The Instigator
J.Radley
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

There is a God.

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 1 vote the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 545 times Debate No: 76380
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

J.Radley

Pro

Well, this is my first debate, so please excuse any errors in argument, dialogue, or format.

This question is open to all. I am hoping to really explore the details of a question that has as much relevance today as it always has. I do not want any opponents who will not be taking this debate seriously.

Format:
Round 1: Acceptance ONLY
Round 2: First presentation of arguments, no rebuttals.
Round 3: First rebuttal, second presentation of arguments.
Round 4: Second rebuttal, third presentation of arguments (if necessary)
Round 5: Final rebuttals, and conclusions.

I do not see the need for any definitions for this debate, as it seems self-explanatory.

As this debate is highly philosophical, I do not wish for there to be an emphasis on external sources. Referencing and quoting sources is, of course, allowed, but please try to restrict arguments to the use of logic and rhetoric, rather than simply quoting lots of famous people or reliable texts.

Also, the premise of the question is that there is a God. This debate is not to turn into a question of which religion has the correct view of who God is, what He wants, and how that affects us, or any other 'true religion' debates.

These terms above must be agreed with, no changes allowed. If any arguments throughout demonstrate a breach of the above terms, it will be pointed out. If not corrected in next round, then the debate will be forfeited. Any breach in Round 5, which cannot be corrected, will constitute an immediate forfeit.

That's all, I look forward to what happens next!
MagicAintReal

Con

First off as always, which god? Certain proposed gods could be plausible with the right conditions/attributes. But there is no reason to believe there is a god, because none of the gods proposed have ever been demonstrated physically, logically, or contingent on reality. If god were demonstrable, his supernatural abilities may be questioned, because being detectable crosses you over into the realm of normal everyday nature. Furthermore, supernature (beyond time and space, beyond matter and energy) hasn't been demonstrated. The burden of proof for this debate topic is on the claimant so, I'll respond to them.
Debate Round No. 1
J.Radley

Pro

Thankyou for accepting this debate, MagicAintReal. I look forward to some intense discussion.

As stated in the introduction, there will be no rebuttals this round, so I will not refute those points unless you bring them up again later. However, as you have asked a question, I feel obliged to answer.

Which god? Using pure logic, there is only a single God. It is not possible for multiple gods to all exist at the same time. God is commonly attributed with multiple characteristics such as omnipotency, omniescence, and omnipresence, some of which I shall explore later in my argument. Let's examine the characteristic of being all powerful- begin with the assumption that there are, in fact, multiple gods. Let's say there are two gods. If both are indeed gods, then both must be all powerful. However, what we have is a contradiction- if there is one god who is all powerful, then the other mustn't have power over the first (and visa versa). But we know that gods are all powerful, as that is one of their defining characteristics. Therefore, there can only be one God. Another way of viewing this is that God is defined as outside all; if there was a second god, how could the first be outside all, and the second outside all at the same time? One of them would have to be outside the other, and so only one would be God.

If you're question is referring to which God in the sense of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc. then please observe one of my initial premises- we are not debating whose religion has the correct view of God. We are simply exploring the possibility of God's existence.

With that clarified, I now move onto my first demonstration of God's existence.

Imagine you enter a really, really high quality, internationally-renowned restaurant. You walk into that restaurant, sit down, and try to decide on which bottle of wine you would most like to drink. You cannot choose- this restaurant has all the best types of wine! The waiter comes over, and asks what you would like to drink. Still undecided, you tell him to surprise you.

The waiter brings over the first bottle and pours you a glass. Raising it to your lips, you taste the delicious drink all through your mouth and swallow admiringly. This is some good wine! Before long you have finished that bottle, so your waiter brings another, different bottle to you. It's even better than the first! and so you order a third, which is even better, and so on...(I am assuming that I cannot get drunk).

Here is what has happened: Each time you get a new bottle, you are able to detect that it has a nicer taste than the previous one. But how can that be so? Tracing the history of all wines you have ever tasted, you will come back to your first. Now, if we were able to appreciate the second bottle because it was better than the first, and appreciate the third because it was better than the second, by what standard can we appreciate the very first bottle of wine? There was none before it to compare with, so by what standard can we measure it's taste?

To use more appropriate examples than wine, we can look at beauty. The first time you open your eyes as a child, you might see your mother looking down at you, and appreciate how beautiful she is. As you progress through life, you see more and more beautiful women, each measured from the previous standard of beauty. But by what standard did we measure the first, our mother?

What we observe here is that there must be some form of infinite beauty, goodness, all pleasant traits, by which we have a standard. It is this standard that we can call God.

You see, one fundamental flaw with the common thought of there being no God is that, if we can't observe him, there is no evidence, and thus, no God. However, this is not evidence for no God. God is unlimited, and so is outside of our physical reality- we can never produce tangible proof for his existence because He is not tangible. This doesn't mean we can't observe Him, however, because we can observe his effect on the world (for example, the ability to perceive beauty).

If you believe that this is not proper proof, let me point out that science uses this very same principle to prove existence. I am talking about the neutrino particle. The neutrino particle is invisible, has no rest mass, and unobservable by any scientific tool we own. It's kind of like God in that respect, except that it is physical. Most people, myself included, when first told about the neutrino and its properties would say that 'Well! If you can't observe it, then how do you know it's there? Sure, it would explain some particular phenomenon, but that's not a proof! You have no evidence, therefore I can conclude that it does not exist.' In much the same way people say about God 'Well! If you can't observe Him scientifically, physically, then how do you know He's there? Sure, it would explain some particular phenomenon, like miracles, or creation, or standards of beauty, but that's not a proof! You have no evidence, therefore I can conclude that He does not exist.' But the problem with this, in both cases, is that our evidence is indirect, not direct. We know the neutrino exists because we can indirectly observe its effects; we can see it colliding with other particles that are detectable and, thus, recognise the presence of a neutrino. Likewise, we can indirectly observe God through his effect; we can trace standards of beauty, or goodness, or other, to show that we end up at some perfect degree of beauty, or goodness, or other, which we can call God.

That I lay as my first proof of God's existence. I look forward to your reply, and while I agree you do not have burden of proof I still encourage you to put forth arguments of your own.

Sources:
Mostly I am using my own logic. The general idea was borrowed from St. Thomas Aquinas. The neutrino comparison was purely my idea.

- St. Thomas Aquinas, 'Summa Theologica'.
MagicAintReal

Con

You stated "It is not possible for multiple gods to all exist at the same time. Let's say there are two gods. If both are indeed gods, then both must be all powerful. However, what we have is a contradiction- if there is one god who is all powerful, then the other mustn't have power over the first (and visa versa)."
Your contradiction applies to the single god too. If we agree he is all-powerful (omnipotent) then we agree he has every power. One of those powers, since we agree he has EVERY power, could be the power to destroy himself. You need to research the omnipotence paradox, but let me give a real world example: Does god have the power to create a rock so heavy that he could not move it? If the answer is yes, he submits himself to the rock's immense mass leaving him not omnipotent. If the answer is no then that's a power he does not have leaving him not omnipotent. Omnipotence by definition cannot be. It contradicts itself.

You also said "If you're question is referring to which God in the sense of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc. then please observe one of my initial premises- we are not debating whose religion has the correct view of God. We are simply exploring the possibility of God's existence."
Unfortunately when we explore possibilities of something, we need to have a running idea of what that something is, and with this topic there are so many proposed gods that are mutually exclusive, asking which god is relevant, but I will submit to your rules and debate a supernatural, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, deity.

