The Instigator
ArchonWarlock
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

does god exist

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...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/9/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 966 times Debate No: 77452
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

ArchonWarlock

Con

pro goes first and passes last round because most formal debate makes aff first & neg last. the definitions i want are below.

God: "a supernaturally powerful, immensely great, transcendent, and intelligent creator and ruler of the universe"
Exist: "have objective reality."

this is my first debate on this website, so i hope for a good one.
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1: The Ontological Argument

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William Criag: The Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]
We can see with this applied to the above portion of premise 1 we can see that God can exist simply with their being a possibility and the only way to negate it would be to show that there is no possible way that God can exist in any given circumstance. When we follow this string of beliefs we can see that since God can exist in other worlds he can exist in reality and thus actually exists.This excludes metaphysics as we can see that if we observe a black hole it sucks in matter and a worm hole allegedly leads back out. But what if we look at how Neil Tyson depicted it as inside the black hole in his novel, Death by Black Hole, purposed that actually inside a black hole could cause another universe from the hot matter that inside. We cannot find God as the original black hole has evapporated via Hawking Radiation and there is no way to get back to him (except through death, but that's an entirely different debate) so we can only wait for us to be contacted by him.

A statement is a priori = one can see that it is true using pure reason and given an understanding of the meanings of the words in it. We don’t need empirical evidence to know that it’s true. A priori statements seem to be true necessarily.

A statement is a posteriori = our evidence for its truth is empirical, or based on data that we receive via sense experience.

1. God, by definition, is the greatest possible being.
2. A being that does not exist in the real world is less great than a being that exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds.
3. Suppose that God (the greatest possible being) does not exist in the real world.
4. If the greatest possible being does not exist in the real world, then He is not as great as the possible being who is just like him but who does exist in the real world.
5. But the greatest possible being can’t be less great than some other possible being. To say that “the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible” is to say something that’s necessarily false, because self-contradictory.
6. The supposition in 3 is false. God does exist in the real world. And he exists not contingently, but necessarily, or in all possible worlds. It is impossible for God not to exist. [9]

Here we can see that Point 6 is completely true. If we had this maximumly great being of some sort we could see that even if we took him out of our universe that there would still be a Maximumly Great Being. Thus we can simplify to see that when combined with the S5 argument of the Ontoligcal argument that God is Possible in All worlds and because of this we can see that it's a posteriori for God to Exist and arguing otherwise is futile.


Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3]

The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.

Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere. Even if we look at Tyson's theory on how this universe started and that it is a multiverse we can still see that the universe, this one, had a beginning.


Contention 3: TA Arguement

Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [4]
So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [5]
We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

Last year scientists have actually found ripples in time and space continum. I believe that it actually helps prove the existance of God than disproves it. We can see after the Big Bang there was gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds. [6] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible.


6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
7. The universe had a beginning in time.
8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
10. Therefore, god exists. [7]


For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support.

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [8]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [8]

Sources in comments section.
Debate Round No. 1
ArchonWarlock

Con

1. Theological Non-Cognitivism
Preface
This is an epistemological argument against God’s existence. In other words, I shall neither use ontology or metaphysics to affirm the position I take here – it shall be that the term “God” doesn’t refer to a coherent concept, thus attributing existence to it is incoherent. First, I must clarify what “theological non-cognitivism” is. Theological non-cognitivism posits that “words such as ‘God’ ... are not cognitively meaningful.” [1] So I’ll be defending the meaninglessness of the term “God”, and, in the process, affirm that the existence of such an incoherent concept is impossible. The argument is formalised:


P1. If God lacks a positively defined attribute, then secondary & relational attributes cannot be justified
P2. God lacks a positively defined attribute
C. Secondary & relational attributes of God are meaningless, thus God, by definition, is meaningless


Defense of Premise 1
For meaningfulness of a term of an entity, then its relational attributes must be defined as contingent on a positive attribute. For instance, let us consider an entity x. A relational attribute of x is that it weighs one pound. If a person asks “what is x?”, an answer of “x is 1 lb” only describes a relational attribute of x, thus can’t affirm what x actually is, since a positive attribute isn’t shown. If y is a concept without any such positive attribute, then the concept y is meaningless.


