The Instigator
logicae
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Surgeon
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 756 times Debate No: 120127
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

logicae

Pro

Hello everyone! Today I would like to make the case for classical Theism, That is the case for God. This question has been debated throughout all of history and so it is quite an honor to continue this great conversation and build upon it in the present day. This is my third debate on this topic.

I only propose one rule: Please be mindful of both sides of the debate (including using evidence and reason) for your side and respond to the arguments made accordingly. Clash is important to debate and is where truth is able to be searched and hopefully identified.

This debate I will support two main contentions:

1. There are no good reasons for Atheism (that is God does not exist)
2. There is good reason for Theism

That being said I want to clarify what Atheism I am talking about.

First, The definition of Atheism according to Merriam Webster dictionary is "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" (1) (see citation below)

This entails two different stances: One is an unbelief, Which entails that the Atheist is unconvinced of Theism (which is usually referred to as Agnosticism). The other being a rejection of Theism by stating Atheism (God does not exist) to be true.

In this debate we are debating Theism vs Atheism and so there must be reasons to support both sides, Meaning that there must be a statement of fact by both sides, Not just a statement of unbelief as agnosticism.

Here is both sides outlined clearly:

For side Pro (For Theism): To support (build evidence on) and defend the existence of the Theistic God.
For side Con (For Atheism): To support (build evidence on) and defend that the Theistic God does not exist.

Now that the sides are clarified I will jump to my first contention, That is:

Contention 1. There are no good reasons for Atheism

Atheism relies on a set of realities that seems absurd when you look deep into them. I will let side Con get into this contention (that is, Put forth arguments for why Atheism is true) and I will respond accordingly.

Contention 2. There is good reason for Theism

There are many arguments for God, Many having whole books written on them. For this debate I will bring my favorite:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Where did the universe come from? )

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause

For Premise 1.

We know that all physical things began with some sort of cause, As something cannot come from nothing. To claim the opposite would be worse than magic, As with magic, At least you have the magician. Similarly we don"t observe things popping out of nothing. Simply, Out of nothing, Nothing comes.

For Premise 2.

Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought -Mathematician David Hilbert
(2) (See Citation Below)

In reality we know absurdities such as an actual infinite cannot exist, For example: For today's debate to come from an infinite past requires an infinite series of yesterday's. This would mean that today's debate would never be able to occur, As today would only be prolonged time and time again by another past event on to infinity and never occur. But today did happen (and this debate), Thus illustrating this impossibility.

I recommend you check out the Herbert's hotel paradox as my favorite example of this: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=j_q802eboxA

So what does this entail? This means the universe is not infinite, But instead had a start. This is also the best explanation in modern science, As NASA details:

"Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be. The mathematical underpinnings of the Big Bang theory include Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles. " (3) (see citation below)

For the Conclusion:

So something had to create the universe, But is it God?

From the Kalam, We find that this creator must be uncaused, As we have seen there cannot be an infinite chain of past causes and thus a beginning, Not caused, To this chain of finite causes. Changeless and timeless, Because it created time and therefore came before it. Lastly this cause must be immaterial, Because this cause created material.

There are two other important things that also follow from the Kalam:

(1) A Mind:

There are only two things that would fit in this conclusion as the creator:

1. An unembodied mind or 2. Abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects cannot cause anything, So we are now left with a mind.

(2) Personal Cause:

If the cause was a mechanically operating set, Then the cause couldn't exist without its effect. For example: If there was a mechanical permanent cause (let's say a freezer that was on forever) that made water freeze, Then the water could never unfreeze, As the cause (the permanent freezer) is forever making it freeze. The only way our cause of the universe could be timeless and for its effect (creating the universe) to begin a finite time ago, Is for the cause to be a personal agent that is with the freedom of the will to choose to create the effect. An example of this: A man sitting for eternity can freely choose to stand up at any time.

If the cause is permanently present, Then the effect must be as well and so we must have a personal creator.

These conclusive traits highlight what Theists call God, The external, Transcendent, Personal cause.

Thanks again for accepting the debate!

To Truth! -logicae

Citation:
(1) (Definition of Atheism)
https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/atheism

(2) (David Hilbert)
https://www. Math. Dartmouth. Edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Philosophy/Philosophy. Html

(3) (NASA and Big Bang Theory)
https://science. Nasa. Gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang
Surgeon

Con

My thanks to logicae for inviting me to debate on this important topic. I hope for a good and robust debate in the right spirit (politeness, Genuine enquiry, No personal attacks, Testing each others assumptions), Leaving us both trying to stumble to towards the truth (I also claim there is an absolute truth).

This debate I will support two main contentions:

1. There are good reasons for Atheism (God does not exist)
2. There is no good reason for Theism (God exists)

This second contention is meant both figuratively and literally.

That being said I want to clarify what Atheism I am talking about. I accept the definitions given. Atheism (in my view) is not a weak claim that "there is not enough evidence" or that "there is no good reason" to believe in a Theistic God. In my view whilst both these statements are true, They are true as corollaries of the claim I adhere too that: "a God does NOT exist. " However, Whilst Pro in the debate has offered a definition of such a entity I would like to clarify it. I don't think that it will be contentious to Pro and is meant to help the debate: God is a timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial consciousness, Maximally perfect (insert omni claim here), The creator of the Universe, Personal. If Pro objects he should do so in the next round, But the seems to be a fair summary of at least the Xtian tradition.

Contention 1. There are good reasons for Atheism

Atheism is the only reasonable explanation for the fact of Existence, Our ability to reason and even our ability to have this debate and get meaning from it.

Contention 2. There is no good reason for Theism

Theism presents us with an absurd, Cartoonish view of Existence. When examined in detail presents it us with a self-contradictory and impossible entity who Theists "know through reason" is the answer to any mystery in the Universe, But is simultaneously in itself unknowable. It is effectively saying that the answer to any mystery is "magic". Theisms have indeed claimed that Natural "mysteries" throughout history as evidence for their absurd propositions. They have had their frontiers rolled back at every stage of human thought, By the advance of reason and empiricism.

Once gods were on mountains and acted as an explanation for everything, Then in the sky and acted as explanation for the crystal sphere and everything below, Then in the heavens and acted as an explanation of the heavens and earth, Now they are an absurd proposition of an "existence" outside of Spacetime explaining the ignition of the "Big Bang" through what is effectively a wizards spell. Theism has been consistently wrong and is in full retreat. Theists now hide their god concept in darker and deeper corners, So far from human experience we cannot even comprehend it - the ultimate retort being ultimately god is unknowable. It is a giant fallacy. But I suppose much as lying should be, If your reasoning is going to be faulty, Make it a BIG one

The Kalam Cosmological Argument was presented by Pro in this debate. I will not waste space in R1 by refuting it, Because I want to argue FOR Atheism. Suffice to say Pro has laid the argument out very well (WLC style, A person who has made a positive contribution to Philosophy). It is a very well defended and logically valid argument. The question is "what reason have we to believe its premises? " and "is it true? "

I will present my dissection of it in my R2. But in R1 I would like to argue FOR Atheism. There are many deductive and inductive arguments that lead us to Atheism, Normally I would present at least five arguments that consistently build the case. I note Pro has only presented only one of the Theistic argument (the KCA) in support of Theism, To allow us depth in limited text space. I will return this in good spirit so as to not shotgun Pro and render it impossible for him to cover enough ground. I thus also only present one argument that God/s and Theism are false.

The argument from the fact of Existence

P1: If the Primacy of Existence (PoE) is valid, Theism is false
P2: The PoE is valid
C: Therefore, Theism is false

Since all philosophy involves consciousness relating to objects (either real or imagined), The issue of metaphysical primacy bears on all philosophical endeavours. The relationship between consciousness and its objects is not some distraction nor trivia. Identifying the proper relationship between a Subject and its Objects is central. The key question is therefore "What holds metaphysical primacy in the relationship between a consciousness and its objects: the subject of consciousness, Or the objects of consciousness? ". We can only answer this through our axiomatic presuppositions. An axiomatic presupposition is self evident, Irreducible, Cannot be proved, But equally requires no evidence.

