The Instigator
Billdekel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
alex1094
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The existence of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
alex1094
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,842 times Debate No: 25546
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Billdekel

Pro

Rules
1. This is not a debate over which god since many times it derails into why x religion is true. However the God I am defending is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, and omnipresent.
2. No semantics

I would like to ask you a question

What reasons do you have for holding the position of atheism? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?

First argument

• Something exists. (the universe)
• You do not get something from nothing. (1rst law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass)
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
a.It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite).
b.The universe cannot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

We can we infer things about Him from what He created
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.

Second Argument

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?

Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.

The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?


Thoughts reflect the mind
  1. A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind.
  2. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts.
  3. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts.
  4. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts.
  5. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
  6. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.
alex1094

Con

I'd like to thank Pro for challenging me to this debate, which I hope will be an interesting one.

I won't be putting forward any positive arguments to prove the non-existence of God as Pro is the one affirming and therefore has the burden of proof. I will simply be rebutting.

I'd like to begin by addressing Pro's opening question on defence/evidence for atheism. Atheism, as I see it, is simply a stance which states that there are no compelling proofs or arguments for the existence of God, therefore I do not believe in him. You shouldn't need to prove the non-existence of him as you can never prove the non-existence of anything, you can't disprove the tooth fairy or Santa Claus for example.

The Cosmological Argument

The first problem with the Cosmological argument is that it presupposes that time is linear. This may or may not be true, if it is not true then the cosmological argument is worthless. If it is circular for example then there is no need for a God, as 'something' (could be the big bang, who knows) is the first and last thing that happens, before time begins again.

However, if time is linear then the problem arises of who or what created God. No matter how high of a being God is, he must have thoughts, or actions, or whatever divine way you'd like to describe it. For example he created the universe, this is an action performed by him on a linear time line, therefore he must be in time, so to say, because his actions can be linked to the universe's sequence of events. Therefore, if we trace back his (let's call them actions), then eventually we have to find a first 'action' and we're stuck with the sticky problem of where God originated. A linear time line defeats God just as much as a circular one renders him superfluous.

In this way, the cosmological argument contains its own refutations, it states that all things must have a cause, yet it labels God with the attribute of eternality, therefore debunking itself.

Also, let's not forget that God must be MUCH more complicated than the universe he created, so coming to a conclusion of where he came from is all the harder! Why don't we reduce the problem and not jump to any God conclusions.

The second problem with the Cosmological Argument is that it takes advantage of a gap in scientific knowledge, this being the origin of our Cosmos, and then seizes upon it with an automatic “See! It can't be explained! Therefore God must've done it.” This answer is jumped to without the providing of any evidence, it should simply be labelled with a logical “I don't know.”

Think about it this way, 200 years ago this would've been done when we considered the wealth and depth of natural life around us, with such suited environments. The religious conclusion was to point to this world that was seemingly so perfectly designed with it's life in mind and claim it as proof for a creator. Then Darwin came along and suddenly it became clear that life adapted to the environment, a much more elegant, logical explanation, and one that was above all proved with evidence. It would be infantile to make the same mistake about the origin of the universe. Our grounding in earth-based logic reduces our imaginations to parochial explanations such as “this is complicated, therefore it must have an intelligent creator.” With our poorly evolved minds and limited scientific knowledge there's a good chance the explanation for our universe is beyond our capability to even comprehend.

Finally, can something come from nothing? It most certainly can. “Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called "virtual particle" pairs are known as "quantum fluctuations."” (1) According to quantum theory, the vacuum (of space) contains neither matter nor energy, but it does contain 'fluctuations,' transitions between something and nothing in which potential existence can be transformed into real existence by the addition of energy.” (2) The reason we don't see them is because they are tiny and usually cancel each other out, however with the help of a particle accelerator this matter can be converted into real particles, with the addition of the energy it needs. (2)

Even if you ignore the evidence physicists are putting forward about quantum fluctuations, the ex nihilo argument works just as well with God. If something can't come from nothing then is God a nothing? To be anything he would have to be a something, so where did he come from?

TAG

The main problem with this argument is your erroneous “laws of logic.” Primarily because it fails to show the difference between these “laws of logic” and what they actually refer to. The “laws of logic” are not equal to what they describe, they are simply statements which refer to certain necessary truths about the nature of existence/reality. But these descriptions are not equal to the truths which they describe, so these “laws” are not what is non-contingent, transcendent etc. What I'm saying may seem obvious, but bear with me. An example could be, a description of a house is just a description, not actually the house which it describes. The description is just language.

TAG argues that laws of logic are conceptual by nature, that they are thoughts and must depend on a mind, but it is misleading because these laws which it describes are nothing more than descriptions themselves.

All these “laws” refer to is the consistency of existence, and the facts regarding it. The “laws” of non-contradiction/identity are simply properties of existence... When a pen exists, it is that pen, it is not a pencil, this is due to the facts of its existence.

So the law of identity, for example, is simply a description of the fact of identity. Imagine a world where just a triangle exists, since there are no minds on this world the “law of identity” cannot exist since there is no one to think about it, yet the fact of the triangle's existence and identity remains.


Thanks for reading, I look forward to your response.

Sources

(1) http://www.astrosociety.org...

(2) http://www.nytimes.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Billdekel

Pro

Opening question

You stated "There are no compelling proofs or arguments for the existence of God" but it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.

This does not mean there is no God (only applies if you identify yourself as a strong atheist, or one who asserts there is no god)

what kind of evidence would be acceptable?
If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no evidence for God. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?

Defense of Cosmological Argument

Time

When you are talking about time not being linear are you talking about the eternally oscillating universe model because that what it sounds like.

