The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
The Contender
Moelogy
Pro (for)

God Exists

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Moelogy has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 523 times Debate No: 106272
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

*No acceptance round; just start debating.
*Voters MUST use the OPT-IN voting standards.
*I request that moderators actually remove crappy votes (WF).
*By accepting this debate, all definitions are agreed to.

Full Resolution

God, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority, exists.

Pro
Has 4 sets of 10,000 characters to affirm the resolution that god exists.

Con
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to negate or cast much doubt on the resolution that god exists.


Definitions

god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

exist - have objective reality or being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

creation - the process of bringing something into existence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

process - a series of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

series - a number of events of a related kind coming one after another.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

after - in the time following an event.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...


*May the better debater win.
Moelogy

Pro

Contingency Argument

P1) whatever exists has a sufficient reason either in the necessity of its own nature if it is a necessary entity or in a transcedent Sufficient reason if it is contingent.

P2) The universe exists

Conclusion 1 (from P1 and P2): universe has an sufficient reason either in the necessity of its own nature if it is necessary or in a transcendent sufficient reason if it is contingent

P3) The universe is contingent

Conclusion 2 (from P3 and C1): Universe has a transcendent sufficient reason.

Conclusion 2 gives us a cause transcendent to nature, space and time and matter and thus supernatural, timeless, spaceless and immaterial.

So let's defend premises 1 and 3.


Premise 1 relies on the same reasoning behind the Principle of Sufficient Reason that every fact has a sufficient reason. [1] Let me give 5 lines of evidence for the PSR.


1- Inudctive evidence: From our experience, everything has a sufficient reason. Babies have sufficient reasons in their parents. Houses have sufficient reasons in builders. Cars have sufficient reasons in manufacturers. Books have authors. Tables have carpenters and so on. However, some objects like numbers and tautologies have a sufficient reason in the necessity of their own nature. They had to be that way. They can not not exist.

2- Scientific pressuposition: Science presupposes the PSR because it looks for an explanation for everything. It makes no sense whatsoever to look for something that you do not believe is there. It's looking for your keys in the house when you know it is not there and believe it is in the car. Since Science is working fine, we can also affirm that its pressupositions are true.

3- Atheist Pressuposition: Even atheists themselves pressupose the framework of the PSR. If we begin by denying the PSR, why do I have to provide any sufficient reasons for the proposition "God exists"?

4- Reductio Ad Absurdum: There is no way anyone can even deny the PSR. The framework of the PSR says that every fact, whether proposition, claim or entity, needs to have some sufficient reason for it. So ultimately you can not criticize the PSR since if you want to criticize the PSR you will have to give me some sufficient reasons to justify your claim "the PSR is false" is true but then that would mean that the only way you can even attempt to argue rationally against and criticize the PSR is if the PSR is already true. Any criticism of the PSR is unjustified and irrational and therefore must be rejected because it presupposes the framework of the PSR as in needing sufficient reasons. So ultimately nobody can justifiably deny the PSR.

5- Richard Taylor's burgulary: Suppose you were to come back home after a long day and find the glasses shattered, the wallet and cash stolen and the TV gone. You would naturally conclude that the sufficient reason is that a burgular came in and decked the house while you were gone. You would then use the sufficient reason to go and call 911. I do not think that any of us would come back home and just declare it is inexplicable. This demonstrates that we all presuppose the PSR in our lives and thus it is ad hoc to deny the PSR.

Here is an entire library of arguments for the PSR. [2]

A necessary fact (entity or proposition) has a sufficient reason in the necessity of its own nature. Take the proposition that "bachelors are unmarried". It is necessary by definition that bachelors are unmarried. It can not be any other way and thus its sufficient reason is in the necessity of its own nature. A contingent fact is the opposite of a necessary fact and thus does not contain its own sufficient reason.

Premise 3 is the easiest premise to defend in natural theology. It is confirmed by the fact that the universe is contingent meaning there is nothing self-contradictory about the universe failing to exist or being different unlike a necessary fact which entail logical contradictions if different or wrong.

