The Instigator
Mr.Infidel
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The existence of God is more probable than not.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 6 votes the winner is...
Mr.Infidel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,777 times Debate No: 19332
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (48)
Votes (6)

 

Mr.Infidel

Pro

Same terms from contradiction's debate::

Resolved: It is more probable that God exists than not existing.

Rounds:

1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
3. Clash
4. Closing arguments/clash

Rules:

1. No ad hominen
2. No forfeiting.
3. Be respectful.
4. No plagarism.

For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. This definition primarily concerns general revelation, and hence special doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are not relevant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.

The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.

Good luck! :-)
izbo10

Con

I accept, however I am really laughing that you are cowering on defending your god and have to defend a deistic god.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Infidel

Pro

The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause

This is often referred to as the “Kalam Cosmological Argument.” This argument attempts to show how God exists due to the laws of science, nature, and uncaused causes. The formulation of this argument was made by Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. [1]

  1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." (Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system.)
  1. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
  2. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.

. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.

The universe could not have brought itself into existence.

. If something does not exist, it has no ability to perform an action by which it can bring itself into existence.

  1. If it exists so as to be able to perform an action, then it already exists.

The universe was brought into existence by something other than itself.

All things that come into being have causes.

. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe (or past universes) were infinitely old. But, this would require an infinite amount of time to be traversed in order to arrive at the present. This cannot happen since an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed.

i. If the universe were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.

ii. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.

iii. If it were infinitely old, then in order for us to exist here and now, an infinite amount of time would have had to have been traversed in order to get here now. But, an infinity cannot be traversed.

Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.

. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.

i. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself. (Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe).

ii. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.

iii. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe. (An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe, which we know to be finite).

iv. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

This uncaused cause is supernatural.

. By supernatural we mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it.

i. This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.

ii. This supernatural uncaused cause is God.

Argument from the Laws of Logic.

This argument was also formulated by Matt Slick. [2]

  1. The Laws of Logic exist
  1. Examples of laws of logic are:

i. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.

ii. Something cannot bring itself into existence.

The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature

. Logic is a process of the mind

  1. Logical absolutes are conceptual conventions.

The Laws of logic are not the product of the universe

. Logic is not a process of the universe

  1. Laws of Logic are not found "under rocks", or "inside atoms," etc. They are not related to physical properties.

The Laws of logic are not the product of human minds

. The laws of logic are absolute. Human beings' minds are not absolute. They differ. They disagree. Therefore, what is absolute to one person may or may not be absolute to another. Therefore, they are not the product of human minds.

  1. The laws of logic are not dependent upon people since they are true whether or not people exists.

The Laws of logic are transcendent

. The laws of logic are not dependent upon the universe since they are true whether or not the universe exists.

  1. The laws of logic transcend space and time since they are true no matter where you go in the universe and they are true no matter when you exist in the universe.

The laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent.

. Since the laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the laws of logic is absolute and transcendent.

  1. Therefore, there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence.

The Teleological Argument

In his debate with blackvoid, contradiction points out this formulation of the teleological argument. [3]

  1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
  2. Teleology exists.
  3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

What is teleology? The term teleology refers to an end, goal, or purpose to which something is directed towards. Thus, to say that something has telos is just to say that it has a function. Teleology implies intentionally, and intentionally is a feature of minds. Hence, if teleology exists, then there must exist an ordering intellect in which something is grounded in. As Edward Feser illustrates:

Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, s it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because of the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, wating to take it on.” [4]

We know that teleology must exist, for without it, we cannot possibly make any logical sense of the universe. The question proposed by contradiction, “Does a heart just happen to pump blood, or does it pump blood that is its purpose? Does one’s mind just happen to think rationally, or does it think rationally because that is its purpose?” In both cases, the latter is forced to be true. Therefore, the latter defines that teleology must exist.

David Oderberg points out that teleology is present not just in organic process, but also in the inorganic. Processes such as the water cycle and rock cycle are inherently teleological in nature. [5]

What can we glean from this? From this, we know that there must be an ordering intellect which grounds the teleology present in the universe. Because the being has a mind, it must be personal. Because this being is the ground of all teleology, there cannot be a higher being from which teleology is derived. What do we call this? We call this “God.”


References

[1] Slick, Matt. “The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Causes.” https://school.carm.org...

[2] Ibid.

[3] Contradiction-vs.-Blackvoid. “It is probable that God exists.” http://www.debate.org...

