The Instigator
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGod
Pro (for)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

This house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,288 times Debate No: 8231
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (15)

 

OurGodIsAnAwsomeGod

Pro

There is/was/were a Creator/s. I phrased it this way to limit the debate to atheism vs. theism/deism. I do not want this to be a debate on :monotheism, polytheism, deism vs. thesim, gap theory, 7 day theory, etc. Strictly atheism vs. theism/deism.

Now that the preliminaries are done I will open up with my scientific argument.

First off there is an abundance of energy in the universe. There is an abundance of matter in the universe. My question is where did it come from?

Some one might purpose that it has always been there but First Law of Thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The amount of energy in the universe is constant ���‚�" energy can be changed, moved, controlled, stored, or dissipated. However, this energy cannot be created from nothing or reduced to nothing.

Now this might seem to be contradictory. Stating that energy can neither be CREATED or destroyed. But this is a part of science only after there was a science. (Science here means A systematic order to things that is constant without fail /I will admit that there are exceptions to some laws but not major exceptions/.)

My question is "How did it all get here?" Is there a system that put it into motion? If so what is that system and where did it go? If you say that the system is only a system that works under certain circumstances then what are those circumstance? If we know those circumstances then why can we not reproduce those same circumstances? If we do not know those circumstances then how come we deny a Creator/s? Why can we not say that there is or was an all powerful being/s or beings that created?

Now all that I am stating is that we can state that there is a possibility that there is/was/were a Creator/s. Now philosophically if there is a possibility of something then it must exist in some possible universe. Now if there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe. If It/they is greater than It/they was then It/they is not truly an omnipotent being. Now in order for It/they to be truly omnipotent being/s than It/they must be as great as is possible. Now in order for It/they to be as great as is possible It/they must exist in some possible universe. If It/they exists in a possible universe then It/they has the possibility of existing in reality. If then It/they existed in reality then It/they would be greater than if It/they had only existed in a possible world. Now if It/they was greater than if It/they only existed in a possible world then It/they is/are not omnipotent. Now if It/they was truly omnipotent then It/they will truly exist. So as stated before this house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s.

Now personally I do not believe in polytheism but when I say they were/are omnipotent then I mean collectively as one being.

So this is my argument in short.
1. Where did all the energy/matter in the Universe come from?
2. There must be a beginning.
3. Is there a system that put it into motion?
4. If so what is that system and where did it go?
5. If you say that the system is only a system that works under certain circumstances then what are those circumstance?
6. If we know those circumstances then why can we not reproduce those same circumstances?
7. If we do not know those circumstances then how come we deny a Creator/s?
8. Why can we not say that there is or was an all powerful being/s or beings that created?
9. There is a possibility that there is/was/were a Creator/s.
10. Now philosophically if there is a possibility of something then it must exist in some possible universe.
11. If there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe.
12. if there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe. If It/they is greater than It/they was then It/they is not truly an omnipotent being. Now in order for It/they to be truly omnipotent being/s than It/they must be as great as is possible.
13. Apply the same principal that we just applied to the possible to reality.
14. This house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s.
Tatarize

Con

I thank you for the debate.

Now while there is certainly a number of ways of approaching this, I think the best way is probably to expose the holes in the argument. While I could point out that modern cosmological physics holds that the universe might just be zero sum. It seems to be the case that there is an abundance of energy and matter, and keeping in mind that energy is matter we note that there is simply a massive amount of energy in the universe. However, if we look, we find that this energy actually cancels out the negative energy such as the distance between objects and expansion of the universe. As such, it isn't ex nilho, but rather a simple case that 0 = -1 + 1. This works out and leaves us with no mystery at all. The question of causes is likewise negated by quantum physics. We look at causes at our level of scale and we find that they are useful and so we look at them. However, it in quantum physics this is turned on it's head, and events are causeless and just happen. If there is energy, it will rip into an electron and positron this amount of time and then fall back into itself at random. It's an absolutely causeless event. As such, there's no reason to suppose the Big Bang needs to have a cause or exist within time, it might actually just happen and the it might just a causeless zero sum energy fluctuation. -- There's a joke, why does time exist? So that everything doesn't happen at once. The real question is why does spacetime exist, and it seems that the answer is so that everything isn't nothing.

