing has not been met. So when things have not met their burden of proof, like your celestial teapot reference, we colloquially say they are disproved.

Let me demonstrate with my thought experiment.
How would you "disprove" your friend who claims he can fly? The only demonstrable way to "disprove" your friend's flying abilities would be to have him attempt to fly, as many times as he deems necessary, and fail to fly over and over. You can't have any burden in this, because you can't fail to fly for him. If he fails to fly, we would then say he has failed to meet his burden of proof, and therefore have no reason to believe he can fly. Pro might call this "disproof".

Pro says " I agree that the belief in God does require evidence. Sometimes this evidence is as simple as saying 'I bet that those wise men wouldn't have believed that Jesus was God unless it was true'".

This is evidence? I'll bet some guys wouldn't have believed something unless it was true? This is called the argument from personal incredulity, and is under the argument from ignorance umbrella.
To demonstrate, I'll use the friend who claims he can fly thought experiment.

Pro is stating that because he can't imagine wise men being tricked, therefore they were not tricked.
So, in my thought experiment it would look like:
Because I can't imagine your friend being mistaken about his ability to fly, therefore he can fly.
Without your friend demonstrating his ability to fly, your inability to imagine him being mistaken doesn't mean he can fly.
This is the argument from personal incredulity, and is an argument from ignorance. Fallacious. Does not demonstrate a god.

Pro continues in round 3 "I would like to say that nothing in physics, or even our knowledge or science as a whole shows God to be non-existent."
What is it? What is it?...It's the argument from ignorance yet again!
Pro is saying that since science hasn't proven god false, therefore god exists. Science isn't claiming there's a god, so it can't fail to meet the burden of proof for him.
So, in my thought experiment it would look like:
Since you can't prove your friend's flying ability false, therefore he can fly.
Without your friend demonstrating his ability to fly, your inability to prove your friend's flying ability false doesn't mean your friend can fly.
Again the argument from ignorance, and still no demonstration of a god.

So then Pro reaches the point where they are about to make an attempt at their burden of proof as Pro says "there are several arguments from areas such as physics that point to a God."
I am ready for the demonstrable proof and Pro says "I will not go over them in this debate,"
Aside from being anticlimactic, it would be a travesty for Pro to not include the scientific evidence FOR god. Please Pro, include this in the debate.

Also, I don't want to tell Pro how to debate, but saying "I and no one else can prove God's existence" in a debate about the existence of god, in which Pro is making the claim, isn't generally a step in the right direction.
Furthermore, Pro may have a misconception about proof. Proof is just the sum total of the evidence. By saying you can't prove god, but you have evidence, means you don't have enough evidence for the sum total of proof...kind of like you aren't meeting your burden of proof.

Pro continues "I can provide...arguments...and until these arguments are shown to be false...their conclusion...would be more probable than their negation."
Aaaaaaand again. Argument from ignorance.
If Pro can understand here that this quote has it exactly backwards, there is some common ground to be had here.
Pro's quote should say until these arguments are shown to be true, their conclusions can be rejected. This is how proof works. Not the other way!

So yes, Pro's quote is another argument from ignorance because Pro is shifting the burden of proof.
Pro is saying that until his arguments are proven false, they must be more likely true.
Per the friend who claims he can fly:
Until your friend's arguments for his ability to fly are proven false, his ability to fly is more probable than not.
Without your friend actually demonstrating his ability to fly, proving his arguments for his ability to fly false doesn't make his ability to fly more probable than not.
Still, no demonstration of god.

Pro mentioned that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a bumper sticker for atheism...no it's a bumper sticker for skepticism, and is something that Pro most likely agrees with. What the quote means is that if you tell me you had a sandwich for lunch, I wouldn't require much evidence to believe you, because you exist, sandwiches are available and eaten for lunch, and lunch is a time that people eat sandwiches. Now if you told me you ate moon rocks for lunch, I would require you to provide more evidence--this is what is meant by extraordinary--to believe this because moon rocks are not readily available, and as far as I know not edible.

Pro brings up winning the lottery being an extraordinary event for which you would not require extraordinary evidence. I argue that yes the results of the lottery are extraordinary, as few ever win, but the event of someone winning the lottery happens almost in every lottery, and therefore is not extraordinary. Regardless, seeing the news station confirm the winner, seeing the ticket, seeing the lottery numbers released by the lottery commission and how they match with Joe Shmuck's ticket is considered extraordinary evidence. If you had that much equivalent (extraordinary) evidence for your god, we wouldn't have this debate.

To rebut Pro's round 2 claims...
Pro's attempt to make a dichotomy out of Supernaturalism and Naturalism is very flawed, because supernaturalism ISN'T claiming that EVERYTHING is supernatural, and naturalism IS claiming that EVERYTHING is natural. In fact, in most versions of supernaturalism, supernatural things can interact with or have effects on the natural world, which means not everything is supernatural in supernaturalism, and therefore is a false dichotomy to naturalism (everything is natural). But if Pro wishes to argue that everything is supernatural, I would love that debate as well.

