The Instigator
Patmos
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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  
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: 1/22/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 772 times Debate No: 119987
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Patmos

Pro

I will present my case using a three pronged argument
1. The argument from probability
2. The argument from philosophy
3. The argument from science.

subpoint A As to probability, When discussing the probability of the existence of a life supporting universe, One needs to consider all of the variables working against life. Indeed, The odds of even the universe as we know it existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that our existence appears to defy the laws of mathematics. For example, We now know that electromagnetism separated from the other fundamental forces roughly ten picoseconds after the Universe as we know it came into being. Had the electromagnetic force been off by the tiniest most inconceivable fraction, Stars could not form and the universe would not exist. To put all of this further into perspective I will cite a number later that states that the probability of a life friendly universe appearing is less than one part in 1010^123. To put that number into perspective, That number is so huge that there isn't even a name for it. There isn't an analogy I can use to accurately describe it. The closest I can get is to point out that there are only 10^82 atoms in the observable universe. If you put 1010^123 in your calculator is will either tell you that there was an overflow error is you have a low end calculator or infinity at a higher end. Furthermore, A statistical impossibility is anything that is less than one part in 10^50. One part in 1010^123 is one trillion trillion trillion times smaller than that.

Subpoint B. Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Clarendon Press, 2014.

Ockhams razor would indicate the existence of god via probability. Swinburne observes that it is simpler to postulate an unlimited force than a limited force. If one postulates a limited force then one is postulating two things, The force and whatever constrains it. If one postulates an unlimited force, Then one is only postulating one thing, The force; there is, By definition, Nothing that constrains an infinite force.

For this reason, Scientists constructing theories will, Unless there is good reason not to, Prefer to use zeroes or infinities in those theories. Scientists recognize that an infinite force is intrinsically more probable than any great but finite force.

This methodology, Swinburne suggests, Can be generalized; an infinite being, He urges, Is the most probable kind of being. Ockham"s razor, If he is correct, Far from implying that God"s existence is less likely than any other explanatory hypothesis, Implies that it is more likely than any other explanatory hypothesis; the intrinsic probability of theism is relatively high.

Moving on to philosophy.

subpoint A objective morality suggests the existence of God. Some things in this world are good, Some are evil. If objective moral reality exists, Then moral law exists, If moral law exists then we must posit the existence of an objective moral lawgiver. Neither the individual, Society, Or nature has the capacity to bestow upon anything moral objectivity.

Subpoint B The Aristotelian unmoved mover suggests the existence of God. No matter can justify its own existence. Everything that exists has something with the causal power to bring it into existence. Everything that is, Except for the first cause. The very first thing to ever cause a reaction must be primordial. To deny this fact places the timeline into a state of infinite regression which makes no mathematical or logical sense. IE what caused that? Then what caused that? Etc.

Subpoint C Pascals wager. The following isn't necessarily a proof for god but rather a defense of Theism. Pascals wager states that it is a wiser logical choice to believe in god for the following reason: If I choose to believe in god then one of two things can happen 1. I'm right and I get to go to heaven. 2. I'm wrong and nothing happens. On the other hand, If I choose to not believe in God one of two things can happen: 1. I'm right and nothing happens. 2. I'm wrong and I go to Hell. It's clear that the first option is the better choice because there is no room for something horrifically bad to happen which is not true of the second choice.

Next the argument from science.

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, As well as with chemistry and biology. " The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, And the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, The coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, They are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, As nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, The coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content" where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity. " Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. " Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content, " experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role. " The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, Hypothesis, Experiments, And conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI), Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, It will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, Which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, They conclude that such structures were designed.

This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, The more we discover about the cell, The more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, Replete with motors, Powerhouses, Garbage disposals, Guarded gates, Transportation corridors, And most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won't function unless their basic machinery is intact, So how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, Successive, Slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, And microbiological machines require an engineer, And genetically encoded programs require a programmer, Increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design.

While there are more arguments I could pose, I don't have the characters to due them justice. I may bring them up later. Good luck.
omar2345

Con

Hopefully we both make good arguments. I mainly took up this debate to see if I have improved in God debates.
This is copied from an earlier debate you had with Leaning. Would like a reason why.

A statistical impossibility is anything that is less than one part in 10^50. One part in 1010^123 is one trillion trillion trillion times smaller than that.
Even if I agree with you. At best you can only say God probably exists. The difference between God existing is that it exists which is not probable.

Subpoint B. Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Clarendon Press, 2014.
Still a probability argument. I have already stated why this is a bad argument. Even if it is probable that God exists the right answer could still be God does not exist. Something more concrete is required rather than it is probable.

If he is correct
At least we agree that at best this would be an educated guess.

subpoint A objective morality suggests the existence of God. Some things in this world are good, Some are evil. If objective moral reality exists, Then moral law exists, If moral law exists then we must posit the existence of an objective moral lawgiver. Neither the individual, Society, Or nature has the capacity to bestow upon anything moral objectivity.
So many if's. How do you know there is good and bad in the world? Is this assertion true? You have objective morality due to having a set of ideas with a God enforcing it. This would be a might makes right argument. If we took God out of the ideas then we can actually assess whether an idea is good or bad. Turns out having slaves is a bad idea. Yes I am assuming you are talking about Christianity if you are not then with a God requires to know which one it is. So it is only fair to select one.

Subpoint B The Aristotelian unmoved mover suggests the existence of God. No matter can justify its own existence.
So God did have a creator? No matter can justify its own existence yet God exists without a matter to justify its own existence.

Everything that exists has something with the causal power to bring it into existence.
Are you making the claim that God does not exist? Quite ironic since you are Pro for God's existence. If you are not making that argument where did God come from?

Everything that is, Except for the first cause. The very first thing to ever cause a reaction must be primordial.
Really? No evidence has been given for this assertion yet you claim this. As far as we know something comes from something. We have not perceived something coming nothing. Which is a leap by itself but another leap is to say God just existed without a cause. If not What created God?

To deny this fact places the timeline into a state of infinite regression which makes no mathematical or logical sense. IE what caused that? Then what caused that? Etc.
Great job pointing out the flaws in your own logic. Why does God not fall into line with everything having a cause?

Subpoint C Pascals wager. The following isn't necessarily a proof for god but rather a defense of Theism.
Which is why it shouldn't even be used in a God debate.

Pascals wager states that it is a wiser logical choice to believe in god for the following reason: If I choose to believe in god then one of two things can happen 1. I'm right and I get to go to heaven. 2. I'm wrong and nothing happens. On the other hand, If I choose to not believe in God one of two things can happen: 1. I'm right and nothing happens. 2. I'm wrong and I go to Hell. It's clear that the first option is the better choice because there is no room for something horrifically bad to happen which is not true of the second choice.
It is a probability argument but with more flaws. What God is in number 1. Does Pascal wager need to be increased to fit all the other God's. Lets extend 1 to 5. 2 can be 6. 1 for I am right nothing can happen can be 7 and 2 I am going to hell can be 8-12. Meaning just be adding 5 more God's this argument becomes even more far fetched. What I did was fair because not everyone follows or believes in the same God which is why Pascals wager needs to be increased. I increased it by 5 but I am sure it can be increased even more which reduces the probability of a person following the right strand of God. Bearing in mind this is only a probability argument which cannot prove the existence of God.

The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely.
Did you miss out part of your reason here? I'll take what understand from this statement. Isn't God complex? Surely God must also have a creator?

As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed,
This would be an argument of authority but since I highly doubt you are a scientist in Cosmology I will let that slide. What I do have a problem is that you are only quoting him. Where is his science papers? Surely you can point to the one he came to this conclusion. Fred Hoyle as far as researching about him is that he is an astronomer. Same problem I had with Meyer I have with you using Fred Hoyle. A qualified astronomer does not make him qualified in cosmologist.

