The Instigator
The_Tom
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
KBShop
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

The existence of God is plausible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
The_Tom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 773 times Debate No: 41912
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

The_Tom

Pro

I am arguing for the existence of God. My opponent, against. Burden of proof is to be shared. First round is for acceptance. This is my first debate.
KBShop

Con

I accept this debate. Good luck to you
Debate Round No. 1
The_Tom

Pro

First of all I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Also I would like to point out that the man arguing against the existence of god has a devil for an icon. That's just downright hilarious. Good luck sir!

The existence of god is a touchy subject. For this sake of this debate I would like to clarify that I am not arguing about religion, or it's effects on the moral compass of society, rather I am arguing purely for the existence of God. I want to make myself clear, I do not believe that the earth was created 4000 years ago. I believe in evolution, and I do not think it negates the existence of god. Below I will list three main points that demonstrate my evidence for the existence of god.

Imagine two people looking at Mount Rushmore. One man says, "Isn't it amazing what wind and erosion over time can create" The second man has his doubts.

1. The Anthropic Cosmological principal

This principal in essence states that the universe we live in must be compatible with conscious life, because we can observe it. This sounds obvious, but think about it. If any of the physical constants that hold our universe together where changed even slightly, conscious life would not be able to exist. In example: if the strong nuclear force was slightly weaker, subatomic particles would not be able to form atoms. If the gravitational constant was stronger, galaxies and solar systems wouldn't be able to form, everything would simply clump together. This has been proven by the theoretical physicist. There is no reason that the universe should of evolved this way. It seems the world we live in was specifically made. It would be egocentric to claim the universe was made just so we could exist, this is not what I'm saying. I'm simply pointing out that the mere fact that conscious life can exist in the first place is incredible.

2. Free will

A true Atheist cannot logically believe in free will. Scientists believe that all choices we make are the result of biological clockwork. Everything is simply a result of chemical A reacting with chemical B, causing neurons in your brain to fire in a specific way. If you mix two acids, they do not choose how to react based on life experience, they simply react.

I argue that free will DOES exist. I believe that it is the result of the phenomenon of consciousness. This brings me to my next point.

3. Consciousness

No matter how clever a machine is, it will never be self aware.

Imagine if you would, a supercomputer. This computer has a camera and a microphone. That computer now has sensory input. You then programmed this computer to learn from experience. Do you believe that this computer is now self aware? It can see and hear and learn and interact. It will make logical choices. But no matter how smart it seems, it will never be conscious. This is because A MACHINE CANNOT BE SELF AWARE. It is simply a machine. Similarly, humans are biological machines, yet we can think for ourselves. This phenomenon can only be explained by the presence of divine intervention.

No matter how much we evolve, no matter how advanced we are, a biological machine can never think for itself. A biological machine does not have free will. It cannot even know of it's own existence. This is unfortunately, the current scientific understanding for what humans are. Just highly evolved, biological machines.

The presence of god would explain these phenomena. I prefer to think of god in a kind of omnipresent conscious energy, as opposed to a man in the sky with a big white beard, flooding humans for fun. If the universe was created by some kind of conscious energy, this could explain everything that science fails to explain. Imagine a force that was aware of itself. This kind of conscious force could change the universe how it saw fit.

But forces cannot have awareness you say, what a ridiculous notion!
Imagine if a force as simple as light was aware when it was being observed. Wouldn't that be strange?
Well actually this is true. (see double slit experiment) It seems that light is aware when it's being observed. So is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination to think that energy can have awareness? I'll leave that for the reader to decide.

In conclusion, I would like my opponent to refute these 3 points:

How can a biological machine have free will?
How can a biological machine be self aware?
A rational explanation for why the universe can able to support life.

If these can be explained by modern science, or logical reasoning then I will resign this debate.
KBShop

Con

the man arguing against the existence of god has a devil for an icon. That's just downright hilarious. Good luck sir!

Hah, yea, that is pretty ironic :p

1. The Anthropic Cosmological principal

The existence of life is more or less incredible because we only have extremely limited experience with it. Logically we will find it incredible because we lack the technology or evidence to find it elsewhere. However the thing is that life DID happen, which means its creation is more or less a moot point. What are the odds that life could exist? Well we are evidence that the chance is 100% because it DID happen. The fact that it did as a result of a lot of complexities, while very interesting and astronomically small, are no signs of an intelligent designer no more than the grand canyon is nothing more than signs of errosion. We as humans simply lack enough intelligence to accept this.

2. Free will

Likewise, a true Christian cannot logically accept the belief in free will. God KNOWS of what will happen, by definition he is omnipotent. He knows of the future before it happens, therefore it is impossible to change the course of events as God has already foreseen them, and if it can be foreseen, then it must be.