For example, The necessary fact that all bachelors are unmarried is not contingent because it would entail a logical contradiction if it was wrong i.e. that all bachelors are married. This is an obvious logical contradiction. It would also be a logical contradiction if it was different, if bachelors were not unmarried but anything else, that would entail a logical contradiction. But the universe existing is not necessary and is contingent since no logical contradictions would entail if spacetime was different or failed to exist at all. For example, if the universe was different as in with extra space dimensions or different elementary particles like we see in M theory and colliding branes, no logical contradiction. There could even be some possible world where spacetime fabric and its components did not exist and no logical contradictions would result.


Thus the conclusion logically follows the Universe has a sufficient reason transcedent to itself. A Sufficient reason transcendent to the universe (all of spacetime and the natural realm whether mulltiverse, cyclical universes, M theory) would be transcedent to the natural realm, space, time, matter, energy and would thus be supernatural, spaceless, timeless, immaterial.

If the cause was contingent then we need a sufficient reason and if its sufficient reason was contingent, then we need another sufficient reason, and if that was contingent, we need yet another sufficient reason and so on. This series could terminate in a necessary being and then we would have a supernatural, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, necessary cause of the universe or it could regress ad infintum which would lead to an epistemic infinite regress. We can also shave off an infinity of explanations over a single necessary explanation by Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor tells us to shave off the contingent intermediates between the necessary cause and the universe.

Thus the cause of the universe is a supernatural, spaceless, timeless, immaterial and most likely necessary cause.

Only two things fit that descriptions: minds or the products of the mind (abstract objects) but since abstract objects like the number 8 do not cause anything, we can conclude it is a mind as well.


Note that it makes no difference whether the universe had a beginning or not since the pioneers did not try argue for that and even some believed that the universe is eternal. [3] It would be like a candle eternally causing a flame.

Ontological Argument

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists

P2: If it is possible that a MGB exists then he exists in some possible world

P3: If a MGB exists in some possible worlds, An MGB exists in all possible worlds

Conclusion : Since the actual world is a possible world, an MGB exists in the actual world.

Premise 1 is obvious enough since a maximally great being would contain the great-making properties to the fullest extent. THe great-making properties being traits that are desirable to have like knowledge, power, necessity, etc. Since each great-making property deals with a different domain, they can not be contradictory since there is no area of overlap and since the MGB is not self-contradictory, it could exist unlike self-contradictory proposition like an "unmarried wife" that is impossible to exist.

Premise 2 follows since it is only if something is a self-contradiction that it can exist in no possible world. For example, a married bacehlor is a self-contradiction and can not exist in any possible world. But since we established that an MGB is not self-contradictory, it can exist in at least one possible world.

Premise 3 follows by the great-making property of necessity. It also follows by axiom S5 of modal logic. [4]


The conclusion is that an MGB or Maximally Great Being exists in all possible worlds including the real world. A maximally great being would have great-making properties like necessity, power, knowledge, love, goodness, etc. to the fullest extent meaning that a necessary, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and all-good being exists.

Possible objection refuted:


Con could fall into a trap of defining a unicorn or a beer or a steak as necessary and then plugging in that steak/unicorn/beer into the original argument and just claim that there is a maximally great unicorn or pizza or beer.

The reason this objection falls and is taken as a joke in the academic community is because all of those things are contingent and can not be necessary. Since they are contingent but Con would define them as necessary anyways, we would have a contingnet necessary which is of course a self-contradiction like "married wive" and is not possible to exist thus premise 1 and 3 fail.

They are contingent because a unicorn is contingent on food, its parents to give birth to itself, water, oxygen, molecular bonds, etc.

Beer is contingent on the farmer, the brewer, maltose, molecular bonds, etc.

Steak is contingent on the cow, the farmer, cellular biochemistry, molecular bonds, etc.


Since they do not possess the trait of necessity and are contingent, premise 3 fails and since a contingent necessary is a self-contradiction, it is impossible to exist just like the self-contradiction a married bachelor is impossible to exist.

