The Instigator
LucaliCole
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Probability of the Existence of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
LucaliCole
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,604 times Debate No: 28633
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

LucaliCole

Con

An existential claim cannot be logically negated in matters of proof. However, I intend to argue for the nonexistence of God via probability. Whether my opponent intends to appeal to probability or to proof is of no consequence to my willingness to debate.

The first round shall be acceptance. The 2nd round is to consist of our arguments as they stand alone (i.e. without reference to each other's arguments). In rounds 3 and 4, we can engage in a hack-and-slash free-for-all involving rebuttals and other supporting arguments. Round 5 will be dedicated to final rebuttals and conclusive statements.

It is also demanded that we treat each other with RESPECT. The point of debate, in my mind, is to sharpen ones own intellectual edge by testing oneself. We are in this to learn from each other; not to convince the rest of the world how to think.

May the best debater win.
RationalMadman

Pro

I accept...
Debate Round No. 1
LucaliCole

Con

I thank RationalMadman for engaging in this argument with me. Let's have fun, hey?

1.) Arguments for the Existence of God

I'm not about to bore my opponents, nor our readers, with a hackneyed outline on all of the arguments for the existence of God. To do so would not only be an enormous waste of time, but could very potentially pull me into committing a straw man fallacy. With that said, thus far, I am unfamiliar with any compelling argument for the existence of God, be it a matter of proof or probability. If Pro can offer one, then I will be happy to [attempt to] counter it in a precise and well-documented fashion.

2.) A Healthy Dose of Skepticism

It would take a great fool to claim that he/she is 100% certain of anything beyond the Cogito Ergo Sum or certain mathematical truths, but 100% certainty is not necessary for claiming that we have knowledge regarding a certain subject. For example, we cannot acquire 100% certainty with any amount of observation, yet we would all tend to agree that it would take a paranoid schizophrenic to deny the existence of the observable world. All the same, human beings have developed theories in an effort to explain the world, some of which are more heavily based on empiricism, while others are based primarily on mathematical coherence. An example of the former would be the theory of electric generation, which is not only supported by mathematics and observation, but has furthermore been put into practical use (e.g. how else would we be able to have this debate via electronic equipment?). An example of the latter would be the origin of the universe (i.e. the Big Bang), which is empirically supported to a point, but when it comes to what preceded the Big Bang, any astrophysicist worth his/her salt would admit that one mathematically supported guess is as good as the next.

So in layman's terms, the exact beginning of the universe remains a scientific anomaly. Indeed, the only ones who claim to actually "know" the initial starting point are theists and deists. While certain theists and deists may admit a certain lack of knowledge over the specifics themselves, they do agree on one point: simply, that at the very beginning, it required an intelligent force in order to thrust the universe into existence. And it is precisely this view that -as far as
I can tell- is unsupported by probability.

3.) From Skepticism to Metaphysics

So we have no clear and distinct idea of how this whole mess that we call, "the universe," began. We could claim any number of things: a piece of red phosphorus could have been the catalyst in a meth explosion, a cosmic kitten could have taken a hot leak into the quantum foam that it calls its litter box, etc. At this point, one guess looks as good as any other. So let's explore the possibilities, and work to probabilities from there.

I am sure that my opponent and I can agree that the majority of the matter of the universe is inorganic: indeed, WMAP studies estimate that only 4.6% of the universe even consists of atoms [1]. But even within atoms, an infinitesimally small amount of matter can be said to actually be alive. Among those that are alive, a small fraction of those consist of animals; and among animals, we have cnidarians, sponges, [most] mollusks, and Sean Hannity. This effectively eliminates most life out of the realm of intelligence. So when it comes to the very beginning of the universe, doesn't it seem outrageously improbable that it would have began with something so rare and special as an intelligent being?

With all the of the matter in the universe considered, it seems that to claim that it began with something intelligent is tantamount to rolling a BAZILLION sided die and placing all of your bets on the number, "7." I don't know what exact number the die would roll to, but I feel that I can safely say that, "7" isn't going to come up.



1. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
RationalMadman

Pro

Very cute debate, I shall rebut it next round and merely open my debate this round...

If you're curious I'm an agnostic deist/theist...

Anyway let's get to the core of the apple... I mean problem... I mean resolution :)

Question 1: Is God probable, and can this probability be applied?

God is in and of itself a possibility, and al possibilities have an inherent probability. Is it a 50/50 cut to atheism and theism?... I don't think so... I'd say 99 to 1 percent for some GOD of some KIND.

Question 2: What the holy heck is God?

God is not your father, God is not your mother, God is both of them at once, God is the reality of reality, God is the truth of all truth, the creator of all creators, the power source of all power sources, the thing behind all things, the weaver of the fabric of our existence.

Question 3: How the holy mackerel do I know there is a God based on probability?

Impossible to know, this is why I am agnostic. However look at question four for a sexier more relevant answer.