You then state "by what standard can we appreciate the very first bottle of wine? There was none before it to compare with, so by what standard can we measure it's taste?"
Are these wines made of something that I have not come in contact with before? You're saying if I've never had wine before, then I can't judge the wine because there is no previous experience with wine. But I have experience with drinks, fermented juices of fruits, alcohol, grapes, and flavors in general. I can judge flavors regardless of the product, because my judgment of flavors does not require one product, it requires my sense of taste. So I've never eaten poop before, but the ingredients in poop I have experienced like digested food, dead blood cells, and bile. There is no standard, there is my sensory abilities that leave a pleasant taste or not.

You then said "To use more appropriate examples than wine, we can look at beauty.
What we observe here is that there must be some form of infinite beauty, goodness, all pleasant traits, by which we have a standard. It is this standard that we can call God."
First off, beauty is somewhat universal to humans, namely because of our desire for patterns and symmetry. Symmetrical faces tend to be regarded as attractive across cultures. Symmetry, is a mathematical principle and requires no standard of beauty because something is either symmetrical or it isn't.
Secondly, you make a bald claim that the standard of beauty must be infinitely beautiful. Why does a standard need to be infinite in any way? In your example of wine, the first glass was your standard, which is fine, but this first glass was not infinitely good/all pleasant. You have contradicted yourself. Infinity and all pleasantness do not a standard make.

You also said "You see, one fundamental flaw with the common thought of there being no God is that, if we can't observe him, there is no evidence, and thus, no God. However, this is not evidence for no God."
I agree. Just because you can't observe it, doesn't mean it's not there and I hate when atheists make that claim...it's wrong. But I will describe my position for why the evidence isn't there. My claim is that anything that exists has been or can be
1. demonstrated
2. replicated
3. used to make accurate predictions about the nature of the thing being demonstrated.
For me, #1 has not been done for any supernatural ANYTHING, and without #1 you can't replicate the demonstration to make accurate predictions. If you can show all 3, you win the argument.

You also said "God is unlimited, and so is outside of our physical reality- we can never produce tangible proof for his existence because He is not tangible. This doesn't mean we can't observe Him, however, because we can observe his effect on the world (for example, the ability to perceive beauty)."
Flawed. If you can observe his effect on the world, then he is detectable. Effect means a result in reality. It's like air. We can't observe air, but we can DEMONSTRATE its effects, REPLICATE this demonstration of air's effects, and use what we've learned about air from the demonstrations and replications to make ACCURATE PREDICTIONS about the nature and behavior of air. This hasn't been done with the unobserved god. You can't demonstrate his effects to even get close to proving his existence. Also what does unlimited mean? As far as I understand it, thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, nothing can be unlimited because of the tendency for things that exist to decay and lose the order of their particles. But of course you will commit the fallacy of special pleading and claim that god does not follow this law. I would then ask you, what evidence do you have that things that don't follow the laws of thermodynamics exist? You need to demonstrate how god or how anything can be unlimited or infinite before just saying god is unlimited/infinite.

You then state "If you believe that this is not proper proof, let me point out that science uses this very same principle to prove existence. I am talking about the neutrino particle. The neutrino particle is invisible, has no rest mass, and unobservable by any scientific tool we own. It's kind of like God in that respect, except that it is physical."
In science if you can isolate a cause for something and without this cause you cannot replicate your effects, then you have found something that exists. Neutrinos are just subatomic particles that have a neutral electric charge. Though it's invisible, there is no rest mass, and undetectable by our tools, its effects are measurable in atomic behavior. We also can measure electric charge and isolate the cause for this measurement. The cause that has been isolated is a neutrino. A neutrino is not like god, because god has no reference point, like an electric charge for the neutrino. So if you can demonstrate some isolated measurable effect--not measurement of god himself--of god then you finally have something. This has yet to be done.

Also you said "We know the neutrino exists because we can indirectly observe its effects; we can see it colliding with other particles that are detectable and, thus, recognise the presence of a neutrino. Likewise, we can indirectly observe God through his effect; we can trace standards of beauty, or goodness, or other, to show that we end up at some perfect degree of beauty, or goodness, or other, which we can call God."
Your proof for god, if I understand it correctly, is "standards of beauty/goodness" and "a perfect degree of beauty/goodness". Perfection does not equal standards. You don't need a perfect degree of something to know how to judge something. You need your faculties and perceptions to make judgments. You just take this flawed understanding of standards/perfection and then call it god with no explanation of why it is god other than "I called it perfection, therefore it's god."

My argument:
Claims for god are simply appeals. They require bald claims like "standards need to be perfect/infinite/god-like" or else we have no reference point for judgment, therefore god exists. If god exists then demonstrating him by way of effects or logic should be much easier. Take anything that you understand to exist that any reasonable person would agree with you on. How about the claim that there are microorganisms. Can you demonstrate them (effects or logic or contingency on reality)? Can you replicate this demonstration? Can you use this demonstration and subsequent replication to make accurate predictions about the nature and behavior of microorganisms? Do this with god, and you have proof.
Debate Round No. 2
J.Radley

Pro

I will begin by going through each of your points in order.

Your first argument on omnipotence- can God create a rock that He cannot lift? What you have done in asking this is argued with the logical fallacy of begging the question, based upon a misunderstanding of what omnipotence really is. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything, it is the ability to do anything THAT ONE SETS OUT TO DO. What you have assumed in this argument is that, if omnipotence is the ability to do anything, then omnipotence allows for failure, as that is anything. Thus, using your assumption, we arrive at a paradoxical conclusion. See, you have begged the question by making that assumption. The reason we arrive at a paradox is that YOUR premise of allowing failure is incorrect, NOT the premise of omnipotence, or an omnipotent being. An omnipotent being can do anything he sets out to do. But an omnipotent being cannot set out to fail, as that is a contradiction of his omnipotence. Likewise, God cannot set out to not-exist, as that contradicts his infinite existence; nor can he set out to change any of his characteristics, as that contradicts his immutability. It is for this reason he cannot make a rock too heavy for him to lift- it would be like asking him to make a square rectangle. God cannot set out to fail, as that would contradict his omnipotence. Please refrain from making assumptions and not pointing them out- you might confuse people.

I also believe you have misinterpreted the wine argument. The wine is a mere example of how judgments can only be made based on previous interactions. In the case of tangible objects, like wine, we can make judgments according to the ability of our senses, yes. However, when we come to something intangible, like beauty, etc. then we require a previous interaction in order to make a judgment. Like I have pointed out, we observe something to be more beautiful, or as the most beautiful thing we have seen, by comparing it to what we have previously seen. What I am trying to point out is that the first interaction with beauty also involves a judgment, and so it must be based on something. Taking this idea to infinity, we reach something of infinite goodness, and we call that God.

You also claim that beauty is based upon our love of symmetry, derived from mathematics. I wish to point out that mathematics is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT. All laws we have, all evidence of formulae or symmetry that we discover in nature, is based upon something that we have manifested. We can construct laws that define natural functions as linear relationships, or discover the Fibonacci sequence in the leaves of plants. But in the end, we created the mathematics used to discover these things. We use a base-10 system for out mathematics, and from here all our laws and discoveries use base 10. But if we had chosen base-9 or base-13 originally, then we would have different laws and mathematical discoveries in nature. We could find an equation for ANYTHING if we really wanted to, in all different bases if we so wished. We could find patterns in chaos (Chaos theory is purely based on finding order in the unordered). Mathematics is a human construct, as is symmetry. And yet a new born child is able to appreciate the beauty of his mother without exposure to mathematics. How can we explain that without my argument of degrees of beauty?