Sources:

[1] - https://plato.stanford.edu...;

[2] - http://alexanderpruss.com...;

[3] - Ibn Sina, though Muslim, believed in an eternal universe (https://plato.stanford.edu...). Al Farabi, though Muslim, believed in an eternal universe (https://plato.stanford.edu...). They were influenced by Aristotle who held the same thing. Leibniz, though Christian, was agnostic on whether it had a beginning or was eternal and it can not be proven to be either (http://www.iep.utm.edu...)

[4] - https://plato.stanford.edu...;


The Lion is out and ready to party hard.

Happy New Years Con and the audience!!

Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for accepting, Pro.
This should be good.
Pro spent a lot of time discussing contingency, ontology, and how I might respond.
None of it helped Pro's case.

*Burden*

Given the agreed to definitions of this debate, Pro has to affirm the existence of:
1. a creator of the universe
2. a ruler of the universe
3. a source of *ALL* moral authority

Pro has to affirm all three of these characteristics in order to meet Pro's burden, because, in the definition of god, in this debate, there is an "and" --not an "or"-- between all of them.
Pro must show one entity that satisfies ALL three.


*Creation is Temporal*

Creation is a number of time-based actions, of a related kind, coming one after another, taken in order to bring something into existence.
Pro has already agreed to this, given the definitions of this debate.
Therefore, creation is necessarily a temporal process that uses events, one after another, to bring something into existence.
This process, creator existing-->creating-->created product, is unavoidably time-based.
If there is no time, there is no creation.


*Precedence Is Temporal*

Creators not only use a time-based process consisting of one event after another, they also necessarily precede their creations.

The process of creator existing-->creating-->created product can only be described, if and only if the creator comes before, or precedes, its creation.

Well, before (precedence) is another temporal or time-based concept.
How could a creator precede its creation without time?

Pro, can you distinguish between a creator and its created product without using time or temporal concepts?

I argue that without time, one cannot tell the difference between a creator and its created product; one wouldn't be able to tell if creation has occurred because there would be no precedence.


*Spacetime*

While you may get some differing physicist's opinions on whether or not space and time are the same thing, there is no dispute that they are interdependent.
In fact, that's why they put space and time on a continuum, spacetime.

"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."
http://www.fourmilab.ch...

Space is also currently expanding at a fixed rate proportional to the distance between the galaxies, called the Hubble Constant.
http://iopscience.iop.org...

What's great is that we can go back in time by using the inverse of the Hubble Constant and see how long the universe has been expanding.
Doing this indicates that space, and therefore time, were at one point very, very small, and as recent anisotropy probes have detected, there was a point when there was no space, therefore no time.
https://science.nasa.gov...

This also means that our universe's origin is also the origin of spacetime.
When there was no universe, there was no space, therefore no time.

Spacetime and the passage thereof originated at the big bang, the origin of our universe.
Therefore, creation, which necessarily is based on spacetime, cannot occur without the universe existing first.
It'd be like saying that a creator used time to originate time...the temporal inadequacies should be obvious.

Therefore, there is no creator of a universe that wasn't created.


*Conclusion*

The universe wasn't created, because creation and precedence are both temporal (time-based), and without the universe, there is no spacetime or the passage thereof, therefore there was no creation or creator of the universe.

Also, Pro hasn't gone to any length to show how his proposed entity rules the current universe or is the source of all moral authority.
Hopefully Pro gets there.
Moelogy

Pro

Rebuttals

Pro must show an entity that satisfies all three

Which I did. The Contingency argument proves a creator and ruler of the universe and the ontological argument shows a maximally-good and maximally-moral being (since morality and goodness are great-making) being and is thus the source of morality.



Creation is temporal

Not at all. I can imagine a timeless reality with no passage of time in which a candle is timelessly and staticly causing the flame.

I can also provide the following scenario which is WLC's scenario where God is timeless chronologically prior to the universe but becomes temporal at the time of creation. He can easily exit the timeless state of affairs because he has volition of free will.



Creator can only exist if and only if it is prior to the effect

No. I can imagine an eternal human causing eternal footprints in the sand, both are eternal, not one comes before the other.



