The Instigator
JohnJBannan
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
mall
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God is Real.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
JohnJBannan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2020 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 420 times Debate No: 125163
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

JohnJBannan

Pro

I. THE DICHOTOMY OF EXISTENCE
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)

The dichotomy of existence proves the existence of God by demonstrating the necessity of an uncaused Creator with the power to create any or all of the infinite potentials for physical reality to the fullest extent logically possible under everythingness. In terms of the uncaused, There are only two possibilities. The first is the uncaused reason for the existence of all physical reality. The second is the uncaused absence of any reality called absolute nothingness. These two are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive of all logical possibilities forming an abstract metaphysical dichotomy of existence. Because each side of the dichotomy is uncaused, There can be no cause for either of the two being real. Rather, One side is real and the other is not real without reason or necessity. Moreover, An uncaused thing does not have parts, Because it would otherwise be caused by those parts. Because an uncaused thing does not have parts, An uncaused thing cannot be destroyed because destruction demands the disassociation of parts. As a result, The side of the dichotomy that is real can never be destroyed, And the other side that is not real can never become real.

Because physical reality can differ in the most minute way logically possible from another potential physical reality, There is no good reason to believe that the uncaused reason for the existence of all physical reality could not also create that potential physical reality. Because this uncaused reason can create this potential physical reality, Then it can also create another potential physical reality differing from the former potential physical reality in the most minute way logically possible. Repeating this ad infinitum, This uncaused reason must be capable of creating any or all of the infinite logically possible physical realities called everythingness. Because potential physical realities can be created, There must be a reason for the existence of physical reality and the creation of any or all infinite potential physical realities. This reason must be uncaused, Because the creation of any or all physical realities is contingent on this reason which leaves this reason without anything else to cause it.

Because the creation of less than everything that is logically possible is itself a logical possibility falling within everythingness, Then this uncaused reason must necessarily be able to decide what to create out of the infinite possibilities for physical reality. This uncaused reason must have knowledge of all the infinite potentials for physical reality, The power to create any or all of these potentials, And a presence to control, Sustain, Alter or destroy any such creation. Moreover, This uncaused reason must have the greatest decision-making ability logically possible in order to be able to create up to the fullest extent of everythingness. We call this uncaused real side of the dichotomy of existence God.

II. THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT
(BY ST. THOMAS AQUINAS)

The first cause argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that all causes and effects in the cosmos must ultimately derive from a very first cause we call God. In the cosmos, We observe that for every cause, There is an effect. We also observe that every effect is itself a cause for a subsequent effect. Like a line of falling dominos, The first falling domino causes the fall of the second domino, And the second falling domino causes the fall of the third domino. The cosmos unfolds as a series of causes and effects over time.

Because an infinite regress in time of causes and effects is impossible, There must be a very first cause of the cosmic series of causes and effects. We observe that cause and effect in the cosmos follows an order where A causes B, And B causes C, Whether the intermediate cause B is only a single cause or several causes. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, If there is no cause A, There will be no ultimate cause C, Nor any intermediate cause B. But, If an infinite regress in time of causes and effects were possible, There would not be a first cause, And so neither would there be an ultimate cause, Nor any intermediate cause. Therefore, The existence of the series of causes and effects over time in the cosmos necessitates a very first cause for the beginning of the series.

The very first cause in the beginning of the cosmic series of causes and effects over time must not itself be caused. If it were caused, Then regress would continue backward in time infinitely, Which is impossible. Moreover, The very first cause cannot be self-created. It is impossible for a thing to cause itself, Because it would have to exist prior to itself. Therefore, The very first cause must itself be uncaused. We call this uncaused first cause God.

Because God is uncaused, God cannot be made of parts. A thing that is made of parts is caused by those parts. God being uncaused cannot Himself be caused by parts. We call this principle that God is not made of parts " divine simplicity. Divine simplicity is a mystery, Because we cannot imagine a thing without parts. However, Because we know a very first cause is necessary for the cosmos to be created, And we know that this very first cause cannot be made of parts, We know that divine simplicity is real. An ancient classical philosophical truth known as "ex nihilo nihil fit" states that nothing comes from nothing " or that you can"t get something from nothing. Because nothingness cannot create the cosmos, An uncaused very first cause of the cosmos is necessary to which we give the name God.

III. THE FIRST ORDER ARGUMENT
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)

The first order argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the cosmos must have had an initial order created by an uncaused orderless cause we call God. We observe from the cosmos that everything has an order. This order is the relative position or arrangement of things in physical reality at any given moment in time. We observe that this order is caused by an antecedent order, And that this antecedent order is caused by an earlier antecedent order. Because an infinite regress in time of antecedent orders is impossible, There must be a very first order.

