The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,572 times Debate No: 75736
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




Hello and welcome to this debate! The topic is "Does God Exist", I will be arguing for the existence of God. There will be five total rounds. The first round will be acceptance into the debate, second rounds will be the opening arguments, the third and fourth rounds will be rebuttals and the fifth and final round will be concluding statements. Some ground rules will be no insulting people or views, no forfeiting, no arguments in the first or fifth rounds and last but not least, have a good time!


Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello and thank you Envisage for accepting this debate. Belief in God is backed by a plethora of both scientific and philosophical arguments. In this particular debate, I will run three arguments for the existence of God.
The Cosmological Argument
To start of the arguments, let us go back to the beginning of the universe itself. In modern cosmology it is accepted by the grand majority of scholars that the universe began to exist. The evidence for the finite past of the universe is twofold; scientific data and mathematical proof. We now can see that cosmic radiation, stars, solar systems and even galaxies are in a state of expansion, they are moving away from each other each second. If we were to "rewind history" as if history was a movie (a lengthy movie at that!) we would see all matter collapse to a point of nothingness. This shows that the universe had beginning scientifically. Mathematically we know that the universe has to be past finite, not past infinite because actual infinites lead to contradictions; such as what is infinity minus infinity. This begging points to the existence of God and I will sketch the argument as follows:
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2.The Universe began to exist
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause
Before I get into the implications of this argument, I want to explain what the first premise
means by "whatever begins to exist has a cause". This means that I do not have to worry about a lion popping into existence, eating me. To sum it, nothing that begins to exist cannot have a cause for its existence. But, what is this cause? Well, in order to cause to universe it has to be nonmaterial, and timeless. There are only two things that match this description, an abstract object such a number or an unembodied mind. Now, an abstract object such as the number eight can"t create anything, so the cause of the universe in an unembodied mind. Furthermore, this mind has to be incredible powerful and intelligent in order to create the universe from nothing. We call this mind, God.
The Teleological Argument
Throughout the universe we find certain constant that are necessary for the existence of life. If
One of these constants were changed ever so slightly, life would be impossible. To give an example, if the gravitational constant was changed in one part of 10 to the 60th power, every living thing bigger than a pea would be crushed. The argument can be listed as:
1.The fine-tuning of the universe can be explained through physical necessity, chance or design.
2.It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3.It is due to design.
The fine-tuning can"t be due to physical necessity because the universal constants are wholly
Apart from natural laws. Next, it can"t be due to chance due to the fantastic improbability of it. Thus, design is the only option. This designer would have to be outside the universe (nonmaterial, and timeless) and incredibly smart in order to have design the universe. We call this designer God.
The Argument from Reason
In this debate there is two sides to the coin, theism and atheism. It would seem that if one of the paradigms could be shown to be self-defeating, then the other would be inevitably true. Let us look to the very existence of reason, we have to assume to validity of reason every day because if we didn"t, nothing would get done. The problem is on the atheistic paradigm at least, there is no reason to believe in the validity in reason. All that is going on in the head (on the atheistic view at least) is atoms shooting around and chemicals fizzing (like a Coke can does if shaken). But it gets worse. These processes are all due to a random process, with no regards to reason (and certainly not theological reasoning) called evolution. There is no reason on the atheistic view to belief in the truth of reason. Thus, if we are to take atheism seriously, we would not take atheism seriously because there is no reason behind it! Since atheism self-destructs, it follows that theism is true.
So in total, we have before us, three good arguments for the existence of God. Thank you again for partaking in this debate.


Thanks Pro for accepting this debate.


I am going to go outside of my comfort zone by arguing a few contentions I do not normally argue.


Cosmological Argument

For the purposes of this debate I will concede that the universe has an (external) cause, and address Pro’s assertion that the cause of the universe must be God. Henceforth, even if the dubious conclusion that the universe has a cause is true, it doesn’t follow that God exists.

Pro’s only justification that this cause must be god is that the cause must be “non-material and timeless”. Well, I have no idea how Pro intends to justify those two assertions, but also note that Pro has only demonstrated at best what the cause is not. The colloquial analogy that “I am not Barak Obama” tells you very little about who or what I actually am. In fact the only way this could tell you anything about me is if you had a true form of dichotomy/trichotimy, etc.

However, Pro has only presented two options here “an abstract object such a number or an unembodied mind”, once again, I have no idea how Pro intends to actually justify this dichotomy, moreover I have no idea how Pro can possible assert that minds are timeless and nonmaterial, when all our knowledge of minds shows minds to be 1. A temporally contingent process and 2. Require a physical intermediary, such as a brain. Your thoughts are a series of events, one preceding the other, thus they require the passage of time to actually be meaningful.

Thus, I will establish my rebuttal:

1. There is no reason to believe that the cause of the universe is both non-material and timeless [sic]

2. Even if the cause of the universe is both non-material and timeless, then abstract objects or an unembodied mind [sic] presents a false dichotomy

One well-known example is the multiverse hypothesis, where the universe is one of an ensemble of universes. The ‘cause’ (assuming this is even a coherent concept) of the universe is such ensembles is decidedly not abstract, nor a mind, nor is it contingent on anything within the universe. They are contingent on physical laws, which may or may not be themselves be contingent.

Moreover, Pro does not define what he means by “material”, IF Pro defines material to be “everything that is contingent upon physical laws”, then his assertion that everything physical is within this universe is flat out unfounded. Since Pro appeals to Big Bang cosmology, then he can only assert otherwise by committing the fallacy of equivocation on different definitions of “universe”.

Pro also asserts the mind is required to be powerful and intelligent, well I assert otherwise. Pro has no progress here.

The Teleological Argument

I will refute this argument via. A simply reduction ad absurdum. Take this following hand of cards I have dealt myself:

What could explain the precise order of these cards>

1. The fine-tuning of the card order can be explained through physical necessity, chance or design.
2.It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3.It is due to design.

The odds against getting this hand by random are fantastically small, thus design. Clearly there is a failure in the line of reasoning here, for the likelihood of the result by chance is insufficient to determine the likelihood of the result by design.

Pro has not attempted to justify P1, which I argue is a false trichotimy. Other options, such as a combination of physical necessity and chance for instance, are also on the table. Moreover, Pro has not established that fine tuning actually exists, since Pro would need to know all the possible ways in which life could have arisen. Simply citing big changes when you change one of the constants from their present conditions is insufficient to demonstrate the scope of tuning.