It would be like a creator using time to create time

It would be like saying a creator using time to create this specific temporal dimension so your entire argument fails on this point since I do not deny that God created this specific temporal dimensions. There could be temporal dimensions before this one that allowed God to create this specific temporal dimension. [1]



What creation means

God could still be the creator and ruler of an eternal universe the same way a candle is the creator of an eternal flame.


[1] - (https://arxiv.org...)
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for that Pro.
Pro has some confusion between creation and causation.
Pro also ignored, perhaps intentionally, the definitions.
Oh well, I won't.

*P1 of the Contingency Assertion*

Pro uses the assertion-laden "contingency argument" to demonstrate a creator of the universe, and instead attempts to show a cause of the universe.
Well, cause and creation are not the same thing, because as the agreed-to-definition makes clear, a creation, the process that makes a creator a creator, is a series of actions taken one after the other, not a timeless cause.

Either way, the argument isn't very compelling and here's why.

The premise "whatever exists has a sufficient reason either in the necessity of its own nature if it is a necessary entity or in a transcedent Sufficient reason if it is contingent" ignores virtual particle pairing.

The quantum fluctuation of sub nuclear particles and their forces, or virtual particle-antiparticle pairing, has no sufficient reason in its necessity nor is it contingent.

Quantum fluctuation occurs with no energy, no space, no particles, no radiation, no forces; nothing.
But here's the best part.
Quantum fluctuation also occurs WITH energy, space, particles, radiation, and forces; something.
Quantum fluctuations are fundamental and have NO reason for their popping in and out of existence.

Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles (not actually full particles, which is why some physicists call them "virtual" particles) existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate along with this existence and annihilation.
http://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com...

The article above refers to quantum fluctuations as vacuum fluctuations because, in our universe of space and matter, we've detected these fluctuations by using a vacuum of empty space.

However, when there was no space (trace the inverse of the Hubble constant back in time and you get here), unlike our current universe, space and time fluctuated along with the sub nuclear particles but could never remain like space does now.
So while it may seem like the particles are contingent on a vacuum of empty space, that's merely the only way we can detect them with all of this expanding space around us.
When there was no universe, no vacuum of empty space was necessary for the fluctuations, because no energy and no space was the condition...nothing ever remained.

So we can reject P1 of the contingency argument, because quantum fluctuations are not contingent, nor are they transcendent.
http://physics.aps.org...

Therefore we can reject the conclusion that the universe has some transcendent reason.
The universe originated, not "was created," from unstable quantum fluctuations which are fundamental, ubiquitous, and have no reason for their existence.


https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...


*Ontological Argument*

This argument is particularly dumb, and I've never understood why theists think it's so good.
P1, "It is possible that a maximally great being exists" is the entire argument.
The problem is that it hasn't been demonstrated that a MGB is possible, it's just asserted.

If we're going to use, "it's possible therefore it exists," then it's possible that I'm the Maximally Great Being and I don't exist in all possible worlds.
Isn't asserting fun?
Also, it should be obvious that you can replace MGB with ANYTHING, including an MGB negation, and the argument still works.

It's possible an MGB destroyer exists, because I asserted it.
If it's possible, since I merely asserted it, then the MGB destroyer exists in some possible world.
If MGB destroyer exists in some world, then it exists in all worlds.
Since the actual world is a possible world, MGB destroyer exists in the actual world.

That's right.
Assertion-->some-->all-->actual.
William Lane Craig should be punched in the face for being so stupid.

Pro adds:
"a maximally great being would contain the great-making properties to the fullest extent."

My response:
Would it now?
Well so does the MGB destroyer...there we're even.
Pro doesn't try to demonstrate his assertion, so it is as bare as possible; it's an assertion in every possible world.

Pro, demonstrate, without asserting, that some maximally great being exists.
Show, don't tell.

Pro continues:
"Con could fall into a trap of defining a unicorn or a beer or a steak as necessary and then plugging in that steak/unicorn/beer into the original argument...this objection falls...because all of those things are contingent and can not be necessary."