And concerning the first wine glass as a standard, I did not say it was infinite. I was showing that it's taste had to be based on something which, when examined, is taken to infinity. The first wine glass is not infinite; it's basis of taste is.

Here is an interesting idea put forth by you:
"My claim is that anything that exists has been or can be
1. demonstrated
2. replicated
3. used to make accurate predictions about the nature of the thing being demonstrated."
And yet science's substitute God, Evolution, does not fit this model. It has been demonstrated, yes, but can we REPLICATE IT? No we can't and are yet to do so. Can we make ACCURATE PREDICTIONS? Evolution is a probability game, and so no predictions based on evolution and observation can ever be accurate. If you ask me, scientists and atheists put as much faith in the existence of evolution as theists put in the existence of God. Neither of us, by your definition of proof, can really PROVE OUR BELIEFS, so what makes yours any more legitimate than ours?

And then we have an interesting comment of yours upon the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Once again, you have begged the question, beginning with the end rather than the start. "I would then ask you, what evidence do you have that things that don't follow the laws of thermodynamics exist? You need to demonstrate how god or how anything can be unlimited or infinite before just saying god is unlimited/infinite." You see, you have actually began with the 2nd law rather than with what we are concerned with, God. A characteristic of God is that he is infinite and unlimited- its part of His nature. Following from that, we see that He cannot be limited to the laws of thermodynamics, as that would contradict his unlimited nature. You have once again altered the order in which we should be structuring the question.

And note that my burden of proof is not to prove that God is unlimited, but to prove He exists. It follows that if He exists, as I am demonstrating, then He must be unlimited.

The problem I have isolated with your case rests with your final statements:
"How about the claim that there are microorganisms. Can you demonstrate them (effects or logic or contingency on reality)? Can you replicate this demonstration? Can you use this demonstration and subsequent replication to make accurate predictions about the nature and behavior of microorganisms? Do this with god, and you have proof."

God cannot be compared with microorganisms. He is not physical, and thus cannot be proven by any physical method, such as the scientific method you are arguing with. We cannot look towards using our senses to either prove or disprove God, as you are doing. The only way we can try to examine the question is simply by using logic. Your whole idea of using the scientific method, therefore, is fundamentally flawed, as it is a method that is inapplicable to something beyond the boundaries of science. I would ask that you use logical arguments as your proofs, and ones that do not commit logical fallacies either.

Further you claim that "If god exists then demonstrating him by way of effects or logic should be much easier." Once again you seem to assume that if something exists, then we should be able to physically detect it. I question your understanding of the metaphysical, as you are purely using the physical.

I will now look at truth. Imagine an alien that has come to Earth from a distant planet, one that has lived on its planet alone and isolated for all its life, with no interaction with any life form, intelligent or otherwise. Now imagine that alien came to Earth in 1930s, and witnessed Hitler's rise to power, his genocidal acts, and the war in general. Would this alien, who had never been in contact with anyone, never witnessed good or evil, be able to realise that Hitler's actions were wrong?

For some reason people refuse to believe in objective truth- they claim that truth is 'relative'. Using the above example, they believe that, if they were that alien them self, they would not know that Hitler was committing a great evil. I ask whether or not this is the case.

Throughout history it has been observed, when looking at the laws and rules of different cultures, both geographically and through time, that many cultures have very similar laws. REMARKABLY similar laws, in fact. While there are differences on, for example, social classes, deities, and other issues like human sacrifice, the general rules are the same. Essentially, cultures that have grown INDEPENDENTLY of others, or have grown in isolation from others, end up with the same ideas that actions, like murder, theft, etc., are indeed wrong. I ask how it is that so many tribes were and are capable of reasoning such facts for themselves without external influence.

Let me take this a step further. The generally believed opinion in the scientific community is that most of our actions, thoughts, moral ideal, etc., are governed and decided by evolutionary instinct. People believe that through evolution we have learned of survival, relationships, the importance of mating for the continued survival of our bloodline, etc. People tend to reduce most of what makes us human down to simply animal instinct. While I question this attitude, I would like to examine it in relation to, as an example, murder.

Almost every culture through time has abhorred the act of murder- it is one of the most primal and animalistic acts that is practically universally accepted as morally wrong. And yet, if we accept the evolutionary stance, one would think that murder could be justified. If you believe in evolutionary instinct, and in relative truth, then it follows that you must believe that murder is morally alright if it serves an evolutionary purpose (like gaining you a higher level of power in a corporal business, for example) and that, relative to your own desires and, thus, evolutionary needs, it is perfectly fine to kill the guy above you on the corporal chain. I doubt that people accept this, and if that is so, then we must accept that there is objective truth, or that we have our own perspective, independent of evolution, of what is right. The conclusion we must draw from both is that there is a source of this truth, and the only way it is possible for us to have an intrinsic moral compass is if we were intelligently designed to be that way. As the alien believes that Hitler was wrong, we must, therefore, accept that there is a God.

For further explanation of the heavy rock paradox, see the below link.
Sources:
http://www.godandscience.org...
MagicAintReal

Con

You said "Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything, it is the ability to do anything THAT ONE SETS OUT TO DO. "
Bogus. Omni means every, potent means power. Omnipotent means all powerful devoid of volition (something one sets out to do). You can't just smuggle in your own definition by adding things like that.
Then you said "See, you have begged the question by making that assumption."
Ok do you agree that begging the question is circular reasoning? That's what omnipotence is. You see, the idea itself begs the question, not my rejection of it. God is omnipotent because he can do everything...Also you brought up the idea of god trying to not exist. That demonstrates why omnipotence is by definition impossible. He would have to be able to do such a thing and can't.

You also said "What I am trying to point out is that the first interaction with beauty also involves a judgment, and so it must be based on something. Taking this idea to infinity, we reach something of infinite goodness, and we call that God.'
Why do you feel the need to take ideas to infinity? Also even our initial judgments of beauty are based on our perceptions and senses. So we don't need a previous anything to pass judgment on something, we need the ability to judge, which comes from human senses and perceptions not infinite goodness.

Then you said "You also claim that beauty is based upon our love of symmetry, derived from mathematics. I wish to point out that mathematics is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT."
You do realize that even if we never placed values or concepts on ideas like symmetry, symmetry would still exist.

Also you said "All laws we have, all evidence of formulae or symmetry that we discover in nature, is based upon something that we have manifested. We can construct laws that define natural functions as linear relationships, or discover the Fibonacci sequence in the leaves of plants. But in the end, we created the mathematics used to discover these things. We use a base-10 system for out mathematics, and from here all our laws and discoveries use base 10. But if we had chosen base-9 or base-13 originally, then we would have different laws and mathematical discoveries in nature."
If we chose different base numbers, the laws themselves would not change just the units we use to explain them would. The laws of mathematics, including symmetry, exist without our understanding or representations of them.

You said as well "Mathematics is a human construct, as is symmetry. And yet a new born child is able to appreciate the beauty of his mother without exposure to mathematics. How can we explain that without my argument of degrees of beauty?"
Symmetry and mathematics exist despite anyone's exposure to it. The constructs are how we understand these facts of nature, but if we didn't understand these facts they would still be facts. So the baby who was never exposed to math still sees a symmetrical face even though he doesn't know what symmetry is. Proportions are detectable by the human eye without formal math instruction.