However, this is pretty cutting edge science (though several decades old) and though it provides philosophically fulfilling answers, let's largely ignore it. Rather than provide real answers that science is marching towards, I'd like to expose exactly how hollow your argument actually is...

Let's say, I don't know where the energy comes from. I don't know where the matter comes from. I don't understand where the entropy (actually a bit harder problem) comes from. The first law of thermodynamics applies to heat, it states "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings." In a zero sum universe, this applies perfectly well (the total energy would always be zero). However, it does hold accurate that so long as the universe isn't gaining energy from some outside source, that it has the same amount of energy it always has. Created is a perfectly fine word to use, and let's allow the implication that none of this matter has been created.

You now ask, "How did it all get here?" To which I say: "I don't know."

-- "Why can we not say that there is or was an all powerful being/s or beings that created?"

We could say that, but it doesn't make it true. It was all invented by a guy in a funny hat named Jayne in the 26th century. I can certainly say that, but why is it true?

-- "Now all that I am stating is that we can state that there is a possibility that there is/was/were a Creator/s."

This does not follow. Just because we could say something doesn't make it possible. I put two nickles into an empty jar and now I have 103032092393302039290443 nickles in that jar.

-- "Now philosophically if there is a possibility of something then it must exist in some possible universe."

This does not follow. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it actually exists. There's nothing philosophically or otherwise which allows this conclusion.

-- Now if there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe. ... Now if It/they was truly omnipotent then It/they will truly exist.

This does not follow. You are taking the conceptual and converting it unceremoniously into the actual. It is possible that there exists the greatest jelly doughnut ever, now it is possible so it must exist in some possible universe. Now because the greatest jellydoughnut would be one that actually exists, it must the case that that jellydoughnut actually exists. Therefore that jellydoughnut actually exists. And having that jellydoughnut would be better than not having that jellydoughnut and since that jellydoughnut is the best jellydoughnut, it must be that I have that jellydoughnut. Therefore I have the best possible jellydoughnut ever. HEY! WHERE IS MY JELLY DOUGHNUT!

>>1. Where did all the energy/matter in the Universe come from?

I don't know.

>>2. There must be a beginning.

This is not proven.

>>3. Is there a system that put it into motion?

I don't know.

>>4. If so what is that system and where did it go?

I don't know.

>>5. If you say that the system is only a system that works under certain circumstances then what are those circumstance?

I don't know.

>>6. If we know those circumstances then why can we not reproduce those same circumstances?

I don't know. (Though I'm doing this for the sake of the argument, the actual answer is clearly the big bang and we very much are reproducing those same circumstances in the LHC, that's one of the major purposes of the Large Hadron Collider).

>>7. If we do not know those circumstances then how come we deny a Creator/s?

We have no evidence for a creator. This is what you must prove.

>>8. Why can we not say that there is or was an all powerful being/s or beings that created?

We could say that. But we have no reason to suppose that it's a true statement.

>>9. There is a possibility that there is/was/were a Creator/s.

This doesn't follow. I'm not certain what is and isn't possible, but I've seen no sound arguments from you that force me to accept this conclusion.

>>10. Now philosophically if there is a possibility of something then it must exist in some possible universe.

This is false. Philosophically there is no such requirement.

>>11. If there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe.

This wrongly makes the leap from conceptual to material. You can't say it's better if this exists, therefore it exists, even if that thing is by definition the best thing. The 'thing' being considered here is a concept. Whereas the 'better thing' is an actual material existence.

>>12. if there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe. If It/they is greater than It/they was then It/they is not truly an omnipotent being. Now in order for It/they to be truly omnipotent being/s than It/they must be as great as is possible.

Defining something as something that exists by being great enough to exist, doesn't make that thing exist.

>>13. Apply the same principal that we just applied to the possible to reality.

If this were true, I'd have that jelly doughnut.

>>14. This house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s.

You have not shown is something that follows from your argument.

---

I wonder why you bother with the first mover argument and the first cause if you're just going to try and force it into existence with Anselm's Ontological argument. It's all an argument from ignorance. You say there's bound to be a reason and then assign it to God. However, you then turn around and magic god into existence with discredited wordplay. However, this is one of the more professional arguments I've run into, for that, bravo.