Here's the false dichotomy:
Naturalism VS Supernaturalism
everything is natural VS some things are supernatural

Here's the true dichotomy:
everything is natural VS everything is supernatural
or
everything is natural VS everything is not natural

So when Pro says "If it"s not Naturalism, it"s Supernaturalism"
Pro shows that Supernaturalism would negate Naturalism, which is correct, but Naturalism doesn't negate Supernaturalism which makes the two a false dichotomy, not subject to "heads or tails".
If they were, you could flip them and the meaning wouldn't change. For example:

If it's not Naturalism, it"s Supernaturalism
If not everything is natural, then some things are supernatural. Supernaturalism negates Naturalism.
Flipped
If it's not Supernaturalism, it's Naturalism
If some things are not supernatural then everything is natural. Ahhh. Naturalism doesn't negate Supernaturalism because just showing some non supernatural things doesn't negate that there could be other supernatural things. See how it doesn't transfer because Supernaturalism and Naturalism are not a true dichotomy?

Now my response to the coin flip.
Pro says "If I flip the coin and I tell you that it did not land on tails, what did it land on? Heads. It landed on heads, because that is the only other option. This is the same with Naturalism and Supernaturalism."
The logical law that Pro is attempting to employ is called the law of the excluded middle or the law of the excluded third.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
The law of the excluded middle is a logical principle that says either a proposition is true or its negation is true.
In Pro's case it would be either Supernaturalism is true or Naturalism is true (despite the fact they are a false dichotomy).
Pro uses a coin as an analogy for this principle because with heads or tails, there is no third option (excluded third)

There are two problems aside from Naturalism not being able to negate Supernaturalism.
1. Coins do actually have a third option which is the edge of the coin...I posted a link that explains the probability, but I'll save you the click and tell you that a coin lands on its edge approximately 1 in every 6,000 flips. So if it didn't land on heads it landed on...most likely tails, but we can't exclude the third option of edge.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu...

2. There is a third option with Naturalism and Supernaturalism...Subnaturalism.
If you agree there is a natural and a supernatural, why is there no subnatural? Ever wondered that before? Why does there only have to be something beyond nature? Couldn't there be something behind/under nature? Then it gets you thinking...well if I can't logically prove a subnatural and think it's kind of silly, how is it different from the supernatural in any way? Now you can't just disprove Naturalism to prove Supernaturalism, because you have to consider Subnaturalism as well...Subnaturalism is like the edge of the coin.

For this round I am out of characters, but next round I will address:
How reason is part of Naturalism
The Kalam cosmological argument
Misconceptions about cosmology
The resurrection accounts of Jesus
Debate Round No. 3
MaskedSpartan

Pro


I have to admit, I am disappointed. My friend here has breached debate etiquette well more than once. Firstly, Con is waiting for his/her next rebuttal to respond to two of my three arguments. Traditionally, the conclusion round is to conclude the debate. Not for a third rebuttal. My opponent is forcing me, by waiting until the last minute to respond to my arguments, either to not respond or to break the hidden rules of debate. I am offended by this, even if was not intentional; this still puts me in an awkward spot.

Next, Con instead of using proper debate technique, is twisting my words. An example of this is when Con accused me of saying that "science hasn't proven God false, therefore God exists." I never said this. If you go back and read the whole thing with the context, you will see that I was merely stating that science does not disprove God. Another example is when Con said, "Pro is stating that he cannot imagine wise men being tricked, therefore they weren't tricked. Again, I never said this. I said most Christians don't have blind faith. They use some reasoning even if it is something like, "I bet that those wise men wouldn't have believed that Jesus was God unless it was true". This is not my reasoning as I go on to say, but my point is that even unsophisticated men, have some sort of reasoning about religion.

My opponent only responded to one of my arguments, and for the rest of the debate he/she released a whole armada of red-herrings. I don't want to sound angry, but I am upset by this. My hopes was that this would be a civilized debate without manipulting (even if it was unintentional) the rounds, twisting my words and a whole slew of red-herrings.

The Argument from Reason

1. Naturalism reduces reason to a closed system of physical cause and effect
2. This closed system of physical cause and effect cannot account for reason
3. Therefore, Naturalism is self-contradictory

What premise did Con object to? None. It then logically follows, that Naturalism is self-contradictory and necessarily false (due to the law of non-contradiction). My friend did object to my coin analogy. OK. I was using the common idea that there are two sides of a coin, it was an analogy not a literal example. This objection does not go an inch towards the truth of this argument.

Next, Con talks about how Naturalism and Supernaturalism is a false dichotomy because they don't necessarly conflict. Of course they do. Naturalism by definition is the view that nature is all that exists. Supernaturalism by definition is the view that there is something outside of nature. Both of these views can't be right. There is either something outside of nature or there isn't. What these terms do not talk about is how much is nature and how much is supernature.

Finally, Con asserts that "there is a third option with Naturalism and Supernaturalism...Subnaturalism. This is not even a world view. There is no such thing as subnature as there is nature or supernature. There is not one object that could be described as subnature. When we see the word subnatural, it is being used to describe something that is not normal. Such as quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics (in which I am no expert) some things that go against or expectations are regarded as subnatural. An example of this would be subnatural linewith found in certain experiments. To put it a different way, subnatural is talking about what is not natural. Natural meaning not normal. The confusion is that this meaning of natural is being blending with another defition meaning: of nature.

The argument from reason is not affected by Con's arguments

The Cosmological argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

What premise did Con object to? None. It then logically follows that the conclusion that the universe has a cause. To decide the cause of the universe we look at the two types of causes: natural and personal. The cause of the universe cannot be natural because nature came into being when the unverse came into being! It then follows that the cause of the universe, is a personal creator. This is one of the most common definitions of God.