The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed.
Lets say I agree with you, This is not evidence to point to a designer. If it is then I can say what created God?

Stephen C. Meyer
I am not taking advice about biology from a non-biologist. Holding a degree in physics and geology does not mean you are qualified in discussing biology. Sure Meyer can have an opinion but it is not a professional/educated opinion that I would consider credible.

They conclude that such structures were designed.
Problem is both are talking about field they are not qualified in. You using them states the lack of thinking you used when picking people who aren't qualified in the field that they are speaking about.

Increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design.
Well they would be considered pseudo scientists. Science is observing the natural world. God is not part of the natural world. If and when we have more concrete evidence for God. We require a different tool to assess its credibility. Lets call it pience. Scientists if observes what is not natural and uses it to make a scientific claim is a pseudo scientist.

Your burden of proof has not been fulfilled which is why I am not going to give my arguments.

I await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Patmos

Pro

I'm going to begin by making a blanket attack over my opponents point on probability. Throughout the debate he says that the argument from probability is bad because it still leaves room for God not to exist. This argument falls for a number of reasons. First, The purpose of science is to determine what is probable. There's no such thing as proven in science. We perform operations such as Chi-Squares in order to determine whether or not a hypothesis is more probable than the null hypothesis. Further, In reality nothing is truly impossible. New formations of matter appear seemingly out of nowhere on the quantum level all of the time. These particles are usually on their own when they come into existence but it is not impossible, Albeit highly improbable that many of them could come into being at just the right time and place to have the TARDIS appear in front of you, Have Dr. Who step out of it and hand you a chocolate bar. Does that mean that you would be justified in thinking that this has actually occurred? Of course not. We're dealing with the same sort of probability with the universe existing. Frankly, This argument for atheism is akin to betting everything you own on a lottery ticket except it's literally almost infinitely impossible for you to win.

The problem with my opponents argument against my objective morality point is that it ignores the fact that objective morality needs to come from somewhere. He's already conceded that objective morality exists by saying slavery is bad. So we can skip that argument. Instead we're going to focus on whether or not objective morality can exist separate from a god. Objective morality requires a reference point. Think of it like this: Humans create fictitious things all of the time but none that come out of nowhere. Werewolves are a combination of humans and wolves, Unicorns are an extension of a horse, Magic is an explanation for natural phenomenon etc. Morality is no different. Consider the case of a blind man attempting to understand color. He has no reference point for color therefore he is incapable of understanding the qualitative features of color. An amoral universe separate from a god is akin to a colorless universe where we wouldn't have a reference point for morality. As I stated, If objective morality exists, Which you have conceded, Then moral law and thus a moral lawgiver must also exist because objective moral truths don't arise on their own.

Next, My opponent makes the mistake of assuming that God exists within the same matter based universe that we do. God, Being the unmoved mover, Predates matter and thus must be incorporeal. Thus not falling into the same trap of creation that matter does. God would also need to be infinite which as I stated, Ockhams Razor suggests is the most probable kind of being. You also failed to refute the point that denying an unmoved mover places the timeline into a state of infinite regression. However, Since you can't name an alternate unmoved mover you have this regression. If we do fall into an infinite past of creation, Then the universe would have already achieved thermodynamic equilibrium and all things would cease to happen. But of course, It hasn't.

God does not fall into the same line of requiring a creator because he is not finite or made of matter. Everything else is.

As for Pascals wager, Right now let's just focus on A god. We don't need to pick one yet that's a whole other debate. Right now, Let's just recognize that as an atheist there is a 0% chance of anything good upon death. Even if you can't be sure which god is the right one to pick you at least have a chance.

I think I messed up the order on that. I'll change the wording for the future. I think it's supposed to read the laws of the universe are highly unlikely because they're complex. Because of my typo you misunderstood that section of the argument we can come back to it later.

First off, Fred Hoyle is a Cosmologist and an astronomer. He is most famous for his work on stellar nucleosynthesis which is a part of cosmology. As for your claim of an appeal to authority fallacy, An appeal to authority only takes place if the authority is the primary part of why my claim is true. Otherwise, If it's just a support then it's no different than citing any other source. Also, This quote didn't come from a scientific paper, It was a view developed over a lifetime of scientific pursuits.

Nothing created god. God would be the primordial unmoved mover which must exist to avoid infinite regression.

My opponent commits an argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy against Stephen C. Meyer. You didn't address the actually point you merely attacked the person. You are capable of holding an educated view on something if you didn't go to college for it. Everyone can read books.

My opponent states that I "lacked thinking" when choosing my sources. First, You were wrong about Hoyle. Second, Meyer is an intelligent design theorist. He is qualified to talk about that, Yes? Therefore we can safely believe that he had done a large amount of research on the topic and those surrounding it. Your stacking ad hominems won't be sufficient to dismiss the point.

My opponent also claims that scientists who believe that intelligent design is the best explanation for the universe are pseudo scientists. He does not understand however, That these scientists are not attempting to observe god. They are observing the natural world, Then when they note that it's almost infinitely impossible for it to even exist they suggest that the best explanation is intelligent design. That doesn't make them pseudo scientists.

To answer your question at the beginning, I always use the same opening arguments and there's not reason to retype them differently every time so I just use the same wording.
omar2345

Con

First, The purpose of science is to determine what is probable. There's no such thing as proven in science.
You must be mistaken. Science observes the natural world. If we cannot perceive God by observing the natural world then the person is a pseudo scientist.

in reality nothing is truly impossible.
Squared-Circle?

Dr. Who step out of it and hand you a chocolate bar. Does that mean that you would be justified in thinking that this has actually occurred?
If that did occur and we had a camera we can document it. If the Doctor allows scientists to look into the TARDIS we can asks questions and answer some of them. God has no such documented evidence since we cannot perceive with any of our 5 senses.

We're dealing with the same sort of probability with the universe existing
Your argument still boils down to probably God exists. I can ask where is your evidence? Instead without me giving the question you gave me probability arguments.

This argument for atheism is akin to betting everything you own on a lottery ticket except it's literally almost infinitely impossible for you to win.
The argument from a theist is akin to betting everything you own on a lottery ticket except it's litreally almost infinitely impossible for you to win.
This works for a theist because there are countless Gods and atheists, Agnostics and non-theists for the most part reject one more God than you.

ignores the fact that objective morality needs to come from somewhere.
Objective morality doesn't exist. You are basing this on a assumption that your God exists and at best you gave probability arguments. A serial killer has a different form of reality then an average person. Humans are different from one another and some even have a vast differences in what they consider immoral and moral. For this reason objective morality cannot exist due to the differences in human beings and stating since we have an assumption of God's existence we have objective morality is a lie. Might makes right is the only way objective morality can exist. The problem with this is that the actual morality doesn't have to be right instead the person who is the most powerful gets to decide morality.

He's already conceded that objective morality exists by saying slavery is bad.
We have to agree on the same principles like slavery is bad because you are own a human as property. If we do not then we have Nazi Germany gassing Jews. If there was objective morality where was it when the Jews were gassed?

So we can skip that argument.
This is an assumption without asking for clarification so that you actually had a good point to make.
I am disregarding everything else you said later on in this paragraph since it is based on assumptions that I did not gave.

God, Being the unmoved mover, Predates matter and thus must be incorporeal. Thus not falling into the same trap of creation that matter does.
How convenient. Instead of giving me evidence for such a thing you instead state it as if I am supposed to understand yes it must be.

God would also need to be infinite which as I stated, Ockhams Razor suggests is the most probable kind of being.
Another assumption made using a probable argument.

You also failed to refute the point that denying an unmoved mover places the timeline into a state of infinite regression.
God is not all those things you have mentioned. Instead you assume it as the only possible answer. We have yet to gain information that can even hypothesize how the world came to be yet you are so adamant on God being the start.