Free will is not something specific to humans. Many animals we see display some level of free will [1]. The general idea is that Free Will was established as biologically beneficial for all animals, the ability to evaluate a situation and change your actions based on certain perameters. We see this in day to day life: a cat generally will be hostile or cautious to strangers while being affectionate to its owners, while SOME cats are affectionate to strangers and other cats are hostile to family owners. The lack of consistancy in something as intelligent as a cat demonstrates some level of willpower and personality.

3. Consciousness

The fact that humans are self aware, while philosophically interesting, is hardly specific to humans. Some Chimpanzees and Dolphins show signs of self awareness [2] and these 2 species are regarded as one of the fairly more intelligent animals outside of humans. So self awareness isn't exactly human specific.

In regards to machines never being conscious, this is highly debatable. The Z1 Computer built in 1938 was at best able to do limited mathematics and do things based on a put in punch card. Now we have things like Cleverbot, a program that you can actually uphold a conversation with.



While we don't have concrete understanding of how these things work specifically and in detail, this is not valid enough reason to assume that there is in fact a higher power. Before the 1600's, it was assumed that sicknesses were caused by various causes, including being an evil or sinful person, having bad karma, witches, and so on. It was only the discovery of bacteria were we able to quite accurately discover what was causing diseases. [3] While we do not know how exactly free will and self awareness works and the origins of our universe, history has pretty consistantly shown that we first assume something is the result of a higher power, then we advance enough to understand it in full detail until it becomes common knowledge.


[1] http://io9.com...
[2] http://www.intropsych.com...
[3] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
The_Tom

Pro

Isn't it ironic that the people who are most obsessed with god tend to be atheists trying to disprove god

Thank you for the speedy response. I would like to point out that I stated in the beginning of this debate that the burden of proof is to be shared. I would also like to point out that my opponent has not provided any evidence against the existence of god. This surprised me, because now I have nothing to refute. So instead, I will defend my original points.

My opponent pointed out that my points can be attributed to scientific ignorance. I would like to refute that here:

In my previous argument I provided three examples of evidence for god, (Free will, consciousness, and the Anthropic Principle). These three phenomenons cannot be explained by science, however they CAN be explained by god. Does this prove the existence of god? Of course not! I was simply providing evidence. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that the supernatural is the only other explanation. The fact remains that a supernatural cause, currently, is simply the best explanation for these events.

My opponent has also pointed out that some animals seem to have free will and demonstrate consciousness.
I agree, many animals seem to demonstrate self awareness. What's your point? I never stated that humans are the only creatures to be self aware.

In regard to my original three points:

1 The Anthropic principle

Some scientists speculate that there are in infinite number of universes, each with there own physics. If this where the case, only a handful of them would be able to sustain life. I admit this is a weak point, I simply wanted to show that the simple fact that we are alive to witness it, is absolutely incredible. If there was a God, surely a universe where conscious life could live in would be a must.

2 Free will

First of all, I would like to point out that being able to evaluate a situation is not the same as free will.
Con points out that an omnipotent (all knowing) god would already know all future events. This is not necessarily true though. The definition of omnipotent is all knowing. What if the future isn't predetermined? What if the choices we make, thanks to free will, dictate the future? If this where the case, then the future could not be predicted because it doesn't exist yet. This is getting a little philosophical, bear with me.
If the future doesn't exist, and OUR CHOICES ARE NOT PREDETERMINED, then even an omnipotent god wouldn't know the future, because there would be nothing to know.

Consciousness:

Can a machine be self aware? This is a debate topic in itself. I argue no, it cannot. One day machines might be able to imitate consciousness, but sentience is much more than that.
Sentient beings have emotions, they can visualize things, they can imagine things. It is my belief that no machine will ever be capable of imagination or empathy. A computer can only evaluate. Similarly, if we evolved from nothing but chemical reactions, then why would those chemicals ever experience feelings? Why should they become self aware? This doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary perspective. There is no good scientific explanation for why or how consciousness exists. There is however, a logical explanation.

If the universe was guided by a conscious energy, it would make sense that sentient creatures could exist.

In conclusion:

-Computers will never have imaginations, therefore Biological machines shouldn't have consciousness.

-An all knowing god does not necessarily know the future,

-Logical Atheists should not believe in free will

-I cannot prove the existence of god, i can only supply evidence. However the burden of proof is on both of us.
KBShop

Con

I would like to point out that I stated in the beginning of this debate that the burden of proof is to be shared. I would also like to point out that my opponent has not provided any evidence against the existence of god.

I would like to point out that the existence of God, by definition, is not nor has been one that is a falsefiable hypothesis. The definition of God is one that bends and breaks all laws of physics and opporates on a level of invisibility, and as such cannot be disproven.