Time as we know it is more than sequential events, it is a physical dimension. It is this physical dimension that began with the Universe. Eternity would still have sequential events, but it is simply not time as we know it. In this sense there can be a cause before the time of our universe.

Furthermore, our notions of causation are restricted to what we know about the material world. Non-material causes are not necessarily restricted to the same rules as material causes.

Big bang cosmologists (atheists or not) have come to a consensus view that something made the original "singularity" go bang, but they don't—and probably never will—have a clue as to what it was. So they'll ignore it.

Who created god?

You're now assuming that time exists in every possible world

You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause.

The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

Why don't we reduce the problem and not jump to any God conclusions.

So are you saying we should assume that god didn't create the universe because you cannot think of where he came from? Its already been proven that the universe isn't eternal. There's a difference between having a cause and not.

God of the gaps argument

I didn't say God exists because "we don't know" but because its either an eternal universe or creator and the eternal universe has been falsified. Then giving what we can expect the attributes of the creator.

There are some flaws in the god of the gaps argument.

  • Double standard: While atheists accuse theists of making a "god of the gaps" argument, atheists are making a "science of the gaps" argument. Just as the theists says, "I don't know how it actually happened, but I know God did it," The atheist says, "I don't know how it actually happened, but I know God didn't do it." The only important fact is that there are gaps.
  • Excluding action by God from the definition of science: The argument begs the question that it is unscientific to credit God with acting in the universe. But certainly if God were to act in the universe, then science would have to acknowledge and even study those acts. The argument that it is unscientific to admit acts of God into science is premised on the philosophical assumption that God either does not exist or does not act in the universe.
  • Expected gaps: The last issue is one of predictions and consistency. Theist makes a limited number of claims about what God did. It claims that he created life,the universe ect... The longer atheists fail to fill these "gaps," the more reasonable it is to believe that those gaps in an atheistic worldview are permanent, because natural creation from nothing did not occur.

Virtual particles

A vacuum isn't really "nothingness"

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",
[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2]


Virtual particles are produced from spacetime. But spacetime is not “nothing”; it is something. And it seems to have the ability to produce and absorb short-lived particles called “virtual particles.”

If space were really nothing, we would not be able to measure it. When I measure the volume of an “empty” room, I’m really measuring the amount of space within it. Space has three dimensions—width, length, and height. When an object moves, it moves through these three dimensions of space.

Defense of TAG


You seemed to have claimed that logical absolutes are the result of the semantics of the language. And how we describe them. Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development, changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics and descriptions by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. To say the absolutes of logic are a result of the use of the subjective meanings of words is problematic. How do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of non-absolute languages and descriptions?

Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is a result of the descriptions does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human existence -- reasons given at the beginning. Since language, in this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid.

If logic is the result of language, and since language rules change, then can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the laws of logic are not laws, they are not absolute.

This does not account for logic, but presupposes existence of logic. This is begging the question.


Sources

  1. Astrid Lambrecht (Hartmut Figger, Dieter Meschede, Claus Zimmermann Eds.) (2002). Observing mechanical dissipation in the quantum vacuum: an experimental challenge; inLaser physics at the limits. Berlin/New York: Springer. p. 197.
  2. Christopher Ray (1991). Time, space and philosophy. London/New York: Routledge. Chapter 10, p. 205.
alex1094

Con

I'm going to try and address all of Pro's arguments but if I miss one I'll get it next round.

Opening Question

I don't really know why we're wasting character space on this. You are right, the lack of evidence for God only makes him EXTREMELY unlikely, similar to the tooth fairy, however it is technically possible he exists, it's just not a logical conclusion to jump to. If you want to attack me for not being a 100% sure of God's non-existence then I hope you'll be willing to disprove the tooth fairy/Santa for me next post.

You ask what evidence would be acceptable... Hmmm, maybe the rapture happening. Jesus returning, performing miracles, going on Letterman, etc. Clear violations of the laws of physics to which there are no other explanation would certainly persuade me.


Cosmological

Pro shrugs off eternity as "not time as we know it," making a case for the eternity of God. But then soon afterwards he states that an eternal regression of caused events cannot happen. Does anyone else see the huge logical flaw here? Why is it that this being can live literally for ever and it can not only be possible but the only answer... Yet eternal caused events which is just as difficult to conceive, cannot happen.

Pro then points to the big bang and the lack of knowledge about what caused it. He is unintentionally proving what I said in my previous post, science is humble and waits for research to prove an answer, while religion leaps upon these gaps and shoehorns in an automatic God answer, without a shred of evidence.

Pro then presents a statement which contains its own refutation, making my job wonderfully easy. He asserts that you cannot have an infinite regression of causes, lest infinity be crossed, then he presents his own answer of an infinite God who would by definition be crossing infinity. The logical double standard here really is staggering. If infinity can be crossed with God then why not with causation?

This is an especially deceptive argument because it uses the guise of a logical premise (everything must have a cause), and uses it to reach an inherently illogical conclusion (a supernatural, eternal, timeless and completely devoid of any matter.) This kind of being has no precedent on earth, there is nothing like it and no reason to conclude it as a reasonable hypothesis without a shred of evidence.


Quantum Fluctuations

Pro has cherry-picked from the Wikipedia article. The full paragraph was: “According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is 'by no means a simple empty space,' and again: 'it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.' According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

This actually strengthens my case, in other words space is a vacuum consisting of nothing, except for the quantum fluctuations and virtual particles which I have described. This is reiterated in the NY times article “the vacuum contains neither matter nor energy, but it does contain 'fluctuations.'” (1) But the origin of these fluctuations is still unfounded and as the New Scientist describes, the virtual particles are “randomly popping into existence and disappearing again.” (3)


Pro never responded to my question of whether God is something. If something cannot come from nothing then is God something or nothing? If he does not respond to this then the point goes to Con.