However, Since you can't name an alternate unmoved mover you have this regression.
Which unmover is it? The Christianic one Islamic one? Surely you know which God it is so your are not upsetting by following the wrong Religion right?

God does not fall into the same line of requiring a creator because he is not finite or made of matter. Everything else is.
I would put this down as convenient rather than actually giving an answer.

As for Pascals wager, Right now let's just focus on A god. We don't need to pick one yet that's a whole other debate. Right now, Let's just recognize that as an atheist there is a 0% chance of anything good upon death. Even if you can't be sure which god is the right one to pick you at least have a chance.
At least you have a chance?
The problem with this is that as of yet there is no evidence for a such a being to exist at most sums up to probability arguments. I am only going to include 1 God because I am denying the countless God's out there. Yet you seem so adamant in removing them. Wonder why? If you don't budge from this at least tell me which God it is.

I think it's supposed to read the laws of the universe are highly unlikely because they're complex.
The problem with this is that are you saying God is not complex? Doesn't God have a creator like God supposedly created the laws?

it was a view developed over a lifetime of scientific pursuits.
No scientific paper to back up his guess why should I take it anything more than a guess?

My opponent commits an argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy against Stephen C. Meyer.
I didn't. I was being fair. Like I said earlier: "Sure Meyer can have an opinion but it is not a professional/educated opinion that I would consider credible. "

You are capable of holding an educated view on something if you didn't go to college for it.
You stated this earlier which I disregarded your points but I will specifically what Stephen Meyer stated: "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content, " experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role. "
Science observes the natural world. God is not part of the natural world therefore making a God claim with God is not scientific. If God is part of our natural world where is it?

You are capable of holding an educated view on something if you didn't go to college for it. Everyone can read books.
The problem with this is that at best Meyer can only hold a view that may seem educated but without the education in the particular it is only an opinion/view. What I said earlier still holds up now:"I am not taking advice about biology from a non-biologist. Holding a degree in physics and geology does not mean you are qualified in discussing biology. "
Instead of giving me his thoughts why not give me the papers that support his theory?

First, You were wrong about Hoyle.
I just read one source which did not mention he was also a cosmologist. My fault. Not my fault is you not showing science papers which support your view. How about the steady single state theory?

Meyer is an intelligent design theorist. He is qualified to talk about that, Yes? Therefore we can safely believe that he had done a large amount of research on the topic and those surrounding it. Your stacking ad hominems won't be sufficient to dismiss the point.
Where did Meyer get his qualification for intelligence design theorist from? He didn't. He is a qualified in physicist and geologist which does not mean he is qualified in biology. Making biological claims using this made up title which is the first time I am hearing this does not mean he has an educated opinion on biology since intelligence does state claims about biology that he is not credible in talking about it.

He does not understand however, That these scientists are not attempting to observe god. They are observing the natural world
The problem with this is that either it is a falsifiable claim or eventually becomes an infalsifiable one. Either intelligence becomes an infinite regression (Where did this design come? What created this intelligent designer come from? ) or it becomes an infalsifiable claim to state God which cannot be observed. Due to this people who do use intelligence design have either not thought well enough about their own idea or they are stating a being which they have no proof that exists.

I always use the same opening arguments and there's not reason to retype them differently every time so I just use the same wording.
Okay.

Await your response.
Debate Round No. 2
Patmos

Pro

"if we cannot perceive God by observing the natural world" Take a black hole for example. We cannot see, Hear, Touch, Taste, Or smell a black hole. But we believe they exist because we can observe the way they impact the universe around them. Now take God. We cannot see, Hear, Touch, Taste, Or smell God. But we can see that an unmoved mover must have brought the universe into being, And we know that the likelihood of the universe existing is next to none.

"squared-circle? " Like I said, You can be almost 100% sure that a squared circle doesn't exist, But you cannot PROVE to me that in some geometrical dimension a squared circle doesn't exist. So you would perform a chi-square to show that it's unlikely.

I agree, If something so ridiculous as Dr. Who handing you a chocolate bar was claimed to have happened I would need some serious proof to believe it. But that's more or less what you're claiming by suggesting that the Universe came about on its own. Let's not forget that it isn't God that's unlikely. You're making the near impossible claim. Not me.

The existence of a God is evident in the mere existence of the universe. As we observe the Universe we see that the most likely explanation is a Creator. God is also evident in the existence of objective morality. In all sorts of scientific discussion we're dealing with probabilities. So yes, My argumentation does boil down to probability. Welcome to science. Are you new here? Just look up "can anything be proven in science" and you'll get page after page of results that say I'm right.

So, You also like to state that since there are other gods I also am betting on a lottery ticket. Not so. Whether or not A god exists is almost an indisputable probability but if my goal is to avoid hell then I'm really choosing from one of the Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Christian and Jewish theology mostly agree that both of those groups are fine. So really I have a 50/50 shot. You however are betting on odds that are on trillion trillion trillion times below a statistical impossibility. See the difference?

I am not basing my belief on objective reality on God. I'm pointing out that objective morality DOES exist and must for even subjective moral reality to exist, Therefore God must also exist. So it's the other way around. Moving on, The serial killer is wrong. 2+2 objectively equals 4. I can swear up and down that it equals 5 but that just makes me wrong and mathematically illiterate. The same holds true for morality. Just because objective morality exists doesn't mean everyone will follow it.

My opponent also seems to make the assertion that objective morality is a force that can stop immoral things from happening. Not so. "where was it when the jews were gassed" morality isn't a conscious force. I agree, Slavery is objectively bad. Therefore, If slavery is always bad then objective morality exists. You may also try to make an argument based on utility, But even then every utilitarian system of morality needs to have an underlying, Objective, Hierarchy of values through which we determine what's best for society.

"so we can skip that argument" the argument I was skipping over is whether or not objective morality exists. He conceded that it did exist by saying slavery is bad. Also, The rest of my argument did not rest on objective morality existing so we can consider it dropped. Meaning he ignored my argument for objective morality based on a colorless universe which is not based on an assumption of objective morality. I'm an Ockham's Razor guy. I don't make arguments based on assumptions.

All right, Let's take this nice and slow. If God created the Universe as the unmoved mover (which must exist) then it must predate matter because it brought matter into existence. Matter can't exist before it's created. Follow?

"another assumption made using a probable argument" I'm not addressing any more "probability is bad" arguments this round. I've done enough.

The unmoved mover must exist. If it doesn't the universe doesn't function because of thermodynamic equilibrium another point he has completely ignored.

By picking either the Christianic or Islamic mover I have a shot. You have no shot. Well technically you do but your shot is one trillion trillion trillion times below a statistical impossibility. One reason to pick the christian God is because he is a God of logic. Allah is a God of will. And a God of will runs up against the immaculate order apparent in the universe.

"I would put this down as convenient rather than actually giving and answer. " You don't seem to understand that if those things aren't true then the unmoved mover doesn't exist and the universe doesn't function. Your logic is so broken that if it's true nothing can exist. You break the universe. And because the universe isn't broken we know your logic is false.

My personal philosophy leads me to believe that the christian God is the right one. But that isn't the resolution. This debate is over A god. Not a specific god. There also aren't countless gods that Pascals wager works for. Only two. The Judeo-Christian God, And the Islamic God.

One more time, God is the unmoved mover, The uncaused cause. Denying that the unmoved mover exists breaks the universe. Thus he does not have a creator.

If you would like for me to post a citation for every paper Fred Hoyle ever wrote I will. But that would be dumb. Since his statement that I cited was developed over his entire career that's what you're asking for.

Also, After further research it turns out you were wrong about meyer too. He holds a degree from Cambridge over Geophysics which is related to biology. Take one of the branches of geophysics, Oceanography which is defined as: the branch of science that deals with the physical and biological properties and phenomena of the sea. So he actually is qualified to speak on the physics of biology and the philosophy of science which is really what my point was about.

