The Instigator
spazzofreak
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
nonstop
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The existance of God (philsophical debate)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
spazzofreak
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 860 times Debate No: 56088
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

spazzofreak

Pro

The great debate!!!!!!!!
As the name suggests i would like to keep this debate philosophical.
Im a christian and im not sure what else too say soooo... Lets dance!

My first point is that the universe began too exist so it needs a cause.
- the universe can not exist for an infinite amount of time, if it is infinitely in the past to get to any future moment (today) would take infinite time. And infinite cant be completed. So for the universe to exist for an infinite amount of time is an impossibility.

Second. The universe cant come from nothing
- i dont feel this needs to be elaborated on. From nothing nothing comes

Third. So it has a cause, what is this cause?
-this cause for the existance of the universe cant be there for an infinite amount of time, because in order to get to that point in which this cause caused the universe. We would have to pass an infinite amount of time (all this goes back to the first point).
-and this cause cant come from nothing so it needs a cause.
-so the cause for the universe needs a cause. Then the cause for cause of the universe would need a cause. Then the cause for the cause for the cause of the universe would need a cause.
-this would go on to create an infinite amount of causes, and if thats the case we could never get to the final cause of the universe so the universe could not exist.

Here is an illustration. If i start clapping my hands and i tell you to stop me when i hit infinite claps, you could never stop me because i could never get to that final clap. Like wise if we have infinite causes for the universe, we could never get to that final cause that caused the universe.

Fourth. The cause for the universe
-now we have esablished that, the universe needs a cause. The cause cant be there for an infinite amount of time. And if it where to have its own cause then that cause would also need a cause, and once again create the impossiblity of an infinite amount of causes.
-so the cause for the universe MUST be uncaused! Now if this cause is uncaused some will say it has been there for an infintite amount of TIME. But this uncaused cause exists outside of time. Now this cause is a personel cause. If this cause was a sandwich or a book it would not be able do any thing outside of time, it would just be static.

So we are left with this
- the cause for for the universe is uncaused and exists outside of time and is a personel cause
-GOD

some say that god just popped into existance from nothing. No god did not begin to exist he is uncaused. But when I say uncause I dont mean he came from nothing, I mean he has been there eternally (forever) but this DOES NOT mean he has been there for an infinite amount of time because he exists outside of time!
nonstop

Con

Hello Pro!

The argument you present in round 1 is essentially the Kalam cosmological argument:

P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe had a cause.

The argument is clearly valid, so the question is whether or not it is sound. You justify your premises, stating that from nothing, nothing comes, and that an infinite past is impossible. I disagree with the latter. With infinite time on our hands, all that is possible must necessarily occur. Else, it is not possible. Since we are living in the current state of the universe, the current state of the universe must be possible. (I define "the universe" as "all that exists") Thus, if we hold the view that the past is infinite, we are committed to the view that the current state of the universe has also occurred in the past. The same goes for the future. In this circular view of time, all that is possible will reoccur an infinite amount of times.

While making your argument, you seem to assume that time is linear, stating that the current state of the universe could not have been reached, if the past indeed was infinite. In the above paragraph, I presented a model of time, where the problem of "reaching the current state", is no longer an issue. Reaching the current state must necessarily happen, in the circular view of time. If you hold the view that time is linear, you are forced to conclude that it both has a beginning and an end. If the future was infinite, while the past was not, then we would yet again get into this reoccurring loop of all possible states of all that exists; thus making time circular, not linear. You are also forced to believe that the linear time-span is ended before any possible state of the universe has reoccurred; e.g. you cannot complete the loop. I suppose you can believe that the universe had a beginning, but still holding the view that time is circular. However, this just adds an extra assumption, which is not necessary, since the assumption is not needed, as it solves no problem with the current model.

Empirically, the model where time is circular, with no beginning, and no end, seems more plausible. We have never observed something begin to exist. And we have never observed something end to exist either. All we have ever observed are rearrangements of that which already exists. The material that my computer is made of, did not begin to exist when it was produced. The material was simply put together in a different way than it was before.

It is not clear to me how you can have a causal relationship between the existent and the non-existent. Such a relationship seems to be what is needed, if it were possible for anything to begin to or end to exist. I mean, how exactly do you cause nothing to do anything? After all, it is nothing. It's not like you can pin-point it, and make it do stuff. I don't see how a transition from nothing to something is possible.