God created matter. This breaks the laws of conservation of energy
God is omnipresent. This violates the laws of E=MC^2
God is omnipotent. This violates the entire process of time as we know it.
God is not detectable by any means. This simply violates all logical understanding of science, as everything thus far has been detectable in one way or another, even if we have yet to physically see or identify it.

I would like to ask why the burden of proof of his existence or lack thereof has to be shared when it realistically is impossible to disprove by definition.


I agree, many animals seem to demonstrate self awareness. What's your point? I never stated that humans are the only creatures to be self aware.

God makes it a point to let humans know that humans are special, that we are the pinnaccle of His creation [1]. Self awareness is above all one of the highest forms of intelligence and one that is currently one of the rarest. Sharing this trait with other creatures severely lessons our stats as being the pinnaccle, as we aren't the only ones who are aware of ourselves.

1 Anthropic principle

I would like to point out a few things wrong here.
A: Life (AS WE KNOW IT). That's a very large difference than just saying life. Again, we have no way of ruling out that life can exist outside of the parameters that we have on this planet. It is entirely possible that life can exist with no oxygen, with no water, in thousand degree temperature, in 0 degree temperature and so on.

B: It is incredibly lofty to assume that life is infact incredible and a rare occurance. Consider, there are hundreds billions of stars in our galaxy[2], each with at least one planet, and there are hundreds billions of galaxies in the universe[3]. There is also speculation that there are 10^10^10^7 of universes in the multiverses[4]. Of ALL the planets in all of that we've visited 2. If anything, the likelihood that life only occured once out of those odds is incredible.

It is substantially more likely that we simply don't have the technology to reliably assume or predict how much life there is in the universe. Discussing its rarity or likelyhood is not worthwhile to spend time because it's pretty assuredly incorrect.

2 Free Will

Evaluating in of itself is not a case of free will. Acting on situations that are very similar in a different manner is a very huge indicator of free will. I would also like to point out that Pro has not argued against the link I provided or the example of the cat given.

God can see the future [5] as shown in the link provided

Further more


om·nip·o·tent

adjective

adjective: omnipotent

1.

(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.



By that definition, able to do anything includes able to see the future. The rest of point 2 more or less is moot as not only is God described as being able to see the future, but your point rests on whether or not the future would be foreseeable.

3 Can a machine be self aware?
Emotions are chemical reactions and our reactions are pretty much controlled by our emotions. This is why drugs like Extacy make us feel good, why Zoloft makes us not feel depressed, and why Heroin makes us feel lethargic and Cocaine makes us feel energetic. It is simply the case of setting a perameter in a computer that says "If this chemical is present, display these sets of emotions"

Computers can visualize and see things now. I don't need to bring up the Xbox1 or smartphones being able to view your face and identify you as you.

Consciousness exists as the ability to act and do things differently. This increases your odds for survivability as you can thus learn and act accordingly depending on a variety of circumstances. This also prevents you from being predictable and thus being easy prey or an easily avoidable predator. The flu will work the exact same way and hit the exact same targets. Lions will hunt similarly, but some will have larger prides, more focused groups, more tighter groups, etc.

In an attempt to disprove God, I shall present these questions

-Why does God no longer show himself when He actively was showing Himself pretty consistantly in the bible? Isn't it more likely that he never existed and people hallucinated or imagined it?
-Why were miracles common place in the bible and simply do not exist or are easily shown to be fraud now? Is it likely that miracles never happened and people either lied or simply did not understand what was happening?
-What created God?
-Where is God?
-How does God last forever? This violates many laws of energy
-How is God everywhere? This violates many laws including nothing being able to move faster than light
-How does God know everything including the future?
-How is God capable of doing anything? This requires tremendous energy
-How is God simply undetectable? This logically doesn't make sense
-How does God circumvent physics?
-If a god did exist, is it more likely that it does not display any of the qualities we have given it? (aka not omnipotent, not omnipresent etc)

[1] http://calvarylife.org...
[2]http://www.rmg.co.uk...
[3]http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[4]http://www.universetoday.com...
[5]http://www.scriptureinsights.com...
Debate Round No. 3
The_Tom

Pro

Haha now there's the fighting spirit I was hoping to see!

OK so I would like to clear the air here. My goal in this debate is to provide enough evidence to show that gods existence is PLAUSIBLE. It is impossible to prove the existence of god to be true or false. It is neither falsifiable, or possible to prove. This is why the burden of proof must be shared.

At the beginning of this argument I stated that I will not be arguing about religion. Purely for the existence of god. However, many of my opponents arguments rest on religious contentions. The reason I do not want to argue religion is because every religion has there own idea's about god, and his nature.

What I'm about to do is sure to infuriate my opponent. I would like to propose a crazy hypothesis. WHAT IF GOD IS ENERGY? Energy with conscientiousness. This simple theory would answer all of my opponents questions.