[4] Quoted in the Contradiction-vs-Blackvoid debate. See source 3

[5] Ibid.


izbo10

Con

Thanks to my opponent for attempting to present arguments, though all have long since been debunked and laughed out the philosophy circle. Lets start with KCA argument.

"The observations confirming the big bang do not rule out the possibility of a prior universe. Theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a preexisting one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so-called quantum fluctuations.20 The equations of cosmology that describe the early universe apply equally for the other side of the time axis, so we have no reason to assume that the universe began with the big bang." Victor Stenger God the Failed Hypothesis pg 125-126

This throws into contention that the universe actually had a beginning. So, at this point the argument is already off to a rocky start as the foundational premise the universe began to exist is in question.

Another nail in the coffin to the long since debunked cosmological argument is that the premise All things that come into being have causes is learned from inductive reasoning. What have we used to get this inductive reasoning. Well we have used the parts of the universe. At this point we are then attempting to attribute a fact about the parts of the universe to the entire set called the universe. The universe after all is the set of everything that we know has come into being. My opponent can't just assert any of his religious things. Since are only evidence for things that have come into being have causes is from the parts of the set we call the universe, to actually attribute that attribute to the universe is a blatant fallacy of composition. As Alvin plantiga even said, and I am paraphrasing, the problem with the KCA argument is it falsely assumes the universe is merely one of those things that began to exist, when the universe is the set of things that began to exist.

So even if we get past all of this, the only thing he has argued for is a supernatural cause, his arguments for supernatural are week. But even with that a god is only one of many supernatural causes like Maranimacons(universe creating fairy like creatures who transcend time, yet when in the universe reside on Jupiter, a magic leprechaun, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and much more) so therefore god is just one option in the dichotomy of supernatural alternatives, strange when you are only one of many alternatives, that does not make you probable without other evidence. That is not to mention that many natural causes are actually more likely being we know universes can exist, we have never found anything supernatural to exist. At the end of the day it is much more probable that a universe created our universe. Based on we don't need to make up things that have not been proven for that theory to work.

His second argument from Matthew Slick, Is a variation of TAG, long since known as a god of the gaps fallacy, you can't explain logic, hence magic man in dem der sky did it. Well guess what several premises are wrong, the rules of logic are not a product of the mind, but instead are actual observations about the way the universe works. It is not a logical rule that something can't contradict itself, it is a rule of the universe, for instance a circle square can not exist because of rules of the universe, not because some mind says so. Now since we have gotten that nonsense out of the way, we can easily say that the laws of the universe had to be some way, and could just be a brute fact based on the way the universe came to be. There is no real reason to assume a mind created the laws of logic, we have observed the universe and came up with what the rules of logic are through those observations. Does Matt Slick or my opponent, even understand what logic is? Actually I should say does my opponent since Matt Slicks variation is much better then he gave.

As for the The Teleological Argument, there are 3 big problems:

One inductively complex things are not really proven to be designed. The majority of complex things in the universe are complex and have no evidence of a designer. Galaxies, stars, river ways, trees, animals, solar systems, plants.... the list can go on and on, would qualify as complex and since they do not have a proven designer it is ridiculous to assert inductively based on the small set of things that humans have created through design that are complex that all complex items have a design.
Second problem is that it does not prove god, the argument like this would prove they have a designer, who is this designer we don't know, but my opponent wants to assert it is god.
Thirdly, It also commits the fallacy of composition. It attempts to create an argument that what is true inductively of parts of the universe is true of the whole, not so much.

My opponent is going to say my points do not refute his version, but in reality his version is just a reworking of the same old The Teleological Argument that has been refuted over and over again.

AT the end of the day my opponent has made certain arguments, then just blatantly asserted god, He has ignored other much more probable options such as multiverses, since we know a universe can exist, a motherverse which has attributes that are timeless, so the problem of infinity. That does not even count out other supernatural cause like maranimacons, which I argue are more likely to cause something complex. Why might one ask, because of the most complex things we know are designed, well they have muliple designers not one. But, I digress, before we go any further, my opponent should take baby steps and show that something supernatural is even possible, then maybe just maybe he can work on probable.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Infidel

Pro

Ad Hominem
  1. Ad hominems result in an automatic loss.
  2. Izbo10 has commited ad hominems.
  3. Therefore, izbo10 has automatically lost.