Question 4: Why is God more probable than... Not?

This is like asking why is it more probable that your mother is your mother than not, it is just a likelihood.

Anyway let's stop that stupid interview with myself and explore the truly beautiful logic of the mystical, all-powerful G of the universe.

What are you? Oh yes you are a human... Wait how do you know? Because no other idea makes as much sense no? Yes.

What is your sexuality? Heterosexual... Maybe a little bi... You into animals?... How can you know until you've had sex with each and every animal and member of your own and the opposite gender? You can't, you just choose the option that makes most sense from what you know to be probable in any way.

Is/Are there (a) God(s)? Perhaps.... The only way to know is to logically analyse the probability of God(s).

Contention #1: Everything physical came into existence.

All I am asserting is that, without a doubt, everything in objective reality came into existence (regardless of it being identical or different to our subjective reality). This is the opposite theory to that Everything has always existed because if Everything always existed, then using the atheist logic that since God existed forever it would be impossible, Everything must be impossible.

Contention #2: To come into existence is to be created.

To come into existence, as everything has done at some point in time (arguably at the beginning of "time"), it has to have been created by whatever means (known to us or unseen as of yet).

Contention #3: A creation inherently has a creator.

No need to explain I think.

Contention #4: A creator must thus exist for everything physical.

So if the creator created everything then what exactly is the creator? It is an infinitely boundless consciousness which causes whatever it impulsively feels the urge to create to come into reality. The creator itself wasn't created, this is because it isn't a creation, it is a consciousness so unphysical that it can be seen as a conscious absence of everything whilst still being unable to be termed 'nothingness' it is more a 'fundamental median between nothingness and substance' It is what makes the elements, the every fundamental "god particles" come into existence in the first place, it imagined them, the pattern of reality, the everythingness is merely its impulsive urge for a string of logic for no reason whatsoever other than to imagine out of pure eternal boredom.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Watch the videos for some decent god music.

I <3 Tech N9ne.

;

Debate Round No. 2
LucaliCole

Con

A good start. But let's start getting grrrrrrrittty!

Rebuttals:

Pro's Question 1:

Pro seems to make the assertion that the odds that the universe was created by, "some GOD of some KIND" are roughly in the 99% region. Within this portion of Pro's argument, I see no basis for this claim, though it may be that the basis was intended to come later.

Pro's Question 2:

This is a fair attempt at a definition for God, but thus far has not supported the probability of the existence of God.

Pro's Question 3:

Pro claims that question 4 is, "sexier." But Pro confuses the term, "sexy," with, "kinky," on account of the fact that most people are not aroused by interspecies erotica, but all can agree that it is indeed, "kinky."

Pro's Question 4:
As kinky as this was, I didn't exactly get a coherent message from the whole thing...

Now on to Pro's contentions:

Pro's Contention #1:

I didn't quite get the part regarding, "atheist logic." For one, not all atheists believe that the universe has an infinite history. But even if we were to take that standpoint, I still fail to see the argument regarding the possibility of God. Could you elaborate?

Pro's Contention #2:

To come into existence is not necessarily to be, "created." The term, "created," is often times abused in order to twist an argument in the favor of intelligent guidance, and Pro's argument is no exception to this. For example, when a hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms come in contact with one another by natural causes, it is not instinctive for us to say that H2O was, "created." Rather, H2O was produced in a causal fashion. With that said, the same principle can -and does- apply to much of the rest of the universe: by simple matters of cause and effect, we get an end-all product, but to say that something was, "created," or produced by an entity that is capable of being, "creative," is tantamount to false equivocation.

Pro's Contention #3:

The idea that a creation necessarily has a creator. Pro had no need to explain, and in light of my response to Contention #2, I don't feel that I have any need to explain either.

Pro's Contention #4:

NOW we get down to the crux of the biscuit. Pro claims that the "creator," (which, as I mentioned earlier, is falsely confused with the concept of a mere cause) is a consciousness. The only instances in which we have observed consciousness are in beings with a complex cognitive apparatus, which are incredibly rare and hard to come by in the vast universe. No, "imagination," of existence was necessary because no, "mind," was necessary to produce the universe: any notion that suggests otherwise is a plaything of man's vanity.

B-B-B-B-B-B-B-BRRRRRRRRUMMEL & BROWN, BABY!

On to Pro.
RationalMadman

Pro

If everything my opponent says is right, he was never created and his existence is impossible.
Debate Round No. 3
LucaliCole

Con

My opponent is either a troll, or a horrible debater. But don't take my word for it: here's the proof!

S = RationalMadman's arguments are meant to be taken seriously.
T = RationalMadman is a troll.
H = RationalMadman is a horrible debater.