I will refute Con's arguments one at a time:

- "God makes it a point to let humans know that humans are special, that we are the pinnacle of His creation [1]. Self awareness is above all one of the highest forms of intelligence and one that is currently one of the rarest. Sharing this trait with other creatures severely lessons our stats as being the pinnacle, as we aren't the only ones who are aware of ourselves."
The problem here is it relies on the Christian religious contention that only humans are special. It is also irrelevant to the point of this debate. Yes i agree, other animals display signs of self awareness.

- "God created matter. This breaks the laws of conservation of energy
God is omnipresent. This violates the laws of E=MC^2
God is omnipotent. This violates the entire process of time as we know it.
God is not detectable by any means. This simply violates all logical understanding of science, as everything thus far has been detectable in one way or another, even if we have yet to physically see or identify it."
All of these arguments can be negated if god IS energy. Energy is all powerful, it is the driving force behind everything. It is everywhere all at once. It is measurable and detectable.

-Why does God no longer show himself when He actively was showing Himself pretty consistently in the bible? Isn't it more likely that he never existed and people hallucinated or imagined it?
Yes it is more likely, but this rests on a Christian religious contention.

-Why were miracles common place in the bible and simply do not exist or are easily shown to be fraud now? Is it likely that miracles never happened and people either lied or simply did not understand what was happening?
It is far more likely that people simply didn't understand what they where seeing. Once again, this argument rests on the Christian view of God.

-What created God?
What created the Big Bang? Energy.

-Where is God?
Everywhere. So is energy.

-How does God last forever? This violates many laws of energy
Not if god is energy.

-How is God everywhere? This violates many laws including nothing being able to move faster than light
Not if god is energy.

-How does God know everything including the future?
As I have demonstrated earlier, this would assume a deterministic future, a future which negates the existence of free will. If free will is true, then it would be impossible predict the future. (It would however be possible to see every possible outcome)

-How is God capable of doing anything? This requires tremendous energy
Because to do anything would require energy.

-How is God simply undetectable? This logically doesn't make sense
Energy is detectable.

-How does God circumvent physics?
Physics is the study of energy.

-If a god did exist, is it more likely that it does not display any of the qualities we have given it? (aka not omnipotent, not omnipresent etc)
Certainly. It is very possible that humans simply do not have the capacity to understand the nature of god. Would this negate the existence of god? No.

The "double slit experiment" has shown that light seems to be aware when it is observed. Modern quantum physics has absolutely no idea why this happens. So it is very possible that energy contains some form of consciousness.

I am sure that my opponent will accuse me of changing the definition of god. Here I show that this is simply not true.
My opponents definition of god is this: An all powerful, all knowing deity.
Well by my hypothesis, God is energy with conscientiousness. Energy by definition is all powerful. It is the driving force behind everything. A conscious energy that emanates throughout the universe would then consequently be all knowing. My This type of god would be all powerful and all knowing. So in fact I have not changed the definition of god.

In regards to machine sentience:
Machines can indeed read faces, recognize music, and imitate conscious behavior. But consciousness involves sensation. It involves feeling and seeing and imagination. While a computer can be trained to observe pattern based on binary code, it does not actually see or hear or feel anything. I argue that conscientiousness cannot be artificially created. The reason I assert this point is because the Atheist view of conscientiousness stems from a kind of biological machine. A series of chemical reactions should not attain conscientiousness. Not only do we not understand how this works, we don't understand why it's there in the first place! There is no evolutionary basis for sentience. Wouldn't a cold calculating biological robot do a much better job in surviving nature?

In regard to free will:
Free will and evaluating a situation are not the same thing. Free will also means that the future cannot be determined.

Summary:

My goal in this debate was to demonstrate that god's existence is plausible. I have offered a theory that demonstrates that god is theoretically possible. In this view of the universe, god is energy with sentience. The future cannot be determined with certainty, because all conscious beings have free will.
KBShop

Con

KBShop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
God created light and time so your argument doesn't make any sense mr.kbshope
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
The_TomKBShopTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con forfeited the last round of the debate for some reason. Spelling to Pro because Con had several noticeable spelling mistakes throughout his arguments, including spelling "lessens" as "lessons". Arguments to Pro because he came up with some amazing arguments for the existence of God that I have never really thought of before, and that Con was not able to effectively counter. This debate was a really fun read, and I was actually able to understand it, unlike some other debates on this subject that got way too theoretical/philosophical.
Vote Placed by Silentsvc 3 years ago
Silentsvc
The_TomKBShopTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: Point to Pro for completing all rounds in conduct. spelling, grammar are tied. The more convincing argument is won is a tie, although had con finished the debate it may have gone his way. Con had very good sources.