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

Though, interestingly your version of the cosmological argument is based on the existence of matter rather than causality. If I say the Big Bang could have never happened, your argument tends to crumble. But that's neither here nor there.
Debate Round No. 1
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGod

Pro

Thank you for you debate. I find that you are a person with some sense on the matter and that you are taking me literal in the fact that I do not want to debate on monotheism blah blah blah....

This however is not the point of the debate.

I think that when you say
"However, it in quantum physics this is turned on it's head, and events are causeless and just happen. If there is energy, it will rip into an electron and positron this amount of time and then fall back into itself at random. It's an absolutely causeless event. As such, there's no reason to suppose the Big Bang needs to have a cause or exist within time, it might actually just happen and the it might just a causeless zero sum energy fluctuation."
That things can happen without a cause.

If so than you must prove to me that we were not caused by anything (Big Bang, God, Zeus, The Great Wild Spirit, or Quantum Physics). For if there is no cause than we can not make a cause out of thin air as you so kindly pointed out.

You still however avoided my question, "Where did all the energy/matter in the Universe come from?"

You also avoided my premise, "There must be a beginning." I find this to be as obvious as the reflexive axiom but for the sake of the debate...

If there is time which you have already stated there is "There's a joke, why does time exist? So that everything doesn't happen at once. The real question is why does spacetime exist, and it seems that the answer is so that everything isn't nothing." then there must be a beginning. For if we do not have a beginning then how can we have history oh wait under your theory we don't and Adolf Hitler is having to deal with Julius Caesar who is dealing with Napoleon Bonaparte. This clearly is not happening so their must be some sort of timeline. As with all timelines there must be a beginning to it. So if I have to get any deeper than that I don't know where to begin.

This is all well and good but more to the point since there is a beginning there must be a story behind it. What is that story?

What caused the energy to be there?
"Let's say, I don't know where the energy comes from."
You apparently do so in laymen's terms (for I must be an idiot) where did it come from.
What caused the matter to be there?
What caused the entropy to be there?
Answer these without a God/s and without a causeless happening for for everything there is a cause otherwise things would be popping up everywhere.

Now even with your ridiculous example of the nickels there is a possibility that could happen granted not under modern scientific law but it could happen.
This is just like the probability question that my teacher asked us, "What is the probability that a coin could turn up heads?" Most people would say that it is 50/50 chance that the coin would turn up heads. I however am intelligent enough to realize that there is a third (however slight) a third possibility. The coin will land on its side. Realistically this may only happen once in a hundred billion times but possibly can still happen every time. Correct?

No you miss understood me I said since it possibly exists it must exist in a POSSIBLE universe not actually exists.

The flaw with your jelly doughnut is this. It is not omnipotent. Meaning all powerful or almighty. It is just the best of something not the best of EVERYTHING. That is where you jelly doughnut went.

Where did all the energy/matter in the Universe come from?
It had to come from somewhere.

There must be a beginning.
This is proven I proved it.

Is there a system that put it into motion?
Something did.

If so what is that system and where did it go?
I propose that a Creator/s is that system and that that Creator/s is somewhere (outside of the laws of science).

If you say that the system is only a system that works under certain circumstances then what are those circumstance?
I propose that this Creator/s is only willing to work on It's/their own conditions and in It's/their own time.

If we know those circumstances then why can we not reproduce those same circumstances?
It is broke so that don't work. When it works if it works I will give a strong probability that there is no Creator/s. Other than that congrats for introducing me to a subject I will have to investigate further.

If we do not know those circumstances then how come we deny a Creator/s?
I think that the arguments shown are very strong evidence for the fact that there is a Creator.

There is a possibility that there is/was/were a Creator/s.
There is a possibility of anything. Even the possibility that there is Bigfoot or something like that.

Now philosophically if there is a possibility of something then it must exist in some possible universe.
In some possible world there is a possible God it is just that simple.

If there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe.

"This wrongly makes the leap from conceptual to material. You can't say it's better if this exists, therefore it exists, even if that thing is by definition the best thing. The 'thing' being considered here is a concept. Whereas the 'better thing' is an actual material existence."
Where did I start talking about Creator/s as things? If I did I apologize for the slip of the tongue I mean finger. HAHA
Sorry back to the debate. It is not better for some being to be in existence rather it (that is the being) is greater by existing than not existing. Therefore a Omnipotent Being/s must exists by it's very nature.