God cannot be observed in the same way that black holes cannot be observed. We can however observe God's impact on the natural world and we can note that through our observation of the natural world we come to realization that the natural world shouldn't exist. Back to that one part in 1010^123. Therefore, I'm not making an unfalsifiable claim because we can still observe the impact of the God Theory. The definition of an unfalsifiable theory is Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an OBSERVATION or the outcome of any physical experiment, Usually without strong evidence or good reasons.
omar2345

Con

Pro states:Take a black hole for example. We cannot see, Hear, Touch, Taste, Or smell a black hole.
Pro undermines his/her point later on by saying this: we can observe the way they impact the universe around them.
What Pro does not realise there is evidence for a black hole. Source: What evidence do we have for the existence of black holes? (HubbleSite)
If my source is true then we have proof of black holes existence of it and the impact it does have.

Now take God. . . Next to none.
The black hole has evidence whereas God does not. Pro is trying to use an example to make the idea of a God seem more grounded but it actually isn't. Take for instance an all-powerful being that always existed. Nothing that we know has ever been all-powerful or has always existed yet we are supposed to believe a God. Mentioning the problems of an all-powerful being is that it is never all-powerful. All powerful does include itself meaning everything single time it has been considered all-powerful straight that very time in becomes even more powerful. An infinite increase meaning it is actually not all-powerful only always increasing in power just to be more powerful than last time.

Like I said, You can be almost 100%. . . That it's unlikely.
This is an argument of ignorance. A square is not a circle. A circle is not a square. It cannot be joined then it ceased to be either a square or circle. A squared circle cannot be doable.

But that's more or less. . . Claim. Not me.
Assuming my position without actually knowing it. My position is I don't know. Your position is fallacious and has shown errors which you have not answered. The things that come into question:
How has God always existed?
Did God create itself?

So yes, My argumentation. . . Say I'm right.
Insults my intelligence which removes from the point he/she is trying to make. The problem with this is that most if not all scientific facts are more often not fallacious. Another quality of a scientific fact is that it is falsifiable. God since it cannot be observed through our natural is not scientific and becomes infalsifiable. It is basically my word against yours which gets us nowhere. At least you were honest about your arguments being based on probability. It can't be anything more until God decides to shows itself through the natural world. I highly doubt it would since it hasn't in the past. Yes that isn't the best reason for God not appearing in the future but what more do we have to go on?

So, You also like to. . . I have a 50/50 shot.
You stated 3 different Religions and state that you somehow have a 50/50 shot. You don't. If there were only 3 Religions in the world your chances of being right are 25%. 3 for Christianity, Judaism and Islam and 1 for none of them being true. Not to mention the other Religions you so kindly missed out. Since you did not tell me why you boiled it down to these 3 I am left to assume you based in on a fallacy called Argumentum Ad Populum. The proposition must be true because most people believe it. Am I wrong?

You however are betting. . . L impossibility. See the difference?
Did you make this up? If you didn't quote your source. If you did what was the point of this statement?


I am not basing my belief on objective reality. . . God must also exist.
Note that the only proof or lack thereof Pro has shown for the existence of objective morality is that to quote DOES exist and must for even subjective moral reality to exist, . The problem with this is that it is not proof and by the way subjective moral reality is not a phrase. This train of thought does not follow. Pro is basically saying subjective reality exists so objective reality must also exist. This is a claim without an explanation. So I am going to dismiss is as such in hopes Pro decide to explain himself.

Moving on, The serial killer is wrong. 2+2. . . Doesn't mean everyone will follow it.
Somehow in Pro's point of view a serial killer being wrong is equal to maths. Bearing in mind 2+2 can only have one answer and a serial killer is subject to interpretation. A serial killer to himself does not think he/she is wrong or vice versa. If the courts cannot sentence him due to the lack of evidence of him being a serial killer he/she is not a serial killer in their eyes. Someone viewing the collection of ears the serial killer has tells them that the person is a serial killer and if the person is not also a serial killing would think that is wrong. I have given you 3 different scenarios where either the serial killer is morally good or bad depending on the viewpoint. Maths has one answer like you said 2+2 objectively equals 4 but it is not the case for something being wrong. It is based on interpretation.

My opponent. . . Things from happening.
What I said which Pro misinterpreted: "We have to agree on the same principles like slavery is bad because you are own a human as property. If we do not then we have Nazi Germany gassing Jews"
The condition we have to agree on principles. This is not the case with Nazi Germany being apart of the holocaust. Slavery still existing to this day. Serial killers thinking they are right and more. Pro made a point on a false assumption so I don't see why I need to rebut his claims. If Pro does ask in the next Round.

He conceded. . . Is bad
No I didn't. It was based on agreeing on the same principles.

I'm an Ockham's Razor. . . Based on assumptions.
No you make arguments based on your inherent biases that there is a God which are probability arguments which can be boiled down to assumptions if not beliefs. Going to go with beliefs. So basically you are making belief claims just stating you are using a flawed tool that most likely the simple answer must be true from two options which is not the case even with God. Options can be God exists but has an impact on the world, God doesn't exist, God exists but has no impact on this world. Not even mentioning other scenarios we have yet the information to theorise.

All right, Let's. . . Matter can't exist before it's created. Follow?
Another statement trying to insult my intelligence bearing in mind all his argument is based on is what if. This is also an argument an ignorance. The proposition must be true because it is the best you can think of. This is not better than my position of I don't know because I am not assuming what is the case instead waiting until the correct answer is given. By assuming it what is the point of proving it? For your satisfaction? You already believe God to be the case but yet you want to prove it.

The unmoved. . . Completely ignored.
What Pro does not realise is that either God is bound by these laws or it isn't. If not why? I am going to guess Pro does not have a sufficient answer.

By picking either the Christianic or. . . Order apparent in the universe.
Point made again. No proof or explanation given I am meant to accept his numbers to be true.

You don't seem to understand that. . . Function.
You don't understand you argument is of ignorance. You don't know you assume it to be true because what else could the answer be. So basically the God of gaps argument.

Your logic is so broken that if. . . False.
The train of thought does not logically follow. Moved on from God existing because the opposite is wrong not realising we have yet the information to give an informed decision on anything related to the start of the Universe.

This debate is over A god. . . And the Islamic God.
A God which requires to know which Religion it sponsors to or if none of them. Pascals wager will require to fit every single God and it is capable of doing so just add more sections. No reason given why Pascals wager does not work maybe because it just makes the idea even worse than before.

One more time, God is. . . Not have a creator.
This is an infalsifiable claim which you or I cannot prove yet you say this is a given to be true. Await some actual evidence or explanation.

If you would like. . . I will.
Pro has made a strawman of my position. I wanted a citation of where Pro found his explanations that Pro gave earlier on yet Pro strawman's my position to be wanting everything Fred Hoyle has written as a scientist. That is not true I only want what Pro used to base his assumptions. Basically is anything you stated based on science?

statement. . . Asking for.
Surely it did not take his entire life just to say something that you lifted of his earlier right? Another problem with this is that a person is right or wrong. Does not matter the time someone put into something. It matters whether they are right or wrong and I can't make that judgement without supporting material.

He holds a degree from. . To biology.
A branch of biology does not mean he studied the core of biology. Relation does not mean it is the same thing. If it was why do we have two degrees for the same course?

We can however observe God's. . . Natural world shouldn't exist.
Where is God's impact?

Back to that one part in 1010^123. . . Theory.
What are those numbers? Where are they from? Would like answers. It is still an infalsifiable claim since we cannot observe God doing anything yet you are so adamant that God did something.