Your answer to this dilemma might be that the entity that you claim is causing nothing to begin existing, is omnipotent. However, can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that even itself can't lift it? No matter what way you answer this question, we are forced to conclude that there are some things even an omnipotent being can't do; namely that which gives logical contradictions. This leads to my next questions: Is causing nothing to become something logically contradictory? Is creatio ex nihilo in the category of tasks that even omnipotent being are unable to perform? To me it seems that the very definition of nothing is such that, if it was possible to "cause nothing to do something", then that would not be nothing; thus making it a logical contradiction.

I have now argued against P2, making a case for the possibility that the universe in fact did not have a beginning. Further I have raised concerns about the truth of both P1 and P2, stating some serious problems with the entire idea of anything beginning to exist. It seems to me that you have work to do, in order to save your argument.

I would also like you to clarify what you mean by the following sentence: "the cause for for the universe is uncaused and exists outside of time and is a personel cause". What do you mean by "a personal cause"? I just want to clarify, because even if it were the case that your argument was sound, you can't just be adding characteristics to the entity you proved to exist. The only characteristics you can subscribe to the entity are those that are necessary for the being to be able to perform the task of making the universe begin to exist. If this argument were sound, you would perhaps have a solid case for deism. However, you would certainly need more than the Kalam cosmological argument to make a case for Christianity (or any of the other major religions). I realize that this debate is about the existence of god, and nothing more, so we don't have to get into debating the specific religions, unless we want to.

Cheers!
Debate Round No. 1
spazzofreak

Pro

Okay so for this part my main focus is going to be on the model of circular time.
Now the problem with this is your saying circular time has no beginning. Now circular time suggests that the present universe will continue to reoccur in the future. And this has been happening in the past. Your saying that this form of time has no beginning, this means that this process of the universe reoccurring has happened infinite times. Now if this were the case in order to get to this current universe that we are in now, we would have to pass and infinite amount of universes to get to the current one. We all know it is impossible pass infinite. Thus weather you follow linear or circular model of time it is impossible for it to be an actual infinite. And all this goes back to my initial argument. What ever begins to exist has to have a cause

And yes my answer to the dilemma presented in your fourth paragraph is that God is omnipotent.
Now you say this does not work because of the question "can god make a rock so heavy that he cant lift it?". And my answer to that is no. You say this means god is no longer omnipotent because there are things he cant make or do(thing is the key word there). Now God cant make a sphere triangle, why? Because it is a logic impossibility, a triangle is a 2-Dimensional shape and a sphere is a 3-Dimensional shape. If God did a logical impossibility he would contradict himself because he created Logic. It is a logic impossibility for God to create rock too heavy for him to lift because God is all powerful. But this does not mean he is not omnipotent, it just means he cant break logic and contradict him self. Another way to look at it is this, you said a rock so heavy that God cant lift is a THING God cant make therefore he is not omnipotent. But because he is omnipotent there is no such THING as a rock to heavy for God to lift. Now you seem to be saying that if God does exist he has created all things from nothing and that is a logical contradiction. But God has not created everything from nothing but from his infinite power.

So now i will explain what i mean by the cause for the universe being personal. What I mean is God can make choices to do things. He can decide to create things. Why is this necessary? Well we established the cause for the universe needs to exist outside of time. If we put a sandwich which outside of time it would just be static and could not do anything. So the cause for the universe that exists outside of time needs to be able to make choices.

"However, you would certainly need more than the Kalam cosmological argument to make a case for Christianity"

Well your wish is my command. I will lay down an argument that is so far irrefutable

My world view is that God created the universe and continues to sustain the universe

Your world view as an atheist is that we are here by accident for no purpose or reason.

So let me ask you, what did you this morning? Got out of bed, ate breakfast... Etc. Now when you got out of bed did it ever occur to you that within 5 seconds of waking up gravity could change and you would go face first into you roof. Now in your in your world view you should fear for your life that you will go flying into space. You rely on the uniformity of nature(the future will be like the past). But you have no reason to. Right now you should be holding onto your seat. Now in your world view you cant be certain of the uniformity of nature. Because in your world view there is no reason to believe the nature will stay the same. But you rely on it every day.
Now i also rely on the uniformity of nature. But in my world view thats okay. So every day of your life you rely on the christian world view. Because the atheist world view cant satisfy the uniformity of nature.

Now you will probably try to argue that you know nature will stay the same because it has been like that is the past. But all that does is beg the question, how can you know that it will stay as it has been in the past? When you realise that you can not be sure, try to realise that you rely on the christian world view.

Your move.

And if you need some motivation to win this debate I am only 14. So try not to get you but kicked by a 14 year old
nonstop

Con

Hello again!