"Existence, Exists". Existence is the the fact or state of having objective reality. It is what it is "to be", And is a concept formed from Nature. To exist is to exist in Nature. Existence (Reality) exists as an absolute, Facts are facts, Independent of feelings, Wishes, Hopes or fears. If one denies this, One is left with 3 problems: 1) It is immediately self-contradictory as one would have to exist to utter its denial; 2) It is a stolen concept fallacy. The concepts we would use to formulate a denial, Themselves come from the fact of Existence (true or false, Exist or not exist, Something or everything are concepts only arrived at because Existence, Exists; 3) To deny it would be to claim that Non-Existence, Exists. Non-Existence is just Non-Existence, It is infact "Nothing" and I would argue that this is impossible. There is no literal "Nothing", It cannot be realised, It is a contradiction in terms. We have heard a little of this in this debate so far eg "from Nothing, Nothing comes", Or the classical but fraudulent question "why is there Something, Rather than Nothing? ". The answer is trivially simple, In that Existence is absolute and necessary. It cannot, Not exist. The question invites us to compare the necessary and absolute existence of Existence (or Existents if you prefer), With the incoherent existence of Non-Existence, It thus defeats itself to deny this Axiom. Note this is fully in line with Big Bang comology as I'm sure we will come to in later rounds.

The corollary of the Axiom of Existence above is the axiomatic presupposition is that "Consciousness, Exists" and exists as the faculty of perceiving that which exists. To be conscious, Is to be conscious of something. If one denies this, One is left with 3 problems: 1) It is immediately self-contradictory as one would have to be conscious to utter its denial; 2) It is a stolen concept fallacy. The concepts we would use to formulate a denial, Themselves come from the identification of Existence through consciousness (me, It, Something, Entity, Living, Animate are concepts arrived at because Consciousness, Exists; 3) It is a contradiction in terms to propose otherwise. Before something could identify itself as consciousness, It had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, What you possess is not consciousness.

Thus Existence precedes Consciousness. Existence is Identity (things being what they are) and must exist (it cannot not exist). Consciousness is Identification (the faculty of awareness). Existence is metaphysically prime and the PoE is true and valid.

Why does Theism fail? If the tasks ascribed to God are actions of a form of consciousness which create Existence and manipulate the identity of entities, Then Existence is thought to be dependent upon a state of consciousness " which means consciousness holds primacy over existence. The tasks ascribed to God are actions of a state of consciousness which create Existence and manipulate the identity of entities:

- God is said to have created the Universe through an act of will.
- God can change A into non-A (i. E. , Alter the identity of entities) through an act of will.
- God can make A perform the action of non-A (i. E. , Alter the causal nature of entities) through an act of will.
- A personal will (i. E. , Volition) is a state of consciousness.

Therefore under Theism, Existence is thought to be dependent on a state of consciousness ("Gods will"), Which means consciousness holds primacy over Existence. Theism is therefore a philosophy which is committed the Primacy of Consciousness (PoC) and not the PoE. Thus because the PoE is true, Theism is false.

Furthermore it presents us with a cartoonish view of Nature. That reality itself is somehow dependent upon a Cartoonist who can whimsically alter it and the causal relationships between Objects (and actively does it, If you take intercessory prayer or biblical stories seriously). It should be noted that to affirm the PoC is to claim that the Subject in the Subject-Object relationship is prime. That by an act of will we can alter reality, And thus this is really a claim of a Philosophy of Subjectivism (however special it claims the Subject is). A Philosophy of Subjectivism undermines itself. Under Subjectivism, The facts of reality are in doubt, As are the concepts we form from those facts, Rendering reason (which uses those concepts) itself in doubt, . Thus the Theists attempts to reason to a god is in itself futile and unsound, If Theism is true.

The traditional responses to these arguments are to argue that Gods consciousness is in some way special or unknowable etc. This is a retreat into equivocation on what it is to be conscious. Either God is conscious as we are (in his image so to speak) or God is not and the Theist is equivocating and owes us an explanation of what they mean when the say God is conscious. Otherwise we descend into non-cognitivism.

Thanks for your indulgence. It is now for you to dismantle this argument in R2 and for me to do the same to the KCA. I hope for a fruitful debate. Thanks again!

Citations:

(1)StrongAtheism. Net
(2)BahnsenBurner blog
(3)Infedels. Org
Debate Round No. 1
logicae

Pro

I would like to thank Surgeon once again for accepting and upholding his side in this debate, I will rebut Con's arguments and then hopefully have a counter to my contentions in the next speech.

"My thanks to logicae for inviting me to debate on this important topic. I hope for a good and robust debate in the right spirit (politeness, Genuine enquiry, No personal attacks, Testing each others assumptions), Leaving us both trying to stumble to towards the truth (I also claim there is an absolute truth). "

-Yes! A reasonable and admirable stance! I am happy that we can start with this common ground.

"This debate I will support two main contentions:
1. There are good reasons for Atheism (God does not exist)
2. There is no good reason for Theism (God exists)
This second contention is meant both figuratively and literally. "

-I see what you did there ;) I will wait and see your response to my contentions.

"Atheism (in my view) is not a weak claim that "there is not enough evidence" or that "there is no good reason" to believe in a Theistic God. "

-Agreed. I wish this new generation would take a deep look into their stances on these big issues and acknowledge what they mean, Rather then trying to hide their real intentions.

My Response to your Contention 2:

"know through reason"

1. Please explain the problems to the specific arguments of Theism, I know you don't mean it, But you are in essence straw manning my side and not talking about my arguments that I made earlier.

"Once gods were on mountains and acted as an explanation for everything"

1. I would disagree, Even during ancient times, People like Aristotle found these "gods" to be false through reason and Theism to be true.

"The Kalam Cosmological Argument was presented by Pro in this debate. I will not waste space in R1 by refuting it, Because I want to argue FOR Atheism. "

-I await your response ;) I am elated that you will provide arguments for your side.

""Suffice to say Pro has laid the argument out very well (WLC style, A person who has made a positive contribution to Philosophy). It is a very well defended and logically valid argument. The question is "what reason have we to believe its premises? " and "is it true? ""

-Agreed, I love the works of WLC as well! I can"t wait to hear your response to my premises and conclusion.

"I will return this in good spirit so as to not shotgun Pro and render it impossible for him to cover enough ground. "

-I thank you for this kind gesture. I did indeed limit my side to the Kalam as to allow for more dialogue.

"The argument from the fact of Existence
P1: If the Primacy of Existence (PoE) is valid, Theism is false"

-Question: To simplify, Do you mean if existence comes before conscience, Then Theism is false? If so please explain why.

"P2: The PoE is valid"

-I will get to that in a moment

"An axiomatic presupposition is self evident, Irreducible, Cannot be proved, But equally requires no evidence. "

1. Though I agree to the objective truth of an axiom, I think you are contradicting yourself here. It is important that we examine what an axiom is. Vocabulary. Com states that:

"An axiom is a self-evident truth. "
(https://www. Vocabulary. Com/dictionary/axiomatic)

This means that your axiom must come from self evident truth, Meaning if within reason, It must be true. You contradict yourself by saying an axiom cannot be proved, Yet truth in itself must have reason/proof to make it true. An axiom is just an obvious truth, One that is easily proven.

"Facts are facts, Independent of feelings"

-A Ben Shapiro like saying, I couldn"t agree more!

"It is in fact "Nothing" and I would argue that this is impossible. There is no literal "Nothing", It cannot be realized, It is a contradiction in terms. "

1. Why? You haven"t shown why "nothing" contradicts reality
2. Nothing is simply a term for the absence of things.

""why is there Something, Rather than Nothing? ". The answer is trivially simple, In that
"Existence is absolute and necessary. ""

1. Ok now I see how you justify your above statement, The problem here is that you have provided no reason that physical things are necessary.
2. Physical things are not necessary. You can imagine any number of things not existing, Cars, Animals, People, Etc" In short, Our physical universe doesn"t have to be here, Nothing does. If we found a house on mars, We wouldn"t jump to say that it is a necessary part of mars, But rather conclude that something, Or someone, Had to have put it there.

"Note this is fully in line with Big Bang cosmology as I'm sure we will come to in later rounds. "

1. This is not the case, You present a world that must exist and therefore has always existed, As it must exist. The big bang theory however contradicts this explanation, Stating that instead the universe began to exist, Coming from nothing.
2. This then begs the question, Why? And How? As you mentioned, Out of nothing, Nothing comes. This leads back to my first speech in round 1.