Examples:

" I am really laughing that you are cowering on defending your god and have to defend a deistic god."
"Thanks to my opponent for attempting to present arguments, though all have long since been debunked and laughed out the philosophy circle."
"Sorry anybody who claims to have an imaginary friend is not on my level. If his name was Bob nobody would have a problem with me calling him out, but call it god and give it amazing unheard of attributes which make it crazier and people think I need to respect that $hit."
"mr.infidel you claimed to be an educated atheist, now you are presenting blatant god of the gaps fallacies, I think that qualifies you as a moran!(intentional if you have ever seen the picture)"
"Does Matt Slick or my opponent, even understand what logic is? Actually I should say does my opponent since Matt Slicks variation is much better then he gave."

Even though izbo10 has lost, I shall still go ahead to defend my arguments for the sake of arguing.

The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause

My partner, izbo10, has admited that the universe has a cause and a beginning. This begs the question as to what that beginning is.

Moreover, the argument does not rely on inductive reasonig; rather, it is saying that because every part requires a cause, the whole too requires a cause. Moreover, it is claiming whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe, regardless of whether it is a part or a whole, still requires a cause. [1]

Secondy, we find that the Big Bang Theory has recently been debunked. Recently, OPERA has confirmed that the particle has gone faster than the speed of light. What does this mean? It means that the long since e=mc2 is false. Moreover, it also means that the BBT is also false. [2]

Finally, izbo10 argues for the argumentum ad ridicul saying that a supernatural cause coud be anything such the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Maranimacons. This is a false assertion as we know the IPU cannot exist based upon contradictory attributes, namely, being both invisibe and pink.

Izbo10 has not attempted to refute the argument that the universe could not have brought itsef into existence.

Argument from the Laws of Logic.

Izbo10 has given me a non-answer to this argument. Rather, he attempts the argumentum ad ridicul, which is a logical fallacy.


His second argument from Matthew Slick, Is a variation of TAG, long since known as a god of the gaps fallacy, you can't explain logic, hence magic man in dem der sky did it. Well guess what several premises are wrong, the rules of logic are not a product of the mind, but instead are actual observations about the way the universe works. It is not a logical rule that something can't contradict itself, it is a rule of the universe, for instance a circle square can not exist because of rules of the universe, not because some mind says so. Now since we have gotten that nonsense out of the way, we can easily say that the laws of the universe had to be some way, and could just be a brute fact based on the way the universe came to be. There is no real reason to assume a mind created the laws of logic, we have observed the universe and came up with what the rules of logic are through those observations. Does Matt Slick or my opponent, even understand what logic is? Actually I should say does my opponent since Matt Slicks variation is much better then he gave.

I have demonstrated that the Laws of Logic are not a product of nature, product of the universe, or the product of human minds. Moreover, I demonstrated that the Laws of Logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent.

The obvious conclusion is that there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence. We call this "God."

The Teleogical Argument

Izbo10 has pointed 3 "holes" in the argument: (1) Inductively complex things are not really proven to be designed; (2) It does not prove God; and (3) The Fallacy of Composition.

To answer problem 1: Imagine if we were to go up to Mars, supposedly for the first time, and find a coke botte on the planet. What would be the obvious conclusion? That we have been fooled and there has been a previous mission to Mars. [3] The question becomes: if we are certain that the coke bottle was placed there, how much more can we be certain that there is a designer in our universe that created us?

To answer "problem" 2: See answer to problem 1. Moreover, if I were to grant this, we can say that it does prove that God's existence is more probable than not; which is what this debate is over.


"Problem" 3 is not a problem at all. The Fallacy of Composition is an informal fallacy, as contradiction points out in his debate with izbo10. The burden of proof is now upon izbo10 to prove that it commits this fallacy.

Thank you.



References

[1] Izbo10-vs.-Contradiction. "It is probable that God exists." http://www.debate.org...;
[2] Science 2.0 "OPERA Confirms: Neutrinos Travel Faster Than Light!"
http://www.science20.com...;
[3] "Proof of the Existence of God." http://www.chabad.org...;
izbo10

Con

Did my opponent even bother to readthe argument against the uncaused cause? I made no such claims about the universe, as a matter of fact I have said the universe could easily be just a brute fact or eternal.