The definition of. . . Good reasons.
God cannot be observed. If you can in the next Round tell me where is God? If you are going to stick to impact realising there is evidence for a black hole. You are basically making an argument where there is no supporting information that can be compared to God yet you tried anyway with the black hole.

Another problem with your argument is that if we do not know that God exists how can you identify its impact? It must be is not argument since it boils down to an argument of ignorance.

Debate Round No. 3
Patmos

Pro

My opponents source reads the following: Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a supermassive black hole in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, The galaxy NGC 4258, The giant elliptical galaxy M87, And several others. Scientists verified the existence of the black holes by studying the speed of the clouds of gas orbiting those regions. In 1994, Hubble Space Telescope data measured the mass of an unseen object at the center of M87. Based on the motion of the material whirling about the center, The object is estimated to be about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system.

This actually supports my point. All of this evidence is the impact of black holes. The speed of clouds, Motion of material. All observations.

I honestly don't understand why you're still arguing with me over the unmoved mover. You believe in it too. The mathematics are clear. The universe is finite and as such must have an unmoved mover. The atheist may argue that the unmoved mover is the sort of universe generator that multiverse theory posits or a quantum singularity but all of these have deep flaws in their argumentation. So an atemporal, Aphysical, Infinite "something" is necessary for the universe to exist. I then argue that this "something" must be intelligent in order for such unprecedented preciscion to be achieved.

Also, Your "probability is bad" argument was dead from the beginning. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of science. You can call it an "argument from ignorance" (it's not. ) all you want. I'm not claiming that since there's not evidence that a squared circle doesn't exist therefore a squared circle exists which would be an argument from ignorance, I'm saying that you cannot SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE that a squared circle doesn't exist. It may not be possible in the third dimension but then many shapes that we can mathematically show to exist don't exist in the third dimension. It's also important to note that circles are not scientific but mathematical constructs.

I do actually know your position in this debate. You are the con in a "god exists" debate. Therefore, You believe god does not exist. I will now answer both of your questions. "has god always existed" yes, If the unmoved mover isn't primordial then the universe breaks (a point you still haven't answered. ) "did God create itself? " No, The unmoved mover was never created and is primordial. If this isn't true, The universe breaks because of thermodynamic equilibrium. The mathematics on this are clear; time, Space, And matter are temporally finite. They had a beginning and thus so did the universe which is made up of these things. This is a quote from a lecture given by Stephen Hawking on the topic "In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, And whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, That the universe has not existed forever, But that it had a beginning, About 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. "

your argument against the unmoved mover is dead. It has to exist or everything breaks.

None of my arguments are unfalsifiable. I addressed that point in my last post. A simple dictionary defining of an unfalsifiable argument puts your point to rest. We can observe god's impact in the world through irreducible complexity, The information content of biology, And the mere existence of the universe.

I pointed out that Judaic and Christian thought both agree that both of these groups are worshiping the same god, Therefore that leaves only the Judeo-Christian god and the Islamic god. Thus 50/50 odds. Also, It isn't only these three groups because of ad populum, But because they are the only ones with a real concept of hell. The point of Pascal's wager is to avoid hell. Therefore, It is wisest to choose from these three. Or two really.

My source for the 1010^123 number is Dr. Roger Penrose. A famous mathematician and colleague of Stephen Hawking.

You have also misunderstood my point on objective morality. Objective morality does exist, And must for subjective moral thought to come about. I would argue that morality is not subjective but even if it is, That requires an objective reference point and thus, Objective moral law. You got it backwards. Objective morality then subjective morality (if subjective morality exists which I would argue it doesn't. )

Anything that is objective is just like mathematics. Slavery is wrong 100% of the time. Anyone who thinks slavery is good is wrong. There are moral neutrals, But even that is a part of objectivity. Merely not having enough evidence to convict a serial killer does not change the fact that serial killing is objectively bad. If the serial killer believes that serial killing is acceptable then that person is wrong. No matter how ardently they claim it is.

My opponent claims that not committing genocide and not enslaving people isn't objective immoral but are a shared set of principles. Right. Objective moral principles. If gassing jews is always wrong as a matter of principle, Then objective morality exists. If objective morality doesn't exist, Then when it comes down to it, It's just a matter of opinion and there's nothing really wrong with gassing jews. But there is.

My opponent attempts to refute my Ockhams razor point by making another "probability bad" argument but I've already refuted that utterly. This is just how science works and you'll have to learn to accept it. He then proceeds to claim that I haven't accounted for any unknown information. This IS an argument from ignorance. "we don't know that there isn't a theory out there that can explain away all of these points I can't refute, So i'm going to say that there is. "

Again, My pointing out the fundamental logical truth that matter can't exist before it's created, And that rejecting the unmoved mover (for some reason) breaks the universe Is not an argument from ignorance. The unmoved mover is not "the best explanation I can think of" it's the ONLY explanation that doesn't break the universe. Which is why there's entire fields of science that focus on finding the unmoved mover. With no success because they refuse to consider god as an option.

God is not bound by the laws of matter. No. I've been rather clear on this. He can't be, Because he's not matter. He can't be made of matter because the unmoved mover brought matter into existence, And matter can't exist before it's created. Physicists agree that the first cause must be atemporal, Incorporeal, And cannot occupy space in the conventional sense. Because none of these things existed before the unmoved mover brought them into existence.

I've been citing the 1010^123 number throughout the discussion. It comes from Dr. Roger Penrose.

"You don't understand you argument is of ignorance. " No, You don't understand what an argument from ignorance is. When I say: "look at all of this evidence for god, It seems that god must exist for the universe to function at all! " that isn't an argument from ignorance, An argument from ignorance would be: " There's no evidence that god doesn't exist, Therefore god exists. "

"we have yet the information to give an informed decision on anything related to the start of the Universe. " That's just not true. A simple google search will lead you to find that we know that the unmoved mover exists in order to prevent the universe from breaking. Take the lecture from Stephen Hawking I cited for example. So yes, Your claim that the unmoved mover doesn't exist breaks the universe. This is indisputable.

Again, The purpose of Pascal's wager is to avoid hell. The only religions I know of that have a concept of hell that people go to for not believing in the god of that religion are the three Abrahamic religions. Two of those can be consolidated to one god leaving you with 50/50 odds. Compare that to one trillion trillion trillion times beneath a statistical impossibility and the choice is clear. Even if I grant you that all religions function under Pascal's wager, I STILL have near infinitely greater odds than you.

"Pro has made a strawman of my position. " No. You asked for a single scientific paper wherein Fred Hoyle comes to the conclusion I cited. That doesn't exist. It was a position developed over a lifetime of study. Therefore, If you want to know exactly how he came to that conclusion then you would need every paper he ever wrote in that lifetime of study. In the meantime, Here's a source for the quote itself. Http://www. Philosophicalsociety. Com/an_astronomer's_take_on_god. Html

"A branch of biology does not mean he studied the core of biology. " There's really no such thing as "Biology" at the graduate level. You pick a specialization in the field of biology IE zoology, Entomology, Marine biology, And indeed, Oceanography which is a branch of geophysics.

And finally, God's impact as I stated previously is seen in the information content of biology IE the language of DNA, The mere existence of the universe, And irreducible complexity.
omar2345

Con

What Pro so kindly left out was this in the source “ X-ray emissions from the double-star system Cygnus X-1 convinced many astronomers that the system contains a black hole. With more precise measurements available recently, The evidence for a black hole in Cygnus X-1 -- and about a dozen other systems -- is very strong

All of this evidence is the impact of black holes. The speed of clouds, Motion of material. All observations.
It is more concrete than that. X-ray emissions convinces astronomers on the black hole. For a scientist to be convinced it would require evidence. Astronomers have seen the evidence and agree to black holes. Where is the convincing evidence for God?

I then argue that this "something" must be intelligent in order for such unprecedented preciscion to be achieved.
I found this to be an argument from intelligence design. The problem with this is that isn’t God intelligence. What created it?