The Resurrection

1. If Jesus rose from the dead, then His claims are validated
2. Jesus rose from the dead
3. Therefore, Jesus’ claims are validated, entailing that God exists

Again, Con does not object to any premise, leaving the conclusion that Jesus' claims are validated true, entailing that God exists. MagicAintReal doesn't object to the "five E's of evidence" either:

E1. The execution of Jesus via crucifixion
E2. The empty tomb of Jesus
E3. The eyewitness evidence
E4. The extra-Biblical evidence
E5. The emergence of the early Church

The Burden of Proof

The main assertion of Con's is that I need to demonstrate that God exists (or is highly probable) and that he/she doesn't need to make any argument for atheism. Not so. One can disprove the existence or show an event to be highly improbable fairly easy. All one has to do is to show the concept to be contradictory. Con asks, "how could you disprove a friend that claims he could fly?" Easily. One just has to show that phyics and the human anatomy prohibit such action. The idea that the atheist doesn't need to provide any arguments is utterly false. Con needed to make some arguments for the non-existence of God, but did not. It seems to me that Con dropped his/her burden of proof.

The Small Things

There are several small things that my atheist friend made a big deal about. Some of these include:

-Why I didn't provide arguments from phyiscs, although I already gave three arguments
-Whether or not winning the lottery is an extraordinary event (this shouldn't be the focus of the debate)
-Does a coin have a third side? Just an analogy
-Bashing how I can't prove God's existence with certaint (we can make a case for probability though)
-How apparently all my arguments are arguments from ignorgence, but these arguments are twisted from the orginal

I will not go into these at depth because they should not and will not be the focus of the debate, and I should not have followed these suedo-red herrings if not red-herrings. The focus of this debate is Does God Exist? We should and have to focus on the arguments presented for both sides. I have provided three, my opponent has not provided any.

Conclusion

I wish this debate went differently on the account of the poor etiquette of my opponent. I want to say that I have provided a case for the existence of God with three strong arguments. My opponent has provided none. Only one of my arguments was attacked and the objections do not hit the mark. If my opponent objects to my other two arguments next round, I will be in an akward position. I will either be forced to not respond, or bend the rules myself and respond to them in my conclusion. This was not a respectful move and I am upset by it. I would like to finish by asking you, the audience to pause for a moment, and evaluate both of our cumulative cases and juge which one stands up to scrutiny. Thank you.
MagicAintReal

Con

Pro claims that I have not responded to all of his arguments. So here we go.
I'll revisit Pro's first argument:

Pro claims "Naturalism reduces reason to a closed system of physical cause and effect"
Well, not really. Naturalism includes contingent on physical cause and effect as well, not just the physical cause and effect. So things like reason and rationality would be constructs that are contingent on the brain and therefore contingent on physical cause and effect and are natural.

When Pro claims, "Naturalism reduces reason to a closed system of cause and effect" the "closed system" phrase only accounts for the proactive behavior of the brain...neurons firing and neurotransmitter levels rising and falling; this is a closed system of passively behaving non agents. By "non agents" I mean, they don't actively do things.

Pro is ignoring the reactive behavior of the brain, an agent, to stimulus or informational input. Outside stimulus, like light and sound that passively react (non agents) to the laws of physics, require an open system from the brain, which actively reacts to the laws of physics, to be detected.
Furthermore, informational input, which is a construct contingent on the brain and is therefore natural, requires an open system to be imbued by the brain. The brain is an active agent that can imbue informational input, match it with reality, and use this reasoning--a constructive cognitive process contingent on the physical brain--to arrive at logical conclusions within its open system. This seems like truth seeking to me.

So reason is not physical, but is a construct contingent on the natural world and therefore is a part of Naturalism. There is no need to invoke supernature, because those intangible things like reasoning and rationality are contingent on nature, and are therefore natural. So nature does actually account for reason and is not self-contradictory.

So even in naturalism, reason is not a closed system, because it requires outside informational input into the brain which necessitates an open system.

Even if things are just products of natural laws, it does not mean that an agent like the brain cannot actively generate authentic reasons from these products. The brain still follows the laws, it just, as an agent, uses constructs contingent on reality to make authentic logic as well. All natural.
Truth is a conclusion--conclusions are a construct contingent on the brain--we come to after applying our constructive cognitive processes (all contingent on the brain and therefore natural) to the informational input imbued by our brains to see if it matches with reality or if it can be demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions about the nature of the informational input. This is what truth is in Naturalism.

Now for the long awaited response to the Kalam cosmological argument, Pro's 2nd argument.
It used to be that when people claimed a god exists, they would use what's called the first cause argument.
1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. The universe exists
3. The universe has a cause
4. The cause is god
Anyone who understands basic logic sees that this leads to an infinite regress, because if god exists to cause something, then according to #1 he should have a cause, and god's cause would need a cause, and god's cause's cause would need a cause, etc...because if anything exists it must have a cause, because of the premise in #1.

So modern theists had to find a way to avoid the infinite regress, and they do it with a fallacy called "special pleading" in the famous Kalam Cosmological Argument Posited by Pro. Special pleading is fallacious because it means making an exception to an absolute rule you've posited without mechanistic explanation of how it's an exception.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist. (Big Bang)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. The cause could not begin to exist, because "begin" is a temporal concept, and time, matter, space, and energy only exist after the universe exists.
5. Therefore the cause is eternal, changeless, immaterial, spaceless, powerful.
6. My definition of God matches this definition of the cause of the universe. so my God exists, but didn't begin to exist.

