The Instigator
Alphamus
Pro (for)
The Contender
Nikolaos
Con (against)

God Likely Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Nikolaos has forfeited round #3.
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: 12/4/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 105521
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

Alphamus

Pro

First debate, big whoop.

The probability of God existing is greater than the probability of God not existing, and is more rational. This is based on the following points: (my own version of the cosmological argument)

1. The universe must have been caused.
*This is a natural, logical assumption based on intuition. Atheists counter by saying intuition is often wrong, and say the universe lacks causality, and that all matter/energy merely transfers from one state to another.

***Problem with above: A universe that is timeless would have to be infinite temporally and spatially. This leads to the infinite occurrence of all probabilities conceivable (Gods, aliens) across an infinite space time, leading to an infinity of supernatural occurrences. Even if the universe is infinite only temporally, that does not invalidate the above argument as a timeless universe would have generated all possible probabilities for the existence of any conceivable being. Ergo, this explanation substitutes one infinity (God) for infinite infinities (multiverse theory, B theory of time) this a violation of the law of parsimony - the simplest explanation is that there is one God.

2. Following from points made in (1), a finite, caused universe would necessarily need to be created by an entity not subject to the causes that succeeded it.

*This is a natural, logical assumption assuming the points above are true. Atheists will likely say that there is there is no way to justify this being a personal God, and no way this God need be outside the realm of rules that govern the universe.

**Problem: Such a God who can predate existence itself (assuming point 1 was true) can be assumed to be omnipotent, or at least powerful beyond human understanding. But the counter argument is also somewhat true - humanity has a vague, instinctive notion of what God is - but that is likely as far as we'll get without empirical, testable evidence.

Conclusion: God is likelier to exist since the other probabilities are even more illogical.

To all the atheists out there: have at me. I'm sure you'll find something wrong in my arguments. (not valid, independently critical, science-proven reasons of course, probably just semantics, obscure philosophical references, scientific "facts" with quantum physics/theoretical physics that I'll take joy in refuting, etc.) Trust me, I hate you just as much as you hate me. In fact, I probably hate you more. If I come across as disrespectful to you, good. I don't respect you.

Now that I got that off my chest, any responses without any line of counter-reasoning are likely to be ignored. I'll respond, but just to insult you the way you likely insulted me.

To all my theists out there: I hope you can defend me, and come to my aid. While I believe that theism is such a obviously correct concept that defense of it seems superfluous, it would be nice to get some proponents behind me, especially after all the anti-religious nonsense spewed by YouTube comments, debate.org, and so on.

Facts about myself: Academic work, in a variety of STEM disciplines currently. Ex-Atheist, turned theist AFTER I started higher education and my scientific work - and saw the varying inconsistencies and logical errors in all branches of secularly taught knowledge. Sick and tired of lying morons being hailed as the arbiters of "truth", while decent religious people (simple, but good hearted) get shoved to the group of cavemen/superstitious fools. First debate, certainly won't be my last.

P.S: Like most serious philosophers/logicians/metaphysical thinkers - I prefer going a priori for now, hence no sources. I expect that since atheists can't logically counter this argument (although they will try), they will resort to citing science or concepts that will only prove their ignorance of the field. But I will leave that path for them to take, I will be prepared for that as well.
Nikolaos

Con

I would like to start this off by saying I've been a Christian all my life, but I like to argue, and hope that in the process we can reach a stronger conclusion on this topic.

I have a contention with the idea that an infinite time span leads to infinite possibilities. An infinitely spatial/ temporal universe would lead to all possibilities within the parameters of that universe's natural law.

Another problem is I'm uncertain how you're defining the term god. if there's a possibility that there isn't an omnipotent god, then what in your eyes is a god?

Also, while I think it's clever, invoking "Occam's Razor" can be considered a non sequitur argument, and perhaps even a counterproductive one, as maybe god isn't the most simple answer to the question. Perhaps a more simple answer is that the law's of the universe are dictated not by a supreme being, but by mathematical principles, making determinism the simplest explanation of the universe.
Debate Round No. 1
Alphamus

Pro

Surprised and enthusiastic to see a fellow theist. I share your desire for arriving at stronger conclusions.

"I have a contention with the idea that an infinite time span leads to infinite possibilities. An infinitely spatial/ temporal universe would lead to all possibilities within the parameters of that universe's natural law."