No, The unmoved mover was never created and is primordial. If this isn't true, The universe breaks because of thermodynamic equilibrium.
I remember when you said something later on the lines of this " There's no evidence that god doesn't exist, Therefore god exists. " This can be seen as a false dichotomy or an argument of ignorance. Since without God something bad would happened it points to God. That is your argument without realising we have yet to have an understanding on the origins of everything.

Stephen Hawking on the topic
Note that Stephen Hawking did not use his scientific credibility to point to God. The reason is it would be an unfalsifiable claim. If we cannot even perceive God we cannot test or measure its accuracy. If you think we have evidence that proves the existence of God do tell. The black hole is different. It is a name for a really powerful gravitational field. God with Its many titles cannot be tested because the lack of evidence. All-powerful, All-knowing etc cannot be tested.

It has to exist or everything breaks.
False dichotomy. Not knowing every possible starter of the universe makes this an argument of ignorance.

We can observe god's impact in the world through irreducible complexity, The information content of biology, And the mere existence of the universe
God is unfalsifiable. You pretty much make it clear here. We can test the impact but not when the supposed creature did the impact is what you are saying. It is unfalsifiable. We cannot test for such a being or provide evidence yet you move the goalposts to actually have position by stating God’s impact which falls flat because everything can be equated to God.

I pointed out that Judaic and Christian thought both agree that both of these groups are worshiping the same god
I don’t know where you got that from. The problem is the worshiping part. All three of them worship in a different way with their various rituals. Meaning if they are following the same God only one of them can be true or what is most likely none of them are.

but because they are the only ones with a real concept of hell.
Real concept of hell? What is that? A phrase you just made up. If they had such a real concept of hell where is it and how did they come to that conclusion? If this is all you have for determining these Religions to be the main ones it does fall flat. I am still sticking by the Argumentum Ad Populum.

The point of Pascal's wager is to avoid hell.
Let’s say I grant you that. Which hell? Your argument for picking the Abrahamic Religions falls flat with scrutiny.

1010^123 number is Dr. Roger Penrose.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t this the teleogical from fine tuning argument? The problem with that argument is that as far as we know life only exists on Earth. Meaning we cannot test other planets to know how life started. Another problem with this is stating only life can exist this way or we won’t exist is undermining the capabilities. You grant it so much yet you grant it so little with this argument.

Objective morality does exist, And must for subjective moral thought to come about.
What Pro does not realise he/she has been saying this multiple time without explaining him/herself. How can objective morality exist when people still murder, Rape, Steal? Why is lacking in Pro’s argument.

Anything that is objective is just like mathematics. Slavery is wrong 100% of the time.
Maths is not dependent on the person stating it morality is. A different person does not think slavery is wrong but if someone says 1+1=3 they are wrong. By lifting morality as high as maths you are undermining your point and with the 100% number. What about bondservants which is accepted by Christianity? They were wrong about slavery by your stance yet you think they can be right about other things. A God can make no mistakes would be your stance so basically the Pascal’s wager pretty much becomes almost impossible for a God to exist by your narrow standard of only Abrahamic Religions and slavery being 100% wrong.

If the serial killer believes that serial killing is acceptable then that person is wrong.
How is he/she wrong? I found many of your arguments lacking the why aspect.

shared set of principles. Right. Objective moral principles.
Yes share. This does not make it objective. Shared set of principles does not point to objective moral principles so I would like you to explain yourself. If you meant objective as agreed/shared upon then it would be an Argumentum Ad Populum. The morality is not actually right instead a lot of people follow it.

This is just how science works and you'll have to learn to accept it.

Science requires evidence. God has none. Black hole does or if you don’t like the word then call it a really powerful gravitational field.

He then proceeds to claim that I haven't accounted for any unknown information. This IS an argument from ignorance.
But have you? I doubt not instead you allow the lack of evidence for God blind you into thinking that God is reasonable to believe exists. How is simply making an observation an argument of ignorance? I stated your position which in terms of God is of ignorance yet you state I am being ignorant. How does that work?

that rejecting the unmoved mover (for some reason) breaks the universe
Why would it break?

I can think of" it's the ONLY explanation that doesn't break the universe
Why again?

With no success because they refuse to consider god as an option.
Oh so now you are blaming scientist for believing in your supernatural being which cannot be observed in the natural world. By the way the black hole is a part of the natural world because we can perceive so you can’t compare God and black holes. God cannot be observed in our natural world.

Physicists agree that the first cause must be atemporal, Incorporeal, And cannot occupy space in the conventional sense. Because none of these things existed before the unmoved mover brought them into existence.

Would like to know what credible physicists said this or this is an argument of authority. Let’s say I grant you God exist in this one occasion. Which God? This has yet to be answered sufficiently. Sure Abrahamic Religions follow similar God’s but rituals are different between the three. Making it clear that 1 is right or all are wrong.

A simple google search will lead you to find that we know that the unmoved mover exists in order to prevent the universe from breaking.
Can you give me a source?

I know of that have a concept of hell that people go to for not believing in the god of that religion are the three Abrahamic religions.
Problem is that with what you do know it is tainted. Judaism hardly believes in concepts of heaven and hell. They still theorise what it might be like. One thing I agree with because that is only you can do is theorise until we have evidence of such a reality to exist. Even hell they see it as a washing machines cleansing the person’s soul. Meaning 2 of them believe in eternal damnation and the other has a heaven and a soul cleansing washing machine or they don’t know those concepts are true instead theorise.

Sources used: What is the Jewish Afterlife like? (HAARETZ)
Do Jews believe in Hell? (Chabad. Org)
The Eternal Damnation of Hell (Abdullah Sameer)
Why Eternal Damnation? (TrueChristianity. Info)

In the meantime, Here's a source for the quote itself. http://www. Philosophicalsociety. Com. . . 's_take_on_god. Html

Thank you for the source. It didn’t actually work because how buggy debate. Org is but I typed in a few words and found it. This is a bad source. It uses a quote from Fred Hoyle to make assumptions. Nowhere does it state it required him a lifetime of work to come to this conclusion you assumed it.

I’ll lift what he said here: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, As well as with chemistry and biology, And that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature"

Note that Fred Hoyle is an Astronomer and Cosmologist. Having no real credibility in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. This in mind it wouldn’t be a professional opinion if this was the scientist you used to make the argument that God exists using chemistry, Physics and biology. Upon more research I found this was part of his paper called: The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Reflections are not facts instead an observation of particular events. In this it would be the past and present day in 1982.

Read it and here is a quote: “When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, It's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, More than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. ”

If the Universe was fine-tuned by the most powerful being it would not have “useless arrangements” unless intentional. Which then requires the Pro said to give an answer why. Source: Google: the universe past and present reflections (It is the pdf file)

Don’t have space left.

Debate Round No. 4
Patmos

Pro

Are X-rays a black hole? No? Then X-rays must then be an observable effect of a black hole. Which supports my original point.

Once again, The observable impacts god has on the universe are: the universes mere existence, The existence of a life supporting universe, Irreducible complexity, And the language of DNA among other things.

Once again, Nothing created god. He is the unmoved mover which must exist in order for the universe to have not achieved thermodynamic equilibrium and also to prevent infinite regression in the timeline. To state that there might be some other explanation we haven't discovered yet therefore god doesn't exist (which you have to argue for as the con of this resolution) is an argumentum ad ignorantium logical fallacy.

First, If you're claiming that " There's no evidence that god doesn't exist, Therefore god exists. " was an argument I made then you're mistaken. That was an example of an argumentum ad ignorantium that I gave. I do not support that argument. Moreover, Thermodynamic equilibrium is not a false dichotomy. Because with an infinite past, Unless you assume there is some other thing out there (and thus make an appeal to ignorance) then thermodynamic equilibrium would be achieved, All chemical reactions would cease, And the universe would cease to function. This is not debatable using any hard evidence. This is known as the heat death of the universe.

