The Instigator
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

To Affirm God's Existence is to Deny Him as Creator

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,915 times Debate No: 15977
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

FREEDO

Pro

INTRODUCTION:

Feels good to debate again.

I instigate this resolution:
"To affirm that 'God' exists is to deny that he/it created existence."

Theists have been getting it wrong for ages.

I agree with Paul Tillich, Christian Existentionalist and influential 20th century theologian, when he said "Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him."

What could he possibly mean by that? Accept the debate and I will explain in my arguments.

The person to accept this debate must be a theist; no devil's advocate.

DEFINITIONS:

God:
The definition of God is vague and not relevant to my arguments in this debate as long as it is an entity. My opponent's definition of God may be used, so long as it isn't some semantical trickery.

Create:
To cause to exist; bring into being. [1]

Affirm:
To declare positively or firmly. To support or uphold the validity of. [2]

Exist:
To have actual being; be real. [3]

Existence:
All that exists. [4]

SOURCES:
1. http://education.yahoo.com...
2. http://education.yahoo.com...
3. http://education.yahoo.com...
4. http://education.yahoo.com...
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for instigating this debate.

Now Pro says that they will later on present argument that supports the claim that "To affirm that 'God' exists is to deny that he/it created existence." So rather than try and argue against a non existent argument I will await what Pro has to say.

Looks like I get to define God so........God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover

I look forward to Pros argument.
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate.

ARGUMENTS:

This is simple enough that there is diffuclty in making the argument long enough.

If we are to theoretically assume that God may and/or has created existence then we must assume that he is beyond existence. To paraphrase what Paul Tillich said, claiming God exists is puting him into a box, imposing our finite limitiations upon him.

To be real is to be in reality.
To create reality is to be outside of it.
To be outside of reality is to not be in reality.
To create reality is to not be in reality.
To not be in reality is to not be real.
To create reality is to not be real.
To not be real is to be unreal.
To create reality is to be unreal.
To be Charlie Sheen is to be winning.

Are there any other ways I can clearify it? No? I'll just ramble off into something else then.

This revalation brings up an interesting and perplexing idea I conjured recently and discovered many others have had as well. The idea of seperate realities. Is it possible that things which only exist in our imaginations, in relative to us, exist in actuality to themselves in seperate reality? Perhaps we are, in-fact, figments of THEIR imaginations! Perhaps this is just Absurdist masturbation. Probably the latter.

Con's turn.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for presenting their argument.

Pro says "If we are to theoretically assume that God may and/or has created existence then we must assume that he is beyond existence."

The confusion that later follows is because existence is used in an ambiguous way. Pro implies that existence only applies to things that have a cause.

Now if this is true, this is why Pro says God is beyond existence. Cause if God does not have a cause, and ONLY things that exist that do have a cause make up existence then God can't be part of that existence.

But what about if existence doesn't just apply to things that have a cause/are created ? What about things that exist that don't have a cause ?

With this distinction made, we can look at two types of existences, existence which is caused and existence that is without a cause.

In this case it would be correct to say God is beyond existence that is caused but not beyond existence in totality, as there would still be the existence of things that don't have a cause.

Pro says "To create reality is to be outside of it."

Once again, this is mistaking that all reality is caused, instead of dividing reality into things that exist with a cause and without a cause.

Reality/Existence = Things that exist that have a cause + things that exist that don't have a cause.

With this confusion cleared up, affirming Gods existence does not deny him as creator.

I look forward to Pros reply.
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Pro

REPLIES

//The confusion that later follows is because existence is used in an ambiguous way. Pro implies that existence only applies to things that have a cause.//

>> Please point out where and how I made an implication of existence depending on causation. I assure you, there is no ambiguity, I actually posted my definition of existence in the first round, it is a very simple and specific one.

//Now if this is true, this is why Pro says God is beyond existence. Cause if God does not have a cause, and ONLY things that exist that do have a cause make up existence then God can't be part of that existence.//

>> Whether or not God has a cause is irrelevant to my argument.

//But what about if existence doesn't just apply to things that have a cause/are created ? What about things that exist that don't have a cause ?//

>> Yes; what about them?