"The corollary of the Axiom of Existence above is the axiomatic presupposition is that "Consciousness, Exists" and exists as the faculty of perceiving that which exists. To be conscious, Is to be conscious of something. "

1. There is one problem with this statement. You are assuming that consciousness is completely separate from existence, While in fact if we agree conscious exists, Then by definition consciousness is part of our existence (At least found in us humans).

"Thus Existence precedes Consciousness. "

-Cross apply answer above, Consciousness and existence go hand in hand.

"Why does Theism fail? If the tasks ascribed to God are actions of a form of consciousness which create Existence and manipulate the identity of entities, Then Existence is thought to be dependent upon a state of consciousness " which means consciousness holds primacy over existence. "

The problem here is that God is existence and consciousness. You again assume that consciousness and existence are separate, But do not explain why.
When we are talking about "existence" it seems like you allude physical existence, Our universe, Space time etc, To mean all of existence. This does nothing to prove that existence does not exist outside of physical means.
In short, If God exists, Then he is, By definition, Existence.

"- God is said to have created the Universe through an act of will.
- God can change A into non-A (i. E. , Alter the identity of entities) through an act of will.
- God can make A perform the action of non-A (i. E. , Alter the causal nature of entities) through an act of will.
- A personal will (i. E. , Volition) is a state of consciousness. "

1. Yes, But again, To have a conscience, You must exist. We for example cannot be conscience of our surroundings if we do not exist.

"Therefore under Theism, Existence is thought to be dependent on a state of consciousness ("Gods will"), Which means consciousness holds primacy over Existence. "

1. Cross apply above arguments, Again both consciousness and existence are one in the same.

"Furthermore it presents us with a cartoonish view of Nature. "

1. I would add, If you imagine God as Kim Jong Un, Then of course he will seem that way to you. However quite to the contrary, God is the perfect act of being, Not to be confused with a cartoon.
2. Atheism in reality brings us to an arbitrary cartoon, As in a cartoon absurdly random (and therefore funny) things happen/pop out of thin air from nothing. With no explanation of the our universe, We are left with, Like a cartoon, A universe that popped into existence from nothing.

"The traditional responses to these arguments are to argue that God"s consciousness is in some way special or unknowable etc. "

-Glad we are not arguing that.

"Thanks for your indulgence. It is now for you to dismantle this argument in R2 and for me to do the same to the KCA. I hope for a fruitful debate. Thanks again! "

I thank you back twice! (I now have twice the niceness points ;) May we go where the evidence leads,
To Truth! -logicae
Surgeon

Con

In this round my task is to refute the KCA presented by Pro. I will argue that the KCA is:
- at least suspect and probably flat out false in both Premises;
- in total an argument from ignorance;
- guilty of equivocation;
- subtly begs the question; and
- guilty of the fallacy of composition.

Furthermore. The supplemental arguments to the syllogism are weak and ill founded.

If I were to sum it up mathematically in advance where the KCA and its refutation will end up, It is:

A) Pro (logicae): 1 + 0 = 1

Where 1 (LHS of equation) is God, 0 is the ex-nihlo creation state and 1 (RHS of equation) is an instantiated Universe.

B) Con (myself): ~0 = ~-1~+1

Where ~0 (is absolute and necessary Existence asymptoting to zero), ~-1 are negative matter, Forces and energy in the Universe, ~+1 are positive matter, Forces and energy in the Universe. The Universe being an uninstantiated phase transition state of Existence.

As stated in R1 the KCA is a well defended argument and its main modern proponent, WLC, Has popularised it and defeated many Atheists. It is simple, Intuitive and logically validity. WLC is a considerable rhetorician and contributor to Philosophy. On a personal note, I can't help but think he has a little cognitive dissonance w. R. T. To the KCA. He probably knows himself that this argument is at best tenuous. But his aim appears to be merely to shore up belief in the faithful against the onslaught of secularism. If that secularism is the poison of Post-Modernism, Then I can only applaud him.

But whilst the KCA is logically valid, Is actually it true? The answer, I"m afraid, For Theism is "No". In common with a lot Thesitic arguments we are first presented with a mystery (in this case the origins of the Universe), Aiming to get us to accept that it can only be explained by, What is effectively a Universe creating Ghost Wizard uttering magic spells. This is an approach based on ignorance not reason, Guilty of interpreting the evidence ONLY in a way that suits the conclusion the Theist wants all along. For example the fundamental issue using the BB, Is that the BB only goes as far back as quantised time (Planck time) allows. There is no peeking behind this veil (of Planck time) to see if the Wizard of Oz really is there, Or if it is just WLC operating a SPIN machine, Try to fool us tin men.

P1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The first thing to strike the reader is why so conditional? Why not "Whatever exists has a cause? ". It seems a simpler and more complete formulation. The answer is of course that the simpler formulation allows the Atheist to simply point out that if P1 were true, Then God must also be caused. So here the proponent seeks to smuggle in the God-concept right at the start, Because the only thing they will allow to be "uncaused" is God. It therefore is a subtle form of question begging.

Fatal to this premise, However, Is the use of the word "cause". What does the Theist mean? All of causality depends on the existence of time, The propensity for change and the identity of objects. As a concept "cause" means that there is a pre-existing something in the Natural Universe with explanatory power, To explain the change in a pre-existing something else in the Universe. Without time there can be no causality. But the Theist wrenches it from this context to explain away a supposed atemporal event, From an "unchanging" god, Where no pre-existing something was literally "abracadabra" into existence. Whatever it is, It is not a "cause".

The Theist may respond that such a thing as simultaneous causation is possible, Making time irrelevant to causality. This is utter nonsense. The examples (including those given by WLC), Only demonstrate the opposite: bowling and cushions, Chandeliers hanging from the ceiling, A man hanging on the edge of a cliff. To propose that these events are "simultaneous" means you are proposing a whole new physics, Where pressure waves, Forces, And electro-nerve impulses propagate at the speed of light or faster. All causality happens in time, However fast it appears to our senses.

Thus ultimately the Theist is equivocating on the word "cause", And not to put too finer point on it we can all play that game. For example I can interpret "cause" as I want and simply point to examples that prove my point instead. Virtual particles pairs come out of the sea of quantum vacuum energy (as close to the Theists nothing as we can get), Uncaused (seemingly so at least). If true it directly refutes P1.

This premise is also a Stolen Concept fallacy. The proponent is borrowing concepts (causality) from Naturalism, And extrapolating these to an imagined Supernatural realm. There is no justification for this. For all we know there is no Supernatural Realm, That is not only no Wizard, But also no Oz, And even if there were how do we know causality still even applies there?

Lastly there is an inherent fallacy of composition with this argument. Just because we see something in the universe begin to exist, We cannot apply that reasoning to the set of everything that exists (the whole natural Universe). For example it is not valid to argue because "Every sheep that begins to exist has 4 legs, Therefore the flock has 4 legs".

All the above means P1 is at least suspect, Fallacy ridden and probably false depending on what you mean EXACTLY by "cause".

P2 The Universe began to exist.

Here the Theist gleefully leaps onto the BB as if it proves a god. It does not. The BB offers no explanation of the point outside of Planck time, So how the Theist can leap to the Universe "began" is beyond me. Of course the paucity of the English language may mean that various experts use "began" as a placeholder for the unknown. But at least, Philosophically speaking, A beginning implies a time series leading up to an event. The problem is that there was no time series outside of Planck time, Just a point (ie a Singularity). When WLC debated Sean Carroll on this topic, This was one of the rare occasions I thought WLC (normally so imperious, If not a little smug) got "his a$$ handed to him". He has no response other than incredulity.

This premise is further refuted by the Axiom of Existence: "Existence, Exists". This is irrefutable, And implies that Existence itself (not a god) is eternal, Absolute and necessary. What does eternal mean, If it does not mean "existed for all time"? If time itself began with the BB (a central part of the BB theory), Then the Universe must itself be eternal. It HAS existed for all time, Because there was no time in which the Universe didn't exist. This is a straightforward meaning of the words. The BB therefore may just describe the phase transition of Existence from a point-state to the current block Universe we observe, And it is NOT the poofing of something from nothing as a result of a Wizards spell.