My opponent also fails quite sadly to grasp the fallacy of composition. Here is why this argument is the fallacy of composition. I will start by asking how do we know that all things that began to exist have a cause. Well let me explain, we have studied the parts of the universe, objects and concepts in the universe, and have discovered that they seem to have a cause. So, we have drawn this conclusion from inductive reasoning based on parts of the universe. Then the fallacy blatantly attributes what we have learned from the parts of the universe, to the whole set the universe.
Here is a basic syllogism:

If you learn something from the parts of a set and attribute it to the whole you have committed the fallacy of composition
We have learned from the parts of the universe that all things that began to exist have a cause, then the kalams tries to attribute this to the universe.

Therefore Kalams commits the fallacy of composition. More on this a little later.

Next, it s funny that my opponent says the big bang theory is debunked and when you click his amazing link for sources it is not there. Making up stuff much?

Last part of Kalams, he addresses one supernatural cause, ignoring all the other ones. Even this is a ridiculous assertion. My opponent rules out the invisible pink unicorn based on a law of logic? Strange laws of logic are functions of the universe and he even argues a mind made logic earlier. Therefore why would the mind that created logic have to actually be logical. He thinks he has made some form of reductio ad absurdum argument to the invisible pink unicorn, but he fails to understand that the invisible pink unicorn could be invisible while existing within our universe but wholly pink in another universe that she also exists in. The IPU still stands in the dichotomy. Unless of course my opponent wants to argue that the being who he thinks created this universe could not create another, and exist in both. Therefore my opponent has failed to even remotely address the other dichotomy of possible causes of the universe or that the universe could be a brute fact.

As for TAG

My opponent goes onto to blatantly assert the laws of logic do not depend on the laws of the universe. Lets see our universe does not have an extra dimension. Imagine a universe with a 4th dimension. Would the law of noncontradiction always stand? No, in one dimension something could be a square while in the other it would be a circle. Therefore the laws of logic are only relevant in our universe. Just because my opponents imagination is limited in what a universe could look like does not mean other universes could not exist with completely different laws of logic. All of the laws of logic have been learned from our observation of this universe and its characteristics, it is ridiculous to say otherwise, because we have observed no other universes.

Now onto my opponents attempts at sounding intelligent on the Teleogical Argument. He first gives an example of the coke bottle. Well let me ask my opponent this, why are we more like a coke bottle, with a known designer, and not more like a solar system, which you are trying to prove has a designer, but no such designer has been shown. Oh thats right you are using confirmation bias and observing things that you want to appear designed to be designed. There is certainly more to a coke bottle that makes it known that it is designed then complexity. The funny thing is the mere possibility that evolution is true eliminates the idea that anything complex must be designed. The idea of design actually doesn't solve anything, since a designer would have to have a complex mind and the same problem would occur. Actually evolution solves the problem much neater, as it doesn't grow the problems butt quite simply put it simplifies things so the causes need to be less and less extravagant. A god would need a bigger explanation for why it appears to have purpose, then a single cell needs an explanation. Therefore the argument solves nothng.

I continue to be shocked as I read more and more people on this board who think they can discuss philosophy and don't even understand fallacies. Let me explain something, again for the umpteenth hundreth time, for you people. A informal fallacy means that the premises do not guarantee the conclusion or are not enough to warrant the conclusion. Meaning that the argument is insufficient means to justify the claim. tt does not mean the conclusion is false meaning that almost all formal fallacies will sometimes be true. The problem is to believe the conclusion based on the fallacy is bad reasoning. Why do you people not understand that, that is fallacy of fallacies.

An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support their proposed conclusion

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So if my opponent wants to admit his arguments are informal fallacies then we have established that his premises do not meet the requirements to merit the conclusion.

As for some arguments against gods probability, well I have already established that the dichotomy of answers to what caused the universe are: Maranimacons, IPU, God, A Leprechaun, Multiverses, a motherverse(a large timeless eternal universe that creates universes), and more.

If we accept all as equal, which I have given reasons earlier which my opponent ignored for why several are more probable, then god is a 1 in 6 chance. That is improbable as probable would mean more likely then not.