You further claim "And yet science's substitute God, Evolution, does not fit this model. It has been demonstrated, yes, but can we REPLICATE IT? No we can't and are yet to do so."
Wrong. Evolution is being replicated over and over again every day many of times per day thanks to the short lives of certain insects and bacteria that make it easy for speciation, natural selection, and general evolution to be replicated in labs.
Then you said "Evolution is a probability game, and so no predictions based on evolution and observation can ever be accurate. If you ask me, scientists and atheists put as much faith in the existence of evolution as theists put in the existence of God. Neither of us, by your definition of proof, can really PROVE OUR BELIEFS, so what makes yours any more legitimate than ours?"
Prior to 2009, biologists had to explain why apes have 48 chromosomes and humans, modern apes, only have 46. Biologists used the framework of evolution, which had been demonstrated and replicated, to make the prediction that it was likely that ancestral ape chromosomes fused together thus humans lost two chromosomes. In 2009 after mapping of the human genome, we discovered that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes demonstrated by the exact same base pairs appearing on the telomeres and centromeres of the fusion site of human's 2nd chromosome. It's not faith to believe in evolution when you can demonstrate it, replicate it, and use it to make accurate predictions. What makes my position more legitimate is it requires no faith, and not believing in it has no affect on whether or not it's true.

Then you said "A characteristic of God is that he is infinite and unlimited- its part of His nature. Following from that, we see that He cannot be limited to the laws of thermodynamics, as that would contradict his unlimited nature."
Since when did "it's part of his nature" serve as an explanation for how you know this to be true. Seriously, how do you know that the nature of god is that he is infinite and unlimited? I'm saying we have no reason to believe that god can violate the laws of thermodynamics because "it's part of his nature" doesn't have ANY explanatory power.

You further claim "And note that my burden of proof is not to prove that God is unlimited, but to prove He exists. It follows that if He exists, as I am demonstrating, then He must be unlimited."
If you're demonstrating that he must be unlimited then simply demonstrating his existence would not lead you to that conclusion. Therefore your argument REQUIRES a demonstration of god's unlimitedness, or you can only conclude his existence.

You also say "God cannot be compared with microorganisms. He is not physical, and thus cannot be proven by any physical method, such as the scientific method you are arguing with. "
If god exists how do you know god is not physical? Please demonstrate this. Also I argue that any proof requires a physical or contingent on physical reality method. That any type of proof ever has been done physically or contingent on physical reality, and we use this proof as our detection for things that exist in reality.

With your alien example, assuming the alien has never experienced pain or suffering in the way that we have then no, the alien would not realize the acts were wrong.

You then say "The generally believed opinion in the scientific community is that most of our actions, thoughts, moral ideal, etc., are governed and decided by evolutionary instinct. People believe that through evolution we have learned of survival, relationships, the importance of mating for the continued survival of our bloodline, etc. People tend to reduce most of what makes us human down to simply animal instinct."
I mean yeah the evolutionary instinct makes sense, but the logical idea that we can accomplish more survival and less suffering if we work together peacefully is obvious and explains why you see similar morals throughout cultures without "external forces".

You finish by saying "And yet, if we accept the evolutionary stance, one would think that murder could be justified. If you believe in evolutionary instinct, and in relative truth, then it follows that you must believe that murder is morally alright if it serves an evolutionary purpose (like gaining you a higher level of power in a corporal business, for example) and that, relative to your own desires and, thus, evolutionary needs, it is perfectly fine to kill the guy above you on the corporal chain."
If you consider necessary self defense that kills someone a form of murder then murder could be justified. Anyway, evolutionary instinct wants me to poop and pee whenever my body needs it wherever I am, have sex with as many women as I possibly can, even if undesired, to procreate as much as possible, and eat as much food as possible so that I don't starve when there's a food shortage. I do not believe that pooping and peeing everywhere is moral, nor do I find sex with non-desiring woman moral, nor do I find engorging myself beyond its limits moral. So even though it's true in nature, doesn't mean it's automatically moral in society. Also killing the guy above me on the corporal chain would be counter to evolution because it would not propagate the species it would help limit it.

Being moral is an obvious conclusion when you can hunt more animals with the help of a healthy group of your species, build structures and make products in little time because of a concerted effort by the many members of your group, and protect your group because of the friendly, moral, not dead people who agree to protect your group's peace. If we tortured, killed, robbed, and mistreated our fellow humans, our group success could not be possible. This is where the morals are coming from. We observe our experiences, we balance the consequences and we decide what will lead us to a prosperous conclusion and what will not. Moral and immoral.

Omnipotence has nothing to do with what the agent sets out to do or doesn't. Omni means every and Potent means power not "power something sets out to do"
Our understanding of mathematics is not needed for the beauty of symmetry. Symmetry exists and can be detected whether the baby knows what symmetry is or not.
God has yet to be demonstrated, and evolution has been demonstrated.
Morals are not just evolutionary instinct, they're obvious conclusions about which behaviors (moral/immoral) lead to humans' successes.
What evidence do you have for the existence of your god other than you think he's infinite, you claim he's the standard for beauty, and you baldly assert that he's where we get our morals from?
Debate Round No. 3
J.Radley

Pro

I must stress your misunderstanding of omnipotence. The reason I include the phrase 'sets out to do' is because God could set out to do just about everything. But when it comes to setting out to fail (eg, not lifting a rock) YOU are creating the contradiction. If he succeeds, he fails; if he fails, he succeeds. The power to undo that power is, therefore, not a power and not included in your 'every power' idea. Further, do not rely upon derivations of words for their meanings- look at words like apology, defecate, dogma, or even last. Many words have meanings completely different to their origins, giving you an invalid point.

Also, if looking at degrees of beauty, it can inevitably continue forever, taking me to the highest, infinite degree of beauty. It's not that hard to figure out.

I wish to dwell on your whole notion of symmetry as the main cause of beauty. This is heavily flawed. We as humans created the idea of symmetry this does not make something symmetrical regardless of whether we label it so or not. On the contrary, EVERYTHING could be labelled as symmetrical or not symmetrical, just like everything could be labelled as blue or not blue. They are just categories we have invented to place order into our analyses of shapes. They are not intrinsic characteristics.

For example, studies could determine that people with blue eyes are generally deemed as more beautiful. But this doesn't make the definition of beautiful as 'having blue eyes'. Further, if beauty is symmetry, why does everyone understand beauty differently? I don't know if you are married, but according to your idea of symmetry everyone would see your wife as beautiful as you do, so there would be nothing special about her beauty to you. I don't know if your wife would be happy to hear that. In all, everything can be categorised any way we want, but that does not give something an intrinsic characteristic.