God of the Gaps

Pro states that atheists point to science for explanations but reject religious ones. Now this is a very silly thing to say, science is a peer-assessed process in which a hypothesis is set upon and then scientists work to disprove it. Scientific conclusions are based on empirical evidence meticulously gathered over hundreds of years. Religion and God however have no evidential foundations and no proof, a God explanation has no more empirical validity than a Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny explanation.

Once again Pro states that it is unscientific to acknowledge acts of God, my response is that it is unscientific to credit unsubstantiated claims based on a lack of any proof. Science treats Homeopathy, for example, very sceptically and largely see it as quackery, this is due to a lack of proof for its claimed methods of action.

Pro then states that some gaps in science have been there for too long and are permanent, he then states that natural creation did not happen. First of all I'd like to point out that it's not even 140 years since Thomas Edison tested the first light bulb successfully, science is still in its absolute infancy and has reached a phenomenal level for the short time it's had. To say anything but, is just plain unfair. I actually think that natural creation will be recreated in a lab any day now, as Professor Andrew Knoll said life is just chemistry and “The recipe for life is not that complicated.” (4)

Finally, in response to Pro's “its either an eternal universe or creator and the eternal universe has been falsified” I have found another entirely plausible and much more convincing use of the Cosmological Argument which uses science we know exists and requires no supernatural element...
The Cosmological argument has absolutely nothing to do with God. All it refers to is an uncaused cause. It could just as easily be an argument for a giant quantum fluctuation which began the universe. In fact this is a much more likely scenario as we not only know that quantum fluctuations exist, but there is some scientific support for the hypothesis. Physicist Heinz Pagels said "Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility." (2) Suddenly a theistic God is no longer the only 'logical' conclusion and is rendered entirely unnecessary.

TAG

I'm afraid to say you've completely misunderstood my argument, I'll try and be clearer this time. You are claiming a necessary fact which is derived from the facts of existence as proof for God. You describe these laws as not physical, however that is exactly how they are because they refer to the nature of physical matter. The matter which constitutes a pencil for example is not also the matter which makes up a pen, therefore a pencil is not a pen at the same time (you describe this as the law of identity.) The fact that matter is consistent in its own identity is no more of a 'law' than the fact that matter makes up atoms, and that these atoms make up objects.

All you are doing is rhetorically describing an inherent fact of existence as a law, but your rhetorical description is not equal to the fact which it describes. Your rhetorical description is not what is universal and non-contingent but the necessary truth which it describes, is. This may seem trivial but this equivocation and lack of distinction is exactly what allows you to go from laws of logic to an absolute mind. See, you describe the TAG laws as conceptual by nature, they are thoughts, mental constructs of the absolute mind of God, which allow for their absolute nature. However, what is mental, conceptual and thought are simply descriptions of these truths, not the truths themselves. I point you to my triangle analogy last post.

Sources:

(1) http://www.nytimes.com...

(2) http://www.infidels.org...

(3) http://www.newscientist.com...

(4) http://www.pbs.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Billdekel

Pro

Opening question

Your first paragraph could of just been "I don't identify myself as a strong atheist." I was attacking you because you stated an opinion like it was fact.

Accepted evidence

Even some of that did happen, would you believe He existed; or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort, or a trick played on you?

Cosmological rebuttals

Con asks something that was already answered.

He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

The Creator does not apply to the laws because He is the one who made them

"If infinity can be crossed with God then why not with causation?"

Because this violates what causation actually is! Despite this, an eternal universe has been disproven.

"...and uses it to reach an inherently illogical conclusion...."

This is why the second part of the argument gives the reasons why.

Quantum Fluctuations

You only touched upon the part about the vacuum. The Wiki article also said

"the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy"[1]
So no its still not from "nothing". You also didn't answer the spacetime response.

If something cannot come from nothing then is God something or nothing?


I figured I already answered that in the "Who created god" section
God is something yet he never "Came" into existence. He is eternal


God of the gaps

Con skips the first objection and attacks the second with straw men.

Here is Con's straw man, I stated that

" The argument begs the question that it is unscientific to credit God with acting in the universe. If God were to act in the universe, then science would have to acknowledge and even study those acts. The argument that it is unscientific to admit acts of God into science is premised on the philosophical assumption that God either does not exist or does not act in the universe."

Con attacks this by stating

" Pro states that atheists point to science for explanations but reject religious ones."

I never said this. I said that if god were to act science would have to study and acknowledge it. So to say that God is unscientific to to beg the question that God doesn't exist or act.

"Religion and God however have no evidential foundations and no proof,"

Again this is only your opinion. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence.

"a God explanation has no more empirical validity than a Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny explanation."

God is as much of an explanation as explaining the existence of a watch by saying that it was made by a watch maker. Neither is a complete explanation, but they are both starting points. Starting with God moves the origin outside of space-time, and provides a source. Given this starting point, it is possible for science to shed some light on the details.

"Pro then states that some gaps in science have been there for too long and are permanent, he then states that natural creation did not happen"

Straw man again

"The longer atheists fail to fill these "gaps," the more reasonable it is to believe that those gaps in an atheistic worldview are permanent, because natural creation from nothing did not occur."

In other words, I said the longer that these gaps are unfulfilled then the more likely a natural creation did not occur and that the gaps are permanent.

Con then postulates on how the universe could of been caused. Such as one big virtual particle. Yet where would the vacuum come from? You can come up with "What ifs" all day long. Yet looking at the evidence presented in both parts of the cosmological argument, it points to a Creator.



TAG

I get what you're saying. It is not accounting for the laws of logic, but stating how we know them to exist.

Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.

If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
If they were properties of the universe then they could be measured the same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured. Since they cannot be measured, they are not properties of the universe.

But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.

For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence and that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. The condition of the universe does not effect these truths.
For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.

Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.


Con seems to suggest that logic is the result of observations

If that is the case, then how do you observe the Law of Non-Contradiction which deals with truth statements? Or what about the Law of Excluded Middle which says that statements are either true or false? Statements are the products of minds! Statements aren't observed. How is LNC or LEM observed without presupposing their validity to begin with? Are statements found in the material world? Are logical inferences found in the material world? Are they under rocks, or behind asteroids, or frozen on the polar caps of Mars? Or, are they products of the mind as the original argument claims? Remember. So, we must ask how the truth statements of LNC and LEM are observed in the material world -- without making the fallacy of argument known as Begging the Question (assuming their validity). In my opinion, the criticism of the original argument does not grasp the full scope of the TAG argument.


Con seems to suggest that logic is not conceptual by nature

Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, it seems proper to say that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature since Logical Absolutes are truth statements about Logical things.

If you disagree that Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature, then please explain what they are if not conceptual realities.

If they are not conceptual by nature, then

What is their nature?

If they are not conceptual by nature, then what are they? If it is not known what they are, then how can it be said what they are not since, it seems fair to say, that knowing what something is not also entails knowing something about what it is?

For example, I know what water is. If someone says that a piece of wood is water by nature, I would say that it is not. If someone says that a frying pan is water by nature, I would say it is not. If someone were to say to me that a "flursist" (a word I just made up that represents an unknown thing) is by nature hard, how then can I rationally deny such a claim by saying "I don't know what a flursist is, but I know it isn't hard"? The response would be, "Since you don't know what it is, how do you know what it is not?" Is the response correct or not correct?

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
alex1094

Con



Accepted Evidence



I'd probably consider it a hallucination unless everyone else was also experiencing it too. What would it take for you to disbelieve in God? If they recreated natural creation in a lab? Or found an eternal, natural first cause?




Cosmological



Pro says the following about my alternative Quantum Fluctuation explanation: “Where would the vaccum come from? You can come up with 'what ifs' all day long.”


Even he surely must realise that the creator hypothesis has zero actual empirical evidence so it is simply a 'what if', a 'what if' in which the creator is given enough superpowers (eternality, timelessness, existed before laws of the universe) that he ticks all of the necessary boxes. Pro then concludes that he is the only reasonable explanation.


Well I'm going to go out on a whim here and say that the explanation I gave last round, is just as likely. I'll repeat it: The universe is simply the product of a giant quantum fluctuation. Pro dismissed it because he asked where the vacuum it came from would've come from. Well how about this... It's eternal. An eternal vacuum which existed before the universe and in which the virtual particle which created the universe was formed... Is just as possible as a creator. This eternal vacuum is timeless (existed before the universe, so it can be, according to Pro), a quantum fluctuation occurred in it (we know these things actually happen so the theory already has more evidential support than a creator) and the universe was a product of this fluctuation. Remember that this theory actually has backing by scientists, as I quoted last post. Let's remember that the creator theory may fit, but it is not evidentially backed, certainly no more likely than my alternative, if not less so.



Due to the fact that my theory fits, the creator hypothesis is redundant. It no longer becomes the 'only possible answer' and is now just another baseless, unsubstantiated attempt at an explanation.



I would continue to argue for the something from nothing nature of quantum fluctuations but it no longer suits the arguments needs.



God of the Gaps



I'm not sure Pro is aware of the difference between a straw man and condensing an argument for the conservation of character space, he uses his straw man accusation as a diversion. As to avoid the recurrence of this diversion, I will waste character space by quoting.



To say that God is unscientific is to beg the question that God doesn't exist or act.”



I strongly believe that given proof, scientists would happily include a God into the scientific world-view. Why wouldn't they? They've include every other new discovery... Evolution, atoms, quantum mechanics... Even when doing so creates so many more questions. The reason it is unscientific to give a God explanation is because, from the scientific perspective, there is no evidence. Science works on the basis of empirical evidence, not philosophical assumptions, therefore, there is no proof for a God. That is not my opinion, but that of the scientific community.



This is only your opinion. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least His existence.”



Actually it's not only my opinion but that of the scientific community. Science obviously doesn't work on the basis of 'despite the fact that there is no evidence for this, maybe there is evidence we don't know about.' If this was their way of reasoning then there'd be a tooth fairy/Santa Claus explanation lurking around every corner. I'm going to shoot back at you with: Don't rule out Leprechauns! Since you don't know all the evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves Leprechaun's existence.



God is as much of an explanation as explaining the existence of a watch by saying it was made by a watch-maker. Neither is a complete explanation, but they are both starting points.”



You are suggesting here that baseless assumptions are good starting points, the scientific community clearly disagrees, an unsubstantiated theory stays that way until it is proved, then it is expanded upon. Imagine if we'd said: “How are we breathing? Well the oxygen fairies are a good starting point, then this can be expanded upon... With the evil oxygen fairies which must be suppressed, the nature of the oxygen fairy... etc.” When the creator hypothesis is proven, then it could be used as a starting point.



I said the longer that these gaps are unfulfilled then the more likely a natural creation did not occur and that the gaps are permanent.”



As I said last round, which you ignored. The light-bulb was invented by Thomas Edison only 140 years ago, science is still in its absolute infancy. It is unfair to say that just because natural creation has not yet been recreated, that it will not.



