The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ToasterMinistry
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 3/4/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 641 times Debate No: 120621
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Pro

This is my first debate on this site in a long time. This acceptance round has been shamelessly copied from Contradiction. Hoping for a good debate.

TERMS

Resolved:
It is probable that God exists.

Rounds:

1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
3. Clash
4. Closing arguments/clash


For the purposes of this debate, The term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, Omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, I am not referring to any specific deity. Hence doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are irrelvant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.

The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, One side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, Then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, You agree to these terms.

The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, And it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable. It is thus not enough to simply refute my arguments. My opponent must also erect his own case against the probability of God's existence.
ToasterMinistry

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

Many thanks to ToasterMinistry for accepting this debate! Let's dive right in. I will be copying and pasting from my old debates on this topic.

C1: Ontological Argument

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

There are three key entities in this argument:
1. Impossible entities that cannot exist in any possible world because they are logically contradictory. For example, An invisible pink unicorn is an impossible entity because it contradicts the nature of pink and invisible.
2. Contingent entities are entities that exist in some possible worlds, But not others. Humans, Animals, And plants fall into this category because they exist here on Earth, But their existence is not necessarily on other worlds.
3. Necessary entities exist by the virtue of its own nature. The laws of mathematics, The laws of morality, And the laws of logic are such types of laws. These entities/laws exist independently of the universe. If the universe did not exist, 2+2 will always be 4 and the law of non-contradiction will always stand.

There are also three key worlds in this argument:

1. The actual world - the one that we live in
2. A possible world - a world that could logically exist
3. An impossible world - a world that is logically impossible

Thus if it is logically possible that God exists, Then He must exist in one of these logically possible worlds. P3 is a statement of axiom S5 of modal logic, Which is that:

S5: If possibly necessarily P, Then necessarily P.

C2: The KCA

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

If something begins to exist, Then that means there was a time when that thing did not exist. The obvious question is why is there something rather than nothing? The Universe is not infinite so there was a time prior to the creation of the universe.

P2 is uncontroversial in philosophy or science. The scientific consensus is that the universe began to exist about 13 billion years ago. Consequently, Something must have brought the Universe into existence. What could this cause be? A necessary entity (see contention 1) that exists outside of spacetime.

Thank you.
ToasterMinistry

Con

Alright. I am amazed at the work put into this, And appreciate that you would do it. I am honored to debate with you and value this debate as a learning experience.

A few things before I get into the debate: Define some of the things that you say, And make things clear. For example, You bring up the word "worlds" throughout your essay. I do not know what you mean by it as given the context of which it is in. Since I understand you are a religious person, And I am not, I am not fully sure of what "worlds" means. Does it mean the scientific term "planet" or something more superstitious? You also bring up things like: "P2 is. . . " or "S5". I do not know what you mean by "P2". Keep in mind that you don't really know who you are talking to, So really make clear what these terms mean. Maybe it may be a debate thing, But then it would be completely unfair. I have informed you already that I am a complete noob in debating, And so using these terms to confuse me wouldn't be a very sensible thing to do. Even though I have never debated, I know that you should state and make clear the terms you use. However, I did my best to understand your arguments, So inform me of my mis-interpretations within your essay.

I will first refute your Ontological Argument. You begin off by stating that a maximally great being could exist, And I agree with you. The only question is if it does exist. However, You then follow up with quote: "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, Then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. ". Now that's what occured to me as odd. First you told us that a maximally great being could be out there, And then you say that since there is a possibility that it could be out there, Then there is a maximally great being. That is not true, At all. Just because there is a probability that it is possible, Doesn't mean you can assume that it is. It's like saying: "Oh, There's some chance that the rocket would successfully blast off. " and then assume that it would. Do you see your flaw? They just don't really add up. I mean, Yes, I am not denying the fact that such a great being could exist, But what if it doesn't? The fact that we don't know for sure if it exists or not means that we cannot conclude anything from it. We can't conclude it exists and we can't conclude that it doesn't exist. All we can conclude is really, That it is inconclusive. I don't need to see the rest of your "Ontological Argument" because you already messed up.

Then you start with this whole "entity thing" which I have no idea what you really mean. You gave an example about some invisible pink unicorn, And how being pink and being invisible contridict each other, Therefore such a being cannot exist. But how the hell do they contridict each other? What if the unicorn does have pink skin, And somehow his body and the pink reacts a certain way to make the unicorn invisible? What if the unicorn could be pink and has the ability to turn invisible when endangered? Yes, It might then be pointless to have pink skin, But it doesn't nessesarily contridict each other.