We can only reasonably talk of the existence of an entity if the entity has positive attributes in addition to relational attributes or secondary attributes, since if an entity’s sole attribute is “1 lb”, then the entity can’t exist since “1 lb” is a secondary attribute that is used to describe the being, rather than define it.


Defense of Premise 2
Let us consider the attributes of the term “God” as defined in this debate – intelligence, supernatural power, transcendence, intelligence, creating & ruling the universe. Let’s analyse the attributes individually, and I shall show you that the attributes are all secondary or relational attributes.


“Intelligence” is defined as “the ability to acquire knowledge and skills”. Now, let’s try applying a property of intelligence to an entity x, which someone is asking to define. “X is defined as intelligent” is incoherent if intelligence is the sole attribute the entity has (in addition to, perhaps, other secondary & relational attributes). The same can be applied to any entity, thus intelligence isn’t enough. Similarly, “greatness”, “power”, “creation & rule of the universe”, and “transcendence” all fail, even together, to define x as a coherent entity.


“Intelligence” and “power” are also relational attributes, i.e. require a standard to be coherent. For example, something can’t be considered “powerful” unless we have a standard or objective criterion to coherently define “powerful”, or “intelligent”. Since God is transcendent, he is outside the universe – thus a standard external to God is lacked. A standard internal to God is question begging.


Conclusion
Thus, the two premises entail that the concept of God is intrinsically meaningless as it has only relational & secondary attributes, and no primary or positive attributes.


2. Ontological Parsimony
“Ontological parsimony” is basically an ontological form of simplicity. According to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (1) P is ontologically simpler than Q if and only if proposition P posits less assumptions than proposition Q, and (2) if P is ontologically simpler than Q, then P is a priori more likely to be true.[2]


Definition – A is proposition of theism, B is proposition of weak atheism
P1. If A simpler than B, A is more likely, and if B is simpler than A, then B is more likely
P2. B is simpler than A, and negation that A is simpler is false
C. Weak atheism is a priori more likely than theism


P1 is true via. ontological parsimony, leaving P2 to be justified. Theism posits three assumptions – God, the universe, and natural laws; atheism posits two – the universe and natural laws. As such, atheism is ontologically simpler than theism. The conclusion entails.


== Rebuttals ==



R1. Ontological Argument
Modal Ontological Argument
Pro first presents W.L. Craig’s formulation of Alvin Plantinga’s “victorious” ontological argument, that uses modal logic.[3] Basically, the argument is that if it’s possible that God exists, then God exists.


Reductio –


A. <>P --> []P (assumption)
P1. It is possible that God does not exist
P2. If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist
C1. God does not exist
P3. It is possible that God exists
P4. If it is possible for God to exist, then God exists
C2. God exists
P5. C1 and C2 contradict, and rest on A
P6. Premises are sound from A
C3. A is false


The same justification given by Pro to the MOA works on the reverse MOA equally well.


Anselm Ontological Argument
Pro then presents Saint Anselm’s ontological argument, as formalised:


P1. God is the maximally great being
P2. It would be greater if God exist then not exist
C. God exists, since he should be as great as conceivable


P2 is falsified by Kant’s famous objection that existence is not a predicate.[4] Additionally, Pro provides no justification for P2. The property of “greatness” is subjective, as such cannot be exemplified by the objective term “existence”.