Gods attributes as omniscient and omnibonevolent cause contradictions. For instance the basic rock contradiction. It is interesting that my opponent would go there as most sophisticated theologians have thrown out the omni attributes in exchange for maximally great to avoid this problem. This problem is not as easily solved as the unicorns as the omnis have the word all, so therefore alternate dimensions cannot solve the contradiction, because god would have to be able to both pick up a rock and make a rock to large in all possible dimensions. God would have to be able to do something he doesn't know he is going to do in advance, but that contradicts omnibenevolence. It may be possible in other unverses, but alas that does not matter, as god is all powerful and all knowing which would imply he could somehow do this, in this universe. That is not what we call probable.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr.Infidel

Pro

Thank you, izbo10, for a thrilling debate. It is clear that my partner has forfeited this debate via conduct (see round 1). Because this is the final round, I shall summarize.

The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause

In this argument, I argued that the universe cannot be infinitely old via the Law of Entropy. Because it had a beginning, it cannot possibly be infinite in size. Therefore, the universe could not have brought itself into existence (indeed, something transendent must have brought it in).

To counter this, my partner has used the argumentum ad ridicul and has not attacked this argument whatsoever. I have shown that the Big Bang Theory has recently been obliderated.

Contradictory to my partner's claims, the universe could not have been eternal via the Law of Entryopy.

The fact that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is forced by logic:

We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something. [1]


My partner claims I accept one supernatural claim and rule out all the other without realizing the KCA, along with all philisophical evidence leaves a Deistic form of the transcedant being that created us. It seems you fail to grasp this. The IPU cannot exist because of the brut fact:
  1. Whatever has contradictory attributes cannot exist.
  2. The IPU has contradictory attributes.
  3. Therefore, the IPU cannot exist.

Indeed, his argumentum ad ridicul is unwarrented and a red-herring.

TAG

In this I argue that the Laws of Logic exist. From that, we conclude that they cannot be conceptual by nature, not the product of the universe, and not the product of human minds. Moreover, we know from the argument the Laws of Logic are transcedent because they are still true whether or not the universe exists. Therefore, the laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent. We must then conclude an absolte, transcendent mind exists. Notice that the conclusion says, "Therefore, there is an absolute transcendent mind in existence."

My partner tells my to imagine a universe with a 4th dimension. Guess what? The laws of noncontradiction always stands. In one dimension A is A and in the other diminsion A is A; not B.

Telelogical Argument


My partner commits the fallacy of special pleading, "We know a coke bottle is designed; therefore it has a designer." I ask, how do you know that the coke bottle was designed? Why couldn't it have been given via evolution? (Including with the marks "Made in the USA).

My opponent has not shown how it commits the fallacy of composition.

Summary

I. Cosmological Argument

I have shown that the Law of Entryopy proves the universe could not be eternal. Hence, the universe could not have brought itself into existence.

II. Transcedent

The laws of logic are absolute even in another diminsion or universe. It is my opponent's job to prove that wrong; which he has not done.

Conduct: My partner trolls the entire debate. +1 for pro.

Spelling: My partner exhibits poor knowledge of the English language. "Did my opponent even bother to readthe argument against the uncaused cause?" the words "readthe" should be "read the" as two separate words.

Arguments: All my arguments stand.

Sources: My opponent failed to source.


References

[1] Quoted in Kohai-vs.-Contradiction debate, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument." http://www.debate.org...

izbo10

Con

God damn, I don't know why I even bother my opponent has brought 3 arguments that are the intellectual equivalent of:

If there are presents under the tree on christmas, santa exists
there are presents under the tree on christmas
therefore santa exists.

When given alternative explanations such as parents he rebuts with the intellectual equivalent of, "Wah, wah,wah but parents aren't defined as the guy who delivers presents under the tree on christmas so it can't be them"

My opponents first argument is to a cause and not god what so ever. In the mean time to get there it inductively draws conclusions about the whole from the parts. Secondly the argument also commits the fallacy of Equivocation. Lets look, everything that has a cause comes from things that were not caused ex nilo, or from nothing. Strangely though the universe would come from nothing, so the way they were caused is different. It is one thing to say that something is caused using something. It is completely different to come out of nothing. I am sorry that a majority on this board don't understand the concept of dichotomies so this next argument will be useless. He has asserted god, he has given no good reasons for this assertion. I have given many alternate options, he has attempted to refute one, for which he has failed.

As for TAG,

My opponent ironically asks us to believe a magical being can create something out of nothing,then his imagination is completely and utterly stifled when it comes to a different universe using different laws. The irony. My argument completely stands that the laws of the universe are what make the laws of logic work.