My response:
Well, the MGB destroyer that I asserted, like you did your MGB, isn't contingent.
It's also necessary; remember I just have to assert it per your requirements.
All I have to do is assert it, without a demonstration, and your MGB argument concludes the rest of it for me.
This is what people laugh about in the academic community.
Why do you think just saying something, without demonstration, makes it so?
SHOW DON'T TELL.


*Rebuttals*

Pro asserts more:
"The Contingency argument proves a creator and ruler of the universe."

My response:
Your contingency assertion only would have shown a CAUSE not a CREATOR of the universe, IF it were successful; it wasn't.
You've done nothing to show a series of events, one after the other, the definition of CREATION that you overtly agreed to, that led to the bringing about of the universe, rather you asserted a timeless causer, because you're so hell bent on showing immateriality/timelessness.

Don't accept definitions you don't agree with.
Your god is to be the CREATOR not CAUSER of the universe.
Also, P1 of the contingency assertion is refuted by quantum fluctuation.


About creation being temporal,
Pro says:
"Not at all. I can imagine a timeless reality with no passage of time in which a candle is timelessly and staticly causing the flame."

My response:
Not only did you agree that creation is temporal per the definitions of this debate, but again, this is the god you must affirm, one that used a series of time-based actions to bring about the universe making it the CREATOR of the universe.
You're shooting yourself in the foot here.

Also, this seems to be an argument from personal credulity, it's under the argument from ignorance umbrella, because Pro is just saying that since he can imagine a timeless cause, it therefore exists.
Come on Pro.
Stick to creation not causation, and your ability to imagine something has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

Pro sticks with it:
"I can also provide the following scenario where God is timeless chronologically prior to the universe but becomes temporal at the time of creation."

My response:
Timeless AND prior?
prior - existing or coming before in *time*.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

This speaks to my contention that a creator MUST precede its creation AND that precedence is temporal, and I hope that people can see that saying "timelessly prior" is by definition a contradiction.
Boo Pro.

Pro uses his imagination:
"I can imagine an eternal human causing eternal footprints in the sand, both are eternal, not one comes before the other."

My response:
Aside from the facts that a) whether or not you can imagine something has no bearing on whether or not it's true and b) causing and creating aren't the same thing, how would you know that the footprints in the sand didn't cause the human?
Seriously.
Pro, how do you know which is the causer and which is the effect without precedence or time.
If they're both eternal, then neither is caused, because neither would have a beginning or end.

Now, I had pointed out that claiming there is a CREATOR of the universe would be like saying that some entity used time to originate time.
So Pro says:
"It would be like saying a creator using time to create this specific temporal dimension."

My response:
Pro's source didn't mention ANY other time dimensions than the sapcetime we understand as a part of our universe, and instead, like everything else Pro has brought to this debate, Pro just asserts that we live in some "specific" time dimension, implying that there are others.
Well, without Pro showing any other time dimensions, there's no reason to think that there are.
Therefore, the bringing about of the universe via a series of time-based events, one after the other, CANNOT be accomplished without the spacetime of our universe.

Where else is there spacetime, Pro?
Please, no more assertions.

Pro tries one last thing:
"God could still be the creator and ruler of an eternal universe the same way a candle is the creator of an eternal flame."

My response:
Eternal means that it has no beginning or end, so how could a candle create an eternal flame if the flame always existed?
Also, without precedence, how do you know that the flame didn't create the candle, and of course, without precedence, how do you know that the universe had a prior entity that used a series of time-based actions to bring it about?


*Conclusion*

I really wish Pro would stick to the definition of their god in this debate; it's frustrating to have to rehash definitions after they were necessarily agreed to per the rules of this debate.
Pro thinks that simply his ability to imagine something has some bearing on whether or not it's true.
Pro also conflates the terms "creation" and "causation," and seems to misunderstand how time works.

The resolution is negated.
Moelogy

Pro

Rebuttals

Causation and creation

Con asserts that causation and creation are not the same. But let's recall the candle and flame example. The flame could be eternal and so could the flame, yet the candle is eternally causing and creating the flame. Without the candle, the flame would go out of existence. In the same way, God is eternally causing an eternal universe. Without God, the universe would go out of being (same with candle and flame) therefore God is the reason why the universe comes into being and does not go out of being thus by Con's cherry-picked definition, God is the creator of the universe (the reason it comes into being rather than goes out of being).