Furthermore, Pro’s arguments assume a “single trial” in universe creation – which is based on no evidence whatsoever. Given an infinitely many number of trials, any set of conditions will inevitably arise. Similarly, given an infinitely number of dealings of a hand of cards, the same hand will eventually appear twice, multiple times, an infinitely many number of times. Several multiverse hypothesis naturally postulate exactly this sort of thing, with a universe ensemble with variable natural laws in each. More remarkably is that such an occurrence arises naturally out of inflationary cosmogony, for example Linde and Guth mention:

It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously.”

Thus, Pro’s arguments fail on multiple counts.

The Argument from Reason

The validity of reason is a challenge for theological belief as much as it is for secular belief. Since we have no reason to believe that the “method of manufacture” has anything to do with the reliability of the product. One has no reason to believe that their minds were built to do reasoning well, or reasoning at all, even assuming theism. Thus we are left in the same position on the flipside, we prima facie cannot believe in the vailidity of reason from just the virtue of method of manufacture.

In direct response however, there is no reason to believe atheism = “atoms shooting around and chemicals fizzing” or “all due to a random process”. Moreover, even if this was the case, it would only entail an argument against belief in atheism, rather than an argument for belief in the existence of God. It may well be the case that reason is fundamentally unjustified, and some sort of academic scepticism is really the reality. It doesn’t follow that God is any more real before or after that fact.

Rocks for example, cannot “trust” their reasoning process, it clearly doesn’t follow that they must have been designed. Rocks cannot believe atheism, but neither can they believe theism. Thus the divide between epistemology and ontology becomes obvious, arguments against epistemology cannot in principle tell you anything about ontology.

Thus, the validity of reason depends on our ability to validate it independently of how our minds came to be. I am not at liberty to justify reason, since Pro has yet to back up virtually all of his assertions in the last round. To summarise:

  1. 1. Origin of manufacture is irrelevant to the validity of our ability to reason
  2. 2. Our origin of manufacture is not necessarily not from a process which optimises it under atheism
  3. 3. Even if academic scepticism entails, theism does not

Positive Argument

Argument from Anti-Reason

This is an argument of my own, inspired by Pro’s previous argument, so hopefully this doesn’t blow up in my face… The argument can be formalised as below:

1. If God exists, then God grounds reason & gives us effective ability to reason

2. If God grounds reason and gives effective ability to reason, then belief in God’s non-existance is impossible

3. Belief in God’s non-existence is possible

C. God does not exist

I don’t expect much contention on P1, nor P3, given your truly is a walking example of belief in God’s non-existance, hence P2 is the only thing possible to contend here. To deny P2 though, is to deny a perfect creator would give us perfect reasoning capabilities – for which we have no reason to believe would be the case. We would be left (ironically) being capable of doubting our own reasoning faculties, and hence we would no longer be able to believe in theism, since said belief would, as Pro argues, self-destructs. One much accept that true beliefs follow from effective ability to reason, and a well-grounded reason.

Hence, the epistemological landscape that God predicts, indeed contradicts reality, and hence falsifies that notion.

Argument from Anti-Reason Pt. II

This argument has a similar flavour to the previous, yet I couldn’t resist.

1. If God exists, then God grounds reason

2. If God grounds reason, then reason is contingent on a being

3. If reason is contingent on a being, then it is subjective

4. If reason is subjective, then belief that “God exists” is fundamentally subjective

Pro may contest P3 here, but he would be arguing against a definition. God has causal agency, hence God is capable of change. To argue otherwise would be to constrain God. It follows then that reason is entirely subjective, and thus it is impossible to objectively hold a “correct” view that “God exists”.

Debate Round No. 2


First Rebuttal

Let us first look at my arguments that Con objected too. Although his/her arguments seem devastating at first, many of them are simple lack of understanding of the argument.

The Cosmological Argument

Con made a couple objections, starting with the nature of the Cause of the universe. First con said that nature of the Cause is unjustifiable, namely being timeless, non material and extremely powerful. The cause of the universe has to be outside of the universe, otherwise it would be self contradictory. The universe can't cause itself or something within the universe can't cause the universe. To illustrate this, a 1964 Ford Mustang (what a great car) cannot make itself and furthermore, the engine of the said Mustang cannon create the Mustang. The universe contains material things, time and further categories such as energy. So this cause could not consist of any of these such things because the cause would thereby be in the universe, which would be a contradiction. Therefore the cause would have to be timeless (the universe contains time) and non material (the universe contains matter). For the point being extremely powerful, this is do to the Cause creating the universe, out of nothing. That my friends, needs a whole lot of power. When con said that I made a false dichotomy, this is simply untrue. There are only two things that would match the description of the Cause of the universe (has to be timeless and non material) and those things are abstract objects and an unembodied mind. There are NO other "things" that match these description. Thus by ruling one out, the other is inherently true. But, con said that minds aren't timeless because they require a passage of time to be meaningful. This is simply not the case for an all knowing mind, successive events are not necessary for meaningful thought. Finally, what I did find interesting is the objection that a multiverse would not need a cause and if it did then the cause is contingent on natural laws. The multiverse (assuming that it exists) would still need to have a cause based on the expansion of stars, cosmological radiation, solar systems and galaxies AND that an actual infinite is impossible thus an infinite past is impossible. An actual infinite is impossible because infinity, when used in the real world yields contradictory results (which by the law of non-contradiction would falsify the concept of an actual infinite) to illustrate this imagine I had an infinite amount of coins, each with a single number on each coin. 1, 2, 3, 4...infinitely. If I gave con every other coin and I kept the rest (infinity minus infinity), we would both have an infinite amount of coins (and be really rich!). But, if I gave con all the coins labeled four and up (infinity minus infinity) I would only have four. Thus infinity minus infinity can be infinity or four or any number for that matter. So the multiverse (if it exists) did have a cause and it can't be contingent on natural law as my atheist friend says because as I demonstrated about, the cause of the universe can't be the universe or anything in it (such as natural laws). So the Cosmological Argument still stands tall.

