The Instigator
Ondyjones
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Overhead
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 Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,033 times Debate No: 119985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (0)

 

Ondyjones

Pro

Definition of God: sentient being that is metaphysical and creator of physical universe

Arguments:

1. Argument from nessecity: the universe is contingent, Though it exists, It didn"t have to exist. Or it could have existed in a different form. The fact the universe is contingent, It requires an explanation for its existence. The ultimate explanation for why anything exists is a nescessary being who exists by default and doesn"t require an explanation for its existence. If all beings are contingent then we have an infinite regress and we wouldn"t exist. The fact we exist proves a necessary being exists and that is God Alhumdulillah

2. Ontological argument: God is by definition a being of which no greater being could be conceived. If God didn"t exist we could conceive a being greater who does exist. Therefore God exists by definition.

3. Argument from possible worlds: is it possible for God to exist? If so then god exists in some possible world. Since God is infinite he exists in all possible worlds. Therefore God exists in this world. Therefore God exists. Alhumdulillah

4. Argument from conditioned reality: in order for the universe to exist it needs it"s parts to exist. Matter needs atoms to exist which needs smaller particles to exist, Which needs smaller particles to exist. . . True reality must be indivisible. That reality is God.

Also universe is changing. The universe can"t be eternal because it would go through infinite changes then. So an infinite changes would take before we exist so we wouldn"t exist. We exist so an unchanging eternity created this ever changing world.

5. Absolute truth exists otherwise all truth would be relative. If truth was relative truth A could say truth B is false and truth B could say truth A is false and both statements would be true, Which would be a contradiction and inconsistent. Therefore absolute truth exists therefore absolute being exists.

Second question, Is God sentient? Since he created this finite world, He must have had a choice if he had no choice he was preprogrammed. A preprogrammed god would require a programmer hence another creator creating an infinite regress. So God must be sentient since he chose yes to create the universe.

Therefore God exists as defined Alhumdulillah
Overhead

Con

Based on the complete lack of evidence for a god, There is no god or at a very minimum no logical or sound rationale to believe in the existence of a god.

To rebutt pro's arguments.

1) The universe is not contingent as per our most sound understanding of physics. While it's understandable you'd think so because causality effects everything in ordinary life based on the current structure of the universe, The creation of the universe did not happen based on standard physical parameters and occured when the laws of physics acted entirely differently. Einsteins theory of relativity explains how space and time are linked and Stephen Hawkin's development of this goes further back in time and explains how when all space was compacted into a singularity at the Big Bang that means time ceased to exist and the beginning of the universe has no cause according to the laws of physics.

"At this time, The Big Bang, All the matter in the universe, Would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, A singularity. At a singularity, All the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, After the Big Bang, Will not depend on anything that may have happened before, Because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. " [1]

The universe is not contingent, Your claims is false.

2) No, If God doesn't exist but you conceive of him as existing and begin omnipotent, Then you can still conceive of no greater being than this God regardless of his non-existence. You are assuming the premise and the conclusion is a non-sequiter - it would just mean you were wrong to claim god existed.

3) Your argument assumes that it is possible for this God to exist with no evidence to support it. It also assumes the existence of parallel realities with no proof for them.

4. Simply a random claim with no evidence or reasoning. No rebuttal needed, You could have just as easily finished the paragraph with "That reality is elementary particles such as the Higg boson, The quarks, Leptons, Etc. " The only differences if you wanted to you actually could have backed up those claims with evidence. [2]

5. You're getting muddled in semantics and getting confused. Two truths being contradictory and impossible is a problem if they are absolute truths.

What is the distinction between a relative truth and an absolute truth? By relative truths we mean "a fact or belief that is accepted as true" or basically "a really really strong opinion". Neither of those means it is factually certainly 100% true in reality. It is therefore not impossible or irrevocably inconsistent to have relative truths contradict each other - that is in fact the entire point of them being relative. Why are you treating relative truths like absolute truths?

Also you offer no explanation of why absolute truths existing would mean absolute beings exist.