And here is a direct quote from you: "Biologists used the framework of evolution, which had been demonstrated and replicated, to make the prediction that it was likely that ancestral ape chromosomes fused together thus humans lost two chromosomes." You yourself have used the word 'likely', which is not an 'accurate' prediction at all. Thus, I stress my previous point about evolution- it is all probability. It is all determined by 'what is the probability that all these different things come together at the same time to result in a particular event occurring?' There is no accuracy in evolution. Further, evolution has NOT been proven, as most evolutionary biologists agree, with the exception of extremists like Dawkins and, apparently, yourself. You have a lot of faith in something that is yet to be proven scientifically. In Darwin's 'The Origin of the species' he outlines that a transitional link would need to be provided to prove that humans are really descended form apes, a link that would show the change from one species to another. As yet, there is no link- we are yet to discover that a species can turn into another. Even our best bet at the moment, Lucy, as well as the recently found skull, is not proof. It is still the skeleton of an ape. We are yet to prove that the species of ape actually evolved into the species of man. Further your point about replicating evolution is inaccurate- evolution occurs in nature with many. many different factors affecting. Replicating it in labs with perfect conditions is not a reliable replication of evolution, per your much loved scientific method. WE HAVE NO PROOF.

And your idea upon morals is, obviously, incorrect. How do explain a child's perception of morals? A young child is able to detect whether or not what he is doing could or couldn't be right or wrong, or rewarding or punishable. Haven't you ever caught a little kid giving you furtive glances while trying to do something sneaky? Even though a young child is still morally undeveloped, he still has a form of conscience, something that makes him hesitate. I think, and I believe almost everyone would agree, that the alien could easily tell that genocide is wrong. And also, "If you consider necessary self defense that kills someone a form of murder then murder could be justified." I was not talking about self defense, I was talking about calculated murder to gain a better corporal position, an evolutionary ideal. Don't twist my words.

And also, "If god exists how do you know god is not physical?" Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal God could be a physical being? With all your obsession with scientific proof, how could you believe for a second that a physical God is possible?

God is clearly not physical, he is metaphysical. But you refuse to accept that very basic premise. You demand a proof of God that uses physical scientific methods when, by simple logic, such a proof is impossible. The only types of proofs are the types of ones that I have been using in my arguments, but you continue to put them off, saying they aren't physical. Unless you bother to engage with the metaphysical side of this debate, you are effectively forfeiting. You are addressing an impossible question, creating, like with the rock question, a scenario that is so clearly impossible, pointing out its impossibility, and concluding that God mustn't exist. But YOU are the one creating the impossibility because you continue to search for a physical explanation. Give up and realise that the metaphysical explanations are the only way to properly attack this question. Use logic and reason rather than science.

Moving on to creation.

The Big Bang theory is just about proven these days. But we must examine the process a lot further. It is believed form the evidence that matter and antimatter split apart from nothingness, releasing energy which turned into mater, formed the basic subatomic particles and eventually cam together via gravity to form the universe. Like I said, this is just about proven. But what about before?

You brought up the laws of thermodynamics, claiming that everything must abide by such a law. This is true for all things PHYSICAL. And as the universe is a physical thing, it must also abide by scientific laws, such as Newton's laws of motion.

LAW 1: A change in velocity requires a net external force.

The release in energy comes from the force from splitting nothingness into matter and anti matter. But where is the force that first caused nothingness to split? If there was nothing, there was nothing PHYSICAL to actually cause a net external force. But if there was no net external force from anything PHYSICAL, then a physical explanation does not satisfy the result of nothingness splitting. I would like to ask how you believe that literal NOTHINGNESS can actually cause a force, when there was nothing ton cause. And I do not believe you can deny that a force would be required, unless you would like to challenge Mr. Newton.

Further on this idea of the Big Bang, where is the antimatter? It has been speculated for years that there are antimatter particles for all positive matter particles- even an anti-matter periodic table has been envisaged! But as of yet, we can only detect positrons (anti-electrons) and even these occur in a very, VERY small proportion to the rest of mater. But, according to the theory of the Big Bang, there must be an EQUAL proportion of both anti-matter and matter. Otherwise, they wouldn't have formed from nothing- there would have been something else.

So, while the evidence for the Big Bang is almost complete, we are yet to explain just HOW IT COULD HAPPEN. We have seen that we cannot rely on the physical, and that the logical explanation of antimatter also doesn't make sense, which also cannot happen in the physical. Therefore, we must conclude that the first force, the FIRST CAUSE, had to occur outside the physical, in the metaphysical. We must conclude that there is a FIRST CAUSER, a first being to produce a force, and it is that being that we call God.
MagicAintReal

Con

Let's try a thought experiment. I have two gods. Both are considered omnipotent. One of them can do literally anything and one of them can only do things that he sets out to do. Which one has more powers? If your definition of omnipotence is correct then we should choose the latter, because nothing can have more power than something that's truly omnipotent...but logically you must choose the former because being able to do anything requires more powers than only being able to do what you set out to do ergo the word potent still only means powerful and has no relation to setting out to do anything. You could be omnipotent and never set out to do anything, but the fact that you have the ability to use all powers, you remain omnipotent. Therefore, omnipotence doesn't mean all powers you set out to do. I reject that omnipotence is possible because it is a contradiction itself. Because In the realm of all powers that one could have includes the power to remove one's own omnipotence leaving one antithetical to oneself. I'm not letting you change the meaning of the word.

Seriously, what is the obsession with infinity? I almost just want to do a debate on why infinity doesn't matter. Look, just because something has degrees, doesn't mean it is infinite. Also, why do you need the superlative to appreciate anything? Just because I've never seen the best super bowl doesn't mean I haven't witnessed awesome football games in other super bowls. Some even argue that there is no true qualitative superlative like the highest degree of beauty, or the best butt, or the nicest actress because qualitative has so many perspectives and factors that the definition of the qualitative adjective, like beautiful, changes such that no one can ever reach the superlative, because there will always be a perspective that finds even the most beautiful things less beautiful than someone else.

You said "We as humans created the idea of symmetry this does not make something symmetrical regardless of whether we label it so or not."
Yes it does. Symmetrical is just a word/concept we use to represent the actual physical proportion. This actual physical proportion exists even in nature whether we know what symmetry is or not. It's still physical proportions equal on both sides. Also, I would like to clarify that I think that symmetry is just one characteristic common to our judgments of beauty, not the whole idea of beauty; I was merely using symmetry to show objective physical pleasantness. Yes "equal physical proportions" is an intrinsic characteristic and not just a category we have invented.

You said, "I don't know if you are married, but according to your idea of symmetry everyone would see your wife as beautiful as you do, so there would be nothing special about her beauty to you."
I am married, and if everyone saw my wife as beautiful as I do, I would have pretty good confirmation that I landed a hotty for a wife and this would make me think that I have good taste in women, and no joke I just asked my wife sitting next to me right here and she said she would find that flattering. You know why? Because it's special to hear that everyone thinks your pretty. And that's what would be special about her beauty to me...it's universal.
In your example, why would everyone find my wife as beautiful as I do. Couldn't people just find my wife beautiful, due to her generally symmetrical face, but just a little less beautiful than I find her to be? Or more?

Then I can't believe you said "Further, evolution has NOT been proven, as most evolutionary biologists agree, with the exception of extremists like Dawkins and, apparently, yourself."
Seriously? Most EVOLUTIONARY biologists agree? That's like a marine biologist saying that there is no proof of an ocean. I thought here you might be faking your argument for a second. Either way, Dawkins isn't an extremist when it comes to biology. Dude even the pope believes in evolution as the explanation for biodiversity. I know using the pope is kind of a reverse appeal to authority, but accepting evolution isn't extreme. And here's why.