If there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe. If It/they is greater than It/they was then It/they is not truly an omnipotent being. Now in order for It/they to be truly omnipotent being/s than It/they must be as great as is possible.
Omnipotent means almighty or infinite in power. Therefore something infinite must infinitely exist.

Apply the same principal that we just applied to the possible to reality
This is true because our theoretical (up into this point) being/s are omnipotent therefore they must exist. Sorry your
jelly doughnut is not omnipotent if is was it might just eat you.

This house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s.
Your last statement made no sense sorry. But I do believe that I have shown enough evidence that this is true.

---
Thank you for the debate I thought that you had some very interesting points that I want to ponder on some more. But overall I think you miss interpret my argument and that you fail to understand that I am not just a Jesus nut who thinks that any argument I find is perfectly useful and proves that there is a God. Thanks again hope to continue to find as logical people as you out there. Sorry if my argument seem a little skewed or ill thought out but I did respond at 5:00 in the morning.
Tatarize

Con

Your argument is flawed in several ways. For the sake of the reader I will spell them out explicitly.

1) There can be uncaused events. The raison d'�tre of many quantum events is absolutely nothing. So because things do not need to have causes, my opponent must prove that the universe has a cause.
2) The universe cannot have a cause. The universe is the start of space and time, and thus cannot have a time prior to it's existence and thus, cannot have a cause.
3) God is proposed as a solution, without any demonstration that such a solution is a solution or that God exists.
4) God is assumed to be uncaused and thus violating the argument it was proposed to answer. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, where did God get this matter?
5) My opponent states, "now philosophically if there is a possibility of something (Conceptual possibility) then it must exist (Material existence) in some possible universe." He's wrongly converting the conceptual into the material. There is a very real and unmistakable difference between the two. A concept of God exists can not be converted into God exist, regardless how that concept is defined.
6) To demonstrate this I showed the same example with a Jelly Doughnut. My opponent argued that it needs to be omnipotent to work. However, this isn't a requirement of the argument. It must only be the case that an existing jelly doughnut is better than a conceptual one. However, I should now have an omnipotent jelly doughnut.

My opponents argument, fails on all the points. Many of the premises are false, and it doesn't follow. Not everything needs a cause, and proposing God is a non-sequitor, and you can't magic God(s) into existence with wordplay.

I admire my opponent for his understanding and reliance on classical theism, but the arguments still aren't very good and certainly aren't sound. This is more true today because they are predicated on premises that science now rejects.

-----------

--"I think that when you say... [cut quantum positron electron annihilation description] That things can happen without a cause."

Things can and do happen without a cause in quantum mechanics all the time. Nothing causes radioactive decay: it just happens. It happens at a measurable rate over a large number of particles such that we can measure the age of the earth to 4.6 billion years, but the actually "cause" of the decay doesn't exist.

--"For if there is no cause than we can not make a cause out of thin air as you so kindly pointed out."

This does not follow. If there is no cause, then there is no cause. We are not entitled to invent one. There must be a cause and I've just invented a creator to fill that role; I'm sorry, no. First, there doesn't need to be a cause (ask yourself what caused your God, when you suggest in some manner that there is no cause, realize that that violates the above rule, and any exception of cause could apply equally well if not better to the universe).

I didn't avoid your question of where the energy and matter of the Universe comes from: I don't know. That's an absolutely reasonable answer. As for any beginnings, those remain to be proven. But, even submitting that there might be a beginning doesn't force the conclusion that there is a cause. Further the reflexive axiom that there must be an end, doesn't hold for the universe either. Heat death isn't an end, it's just the point where there's nothing left to do.

Spacetime exists is the reason why anything exists at all. That idea being, if you add up the energies it all adds up to zero. The fact that these energies are kept apart with spacetime is the reason there is anything at all. If correct, then the matter and energy didn't come from anywhere.

-- Answer these without a God/s and without a causeless happening for for everything there is a cause otherwise things would be popping up everywhere.

"I don't know" doesn't include a god(s) . Causeless happening is an actual actuality. There is no reason to exclude them. There isn't a cause for everything, and there are things popping up everywhere. All the time we have subatomic particles ripping out of energy and smashing back into themselves or splitting off and combining with other matter. We have causeless things popping up everywhere.