TAG



This argument seems to rest on whether or not Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature. This means 'Whether or not they are based on mental concepts, by nature.' My response is that of course they are not mental concepts, they and the Logical Absolutes would exist even if there were no minds around. A rock would still be a rock even if no one had ever seen a rock, it would not have the English name “rock” but it would still be a rock. It would not suddenly change its identity and be a stick. Therefore, I submit that Logical Absolutes are Not conceptual by nature. Existence is the basis for these logical absolutes, they are inherent within existence and would still be inherent even if there were no minds to consider them. A triangle would still be a triangle, it would still have three sides, it would not contradict itself by have four and three.



Pro writes: “If someone were to say to me that a 'flursist' (made up) is by nature hard, how then can I rationally deny such a claim by saying 'I don't know what a flursist is, but I know it isn't hard?' The response would be, 'since you don't know what it is, how do you know what it is not?' Is the response correct or not correct?”



Surely we don't know whether or not it is correct because we do not now a “flursist's” nature. It is unknown to us, but even though no living could have ever seen a “flursist” because it resides in a remote region of Antarctica, the flursist still has an unchanging identity. It is still either hard or not. It's being hard or not is not contingent on us knowing it, no mind may have ever considered its nature but it would still have one. It's nature and identity are inherent in the facts of its existence, it exists therefore it has X and Y attributes.



A similar comparison is that of mathematics. Similarly to Logical Absolutes mathematics is still a completely abstract thing which you may say is conceptual by nature, but it too is not. Even if there were no minds in the universe, one object and another object would still make two objects. A square would still have four sides and a circle would still have none.



Debate Round No. 3
Billdekel

Pro

Accepted evidence

So there is basically no changing your mind. You cannot objectively examine the evidence with your presuppositions making any attempt to prove god to you useless because of your presuppositions,

I can no more prove to you that God exists than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your call of proof asks for acknowledgement of many types of evidence because your presuppositions don't allow it.

What would it take for me to disbelieve? 100% proof that a natural creation happened or proof that we have no free will

Cosmological

Con is ignoring the second half of the argument. Con claims that there is zero empirical evidence for God, yet there are many that are not cosmological. Quantum fluctuations are simply that just quantum fluctuations. No evidence that they are powerful enough to create a universe. As I have shown that quantum fluctuations do not come from nothing.

God of the gaps

Not only did you condense the arguments, you changed what they were arguing. As I have shown you attacked something different.

I strongly believe that given proof, scientists would happily include a God into the scientific world-view. Why wouldn't they? They've include every other new discovery... Evolution, atoms, quantum mechanics... Even when doing so creates so many more questions. The reason it is unscientific to give a God explanation is because, from the scientific perspective, there is no evidence. Science works on the basis of empirical evidence, not philosophical assumptions, therefore, there is no proof for a God. That is not my opinion, but that of the scientific community.

Con is trying to justify begging the question. Then commits the argumentum ad populum by saying "That is not my opinion, but that of the scientific community"

How ever atheists(scientists especially) commit a category error when looking for evidence of God

Since God would be immaterial and transcendent, atheists cannot rightfully require material, non-transcendent evidence for a non-material, transcendent God without committing a category mistake. He must abandon his materialistic worldview - but this is incompatible with his atheist worldview.

First of all, the scientific method is a way of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory. It is based on logic and observations of the material universe,its nature, and properties.

Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence - that which exists independent of the universe. Therefore, it can't detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm.

Third, Theistic worldviews claim that God is transcendent and outside of the material universe.

So, to ask for material, non-transcendent evidence for an immaterial, transcendent God is the wrong approach is a category mistake

Actually it's not only my opinion but that of the scientific community. Science obviously doesn't work on the basis of 'despite the fact that there is no evidence for this, maybe there is evidence we don't know about.' If this was their way of reasoning then there'd be a tooth fairy/Santa Claus explanation lurking around every corner. I'm going to shoot back at you with: Don't rule out Leprechauns! Since you don't know all the evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves Leprechaun's existence.

Argumentum ad populum again. And reductio ad absurdum. Leprechauns are written as mythology and we can create a rainbow to see if one is at the end of it.

You are suggesting here that baseless assumptions are good starting points, the scientific community clearly disagrees, an unsubstantiated theory stays that way until it is proved, then it is expanded upon. Imagine if we'd said: “How are we breathing? Well the oxygen fairies are a good starting point, then this can be expanded upon... With the evil oxygen fairies which must be suppressed, the nature of the oxygen fairy... etc.” When the creator hypothesis is proven, then it could be used as a starting point.

Are you suggesting assuming a watch had a watch-maker is a baseless assumption. You appeal to authority then commit reductio ad absurdum, and false analogy. When we look at a watch its reasonable to claim there's a watch maker, when we inspect oxygen we have no reason to come up with oxygen fairies.

As I said last round, which you ignored. The light-bulb was invented by Thomas Edison only 140 years ago, science is still in its absolute infancy. It is unfair to say that just because natural creation has not yet been recreated, that it will not.

Straw man.

I said the longer that these gaps are unfulfilled then the more likely a natural creation did not occur and that the gaps are permanent.”

Science is in a starting stage is irrelevant.

TAG

I don't really get what you're saying here. It seems like a big "I agree mostly"

Therefore, I submit that Logical Absolutes are Not conceptual by nature

What is their nature? One of the premises was that they're not dependant on the world since if no one existed they would still apply

I don't think you get what I mean when I say they're conceptual by nature. I mean since logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature since Logical Absolutes are truth statements about Logical things. Not that they are contingent on minds. That would make them not absolute.

In the next round please explain as to how you account for these laws of logic. Since you do seem to agree that they are not contingent on the material world.

alex1094

Con

Pro states that my presuppositions stop me from examining the evidence, but it is the distinct lack of evidence that has formed my presuppositions. You are correct in saying that I cannot prove that the universe is all that exists, I never said I held that position because there is no evidence. If there is evidence for a creator which I should examine then kindly present it in the final round.