And finally his last argument. wow he calls me out for special pleading. I have shown that in the set of complex things there are 2 types of things 1. things that are known to be designed and 2. things that are not known to be designed

I have then gone on to show that this 2 > 1. This is not even close. So, how he in anyway thinks you can inductively say that because something is complex it requires a designer is well beyond me. With the data, I would say inductively that complex things are most likely not going to show a need for a designer. I asked him to show that the universe or people are more like a coke bottle, then say a galaxy which has no sign of a designer, he refused. My opponent has failed in so many ways, yet you idiot voters who are the average age of 15 and have yet to take a philosophy class will buy into his nonsense and vote for him.
Debate Round No. 4
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
izbo should have won this debate; Cerebral votebombed him and needs to be banned.
Posted by Oryus 5 years ago
Oryus
hmmm It's too bad you couldn't stop being snarky izbo10, because your arguments, in my opinion, were much stronger. The snark was unnecessary. The argument speaks for itself.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
Pro: "Secondy, we find that the Big Bang Theory has recently been debunked. Recently, OPERA has confirmed that the particle has gone faster than the speed of light. What does this mean? It means that the long since e=mc2 is false. Moreover, it also means that the BBT is also false."

According to M-Theory, of which Einstein's works contribute to, it is possible for a three dimensional observer to observe mass at a point in dimensions A, B and C and then to be observed at a different point in these three dimensions at a near point in the observer's concept of dimension D, or D(2), creating the illusion of the mass travelling faster than the velocity of radiation, if the mass, in actual fact, is travelling through the true concept (obviously an incorrect word in this situation, as a concept implies an observer, but a necessary word in order to explain the theory - maybe this true concept is of a divine being) of dimension D, or D(1).

Proof that concept 1=concept 2:
ABC[2]-ABC[1]=D(2)* and
ABC[2]-ABC[1]=D(1)**, so
D(1)=D(2), therefore, as proposed, D(2) is merely another concept of D(1)

*The difference between the two points in the first three dimensions, is equal to the observer's concept of dimension D.
**Mass travelling through dimension D is the same as the difference between the two points in the first three dimensions
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
=== Continued ===

TAG:

Pro repeats his argument from logic, accepting Con's labeling of it as TAG. Pro claims, contrary to Plantinga, that logic applies in all universes. (But ignore the Plantinga thing, since Con didn't mention it.)

Teleology:

Pro asks why we shouldn't think Coke bottles are evolved.

Con:

Con says something confusing about something coming from nothing. But then he nails the cosmology argument: Pro has not given any reason to believe that his God is the supernatural creator.

TAG:

Con points out that we don't know the nature of other universes. We don't know whether our rules apply. Then he points out that we do not know that the laws of logic are transcendent commands, as Pro insists. Con thinks they are just descriptions of how things happen to work in this universe.

Since Pro has the burden of proof, and has not proven that the rules of logic are transcendent commands of a supernatural intelligence, Con prevails on the argument from the existence of logic.

Teleology:

Con points out that many things don't seem to have teleology. Pro undertook to prove that everything has teleological purpose, but has failed to do so. Pro had the burden of proof. Con, therefore, prevails on this argument also.

Conclusion:

Pro made three different arguments for God's existence. Con successfully refuted them all.

So Con would have won this debate were it not for the fact that he agreed to the rule that we should vote all seven points to his opponent if he engaged in his characteristic insults.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
=== continued ===

Con defends the IPU as a viable candidate for creator despite his self-contradictory nature. Disappointing. Con might have have pointed out the theoretically infinite supply of other, non-self-contradictory supernatural candidates for creator (given that Pro has stipulated the existence of the supernatural). Or he could argued that if self-contradiction eliminates the IPU from contention, then it also eliminates God. Or both. But, he didn't, so ignore this.

Con argues something strange about TAG.

Teleology: Con points out again that many things don't seem to have a teleology. Winner.

Con argues that God is self-contradictory. Maybe Pro will point out that this would have been a better argument if Con hadn't tried to justify the IPU in spite of its self contradiction?

Round Four:

Pro said that the universe isn't infinitely old, therefore had a beginning. Con said there could be things before the big bang. Pro said big bang theory is refuted, so increasing entropy still proves there was a beginning. Pro points out that he's still winning on these points.

Pro says begun things have causes, and presents a confused quote that he thinks supports his position.

Pro again attacks the IPU as contradictory, but does nothing to eliminate other supernatural candidates for creator of the natural world.

Since this is Pro's last post in this debate, Con must prevail on the first of Pro's three arguments.