Your "second question" is irrelevant as it presumes that a god exists, Which it does not.

[1] http://www. Hawking. Org. Uk/the-beginning-of-time. Html
[2] https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Elementary_particle
Debate Round No. 1
Ondyjones

Pro

Thanks for your rebuttal con,

You argue there is no evidence for God. First I must ask what kind of evidence are you looking for? If you want scientific evidence I must warn you science can"t explain everything. For example prove to me science is the correct methodology? You can"t scientifically prove it you just accept it as fact since it"s a presupposition.

Now with your rebuttals.

1. You say the universe isn"t contingent? Tell me why does the universe exist as it does and why is there something rather than nothing? You say the universe doesn"t need a cause since the laws of physics before the Big Bang than they are now? Are you suggesting the universe came from nothing? If so nothing cannot become something since nothing has zero attributes it does not have the faculty to become something. Laws of physics or no laws of physics absolute nothingness is impossible since something exists and we can"t even conceive nothing. What colour is it? Black? White? Those are something. Something must exist because nothing is logically impossible. Even if something like nothing existed it would be something if it had the ability to turn to something since an ability counts as something.

And things don"t pop into existence since that is equal to something to coming from nothing which we agreed is impossible. And just because we don"t know the cause doesn"t mean there is no cause!

And the laws of physics? Who made these laws? The laws of the road don"t make themselves up so how can the laws of physics? Where are they? Why do we have to obey them? And if they just came after the Big Bang spontaneously? Why don"t they randomly disappear spontaneously?

And even if the universe could come from nothing it is still contingent? Why does nothing turn to something? Why doesn"t it remain nothing? The question why proves the universe is contingent and not default. And even if there was no time before the Big Bang how did time start? And why doesn"t it randomly stop or speed up for no reason or slow down for no reason? My point remains the universe is contingent.

2 you didn"t disprove the ontological argument. Obviously existence beats non existence. If superman doesn"t exist he can"t hurt me. God by definition is the greatest being. A god that exists is better than a god that doesn"t exist therefore by definition god exists. My argument still holds.

3 you claim leptons, Quarks, Higgs boson, Etc explain indivisible reality? They don"t tell me what are quarks made of? And what is the space in between them made of? Absolute reality can"t be made of parts it must be indivisible because you can"t be part real.

4. You haven"t negated absolute truth either. My question was, Is all truth relative? Or is there an ultimate absolute truth. All truth can"t be relative, Because then there would be no objective truth only subjective opinions. The fact absolute truth exists proves an absolute exists. This absolute must have being just as a rock has being.

Being does not equal person since all things that exist have being

I prove the being that created this world is also a person but you didn"t rebut this point. If this being had a choice to create this universe it must be sentient. If it had no choice it was preprogrammed thus itself created.

All my points still stand.
Overhead

Con

Overhead forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ondyjones

Pro

It appears con forfeited this round

My arguments still stand
Overhead

Con

Overhead forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ondyjones 3 years ago
Ondyjones
Surgeon absolute nothingness can"t split into positive and negative parts

Remember it has no properties or abilities since it is nothing?

And why won"t you marry your mom?

Is it Haram?

Who is stopping you?
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@PointProve

"What he doesn't understand is that no matter how low the chances of the universe coming together from an explosion are, It would still be inevitable given infinite time. If you have a 0. 08% chance of winning the lottery, But you try infinite times, You would 100% win at some point. This is kindergarten logic. "

This seems to be a false analogy for the chances of the universe. Not only are you not answering the question of the infinite paradox, But you assume that this exact universe is inevitable among the unproven rest. Here is a counter analogy: You are forced to choose a random ping pong ball among 5 white ping pong balls floating around in a billion billion billion black ping pong balls. Or you die. Not only that, But you must choose the white one five times. Choosing them, You come back with a white one the first pick. You would probable say that the pick was rigged then, But then you pick the white one five more times! By now you would think it is a miracle you are still alive! This represents the conditions of the universe, Such a situation is so drastically improbable that it can't simply be ignored.