The last resort of the Theist is to point out that a natural "birth" of the Universe must imply an infinite series of events, And in that case the Universe would never be able to cross those events to be "born" (as it were). I am not sure why Theists think this is such a powerful point? As it implies a sort of Zenos paradox where time can be divided up infinitely. We live in a quantized Universe, Including time, Space, Matter, Energy and forces. We can only divide up things so far. After that point it either is, Or it is not. We cannot keep dividing Spacetime up: four, Two, One, Half, Quarter, An eighth Planck times or lengths. There are no actualised infinities in the block Universe.

But it is worse for the Theist. Even if the "infinite series" complaint was valid what does that mean for the Theists God? This is an infinite being after all, And in order to make a decision to create the Universe, This God would need to cross an infinite series of mental events. The Theist replaces one simple problem, With an near identical but more difficult problem, And I would just appeal to Occam's Razor.

P2 is therefore suspect, If not outright false.

Lastly I will turn to the supplemental argumentation. I will focus only on one aspect, This is the: "What can act as a causal agent argument". Pro is building to a pre-loaded definition of a God by claiming that timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial causality of a consciousness is the only answer, Because the only other thing "fitting the bill" are abstractions, And they have no causal power.

I agree consciousness, Exists (its axiomatic). But I am not prevented from arguing that it exists only as an emergent characteristic of physical brains (the higher performing the brains, The higher performing the consciousness). To argue otherwise (as Pro does) is the fallacy of the floating abstraction. Sure this is inductive so should be prefixed with "probably", But so is Pros argument. Pro does not know of any abstractions with causal power, That doesn"t mean to say there aren't any, Otherwise it is just a Black Swan fallacy.

But it is worse for Pro because we have already established the fatal equivocation on the word "cause" in the KCA. I can now hand Pro his own argument back by saying there are infact abstractions with causal explanatory power. The rigidity of a triangle is an abstraction, And is used in construction to add strength to towers. Thus here is an abstraction with causal power. If Pro doesn't like this example, He needs to explain EXACTLY what he means by the word "cause", Because this seems as causal to me as an unchanging entity managing to atemporally "abracadabra" something out of nothing.

In this round I have briefly refuted the KCA. In R3 I will defend the rebuttal of my argument. I am not sure that Pro has understood the force of the argument, And the problems it gives his position. If space permits I would like to attack the impossibility of the God-concept central to Pros KCA. Thanks again, Great debate so far.
Debate Round No. 2
logicae

Pro

Alright! Took me awhile (busy) but here is my rebuttal of Con"s rebuttal of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

"But whilst the KCA is logically valid, Is actually it true? The answer, I"m afraid, For Theism is "No". "

-This is quite a contradiction or a display of ignorance/willingness to ignore logical truth. If the Kalam is logically valid, Then it is true. To accept the premises of the Kalam but not the conclusion is just a plain attempt to ignore the reality of things. Facts indeed don"t care about your feelings.

(Now to the first premise:)
P1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

"The first thing to strike the reader is why so conditional? Why not "Whatever exists has a cause? ". "

1. This is not a response to the premise

2. This is because something that does not begin to exist, Does not have a cause. Numbers for example are a good representation of this, They exist, But yet, Were not "caused" by anything.

"The answer is of course that the simpler formulation allows the Atheist to simply point out that if P1 were true, Then God must also be caused. "

1. Not so, When we talk about physical bounds of the universe, We must remember that those bounds, Self explanatory, Are only on physical things.
2. You forget that God is not a physical thing, Rather being itself, And so does not contradict even your tampered premise.

"Fatal to this premise, However, Is the use of the word "cause". What does the Theist mean? "

-We mean all things that were caused, Were caused. When something begins, It must come from somewhere. Example: A rover on mars came from a factory on earth. Earth came from a mix of space particles. The universe came from the big bang. The big bang came from. . . This is what the first premise sets up, The second one finishes the statement. Logically the universe, Having a beginning, Must have a source.

"All of causality depends on the existence of time, The propensity for change and the identity of objects. "
"Without time there can be no causality. "

Agreed, This fits perfectly with the Kalam. The cause of the universe mentioned, Caused (with in time) things to exist. You can"t disprove that the cause does not exist as causality here occurred with and through time. Thus your conclusion cannot follow that there was no cause. An action requires time, No action has no time.

Before I continue, Con brings on several accusations of fallacies committed (of which I will debunk in a moment), But there is one thing that we must remember with fallacies: They, If correctly used, May show an argument to be invalid, But they cannot prove the point to be false, To say the opposite would be to commit the fallacy of fallacies (Example: Flat earther says your argument is fallacious, Therefore the earth is flat).

"Thus ultimately the Theist is equivocating on the word "cause""

"For example I can interpret "cause" as I want and simply point to examples that prove my point instead. Virtual particles pairs come out of the sea of quantum vacuum energy (as close to the Theists nothing as we can get), Uncaused (seemingly so at least). "

1. I will actually turn this argument on you. I think you confuse and thus equivocate the "quantum vacuum" to mean nothing and thus a way to justify the universe from nothing. But to the contrary, The quantum vacuum is just another way that matter can exist: Energy. You twist the meaning of nothing, To mean something and thus equivocate.

2. Cause is not a difficult concept, If function a causes a function b then: a(b) = function. In this case a is the cause of the universe and b is the universe: Cause(Universe) = Universe

"This premise is also a Stolen Concept fallacy. The proponent is borrowing concepts (causality) from Naturalism, And extrapolating these to an imagined Supernatural realm. "

This is quite hilarious for a couple of reasons:

1. In order to believe in naturalism, You must ignore the origins of naturalism (meaning all order just exists, No reason given) and just sit in ignorance of the most fundamental question of the origin of the universe. In a sharp contrast, Theism goes to the source of the natural order and objective truths and finds the reason for it all. Natural law begs for an explanation as well, Just as a child is curious to who holds the strings to a puppet, We must ask who holds the casual strings of the universe and its laws.

2. The task of declaring no cause to the universe, Is to say everything was caused by nothing! Like magic in the wizard of oz indeed! You must deeply consider the alternatives before jumping to these conclusions. Thus we see that Theism is not a stolen concept, But instead explains the meaning to these concepts.

3. We know causality exists by means of an immaterial cause because physical things (the universe) by definition would have to be created by none physical things (immaterial cause)

"Lastly there is an inherent fallacy of composition with this argument"

1. The problem here is that the fallacy of composition is not always true (thus you must show why it is true in the case for the universe). For example: Of a group of ten circles, Each being purple, The whole of them is purple. In this case the whole was the same color as each individual.

2. Everything has a cause (say we represent this as purple), The universe necessitates the same need for a cause, As it is just a big physical thing. (It too, Though larger, Is also purple).

In conclusion we see that fallacies alone, Though debunked, Do not disprove the first premise. We also must note that we are talking about the causes of physical things, Not nonphysical ones.

Now to P2: The Universe began to exist.

"Here the Theist gleefully leaps onto the BB as if it proves a god. It does not. "

1. Agreed, That is not the intention of the big bang theory. You must though either acknowledge that the big bang came from nothing or a cause.

"This premise is further refuted by the Axiom of Existence: "Existence, Exists""

1. You still have yet to respond to my response to this. The Axiom of Existence is not backed by rational, It is based on a misconception of existence, And is disproved by the big bang theory (showing that nothing came before the beginning of the universe, Putting an end to the idea that the universe must exist) and the infinite paradox (In line with the big bang theory, Stating nothing can continue on forever, Even the universe).

2. The only magic I see, Is coming from the realization that Atheists must either accept or ignore: That the universe either came out of nothing (like magic) or it had an immaterial cause.

"The last resort of the Theist is to point out that a natural "birth" of the Universe must imply an infinite series of events"

-Straw man fallacy, Not arguing this.

"But it is worse for the Theist. Even if the "infinite series" complaint was valid"

-So do you reject the infinite paradox or not? If so you must give a reason why. Otherwise you ignore every reason I gave in the first round to back the paradox, It simply contradicts.

"This is an infinite being after all, And in order to make a decision to create the Universe, This God would need to cross an infinite series of mental events. "

1. You ignore the bounds where the infinite paradox cannot work. In our physical reality it is impossible, But by definition God is outside of reality. A mental event is not a physical one. I can think of many things that do not exist physically including abstract concepts like numbers.

2. You once again offer no reason to think that a non physical being is bound to physical constraints.

Thus premise 2 is still proven true

"Pro is building to a pre-loaded definition of a God by claiming that timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial causality of a consciousness is the only answer, Because the only other thing "fitting the bill" are abstractions"

1. I clearly show the necessity of timeless, Space less and immaterial. If you claim the opposite, Then you must show how my arguments fall short, Otherwise you are ignoring the warrant behind them.