By simply adding the infinitive verb phrase "begins to exist", the theist can now avoid the infinite regress, because once they fit their version of god--without mechanistic explanation--into the definition of the cause of the universe--the last step in this syllogism--they can special plead (a fallacy), that their god's existence is not contingent on beginning to exist even though existence presupposes this fact by the definition of existence.

Notice I said without mechanistic explanation. If Pro could explain precisely how and by what mechanism Pro's christian god specifically, not any other, caused the universe without beginning to exist, it wouldn't be special pleading, because the exception to the posited rule is explained rather than simply posited.

Once the theist claims therefore god is the creator of the universe, the special pleading is inevitable, because the theist must agree that all things that exist had begun to exist except for god. This is just saying god is exempt from requirements of existence without stating how. We accept beginning to exist as a precondition of existence, so claiming something most certainly exists and doesn't have this precondition, without a mechanistic explanation, is special pleading and is a logical fallacy which deflates the Kalam cosmological argument employed by Pro.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

So, clever linguistics do not a proof make. The Kalam cosmological argument is just an infinite regress hidden in a special plead. Both of which are logically fallacious.

Pro then continues his cosmological deduction with "If something could pop into existence out of nothing, we would expect to see it daily."
Pro is referring to the big bang, and Pro has a misconception of modern cosmology.
My question for Pro is, what is nothing? Seriously how do you define nothing? My guess is the definition of nothing that Pro may use is vastly different then something called "quantum nothingness" which is a fact of modern cosmology.
Youtube Lawrence Krauss's a universe from nothing as he explains it so eloquently.
https://www.youtube.com...

If you don't feel like watching a whole video, here's my paraphrase:
When we think of nothing, we can think of open black space with no matter, no energy, no radiation, no particles, no light...nothing. What's interesting is that on a quantum level when you strip space of matter, energy, radiation, particles, and light, there is still something...subatomic particles--not full atoms, not even full electrons/neutrons/protons--simultaneously popping in and out of existence, always...this nothing is like the fabric of existence. So the nothing before the big bang is actually something, it's just so stripped down it's in effect nothing.

These subatomic particles have been demonstrated, detected, measured, and explained. Lawrence Krauss is a leading physicist and cosmologist and his video and published journal articles thoroughly explain them. From this nothing--subatomic particles popping in and out of existence simultaneously--comes something. Two different subatomic particles can pop into existence at the same place and the same time and this can generate enough energy to pull more subatomic particles into the same space creating more energy which is expressed in matter. So when opponents of the big bang try to make the point that from nothing, nothing comes, they are not thinking of quantum nothingness.

So Pro's examples of "We would see elephants popping into existence in Times Square, we would see a whole army of penguins come into being out of thin air and start marching."
Are straw man arguments that misrepresent what nothing actually is and are hyperbolic representations of the concept of subatomic particles generating energy.

Explaining the cause of something requires time as "cause" is a temporal concept. So "what caused these subatomic particles before the big bang?" is an unanswerable question, because time only exists relative to matter and energy and space--all of which occurred at the time of the big bang--and without these there is no time for a before to exist. So what happened before the big bang is like asking what happened before "before" was possible?

Pro's third argument is "The Resurrection"
My problem is with E2. Pro claims "religious authorities at the time...said that that disciples of Jesus stole the body"
Pro claims the problem with this is "the Apostle didn"t have the ability, the opportunity, or the motivation"
Pro should explain how he knows the Apostle didn't have the ability, the opportunity, or the motivation without simply stating it.

E3 is not evidence. This is an appeal to popularity and is a logical fallacy. Because so many people claimed to see Jesus after his death, therefore they did. To go back to my thought experiment. If 3,000 people said they saw your friend fly without trickery, until he demonstrates this to me, in a video or in person, I have no reason to believe his flying abilities are true as they contrast with reality. A resurrection contrasts with reality, so 515 people from bronze age Mesopotamia claiming they saw their charismatic leader rise from the dead, isn't evidence.

Pro may think I'm being unfair for demanding this type of evidence for something that occurred in the past, but because it--the resurrection-- is making a contrasting truth claim about reality, much like your friend who claims he can fly, it requires a higher standard of proof...like a demonstration or replication. If you told me that long ago, people sold food, I wouldn't ask you to bring me organic remnants of the food you speak of. Food is something that does not require extraordinary evidence.
Debate Round No. 4
MaskedSpartan

Pro


Thank you Con for that rebuttal. Throughout this debate I presented three arguments for God's existence. Con has provided none in spite of my past comments about the burden of proof. Con does have a burden of proof and has not lived up to that. Furthermore, past objections to my arguments have been dropped and replaced with new ones. Let's go over each argument and leave no stone unturned.

The Argument from Reason

1. Naturalism reduces reason to a closed system of physical cause and effect
2. This closed system of physical cause and effect cannot account for reason
3. Therefore, Naturalism is self-contradictory

Since Naturalism is self-contradictory, due to the law of non-contradiction, it is false. As we established in the past rounds, Supernaturalism is the only other "side of the coin", therefore due to the process of elimination, it is true. Ockham's razor (so many philosophical processes!) eliminated multiple supernatures, leaving one: God. No, subnaturalism is not a world view. Subnatural is a word to describe a wierd or spooky event. It is a part of laguage, not philosophy.

Objetion to premise one: Con talks about how Naturalism employs an open system, not a closed system. I think this is just a confusion. I use the words "closed system" refering to how on Naturalism, nature is all that exists. It is the "whole show", nothing is acting on it as in Supernaturalism. On Supernaturalism, nature is "open" because the Supernature/God is acting on nature, therefore it is open to outside forces. So if Con insists on calling nature an open system, it would mean that he/she is really accepting Supernaturalism and the existence of God!