Virtual particles

Con asserts that virtual particles have no sufficient reason. But that is patently false. Virtual particles have a transcedent sufficient reason in Quantum vacuum fluctuations which occur in the quantum vacuum energy. Seemingly, Con does not understand what a Qunatum fluctuation is. A Quantum fluctuation is not really an object that comes into and goes out of being but rather it is an event that describes certain unstability in the Quantum vacuum energy. [http://www.calphysics.org...] Virtual particles are the result of Quantum Fluctuations. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] These qunatum fluctuations occur in the Quantum vacuum energy. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] This Quantum vacuum energy has an energy density of 10^-9 joules per cubic meter. [http://math.ucr.edu...] So Con is very clearly confused on this subject because virtual particles do not just pop into existence but they are the result of fluctuations of unstable energy.

MGB possibility

An MGB is possible because no logical contradictions entail. If Con noticed any, please point it out. An MGB would be maximally great in the great-making properties but since these properties are in different domains like knowledge and power, they can not even be said to be self-contradictory because there is no area of overlap.



If we're going to use, "it's possible therefore it exists," then it's possible that I'm the Maximally Great Being and I don't exist in all possible worlds.


Multiple fallacies in this sentence alone but let's name two. First of all, Con commits the strawman fallacy. No where in my argument do I ever say that "it is possible therefore it exists". Second fallacy is also a strawman. Con can not exist in all possible worlds because he is not a necessary being. He is contingent on his parents, molecular bonds, food, water, oxygen, etc. So although Con exists in some possible world, in no way does that mean that he exists in all possible worlds because he lacks the property of necessity.

If MGB destroyer exists in some world, then it exists in all worlds.


It is so sad that Con resorted to immaturity due to incapability of sketching a cogent rebuttal. I already went over why this premise fails, because you have not fulfilled the burden of proof of showing this entity to be necessary. That destroyer could range from contingent things like unicrons, steak, air ballons which would fail at this premise. It could be self-contradictory entities like a married bachelor, a smart atheist, an unmarried wife. SO you have to be more specific and fulfill the BOP of showing this entity to be necessary.


William Lane Craig should be punched in the face for being so stupid.

This argument belongs to Alvin Plantinga.


Well so does the MGB destroyer...there we're even., It's also necessary; remember I just have to assert it per your requirements.

The MGB destroyer, if he posseses all the great-making properties to the fullest extent would be what I mean by MGB so we are talking about the same thing.



Your contingency assertion only would have shown a CAUSE not a CREATOR of the universe

Which as demonstrated means the same thing.




Not only did you agree that creation is temporal per the definitions of this debate

I accepted that creation COULD be temporal.


one that used a series of time-based actions to bring about the universe making it the CREATOR of the universe.

Yes, as I said above, he is creating the universe every second goes by just like a candle is continounsly creating the flame.


Timeless AND prior?


My response is that God himself is timeless but becomes temporal at creation.



how would you know that the footprints in the sand didn't cause the human?

I have no time for this. This is becoming a huge waste of time. I will not even bother continuing this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for that, Pro.
It would appear I've caused Pro some anxiety, yet I didn't create it.
It's just a debate Pro, so chill, finish it out, and let the voters decide.
Let's finish this.

*Causation =/= Creation*

Pro recalls:
"Con asserts that causation and creation are not the same."

My response:
Hey, so does the Oxford dictionary!

causation - the ACTION of causing something.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

creation - the PROCESS of bringing something into existence.
(the agreed-to definition from round 1)

A *causation* is a general term that can refer to ANY cause and effect, while *creation* specifically involves the genesis or the bringing about of something via a process, a series of events over time.
Creation, unlike causation, has a product as the result of its effect, not just any old general effect.

Not an assertion, bud.


Pro further recalls:
"let's recall the candle and flame example."