-- No you miss understood me I said since it possibly exists it must exist in a POSSIBLE universe not actually exists.

The conversion from "possibly exists" to "exists in a possible universe" is a conversion from the conceptual to the non-conceptual.

-- The flaw with your jelly doughnut is this. It is not omnipotent. Meaning all powerful or almighty. It is just the best of something not the best of EVERYTHING. That is where you jelly doughnut went.

There is no division in the argument for that. My jelly doughnut is the best jelly doughnut possible. Clearly if it actually exists it is better in the capacity of being a jelly doughnut. I do not need to propose that my jelly doughnut is omnipotent, just that it's the best jelly doughnut. Since even the worst existing jelly doughnut must be better than the best conceptual jelly doughnut, my jelly doughnut must be existing. -- The argument holds if one is allowed to bridge the qualitative difference between conceptual existence and material existence with wordplay.

--It had to come from somewhere.

If it came from there, where did *that* energy come from? You either need to violate the conservation of matter/energy or surrender the point.

--Is there a system that put it into motion?

I don't know.

--Something did.

That doesn't mean it's a system. It could be something as a kin to the decay of a sub atomic particle. It's certainly in motion now as an alpha particle is quickly emitted, but it wasn't put into motion by any system. It wasn't even put into motion by a cause (if you really want to cook your noodle, you can't even know what motion it's in if you know where the particle is).

----If so what is that system and where did it go?
--I propose that a Creator/s is that system and that that Creator/s is somewhere (outside of the laws of science).

But, there's no indication that we have to go outside the laws of science for an answer. Further, perhaps the origin of the universe is simply outside the laws of science. Indeed all of our laws of science only apply to the universe. And, if spacetime exists, then the universe already exists. And you can have no time prior to the universe, nothing could cause the universe, or needs to. One could have a origin outside the laws of science that doesn't require the agency that proposing a "creator" assumes.

However, the larger problem is that you propose a creator. That is not an argument nor is it reasonable or sound. You cannot simple propose something as a solution without actually demonstrating that it is, in fact, the correct solution.

You have shown very strong evidence that you *propose* there is a creator in order to answer questions, which science dictates might not need any answers. However, you've done nothing to establish that this is a solution, nor have you answered the problem that you've just outsourced the problem. If some creator(s) is the source of entropy, matter, energy, etc, then where did this creator(s) come from. This proposes again the very same question as we are given to ask about the universe. While you seem to accept that this source is "outside the laws of physics". But, without spacetime, any origin for this matter and energy would equally be outside the laws of physics.

--

Further, it isn't true that "philosophically if there is a possibility" that there must be "existence in a possible universe".

You are saying that conceptual things exist in possibility and then make the leap to material things. However this a qualitative difference and the leap cannot be made.
Debate Round No. 2
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGod

Pro

Sorry that it took so long to reply my grandmother's birthday was yesterday and I have been preparing for my graduation tomorrow.

I would love to first congratulate my opponent on his very good understanding of modern science but must say that his understanding of me is not as exact. I apologize for this and wish that on a later date I might be a bit better at making myself clear.

The thing that my opponent does not seam to readily understand is that we're not talking about a impossible being (for everything is possible it is possible that I could inherit 1 million dollars however unlikely) this however does not seem to be his biggest issue. His biggest issue seems to be that if something is the best of something then it will exist. However this is only true up into a point, I concede. On the other hand we are not talking about something that is best in something but is best in EVERYTHING and in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.

Everything and every possible way includes existence over non existence. So this principle can be applied to only one thing and that is a Maximally Excellent Being. Or for the sake of time God.

The truth behind what my opponent tells you is that things can happen randomly or seemingly (at least at the moment) without cause. This is true but those things had to exist before they could randomly act such.
Secondly I hate to disappoint but my opponent fails to realize is that if we can predict something has or will happen then there has to be a pattern which signifies a cause.

My opponent stated "The universe cannot have a cause. The universe is the start of space and time, and thus cannot have a time prior to it's existence and thus, cannot have a cause."
This does not follow for if their was no cause then we could also say how all the matter and energy came to be. It was all ways there. This does not follow because as I have already pointed out there must be a beginning to it.
Now God is uncaused but he neither has to follow nor does he follow the rules of science. The reason being that he created them (that is the rules of science and therefore has the power to bend or even break them).