//With this distinction made, we can look at two types of existences, existence which is caused and existence that is without a cause.//

>> Besides the irrelevancy, no such distinction has been established.

//In this case it would be correct to say God is beyond existence that is caused but not beyond existence in totality, as there would still be the existence of things that don't have a cause.//

>>If it is granted to your argument that uncaused things exist, it still does nothing for your case since God would not have caused whatever existence he is in. Any amount of existence he has is sacrificed for any amount of creation he makes. They are mutually excluding. Remember, the definition of existence is "all that exists", not "some things which exist". If God did not create all things which exist then he did not create existence. If some things are uncaused then obviously God didn't cause them. Therefore, if uncaused things exist then God must not have created existence. Your argument is negated.

//Reality/Existence = Things that exist that have a cause + things that exist that don't have a cause.//

>> In order to make such a statement you would have to demonstrate that there are things which exist that have causes and things which exist that do not have causes. Without that, you could only say that existence WOULD contain those things, if they exist--which is simply redundant.

//With this confusion cleared up, affirming Gods existence does not deny him as creator.//

>> If there is confusion in my argument, it has not been revealed.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

I would like to get some minor things out of the way first, so I can then concentrate on what I consider the more important arguments in this debate.

Pro says "Whether or not God has a cause is irrelevant to my argument." & "If it is granted to your argument that uncaused things exist, it still does nothing for your case since God would not have caused whatever existence he is in."

Oh but it is relevant and it does alot for my case, I will go into more detail on this later on.

Pro says " Any amount of existence he has is sacrificed for any amount of creation he makes. They are mutually excluding."

How is God creating something a sacrifice of Gods existence ?

Now unto the more important area's.........

Pro says "If God did not create all things which exist then he did not create existence.

I agree with Pro, uncased things can't be created. Now if Pro is trying to claim that because God didn't create some part of existence (the parts that have no cause), that means God has not created any part of existence, then Pro is committing the fallacy of composition.

A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part) [1]

Consider these arguments.......

1) America has not created any Japanese cars
2) Therefore America has not created any cars

1) God has not created things that have an uncaused existence
2) Therefore God has not created anything that has existence

Pro asks me "Please point out where and how I made an implication of existence depending on causation."

I refer Pro to round 2 where they said "To create reality is to not be in reality."

If something is created, then it has a cause. It is implied here that reality only applies to things that have a cause, thus things that don't have a cause (example God) aren't part of reality.

But why should we accept that Pro hidden premise that only things that have a cause are things that count towards existence ?

"Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)." [2]

Pro commits equivocation when using the term "reality". Consider where Pro says "To create reality is to not be in reality."

Pro uses reality to only mean things that have a cause when they say.... "To create reality" then even within the same sentence refers to reality as being the sum total of things that exist both caused and uncaused where they say "is to not be in reality.

In order to not allow for this double meaning of the term reality consider this argument.......

Type 1 Reality = Things that exist that don't have a cause
Type 2 Reality = Things that exist that have a cause

1) God created type 2 Reality
2) Therefore God is not part of type 2 reality

But this still leaves the option of God existing as a type 1 Reality. (Things that exist that don't have a cause)

Existence = All that exists = Type 1 reality + Type 2 reality

With the logical fallacies exposed in Pro arguments, this negates Pros claim that to affirm Gods existence is to deny him as creator

I ask that your vote go to Con.

I thank Pro for instigating this debate, till next time Freedo.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Absolutely.
Posted by chrisw10 6 years ago
chrisw10
Freedo seems to believe that to exist/be real, God has to be contained in something called reality, which he is using as a synonym for existence. If the container known as reality exists, then what contains it? Seems to me that if everything that exists must exist within something, then we have a problem of infinite regression?
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
What do you mean?
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
The title is unfitting
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
A beautifully contradictory concept.
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
What about existing in a non-reality?
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Not sure. Sounds like something I would do.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Yeah I was going to make a joke about how your defining exist = to be real , to be real = to exist

Weren't you the one who took me to task for assuming that existence exists ? :)
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
I enjoy debating you, illegalcombatant. I believe this will be our third.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, carefully consider the definition of existence in the OP. The only want to win this was to challenge - be real, i.e., is a supernatural thing real.