There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God
Debate Rounds (5)
My other attempt at this challenge resulted in a forfeit in Round 2. Such is the power of reason. Let's try this again.
The aim of my opponent in this debate should be to attempt to prove me wrong by showing a reasonable argument in favor of the existence of a god, and I will reply accordingly. I am eager to find a good argument, and I have tried to formulate my own, so I am reasonably open-minded about this issue.
A god would be roughly defined as the creator of the universe. He does not need to be necessarily omnipotent, perfect, or benevolent, but my opponent can argue for that or similar concepts that resemble my definition.
I have extensively thought about all the arguments that have been proposed to prove the existence of a god, at least the ones I was able to find. So far, I have found all of them utterly unconvincing and logically fallacious. The ontological argument is circular, the cosmological argument is special pleading for god, and the fine-tuning argument is also special pleading for god. Those were the three chief contenders for a proof of god. Other arguments, ranging from religious experience to alleged miracles, are so naive that I don't even pay attention to them anymore.
Can anyone solidly argue in favor of any of these arguments? I will provide my detailed objections to them further on. My opponent's Round 1 post should be a presentation and an argument for god.
First, I must stipulate that my theological beliefs are completely restricted to the three dimensional human concept and condition, but that is the only thing I can go on and I would like you to restrict yourself to that understanding as well. At least before you put the bullet in my head.
If you were to take the whole of existence as a whole or, for argument's sake, the universe, and I told you it was self aware, or at least, intelligent, then, based off your own human experience, you would have to concede my point. The universe is intelligent. We make it so. You and me and the spider in the corner of the room. Could that not be God?
It seems to me that you are committing something called the fallacy of composition. It's not just because each individual sheep in a flock has a mother, that the flock itself has a mother. In the same way, it does not follow that the universe itself is intelligent or self-aware, just because some of its constituent parts are so. Sorry, but I cannot accept such absurd premise based on a fallacy. Did I misinterpret you?
I also want to ask for a clarification: what do you mean by "three dimensional human concepts and conditions"?
What we know so far is that we are part of existence and I accept that you interpret my observation as a composition of fallacy. If we were to consider the brain as the source of the mind, we could not then say that the rest of the body was self aware. The arm cannot think. We can, however, state that the brain is the source of intelligence in the body. I do not wish to use an analogy as it has its flaws (THIS IPHONE HAS A CREATOR. THEREFORE, WE ALL HAVE A CREATOR), but although we are a component of the universe, we are not a separate isolated component. If that were the case then we could actually consider that a deity put us there. Much to the contrary, existence was started in a big bang (or something to that effect), rendering every aspect of existence as one being, in this case, existence. To then argue that existence is made of separate unrelated components would merely to expand on the definition of existence.
This brings me to my point of a deity or a God. Any rational scientific analysis would suggest that all religions are simply wrong. A man cannot rise from the dead. A man cannot ride a winged horse into heaven. How then, can we accept their professed God is a separate entity from the universe and created it by the construct of love? No doubt this is highly implausible. Thus, the definition of God has to be considered more abstractly than previously thought for these reasons. From an atheistic point of view, previous definitions of God are simply without justification and, thus, wrong. The creation professed by these books is wrong with the theory of evolution, so why cannot their definition of God be wrong? Does he have to be intelligent? Does he have to be able to bend reality? Does he have to be regarded as a he, she, it, many, or none existent? The answer is no.
The definition of God is subject to change and this has been the case for many thousand of years. Polytheism and monotheism have all been used in defining what God is (abstractly speaking), but have always been flawed in their concept, as they are human constructs and provide no evidence on either a heaven or that respective God. However, these definitions have always been in regards to what humankind's place is in the universe is. Using the Christian God as an example, our creation was formulated by an all-loving father figure. Thus, our existence in the universe is in relation to him.
If we were to establish that there is no celestial being that created us, as atheism establishes, then, that the definition of God is none existent. It is simply a human construct. A fable. However, this does not mean that God is not. In order to give a more accurate definition, we therefore have to reconsider what humankind's place is in the universe. Are we an amalgamation of chemicals, astronomy and chance? Whether this is the case or not, the fact remains that we are the only self aware beings (for argument's sake) in the universe. If we were not there, as may well be the case, then there will be no intelligence in the universe to speak of. Does this mean God will die? Our interpretations and constructs of God surely will. Existence, however, will continue, in a metaphorically brain dead state.
Linking this back to a reasonable argument for God, humans have to find a reasonable rational definition of what God is in regards to them. Science has shown that previous definitions of God are false and unfeesable, but science has only dealt with God in his religious definition and not on its own terms. Science has stated that we all came from a primordial soup, but it hasn't dealt with why the laws of science has allowed this. "So there must be a God." This is a false speculation with consideration to a celestial deity. All we need to know and for the moment we form and integral component of thought in the universe, intrinsic to the rest of existence for the mere fact that it is part of existence and the laws of science which defines it. Is evolution not more beautiful, subjectively, then an all powerful being demanding the presence of light? Regardless, if the universe had a brain and thought, it would be in living matter. My personal definition of God is existence and the creation that has been made in it and that our being here shows that we are a part of that God, despite our respective theological constructs of what he is.
I apologise for the questionable structure of my argument.