2. Yes, That is because these are the only two possible answers.
Do you think there is another option here? If so, I challenge you to bring this option and prove that it can fit the conclusion. Otherwise you are making a needless argument without warrant.

"I agree consciousness, Exists (its axiomatic). "

-Glad we agree here

"But I am not prevented from arguing that it exists only as an emergent characteristic of physical brains"

1. Since we agree that conscience is the way by which we can will to do things, Then you still have yet to prove that conscience is limited to physical brains. You must prove that a will cannot exist beyond the physical in order to say that it couldn"t exist outside of the physical. I can say that the law of gravity is limited to the earth, But my assertion would require proof in order to justify it, As does yours.

"But it is worse for Pro because we have already established the fatal equivocation on the word "cause" in the KCA. "

-Debunked earlier

"I can now hand Pro his own argument back by saying there are infact abstractions with causal explanatory power. The rigidity of a triangle is an abstraction, And is used in construction to add strength to towers.

1. Con misses the point that abstractions by definition, Are things that cannot cause anything! In his example: Is the triangle causing the building to be created like a triangle? Of course not! The engineer and builders are the ones that caused the building to be that way. The triangle is simply an idea that does nothing. Nice try though, We still need the one other option (a mind) in order to choose to create something. Just as a builder uses his mind to choose to build a triangle building.

To Truth! -logicae
Surgeon

Con

Hello again. Thank you for your feisty defence. . . Great knockabout stuff :-). I will of course refute your R3, In my R4. The KCA and its support looks about as threadbare, As your response in R3. Facts indeed do not care about your feelings (c) Shapiro. This is why the fact of Existence, Does not care about your feelings that is was "poofed" into existence by a Wizards spell.

However we are currently in R3 and I owe you a rebuttal of your R2. I do not think you are grappling with my Argument. I will try to address the points you make in a fluid style (including why you are embracing Atheism, Welcome btw :-)). I will try not to "quote" mine you. In R4 I will have to quote mine a little, It's just too delicious to miss own goals (a bit gleeful I know ;-)).

No matter how much you want to hide, You are of course stealing concepts from Naturalism to prop up the KCA. In R4 I will list them for you, And as you are so confident to find it "laughable", You will have no problem telling me which of those concepts come from assuming "Supernaturalism" is true, Instead of assuming Naturalism. Can't wait; it will be fascinating reading your response!

AXIOMS. I disagree that Axioms can be proven. For example we cannot justify Reason (by using Reason). But to deny Reason, Would be assuming the validity of it. This renders the denial of it futile. The same is true of Existence and Consciousness.

NOTHINGNESS. I did NOT claim that Existence was purely physical (material). Theists always make the mistake that all Atheists are hard materialists. I am not committed to materialism. Infact I explicitly stated that consciousness, Exists (ie immaterial existence). However, Two things:

1 - It depends EXACTLY what you mean by immaterial and material. Quantum physics is an exotic raging sea of forces, Matter, Energy and fields. I would suggest when we talk about the material world we are infact only referring to matter. But I am agnostic as to whether or not matter is an illusory meta-view of a deeper reality (see Quantum Field Theory). What we see as matter could just be the quantised packets of fields. Condensation from the Quantum brew, If you prefer. But immaterial does not imply "Supernatural". Fields are immaterial and still wholly natural phenomena, Woven into Spacetime and bounded by the block Universe. You can try to crowbar in a God or a Yellow Quantum Whisperer or anything else, But there is no room nor need. So Naturalism not Physicalism.

2 - You describe Nothing (non-existence) as an absence of things. So let us run through the list of things that must be absent to actualise a "Nothing": No time, No space, No matter, No energy, No forces nor fields. A void right? What is the unchallenged definition of God? :

- Timeless
- Spaceless
- Immaterial
- Unchanging (thus Unergetic)
- Supernatural (not a field nor force)

Thus God (by Theists own admission) is non-existent, Totally absent, A void. I agree, Welcome to Atheism!

But worse still, How can "Nothing" ever be actualised? Actualising, A "Nothing" would mean non-existence, Exists, And it is a contradiction in terms. "Nothing" is merely an abstract concept (not a thing), We can asymptote towards, But never reach. It has value in abstract pursuits like maths, But not in and of itself. In the same way Existence contains no actual infinities, It could be no actual Nothing.

BIG BANG. Does NOT disprove eternal Existence, The PoE, Nor its corollaries. This is a mistaken abuse of the BB by WLC, Which I have addressed in the rebuttal to the KCA in R2. The BB theory does not go beyond quantised Planck time. To say the Universe "began" may be a poetic use of English, But it is a nonsense to describe an exotic point with no time, Nor the possibility of a "Beginning" in any way. The KCA is just too a simplistic a formulation to justify such confidence. I ask you to see through it and stop extrapolating temporal language falsely to an atemporal point (a Singularity). When Physicists use "began", It is as a placeholder (explaining BB cosmology to "lay" people) and not the justification of the KCA, That you are obviously desperate for it to be.

Not only is the BB consistent with an instantaneous phase transition 0 to -1+1 (not a "beginning"), It is also entirely logical and consistent with the BB, To say the Universe is eternal:

P1) Time came into being with the Universe (BB).
P2) ergo. The Universe has existed for all of time (P1).
P3) Saying "existed for all of time", Is the same thing as saying "eternal".
C) The Universe is eternal (P2, P3)

We only have conjecture (and at best hypothesis) as to what the Singularity was. You might argue that the Singularity was a "Nothing" which God wished a spell upon. I would argue that the Singularity was Existence itself, As is everything that follows from it (both positive and negative) in the Universe.

Arguing from ignorance (and a wilful desire to push your theology) you assert that "God-did-it". Trying to reverse engineer a solution to a God, With the rather desperate supplemental reasoning to the KCA. There are no grounds for these empty assertions (as I showed in the triangle example). We can put the God-did-it-Conjecture (GDIC) up against, For example, The Hartle-Hawking Hypothesis (HHH). Both are unproven. HHH is consistent with the BB and maths, But to add insult to your injury makes the prediction that whilst the Universe was more than 95% guaranteed to come into being from the Singularity, It was less than 100%. If true this directly contradicts the GDIC, Because the GDIC requires the chances of the Universe coming into being to be exactly 100%! We should of course prefer HHH if it has the same explanatory power (which it does) and is natural (which it is).

PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE. You claim I am separating Existence and Consciousness. I submit not only do I not separate them, The point of the Axioms I presented you with is, To show that one (AoC) is dependent on the other (AoE). Here is why it is worse for your position. It is you that must claim (not me) that they are separate to adhere to Theism.

Let me explain. The AoC asserts (properly) that "Consciousness, Exists" and is the identification of Existence (or Existents). Thus Existence must come first, Is metaphysically prime. Consciousness needs Existence first! To be conscious, Is to be conscious of something. You, However, Are committed to the view that Consciousness IS separate from Existence and even worse metaphysically prime. This is because in your Subjective Supernatural Philosophy at least one Consciousness (God) preceded Existence, Then set Existence in motion by wishing it so, And now maintains it by magic. Your view must directly assert the PoC. Thus Theism is false. But as you are arguing that they are indeed not separate (I agree), You concur that Consciousness requires Existence and you are infact arguing FOR Atheism (once again welcome! ). Inductively I would further argue that consciousness is an emergent property of brains (but that isn't needed to debunk your points).

Your faux "out" here is to embark on a word game by claiming the the god-concept is both Existence and Consciousness rolled into a convenient bundle. What does that even mean? It is vapid, Meaningless god-talk: A mere ad-hoc salve, You have invented for your arguments. I expect more than just making stuff up on-the-fly about an already defined and exposed God-concept, To mount a desperate rescue. We have already established Consciousness depends on (is not separate to), Follows after (subordinate to) Existence. Facts do not care for your consciousness! It is a crushing vice, A fatal blow to the God-concept. To simply assert god IS Existence is begging the question, Because ultimately that is what you are seeking to prove, But it has now become an assumption in your arguments. You have been honest enough in R2 to agree that you are not (for eg) arguing ". . . Aah but Gods consciousness is special in a way we don"t understand"". Lets keep to an honest approach!