The Teleological Argument

I was accused of making a false trichotomy, similar to my first argument. My atheistic friends says, wait, what if physical necessity and chance was combined! This is ignoring by warrant for physical necessity being impossible to explain the fine tuning. Physical necessity cannot be an explanation to the universal constants because the universal constants are wholly apart of Natural law. There are no other alternatives between physical necessity, chance or design. Next, the question of does fine-tuning actually exist? Well it doesn't really matter, in regards to the argument. The first premise could be as stated and the same conclusion would still follow:

1. The APPEARANCE of fine-tuning can be explained due to either physical necessity, chance or design.

Lastly, con proposed a multiverse or a world ensemble which an infinite number of universes wold give rise to a universes with just the right universal constants. There are two giant problems to this theory, first, there is no INDEPENDENT evidence of a multiverse. Non at all. Second, if we did live in a multiverse, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. This is due to it being more probable of randomly generating a large universe with just the right constants than a smaller one with the right constants. Imagine if I had a deck of cards that had every letter of the alphabet on them. It would be a lot more likely that I form a word by throwing the cards at the floor, blindfolded (blind chance) than me forming a Shakespeare play. It follows that it is incredibly improbable that we live in a multiverse due to the lack of independent evidence and the size of our universe. Thus, like my last argument, the Teleological argument remains unscathed.

The Argument from Reason

The first objection to this argument is the remarkable claim that "method of manufacture has nothing to do with the reliability of a product." This is as CS Lewis puts it "rubbish". Would a car put together by professionals with the car being held together by screws and welding be more reliable than a bunch of untrained kids assembling the same car with duck tape? YES. Method of manufacture DOES have something to do with the reliability of the product. The next thing that con says is that there is no reason to believe that our minds where built due to reason. I am not arguing that. I am claiming that on the atheistic worldview their is no reason to believe in the validity of reason. Also, my atheist friend says we can't justify reason. We can invalidate reason when the reasoning is due to insufficient causes. If I saw a big black dog with razor sharp teeth who just chased and almost killed another dog at the park and I decide to run from it, then that reasoning is based of sufficient causes (the danger of this dog). If I see this big black dog at the park and I run away from it because I only like small dogs, then that reasoning is based of insufficient causes. So if we can show that an example of reason is not invalid (such as eating healthy) then it follows that the reasoning is valid. Finally this does show God's existence because if one side of the coin is false the other is true. It shows the self destruction of atheism, thus the validity of theism. Similarly like all my arguments, the argument from reason is valid.

Con's arguments

Argument from Anti-Reason (1)

In his/her Argument from Anti-Reason (1) the second premise states "If God grounds reason an gives us effective ability to reason, the belief in God's on existence is impossible. This is clearly false. God gives us the ability TO ASSUME THE VALIDITY OF REASON, not necessarily that we will always reason effectively (although that would be nice on exams!). Second, just because we have grounds for thinking that our ability to reason is valid doesn't mean that disbelief in God is impossible.

Argument from Anti-Reason (2)

Similarly to the first Argument from Anti-Reason, con is simply confusing what I said. I claimed that God gives us grounds to believe in the validity of our reason. Not that God grounds reason, I never said that.


All three of my arguments stand tall and when we look at the cumulative case, we have good evidence for a non-material, timeless, unembodied, incredibly powerful, amazingly intelligent mind that created the universe, designed the universe and gives us grounds for believing in the validity of our reason. We call this being God. Furthermore, my opponent (as smart as con is) has not given us any cogent arguments for the non-existence of God. At the moment, con is left with, at best, agnosticism. I encourage you to seriously and unbiased-ly follow the evidence wherever it goes in this debate. Thank you.


Thanks Pro.


The Cosmological Argument
I will rest with my previous approach in that I will be assuming for the sake of this debate that the universe indeed does have an external cause. Thus all of Pro’s arguments for an external cause are just fluff so far – that is not in contention for this debate. Pro needs to positively demonstrate that this fact entails God’s existence.

Outstanding Problem

Pro has still not defined what he actually means by “material” – thus his arguments are rather abusive of appealing to subjective interpretation. For the purposes of this round I am going to go with the definition of “energy subject to our local physical laws” – which seems to be the most scientific way to define our general conception of what “matter” is.

Properties of the external cause

Pro now asserts that the universe was created ex-nihilo. Literally, ex nihilo, i.e. in the absence of physical laws, etc. yet provides no reason to believe this is the case. All cases of creation we observe are creation ex materia, thus Pro would have to argue to something that has nothing to do with Aristotelian causation that he required to affirm that the universe has a cause in the first place. I assert that there is no reason to believe that the creation of the universe was indeed ex nihilo (from nothing) – and indeed Pro’s position isn’t this either, since God clearly is not “nothing”. All that is required for a universe to exist is for the laws of physics to exist, and Pro asserting that “power” is required for the laws of physics to arise – which themselves may be either contingent or not contingent is pure speculation and I argue not even a coherent concept.

Pro’s arguments for the non-materiality of the cause depends on Pro’s lack of definition of what he means by “material” – given the definition I have given, then any entity that exist within a law of physics framework, albeit different to ours would classify as “non-material” – yet they would have substantive properties – such as the potential for forming interacting entities, such as some quasi-chemistry etc. pro would have to make the claim that all interacting entities exist exclusively within the universe – a claim I daresay he can never support. Remember, Pro already postulates one example of an interacting entity – God himself, as external to the universe – thus he would be having his cake and eating it to assume that no other interacting entity – ‘material’ or not, apart from the hypothetical God could exist externally. If God is indeed possible.

Furthermore, Pro’s arguments for timelessness assumes that the universe contains the only ‘version’ of time, I would like to know where Pro has looked externally to the universe in order to verify his claim that no notion of time exists externally to the universe.

“There are NO other "things" that match these description.”

It’s not exactly hard to come up with a plethora of hypothetical possibilities – fair game given the complete speculative nature of what we are talking about. We don’t have any verified examples of disembodied minds – thus Pro is privileging his hypothesis with his preferred immaterial entity over any other possibility. Pro would need to demonstrate that these two possibilities are in principle the only possibilities for a “non-material timeless cause”.

“This is simply not the case for an all knowing mind, successive events are not necessary for meaningful thought.”

If Pro accepts causality, and if the unembodied mind is ever to be meaningful, then thoughts are a process – and all processes presuppose a passage of time. How can thought occur when everything is completely static – unchanging. It would be impossible to elicit a change, and thus impossible to even create a universe. Unless there is a notion of “a state where x succeeds y, and x is different to y”, then nothing can or will ever happen.

Pro misunderstands the point I was raising with the multiverse – which was to demonstrate that there are clearly possibilities for creating the universe without 1. Abstract objects or 2. Disembodied minds. Thus – the dichotomy is flat out falsified. It doesn’t matter whether or not the multiverse is itself caused or not, since that is a red herring to my point.