My response:
Yeah, let's.
Pro can you explain how the flame can be *causing* (present continuous tense) something without preceding time or the passage thereof or "timeless" as you claim?
Can you differentiate between the initial cause and the initial effect without using temporal concepts/relationships?
How do you know the flame isn't causing the candle if you're claiming there's no time difference between the two?


Pro contradicts:
"the candle is eternally causing and creating the flame."

My response:
How does something begin eternally causing (present continuous) anything without time or the passage thereof?
Can you explain "is causing" without using temporal concepts or relationships?
How do you know if the candle preceded the flame if you have no time to distinguish between their beings?


Pro deepens the contradiction:
"Without the candle, the flame would go out of existence."

My response:
Without time or temporal concepts, how do you know the flame is contingent on the candle and not the other way around?
Rapid oxidation also occurs over time.
No time, no fire, no flame.


Pro asserts:
"God is eternally causing an eternal universe."

My response:
Pro, our agreed-to definitions have god in this debate being the creator of the universe.
The process of bringing into existence, what you agreed creation to be with respects to the universe, necessarily entails that there was no universe (no spacetime) in order for the bringing into existence of the universe to occur.

If there was once no spacetime, as the inverse of the Hubble constant demonstrates, how did your god precede the origin of time and then use a temporal series of events (creation) to bring about the origin of time (universe)?

Can you explain what "eternally" means without using temporal concepts, time, or the passage thereof?


Pro asserts:
"God is the creator of the universe (the reason it comes into being rather than goes out of being)."

My response:
Bringing the origin of spacetime into existence, with a series of related spatiotemporal events, one after the other, without the spacetime to do so is nonsensical, contradictory, and serves as a negation that the universe was created, by your god or otherwise.

No creation, no creator, no god.


*Virtual Particles*

Pro claims:
"Virtual particles have a transcedent sufficient reason in Quantum vacuum fluctuations which occur in the quantum vacuum energy..."

My response:
Nope.
A vacuum is just zero energy, or the lowest energy state, in empty space.
A perfect vacuum would have no particles, no radiation, no gravity, and NO SPACE.

So while Pro would have you believe that the vacuum is some transcendent sufficient reason for quantum fluctuations, when there was no remaining space, when there was no universe yet, there was zero energy and zero space, a perfect vacuum's lowest energy state.

This lowest energy state is a fluctuation of virtual particles that NEVER remain thanks to annihilation.
These fluctuations are fundamental to the universe and its origin and are not transcendent.


Pro grumbles:
"A Quantum fluctuation is not really an object...rather it is an event that describes certain unstability in the Quantum vacuum energy...virtual particles are the result of Quantum Fluctuations."

My response:
Virtual particles are doing the fluctuating!
There are no quantum fluctuations without virtual particles and their forces fluctuating; you've got your contingency flipped here.
The vacuum is not an event, rather it's a description of the lowest energy state.


Pro whines:
"Con does not understand what a Qunatum fluctuation is."

My response:
Ugh, and you spelled it wrong.
I don't mind the errant accusation, but I'm pretty sure this source proves otherwise, and it's a simplified explanation for all.
http://physics.aps.org...


*MGB*

Pro attempts P1 of the MGB again:
"An MGB is possible because no logical contradictions entail."

My response:
The lack of logical contradictions does not a proof of possibility make.
Either way, a Maximally Great Being is itself a contradiction.

An MGB would have to have the ability to *infinitely remain* the most powerful; it's maximally great in the quantity of powers and the extent of power.
An MGB would also have to have the ability to destroy anything that exists; it's maximally great in destruction.

So if the MGB has the ability to destroy itself, which is a part of the set of "anything that exists," it therefore doesn't have the ability to *infinitely remain* the most powerful.

If the MGB *CANNOT* destroy itself, it's not maximally great in the quantity or extent of powers, because it CANNOT do something.

See why the MGB argument is not so logically great?
Also, as I stated before, just asserting the possibility of something doesn't make it possible.
You have to show *how* something is possible, and logic alone cannot do that.
Bring some evidence that something is possible and use logic from there.
Not the other way around.