A natural assumption. However, to get technical:

1. The constancy of the universe's natural laws (fundamental constants, ratio of energy/matter, dark-normal matter, etc.) is questionable for our own observable universe, and almost certainly incorrect for the inobservable (ie - the rest) universe. The conclusion being that, if these natural laws are invariable along any infinite plane in space - then a variety of possibilities (indeed, all conceivable ones) would occur, resulting in the multiple God/alien/human being paradox that was talked about previously.

Natural laws of one universe may ordain a certain type of life, other universe regions may have different types of life - point being, as we approach infinity there are no limits on what can, or cannot happen due to the variation of the universe as a total. (Homogeny vs inhomogeny) Atheists who cite the "cosmological principle" here misunderstand its primary use - its for emphasizing structure uniformity mainly, its use for evaluating constants is less cited.

https://journals.aps.org...

Note that they conclude variation in the alpha constant with a certainty above 99%.

https://arxiv.org...

Other studies have noted variations at high redshifts - which doesn't even move us out of our known universe! Countless more find significant, inhomogenous variation within our known universe itself. Of course, the common convention is to say that cosmological principle dictates homogenity across large enough scales, but this only relies upon cosmic microwave background radiation which is notoriously unreliable at larger scales (infinity, perhaps?) due to Gaussian additive noise (from matter)

https://arxiv.org.... (Homogenous Universe cannot be proved or observed on large scales, but can be tested on smaller scales) -> Note that assuming this as evidence of homogeny on a larger scales means you would have to reconcile studies like the ones above, which is impossible. Also, this would be an incorrect leap of reasoning and a violation of physics.

Not just me, but as of right now theoretical physics cannot prove a homogeneous universe - at least on the scales of infinity. Again, this means that a universe that is fundamentally different everywhere on large scales while approaching via infinite plane - leads to paradoxical loops of entities that occur purely because of the mathematical limit of infinity (Black holes that can spontaneously result in a Big Crunch, which means we wouldn't exist - or an advanced species that would have already made contact with human beings, the possibilities are endless...)

If I may add my own input to these scientists, and reduce the jargon that atheists enjoy misunderstanding - I will say that all rules of interaction (physics/mathematics) tends to break down near points of infinity - the same reason why singularities are so elusive to scientists, quantum mechanics is often confounding of conventional theory physics. We could have a limitless universe with identical natural laws that govern all, and we still could get multiple paradoxes (Gods, aliens) simply because the mathematical representation of infinity is larger than just repetitive natural laws - it is literally beyond the scope of what our universe could exist as, and hence it's impossible to say the universe is infinite - going back to my previous argument for God's existence as the only "infinity".

But let's say that the universe is homogenous, infinite, etc. as your assumption stated, and can only produce entities that are like us - humans. To date no observational evidence is found of a repertoire of species similar to our capabilities has been found in the observable universe, and by logic - there should have been an infinite amount of advanced life elsewhere in the universe, being that it is truly infinite. (atheist assumption) As per the anthropic principle, even our own existence is questionable to exist if we occupy such an infinitesimal chance of existing, essentially reducing to zero when the limit function is taken.

The other issues are easier to talk about:

"Another problem is I'm uncertain how you're defining the term god. if there's a possibility that there isn't an omnipotent god, then what in your eyes is a god?"

I was merely entertaining a common atheist response. God has to be omnipotent for my theism.

"Also, while I think it's clever, invoking "Occam's Razor" can be considered a non sequitur argument, and perhaps even a counterproductive one, as maybe god isn't the most simple answer to the question. Perhaps a more simple answer is that the law's of the universe are dictated not by a supreme being, but by mathematical principles, making determinism the simplest explanation of the universe."

I don't believe it's non-sequitur, or counterproductive. The law of parsimony generally applies when all other evidence are equal, and the probability of an infinite universe with infinite possibilities merely can be translated to infinite infinities, whereas believing on a monotheistic God reduces the value to one infinity. In essence, you prescribe "finiteness" to creation, and the "infinite" to Creator. Whereas in multiverse theory/B theory, you would prescribe "infinite" to everything, which would invalidate long standing assumptions of our place in the universe (anthropic, cosmological principle) and if we should even exist or not (we obviously do!)