Objection to premise two: My friend states that "even if things are just products of Natutal laws, it does not mean that an agent like the brain cannot generate authentic reason from these products". OK, but why trust a non-truth based or even a non-truth related system to lead us to a truth? Observations wont do because, on Naturalism, physical laws predetermine our thoughts. So if your thoughts are a result of a non-truth related, deterministic system, why would you trust it to yeild deep philosophical thought as seen in this debate? According to Naturalism, whatever you think is predetermined by natural laws. You will think "X" no matter what. So your reasoning is not due to commitment to truth, but due to deterministic cause and effect.

The Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

As I said before, there are only two types of causes: natural and personal. The cause cannot be natural because natural because nature came into being when the universe came into being. The only other possiblity is a personal creator.

Objections to the conclusion (part one): Con says that the claim that God never began to exist "is special pleadint and is a logical fallacy which deflates the Kalam Cosmological Argument employed by Pro". The thing is that I am not making an acception to the rules, I am using common definitions. The concept of God in any of the three Abrahamic faiths entails that God is eternal. He never began to exist. Since He never began to exist, then He does not have a cause. But, Con states "extistence presupposes this fact [begining to exist] by the definition of existence". I have no idea where Con got this definition. As a grandson of an english professor, I am quite fond of the Oxford English Dictionary, so I will use that. The definition in said dictionary defines existence as: "The fact or state of living or having objective reality." There is no mention of begining to exist and you will find no other mention in any other of the top dictionaries.

Objections to the conclusion (part two): My atheist friend refers to Lawerence Krauss' claim that nothing contains sub-atomic particle. But, nothing means no thing! Nothing refers to no thing, not anything, absolutely not a thing. What Con or rather, Mr. Krauss is doing is word play. Let's take the idea of nothing and go back to the Odyseese when Odyeesus stabs the cyclops in the eye and the cyclops is yelling for help. When Cyclops asks Odyeesus' name, he replies "nobody". Cylclops yells," help, help someone stabed me!" The other cyclops yell from over the hill, "who stabbed you?" "Nobody stabed me" replied Cyclops. The other cyclops were confused asking him "why are you yelling then?" And the stabbed Cyclops replies, "because nobody stabed me and is running away". Words such as nothing, nobody and noway are not objects. There are the absence there of. Saying that nothing really means sub-atomic particles is saying that nothing is something. It is nonsensical.

Obections to the conclusion (final part): The last of the three pronged attack led on the KCA is the idea that "cause is a temporal concept". I again do not know where this defintion comes from. Mabye, I am missing a key dictionary! I go from Oxford's dictionary to the Merrian-Websters Dictionary, to add some flavor. The definition of causality in the said dictionary is: "The relationship between something that happens or exists and the thing that causes it". No mention of time, and no mention of time is to be found in the standard concept of causality. The causality that everyone refers to. Additionally, my opponent does not give any backing for this claim. I wish that this could have been brought up sooner, so there could be more dialogue, but this is the end of the debate.

The Resurrection

1. If Jesus rose from the dead, then His claims are validated
2. Jesus rose from the dead
3. Therefore, Jesus’ claims are validated, entailing that God exists

The support is:

E1. The execution of Jesus via crucifixion
E2. The empty tomb of Jesus
E3. The eyewitness evidence
E4. The extra-Biblical evidence
E5. The emergence of the early Church

The response of Con's was rather shocking. The three response where that I need to clarify E2, that E3 does not count and that Con want to have actually seen the Resurrection and until I can take him/her back in time to see it, there is no reason to believe it.

E2. I said that the disciples could not have stolen the body because they did not have the time, the opportunity or the motivation. They did not have the time or the opportunity because Jesus' tomb was under twenty four hour survalence by the Roman guards. How do we know this? Because of E4. They did not have the motivation because we would have to believe this if we believed that they stole the body: they knew that Jesus did not rise from the dead. they stole his body and hid it (mabye in Peter's basement) all to live a life of ridicule, beatings, being outcasts from society, going through torture and being killed. They got no worldly reward. They chose that. They chose to die, for a lie and they had the ability to know if it was a lie. In addition, not one of the twelve (Judas' replacment counts) said, "wait! It was all a lie! Please don't torture and kill me!" I don't enough faith to believe that.

E3. Apparently this is appealing to popularity. It is not, it is using eye-witness evidence. These were people who claimed to personally saw Jesus after His death and they were not all followers of Jesus as Con wants us to believe, most where skeptics, and some were even enemies and prosecutors of the early Christians. Eye-witness evidence is a valid tactic in a court of law. So you could say that I am putting Jesus on trial! This I repeat, is eye-witness evidence, not appealing to popularity.

Con wants tangible evidence. The thing is, that history doesn't work that way. It works on best inference. This is what we know as 2015 :

Jesus was put to death on the cross and was buried. Three days later, His tomb was empty and 515 people claimed to see Him walking, talking, eating and even being touched by the eyewitnesses. Then, the only twelve people that could know if He really rose from the dead, willingly chose to be outcasts, beaten, mocked, tortured and killed for their belief in the resurrection. They willingly chose that when they were in the unique position to know the truth, and yet they chose an incredibly hard life for no gain at all. All these statements are backed by portions in the Talmud, Mishnah and writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the younger. All of these sources are non-Christian and some are even ant-Christian. You can decide for you self if you think that Jesus rose from the dead, or it was all a big hoax set up by the Apostles for no gain at all.