You said "Darwin's 'The Origin of the species' he outlines that a transitional link would need to be provided to prove that humans are really descended form apes, a link that would show the change from one species to another."
Human Chromosome 2. Done. Seriously research "Human Chromosome 2" objectively. To save you the google search, I'll give you my paraphrase of the facts.
Normal chromosomes of species have a top telomere, a centromere, and a bottom telomere. So they look like T-C-T (Telomere-Centromere-Telomere). Every telomere and every centromere have a unique base pair sequence specific to it, kind of like fingerprints for humans. So if you found a certain base pair sequence you would know which chromosome you've found. Humans's 2nd chromosome looks like T-C-T-T-C-T. What is this? Well if you look at it, it's two chromosomes fused together. The bottom telomere of one fused to the top telomere of another. How could we determine if that's the case? The first T-C-T has the same exact base pairs as one of the ape chromosomes. The second T-C-T also has the exact base pairs of another ape chromosome. The fusion of two ape chromosomes to make our second chromosome is the link between us (modern apes) and the great apes, and you said it hasn't been proven.

You also said "You yourself have used the word 'likely', which is not an 'accurate' prediction at all. "
You realize that biologists predicted that there would be a fusion based on the framework of evolution, and there was one. Whether or not we use the word likely, the prediction was accurate, because it wasn't a random prediction, there was much evidence pointing in that direction.

I'm glad you took the bait when you said, "Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal God could be a physical being? With all your obsession with scientific proof, how could you believe for a second that a physical God is possible?"
No, I don't see how that god could be, and now you see why it's so ridiculous to do so. All things are either in physical reality, or are contingent on physical reality. Thoughts aren't necessarily physical, but the neurons and other brain chemicals are the physical reality thoughts are contingent on. Beauty isn't necessarily physical, but the physical entities we judge as beautiful are what beauty is contingent on. Your god is neither physical nor contingent on physical reality and therefore cannot be detected, and is by definition indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.

So this idea of metaphysical just kinda whirls around in my head. If your saying that god is an idea or a thought, then it is the thoughts and ideas that are contingent on physical reality; god is not contingent on physical reality.
I'm not requiring only physical explanations. I'll accept any contingent on physical explanations as well.

Then you go to the big bang. and say "It is believed form the evidence that matter and antimatter split apart from nothingness, releasing energy which turned into mater, formed the basic subatomic particles and eventually cam together via gravity to form the universe. Like I said, this is just about proven. But what about before?"
Ok so do you agree that to "before" is a temporal concept? "Before" requires time. Well time started at the big bang, which may mean that the question, "What happened before?" is nonsensical, because there would have to be time in order for a before to be. But check my avatar, I'm a science guy so I'll bite.

To understand the big bang completely you need to know what nothingness is...something. That is, there really isn't nothingness, because even when you strip empty space of matter and energy, particles, and radiation, what is left is everything we understand nothing to be except there are subatomic particles popping in and out of existence which if they pop into existence at the same time and place as another they could build up energy and create matter. So this nothing is from which the big bang comes, according to my interpretation of leading scientists' work in the field.

Mr. Newton's laws are different than those of quantum mechanics, the realm of nothingness about which we speak. Yes, Newton's laws of physics break down in the quantum world.

Also a first causer is special pleading because you get to your first cause with a premise that all things need a cause and then arrive at your causer and say he needs no cause.

To sum it up:
Omnipotence is itself a contradiction which is why you keep thinking my heavy rock argument is begging the question because it illustrates the inherent contradiction in what omnipotence is.
Symmetry is an actual physical proportion not bound by our understanding or labeling of it.
Symmetry is also a general objective characteristic of attractiveness, not every characteristic...just one that doesn't need a standard.
Enough with infinity.
Evolution has been demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions...seriously learn about human chromosome 2; it's fascinating. It's also that pesky transitional link anti-evolutionists claim that we can't find. We are modern apes anyway, a transitional form.
Things are either physical or contingent on something physical; you're god isn't either of those and you thought I asked a ridiculous question when I asked could your god be physical...think about that.
Your first causer needs a cause according to your line of causal reasoning otherwise you're special pleading your metaphysical magic man.
My explanation for "before" the big bang needs not a first causer. It needs nothingness.
Demonstrate please that your god is contingent on physical reality as you have continuously stated he is not physical. If you can do that, you win.
Debate Round No. 4
J.Radley

Pro

Once again, in your thought experiment, you are the one who has created the paradox. You continue to assume that the power to fail is indeed a power. Creating a god who has every power INCLUDING is where the problem arises. Don't you understand that failing to do something is not an ability, its an inability? This is why omnipotence with reference to god refers to being able to do what you set out to do. God can set out to do ANYTHING if he so desires that doesn't lead to the sort of nonsense you refer. How can anything set out to do what would stop him doing it? It is like the question 'will my answer to this question be no?' Clearly there is no answer! The flaw there isn't in the nature of the question, it's in asking it. Likewise the flaw in your question is in the asking. Further, not only has it been demonstrated that there cannot be two gods, but the definition I am using is the correct one. You are the one changing definitions. Go back to St. Augustine in 'Citadel of God': "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." Augustine also points out that the definition rests upon what he wills, or what he sets out to do, as I have continually been reinforcing. My definition is not new, in fact; it is the original.

As to your next point, I stress that (a) the pope has mot said he believes in evolution. He has simply said that it is consistent with the teachings of the Church. Which leads to (b) there is not proof of evolution at the moment. With reference to the chromosome you are discussing I wish to point out that it is NOT a proof because, if you examine ALL the findings you will notice that the fused chromosome is not equal to the two previous ape chromosomes (2A and 2B). There are approximately 150,000 bases in the fused chromosome that are missing from the ape's chromosomes, a fact yet to be accounted for. We an see, then that there is no proof yet. You may argue that evolution produced more bases with time, but this effectively undermines the original premise- it leaves us with no reason to believe that the fused chromosome does indeed come from apes. It is for this reason that we DO NOT YET HAVE PROOF of evolution. And yes, MOST evolutionary biologists do not yet believe we have found the link- I mean, what do you think they are employed to do? They are searching, that is their job.

I am in full agreement with the pope. I do not deny that evolution may be correct. My original argument is that evolution is used as a substitute argument for God and the existence of life, when in fact this belief requires just as much faith as believing in God. Neither have the sort of proof that you desire. Also, when you look at the sheer probabilities involved in creating even a single strand of DNA from chance, you realise that after crunching the numbers, the probability of blind chance producing a strand of DNA is well below what statisticians define as impossible. Further than that, the chance it could make all the components for even the simplest life form, including the DNA, is millions upon millions times less. It seems to me, therefore that the belief in blind chance creating life, and evolution forming us humans is actually harder to believe than believing in an intelligent designer, especially when realising that the world contains so much evidence of intelligent design, such as the structure of the simplest living cell.

Further on your discussion of the Big Bang, I too would like to be a bit of a "science guy" here. You refer to how the virtual particles popping in and out of existence could theoretically all align at the same time to produce the Big Bang. I question the existence of these virtual particles. From my understanding, our belief in these particles comes from derived mathematical formulae that requires an extra particle to fill the error gap. This was originally why they were theorised. However, if we apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, that at the atomic level we cannot accurately observe and calculate something because the act of observing changes the accuracy, we an easily account for the small error in the original mathematical, thus destroying the validity of the theory. They are also undetectable in every way, so we cannot apply three stages of proof to this particular idea either. Many professional physicists have come out and disagreed with the theory for many the same reasons.