You begin round 2 by stating that the problem of "reaching the current universe" is still prevalent. I disagree. We do not have to pass an infinite amount of universes (or loops), to get to the current one. The length of the loop is finite; i.e. the amount of possible states of all that exists is finite. Therefore, there is no problem to complete the loop. You seem to think that it matters how many times the loop has been completed. Again, you are mistaken. If you are familiar with the unit circle, I can give an analogy: The angle pi, is exactly similar to the angle 3pi. The only difference is that in the second instance you have gone around the circle one more time. It's completely irrelevant if you can not know your angle is in fact 35pi, or 19pi, because the angles are similar. It is also irrelevant that no matter how many times you go around the circle, you will always be able to complete more rounds. The simple fact of going around the circle x amount of times, does not change anything about the angle. Going around the loop of circular time, changes nothing about the current universe. The current state is the same as it was in the last loop, and the same as it will be in the next. It is no problem if the loop continues forever.

In paragraph two, you're arguing against a strawman (at least to a certain degree). I did not at any point state that one can only be omnipotent if one can perform tasks that lead to logical contradictions. I simply stated that not even an omnipotent being could do that. The being would still be omnipotent though. I'm in complete agreement with you when you say: "it just means he [god] cant break logic and contradict him self". What I actually was arguing in round one, is that creatio ex nihilo in fact is a task that leads to logical contradictions. You even stated in round one: "Out of nothing, nothing comes". You didn't even say anything more about it, because it is so obvious. If something came out of nothing, that of which it came from could not have been nothing. God does not get a free pass on this matter.

At the end of paragraph two you say: "God has not created everything from nothing but from his infinite power." Ok, so you are trying to escape the problem I presented. Good, it means you realize that it, in fact, is a problem. However, your solution is not one I'm satisfied with. What are you really saying here... That God created the universe... from himself? A spaceless, timeless being, created space and time? Seems like you are heading back to the proposition of creatio ex nihilo.

Also, I'll quote you a couple times more:
"God has not created everything from nothing but from his infinite power."
"We all know it is impossible pass infinite."

I find it amusing that you are perfectly fine by ascribing characteristics of infinite nature to God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but exchange a couple of words, and the following sentence quickly becomes one that could come out of your mouth: "In order to get to omnipotence, we would have to pass and infinite amount of levels of power and abilities".

As for your clarification about the cause of the universe being personal, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. If your argument were sound, all we could conclude is, namely, that the universe had a cause. Of course, the cause is clearly capable of being the cause; else it would not be the cause. However, you can't say that the cause is one that must be able to make choices. You realize that things don't have to be static, just because noone can make choices, right? In fact, that might very well be what's going on in reality, as well. Clearly not static, but quite unclear that anyone actually makes choices.

The last part of round two, you first quote me saying that you "need more than the Kalam cosmological argument to make a case for Christianity". You then go to say my wish is your command, before writing several paragraphs that are completely irrelevant to Christianity. You could write the exact same paragraphs in defense of almost any other religion. Nothing about it makes a case for Christianity specifically. (which is what you began by telling me you would provide)

I'm well aware of the problems of inductive reasoning, and I do not deny that it is a problem. I'm in agreement with Hume on that matter. The argument you seem to make is that since our inductive reasoning is working out (or has so far, that is), god must exist. However, I don't see the correlation. There could be plenty other explanations of why it works. We just don't know it yet. Unless you are aware, there are plenty of things we don't know. As an atheist, I prefer to tell it like it is ("I don't know"). I don't go around firmly believing in explanations that I cannot prove are correct. Only if you could show that God is a necessity for the validity of inductive reasoning, you would have a strong case.

As for the way you choose to end round 2, I will say this: It's great that you take interest in philosophy at such a young age. However, a true philosopher is one that realizes that it's the arguments that matters, not the characteristics of the debaters. Also, debates are search for truth, not a competition. While it certainly is a win if you manage to stick to sound and valid arguments, it is almost even more of a win if you figure out that you are wrong. Being able to change your mind, even though you may dislike the new viewpoint, is a fantastic virtue.
Debate Round No. 2
spazzofreak

Pro

G'day mate, throw unuda shrimp on the barbie.