Pro lies:
"No where in my argument do I ever say that "it is possible therefore it exists"."

My response:
Oh really?

Pro from round 1:
"If it is possible that a MGB exists then he exists..."

My response:
It's precisely your P2 of this awful argument.

Pro, that's the whole MGB argument, hence why WLC should be punched in the face.
The dumb argument is just saying "if it's possible, then it exists somewhere."
*Punch*


*Random Rebuttals*

Pro reneges:
"I accepted that creation COULD be temporal."

My response:
You *accepted* the definitions of this debate by accepting the debate!
These definitions don't just say that creation *could be* temporal, they say that creation *is* temporal, because it defines creation as a process.
Pro, you agreed to these definitions.
Voters, using the opt-in voting standards should take note of this.


Pro mentions his god:
"Yes, as I said above, he is creating the universe every second goes by."

My response:
How many seconds went by when there was no spacetime, Pro?
Can you explain a second without temporal concepts or using the passage of time?
That's what you're asserting your god did.
You're asserting that seconds went by when there weren't seconds to go by.


Pro deepens the flaw:
"My response is that God himself is timeless but becomes temporal at creation."

My response:
So your god, being timeless, used a series of time-based actions, one after the other, when there was no time, and then poof, time originated and your god changed from timeless to temporal, which I assume for eternity he would remain.
You're basically saying that the universe created your temporal god, precisely antithetical to the resolution.


Now this next bit, Pro seems to think is some sort of joke, or I wasn't being serious, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I had asked Pro how one could distinguish between a human causing the footprints in the sand and the footprints in the sand causing a human if there were no time between the two things.

Instead of Pro responding to this obvious flaw in his perception, Pro does something else.

Pro cowers in fear and unpreparedness:
"I have no time for this. This is becoming a huge waste of time. I will not even bother continuing this debate."

My response:
To translate for those of you following the debate, Pro has no response for the obvious contradiction of using time to originate time and he cannot distinguish between creator and created product without using temporal concepts or mentioning the passage of time, because as I had already pointed out, precedence is temporal.

If Pro is really going to run away from me, Pro should man up and just type "forfeit" for the next round, instead of letting the debate expire.
Voters should vote on this debate to help each debater progress and determine a real winner given the opt-in standards of voting.

I request that moderators actually remove inadequate votes, particularly if they are vendetta votes.
Thanks for the debate Pro...don't run away.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
MagicAintReal
Better yet, why don't you just use the comments section here to respond to my 4th round?
If it's all such garbage, it really shouldn't take long to refute, now should it?
Go ahead.
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
MagicAintReal
If you actually believe that you refuted any of my arguments, you wouldn't have let the debate expire.

You had nothing to say about virtual particles that indicated a contingency.
You still haven't answered how you differentiate between a creator and created product without time.

If you had any response to these two things, you would have included them, and you obviously would have not forfeited last round.

Don't you want people to vote on this to show how right you were?
Nope.
You know you lost, admit it.
Posted by Moelogy 9 months ago
Moelogy
>Moelogy forfeits because he has no response, sad.

Are you 13?

I forfeited because your objections are utter garbage that are not worth responding to or wasting my time on.

Your sole objection to contingency (virtual particles) was horrible and thoroughly refuted.

Your only objection to the Ontological argument (MGB destroyer) was also thoroughly refuted because an MGB destroyer is an incoherent concept that fails by premise 1. You can "destroy" a necessary God as much as you can destroy numbers. What does that even mean?

Anyways, I hope you stop being so immature with your rebuttals next time. If you do not have a good rebuttal, wait on it till you have on. Just do not pull incoherent garabge out of your a**.
Posted by MagicAintReal 9 months ago
MagicAintReal
Moelogy forfeits because he has no response, sad.
Posted by Moelogy 9 months ago
Moelogy
For some reason, they did not work but source 3 did so I will re-do the sources here.

[1] - (https://plato.stanford.edu...)

[2] - (http://alexanderpruss.com...)

[4] - (https://plato.stanford.edu...)
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.