The Teleological Argument

“There are no other alternatives between physical necessity, chance or design.”

I am still awaiting Pro’s argument for demonstrating this premise to be true, he just asserts it. Note that life is highly entropically favourable, since it is a driven process by energy imbalances on Earth – which drives the process of evolution. Hence life is not something that is entirely co-incidental, it’s self-driving/selecting mechanisms are such that we have no reason to believe it could not occur across a spectrum of conditions. Note that Pro has conveniently left “life” undefined” in his arguments – thus he has a moving goalpost.

Pro cannot even argue there is an appearance of fine-tuning for life, especially since the universe is filled with a plethora of things both orders of magnitude rarer and more common than life – some physical theories posit that the universe is actually fine tuned for black holes on some evolutionary cosmology theories. I am not advocating this to be the case, only that it demonstrates that Pro’s assertion that life is somehow “privileged” is baseless.


I messed up in the previous round by failing to post my picture, so I will re-present my previous rebuttal. If I dealt myself a52 card hand, the following cards appear:

What could explain the precise order of these cards ?

1. The fine-tuning of the card order can be explained through physical necessity, chance or design.
2.It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3.It is due to design.

Clearly the outcome is entirely due to chance since the odds of achieving this by chance are one in 10^67 (good luck to anyone else randomly getting his hand!), however clearly this is not physically necessary, and according to Pro’s logic, too unlikely to be purely by chance. This is exactly what happens when one privileges the hypothesis, and uses statistical methods incorrectly. Pro would first need to demonstrate the a priori likelihood of it being by design first and then compare it to the a priori likelihood of it arising from change.

Since Pro has not demonstrated that God is even possible, then the likelihood of God’s design of the universe is a priori 0. When you compare 0 to any number, then design is an impossible solution.


Note that there are many types of multiverse that could give arise to variant universes. Pro’s argument assumes that a multiverse is false, he would first need to prove that for his argument to make any progress. Also, we already have one universe (this one), positing that this is the only universe is therefore completely unfounded. We already know of one universe, and we know of exactly zero Gods. A multiverse hypothesis thus has significantly more explanatory power and a priori plausibility than God.

The very fact that our inflationary hypothesis strongly tend to creation of a multiverse anyway (and inflationary cosmology provides massive explanatory power over the special flatness of the universe, isotropicness, an even CMB and lack of magnetic monopoles). God provides no explanatory power over any of these elements, and thus again fails in plausibility.

“..This is due to it being more probable of randomly generating a large universe with just the right constants than a smaller one with the right constants”

Source & citations please. This argument is completely irrelevant if the size of the universe is a determined by the physical laws, rather than the other way around, for example. I have no idea how Pro is going to justify his assertion here.

The Argument from Reason

Pro ignores my point, he has no reason to believe in the first place that his mind was actually put together well in the first place (he just assumes this), and he has no reason to assume that the mind was put together for the purpose of “reasoning well” (again, he just assumes this). The method of manufacture again has no bearing on whether or not it was actually manufactured well. Thus, the theist is stuck in exactly the same position here regarding epistemology.

Pro drops most of the strawman arguments from the previous rounds it seemsatoms shooting around and chemicals fizzing”. Pro keeps asserting that atheism has no reason to believe that their reasoning is valid, I assert that even if reason is invalid, it is irrelevant to whether or not God exists. Epistemology is distinct from ontology. Hard academic scepticism may well be true, and God wouldn’t exist any more than he does now.

That is not to say there aren’t reasons assuming atheism that 1. our minds are manufactured to tend to reason well or 2. our reasoning is indeed valid. Evolution provides a perfectly fine mechanism for producing minds that reason relatively well. The very fact we make mistakes in reasoning is clear evidence that our reasoning capabilities are clearly not perfect. Naturalistic theories explain our ability to reason poorly very cleanly, theism does not.

Argument from Anti-Reason I

Pro objects to premise 2, Pro ignores that God also gives us reason to not doubt our ability to reason. If Pro rejects this, then his original argument from reason fails, since the theist is left in exactly the same position as the atheist – that even if God exists, one cannot trust their ability to reason. If we could trust our ability to reason, then we should not get anything a priori wrong – yet clearly we do – falsifying the God hypothesis.

Also Pro presupposes some objective notion of what “reason” or “truth” is, which given a subjective epistemology is not necessarily sound nor relevant.

Argument from Anti-Reason II

Pro backpedals here, if God doesn’t ground reason, then logic is ungrounded. It is just arbitrary. Which given Pro’s original argument from reason, is a bad thing for belief in theism.

Debate Round No. 3


Ladies and gentlemen, before I address some of the objections I want to point this out. Envisage has been kind enough to argue con based half of his opening statement and most of his rebuttal on confusions and things that are completely red herrings. He goes on and on about how I didn"t define material. Every middle school kid knows what this means and it is written in every science text book and written down in dictionaries such as the Merriam and Webster"s, Oxford, the Chambers dictionaries. Material is a physical object that takes up volume and has mass. This is not a big deal. Envisage doesn't need to go talking about how it really means energy governed by physics, it doesn't mean that.

My friend here confuses what creation ex nihilo really means (creation from nothing by something), why the universe"s physical laws can"t create the universe (something inside the universe can"t create the universe. The engine of a car can"t create the car), my use of a letter card analogy and the whole Argument from Reason. Let me list the relevant objections and state why his armada of other objections aren"t applicable in this kind of debate.

The Cosmological Argument

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

This cause has to be outside of the universe. The universe contains time, material (stated above), energy and space. Therefore the cause has to be timeless and non-material (non-physical, no mass and no volume). Only two things match this description, abstract objects and an unembodied mind. Abstract objects can"t cause anything, thus an enembodied created the universe. This mind would also have to be extremely powerful to create the universe out of nothing. Envisage objects to none of the premises and only objects to the unembodied mind being the cause. He states that "if the unembodied mind is ever to be meaningful, then thoughts are a process", but the quote he posted by me refutes this! "This is simply not the case for an all knowing mind, successive events are not necessary for meaningful thought." He defeats himself and provides know defense. He done my work for me.

The only other objection that I did not feel was completely out of left field was that a multiverse may not have a cause and even if it did, it would not be an unembodied mind. Again, no defense for these claims. First, a multiverse would have a cause due the cosmic expansion of cosmological radiation, stars, solar systems, galaxies" When the film of history is reversed, the expansion becomes contraction into a state of nothingness.