Cosmological



I've got him on the ropes here folks!


I did indeed ignore the second half of your argument because there was no need to address it, I've provided a blanket refutation to the Cosmological. Pro states that there is non-cosmological evidence for God... then fails to mention a single scrap of it. Pro then either misunderstands or evades my argument, I presume the latter.





  1. "Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility." This is a quote from Professor Heinz Pagel, acknowledging the fact that the laws of physics would allow for such a possibility.




  2. Pro states that this could not happen because quantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum. Well, I've already solved this by postulating an eternal, timeless vacuum before it, from which the universe-creating quantum fluctuation could occur.




  3. Remember that this is just another what if, just like the creator hypothesis. And just like the creator hypothesis it ticks all the right boxes for it to fit as an explanation, except of course, my version is more likely because we actually know that quantum fluctuation's happen, we do not know of a God in the same observable way. Suddenly my alternative is not only just as possible, but more likely. The creator hypothesis gets its strength from being able to provide the only possible uncaused cause, which is exactly what my explanation does. This makes the creator hypothesis redundant...






God of the Gaps



You misunderstood what I meant by “the scientific community.” If you pick up a science textbook you'll see The Big Bang, evolution, atoms, quantum theory etc etc. But you'll never see a page about the immaterial, translucent God. Why? Because science has never found empirical evidence for such a being, therefore it is very reasonable to say that the scientific community (not necessarily individual scientists, as a collection of information), sees God as unsubstantiated and without evidence.


He then states that, in order to find God, scientists must abandon the materialistic worldview. This is a pretty moronic thing to suggest science to do, because science is purely materialist. I wonder if you could explain how science should/could look for God if it did abandon the materialist worldview, where do they start? What should they do?


Finally, I don't think science really cares to look for a God for which there is no material evidence. Your the one making the unsubstantiated claim, you provide the evidence.


You've got to come to terms with the fact that, until it is proven that there is an immaterial, transcendent realm, science isn't going to accept that which is a product of it.



Pro then labels my Leprechaun argument absurd because it's mythology and the way to prove Leprechaun's existence is to look for it's presence at the end of a rainbow. Well, today's religion is tomorrows mythology, there was a time when people believed in leprechaun's as fervently as you believe in God. But Leprechaun's are besides the point, your original argument was 'despite the fact that there is no evidence for this, maybe there is evidence we don't know about.' I'm going to stand by my point that this is grounds to postulate absolutely anything for which we have no evidence and is thus ridiculous. Until some kind of evidence is provided then it is perfectly logical not to take any extraordinary claim seriously. If I postulated a flying spaghetti monster and you asked for evidence, I could simply support it by saying “despite the fact that there is no evidence, maybe there is evidence we don't know about.” It goes nowhere.



You call my oxygen fairies explanation a reduction to absurdity. But that is only your opinion, I hold the opinion that it is no more absurd than God. You state that when you look at a watch it is reasonable to assume a watch maker. This is true because we know watches are made by human beings. It is an extremely misleading analogy to apply to the natural world. For example, you could comfortably apply that argument with life on earth and how well it fits with its surroundings, it may almost seem reasonable to assume a creator. However, we both know that evolution is the true answer. It would be faulty reasoning to apply the watch maker analogy to the universe for the same reason, we don't know it was designed and to assume it would be premature. Applying the watch maker analogy to nature is a false analogy. I guess you're guilty of it this round.



I said the longer that these gaps are unfulfilled then the more likely a natural creation did not occur and that the gaps are permanent.”



Okay then, well the fact that science is at its starting stage is certainly not irrelevant because it means that it would be very premature to assume assume the gaps are permanent. I'm not sure how to respond to this because it isn't really arguing anything, I suppose if the gaps were there for 10,000 years it would start to seem permanent. But we don't know how long these gaps will be there so I don't see what this sentence proves.




TAG



I'm sorry if I've been slightly opaque with my arguments in this section, I will try to sum them up as simply as I can now.





  • Logical absolutes are the inherent in existence. They are the properties of a thing or things.




  • Greg Koukl sums it up much better than me when he says “What the laws of logic refer to are essentially the properties of reality itself, for lack of a better term. Basically, in order for an entity to be possible, it must have attributes like 'being itself' and 'being non contradictory.' And we describe these in statements we call the laws of logic. Those laws indeed require a mind (as they are descriptions), but the necessary facts they describe only require the existence of anything at all.”




  • So, a mind can think, “such and such laws of logic govern the universe.” But these laws don't actually apply unless something exists because these necessary facts are inherent within existence. Therefore they are not independent from the universe or transcendent. They rely on existence to exist, yet a mind could still think them even if nothing existed. But that description that mind produced, would not actually be these necessary facts, nor would it be equal to them, it'd just be a description.



Debate Round No. 4
Billdekel

Pro

Pro states that my presuppositions stop me from examining the evidence, but it is the distinct lack of evidence that has formed my presuppositions.

Again stating opinion that there is a lack of evidence.

You are correct in saying that I cannot prove that the universe is all that exists, I never said I held that position because there is no evidence.

I was giving an example of something. Not saying you believed it

If there is evidence for a creator which I should examine then kindly present it in the final round.

You will examine it through your presuppositions, as you stated the only thing that will make you convert is something unlikely to happen, then you said you would think it was a hallucination. You wont be able to objectively examine it.

Cosmological

"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility." This is a quote from Professor Heinz Pagel, acknowledging the fact that the laws of physics would allow for such a possibility.

I showed you how VPs don't come from nothing. Secular scientists would love to appeal to an origin without God. Like I said Quantum particles are small and they don't produce universes. In fact they destroy each other so saying the universe started this way is unsupported.