To Truth! -logicae
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Surgeon
Wow! Pass me the brick wall someone, I have some head pain I need to inflict to distract me from this nonsense argumentation.

Am I surprised you do not undrestand, Or claim not to understand the argumentation? No. If you spent your life thinking and talking over vox pop versions of Theistic arguments (such as the Kalam) in a religious echo chamber then your argumentation will be very limited. When you come across arguments for Atheism based on there being an Absolute, You flounder and tie yourself up in knots. You don't even realise one of your rejoinders defeated your own position (and was an argument for Atheism, Btw welcome to the club! ).

You persist with this "marry your Mum stuff". Its beneath contempt, And not a serious Philosophical exchange. I assume you are trying to goad me, Or want to demonstrate that I secretly believe in a god, Because I am secretly afraid of a god? Let me be clear. I KNOW that gods cannot exist, Including those supposedly revealed by the plagarism of Islam. I have heard the word of Islam and reject it thoroughly. I reject the existence of the Holy Ghost. I reject Jahweh. I reject the existence of anything Supernatural as they are a contradiction in terms. Is that better? Can we move on? Are my Atheist credentials now strong enough for you?

I have already answered all your repeat fraudulent Cosmological questions in plain English. Lets try again in maths:

You believe that: 0 + 1 = 1

Where: 0 - is nothing (the ex-nihlo creation state), 1 (left side equation) is a god, 1 (right side equation) is something (the Universe).

I believe: ~0 = ~-1 + ~+1

Where: ~0 - is Existence (assymptoting to zero), ~-1 is negative matter, Energy and forces in the Universe; ~+1 (positive matter, Energy and forces in the Universe.

The problem for you, Is that my position is demonstrated by reason and physical evidence. Whereas yours has nothing AT ALL to back it up. But why let that stop you becuase you get to the conclusion you want?
Posted by Ondyjones 3 years ago
Ondyjones
I have no clue what you just said?

So you believe the universe came from nothing?

Or did it come from something?

And why don"t you marry your mom?

God won"t punish you right?
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Surgeon
"Look there are only 3 options. Either the Big Bang

- came from nothing.
- Or it created itself
- Or it has a cause

There is no alternative. Only option 3 is consistent with logic so it alone is true? "

I submit this is just flat out false. Firstly given the faulty and sometimes laughable reasoning in your arguments, I do not need you to tell me what is logical, Thanks. Secondly, Your whole approach here is to view the Universe and Existence as some kind of Object created by some kind of Agency. Unsurprisingly then you end up with the conclusion you want and only offer a false trichotomy:

There are indeed other alternatives (consistent with the Axiom of Existence - namely Existence, Exists - ), The 2 below for example are NOT mutually exclusive either:

1) The Big Bang describes the phase transition of Existence into the current block Universe, Not the start of Existence.
2) A reasonable definition of eternal, Means something that has existed for all time. Time came into existence with the Universe at the point of the Big Bang (see Big Bang Theory), Ergo The Universe is eternal and did not "start".

The tricky thing here is using the English language to describe concepts which not even the more precise language of advanced mathematics can describe (yet), Leaves us in something of a difficult situation. These concepts seem counter-intuitive, But then intuition is NOT a guide to truth and that is the aim here, To get at the truth. I'm afraid god talk is meaningless, Irrational, Incoherent, Self-refuting, Illogical and a stolen-concept-fallacy-ridden cartoon world. But if you start with an Axiom that "God exists" as you surely do, Then you will always end up back there, Pretend to yourself that your reasoning is sound and shut your ears and eyes to the contray arguments. But then Faith is, As Faith does.
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Surgeon
And so we have the intellectual breakdown of the Theist mind. . . To show I am a "true" Athiest (I guess this is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy is coming up), I have to marry my "Mom". . . What can one say to such a disordered mind. I think the best thing is just to underline this leap forward in thinking, Award it 0/10 and send it back for re-submission into something that is coherent.

More fraudulent "gotcha" questions I see.