Final Conclusion

In total, I gave three arguments for the existence of God, and Con has given none. The objections that were proposed by Con, don't make the cut. I want you to look at the evidence, and follow were it goes. I hope that it was seen that belief in God was rational and that something knew was learned. I thank MagicAintReal for the debate.
MagicAintReal

Con

To conclude, I would like to address some glaring issues and continue to use my thought experiment.

Pro continues to misunderstand what the definition of "burden of proof" is despite having an English professor for a grandfather. So here's the link to Pro's favorite dictionary with the definition: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Burden of Proof - The obligation to prove one's assertion.

Pro is making the assertion that god exists, and therefore Pro has the obligation to prove it.
Con is making a rejection to the assertion so he has no obligation for that assertion; a rejection is NOT an assertion. Just ask the OED.
Any counter assertions made still require substantiation, it's just that for the resolution only Pro has the burden.

According to the OED, burden of proof is for the person making the assertion that god exists not the one rejecting the assertion. This is how proof works. Until your assertion is demonstrated logically--without fallacies--your burden of proof cannot be met.

I have not once--check the entire debate--asserted there is no god. I have rejected the claim that there is a god per the reason that god has not been demonstrated physically, contingent on physical reality, or logically by Pro. Pro's assertions are obligated to meet their burden of proof to accept this resolution. Given the immense amount of logical fallacies employed by Pro, and Pro's assertion that neither he nor anyone can prove god's existence, I don't see how that's possible.

Again I can't fail to meet Pro's burden of proof for him. Only he can do it. So when Pro is claiming that I have the burden of proof to disprove his assertion, he is committing the argument from ignorance fallacy, because it's shifting the burden of proof from Pro to Con.

Per the friend who asserts he can fly.
Imagine your friend hasn't demonstrated to you his flying ability--you haven't seen him do any flying yet--and he understands your rejections to his assertion due to the laws of physics and facts of human anatomy, but he asserts that despite this contradiction with reality, his version of flying is not contingent on physics or the facts of human anatomy, but it's still flying. You may tell him that this is special pleading, because he has said that a precondition for flying doesn't apply to his flying ability, and he offers no explanation for how. He is asserting that he has what Pro might call "supernatural" powers.

Your friend continues to assert that his supernatural flying powers must be possible, because naturalism can't account for supernatural things like the brain arriving at truth. Your friend then asserts that if arriving at truth is supernatural, and we agree truth exists, therefore his specially-plead supernatural flying powers could exist. Still your friend's lack of logical evidence, lack of an explanation for his flying ability's exception to laws of physics, and of course his reluctance to fly all leave you skeptical, and he has not met HIS burden of proof. You still have no burden to do anything, because your friend hasn't attempted to fly for you yet!

So then your friend asserts that over 500 people who are mostly skeptics agree that they saw your friend fly. There were even people who were regarded as officials there to document your friend flying. Your friend says you can never meet any of them to confirm the story, because the only link to who these officials and skeptics are is the document that they supposedly wrote.

Your friend continues to say that even though he has not flown for you yet, these accounts of him flying should therefore prove to you he has the ability to fly! These accounts, your friend continues to assert, must be real because your friend's witnesses have no motivation or opportunity to lie...therefore they didn't lie.

He still has yet to fly, but he continues to demand disproof from you of his flying abilities, because your friend doesn't understand that to demonstrably prove his supernatural flying ability, he, not his opponents, just needs to fly without employing all of these appeals...this is his burden of proof and it is either met, or it's not. You have no burden to fail to fly for him...it doesn't make sense.

Would someone who can actually fly, who wanted to demonstrate to you that they could, need to employ all of this? No, they would just fly...and demonstrate their assertion.

If he can really fly, he needs not rely on naturalism being self-contradictory to confirm supernature (false excluded middle) and the possibility of his powers, nor make exceptions to rules of flying on earth without mechanistically explaining how (special pleading), nor rely on witness accounts of people with whom he can never confirm (unconfirmed anecdotal evidence), nor rely on your inability to prove his not-yet-demonstrated supernatural flying abilities false (argument from ignorance), nor rely on your inability to imagine him or his witnesses being mistaken about his flying ability (argument from personal incredulity), nor by asserting there is documentation from officials that more than 500 people, who have only been mentioned in this documentation and who can never be met to confirm anything, witnessed accounts of his ability to fly (unconfirmed anecdotal evidence).

Until he flies, we must reject the claim that his flying abilities exist, because he has failed to meet his burden of proof for a claim that is in contradiction with reality.

Ok, so the huge thought experiment's intention was to put all of what Pro is saying in another context, to show how Pro's fallacies don't make sense when applied to real world examples, and how Pro has demonstrated nothing; he has not flown. Yet he has constantly asked me for disproof of his flying (god).

But how could Pro "fly" and demonstrate his god who is apparently not physical or contingent on physical reality, and can't be detected?

In principle, logically. The problem is that Pro has not made any arguments for god in this debate...only assertions with appeals. Yes, all three of Pro's arguments are not arguments at all, but something called appeals.
These appeals refer to logical fallacies that people employ when they can't prove something, or they know they can't meet their burden of proof.

Here's Pro using a textbook example of the appeal to ignorance "Con needed to make some arguments for the non-existence of God, but did not. "
Ok, can you prove the non-existence of your friend's flying abilities? No, not without your friend attempting to demonstrate them without using appeals.