I did not state "now philosophically if there is a possibility of something (Conceptual possibility) then it must exist (Material existence) in some possible universe." I did state "if there is a possibility of something then it must exist in some possible universe." But my opponent miss interprets me. I would state "if there is a possibility of something (Conceptual possibility) then it must exist (Conceptual existence) in some possible universe." And this is one of the premises of my argument.

This a miss interpretation on my part.
"To demonstrate this I showed the same example with a Jelly Doughnut. My opponent argued that it needs to be omnipotent to work. However, this isn't a requirement of the argument. It must only be the case that an existing jelly doughnut is better than a conceptual one. However, I should now have an omnipotent jelly doughnut."

This however should be a Maximally Excellent Jelly Doughnut not omnipotent. I messed up. Sorry it was five o'clock in the morning when I made that argument. However If your Maximally Excellent Jelly Doughnut exists then he is the same as my God because he MUST BE BEST IN EVERYTHING AND IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY (this of course includes existence.)

I am not trying to "magic God(s) into existence with wordplay". I am stating that by his very nature that he must exists.

You may not know were the energy and the matter of the universe came from but I have a perfectly logical answer for it. God. My God does not need a god because he is outside of the laws of science as I have already pointed out.

Anything that is outside the laws of known science is what I would call a Creator/s this would include a God.

As a Creator he need not come from anywhere he has always been. Simply stated:
Where did God come from?
He didn't.
Well then there is no God?
No He didn't have to come from something or somewhere since he is outside the laws of science he just is.

I agree that "But, without spacetime, any origin for this matter and energy would equally be outside the laws of physics." But that "any origin" is what I call God and you call Unknown.

I congratulate my opponent on his knowledge of modern science and on his ability to debate as well as exploit my mistakes.

It was a good debate and I hope that anyone can see that I am new to this but that my case has been proven.

This house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s.
Tatarize

Con

Congratulations on the graduation. And thank you for the debate. It was certainly entertaining. The reliance on classical arguments for theism was refreshing.

--

It's possible that you could inherit a million dollars, however this doesn't imply that since it is possible it must be a reality in some possible universe. That doesn't follow.

There is no breech in logic that prevents the best jelly doughnut from existing by the same logic as the best creator being. The underlying argument as constructed simply says that if it's better to have existence than non-existance then it must exist. One does not need to have a hypothetical thing be the set of the best of everything, but rather be better in the aspect of existence. As even the best hypothetical jelly doughnut must be worse than the worst actual jelly doughnut, it must be the case that existence makes a jelly doughnut better. It must be the case that the best jelly doughnut imaginable must then also be a jelly doughnut that exists by this same logic. -- It doesn't need to be the best of everything, just anything where the best such things would be *improved* by existence.

My opponent is therefore improperly applying some post hoc special pleading to say that this logic can only possibly apply to God. If this were the case, then shouldn't we now understand why it applies to one and not the other. Why must the jelly doughnut be all knowing? That doesn't make it a better jelly doughnut (I daresay it makes it worse). The only point of interest for us therefore is whether a jelly doughnut that exists is better than one that doesn't.

It must therefore be the case that the logic underlying the argument is faulty. This objection is typically called Gaunilo's island.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The special pleading of my opponent (and Paul Glenn) doesn't logically change anything about the argument. Claiming that because jelly doughnuts are not omnimax is ignoring the thrust of the argument: things are better when they exist.

So despite the limitation of being a jelly doughnut, it's still improved by existence and thus exists (but it doesn't). In fact, if we want to improve any concept by such logic we could apply existence as a property to said object to the point of absurdity. How could my design for a super-awesome mechsuit be improved? Why, it could be an actual mechsuit already made! *POOF!*

Certainly since an already built mechsuit is better than a design, it's an improvement. And since it now exists, it now exists. -- The problem in reality is that the leap between the conceptual and the material. It doesn't matter how good you imagine something, it will never be real. Concepts don't become reality by wordplay. Without realizing this difference there is nothing logically impeding these arguments and we should be inundated with improved by existence things constantly.

--

>>This is true but those things had to exist before they could randomly act such.

Nope. When we smash together particle in particle smasher the particles that appear, weren't there before. That's why the speed at which they are smashed matters so much. The faster you smash them, the more matter and higher energy particles can be produced.