I already discussed why the cause must be an unembodied mind above. So, with none of my premises scratched and the conclusion still holding strong, we have a timeless, non-material, extremely powerful, unembodied mind. This we call God.
The Teleological Argument

1 The Fine-tuning of the universe can be explained by physical necessity, chance or design
2 It is not due to physical necessity
3 It is due to design

Like the Cosmological Argument, this designer must be timeless, non-material, extremely powerful and this time, intelligent. In regards to the Teleological Argument my opponent starts off my complaining that I have not shown that physical necessity, chance and design are the only options. To be honest, that is his job if he wants to object to this argument. If there are other options not listed in premise two, then it should be pretty easy for Envisage to think of one. Keep in mind that a combination of impossible and highly improbable events don"t make it any better.

Another definition crusade began with the "issue" of life. I didn"t define life, so the statement that if the gravitational constant was changed in 1 part to 10^60 then all life bigger than a pea would be destroyed, means nothing. That is completely false. I assumed that everyone knew what life meant, and I still assume that they due. Life is an organism that responds to stimuli, reacts to the environment, needs energy, needs water and reproduces. Another slip up on my atheistic friend"s part is that evolution would allow life to adapt to the universal constants. Not with humans, if the universal constants were not just right, there would be no humans to begin with. This applies to any life bigger than a pea.

Next, the multiverse is proposed again. I stated that the two biggest problems with the multiverse is that there is no independent evidence of if (con has not given any, despite that claim) and that if we were living in a multiverse that it would be overwhelmingly more probable that we would be living in a smaller universe. Why is that? Because it would be easier to form a small area, by chance, that abides by the very specific universal constants than an area with trillions upon trillions of galaxies that abide by the very specific constants.

There was a picture attached to con"s rebuttal with a series of cards that were assembled by chance and the odds of that happening is 1 to 10^67. Does this mean that the Teleological argument is destroyed!? Not at all. You see, if Envisage didn"t get that specific combination, he would get a different combination that the chances of getting is 1 to 10^67. This is a rigged demo. Furthermore, with the card situation, there will always be a set of cards. With the universal constants you either get life bigger than a pea or life smaller than a pea. Humans or no humans. There is no in between.

All and all, through a lot of confusion of definitions, rigged experiments and misunderstanding the argument, the only real objection that was raised was the multiverse. Even so, the multiverse objection has multiple flaws which I pointed out (there are many more that the two). The Teleological Argument, like the Cosmological Argument is standing just as great as ever.

The Argument from Reason

In a debate over God"s existence, there are two sides of the coin: the atheistic worldview and the theistic world view. If one of these views are shown to self-destruct, then the other in inevitably true. We will look at the very existence of reason itself. On the atheistic view, reason is due to atoms shooting off in the head and chemicals fizzing. The same way they do in a shaken Coke can. Worse though, this is all due to a system of random chance that has no regards for reason and certainly not theological reasoning. Since, on the atheistic view, there is no good reason to trust the validity of reason, any thought or idea we have is going to be false. The atheistic paradigm collapses. Thus, the other side of the coin, theism, is true. Therefore God exists.

Envisage bluntly fails to object to this argument. He refers to his phrase, "method of manufacture does not affect the reliability of the product. I already responded to this point earlier. He confuses the trust of the validity of our ability to reason with we cannot make mistakes in reasoning. Trusting that we can reason well does not mean that we will always reason right, I am sure that you can see this. Worst of all, con says that evolution would account for our ability to reason being valid! This is in no biology text book and here is why: evolution accounts for survivability, not reasoning. Random chance and natural selection does not yield complex philosophical thought, it yields bodily mutations. I encourage you to read a biology text book and see for yourself. The Argument from Reason suffered no blows, in fact, Envisage provided no real objections at all.

Envisage"s Arguments from Anti-Reason
1. If God exists, then God grounds reason & gives us effective ability to reason
2. If God grounds reason and gives effective ability to reason, then belief in God"s non-existance is impossible
3. Belief in God"s non-existence is possible
C. God does not exist
1. If God exists, then God grounds reason
2. If God grounds reason, then reason is contingent on a being
3. If reason is contingent on a being, then it is subjective
4. If reason is subjective, then belief that "God exists" is fundamentally subjective

These two arguments were bred from the same misconstrued point, thus fall by the same point. Envisage assumes that God grounds reason and or that we cannot reason without God. We could obviously reason without God. Secondly, God gives us reason to believe our ability to reason is valid. With God we can trust that we have the ability to reason effectively. Thus, both arguments fall by the same sword that they were created by.

When you look at the accumulative case for theism that I provided and then look at the objections to them. It is clear as day that my three arguments are and will remain unscathed. With all three arguments you get a timeless, non-material, extremely powerful, intelligent, reasonable unembodied mind. The mind created the universe, designed the universe and gives us grounds to trust our ability to reason. We call this being God. Next, Envisage"s arguments fall very fast due to them being based around a now cleared up confusion. I want you to judge for yourself the arguments and the objections. It seems to me, based on the quality of the objections, that my case for theism is far superior to my atheistic friend"s case for atheism. Thank you.

Sources: Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig
Miracles by CS Lewis
Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
Oxford Dictionary


Thanks Pro.

Material: is a physical object that takes up volume and has mass

Got it. So material presupposes 1. Physics as we know it (physical), geometric space (for volume), and interaction with the Higgs field (for mass). This will be pretty useful for my rebuttal to his cosmological argument. Pro disagrees with the definition I set out (which further highlights the necessity of actually defining vague terms such as “material”, which given my trivial high-school knowledge was clearly insufficient for.

The Cosmological Argument
Pro is simply repeating himself here, ignoring essentially everything I have said so far and failing to properly engage.

“This cause has to be outside of the universe. The universe contains time, material (stated above), energy and space. Therefore the cause has to be timeless and non-material (non-physical, no mass and no volume).”

The source of my cup’s contents has to be outside the cup. The cup contains water, juice and sugar. Therefore the source has to be waterless, juiceless and sugarless (non-aquatic, non-juicy and sugar-free).

I hope this trivially illustrates this problem with Pro’s justification well enough. Pro is assuming that all space, all time and all material exists within the universe. Until he can demonstrate that, then his argument has fallen on hot air. Cool Ribena juice btw, a childhood favorite.

“Only two things match this description, abstract objects and an unembodied mind.”