After those false statements, You talk about the three worlds. This is where I don't understand your definition of "world". Do you mean a planet that is scientifically impossible and shouldn't be able to sustain itself due to the laws of physics and such, Or are you saying like, Some religious definition? Please tell me in Round 3.

You end off the the: "If there was nothing then why is there now something" argument. This strikes me as a bit of a stumper, I admit. However, The Bible is full of inconsistancies that don't add up to each other. So I mean, It might just be a matter of time when scientists find out what happened before the Big Bang. But the inconsistancies in the Bible cannot be changed, So that is something we can really debate about. Just because we don't know something right now doesn't mean we won't know it in the future.




So, I've refuted literally all your arguments and points except the "world" one, Which I would need a bit more clarification to. Now I go onto my own points.


First, There are a lot of inconsistancies and mysteries within the Bible. Even on the freaking first page!
According to the Bible, God says "Let there be light" and light appears. But God hasn't created stars or anything that makes light yet! How could God create light without creating a lightsource? This defies physics and basic common sense. However, Not only does the Bible contain inconsistancies, But it also contridicts reality. I trust tht you know kind of what is in the Bible, So you probably know about The Great Flood, Even I know it. According to most bible scholars, The flood came around 2300 BCE. The Bible also tells us that all being were exterminated. Everything, From civilizations to animals were exterminated except Noah, Noah's family, And some animals with him. So then why didn't civilizations just dissapear? For example, We are finding Egyptian artifacts before and after The supposedly "Great Flood". Even if such a flood took place, Why are the Egypts before and after the flood literally the same? Where is the evidence, From fossils to geographical differences, That such a flood took place 4000 years ago? But the biggest hitter, I think, Is the fact that The Bible claims that the world is less than 10 thousand years old, Even though we find fossils dated millions of years.


My second argument is about all the horrible things that happened to mankind. Why did World War 1 and 2 happen? Couldn't God stop such a massive loss of life and suffering? If he is so powerful and omnipotent, Then why do we need to pray for God? Doesn't God already know what we want? Why is he making us waste our time telling him what we want when he already knows what we want? Why are there Christians that suffer all the time? Shouldn't they be well off?

In the end, Your arguments were a bit weird and weak and you can't really refute the inconsistancies of the Bible.

Debate Round No. 2
ToasterMinistry

Con

I really have nothing else to say.
Debate Round No. 3
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ToasterMinistry 3 years ago
ToasterMinistry
Dam dude don't comment those things cause you just stole one of my arguments. . .
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
God(s), As perfect beings, Need nothing. They have no deficits. Praying is pointless because God knows everything and if God is perfectly good and just, Then our prayers asking it to help others are pointless: God will help those that deserve it without or without our persuasive attempts. Praying is for ourselves and is essentially a self-help psychology disguised as religious behaviour. Also as God is everywhere it doesn't need us to go to specific places to do specific things: religious buildings are also purely a facet of human relations, Not divine requirement. Intelligent humans realized this long ago - Aristodemus and Socrates in the 4th century BCE discuss that the idea of the divine is "too exalted to need worship". The reason we do so are social. God can tell us anything we need to know, And if there are things we need to know, A perfectly good-god would tell us directly. Therefore evangelism is pointless, Merely a social exercise that feeds the ego of the evangelists. God doesn't need prophets such as Jesus, Muhammad, Or magical tricks such as the Resurrection, To tell the world what it wants the world to know. If it is good for us to know something, God would tell everyone instantly and clearly, Not via 3rd-party magical tricks and public relations stunts. God, As all-powerful and the facilitator of our personalities and consciousness, Does not need the operation of "souls" in order to preserve us after death. All these things can only be believed in by those who don't understand that God(s), If they exist, Are perfect beings. If you strip away all the nonsense from god-belief, The result is called deism, Which is the belief in God but without religion. Deism is the most sensible form of god-belief. We should reject all worship of the gods because as perfect beings they were in need of nothing. The idea of God is pretty much incompatible with all religious dogma and practice.
Posted by ToasterMinistry 3 years ago
ToasterMinistry
I think I can only do one round for now, When I get home I'll continue the debate. Please don't kill me completely, I'm new to debating, Lol.
Posted by ToasterMinistry 3 years ago
ToasterMinistry
Right then here we go. . .
Posted by ToasterMinistry 3 years ago
ToasterMinistry
Right then here we go. . .
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Toaster - it basically means when you accept the debate, The first round you would post "I accept" instead of your full opening statements.
Posted by ToasterMinistry 3 years ago
ToasterMinistry
@ThinkBig, I'd might like to debate with you, But since I am relatively new to this site, What exactly is "Acceptance" for the first round?
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
I would debate you but I agree with your view. Lol
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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