No, Stephen Hawking did not claim that god exists. He did however point out that the universe has a finite past, Necessitating the unmoved mover.

"Not knowing every possible starter of the universe makes this an argument of ignorance. " No, This. This is a textbook example of an argumentum ad ignorantium. In accusing me of committing this fallacy, You exemplified your own use of it. You are assuming that until we know every possible starter (which we can never know for sure) that we cannot accept god as the most likely answer. You can claim that you don't know every possibility about anything in science forever. You can just claim that into perpetuity and never have to accept that you might just be wrong. After all, Without omniscience, How will we know when we have every single possibility? This is not a valid argument.

One last time, I have not made an infalsifiable claim. I already defined what that means, You're misusing the term. We can measure these impacts just like we measure the impacts of a black hole. You have conceded time and time again that god is the most likely explanation for the universe existing which is statistically impossible. This concession was the basis for your "probability is bad" argument.

Let's now dismantle your methods of worship argument. First off, Many Christians believe in a theological principle known as Sola fide which is latin for salvation by faith alone. Therefore, Merely having faith in god is sufficient. Thus encompassing jews as well as Christians. But, Even if I grant you this argument I still have a 1/3 chance rather than a statistically impossible chance.

"Real concept of hell? What is that? A phrase you just made up. " I'll clarify this statement since it was worded poorly. I mean to describe a concept of hell wherein you either go there or don't based on your faith in god. Only the Abrahamic religions have this concept. Take other versions for example. The ancient Greek Hades which is where all souls go. The Egyptian Hell where you went if you did bad things in life, The same for the Buddhist hell, Etc. Other religions hells are based off of works where as the Abrahamic religions have it based off of faith. Therefore, Pascals wager would suggest that your best bet is to live a good life while having faith in one of the Abrahamic religions.

Yes this is the teleological argument. (that's the theological term) But your argument falls flat for a number of reasons. For starters, The teleological argument has nothing to do with life on planets, But the mere existence of the universe. If you want to assume that other life in the universe if there is any (according to Erik Zackrisson, An astrophysicist from Upsala University the earth is a 1 in 700 Quintillion oddity because of all of the requirements for life to exist as we know it. ) You would be making a massive assumption based on zero evidence.

So I had thought this point was dead. He has once again claimed that objective morality, If it exists, Is a sapient force that prevents people from choosing to do bad things. It is not. All objective morality means is that it is immoral to rape, Murder, And steal. Not that people are physically incapable of doing them.

"How is he/she wrong? " If you don't understand why serial killing is wrong then we've got bigger problems on our hands.

But once again, These shared principles cannot be derived from nothing. You've never refuted my point on objective morality being necessary as a reference point for morality.

So, My opponent makes a few claim on his point about morality and mathematics. First he claims that. . . Well I don't actually know what he's claiming. Most of this is entirely incomprehensible. But he does make a reference to biblical support of slavery. This argument is derived from the book of Philemon wherein Paul the Apostle writes a letter to a man named Philemon on behalf of an escaped slave. In the book, The bible appears to endorse slavery. However, You need some context. At the time of the letter, Christianity was not yet a powerful institution. It was a few guys who were constantly getting killed for what they believed. The Roman culture of the time was so obsessed with slavery, That some historians estimate that one third of the empire was in some manner enslaved. Put simply, The church didn't have the juice to change Roman culture, So they figured that if people are going to do it and they couldn't stop them, They might as well do it as justly as they could. The modern take on the book would be an employer-employee relationship. Other biblical principles make slavery clearly against the bible. One of the core tenets of Christianity is that all men are made in God's image not one man nor any group of men but all men. As such, It becomes a biblical impossibility to elevate one group of men to dominance and another to submission. To do so is to violate and defile the image of God.

I don't need to account for information until it's known. I am not going to commit an appeal to ignorance fallacy by assuming forever that there is going to be some piece of the puzzle I don't have yet. I can do that forever. This logic leads not only to intellectual stagnation but to folly. I will consider any new information that comes to light. But i'm not going to assume that it exists and base my world view on what I don't know and what information may or may not exist. How can we be expected to face each new day with this worldview? I don't have all of the information about any given day before it happens. Yet I have to make decisions without knowing the full picture every day. That's life. You have to make decisions and come to conclusions based on the evidence you have. If more evidence comes to light then you can change your position. Beliefs aren't set in stone. But I refuse to live my life in an ideological limbo because I don't know everything.

"Why would it break? " Because of Thermodynamic equilibrium. We've been over this.

By definition, You cannot perceive a black hole. When you exclude possibilities based on preconceptions you potentially close yourself off to finding the right answer. Should new evidence come to light that makes something other than god the most likely explanation then I'll consider changing my position. But as it stands god stands high above the rest as the best possible explanation for the universe. His argument also didn't address the main point of my argument which was that no one can find the unmoved mover even though there are entire fields of science dedicated to finding it.

Forget credible physicists. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell you that matter, Time, And space can't exist before they're created, Therefore the thing that brought them into existence must not be made of them because it predates those things. If the unmoved mover was made of matter, Existed within time, And occupied space then that would necessitate that those things existed before they were created. Which is, By definition, Impossible on a logical level.

https://www. Physlink. Com/education/askexperts/ae181. Cfm this source states that heat death will occur in any infinite system. Which a system without the unmoved mover is. Not to mention that fact that an infinite past is impossible. Try to count from -infinity to 2019. I'll wait. You'll never get there. Because there are infinite years in the past meaning no specific year can ever come. This is why infinities don't exist.

"Problem is that with what you do know it is tainted. " Even if I grant you this, I still have a 1/3 chance

At high levels of physics, Chemistry and physics become very intertwined. Cosmology also deals with the existence of a life supporting universe which requires a knowledge of biology.

So you've made a new argument in the nucleotide sequence and I don't really have the characters to address it. Essentially, The language of DNA, Nucleotide sequences, Possesses a level of information that has never been seen anywhere that intelligent design didn't play a causal role. IE: computer code. Look up the five levels of information as they relate to god. I don't have the characters to unpack that here.
omar2345

Con

Are X-rays a black hole? No? Then X-rays must then be an observable effect of a black hole.
The problem is that black holes have observable evidence. A God doesn't. Scientist must check the boxes of omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscience etc. A black hole is a really powerful gravitational that is capable of trapping everything in it.

the universes mere existence,
Unicorns exists because the mere existence of the universe. Bad argument

the existence of a life supporting universe,
How about how many errors in other planets? Do you see other life on those planets? What I see are mistakes. Either that is not all-capable or is making mistakes deliberately. Both really call its motive. What does God want?

irreducible complexity,
Isn't God complex? What created it? Another bad argument.

and the language of DNA among other things.
We do not know everything necessary about DNA so I can just say God. That is your position.

He is the unmoved mover which must exist in order for the universe to have not achieved thermodynamic equilibrium and also to prevent infinite regression in the timeline.
Having a being to start the universe. Requires a motive. If the universe was just always there then it requires no purpose.

No, Stephen Hawking did not claim that god exists. He did however point out that the universe has a finite past, Necessitating the unmoved mover.
States finite past not not require an unmoved mover. If he did you would added quote of him saying it.

After all, Without omniscience, How will we know when we have every single possibility?
You haven't got any information of how everything started yet you think with certainty that it was God. You haven't given evidence instead of probability argument which at least you is the best we can do but that is not enough. If we had only one interpretation of God then maybe we can have a thoughtful conversation on this but that is not a case. God existing requires to know which one it is and its purpose.

I have not made an infalsifiable claim.
God cannot be disproven since all we can do is observe the natural world. God is supernatural and since we cannot observe that world it is an infalsifiable claim. I don't even know how you think you even can state it isn't.