However, if we take your approach, we still have to account for a first cause. I agree that classical physics does not hold on the atomic level, but it only takes common sense to realise that the movement of the virtual particles themselves have to have a cause. A particle cannot decide that it wants to move, without something moving it. Further, you state that God does not have a first cause, a contradiction. But you must realise that one of the actions had to have been the first, and,thus, uncaused. We can't go back infinitely- you yourself said there was no time before the Big Bang. Therefore, one particular event had to have been the first. I have already shown this is impossible for a physical particle, so we have to look beyond the physical, giving us the explanation of a first mover, an omnipotent creator. There is no other explanation, unless you think that a particle could have the power of an almighty God which is, of course, ridiculous.

Lets look briefly at something else you said: "In your example, why would everyone find my wife as beautiful as I do. Couldn't people just find my wife beautiful, due to her generally symmetrical face, but just a little less beautiful than I find her to be? Or more?" This is exactly what I was trying to say! If everyone perceives beauty differently, how an it be based on something mathematical? With your model of symmetry, it would imply everyone perceiving beauty the same, but, with your own words, this is not true. Thus we are lead back to my original argument.
As to other points of beauty and infinity, I have already explained myself enough times, and am not going to waste space retyping it.

God is metaphysical- he cannot be physical and he is certainly mot contingent as he is not dependant on anything else- otherwise he would not be God. As such you will never be satisfied with any answer to this question that anyone gives you. All responses that argue for God existence rely on logic and reason alone, and as he isn't physical your three stage proof can never be applied to God.

The problem with what you believe, as can be observed through all your ideas, is that you would rather believe ANYTHING as long as God does not come into the equation. You put your faith in blind chance to create life, in unproven evolution to create humans with all their very distinct and unique features, the believe in a particle that is easily explained away (and is regularly done so) to show how the world came into being. You ignore the fact that for almost all of our race's history people have believes in the existence of a God because it MAKES THE MOST SENSE. Your beliefs on what makes the world how it is are all based on things that can be called absurd. We live in a world full of so much order, beauty and evidence of intelligent design, from the structure of simplest cell to the number of incredible factors that makes earth the only known planet capable of supporting life. All the facts necessary to support belief in an intelligent designer are right there, but you choose to ignore them.

You have relies upon false scientific evidence, logical fallacies and creating impossible situations in order to try to prove my points wrong. You have provided no evidence to show inconclusively that there is no God. Regardless of whether I took on burden of proof or not, the new atheist movement is a minority in this world that is attempting to overthrow the idea common to all cultures, tribes, and civilisations throughout history- God and religion. If anything, it is you atheists who have something to prove.

You consistently and repeatedly demand a physical or contingent on physical proof of God, despite my many attempts to explain that God, being outside the physical, cannot be proven with physical methods. All proofs of God, all notions to believe in him are based upon the use of logic and reason, some examples of which I have given, examples that actually fit in perfectly with all known scientific facts.

I ask you, how do explain unnatural phenomena without the existence of God? How do explain miracles? How do explain that 10,000 witnesses swear that the sun began to fall one October in Fatima? How do you explain that Jesuit priests in Hiroshima left the area completely unaffected by the blast or the radiation, with many scientific tests performed on them? How do you explain a sample of Blood, Jesus' Blood, that every year, once a year, turns into a liquid, and back to a solid for the rest of the year? How do you explain the Eucharistic Host that bled, with many scientific tests confirming that the blood appeared out of the supposed piece of bread? How do you explain other phenomena, like a statue in Bolivia that BLEEDS? How can you explain away Jesus miracles, when there are hundreds more surviving eyewitness accounts of his miracles than of Caesar crossing the Rubicon?

Your god, Science, cannot account for these things. The true God can.

But you will ignore what I say. You will claim its all fake, or fraudulent. Because you will believe anything except God. And you will not believe in God until you get physical proof. Unless you open your mind to the possibility that some things are beyond this world, no-one is going to be able to help you find God. You're the only one stopping yourself from accepting the one fundamental truth:

There is a God.
MagicAintReal

Con

Pardon the double negative but, the power to destroy oneself is not an inability. Are you unable to kill yourself? No, you have the ability to do so. Therefore, something with all abilities has the ability to destroy itself; forget trying to fail or attempting to not complete something.
So please stop saying the try to fail thing, and how about start defending the try to destroy oneself thing?...yeah you won't touch that without your "set out to do" special pleading for your version of omnipotence.

You say "How can anything set out to do what would stop him doing it?"
Let's pretend someone sets out to kill armed police. The police would stop him from killing police by killing/shooting him. The man sets out to kill police, but this very action stops him from doing it. Stop making bogus claims.
Oh and I understood your two god paradox, I was using the two gods as representations of our definitions of omnipotence, and I noticed you dodged my question of whether or not something that actually has every power has more powers than something that only has powers it sets out to have.
I usually don't cite things, because I present generally understood claims, but I realize not everyone is a linguist so, according to its etymology at etymonline.com
omnipotent (adj.)
early 14c., from Old French omnipotent "almighty, all-powerful" (11c.) or directly from Latin omnipotentem (nominative omnipotens) "all-powerful, almighty," from omnis "all" (see omni-) + potens (genitive potentis) "powerful" (see potent). Strictly only of God or a deity; general sense of "having absolute power or authority" is attested from 1590s.
Why isn't there any mention of setting out to do something? If you check out etymologies of other words, you will see there are multiple meanings and derivations, because linguists try to put every detail about the word's history into it, but not omnipotent. Omnipotent is as direct from Latin as you can get. All + Powerful, that's it. If your definition is the original, why haven't linguists included that in the very history of the words they are studying?

You go on to say "If you examine ALL the findings you will notice that the fused chromosome is not equal to the two previous ape chromosomes (2A and 2B). There are approximately 150,000 bases in the fused chromosome that are missing from the ape's chromosomes, a fact yet to be accounted for."
Even if there were 150,000 base pairs on the human chromosome that do not appear in the ape chromosome, the unique genetic code only specific to those two ape chromosomes are in our genetics. Which is why we are considered modern apes. This fusion again is your transitional form as it has elements of ape (exact base pair matches) and elements of human (your 150,000 base pair number if it's correct).
And I have to bring up something you said earlier in the debate"evolution has NOT been proven, as most evolutionary biologists agree"
You realize that saying the majority of evolutionary biologists don't agree with evolution is like saying the majority of doctors don't agree with pathogenic theory, right? Tell me that the majority of legitimate physicians don't believe that microorganisms invade your body and make you ill. Doctors willingly study the facts of pathogenic theory for their entire college career as it explains modern medicine. This is the exact case with evolution.
Evolutionary biologists who reject evolution are basically saying "The field that I am credible in is bogus. I'm glad I willingly spent 6 years and tons of money on something that I knew was untrue and that I also use to identify myself as authoritative on matters of the thing I believe to be untrue." The theory of evolution explains modern biology. Both pathogenic theory and the theory of evolution are facts. Also most biologists don't care about the idea of a "missing link" and here's why.