R2. Cosmological Argument
Kalam Cosmological Argument
Pro first presents Craig’s kalam cosmological argument.[5] Pro justifies P1 via. the Conservation of Mass. That is a physical objection. But any physical assertion assumes the principle of the “uniformity of nature”, i.e. that the laws of physics apply. The Conservation of Mass doesn’t apply to the universe, since the uniformity of nature only applies within the bounds of space-time, so sans time directionality & physical constraint, such a principle doesn’t apply, so P1 isn’t necessary. This, thus, commits a sweeping generalisation fallacy.[6]


The second premise has to assume a presentism ontology of time, and the B-theory of time, as Craig himself admits.[5] But presentism has been falsified by special relativity via. relativity of simultaneity, which posits that each observer has a separate plane of simultaneity – this entails four-dimensionalism and eternalism.[7]


Second Cosmological Argument
Pro then continues a cosmological argument after presenting his teleological argument, that I shall address here. For the universe to coherently have a “beginning in time”, a presentism ontology of time is assumed. Under eternalism, time has no beginning – past, present, and future are all equally real – so a past-finite universe only “begins” as much as a ruler begins with its first inch.


R3. Teleological Argument
First, this argument doesn’t argue for God as defined. It only, at most, would affirm an “ordering intellect”, not necessarily one that rules the universe, and has all attributes as held. Secondly, Pro equates between prescriptive and descriptive telos – Pro needs to prove the former, since telos as Pro posits is subjective & relative.


References
1. http://goo.gl...
2. http://goo.gl...
3. http://goo.gl...
4. http://goo.gl...
5. http://goo.gl...
6. http://goo.gl...

7. Roger Penrose. The Emperor’s New Mind, pp. 392-393.

lannan13

Pro

My opponent has plagerized his argument. Plagerism Checker has reported 16% Unique content (this is ignoring the fact that a lot of it is from this debate) and we could also give him 10% for the formulas so 26% is unique. My opponent has plagerized and thus has to forfeit the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
ArchonWarlock

Con

I am absolutely LIVID at this accusation of plagiarism. Plagiarism checker finds plagiarism in everything -- according to the Plagiarism checker, Lannan's *own* argument has only 3% unique content. I would like Lannan to give me the source from which he thinks I plagiarized. I also ask voters to C/P my entire argument into Google, etc. and find me where I C/P'd from.

I digress, and find this very bad conduct on Pro's part, accusing me of plagiarism while only having 3% unique content in his own arguments.

As a sidenote, this is tejretics -- lannan, do you honestly think I need have plagiarized to refute your arguments?

Vote Con, and ignore Pro's rants about plagiarism, since he has done nothing but dropped my argument.
lannan13

Pro

My opponent states that I only have 3% unique content, but the thing is that I agree. This HAS been used before. That is from my own debates. Don't believe me? I'll leave them bellow.

(http://www.debate.org...)
(http://www.debate.org...)
Debate Round No. 3
ArchonWarlock

Con

I fully agree that Pro did not plagiarize -- what I'm saying is that the Plagiarism Checker is *nonsense*. Until Pro gives me the source from which I allegedly "plagiarized," I ask voters to maintain this -- I *did not* plagiarize my arguments. C/P my arguments into Google -- nothing.

Extend all arguments, and ignore Pro's constant accusations of plagiarism with no justification. Vote Con.
lannan13

Pro

My opponent is a multi of another user. Not only has he broken TOS he's plagerized his argument. I do urge you the voters to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
How do you know he is a multi account of Tejritics?
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
He's a multi of Tetrijitcs
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
Lol con deactivated account
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Who does not ??
Posted by Drustanus 1 year ago
Drustanus
Awesome debate so far.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Well he did say he wanted a good debate.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago
ChickenBakuba
ArchonWarlock I wish you good luck....
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Round 1 Sourcing
1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
3. (Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.)
4. Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157
5. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. Gonz"lez (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79
6. (http://www.cnn.com...)
7. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
8. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)
9. Anselm, St., Anselm's Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed. (La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago
ChickenBakuba
Shld I accept?

Lanna13, you want this Win?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
Unbelievable.Time
ArchonWarlocklannan13
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con breaks the ToS.