I understand that a loop of circular time is finite, and there is no problem completing this finite loop. My argument was that you said these reoccurring finite loops had to beginning, no first loop. Now if this were the case in order to get to this loop that were are in now, we would have passed Infinite loops. And that is impossible."
In your unit circle analogy you seem to be presenting a potential infinite. You are saying that no matter how many times we complete this finite loop we can always go around one more time. So to get to a certain loop is not impossible. Now an example of a potential infinite is numbers. No matter how high we get we can always add one, this is a potential infinite. The problem is you saying circular time had no beginning or first loop. This means that to get to any point, we would need to pass infinite loops. Another way to look at it is this. If the circular time had no first loop, the loop that we are in now has had infinite loops prior to it. And this would mean we have gone through infinite loops which can't be done. Now if there was a first loop to get to a certain loop would not be impossible because we can always go around the loop another time.

"so you are trying to escape the problem I presented""
Not at all, I'm simply saying that by Gods infinite power all things were made. God did not take nothing and turn it into the universe which is what you seem to be asserting. I am saying god created everything by his power, because his power has no limit it is infinite.
Now when I say God has an infinite power, I am describing a quality not a quantity. We are not passing infinite to get to gods power or anything like that, because infinite is used as quality not quantity."

I don't think you understood what I meant, if we get any kind of lifeless object and make it exist outside of time it could do anything because there would be no time there for it to do anything. Because we established that the cause for the universe exists outside of time it needs to be cause that can choose to do stuff. ""

"writing several paragraphs that are completely irrelevant to Christianity."
Well that is a lie. Just because the argument can be used for another religion does not mean it can not be used to defend Christianity. That idea is plain stupid.

Now my argument of induction was that every day you are dependent on the Christian world view of god creating and sustaining the universe. Because your atheist world view has no basis for it. And induction is not the only example of this. Another is logic. You believe in logic, but logic is immaterial. But the atheist world view has no basis for that either. So when ever you appeal to logic you have to stand on the Christian"world view. " ""
"
this debate ain't over yet mate, let's not get cheesy yet. "

I love you honey.
nonstop

Con

Good day.

There is no problem with passing infinite loops. In the unit circle analogy, you could also go backwards into -pi and -35pi, and so on. Of course, it's not a problem that in order to get to the angle 0, we must have passed an infinite amount of loops. (We do, because we could go infinitely far into the negative angles) The problem is just as non-existent when it comes to the unit circle, as when it comes to circular time. In both instances, it is recognized that there is an infinite amount of loops, where no point in a loop is only found in that specific loop. What loop we actually find ourselves in is irrelevant.

Being omnipotent is to have maximum power, and power is quantitatively measured. You cannot get passed this by just stating that omnipotence is a quality. If anything, power is the quality, but it's still quantitatively measured. This means that the same old arguments you use against infinity can also be applied to omnipotence. You're only defense, as far as I see it, would be to commit to the view that there are only a finite amount of levels of power. Now this of course, would also be a problem for you, because I can always point to a new task (that is not a logical contradiction), and ask if god could perform it.

Let me clarify my argument from earlier:
P1: An omnipotent being is unable to perform tasks that lead to logical contradictions.
P2: Creatio ex nihilo leads to logical contradictions.
C: An omnipotent is unable to create the universe, ex nihilo.

"God did not take nothing and turn it into the universe which is what you seem to be asserting. I am saying god created everything by his power, because his power has no limit it is infinite."

Judging from the quote, your defense seems to be that God did not create the universe, ex nihilo, but in some other way. Then how? You really, really need to clarify your position here. Power is not something that, in itself, performs a task. It is simply what is needed to perform the task, but it alone cannot do anything. In the same way as omniscience is useless if there is nothing to be known, omnipotence is useless if there is nothing to be performed. We have already established that transitions from nothing to something is impossible, because then that "nothing" would not have been nothing. If you put an omnipotent being alone in nothingness there would be nothing to perform.

"[...]if we get any kind of lifeless object and make it exist outside of time it could do anything because there would be no time there for it to do anything."
This seems as an extraordinarily bold claim, and I very much doubt you have any basis for it. If you do, I would like an explanation.

Regarding your last two paragraphs of round 2: All I said was that the last paragraphs, were irrelevant to Christianity specifically. If you read again, from the same paragraph you quoted me from, you will see that I did use the word "specifically". I wanted an argument for Christianity, because that is your religion. To give an analogy about your argument: P1: The shape of this object is such that it has three angles, and is two-dimensional. C: Therefore, the angles are 50, 50 and 80 degrees. While C certainly still could be true, there are also a bunch of other possibilities. You keep adding on stuff to the conclusions of your arguments. This must be avoided.