I do not think we are in any disagreement, for I agree with pretty much everything that you have (intelligently) stated... except for one key concept: the definition of god. I am looking for a clue of the existence of some powerful, intelligent being that created the universe, that so many people believe in (yet none can provide a good argument for), as I stated in Round 1. One that has at least the basic properties of a deistic god. However, that is not the definition that you use when you talk about god, since you define god as "existence itself", which is self-evident, who did not externally create the universe. Am I interpreting you correctly?
My definition of God is already all omnipotent, as seen with the laws of science. They came from nothing and we cannot break them. My definition of God is omnipresent. Existence transcends matter and time. The final question is if he is omniscient. If we accept that humankind can guarantee its own survival as a species and advance to a stage where we do know everything about our universe and, perhaps beyond, then existence is already all knowing, just not in regards to our own perception of it. You could argue that this is the fatal flaw on my position, as it suggests that one would have to have faith that our species will reach that point. However, I would argue that it is the responsibility of intelligent life, as it always has been, to define what God is. If we assume the basis of my argument, then existence is also objectively perfect and, as such, so are we. We cannot be changed outside the laws of science and despite chance, we are here and we are meant to be, because we are. If our world ends, then it was meant to be and the religions of the world will find their justifications with the end of days. If we can establish a guaranteed future, then we will also have the chance to show God is all knowing when we are. I suppose, at the end of the day, you will need to have a faith in science.
However, I am still arguing my point on your terms of what God is. I do not wish to push the 'definition argument', but we assume intelligence from a derivative of our own intelligence. Intelligence is different from fly to lion, lion to human. The "intelligence" of God, or existence, would not be restricted by belief, choice, free will, ideology and any other construct imaginable. It would not be able to imagine, because it would be the truth. No doubt I am sounding like an Enlightenment philosophe at this stage, but the fact remains that we are here and although I may be pushing the point of a deistic God, it is only a deistic God (I assume that is uncaring) if we allow it be the case. The fact of the matter is, is that we are an aspect of that God and, therefore, we have a say in deciding what that God is, as we have done so for thousands of years.
I admit to being utterly incapable of understanding what your argument is, or how it answers to my challenge. Maybe it's because I'm ignorant, or because your text is inherently unintelligible/meaningless, but I cannot give a solid answer without understanding your point. An Enlightenment philosopher would be radically clearer, so you seem more like a Continental philosopher.
One thing I could (maybe) understand is that you claim that we might become omniscient at one point in the future, which then means existence itself (= god) will be omniscient, which makes absolutely no sense to me.
However, to give a succinct as possible answer, I would state that my theory is based on God being existence. Existence is said to come from nothing, as far as we can rationalise. You cannot change the laws of science and you cannot transcend time itself, which is an aspect of existence. We are not all knowing, so God, at this fixed point time is not all knowing. Therefore, God is an ideal which is only contained in, what is essentially, fairy tales and books. However, as much as culture is affected by religion, so too is religion affected by culture. Should the human race scientifically advance to a state when science has explained existence, which is a definite possibility, then the human race shall be all-knowing and know truth, putting them on an omniscient level. That eventual future of our concept of time is still be encapsulated by existence, whereby time is transcended, linking us to the future. Thus, it would mean that existence is already all-knowing. In relation to humankind, that would make it God, although we do not perceive it in the present. Therefore, although this argument requires faith in the human race, which is a separate debate altogether, it does argue a reasonable argument for a God.
Your argument is a huge ontological mess, that makes little to no sense and makes huge illogical leaps. You are not defending the version of god I proposed - which renders your argumentation pointless - but I will lay out my objections regardless.
(a) You define god as existence itself, which is meaningless. You have not demonstrated that existence itself is conscious at all!
(b) How do you make the leap from us being omniscient (something that I see as utterly impossible) to existence itself (and thus god) being so? Again, this makes me thing your arguments are meaningless verbiage.
(c) How does it make any sense to say "time is transcended by existence" (remember that you said in the beginning that "you cannot transcend time itself"), and thus conclude that existence is already omniscient because in the future WE will (in your head) be omniscient? What!?
b) Something that you may see as utterly impossible in the future, does not make it so and you have no grounds to argue its impossibility. If I were to tell a 14th Century peasant that one day we would have mobile phones, not only would he not believe me, he would be unable to grasp the concept of it being a reality. Thus, they, understandably, lack foresight. Likewise, if an all knowing person told you that one day the consciousness of the universe would understand the universe itself, you would say would be utterly impossible. Thus, I could argue that your point against me lacks foresight and is thus flawed.
c) I concede that i phrased it badly. I meant to say that time transcends our concept of reality. I apologise. However, the fact remains that if humanity were to achieve omniscience in the future then existence is already omniscient in the present and if you were able to grasp the meaning of point a) you would realise that existence contains all the criteria of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being. As I said, it is a question in having faith that humankind will be able to achieve this, which is what all faith comes down to. However, my faith you cannot argue as being fallacious, as that argument, in itself, is a 'subjective fallacy', in that you base your opinion on your personal point of view.
Therefore, I believe that my argument is a reasonable argument and that my opponent, much to my fault, has been unable to grasp my concepts, as he is given to a construct of what God is, as opposed to what that construct could be in context to.
Finally, I would apologise that my argument has been badly worded throughout. I must remind voters that I have been arguing an extremely difficult case and they should take that into consideration.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's points if i could call them that where intangible and didn't make sense and Pro successfully rebutted his "claims"therefore points to pro except sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.