1. ~S -> T Premise
2. S -> H Premise
3. S v ~S Law of the Excluded Middle
4. T v H Conclusion, 1,2,3 Complex Dilemma

Time to step up or fess up. What's it going to be?
RationalMadman

Pro

For insulting me, conduct point loss please. Attack the debate, not the debater.

Anyway, by saying there is no creator whatsoever there is not possible to be anything.
Debate Round No. 4
LucaliCole

Con

My apologies to you, RationalMadman, but it is a little bit difficult to tell whether or not you are trolling, as you have thus far confronted me with blanket statements that have been made with absolutely no support. Fault me for resorting to an ad hominem if you must, but I cannot debate with someone who is not actually debating back. I asked you to elaborate on one of your points, which you did not; furthermore, as I stated in the beginning, "In rounds 3 and 4, we engage in a hack-and-slash free-for-all involving rebuttals and other supporting arguments." In rounds 3 and 4, you did neither of these things. So if my last response sounded as though it was a little bit on the "biting" side, you have to understand what I'm actually asking you to do here. You've got one last round to kick yourself into gear: so please show enough respect to put in the time and care that this debate deserves.

As this is the final round, I will address this statement that you have made twice now, and proceed to reiterate my original argument.

What you have claimed is that without an intelligent creator (i.e. God), it is not possible for anything to exist. This equates to stating that it is necessarily the case that an intelligent creator is to credit for the source of our existence. If my opponent were to offer an argument supporting this claim, I would gladly take this argument on, but unfortunately all that I can do from here is simply resort to the argument that I proposed before: with the exception of the Cogito Ergo Sum, and certain mathematical truths, we cannot be 100% certain of anything. Therefore, when it comes to the origin of the universe (provided that there is one and that the universe does not have an infinite history), we cannot be 100% certain of any one answer.

Some may be hasty enough as to claim that the probability of an intelligent creator at the beginning of the universe is 50/50, as though we are dealing with a two-sided coin: where heads would represent God, tails would represent "no God." But this is would be a gross misinterpretation of the law of the excluded middle. Just because the law of the excluded middle leaves us with two possibilities, this does not imply that each possibility is equally likely. For example, either the sun is shining in Omaha Nebraska, or it's not. Provided that we trust our senses, we can say which of these two possibilities is more likely.

So why is the issue of divine creation not a matter of 50/50 chance? It's for the very reason that I explained before. The possibilities seem borderline endless, and we will never know precisely which answer is correct. If every entity in the universe were to exhibit intelligence, then it seems rather likely that the source of the universe would exhibit intelligence as well, but this simply is not the case: we have a universe that is packed full of incredibly diverse entities, each of which are equally as viable as God if we let our imagines run equally as wild. So the bottom line is this: a divine creator is no less likely then any other possibility, but given the seemingly endless amount of possibilities, it is extremely unlikely that God would be the correct answer. To use my metaphor from earlier, betting on divine creation would be like rolling a bazillion-sided die and placing all of your bets on the number, "7."

With that said, I yield back the remainder of my space and leave the final statement to RationalMadman.

Vote Con.
RationalMadman

Pro

I give up.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by LucaliCole 4 years ago
LucaliCole
@johnlubba

Don't bother. The kid's a troll. I'm not super pissed or anything. In fact, I can actually see a certain amount of hilarity in his genius: he managed to rope me back into taking this debate seriously, just so he could end the whole thing with an epic, "I give up." I'm not saying this as an insult; in fact, I'm saying this as praise. While he sucks at debating, he's definitely a clever little imp.

Now... you, on the other hand, strike me as a more worthy opponent. I would like to try this debate again, but with someone who is taking this more seriously. Would you care to debate this topic with me? I would be much obliged.
Posted by nwilson126 4 years ago
nwilson126
Their are hundreds of thousands of proven witnesses to Jesus Christ the Son of God and Son of Man. Me lived a perfect life, fulfilling the prophecies stated in the Bible, hundreds of years before. This One prophecy has been restated over 40 different times by authors writing different sections of the Bible, some of these authors didn't even know each other. God showed them what to write and they simply followed. You need to understand that it is no coincidence that not just this one, but hundreds of prophecies where foretold in dozens of different languages from around the world. And everyone one of those prophecies was completed when Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for everyone on Earth. If Jesus, the Son of God is real, then so is God.

This comment doesn't even state half of the different ways to prove that God is real. But if you look online you'll find people who believe that logic makes it impossible for a God to be real, but you'll also find witnesses to Gods work.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
@Rationalmadman.

Entering a debate you are not very keen to go in depth into, is unfair to the debater and to the audience, Please keep this in mind when taking up a debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 4 years ago
Bodhivaka
LucaliColeRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented a stronger case. Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
LucaliColeRationalMadmanTied
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: Troll
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
LucaliColeRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I wish Pro were trolling, but it's more unfortunate than that. Apologies to Con for time wasted.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
LucaliColeRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave up
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
LucaliColeRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RM will be banned one of these days lol.