The mathematical principles you evoke, I have already proven to vary both within and outside of our universe - going back to the heterogenous/homogenous debate. Especially across a theoretically infinite timescale, defending this assumption only complicates an already too complex theory. God is the simpler explanation.
Nikolaos

Con

I will have to concede the first point you covered, however the reason there is no life to be discovered because of the number of conditions which must be met in order to support life on the planet (i.e. distance from the sun, asteroid belt to protect from asteroids, a planet like Venus to absorb heat from the sun.) and the probability for life keeps shrinking the more scientist find out about the universe, which is why it's unsurprising we have not found any within the observable universe.

And yes while believing in god rather than the multiverse theory is simpler this does not in turn make it the simplest answer. Perhaps the simplest answer would be the universe has a finite time span, but the doesn't account for there being an intelligent being behind its creation
Debate Round No. 2
Alphamus

Pro

Hello:

"the reason there is no life to be discovered because of the number of conditions which must be met in order to support life on the planet (i.e. distance from the sun, asteroid belt to protect from asteroids, a planet like Venus to absorb heat from the sun.) and the probability for life keeps shrinking the more scientist find out about the universe, which is why it's unsurprising we have not found any within the observable universe."

Your reasoning is correct. The probability for life does shrink due to the variation of cosmological conditions needed to support life. However, this does not lend credence to the "infinite universe" scenario as atheists would say, because that would assume zero repetitive nature in these cosmological conditions across a potentially infinite universe. (By your reasoning, the creation of life is so unique that it only occurs once in an infinite universe, thereby meaning that all other spacetime must necessarily produce other variation, an infinite amount of times) Again using the law of parsimony, this would mean infinite variation over finite variation - so finite variation would be simpler and more rational to assume. This means a repetitive nature to the universe - no matter how varied it was - and would be repeatable life forms (humans/aliens/etc.) across an infinite timespan/scale. The real problem here however, is that a universe with infinite variation capable of sustaining only one form of life across an infinite scale would still have to:

A: produce human beings infinitely, due to temporal infinity (B theory would need to be taken here)
B: if an A theory of time is taken, (time is finite) - then this would contradict several principles today which imply finite variation to the universe (baryon asymmetry, ratio of matter/anti-matter, expansion of the universe, etc.). The universe does vary, but it cannot vary infinitely or else we would have the infinite paradox as described previously.

"And yes while believing in god rather than the multiverse theory is simpler this does not in turn make it the simplest answer. Perhaps the simplest answer would be the universe has a finite time span, but the doesn't account for there being an intelligent being behind its creation"

True. But this is the simplest answer we have as of right now, hence making it the most logical "belief" to hold. The universe can only be defined as finite in the context of an/many infinity(ies) (God/multiverses) - or else the universe, being arbitrarily large, would be called infinite. If the universe is finite and there is no God, that would mean one of the properties of the universe must be infinite, then we run into the same problems as asked before.

In less abstract terms, just to summarize everything from the last wall of text:

Point 1. A finite universe MUST HAVE be bounded by a physical infinity, or else the universe would be infinite.
Point 2. An infinite universe cannot exist since it would imply infinities existing everywhere, an infinite amount of times.

Conclusion: Point 1 makes partial sense, but God cannot be mathematically understood (the same way infinities cannot be described perfectly). Point 2 is more complex and even more untested. Again through parsimony, Point 1 is more logical to hold as a belief. Both have unknowable areas, it's just that we pick the simpler theory always because it's better science in general, at least to the depths that our meager human intellects can handle.

This type of thinking is called alternative, where we reduce all arguments from opponents into possibilities and individually disprove each one. I've found this method to be successful against your garden-variety atheist, and it's been used to great efficacy against the more "prophetic" ones. (Hitchens, Dawkins, etc - the "celebrity" atheists)
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Alphamus 9 months ago
Alphamus
What's the only way you can have a Spiderman/God?

A: You have to create it.

Proof of this?

A: You have to create it to prove it.

CIR.CU.LAR.
RE.ASON.ING.
Posted by canis 9 months ago
canis
The point is you have to create a Spiderman / god to have a Spiderman / god...
Posted by Alphamus 9 months ago
Alphamus
"Did Spiderman exist..Yes in our minds..Does god 1 - xxx exist. Yes in our minds.. The point is you have to create a Spiderman / god to have a Spiderman / god..."