I used to teach high school science and this was my favorite way to explain common ancestry as of course students would ask me if I believed in evolution.
Let's take the languages of Spanish, Italian, and French. We know they are three different languages, they exist today, and have existed in history. We also know that these three languages come from a COMMON language, Latin (common ancestor, apes). How do we know this? When you look at the words, structure, syntax, phonemics, phonetics, and semantics of Latin, you find those exact same/similar characteristics in Spanish, French, and Italian, just like you find the exact same/similar genetic characteristics of apes in humans, homo habilis, and homo erectus.
Not to misrepresent you, but I'm sure you believe that Spanish comes from Latin. What if I asked you, what's the missing link between Latin and Spanish? Do you know of Splatin? Or maybe you've heard of Latinish. Nope, no one has, and no one needs Splatin or Latinish (missing links) to explain that Spanish comes from Latin. You have enough evidence WITHOUT a transitional language to explain Spanish is a descendant of Latin. You might even call Spanish a modern Latin language, like we call humans modern apes.
Furthermore when you keep demanding transitional forms you create an infinite god of the gaps argument, because if we were to find Splatin somewhere in our history, we then would create a new gap between Latin and Splatin, and a second new gap between Splatin and Spanish. If we find the next transitional languages, there would be four new gaps and so on. I'll bet you've never thought of language being evidence for evolution before, but it's such a good analogy.

Randomness and low likelihood do not a negation make so your DNA argument is not amusing.
Also the subatomic particles of nothing are not virtual, they're real and detectable, and--you'll probably like this--seem to always intermittently exist and not exist. Youtube Lawrence Krause's explanation of a universe from nothing.

Again, "cause" just like"before" is a temporal concept that requires time to happen. It's the case that time can only exist relative to things being there for time to pass. So before the big bang, there was no time for causing to take place. It could also be that on the quantum level, like you said it doesn't follow classical physics, that there are uncaused causes, because things can exist and not exist at the same time.
I never said beauty is only based on symmetry, and I even clarified that symmetry is not the only characteristic common to assessments of beauty. You keep creating a straw-man of my points.

You said "If everyone perceives beauty differently, how an it be based on something mathematical?"
Perception and mathematics are unrelated. Take a boxing match with judges. They use numbers (mathematics) to score the rounds of the fight. There are even strike counts to see who has hit someone more. Yet we find that each judge's score card--score cards are mathematically based as score is by definition a number--is different. But how can that be if it's based on mathematics? Two answers. One, there are other factors besides strike count that fit in to "better fighter". Two "better" is a qualitative adjective, so though the mathematics of the fight still occur, the qualitative parts of the fight, like ring control/dominance/technique, factor into the mathematical score.
This is how we view symmetry. Most fights will be judged similarly, as most beauty will be judged similarly, especially when there is one very dominant opponent, or when there is one very attractive thing.

You said "responses that argue for God existence rely on logic and reason alone"
Would you agree that logic and reason are contingent on reality? So then their conclusions should be real or contingent on reality.

You said "You ignore the fact that for almost all of our race's history people have believes in the existence of a God because it MAKES THE MOST SENSE. "
Impressive. You were able to get, as I see it, three logical fallacies in one sentence. Argument ad populum, it's correct because almost all races have believed it. Argument from antiquity, it's correct because all of history shows belief. Begging the question, it's correct because it makes the most sense. Applause.

You say "I ask you, how do explain unnatural phenomena without the existence of God?"
Demonstrate something unnatural, and I may be able to answer your question. Oh yeah, stories from people aren't a demonstration of anything unnatural. Not even if you say it was thousands of people. Not even if you commit an argument from ignorance fallacy by saying if I can't explain something, therefore it's unnatural and requires a god.
So if all these blood coming out of bread/liquid to solid blood claims are true, then you can demonstrate this idea to the James Randi Educational Foundation www.jref.org and win a million dollars in their challenge for anyone who can demonstrate miracles that are unnatural/supernatural and of the like.
Science isn't my god just like social studies isn't my god, nor mathematics, nor linguistics. They're just tools. Really effective tools that provide us with reliable evidence over and over again. This doesn't make them god like, it just makes them useful.

I reject the claim that there is a god because one hasn't been demonstrated, especially in this debate. You just set up a huge argument from ignorance proving that counter claims to god are wrong therefore god exists. You have to prove positives not negatives.
Your claim that since standard of beauty exists therefore god exists had no support from anything you said, and it seems like a non sequitur.
Omnipotence's self contradictory nature refutes an omnipotent god.
Symmetry, proportions, patterns, distances, and widths all exist whether we label them or not. So even if the label of symmetry is a human construction, it exists and doesn't require a standard to appreciate it. We also don't need a superlative to give value to things.

I still reject the claim a god exists.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
I meant *omnipotence in the beginning of my RFD pt. 2, not omniscience.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
---- Expanded RFD: Arguments, pt. 1 ----

Primary Argument: Infinite Beauty
Con's presents analogies as arguments, one about wine one and the other about beauty. Pro's conclusion to these analogies, "What we observe here is that there must be some form of infinite beauty, goodness, all pleasant traits, by which we have a standard. It is this standard that we can call God." seems quite Non Sequitur, and it is not clear how this conclusion is reached. This argument descends into a misunderstanding about the objective nature of "symmetry" and how it is an aspect of beauty. This word is a descriptive label we ascribe to something to reflect its evenly proportioned features. Later, Con points out that since God does not exist within our physical realm, He cannot possess what we know as *physical* beauty. The word "infinity" is used a lot by Pro without describing its relevance.

Argument: Religious Experience
Pro lists a number of unexplainable phenomena (shotgun) as another argument that supports the resolution in R5. Con explains that eye-witness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence, and that Pro is committing the Argument from Ignorance fallacy in attributing the phenomena to God simply because it cannot be explained. This is made clear when Pro made a particular statement, "Your god, Science, cannot account for these things. The true God can." which just reeked of the God of the Gaps fallacy.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
---- Expanded RFD: Arguments, pt. 2 ----

Other Arguments: Omniscience, Evolution, Big Bang (First Cause)
Throughout the debate, a battle rages on about the definition of "omnipotent". As Con stated at the end, Pro never addressed the question, "could God destroy Himself?", where destroying something (even yourself) is an ability rather than an inability. This ultimately undermines the definition, which pushes the debate in Con's favor. The two other scientific arguments that are brought up address Evolution and the Big Bang; neither of which support the existence of a God. Pro asserts strong opinions against the validity of these, but it only end up highlighting how these theories are testable and falsifiable, contrary to God. Furthermore, Pro commits the Special Pleading fallacy in arguing that God must be the first cause, without adequately explaining why He is exempt. Con's language analogy does quite well in paralleling evolution.

There were many other exchanges during the debate, and a few more logical fallacies by Pro that were pointed out in R5 by Con, as he highlighted in Pro statement, "You ignore the fact that for almost all of our race's history people have believes in the existence of a God because it MAKES THE MOST SENSE." Overall, most of the arguments that Pro provided did not support the resolution. Arguments to Con.
Posted by GottaGorillaForSale 1 year ago
GottaGorillaForSale
Really good debate guys, I enjoyed reading it!
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
maybe there are rocks to, maybe worth a debate
Posted by J.Radley 1 year ago
J.Radley
Cheers GloryRoad, its always great to be reminded that people share your views! Stay alert for this rest of the debate!
Posted by Gloryroad 1 year ago
Gloryroad
Thank you Pro, for putting out what you believe by immediately placing yourself on the Pro side! God is good!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
J.RadleyMagicAintRealTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro appeared to begin to approach hostility and ad hominems towards the end, but didn't cross the line. No significant S/G errors on either side. Arguments to Con; See expanded RFD in Comments Section. As this was stressed in R1 to be a philosophical debate not reliant on external sources, Sources will be ruled even.