>>...if we can predict something has or will happen then there has to be a pattern which signifies a cause.

We can't. It's absolutely impossible to predict exactly when a radioactive particle will decay. There are some random number generators which use this as part of a seeding routine by actually picking up the decay of such particles to make an actual random number generator rather than a pseudorandom number generator. This is also why the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment has a can of poison gas triggered such a decay. In a quantum sense it can be said to have decayed and has yet to decay (and thus the cat can be said to be dead and not be dead) at the same time. There's no pattern, and we can't predict it. We can only look and see if it happened or not (though doing so might change the result).

>>This does not follow for if their was no cause then we could also say how all the matter and energy came to be.

Causelessly ofcourse! The same way particles come to be in an particle accelerator or from photons. You are wrongly intertwining the ideas of existence and cause. Cause doesn't apply universally.

>>It was all ways there.

Unless the universe is zero sum. In that case the "It" refers to nothing. 1 + (-1) = 0. The total amount of energy in the universe would be zero from big bang to heat death. It would seem to exist only because it was kept apart.

>>This does not follow because as I have already pointed out there must be a beginning to it.

Begin to exist, sure. Caused, no.

>>Now God is uncaused but he neither has to follow nor does he follow the rules of science.

Then your entire argument crumbles. If uncaused things can exist, then the universe could simply be uncaused. As the start of the universe doesn't and can't exist within the universe, then there is no reason to expect that the start need to follow the rules of science. In fact, there's no indication at all of what the physics of the universe were prior to Planck time.

>>You may not know were the energy and the matter of the universe came from but I have a perfectly logical answer for it.

No. You have a red herring of an answer, and special pleading. It follows the same general outline as many theist arguments.

1) There is a problem, Q.
2) For various reasons Q is a serious problem.
3) God solves Q.
4) The same problem applies to God.
5) God is immune to problem Q.

It's outsourcing the problem without solving it, and special pleading as to why the problem doesn't apply now.

>>As a Creator he need not come from anywhere he has always been.

Then couldn't the universe always have existed. Thus causing your argument to crumble. If the end of another universe caused the start of this one and it's simply been cycling, then by your logic the universe doesn't need any cause to explain it. Even if objections are able to be raised to this, then those same objections can be raised to your statement about God.

>>No He didn't have to come from something or somewhere since he is outside the laws of science he just is.

Special pleading. And prior to Planck time the entire universe would not be part of the universe and there would be no laws of physics. So if these claims render your claim valid, they apply much more pressingly to the universe itself.

>>But that "any origin" is what I call God and you call Unknown.

This is equivocation. You're in effect calling what could simply be wave collapse, God. The topic says creator which implies agency. If something did start the universe, say the evaporation of a black hole in another universe (this is scientifically absurd but an example), then you can't call that black hole God. It isn't a "creator".

>>I congratulate my opponent on his knowledge of modern science and on his ability to debate as well as exploit my mistakes.

Thank you. I'm quite impressed with modern cosmology, because not only does it work out scientifically with known physics but it also seems to be providing a large number of philosophical solutions. Causeless things do occur and thus the argument of first cause is simply wrong. Matter and energy may not be destroyed but they may be canceled out by negative energies of spacetime and dark energy (due to the necessity of arguments, they needn't even be true, just possible). The proposition that being outside the universe exempts one from the laws of physics is useful because any start of the universe could not exist within time as time is part of the universe.

These insights not only work out within physics, but they negate some very classical theological arguments heretofore used.

Thank you for the debate.
Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Little bit of odd spelling, but you made it under the wire.

The debate was going quite well and I'd hate to have it marred with a forfeit in the last round.
Posted by OurGodIsAnAwsomeGod 8 years ago
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGod
Sorry this was a busy last few day and I have been unable to get on my computer very long.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Last call! Anything?
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
You-hoo.

Time is running thin, don't miss a round. This is actually pretty good. Hate to have the argument marred so.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ChuckHenryII 6 years ago
ChuckHenryII
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGodTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGodTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mizzouvetmed 7 years ago
mizzouvetmed
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGodTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGodTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGodTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGodTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGodTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGodTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by OurGodIsAnAwsomeGod 8 years ago
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGod
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGodTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by falafel 8 years ago
falafel
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGodTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70