When Pro does this he sounds like a salesman who is trying to sell me a product he doesn't have. If you have a product...show me! I can't fail to show the product for you.

Pro said "how could you disprove a friend that claims he could fly? Easily. One just has to show that physics and the human anatomy prohibit such action."
Ok, the idea that your god isn't physical or contingent on physical reality is prohibited by physics and natural laws. That's it?
Is that the burden you're looking for?
Without Pro's logical demonstration of god, my asserting he violates laws of physics doesn't "disprove" god's existence; it repeats Pro's definition of god in Pro's assertion.

I must revisit Pro's claims about Naturalism
Pro says "on Naturalism, physical laws predetermine our thoughts. So if your thoughts are a result of a non-truth related, deterministic system, why would you trust it to yield deep philosophical thought as seen in this debate?"
When the laws of physics are applied to passive objects like a ball or a stone, the ball and the stone will behave in a manner such that the results are predictable. When the laws of physics are applied to agents--active objects like the brain or animals--the results are not predictable, because the agents must react to different unpredictable stimuli differently; this is not pre-determined behavior.

Arriving at true beliefs requires the brain's reaction to non-deterministic informational input of truth claims and observations of physical occurrences, so the brain's activity is differentiated to manage differentiated stimuli/information. Arriving at true beliefs happens when someone can demonstrate the belief, replicate it, and use the demonstration and subsequent replications to make accurate predictions within the subject area of the belief. It's definitely not pre-determined, and for the reasons provided, I would trust it to lead to deep philosophical thought.
Idea borrowed from Matt Dillahunty http://www.atheist-experience.com...

Pro loves the OED when it's convenient...but when the OED says that an open system is a system where energy can be lost or gained, like the brain which uses reason, Pro wants to use William Craig's definition. This is an equivocation fallacy.
https://www.google.com...

Just because the holy books say your god didn't begin to exist, and this happens to match the fallacious Kalam cosmological argument that posits an existing thing that doesn't begin to exist, doesn't mean that you have mechanistically explained HOW "beginning to exist" doesn't apply to your god. Beginning to exist is an agreed precondition for all things we know to exist and therefore inherent in the definition of existence, yet somehow--unexplained by Pro--god can be the exception because his book says so, and this seems to match the Kalam's conclusions.

Yeah, subatomic particles exist and not exist at the same time which has been demonstrated by proven principles in the article below. Not special pleading. Also in quantum nothingness, there are not things because things only exist...subatomic particles exist and not exist. Krauss is correct in calling it no thing.
Quantum Mechanics by L.D. Landau

Given my objections, Pro has not met his burden of proof, therefore I reject the claim a god exists.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
You can PM me if you want to discuss how best to respond to the KCA.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@MAR - If you want to explain your objection to P1 further, I recommend this link, it expands on how P1 begs the question of God.[http://wiki.ironchariots.org...]
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
@tejretics
You have calmed me with your explanations, so whatevs, I think you're being way harder on me than my opponent...
Me failing to show how God doesn't begin to exist is not my burden, instead Pro never mechanistically explained how HIS christian god, which remember per the resolution was the god he had to demonstrate, exists and didn't begin to exist.
You just now committed an argument from ignorance telling me that I should have shown how god doesn't begin to exist.
Come on man...you might have dropped the ball on this one.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
1. Your refutation of a dichotomy only led to a trichotomy, and Con noted that. And yeah, "supernaturalism" is, er, grammatically challenged, lol.

2. Because you fail to show how God doesn't begin to exist. If something exists forever, as Pro notes, it obviously doesn't require a cause.

3. I gave you the resurrection anyway. Pro managed to pull it off well *comparatively*. The resurrection always commits that fallacy. You clearly won that argument.

4. I decided on giving him the BoP.

5. No, but you failed to refute the argument properly. I could think of refutations, but I'm supposed to be tabula rasa--as such, yes if I were tabula rasa, no with the outside knowledge I have.

6. So? I mean, I know it begs the question, but you had to explain it further--I understood what you were trying to say, but you must always presume that voters don't know anything about the debate while arguing. So it was insufficiently explained--you should have mentioned circular reasoning and further explained it.

7. Justified above.

I understand what all your arguments were trying to convey--but you have to explain them assuming voters are the average simple reader sans outside knowledge. If you'd explained them further, I would have voted for you.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
@tejretics
I guess you agree with my grammatically challenged opponent that
"There is two views of the world: Naturalism and Supernaturalism"
Come on!!!!
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
@tejretics
Is this real life???
1. How is demonstrating that Naturalism and Supernaturalism are not a dichotomy a weak refutation?
2. How is the pointing out of special pleading that hides an infinite regress a weak refutation of the Kalam?
3. You said:"The resurrection is an ambiguous argument, but Pro manages to pull it off well in R2"
Are you serious??? He merely stated that the bible says things. It was the anecdotal fallacy!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
4. I cannot see how you read an entire argument with a debater that shifts the burden of proof the entire time and call it more convincing.
5. You really believe that Pro demonstrated that Supernaturalism is true from those arguments?
6. The Kalam is not "air tight" because it specially pleads god as an exception to a rule of existence being that a precondition is beginning to exist.
7. You said "he *did* present arguments for God" APPEALS ARE NOT ARGUMENTS. The kalam is an appeal, the supernaturalism thing is a false dichotomy, and the resurection you agreed was refuted correctly.
Dude, all credibility was lost here.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
RFD (Pt. 1):

I think my first RFD got cut off a bit, so I am re-commenting. Sorry for all the notifications. I apologize for the short RFD, I don't really have much time. This was an interesting debate to read, though the first rebuttal was a bit disappointing as well, and both debaters made some serious debate flaws. Before I start an impact analysis of the arguments, I shall first analyze a pressing issue in this debate: the burden of proof.