Pro states that this could not happen because quantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum. Well, I've already solved this by postulating an eternal, timeless vacuum before it, from which the universe-creating quantum fluctuation could occur.

A vacuum has energy in it [1]. As I said in the opening arguments the energy would of been used up.

Remember that this is just another what if, just like the creator hypothesis. And just like the creator hypothesis it ticks all the right boxes for it to fit as an explanation, except of course, my version is more likely because we actually know that quantum fluctuation's happen, we do not know of a God in the same observable way. Suddenly my alternative is not only just as possible, but more likely. The creator hypothesis gets its strength from being able to provide the only possible uncaused cause, which is exactly what my explanation does. This makes the creator hypothesis redundant...

As I explained before quantum fluctuations Do NOT come from nothing.

We can we infer that what this cause must be.

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.

Your quantum fluctuations don't fit the criteria.

God of the Gaps

He then states that, in order to find God, scientists must abandon the materialistic worldview. This is a pretty moronic thing to suggest science to do, because science is purely materialist. I wonder if you could explain how science should/could look for God if it did abandon the materialist worldview, where do they start? What should they do?


Since science deals with the material world how are they going to find evidence of a transcendent,immaterial God? Its a category error. This logic is circular, You wont believe until there is material evidence of a transcendent immaterial God yet material evidence is the wrong evidence to look for so you disbelieve in God

We would expect the following evidence from a transcendent God

  1. Self-revelation - A Transcendent God could only be known through a decision on his part to reveal himself to us, since he exists outside of our material world. Also, his self-revelation would not be subject to the demands of his creation to "show himself" since it would be self-revelation, not external coercion.
  2. Authoritative - Such self-revelation would necessarily be authoritative in that what the Transcendent God would reveal about himself would be true, right, good, absolute, etc., and would be based on his transcendent nature. Furthermore, his self-revelation would not be self-contradictory, nor would it be the subject of human approval for its validity since this would be subjecting the transcendent to the non-transcendent which is a category mistake.
  3. Miraculous - Any self-revelation of the Theistic, Transcendent God would be miraculous by definition and could not be explained by merely materialistic based hypothesis.
If I postulated a flying spaghetti monster and you asked for evidence, I could simply support it by saying “despite the fact that there is no evidence, maybe there is evidence we don't know about.
It goes nowhere.

We know the origin of the FSM and know its a joke. I'm not claiming that since you cannot know all evidence that IS evidence.

You're basically stating here "absence of evidence or convincing argument for the positive" is what justifies atheism. Its clear you cannot look at theistic arguments without atheistic presuppositions. You cannot compare anything to God since He is unique, you cannot say he is like a leprechaun or a flying spaghetti monster.

You call my oxygen fairies explanation a reduction to absurdity. But that is only your opinion, I hold the opinion that it is no more absurd than God.

Oxygen fairies is reduction to absurdity. Again God is not comparable to anything, we know fairies are myths and you know they are myths.

You state that when you look at a watch it is reasonable to assume a watch maker. This is true because we know watches are made by human beings. It is an extremely misleading analogy to apply to the natural world.

So if you didn't see the watch made you wouldn't know it had a watch maker? Have you actually seen a watch being made or are you just believing watches have a watch maker by what other people tell you?

For example, you could comfortably apply that argument with life on earth and how well it fits with its surroundings, it may almost seem reasonable to assume a creator. However, we both know that evolution is the true answer.

It would seem reasonable to apply evolutionary effects to God, but just because of this doesn't mean we cannot to the universe. To say so would be the fallacy of division

It would be faulty reasoning to apply the watch maker analogy to the universe for the same reason, we don'tknow it was designed and to assume it would be premature. Applying the watch maker analogy to nature is a false analogy. I guess you're guilty of it this round.

The universe can produce patterns with what's already in existence. So no its not a false analogy

TAG

Point 1 is addressed in above arguments

Point 2 doesn't account for laws of logic. It just claims they exist because we describe them. See what I'm getting at? I can describe the law of identity. But it exists if I describe it or not

Point 3 kinda says the same thing that I addressed above. Just because human minds are capable of conceiving of logical absolutes is not proof that they are not dependent on a supreme transcendent mind. It only means that we can conceive of them.

I've demonstrated in previous rounds how logical absolutes aren't dependant on the natural world.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
alex1094

Con

Again stating opinion that there is a lack of evidence."

Since the original reason for this section was questioning why I hold my atheistic opinion then surely this is completely valid.


"You will examine it through your presuppositions, as you stated the only thing that will make you convert is something unlikely to happen, then you said you would think it was a hallucination. You wont be able to objectively examine it."

Actually, I would treat it skeptically, as any reasoning individual would. Of course a hallucination is more likely than a supernatural explanation so I would treat it as such.



Cosmological



Pro states that quantum fluctuations are small and not the size which could create a universe. My response to this is that they are indeed usually small, but not always by any means. Physicist Edward Tryon said "The laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations." (1) This supports the words of Heinz Pagel that physics does indeed allow for my alternative, contrary to what you said. Pro also states that virtual particles cancel each other out, once again you are committing the mistake of asserting that something which happens often therefore happens always. Although they tend to cancel each other out, they don't always, and can be converted into real particles with the addition of energy. (2)


Pro then goes on to state that the energy which would be present in the eternal vacuum would've been used up. He seems to be unaware of the first law of thermodynamics concerning the conservation of energy "energy can be neither created nor destroyed," for example, chemical energy can become kinetic energy but it will still be present as energy. (3) Therefore my eternal vacuum hypothesis has gone unrefuted.