THE CARTOON UNIVERSE. You think Atheism is a cartoon as you feel it means believing a Universe "popping into existence out of Nothing".

- Firstly Atheism does not entail that view, We have already defined what Atheism is.
- Secondly it is a straw-man. I explicitly stated the exact opposite. I have been clear that a "Nothing" is never actualised and Existence is eternal not "begun". No "Popping", No "Nothing".
- Thirdly this is a WLC tactic and a fallacy of ignorance (wilfully beneath him for such a good mind and I would hesitate to assume in your case too). It is a nonsense to argue in such a way so incredulously. I can"t possibly believe "x" is true, Therefore "y".
- Fourthly it is merely a projection of the Theists own weak argument. The Theist is the one arguing the Universe "popped into existence out of Nothing". The only thing the Theist adds to this, Is to make it even more ridiculous by leveraging magical thinking (a Wizards spell).

It is quite bizarre to paint Atheism as a cartoon. My Atheism is based on an objective reality. Your Theism on a subjective fantasy. Theism is the quintessential Cartoon. Water can instantly be made into wine, Bushes can speak whilst burning, Snakes talk, The dead re-animate, Disease instantly cured, Humans can do magic in front of Pharoah, Waters conveniently split, Universes created from a "Nothing" by a Ghost Wizard (it is Scooby-Doo meets the Wizard of Oz).

In the Theists world the cartoonist (God) can draw whatever he wants and then scrub it out and re-draw it again and again and again. Turn A into not-A, Cause A to act as not-A would act. My Atheism is a consequence, That this is impossible. "Existence, Exists" independent of consciousness, Feelings, Wishes or whims. Things are what they are (A=A) and cannot be altered (to something incompatible with their identities), Nor by pretending Wizards exist.

Once again thanks you for the exchange and hope you find it as useful as I have to test oneself.
Debate Round No. 3
logicae

Pro

And to your feisty response :) I like your conversational style and I commend you on your kindness. But I think I would do ourselves a great disservice by focusing on the rhetorical aspect of debate alone.

"This is why the fact of Existence, Does not care about your feelings that is was "poofed" into existence by a Wizards spell. "

Indeed, This is why the universe requires an explanation. Good thinking ;)

"No matter how much you want to hide, You are of course stealing concepts from Naturalism to prop up the KCA. "

"That which can be asserted without evidence, Can be dismissed without evidence. " " Christopher Hitchens.

1. Give reason why
2. Respond to my arguments showing the opposite is true.

"You will have no problem telling me which of those concepts come from assuming "Supernaturalism" is true, Instead of assuming Naturalism. Can't wait; it will be fascinating reading your response! "

I hope you did not mean to insert hyperbole, Regardless:

1. I did not make the claim of naturalism vs supernaturalism, That was brought into conversation by you, Thus you must prove your assertions, Not toss them onto me.
2. You still have yet to show how Theism rests on naturalism. This is (as I responded above) a blatant contradiction, As Naturalism finds no source to our fundamental laws, Theism however provides the source. These obviously do not equate.

"AXIOMS. I disagree that Axioms can be proven. For example we cannot justify Reason (by using Reason). But to deny Reason, Would be assuming the validity of it. This renders the denial of it futile. The same is true of Existence and Consciousness. "

1. If axioms could not be proven and do not have a sliver of evidence for them, Then they are in essence a blind faith. If I believe in something that I cannot prove (fairies for example) then that would count as blind faith.

2. Axioms however are statements of fundamental proof. To use your example. Reason is a method to fundamentally determine truth. To prove reason is reasonable is to examine the fundamental aspects that govern this principle.

The definition of reason according to oxford dictionaries is: "a cause, Explanation, Or justification for an action or event. "

Taking reason as an example contradicts your stance on axioms as unprovable ideals, Stating reason as an explanation for an action. This is provable or falsifiable.

3. I think when you say "unprovable" you are really trying to say "asserted as a whole", Like a part to whole principle. This is far from unprovable, But I would agree that axioms must assume from a part truth, To a whole of reality.

NOTHINGNESS. "I did NOT claim that Existence was purely physical(material). "

-Ok glad we agree, This will be important soon.

"Infact I explicitly stated that consciousness, Exists (ie immaterial existence). "

-The same response here.

"It depends EXACTLY what you mean by immaterial and material. Quantum physics is an exotic raging sea of forces, Matter, Energy and fields. "

-Be careful when you are talking about material, The quantum theory is a description of another state of matter, Still not nothing.

"I would suggest when we talk about the material world we are infact only referring to matter. "

-If we were talking about the material world then I would agree, But you forget the topic is on the existence of God, Not the material world.

"Fields are immaterial"

-No, They are a state of matter (energy) which is a physical thing.

"You can try to crowbar in a God or a Yellow Quantum Whisperer or anything else, But there is no room nor need. So Naturalism not Physicalism. "

1. I think it is important that we remember the debate is on Theism not Naturalism nor Physicalism.

2. Regardless, Asserting that God cannot exist does not make it true, Fallacy of assertions. Please instead provide a reason why.

Now to your argument that God cannot exist because he is immaterial. You essentially argue that existence only applies for physical objects, But I will now remind you of your statement above: "I did NOT claim that Existence was purely physical(material)"

So then my response is simple:

1. Non physical does not mean does not exist. God not being physical does not prove that he does not exist, To state this, You would need to prove that the only thing that can exist are physical things, Which, As you stated above, Is not what you claim. Thus this argument falls.

""Nothing" is merely an abstract concept"

1. That is a pure misunderstanding of the word nothing, Nothing means the opposite of something. Of course it contradicts things, As it is the opposite of things.
2. This does nothing to prove that nothing does not exist, In reality however, We find the absences of things all the time, True physical nothing is simply the absence of all physical things. Nothing more or less.

"Does NOT disprove eternal Existence"

-Right not my point with using it. Please ACTUALLY (just going to use caps to refer to your caps ;) respond to my argument, This is a straw man fallacy.

"The BB theory does not go beyond quantised Planck time. To say the Universe "began" may be a poetic use of English, But it is a nonsense to describe an exotic point with no time, Nor the possibility of a "Beginning" in any way"

Let"s take a look at the theory, I think you might misunderstand it:

"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. "
(https://www. Big-bang-theory. Com/)

Notice how the theory states that there was nothing, No time, Space, Matter, Before the big bang. You can keep asserting doubts at the theory, But you still have yet to disprove it.

2. You go on to attack the KCA and my use of the big bang theory to "justify" it, However that was not my argument. You again ignore the infinite paradox and how it makes an infinite universe impossible, Thus providing for a beginning. The big bang theory only supports this argument scientifically by saying the universe began to exist at one point in time.

Thus you still have yet to disprove this point

"P1) Time came into being with the Universe (BB).
P2) ergo. The Universe has existed for all of time (P1).
P3) Saying "existed for all of time", Is the same thing as saying "eternal".
C) The Universe is eternal (P2, P3)"

1. This once again ignores the impossibility of an actually infinite number of things
You even contradict yourself by saying that time was created but has always existed! This is quite an absurdity, Which unless you twist the meaning of "began to exist" it is quite evident

1. Now you accuse me of arguing from ignorance despite no evidence of my arguments falling upon this fallacy. If you seriously want to "straw man" me like this the whole debate, Then I will call you out.
2. Please instead show where my arguments specifically fall into this category, Otherwise I can"t take you seriously.

"You claim I am separating Existence and Consciousness. I submit not only do I not separate them, The point of the Axioms I presented you with is, To show that one (AoC) is dependent on the other (AoE). "

-Glad we agree that consciousness and existence go hand in hand. This means that both are not dependent on each other. The problem with your argument, Is that you assume because they exist together, Therefore one is dependent on the other, This is simply an assertion, We need reason to think one cannot exist without the other.

"Consciousness needs Existence first! " Consciousness existing does't mean that consciousness is dependent on existence.
We already agreed above that both intertwined and thus neither hold a primacy over the other.

-Now the next paragraph is an ad hominem, Attacking the idea of God instead of my reasons for God"s existence.

"THE CARTOON UNIVERSE. You think Atheism is a cartoon as you feel it means believing a Universe "popping into existence out of Nothing". "

-Yes

"Firstly Atheism does not entail that view"

-I agree if you think the universe is eternal, But this brings absurdities in itself (I. E infinite paradox) and ignores cosmological science such as the big bang theory.