The best that can be said of Pro's cosmological argument is that it proves that some supernatural thing created the universe. Pro offers no reason to believe that this creator-thing is God.

=== Continued ===
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Curiously, Pro says the big bang theory has been debunked. He also says things travel faster than light. That would mean they go backwards in time, right? So the universe could cause itself without an outside agent? But Con didn't mention this, so we can ignore it.

Pro accuses Con of ridicule. Pro earlier begged the question of what supernatural thing caused the universe. Pro assumed it it is supernatural, then it is God. As if nothing but God is supernatural. Con floated some other candidates. Instead of thanking Con for pointing out his oversight so he can correct it, Pro accused Con of employing the fallacy of ridicule. Well, Con wallows in ridicule, at this and every other point in the debate, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have legitimate points to make. If Pro thinks there is some reason to assume that the capital-G God is the leading candidate for supernatural creator, he should say why. This straw-man argument is not becoming.

Laws of Logic:

Pro simply repeats his claims, already refuted.

Teleology: Using a Coke bottle as an example, Pro asks why we acknowledge that known-to-be-designed things are designed without also acknowledging that not-known-to-be-designed things are designed. Utterly unpersuasive. Already refuted.

Con dwells on the fallacy of composition.

Con says of Pro, that when he leaps to the conclusion that our supernatural cause must be God, "he addresses one supernatural cause, ignoring all the other ones." That's a clear statement of Pro's problem. Unless Pro comes back with an argument that there are no other supernatural things besides God, or that the other supernatural things all have alibis, or some reason to believe that God is the creator, then Con must prevail on this point.

=== continued ===
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Pro makes three arguments:
1. Entropy and the uncaused cause.
2. Laws of logic.
3. Teleology.

Con argues that the big bang may not really be the beginning of the universe. This refutes Pro's first argument.

Con argues that Pro's first argument commits the fallacy of composition. While I'm not convinced, I do now find myself open to the claim, which has not been the case when Izbo previously argued this. So maybe he did a better job, or maybe it just took more than one exposure.

Con points out that Pro didn't support his claim that a supernatural cause must be God. Con offers other, deliberately silly, candidates, effectively making the point that Pro hasn't got a case if he can't establish that God is a more likely candidate than fairies. This stands alone as a separate refutation of Pro's first argument.

Con refutes Pro's second argument: The laws of logic are not orders received, but rather are inferences, generalizations based on observation.

Reading Con's unpunctuated sentences is cumulatively irritating. Spelling/Grammar point to Pro.

Con refutes Pro's 3rd: Pro assumed teleology in order to conclude teleology. Circular argument. Con points out, in effect, that since there is no reason for us to believe in the teleology of the premises, there is no reason to believe in the teleology of the conclusion.

Round Three

Pro falsely claims that Con stipulated that the universe had a beginning. In fact, Con argued against a beginning, or at least he argued that we aren't justified in believing in a beginning.

Pro says that the whole universe needs a cause since all of its parts do. This confuses me. It's as if Pro is stipulating that Con is right about Pro committing the fallacy of composition. And yet I come away in doubt, not persuaded either way.

Pro claims that _whatever begins_ has a cause, putting his special pleading right up front.

=== continued ===
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Mig do you feel impelled to be retarded?
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Izbo10, do you feel impelled to swear? Is it a part of your disposition, or a sign of hidden mental retardation?
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Izbo10, you clearly lost this debate by violating the rules
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by xxeightydxx 5 years ago
xxeightydxx
Mr.Infidelizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both Pro and Con and great arguments however, pro had much better conduct throughout the debate.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
Mr.Infidelizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--1 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: I supported pro's position before and after the debate. Spelling and grammar obviously goes to pro. Convincing argument also goes to pro.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Mr.Infidelizbo10Tied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
Mr.Infidelizbo10Tied
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: Conduct goes to pro just for the fact that he is debating izbo10. Con made rude, unethical remarks that distracted me from the actual arguments Con presented, therefore Con lacked in his arguments.
Vote Placed by nfong 5 years ago
nfong
Mr.Infidelizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and spelling to pro for obvious reasons. Sources go to con because pro neglected to address the incorrect link for the BBT.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Mr.Infidelizbo10Tied
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 clearly states that "If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms." Con violates the terms repeatedly and therefore willfully forfeits all seven points and the right to whine about another debate he was too stupid to participate in.