Pro goes on to give a subjective and flawed list of what the uncaused cause of the cosmological argument must be. I'll address each one:


He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).

Supernatural is actually not a necessary attribute, I've given a perfectly natural explanation which fits and is supported by scientists. If you subscribe to the belief that before the universe there was no time and space then you could clearly see a universe-creating quantum fluctuation as the creation of both time and space.



He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)

This is dependent on what your definition of power is. Such an incredible quantum fluctuation as the one I have described would indeed be powerful in the sense that it would be sufficent to cause a universe.



He must be eternal (self-existent).

I have already acknowledged the attribute of eternality in my quantum vacuum.



He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).

Well since the quantum vacuum I've described would have existed eternally and before space then it would not be limited by it.



He must be timeless (He created time).

If you subscribe to the idea that time began when the big bang began then my explanation fits.



He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.

This is completely superfluous to needs, why must it be immaterial? An uncaused cause needs only to be eternal.



He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.

No conflict here.



He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.

Pro is clearly making the case for a God here, not an uncaused cause... You could change the attributes “unity” and “diversity” to absolutely anything when making this argument...



He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.

Once again a case for a God is being made and not an uncaused cause. The uncaused cause would've been the starting point for the universe, not life.



He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.

Why? This attribute of purposefulness rests on the assertion that the universe was deliberately created. This assertion is completely unsubstantiated and superfluous, my explanation works without it. Once again, a case for God is made, not an uncaused cause.



As I have demonstrated, Pro's criteria is arbitrary and largely unnecessary. He makes a case for a God, when an uncaused cause is all that is necessary.

I have given an alternative explanation, which is just as plausible/ticks as many boxes as the God hypothesis. The God hypothesis got its strength from being 'the only possible uncaused cause,' but since I have demonstrated it is not... The God hypothesis is rendered redundant and has been fully rebutted.



God of the Gaps

  • Pro continues saying that science is looking for material proof for an immaterial being. Once again I will repeat, there is no evidence for a transcendent, immaterial dimension and saying that science is using the “wrong evidence” to look for God is absurd. Pro is suggesting that science should use a type of evidence which has no evidence for existing to find a being which has no evidence for existing. Pro then goes on to address my earlier question of how exactly science should look for this 'transcendent God.' His first point is that we cannot ever find or reveal a transcendent God because we're material and he's not, therefore his revelation is at his discretion. This, of course, is extremely convenient for the religious believer because the complete lack of any evidence can be remedied by saying “Well, God will only be revealed if he wants to be.” First off, how does this prove God again? It is an extremely weak line of defence and is indicative of the complete absence of any real proof of God, it's just another way to hold off the logical conclusion that there is no God. Pro then makes two elaborations on what this revelation would be like, should it happen. Both are utterly irrelevant as he has given no evidence of such a revelation ever happening and he's simply adding details.

  • Pro states that I see a lack of evidence as supporting atheism. I accept this, I certainly do, if there is a lack of evidence for it then there is no reason to believe in it. He states that you cannot compare God to other myths because God is unique, but I am not comparing God, I'm comparing him as an example of 'being' for which evidence is lacking, like FSM, so the comparison is valid.

  • He makes the same mistake in the next paragraph.

  • I know watches are made because this is trivial everyday knowledge. Applying it to a natural thing like the universe is severely misleading.

  • You accuse me of the fallacy of division, yet applying your creator-logic to a universe via your watch analogy is the fallacy of division. (One complicated thing is designed, therefore all must be.)

  • This makes no sense... If you want your argument to be addressed then make it coherent.

TAG

Pro presents an extremely disappointing and lacklustre post here, it seems to be the final breath of a dying argument, I'll put it out of its misery.

  • This is not a response, I responded to what you said above, simply pointing me back to it is not adequate.

  • Pro states that I did not account for the laws of logic... Yet I did, I stated that they are necessary facts of existence (in order for a thing to exist, it must be itself.) He then makes the painfully false assertion that I claimed “they exist because we describe them.” Actually, I stated that a mind is required for us to say “the laws of logic are X and Y", but the existence of something is required for the laws of logic to exist themselves, since they are a property of existence... and therefore not transcendent/independent of the universe.

  • A mind can conceive of them, but that conceiving would only be a description of them, not the actual laws. I don't need to prove that the laws are independent of a supreme mind, you need to prove they are. You have failed to do so.




I have rebutted all of Pro's arguments completely. TAG was basically a concession.

VOTE CON

I'll leave you with a quote..


Einstein on the universe:

"The miracle is that there are no miracles"






Sources in comments.

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wiploc 1 year ago
wiploc
Pro had the burden of proof, but based his arguments on equivocation and begging the question. Pro is wanting in cogency. He repeatedly dismisses reductio ad absurdums as if he thinks this is a fallacy rather than a compelling refutation.

His spelling/grammar is bad enough to impede comprehension. S&G points to Con.

His conduct (repeatedly insulting Con for not being persuaded by Pro's vagueness) is bad, offensive not quite bad enough for me to give points for.

The funniest part:
1. Pro says that science would study god if god existed.
2. Con agrees.
3. Pro attacks Con for agreeing.
Posted by alex1094 1 year ago
alex1094
Absolutely Wallstreetatheist, and making the jump from 'a God' to 'this God' is pretty much impossible
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 1 year ago
Wallstreetatheist
Just FYI, even if Pro's argument was 100% correct, it would only prove that the existence of God is possible or probable, not that a specific God for a particular monotheism cares what you eat, who you screw, or where you live.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 1 year ago
DeFool
Billdekelalex1094Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No undefeated argument for the existence of gods exists. None was presented here.
Vote Placed by wiploc 1 year ago
wiploc
Billdekelalex1094Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FRD in comments.