Circular reasoning.
Posted by canis 9 months ago
canis
Did Spiderman exist..Yes in our minds..Does god 1 - xxx exist. Yes in our minds.. The point is you have to create a Spiderman / god to have a Spiderman / god...
Posted by Soulman4764 9 months ago
Soulman4764
What I have said in both of my posts. I am hoping both of you can come to a agreement that somethings are best left unsaid, and that what we do know is limited (finite), and that all things are possible (Infinite) through the MOST HIGH our creator, and until we ascend (if we are chosen and can walk the straight and narrow path to everlasting life) that we are bound to the finite possibilities, for which we must seek the answers to the Infinite Questions.
Posted by Soulman4764 9 months ago
Soulman4764
What I said in my previous post I can relate to people who think they are Christian, when you look at the concept I said about religion, Christianity Does exist, but not in the context as most Christians think, because it does say in the WORD come unto me as like a Child (when we were Babies we had no concept of wrong, it was also a time of our Innocence until we started to mature and find that we contradibcted the truth, we had to learn to adapt and seek other ways (hence why it says what it does in the Bible). But man has to learn how to decipher what is written, but most always defer to the Dogma of religion (like the Pharisees and other religious precepts that man put in place to control the populace by fear). What we truly are is Children needing to learn a lesson. Like the Planets and Stars in the Universe, everything is created with a purpose to HELP, and SHARE in times of PEACE and WAR. To Nurture (Teach), To Give (Share), and Promote natural harmony (Peace). This is why the true Designer of Life and our FAITH is an Omnipotent God.
Posted by Soulman4764 9 months ago
Soulman4764
Though I may seem Religious to some (That contradicts what is being said; as religion is a man made concept); as Alphamus is trying to say, that everything is finite and it has a beginning and end (Alpha and Omega as is written in the Bible), I also concur that atheists who believe everything is infinite, where is the proof to substantiate that fact. Looking at the Big Bang Theory some atheists would have you believe that it was a random phenomenon, when in fact something must of created the BANG in the first place to set things in motion (As I would say "NOTHING cannot create SOMETHING") which means some ulterior designer must of created this to happen in the first place. And like us, we have a beginning we also have an end. This is why so many theories exist, and why some contradict while others show the reality of everything. Hence LIFE was created, and not any random chaotic phenomenon. when you look at life, we Have Order, Life, and Harmony; Then you have Choas, Death and Destruction which is the very opposite:- Those cannot be something that happened by chance, they are FACT, which means something of Intelligence Designed this. Hence the Answer an Omnipotent GOD and Creator of all things LIVING.
Posted by SirNoodles518 9 months ago
SirNoodles518
@backwardseden Sorry, I thought I made myself clearer: This debate is about the LIKELIHOOD (https://dictionary.cambridge.org...) of God existing and that is why there is the word "likely" in the title. I'm not lecturing you, I just thought it was pretty obvious :/

My intelligence is an impossibility? Dammit, I thought speaking 3 languages requires at least a tiny bit of intelligence. Apparently just because I believe in God that changes everything.

"I'm sick and tired of you not listening to a single word I have to say" - that makes two of us.
"You most certainly don't listen to anyone else" - Never have I once seen you on all of your 38 debates actually listen to your opponent.
Posted by backwardseden 9 months ago
backwardseden
@SirNoodles518 - When you stop being brainwashed, indoctrinated, and groomed, grab a sense of reality, and not live in a fake world, and most certainly NOT lecture me, then you can talk to me, but not until then because as stated I'm truly sick and tired of you not listening to a single word I have to say which again means you most certainly don't listen to anyone else. AND being the christian that you think you are, IF YOU HAVE ANY INTELLIGENCE WHATSOEVER is a true impossibility also. But nah you do not even pick up your fricken bible and read the damn thing. Because if you did, you would come up with a COMPLETE different outcome.
Posted by SirNoodles518 9 months ago
SirNoodles518
@backwardseden This debate is discussing the probability of the existence of God. Not the 100% solid evidence of God.
Also when he said God I believe he was talking about a creator of the universe and not a specific God from Christianity or Islam etc.

(I don't mean to cause any arguments either)
This debate has 4 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.