As for the problem of induction, all you do is to assume that Christianity solves it. That is, you define the god you believe in, to be one that solves this problem. While your Kalam Cosmological argument has failed so far, even if it was true, nothing about it would help us solve the problem of induction. Relying on that the future will resemble the past, remains just as much a problem for you as it is for me.

You are mistaken about me borrowing from the Christian world view, when appealing to logic. The three laws of logic, of which everything is deduced, are self-evident. That is, if you try to assume they are wrong, you are forced to assume they are true. I would recommend that you read Quine, or perhaps examine the arguments presented in this debate: https://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
spazzofreak

Pro

With your unit circle analogy you are confusing a potential infinite with an actual infinite. I suggest you look into that a bit.

Actual infinity
Actual infinity is the idea that numbers, or some other type of mathematical object, can form an actual, completed totality; namely, a set.

Potential infinity
Potential infinity is something that is never complete: more and more elements can be always added, but never infinitely many. "For generally the infinite has this mode of existence: one thing is always being taken after another, and each thing that is taken is always finite, but always different."

Now if your saying this unit circle is potential infinite it had to begin, there had to be a first loop
If you are saying that circular time is an actual infinite. I would like you to explain this unit circle analogy a lot clearer. The reason is is because in both philosophy and mathematics it is recognised that actual infinities are impossible.

Now as for Gods power, it is infinite. But in is not any kind of quantity. We are not passing infinite to get to Gods power or anything like that. We are not counting 1, 2, 3, 4,.... So on until we reach infinite. We are just saying his power is infinite. This is not a kind of quantity. This may help you understand....
Quality: God's power is infinite
Quantity: God has an infinite amount of power.
Now we are not ascribing infinite to be the amount of Gods power, we are not using infinite as a number or to measure the power of God. It is a quality. In fact we dont have to use infinite we could just say, all powerful, unlimited, endless.

Now before I continue, stop saying ex nihilo what ever. Its pointless and confusing!

Secondly. For the 10000th time. GOD did not create everything from nothing.

I shall continue.

"Power is not something that, in itself, performs a task."

Well it is not power alone but the power of the personal omnipotent being, which is none other than YEWH. Now out of gods limitless power he created the universe not out of nothing. For example, a house exists. It did not get built from nothing but by the equipment of the builders.

Now as for the time thing, if we put a timer out side of time there would be no time for it to continue timing. There would be no time for anything to do anything. I figured this one is obvious.

Christianity does solve the problem of induction, we have a god that keeps the universe in order. Thats it. Your world view has no basis for it

And for logic. Your world view has no basis for that either. Tell me.. How much does logic weigh? Were do they grow it? Somewhere in Canada? How hot is logic? None of these thing can be asked about logic because logic is immaterial. And the atheist world view does not have a basis for immaterial things. You might argue that logic is only something that happens in the human brain. Well its a logic that the car cant be moving and not moving at the same time(law of non-contradiction) now lets just say we removed all humans were completely removed. This would not change the fact that the car cant be moving and not moving at the same time. Therefore the very fact that you depend on logic is you borrowing from the christian world view. Because the atheist world view has no basis for logic.

In the next debate i will focus more on my logic and induction argument (also morality) because when they are elaborated on they in my opinion make a better case for Christianity.
nonstop

Con

I don't really have much time to give a solid rebuttal here. Just woke up hungover with 17 minutes left on the clock. I promise to get back to the stuff I don't have time to cover, in round 5.

"Now if your saying this unit circle is potential infinite it had to begin, there had to be a first loop. If you are saying that circular time is an actual infinite. I would like you to explain this unit circle analogy a lot clearer. The reason is is because in both philosophy and mathematics it is recognised that actual infinities are impossible."

In the unit circle analogy, there is no first loop. Each loop consists of similiar angles. If you ask me to present you an angle and tell me what loop it is in, I would have to point to all the loops. There is no problem in "reaching the angle", because exists in all loops. Whenever we answer this question by pointing to a specific loop, we are actually only saying that "this is how many loops has been completed in the positive/negative direction relative to angle zero". However, what loop angle zero is assigned in, is completely arbitrary, because there is no point in the endless loops to compare it to. In the same way, what point in circular time is called the present, is also arbitrary. It exists in all loops as well. Only if we assign an arbritary point of comparison, can we begin to say something about what loop we are in.

As for what you write about logic, I'll just refer you back to what I wrote in the previous round.
Debate Round No. 4
spazzofreak

Pro

spazzofreak forfeited this round.
nonstop

Con

nonstop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
spazzofreaknonstopTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had illogical argumentation.