"Secondly it is a straw-man. I explicitly stated the exact opposite. "

-You again contradict yourself, This was a response to your rhetoric on cartoons. Either you accept the universe as a paradox or you accept that the universe came from nothing. These are the only two options for the Atheist.

"Thirdly this is a WLC tactic and a fallacy of ignorance"

-This is an ad hominem attack

I think I have gone far enough to demonstrate Con's use of offensive rhetorical tactics, I would ask Con to instead keep the debate with in the confines of strict reason. Beyond this I think we can finally see what these objective terms of reality really mean.

To Truth! -logicae
Surgeon

Con

Hi logicae thanks for your R4. I am sorry if you think my rhetorical flourish is pre-eminent over the reasoning I offer. Maybe it is because something that seems obvious to one party, Sometimes is not to the other. I have showed a clear progression from the AoE and AoC to Atheism. A full exposition of the Theist stolen concept fallac would be my Argument 2 for Atheism. . See later this round.

I think you are partly projecting your own weakness onto me. You are the one simply asserting (or equivocating or both) there is a "cause" and a "beginning", Without be able to explain nor provide evidence what that even means in an atemporal context (more below). At this stage of the debate you are starting to "grandstand" from a safe distance, Rather than engaging in hand-to-hand combat.

You are also ignoring and trivialising the objections to the KCA, "quote" mining my responses and ignoring the reasoning based on the Axioms, Focussing on irrelevancy (partly my fault for letting you do that) and mis-representing me (see below responses).

But I do not think you are dumb or devious, Sometimes it is the way of things in a debate, The cut and thrust as it were. We start with well honed ideas, Then have to think on our feet and jockey for position.

Btw I totally agree on the informal fallacies, You claim to have debunked (I do not agree). Informal fallacies do not disprove the KCA. I did not make that claim! I said they render the KCA premises suspect, And then went onto to explain that the premises would be false depending on what was meant by the words "cause" in P1 and "began" in P2. Please read what I said, Not what you thought I meant.

THE CONVERSATION

In this round I will respond to your R3. I will respond to your R4 in R5 and sum up.

The use of "cause" in the KCA is still a problem that won"t go away by your hand-waiving dismissals. According to you it is not a difficult concept, But you go on to define it as "things that were caused, Were caused". That is NOT a definition! Let me offer one: Cause = the Law of Identity in action (a thing that gives rise to an action).

Action ONLY exists in a time series of events, There is no such thing as an atemporal action. Causes always precede their effects, There can be no atemporal cause. You have asserted there is, But provided no evidence. In what sense is it even plausible? We are talking about a frozen point in time and space. I am not the one claiming the Universe "popped" out of "Nothing" (you are): 1 (god) + 0 (ex-nihlo state, "Nothing! ") = 1 ("popped" Universe).

Pro doesn"t like the accusations of stealing concepts. He finds it hilarious: "In order to believe in naturalism, You must ignore the origins of naturalism (meaning all order just exists, No reason given) and just sit in ignorance. . . "

Three problems here.

-Firstly its a straw man. I did not ignore the origins of Naturalism, But placed them firmly in the purview of the objective reality of Existence (not in the subjective fantasy of Theism). Surely that is clear by now!
- Secondly. This is not asserted, But a corollary of the AoE (it is just Pro doesn"t like that corollary because it leads to Atheism)
- Thirdly it is an argument from ignorance. Even if I could not ground Naturalism, You are stating "well I can"t believe "x" is true, Therefore "y""
- Fourthly when did questions of order (teleology) creep in? What does a disordered Universe look like exactly? If we lived in one (although different), Wouldn"t that also appear ordered to us?

That brings us nicely back to the stolen concepts. The KCA leverages Naturalism to "prove" Supernaturalism. Thus if the KCA is true, The argument defeats itself:

BEGINS, BEGAN. CAUSE. UNIVERSE. EXIST. Are all concepts requiring Naturalism to be true. They are formed because consciousness, Exists. We forms precepts of Existence (Reality) gathered through our senses. These precepts are then integrated and/or differentiated by reference to other concepts in our mind. These concepts are consistent with logic, Because logic is a description of the consistency of absolute Existence (and of our objective Reality). If Pro has an alternative Supernatural epistemology of concept formation he should enlighten us.

If Supernaturalism is true, Then Naturalism is false, And these concepts would then no longer be consistent with logic. They would infact be unreliable. Could a god:

Reverse entropy? Make an effect into a cause? Make an end into a beginning? Could a smashed glass on the floor reform itself and jump back onto the bar? Could the dead emerge from graves re-animated as good as new?
Make other Universes visible to us and indistinguishable from our own?
Make us exist and not-exist at the same time? Make us half in and half out of this spacetime manifold?
Do real magic? Wither Fig trees instantly by wishing it so? Water become wine without fermentation?

In order for the Theist to get reliable concepts, They must assume the consistency of nature, Borrowing from Naturalism. And you see no problem? You might argue that your God is a lovely chap and without him there would be no natural consistency. Really? Your own Theology denies this. This is a personal god, Who according to biblical stories and professed faith intervenes and creates natural inconsistencies on purpose! But there is a simple refutation available to you. You can tell me which if any of these concepts comes from the assumption that Supernaturalism is true. I won"t hold my breath.

SELECTIVE "QUOTE" MINE:

". . . A display of ignorance/willingness to ignore logical truth. If the Kalam is logically valid, Then it is true. . . . . "Facts indeed don"t care about your feelings. ""

I find this objection bizarre, Unless we are not agreeing on the definition of "valid" and "true". Of course it is possible to have a logical syllogism that is both valid and false. See below example:

P1 All things moving, Move faster when propelled by an additional external force in the direction of travel
P2 A tin of beans is a thing
P3 A tin of beans, Travelling at the speed of light, Moves faster when propelled by an additional external force in the direction of travel
C A tin of beans can travel faster than the speed of light

The KCA is trivially valid in form, But I question the substance (truth) of the premises. The KCA appears to be a triumph of form over substance. See R2.

"In our physical reality it is impossible, But by definition God is outside of reality. "

Did you really say that? "God is outside of reality". I agree. But what is the difference between that statement and "God is not real"? I agree again (welcome to Atheism again! ). We already know that Existence, Exists. This is unrefuted. But earlier you were stating god is Existence and now God is not even in Reality. What are Existence and Reality if they are not the same thing to you? Ahh Pro "Oh, What a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive! "

"You must though either acknowledge that the big bang came from nothing or a cause. "

You seem stuck in a loop arguing against positions I do not take. Maybe you are scripted to defend against a skeptical Atheistic perspective? I am not a skeptic. I DO NOT acknowledge this. It is a false dichotomy. Cross refer to previous argument, The fact of Existence.

"The quantum vacuum is just another way that matter can exist: Energy. You twist the meaning of nothing, To mean something and thus equivocate"

You simply assert matter is just another state of Fields without offering any evidence. My response is maybe the opposite is true and what we see as matter is just another state of fields. A meta-view of natural but non-material sub-structures (the reasoning for this is based on QFT). You should read what I said. I DID NOT say it was "Nothing". I said it was "as close to the Theists "Nothing" as we can get". There is a difference! There is no equivocation from me here.

"Numbers for example are a good representation of this, They exist, But yet, Were not "caused" by anything"

Immaterial existence, Exists. But in what sense do Numbers exist? They are an abstract construct that is as a shorthand description of reality. They have no independent existence. To me you are arguing that the adjective (description of the reality) exists independently from the noun (the reality). Thus severing the link and falsely creating a free floating abstraction. Laws of logic and numbers do not exist independently. They are absolute because they are descriptions of an absolute thing/s (Existence).

"You must prove that a will cannot exist beyond the physical in order to say that it couldn"t exist outside of the physical. "

I have no such burden I am not making the argument in this debate that consciousness is limited to physical brains. I believe it is! And inductively that case can be made, But it is not important to my case here. As an aside, This is a marvelous reversal of the burden of proof. You are the one arguing for a consciousness severed from reality. Surely the burden is yours.

"The last resort of the Theist is to point out that a natural birth of the Universe must imply an infinite series of events -Straw man fallacy, Not arguing this. "

Read what I said. I stated it was the last resort of theists, I did not say that you were arguing it. I agree you weren"t. My guess is you may at some point. This was merely a tactical pre-emptive strike to cut off this line of Theistic defense. No straw-man fallacy here.