Let’s put his definition to the test here. He defines “material” as:

“is a physical object that takes up volume and has mass”

What about massless things then, like photons. Clearly these have causal agency since they can heat and ionise things, hence “immaterial” things can do stuff, whilst not being a mind nor an abstract object. Furthermore, anything that dos not obey our set of physical laws would also be categorically “immaterial”, yet they would also not be abstract, and easily arguable to have causal agency. Lastly, volume only presupposes our geometric physical laws, however something with different or no geometry, or takes up no volume (for example, a black hole) would also be regarded as immaterial and also have causal agency. Pro’s definition here flat out fails to entail God.

I would like to see just how meaningful thought is possible without a series of events, but again Pro has ignored my rebuttal to this.

“First, a multiverse would have a cause due the cosmic expansion of cosmological radiation, stars, solar systems, galaxies"

Actually the multiverse would explain those, not the other way around. And I was simply positing something external to the universe with causal agency, which refutes his false dichotomy of “mind vs. abstract object”. I am still waiting for Pro to justify this dichotomy, and until he does his entire case fails.

Fine Tuning Argument
Like the previous argument, Pro largely fails to engage with my rebuttals and largely just restates his position. Thus I will go through Pro’s substantive points one premise at a time and respond appropriately.

“The Fine-tuning of the universe can be explained by physical necessity, chance or design”

“ I have not shown that physical necessity, chance and design are the only options. To be honest, that is his job if he wants to object to this argument”

This is a logical fallacy called “shifting the burden of proof”.[] This is Pro’s argument, hence it is Pro’s burden to actually establish all of his assumed facts. Moreover I have already objected on grounds of fine tuning existing at all, and other options to the trilemma (such as a combination of the former two, naturally biased self-emergence of life and the anthropic principle). Thus handwaving is simply insufficient at this point no matter which way you slice it.

In defending against the existence of fine tuning, Pro continues to privilege the hypothesis. My assertion is so what if life (as we know it) didn’t exist ?

I have two answers to this, neither are good for Pro:
1. There would simply be nobody to ask the question.
2. There would be somebody to ask the question, but not in the form life exists on Earth today.

Pro can only deny #2 by actually positing that he knows of all the conditions by which self-aware organisms can arise. Moreover, if organisms arose that could only self-reproduce and have self-awareness, then categorically they would not be “life”, yet they would be in a similar position of self-privilege. If the universe was void of rocks, then the universe has failed to be finely tuned for rocks. If the universe was void of black holes, then the universe has failed to be finely tuned for black holes, etc. etc. etc. The fact the universe contains something that might otherwise not exist tells you nothing about the teleological nature of those objects within the universe.

Pro is attempting to derive telos when he has insufficient grounds for doing so.

"Not by Chance"

Further, Pro assumes that any and all multiverse theories are impossible (and this is just one possibility of many which would refute the fine tuning argument), thus he would actually need to prove this to be the case first when he makes his argument, not just assume it (since he has no grounds upon which to say “not by chance” other than the assumption that this universe is the only one that ever has existed, thus this is our only chance of creating a life-filled universe).

Further, Pro would need to provide good reason why we would expect to see independent universes if they are all self-contained like our one appears to be.

“Because it would be easier to form a small area, by chance, that abides by the very specific universal constants than an area with trillions upon trillions of galaxies that abide by the very specific constants.”

I am still waiting for Pro to justify this assertion, he is just repeating himself here. He ignores that the size of the universe is a product of the physical laws (hence “smaller = more likely makes no sense) on essentially every theory of cosmology, including the well-regarded big-bang theory (which Pro needs to assume for his cosmological argument to make any sense).

“You see, if Envisage didn"t get that specific combination, he would get a different combination that the chances of getting is 1 to 10^67.”

My point exactly. If we didn’t get our universe, then we would have gotten a different one which may or may not contain life as we know it. We just happen to live in one which does (cf. Anthropic Principle). This is equivalent to someone complaining about arbitrary features of the random hand of cards not being possible in most other hands of cards (e.g. the chances of the hand starting with Q,7,10,7,Q like in my picture are astronomically small, therefore the hand is special). Ignoring the fact that every hand of cards will have its own arbitrary features to which it would fallaciously imply telos from. Similarly Pro is implying telos from the existence of life, ignoring the fact that Pro has chosen life as an arbitrary feature of the universe, as arbitrary as choosing a rock, or a black hole as I earlier noted.

The Argument from Reason
I have two observations here:

1. Pro is unclear by what he means by “reason”. Whether that regards reason –the abstract logical framework we use to derive “true” and “false” values from propositions, or our physical ability to use that abstract logical framework. I have defended both of these horns but it isn’t clear that Pro is affirming either.

2. He like the previous arguments, largely just reasserts his original stance without really engaging in my criticisms.

“If one of these views are shown to self-destruct, then the other in inevitably true.”

This is false, “self-destruction” entails nothing, only if it is self-refuting can it be proven false. This is what I affirmed in the last round. Even if atheism self destructs (i.e. under atheism knowledge may be impossible), then it doesn’t entail that theism is correct, it just entails knowledge is impossible or perhaps incoherent if God doesn’t exist.

“On the atheistic view, reason is due to atoms shooting off in the head and chemicals fizzing.”

Well.. “fizzing” requires effervescence, which our brain’s don’t really do. Nor do atoms “shoot off”, our brains aren’t particle accelerators last time I checked. The strawman is strong in this one. Further atheism =/= random chance, we have physical laws which ensure that much is false. On physicalism, our minds obey physical laws, but the laws of physics are specific and formal, even if they are only descriptive. Thus our minds can also be specific and formal on some level.

In any case, Pro fails to recognise the epistemological-ontological gap. Even if on atheism we cannot trust our ability to reason/reason itself, it would say nothing about the ontological nature of something.

“Trusting that we can reason well does not mean that we will always reason right”

In which case I have no idea what Pro means by “trusting we can reason”, since we demonstrably cannot reason correctly 100% of the time, we cannot thus say we even reason correctly 1% of the time according to Pro’s logic.

“…evolution accounts for survivability, not reasoning”

Exactly, and assuming ability to reasonis an effective tool for survivability of species such as ourselves with low athletic ability and no fur, then evolution will clearly favour a species that can and will reason well.

Argument From Anti-Reason I & II
Pro’s arguments against II is a strawman so far, since it is independent of whether or not God allows us to trust reason. Thus it is valid on either assumption. Furthermore Pro drops my earlier point that manufacture is irrelevant to whether or not we know our ability to reason is trustworthy. God will ground reason in either case otherwise pro can only object on grounds our ability to reason, which fails due to the evolution argument I have already presented.