== Burden of Proof ==

Con first opens by asserting the burden of proof is on the affirmative since the affirmative side is making the positive assertion, that God exists. Pro then says that: (1) proving a negative *is* possible, and (2) atheism has an assertion of its own, that God does not exist, ergo it must fulfill a portion of the burden of proof.

Con responds with a thought experiment, arguing that "disproving" itself is incoherent, since it requires a positive demonstration to fail, e.g. in the case of a friend who asserts he can fly, the only way to disprove him would be to have him fly, which would be him failing in *his* argument.

Pro then says Con is asserting he is shifting BoP, but he isn't, since he *did* present arguments for God instead of saying "there is no evidence against God, therefore God exists", but I don't think this has an impact addressing the BoP point so much as defending against Con's objection of Pro committing the fallacy of negative proof.

Thus, as a voter, I shall judge this debate with Pro holding the BoP to prove the probability of the existence of God.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
(Pt. 2)

== Arguments ==

Pro was the sole one to make any arguments in the debate, since Con's argument was one based on the lack of evidence. As Pro argues, Pro *does* present evidence for God. The question is if it is adequately refuted by Con, since if Con's refutations fail, Pro succeeds in fulfilling BoP.

I think the RFD is fairly straightforward, since Pro manages to present strong impacts that fulfill that God exists.

The first argument is the Argument from Reason, which states that naturalism fails to establish any ground for the validity of reason, while theological belief produces a ground beyond cause and effect for reason. Con argues the dichotomy between naturalism and theological belief is false, but has weak justification, that seems to establish a dichotomy in itself. Pro dismisses subnature as merely establishing a trichotomy, but subnature nonetheless, as Pro notes, fails to provide grounds for reason.

In the KCA, Pro presents Craig's standard version of the KCA, which concludes that the universe was caused, and an ontological analysis entails the cause to be God. Con objects to the KCA weakly. As Pro notes, the KCA is a logically airtight argument, i.e. the premises are true, thus the conclusion follows. Con fails to object to any of the premises. But in R4, Con manages to come up with an objection. He says the term "begin to exist" is merely a semantic way of avoiding the regress that comes from a first cause argument. Pro argues dismissing it as a semantic argument is useless sans justification. Con also uses Krauss' example of virtual particles, dismissed by Pro since a vacuum isn't "nothing". Con says Krauss' example is valid since the virtual particles are both existent and non-existent, sans any justification. I think justification is lacked, ergo Pro wins KCA.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
(Pt. 3)

The resurrection is an ambiguous argument, but Pro manages to pull it off well in R2. Pro uses an inference to the best explanation regarding the 5 facts, but doesn't really phrase it as an inference to the best explanation. Pro fails to explain how the five facts lead to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected. Con objects to the argument saying anecdotal evidence fails to justify such a spectacular claim as resurrection. Pro drops to this objection throughout the debate, constantly saying Con fails to object to the 5 E's. I think the objection is sufficient to refute. I think Con wins resurrection with the one-sentence objection.

Conclusion:

I vote Pro because Pro succeeds in fulfilling BoP by showing that a being that fulfills the properties of God exists with the KCA, and a position of supernaturalism is a priori likely via. the argument from reason. I think Pro's victory of these two arguments allows for affirming the resolution, though Con's one-line objection was sufficient to refute the argument from the Resurrection.

Ergo, I vote Pro.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
RFD (Pt. 1):

I apologize for the short RFD, I don't really have much time. This was an interesting debate to read, though the first rebuttal was a bit disappointing as well, and both debaters made some serious debate flaws. Before I start an impact analysis of the arguments, I shall first analyze a pressing issue in this debate: the burden of proof.

== Burden of Proof ==

Con first opens by asserting the burden of proof is on the affirmative since the affirmative side is making the positive assertion, that God exists. Pro then says that: (1) proving a negative *is* possible, and (2) atheism has an assertion of its own, that God does not exist, ergo it must fulfill a portion of the burden of proof.

Con responds with a thought experiment, arguing that "disproving" itself is incoherent, since it requires a positive demonstration to fail, e.g. in the case of a friend who asserts he can fly, the only way to disprove him would be to have him fly, which would be him failing in *his* argument.
I shall judge this debate with Pro holding the BoP to prove the probability of the existence of God.

== Arguments ==

Pro was the sole one to make any arguments in the debate, since Con's argument was one based on the lack of evidence. As Pro argues, Pro *does* present evidence for God. The question is if it is adequately refuted by Con, since if Con's refutations fail, Pro succeeds in fulfilling BoP.

The first argument is the Argument from Reason, which states that naturalism fails to establish any ground for the validity of reason, while theological belief produces a ground beyond cause and effect for reason. Con argues the dichotomy between naturalism and theological belief is false, but has weak justification, that seems to establish a dichotomy in itself. Pro dismisses subnature as merely establishing a trichotomy, but subnature nonetheless, as Pro notes, fails to provide grounds for reason.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
MaskedSpartanMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I tie my vote, but feedback in comments.