"Without time there can be no causality. Agreed, This fits perfectly with the Kalam"

No it does not. My understanding of WLCs defence, He also tacitly concedes this, By arguing FOR simultaneous causation. You are going off the KCA script here. Fine if you can justify it.

"Example: A rover on mars came from a factory on earth. Earth came from a mix of space particles. The universe came from the big bang. The big bang came from. . . "

. . . Existence!
Debate Round No. 4
logicae

Pro

Now for the final speech, I will treat it as a summery and a big picture ending.

Once again I thank Surgeon for this debate.

I will go ahead and sum up the debate with the main arguments made thus far,

First: my contentions:

1. There are no good reasons for Atheism (that is God does not exist)
2. There is good reason for Theism

(my opponents contentions were the mirror opposite :)

To the first contention, My opponent brought an argument called the "Primacy of Existence"

P1: If the Primacy of Existence (PoE) is valid, Theism is false
P2: The PoE is valid
C: Therefore, Theism is false

His case was that consciousness is dependent upon existence and therefore theism is not true. My responses were as follows:

Does not disprove Theism. As Con has yet to show how God could not exist, This has no impact. God by definition "exists" and so there is no reason why this argumentation would disprove him

My opponent then responded by stating God to be only consciousness, Even though he acknowledged consciousness must exist first. Thus Con must first have shown how God does not exist in order to back his argument that God is only a "consciousness" and so cannot exist.

Next Con argued that the Universe is necessary (and so always existed).

To which my response was:

"Physical things are not necessary or always existed. If we found a house on mars, We wouldn"t jump to say that it is a necessary part of mars, But rather conclude that something, Or someone, Had to have put it there. "

Con then tried to push off the meaning of the impossibility of an infinite universe (to say that the universe definitely was not necessary, But created) and the scientific backing from the big bang theory stating that the universe began to exist, Before which there was nothing. Con tried to deny these points, But did not directly refute them.

Now Con and I go back and forth on smaller issues, But these are the most significant.

Now to my second contention: There is good reason for Theism

To this point I gave the Kalam Cosmological Argument,

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause

to which Con responded with a few points:

He wanted to change the first premise, To which I responded by showing the problems with it.
He argued that God couldn"t have created the universe because time is required for causality or during an action. My response was simply that the creation of the universe was also the creation of time, Time being involved indeed.

Con then accused me of several fallacies to which I responded.

Con then attacked the idea that the universe began to exist, But yet did not directly refute my points proving it. I responded by pointing back to the impossibility of the infinite universe and further clarified the backing from the bigbang theory, Stating that the universe did not exist before the big bang.

I think we can now see at the end of this debate, That the only reasonable explanation for a proven contingent universe created at one point, Is for a creator of it.

To Truth! -logicae
Surgeon

Con

Thanks for your summing up Pro. It was interesting to see this particular defence of the KCA.
I set out to defend 2 contentious:
1. There are good reasons for Atheism (that is God does not exist)
2. There are no good reasons for Theism (that God/s exists)

The first contention is supported by the fact of Existence. The fact of Existence is reasoned to, Through the Axioms or Existence and Consciousness (AoE and AoC). These have not been refuted in this debate.
The closest Pro has come is to offer that they are infact one in the same thing. This is pure nonsense. The AoC depends on the the AoE, That is the point! Consciousness is necessarily metaphysically subordinate, They are not the same thing. We have seen no reasoning from Pro as to why he thinks they are the same, Other that it conforms with his personal view of a god. This is mere question begging.

In a nutshell to be conscious, Is to be conscious of something. Theism envisages an entity both simultaneously conscious and incorporeal (something never explained), Conscious only of its own consciousness and existing prior to Existence. This is a contradiction in terms, And an inversion of the proper argument of metaphysical primacy and cannot be taken seriously.

The second contention is supported by the dismantling of the KCA. Both premises have been shown to be suspect and flat out wrong depending on a proper definition of "cause" and "began" which we have not received. These are both temporal concepts wrenched from their proper context in Naturalism, And used to prop up a Supernaturalistic intuition of what happened in an atemporal point. It is a giant stolen concept fallacy, Once again unrefuted by Pro even though he has opportunity to tell me any concept which depends on Supernaturalism being true.

The Big Bang. Pro embarks on a significant gerrymandering of the BB theory to backfire the solution he wants all along. The BB Theory says nothing about the point outside of Planck time. The Theist rushes in and selectively interprets this theory to fit their pre-loaded conclusions. The BB does not support the KCA or Theism. Nobody knows what the physics were, Or the nature of Existence was, Outside of Planck time or at the point of Planck time. There is conjecture, Hypothesis and theory. We have the BB theory, Hartle-Hawking-hypothesis, String theory, Quantum loop gravity, BGV theorem and the Inflation model. None predict "God-did-it". Here is an excerpt from Pros BB theory link.

"There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, We tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, Imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. "

It says the better analogy is that the Universe inflated from "an infinitesimally small balloon". In other words a pre-existent form of Existence, Existed (not Nothing) we know this today as a Singularity. A Singularity is not a "Nothing". The KCA misuses common language to fool its reader. It is a word game, A parlour game and not a serious argument (although probably one of the best in the classical Theist armoury). Notice how the BB theory, Agrees directly with the AoE, "Existence, Exists" absolutely, Necessarily and eternally. Existence cannot, Not exist; "Nothings" cannot be actualised.

Pro seems to think eternal Existence gives me a problem of infinities (a paradox), But never spells out exactly what that paradox is. Our current form of Existence is quantised, As such there are no actualised infinities so I am not sure what point he is trying to make. My interpretation is that there was something, Then in a quantised instant a different something (~0=~-1~+1). After that point (and with time now instantiated) every state of the Universe follows from an earlier state.

What we do know from the above debate is it was not:
- a consciousness, Conscious only of its own consciousness (outside of "Reality", Ie not real)
- something with an infinite series of thoughts to traverse in that consciousness before getting to a decision to ignite a Universe
- a frozen timeless unenergetic entity performing a magic spell which itself would take time to think of and utter (all whilst simultaneously being outside of time)
- anything performed on a "Nothing", Leading to a vast something (1+0=1).

In short Pro wants to substitute what he considers to be a Natural paradox of infinity, For a Supernatural paradox of infinity. My response is there is no paradox of infinity at all, Nor supernature. There are no actualised infinities in a quantised Existence, No actualised "Nothings", And there is no Supernature (argument 2 for Atheism).

It seems to me that Pro is used to defending against a different set of arguments than mine, And has inevitably attacked positions I do not hold. In the process failing to understand and address the remorseless conclusion of Atheism from the fact of Existence. Even though Pro has admitted in this debate that "God does not exist in reality", He still comes down on the side of Theism. He weaves a tangled web and stands astride disordered strands of thought, Tripping over his own words and appealing to Atheism and Naturalism to prop up his exploded ideas.

In turn I appeal to Pro to adopt the rational conclusion and to leave behind the superstition of Theism. Instead he should adopt Naturalism based on the Existence of an objective reality and reject the subjective fantasy of Theism. There is only a veneer of rationality in the KCA, It ends up saying: "you know what it could only be magic folks! ". Yes and we also proved a tin of beans can travel faster than the speed of light, Using the same approach of dodgy premises.

I thank Pro for the debate. He has demonstrated excellent conduct and has rightly held me to account. His defence of the KCA is well thought out and thorough. Both of us have upheld the agreements set out. Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DarthLogicus 1 year ago
DarthLogicus
things cannot be created out of nothing as there is nothing to create
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Surgeon
@missmedic.

Atheism is as I defined it "God/s do/es not exist" not "unwillingness to accept BS". There is nothing controversial about my formulation, It just isn't the "in vogue" appraoch that is taken by those who claim to be Atheists but are more properly described as Agnostics.

I agree that Atheism under my definition entails your definition, But vice-versa is not true. Thus your definition is a weaker formulation and a corollary. Normally something similar is quoted by Atheists in an attempt to avoid a BoP. I think such manouevres are too timid.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
It is not reasonable to believe. Gods are by default invisible, Inaudible, Intangible entities that exits on belief alone and don't do anything. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, Productive, Or useful. "
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
To con
Atheism is simply an unwillingness to accept bullzhit, It is not "the only reasonable explanation for the fact of Existence".
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.