Debate Round No. 4


This has been a very interesting debate. In my opening statement I made three arguments. Envisage accuses me of not responding to all of his arguments. Well, I only responded to the real objections. I don't want to debate definitions or clarify what terms mean a hundred times (no offense con). Before I review the case for theism, keep in mind that I responded and tore down all of con's objections throughout this debate. First, the cosmological argument:

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

Envisage did not deny any premises, thus the conclusion that the universe has a cause follows. As I shown in my past rounds, this cause has to be timeless, non-material and extraordinarily powerful. Con does attempt to refute these attributes, but does not succeed. The cause of the universe cannot be the universe or something in the universe. Does it really make sense that something within the universe made the universe? Would it make sense to say that the cockpit of an airplane made the airplane or that the airplane made itself? Of course not, but this is what Envisage is appearing to say. Keep in mind that before the universe existed, there was no matter, time or space. Thus, the cause has to be non-material, timeless and non-spacial. The only thing that matches this description that has causal power is an unembodied mind. We call this mind God. It is quite a simple argument. Con, despite all the attempts, just could not raise a valid objection. Next, the Teleological argument:

1. The fine tuning of the universe is do to either physical necessity, chance or design
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance
3. It is due to design

Envisage came up with only one real objection to this argument; the multiverse save chance. If we are in one universe out of an infinite number of universes, we should see at least one universe that is fine-tuned. I showed that it is highly improbable for a multiverse to exist on two grounds. First, there is no independent evidence of a multiverse. And second, if we were living in a multiverse, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. This small universe would probably be only a solar system big. Since we live in a much larger universe, it is more probable that we don't live in a universe. Throughout discussion on this argument, we see the same pattern as the last.

Envisage: Why would it be more probable that we live in a smaller universe, if we are in a multiverse?
Me: Because it is easier to get a smaller universe that conforms to all the constants than a bigger universe.
Envisage: Why? You haven't explained that enough!
Me: Think of a deck of card with a single letter on them. It would be more probable to form a sentence that conforms to all the laws of grammar by randomly throwing the card on the ground then to form Hamlet by Shakespeare.
Envisage: But...why?!

This is how not only the multiverse objection went, but also all of his definition crusades and me explaining what things mean, went. Let's now look at the argument from reason.

Despite all my explaining, Envisage just does not follow what I am saying. And consequently, he pushes the same objections over and over, even though I answered them. Here is the argument in a nutshell. There is two sides to the coin, atheism and theism and if one self destruct, then the other is true. On the atheist worldview, we have no reason to trust the validity of our ABILITY to reason. On the atheistic view, reasoning is just chemicals fizzing that fizz because of random chance. This random chance does not have any bearing on our reasoning and certainly not theological thought like this. So, if we are to take atheism seriously, we should not take atheism seriously! Thus, the atheistic paradigm collapses, and theism is left standing.

In response to con's arguments from anti-reason, I stated that we could reason without God, we just would have no basis for trusting our ability to reason correctly. Never did I say that with God we will reason correctly. These arguments is where I felt the debate turned sophomoric. These two arguments were bases of the confusion that we cannot reason without God. This is clearly not the case. Both these arguments, like I said before, fall as soon as one realizes what we are talking about.

To conclude this debate, which was a great first debate for me, I want to make a couple points. I showed that there are good reasons to believe in God, and Envisage has not raised any good objections to these arguments. He went off to talk about definitions, and confusing what creation ex nihilo and a multiverse really are. When you read this debate, take in to notice how all three of my arguments are left without a scratch. If you shave away the definition and confusion of what some terms mean, you would find little on con's side. I encourage you to vote on who debated best, not who raised the most objections and asked the most questions. Thank you.


I thank Pro being so prompt and brief. I will also try and keep my closing to under 5,000 characters.

Voting Issues
Pro loses this debate on simply grounds of burden of proof. None of his three arguments actually manage to affirm the existence of God for their own reasons which I will summarise in this round. Moreover they do not affirm God’s existence on any level whatsoever, thus cannot be said to even make God’s existence more plausible than before. For this reason a Con vote is recommended.

Cosmological Argument
I conceded for sake of argument in this debate that there actually exists an external cause to the universe. Therefore this argument simply came down to the identification of that first cause. To which I think only one thing has and can be established:

The external cause of the universe is not something that is internal to the universe.

On that bombshell, we cannot make any other more specific claims about the nature of that cause to the universe. Pro has attempted to affirm negative attributes, yet drops my argument that negative attributes tell you essentially nothing about the nature of the thing in question (e.g. I am not Abraham Lincoln), and even those negative attributes are dubious due to Pro’s definitions of “material” and assumption that “everything that is material exists within the universe”, which is a claim Pro cannot affirm without actually knowing what is outside the universe first.

Further, Pro’s argument for a dichotomy between abstract object or a mind is based on no support whatsoever, and I provided an example of the multiverse as something with causal agency, that is external to the universe, that is neither an abstract object nor a mind, that falsifies this dilemma.

Thus, this argument fails for these reasons alone.

Teleological Argument
This argument as I have affirmed from round 1 is a false trichotimy, and is not one that has actually been supported by Pro as valid, and thus should be dismissed out of hand. Furthermore I have demonstrated that low probability alone is insufficient for justification of the “not by chance” premise since that presumes only one “attempt” at a universe, or a very limited number of attempts, which Pro cannot possibly support. Further I demonstrated that the multiverse hypothesis is much more plausible than the God hypothesis since we already have examples of universes (this one), but no examples of disembodies minds or Gods. Thus from a priori plausibilities, God fails.

Moreover, the first premise also assumes fine tuning exists, yet has ignored throughout this debate that he can only make that claim if and only if he knows all the ways life could exist in all possible environments, and also he is arbitrarily privileging the hypothesis or result. Which with my card example, is nonsensical.

For these reasons alone, this argument fails.

Argument from Reason
The single reason this fails is the epistemological ontological gap. One cannot derive ontology from here epistemology. Thus even if our ability to reason (which Pro only now seems to make clear) in inherently untrustworthy, it would not follow that God exists. It would only follow that any belief/knowledge claim is unsound, or dubious (such as belief in atheism, etc.) even if this argument works.