"Who made the the laws of physics? " Question begging, As you are assuming they were ushered into Existence by a "Who" and not a "What". Fallacy of the floating abstraction as you seem to think the laws have an independent existence, Rather than describing the only thing we know to be eternal, Necessary and absolute (ie Existence itself).

"Why don"t they just break down now? ". They may eventually as Existence itself may go through a phase transition to another form. The laws only describe this current state of Existence (the block Universe we live in) and not Existence before Planck time (as already stated). Don't forget you already believe they can be broken down by a magical Universe ghost.

"You say there was no time before the Big Bang? " So how did time start for no reason? " The fact that time only came into Existence with the Big Bang, Means time could not "start" as such. You are applying time laden terms like "start" to atemporal conditions and thus your question is circular and meaningless (like your God hypothesis).

"Why doesn't it stop for no reason if it could start for no reason". So your argument assumes either there is a god because time doesn't stop, Or alternatively time can stop proving there is no god. Great then I would like to introduce you to "Einsteins Theory of General Relativity". Spacetime dilates, With speed. Time does stop at the speed of light in a vacuum. So now you have just disproven god to yourself right? This must be embarrassing for you as your own argumentation now leads you to Atheism. Congratulations!
Posted by Ondyjones 3 years ago
Ondyjones
And surgeon to prove you know God exists

I challenge you to marry your mom

If you are a true atheist
Posted by Ondyjones 3 years ago
Ondyjones
How do you know the laws of physics break down at the Big Bang?

Who made the the laws of physics?

Why don"t they just break down now?

You say there was no time before the Big Bang?

So how did time start for no reason?

Why doesn"t it stop for no reason if it could start for no reason?

Look there are only 3 options

Either the Big Bang came from nothing

Or it created itself

Or it has a cause

There is no alternative

Only option 3 is consistent with logic so it alone is true?
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Surgeon
To answer your specific questions.

"Tell me why do you not know what came before the Big Bang? ". Because the laws of physics breakdown at a point beyond Planck time. So we may never know the answer to this, Or even if it is valid as there was no time and "no before" the "Big Bang". Your question is therefore illogical.

"Do your brains stop working when asked such a question? " No. My mind is a emergent characteristic of a higher functioning mammalian brain (like the ones we all have). It is therefore grounded in nature and limited to the natural. Whilst I can conceive and IMAGINE many things using it (including Universe creating ghosts ), I cannot REASON to the unnatural or supernatural as this would require me to have omniscience (which apparently you have because you know there is a god). As reason and not imagination is my epistemic grounding, This form of Enquiry is irrelevant to me, Thus your questions are the stuff of nonsense.
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Surgeon
Someone has thrown his toys out of the Pram! You always know when someone loses the argument when they resort to personal attacks claiming that "you Atheists are all in denial! ". The thing about personal attacks is that it is very often the projection of ones own weaknesses. Put another way look in the mirror first before lashing out at others.

Basically you don"t like being called out, As it shatters what appears to be the fairly typical self-crafted, Self-superiority of the religious mindset. Far from being humble, The arrogance of the argumentation on display is breathtaking. That you or anyone else know "how the Universe was created, Because it had to be god, It just had to be, And phew wow look at that it ties in with my worldview. . That was lucky". Stop Listening to 5 minute vox pop philosophy from a religious echo chamber, Regurgitating tired and refuted medieval religious arguments for god, And start with a proper grounding. You axiom appears to be "god exists", Therefore everything must be retrofitted to that assumption. Question that Axiom.

You do not like it when your arguments are shown to lack intellectual rigor, Are shown to be baseless and fallacy ridden. Your incredulity (a product of pride and denial itself) pours forth nonsense like "how did something from nothing", "where did the Universe come from", "why is there something rather than nothing". All statements which are truly fraudulent, Shown by the simple Axiomatic presupposition that "Existence, Exists" (to which a denial is of course nonsensical). Of course you deserve credit for thinking and your adherence to Absolute truth. At least your not a Post Modernist. . But really after that it"s all downhill isn"t it!
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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