You have conceded time and time again that god is the most likely explanation for the universe existing which is statistically impossible.
Bear in mind no quote was given and I am Con is God existing. I said it earlier but I say it in a different way. God adds more questions that a person who does support the theory cannot answer.

even if I grant you this argument I still have a 1/3 chance rather than a statistically impossible chance.
Still have not given me why the Biblical God is the right one so I am guessing you believe it to be so without any sound reasoning.

Only the Abrahamic religions have this concept.
Judaism is an Abrahamic Religion and their hell is much different than the Biblical and Islamic hell. It was called a soul cleansing washing machine. Meaning if Judaism is true you can go to hell. Have your soul cleanse and go to heaven. With the other two you are stuck in hell forever. One is less worse than the other I would consider Judaism's version of hell not even hell. I would call it a stop before heaven.

Therefore, Pascals wager would suggest that your best bet is to live a good life while having faith in one of the Abrahamic religions.
I only need to find another Religion which also have a concept of hell. Shinto does so your argument is bad if another Religion outside the Abrahamic ones have a concept of hell. Shinto I guess would be in between Judaism and the other two. It is basically a "shadowy land of the dead" (Jigoku and Yomi No Kuni: Exploring Japanese Hell - Tofugu). Meaning they also have a concept of hell. Not as bad as the other two but not as well I guess good as the Jews version of hell.

but the mere existence of the universe.
If that all you got for defending the teleological argument then all I got to say is that cthulhu exists because of the mere existence of the universe.

is a sapient force that prevents people from choosing to do bad things
What a weird way of defining it. The force itself is not wise if it can perceive wrong but does do nothing about. Something can't be wise if it does nothing. A person's actions determine that they are wise or not. The sapient force as not yet acted so it is not wise.

All objective morality means is that it is immoral to rape, Murder, And steal. Not that people are physically incapable of doing them.
Objective morality: Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. (Google: Objective morality define)
If people think something is wrong but still do it. They are either lying or think the gain from doing the wrong thing outweighs doing the right thing. Objective morality can only exists if we agree on assumptions and principles. This assumption can be the Bible is true or human life is valuable. The principles can be from the Bible as well or gained from discussing with on another to see what the best course of action is. Without agreeing with assumptions and principles there is no objective morality. Even if they agree it won't be objective morality it should be called agreed morality instead because we cannot prove something to be wrong if we don't agree on the same principles.

If you don't understand why serial killing is wrong then we've got bigger problems on our hands.
Note that Pro is incapable of answering my questions which leads me to believe that Pro cannot state why a serial is wrong. If Pro cannot answer that question how can make an argument for God's existence? (Rhetorical)

But once again, These shared principles cannot be derived from nothing. You've never refuted my point on objective morality being necessary as a reference point for morality.
Yes but since you believe God can derive from nothing how are you in a position to make such a claim? (Rhetorical). We perceived facts and then we conclude with whether we like it or not and make morality. It is not objective because everyone does not think a like and everyone does not come to the same conclusion.

So, My opponent makes a few claim on his point about morality and mathematics.
My claim is that maths and morality are not the same. Maths is either right or wrong. Morality is subject to someone's opinion.

The Roman culture of the time was so obsessed with slavery, That some historians estimate that one third of the empire was in some manner enslaved. Put simply, The church didn't have the juice to change Roman culture, So they figured that if people are going to do it and they couldn't stop them, They might as well do it as justly as they could.
Great argument since everyone else should do a bad thing that also allows me to do bad as well. Not an argument because slavery was and still is wrong yet you do an explanation that can be summed up as well since they can do it so can I. Which is a bad argument because what if they are doing wrong? Do you still do it? From your reasoning yes.

One of the core tenets of Christianity is that all men are made in God's image not one man nor any group of men but all men. As such, It becomes a biblical impossibility to elevate one group of men to dominance and another to submission. To do so is to violate and defile the image of God.
Yet the Christians at Rome were not wrong to have slaves. This is a contradiction. If the Christians believed humans are equal why do they have slaves? The answer is that they shouldn't if they believed that.

That's life. You have to make decisions and come to conclusions based on the evidence you have. If more evidence comes to light then you can change your position. Beliefs aren't set in stone. But I refuse to live my life in an ideological limbo because I don't know everything.
The problem is that the answers to the failure of God are out of there. You just have been looking at bad sources and allowed that to hinder your reasoning. You state Christians beleive all humans are equal yet they had slaves. You allow your biases (I am assuming you are Christian) to blind you to the truth and conjure a lie.

But as it stands god stands high above the rest as the best possible explanation for the universe. His argument also didn't address the main point of my argument which was that no one can find the unmoved mover even though there are entire fields of science dedicated to finding it.
Simple a God require a purpose which you have not stated. If the Universe is just is then we have no use for the purpose of the universe instead if there is a God we require purpose.

Forget credible physicists. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell you that matter, Time, And space can't exist before they're created, Therefore the thing that brought them into existence must not be made of them because it predates those things.
Credible scientists with more knowledge about the field we should just disregard? That is like saying we should not be asking the Pope about the Bible. We should ask random people who do not follow it.

This is why infinities don't exist.
Numbers are infinite. They keep on going. Sure there isn't a number for it but we can safe to assume numbers are infinite. Not a particular number but numbers in general.

Even if I grant you this, I still have a 1/3 chance
The problem with this is that if Pro does agree that he/she is wrong then as far as Pro knows he/she will not exist when he/she dies or go to another version of hell.

At high levels of physics, Chemistry and physics become very intertwined. Cosmology also deals with the existence of a life supporting universe which requires a knowledge of biology.
No specific statement was made so don't get annoyed if I assume what you were saying. A chemist cannot give advice about physics since they do not know the particular. If you lack understanding don't talk about it.

Ran out of space.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
These "life experiences" 99% of the time have nothing to do with a god, People just connect two things that aren't related in the slightest. The other 1% are people who supposedly see and hear god himself. That is no different than someone claiming that the spirit of Michael Jackson talks to them through the reflection in their toilet. They are clinically insane.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
I don't think there's anything especially wrong with theists. They've just had different life experiences. Some wonderfully logical thinkers and philosophers in the past, Current, And future have been/are/will be theists I assume. Sure there's plenty of non theists grand thinkers, More or less, Either way.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
One of the major fallacies that our gracious teddy bear snookums host holds against his bionic chin with some Exlax to peg his brain that other atheists have failed to mention is where does he get his number crunch from? AND since there's absolutely nothing to compare them to, There's no possible way they can be believed. There could possibly be life on Europa, Enceladus, Titan, Triton, Pluto, Ultima Thule, Ceres etc etc etc etc. /Now since man is extremely dimwitted, As is especially true of our host, If life exists there, Man may very well stumble over it, If man ---ever--- gets there, And may not even know life exists. Now if life does exist in this solar system, Even if its a very small atom worth that is outside of planet earth, Then everything our pig snout host has to say is far worse than the bubonic plague, Smallpox, Influenza, Malaria and any disease ever dreamt as life would most assuredly be abundant elsewhere in this universe that has nothing to do with his completely immoral superior ego god complex unproven god.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@PointProven

Maybe in his circle all he hears is how right Christianity is and hasn't heard an outside opinion.
Posted by PointProven 3 years ago
PointProven
Sucks that people still use the same arguments that have been debunked countless times. Surprising people still believe in god at this point. I'm not saying atheists are smart, I'm saying that theists are retarded.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Thoht

What do you think I could have done better with my Round 1 argument?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Thoht

Do you want a conversation in the comment section?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Thoht

What do you mean by interlocutor?
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
If you want another interlocutor after Omar you can feel free to challenge me directly.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Oh well, DDO is not taking my argument. Bye.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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