It got worse for Pro however, since his argument is based on a strawman of what atheism entails, ignores that we really do have mechanisms which would bias an ability to reason well, and ignores that theism entails exactly the same problems – we do not have prima facie principle trustworthiness of our reasoning abilities even if God exists – and we cannot since we are trapped in the subject. One would need to independently verify they can reason well, which essentially is compatible with atheism too.

Thus, no matter which way you slice it, God existence cannot be affirmed, and the same argument applies if theism really was true.

Argument From Anti-Reason(s)
These arguments were predicated on my interpretation of Pro’s unclear stance of what God does with regards to reason, and it is clear now that Pro does not advocate God grounding reason. As such it feeds back into the problems I raised in the Argument from Reason (that reason itself is baseless, arbitrary, and hence unsound even if God exists). Thus even if these arguments fail, it helps Pro’s case not one iota.

I don’t particularly think the challenges I raised are particularly profound, but they have remain spectacularly unmoved by Pro. These problems I think are problems in principle, thus while simple, are not circumventible for Pro’s three forms of arguments. Thus, God’s existence is not established, and the resolution is negated. Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
>Clearly the outcome is entirely due to chance since the odds of achieving this by chance are one in 10^67.

Actually, it's one in 8 x 10^67. You've represented 1/8 of the correct value.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Let's say God is real. He clearly doesn't care if we know of his existence or not and he likely doesn't care about our actions. Why even care if he exists?
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
I think it was due to my women debate.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: Nathaniel.Braswell // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: I didn't see as many sources from Con as I did from Pro. Pro gets sources point. Close debate.

[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb. Failure to explain arguments, S&G, and conduct. Invalid reason for awarding sources: quantity. Also, Pro did not properly cite sources. He just listed a bunch of books at the end of round 4, so this vote looks strategic.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
@Nathaniel vote-bomb.
Posted by MaskedSpartan 3 years ago
I never knew you were in this debate too Tejretics.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
RFD (Pt. 4)

*** REVISION ***

I revise my decision and shall NOT be awarding sources.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
RFD (Pt. 3)

(5): Voting Issues & Impact Calculus

As Con notes in R5, Pro has BoP and Pro fails to fulfill it. Con manages to successfully falsify all of Pro's arguments, and Pro's arguments are vague, bare assertions, and often logically fallacious, e.g. bare assertion, red herring, strawman, and shifting BoP. Pro has no proper impacts made in their argument since these arguments are based on fallacious reasoning and are entirely falsified.

Pro's responses to Con's arguments and Pro's counter-rebuttals are vague and lack clarity, thus severely hurting Pro's explanatory power of the arguments. Pro often establishes impacts but fails to establish links except via. bare assertions, that are questioned by Con.

** Sources **

I award Con sources. Pro did not reference sources by showing *where* sources were referenced, merely typing a long argument and giving a sources heading with a list of vague sources, with no showing *where* these sources were referenced. Furthermore, Pro cited books without any adequate page numbers.

Con's sources, on the other hand, were properly cited -- all his sources were links, and were given in brackets next to statements, to show that *those* statements were derived from the source, thus gaining more clarity.

== Conclusion ==

As for arguments, Pro fails to establish links and has logically fallacious reasoning undermine their impacts, failing to fulfill BoP. Pro also has poor sourcing.

Thus, sources and arguments to Con. And as always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
RFD (Pt. 2)

(2): Fine-tuning argument

In R2, Pro starts off their fine-tuning argument by barely asserting that the fine-tuning of the universe for life had to be via. chance, intelligent design or physical necessity, and outright rejects physical necessity, and shows the sheer improbability of random chance.

Con responds by a card analogy, showing if he tossed a pack of fifty-two playing cards sideways, he would reach a precise order, and reduced the FTA to something sheerly absurd by showing despite the sheer improbability of chance, it *was* due to chance, since the metaphysical possibility of intelligent design has not been justified, and, thus, the probability of intelligent design is precisely zero, thus even lower than the probability of chance.

Con notes through the rounds of the debate that Pro fails to justify P1, and Pro does not respond to this, merely shifting the burden of proof by asking Con to show another possibility, but, as Con notes, since this is Pro's argument, Pro must attempt to justify all premises.

Pro brings in the "why", "why" analogy here, but Pro notes that he himself seems to be committing bare assertion fallacy via. this. Thus, reductio and failure to justify P1 brings Con the victory here.

(3): Argument from Reason

Pro brings in the argument from reason by seeming to suggest atheism = random chance, which Con directly falsifies saying atheism =/= random chance. Con is non-specific on what he means by "reason", and, as Pro points out, the epistemological-ontological gap is broken and, thus, the argument is incoherent in nature.

(4): Con's case: Arguments from Anti-Reason

Con begins these arguments by saying God's grounding of reason is intrinsically incoherent, and Pro's responses are very vague. Only in R5 is Pro clear in that he does not believe God grounds reason, which, as Con points out, is contrary to perception of a creator God since God created the universe.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
RFD (Pt. 1)

My RFD shall employ the impact calculus format of RFDs.

** Arguments **

(1): Cosmological Argument

Pro begins with W.L. Craig's reformulation of the cosmological argument, the kalam cosmological argument, using basic mathematics and physics to show the universe had to have a cause that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and intelligent. In R2, Pro presents this as a bare assertion, with no justification for these properties, providing a link but no impact as to the existence of God.

This is clearly pointed out by Con in R2, as Con clearly demonstrates that the properties are unjustified, and there is no clear reasoning as to why he should accept an external cause to have such properties, and, thus, be God.

In R3, it seems Pro entirely drops this, failing to justify the properties of the cause and merely attacking the metaphysical possibility of actual infinities, which is *irrelevant* to Con's refutation of the KCA that primarily states that an external cause need not be considered God.

Con goes along the same lines in R3, showing that an external cause needn't be timeless, spaceless, etc. Con attacks the concept of "immaterial", saying it requires a highly specific definition of immaterial to be valid. Pro then defines "material" as an object with mass and volume, and Con points out photons, for example, have no mass.

In R5, Pro just entirely drops this, saying "[Con] hasn't denied any of the premises, the conclusion follows" -- but the conclusion is that a *cause* exists, not God! Con *did* reject the premise that it had to be immaterial! Then, Pro correctly shows that Con just kept asking why, but this did not jeopardize Con's argument, since it showed Pro's were all bare assertions.

Thus, Pro's justification for the KCA was inherently flawed and Con gains KCA.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
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: Given in comments.