We observe that order in the cosmos follows a pattern where order A causes order B, And order B causes order C, Whether the intermediate order B is only a single order or a series of consecutive orders. Now to take away order A is to take away order B. Therefore, If there is no order A, There will be no ultimate order C, Nor any intermediate order B. But, If an infinite regress in time of consecutive orders were possible, There would not be a first order, And so neither would there be an ultimate order, Nor any intermediate order. Therefore, The existence of the series of consecutive orders over time in the cosmos necessitates a very first order for the beginning of the series. This first order requires an orderless cause, Because a first order cannot come from nothing. A cause without order is a cause without parts, And therefore must be uncaused because otherwise its parts would be its cause. Because all physical realities possess an order, This orderless cause cannot be any sort of physical reality. We call this uncaused orderless immaterial cause of first order God.

IV. THE BEGINNINGLESS TIME PARADOX
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)

The beginningless time paradox proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the beginning of time itself must have an uncaused timeless cause we call God. If time in the cosmos had no beginning, Then there would be an infinity of prior moments in time before the arrival of the present moment. An infinity of prior moments of time could never be fully traversed, Because there would always be a prior moment in time that had not yet been traversed because infinity is unending. If all prior moments in time are not fully traversed, Then paradoxically the present moment in time could never arrive. Because the present moment in time does arrive, Then time in the cosmos must have had a beginning. Because time must have had a beginning, Then time must have been caused to begin from something besides nothing because nothing cannot cause anything.

The cause of the beginning of time not having time for its own cause must therefore be uncaused. Moreover, The cause of time itself cannot be something subject to time, Because the existence of anything subject to time is contingent on the existence of time. The beginning of time itself cannot have a physical explanation, Because all physical explanations would be subject to time. Accordingly, There must be an uncaused immaterial explanation for the beginning of time itself we call God.

V. THE BEGINNINGLESS CAUSATION PARADOX
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)

The beginningless causation paradox proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the beginning of causation itself must have an uncaused immaterial cause we call God. If causation in the cosmos had no beginning, Then there would be an infinite regression of causation exhausting all possible causes. However, If causation were infinite, Then causation could not become exhausted. Therefore, Causation cannot be infinite, But must have had a beginning.

The cause of the beginning of causation not having a cause for its own beginning must therefore be uncaused. The beginning of causation itself cannot be a physical explanation, Because all physical explanations would be caused. Accordingly, There must be an uncaused immaterial cause for the beginning of causation we call God.
mall

Con

Basically your argument is causality.

Now causality is a very logical process, That is cause and effect.

You're saying there was a cause of nothing or from something that caused a "nothing " to have an effect so that "nothing" is now something.

As twisted as that was laid out, It only begs the question about something being made from nothing.

Why or how can you use a form of logic to argue within regards to the existence of all things when logic itself, The order to things, Natural law didn't exist yet?
Debate Round No. 1
JohnJBannan

Pro

You have failed to specifically address any of the specific arguments I posted.

Nonetheless, I will respond to your comments. First, You have made a common error in misinterpreting what is meant by God creating "ex nihilo". "Ex nihilo" does not mean that God creates something out of a pre-existing form of nothingness, As if God is taking outer space or a void and turning into physical reality. Rather, "ex nihilo" properly understood means that God is creating and that this creation appears from non-existence. In other words, "ex nihilo" means that creation simply appears.

In response to your comment about natural law or logic, Because nature derives its logic from an uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality, That metaphysical reality must also possess uncaused logic in order to give natural logic to physical reality. Accordingly, It is correct to believe that the metaphysical realm also possesses logic and to use logic in formulating cosmological arguments for the existence of God.

Additional arguments include:

THE PRIME MOVER ARGUMENT
(AQUINAS)
The prime mover argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that all motion in the cosmos must ultimately be derived from an unmoved mover we call God. We observe that in the cosmos some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another. Things move when potential for motion becomes actual motion. Only an actual motion can convert a potential for motion into an actual motion. Nothing can be in both potentiality and actuality in the same respect simultaneously. If both actual and potential, It is actual in one respect and potential in another respect. Therefore, Nothing can move itself.
Each thing in motion is moved by something else. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, Then this also needs to be moved by another, And that by another again. But this cannot go onto infinity, Because then there would be no first mover. Without a first mover, There would be no movement at all, Because all subsequent movers move only inasmuch that they are moved by the first mover. For example, The staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore, It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, Moved by no other; and this we call God.
THE NECESSARY BEING ARGUMENT
(AQUINAS)
The necessary being argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that there must be some being we call God that exists out of His own necessity in order for contingent beings to exists in the cosmos. We observe that in the cosmos things come and go into being called contingent beings. Every being is a contingent being, Because objects in the cosmos come into being and pass away. Indeed, It is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time. For each contingent being, There is a time it does not exist. Therefore, It is impossible for these always to exist. Consequently, There could have been a time when no things existed.
If there were a time when no things existed, There would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence. Therefore, Nothing would be in existence now. Such an absurd result undermines the assumption that all beings are contingent. Therefore, Not every being is a contingent being. There must be some being which exists of its own necessity, And does not receive its existence from another being, But rather causes them. We call this necessary being God.
THE ARGUMENT FROM COMPOSITE PARTS
(BANNAN)
The argument from composite parts proves the existence of God by demonstrating that an uncaused singular non-composite we call God is necessary for the existence of all composites in the cosmos. We observe from the cosmos that all composites are caused by their parts. Causation itself is the formation of a composite from parts in physical reality. The cosmos itself is a composite made of parts consisting of each moment in time with its physical reality. We also observe that composites themselves are made of composites. However, A composite cannot be made without parts, And because more than one part is a composite, A single part which causes all composites must be real because composites cannot come from nothing. That single part which causes all composites must be an uncaused non-composite, Because parts would otherwise cause it to be a composite. Because all physical reality forms a composite with spacetime, Then the single uncaused non-composite cannot be any sort of physical reality. We call this single uncaused immaterial non-composite God.
THE ARGUMENT FROM TIME
(BANNAN)
The argument from time proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the existence of time requires an uncaused timeless cause we call God. Time is the creation, Destruction and re-creation of physical reality at the smallest scale at relative rates. Because nothing comes from nothing, The cause of time cannot be nothing. Rather, The cause of time must have a cause outside of time. This cause of time must also remember the prior order, Placement and time flow of physical reality in order to re-create physical reality at every moment in time. This cause of time not having time for its own cause must therefore be uncaused. However, The cause of time itself cannot be something subject to time, Because the existence of anything subject to time is contingent on the existence of time. There are no physical explanations for the beginning of time itself, Because all physical explanations would be subject to time. We call this uncaused timeless immaterial cause of time God.
THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(CRAIG)
The Kalam cosmological argument proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the cosmos had a beginning caused by a personal agent that transcends spacetime we call God. We observe from the cosmos that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. The cosmos began to exist. Therefore, The cosmos has a cause for its existence. The cosmos began to exist, Because an actual infinite cannot exist. A beginningless temporal series of events is an actual infinite. Therefore, A beginningless temporal series of events cannot exist.
Actual infinities that neither increase or decrease in the number of members they contain would result in absurd consequences, If they were to exist in reality. For example, A library with an infinite number of books would not be reduced in size at all by the removal of a specific number of books (short of all of them). Or, Before the present event could occur the event immediately prior to it would have to occur. But, Before that event could occur, The event immediately prior to it would have to occur; and so on ad infinitum. One gets driven back and back into the infinite past, Making it impossible for any event to occur. Thus, If the series of past events were beginningless, The present event could not have occurred, Which is absurd.
The collection of historical events is formed by successively adding events, One following another. The events are not temporally simultaneous, But occur over a period of time as the series continues to acquire new members. Even if an actual infinite were possible, It could not be realized by successive addition. In adding to the series, No matter how much this is done, Even to infinity, The series remains finite and only potentially infinite. One can neither count to nor traverse the infinite.
If something has a finite past, Its existence has a cause. The cosmos has a finite past. Therefore, The cosmos has a cause of its existence. Because spacetime originated with the cosmos and therefore has a finite past, The cause of the existence of the cosmos must transcend spacetime. Because the cause of the cosmos" existence transcends spacetime, No scientific explanation in terms of physical laws can provide a causal account of the origin of the cosmos. Because no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the cosmos, Then the cause must be a personal agent. If the cause were an eternal, Nonpersonal, Mechanically operating set of conditions, Then the cosmos would exist from eternity. Because the cosmos has not existed from eternity, The cause must be a personal agent we call God who chooses freely to create an effect in time.
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUFFICIENT REASON
(LEIBNIZ)
The argument from sufficient reason proves the existence of God by demonstrating that an explanation for the existence of the cosmos is necessary, Which must be a transcendent God who has within His own nature the necessity of existence. We observe from the cosmos that there must be an explanation, Or sufficient reason, For anything that exists. The explanation for whatever exists must lie either in the necessity of its own nature or in a cause external to itself. A sufficient reason for the existence of the cosmos cannot be another contingent thing (and on into infinity), Because to explain the existence of any contingent thing by another contingent thing lacks a sufficient reason why any contingent thing exists. The explanation of the existence of the cosmos must lie in a transcendent God, Because the cosmos does not have within its own nature the necessity of existence and God does.
ARGUMENT FROM ABDUCTION
(BANNAN)
The argument from abduction demonstrates that something must be uncaused and the best explanation is an uncaused metaphysical reality we call God. We observe that in the cosmos something has got to be uncaused, Otherwise there would be nothing. It is impossible that physical reality is uncaused. Any aspect of physical reality claimed to be uncaused can be eliminated as impossible or ultimately caused, Including but not limited to infinite regress, Actual infinities, Self-creation, Time travel, Eternality in time, Timelessness, And acausal physics. Therefore, The best explanation that remains is an uncaused metaphysical reality we call God.
mall

Con

"You have failed to specifically address any of the specific arguments I posted. "

Sure, They're not needed. I've made this thing nice and straightforward without any confusion. Furthermore, In summary, When you add it all up, It boils down to causality, When you get right down to it.

I'm sorry but you're going on way to long with these responses and it's getting to technical to follow. That's why I'm trying to just stick with the basics. This may also be helper for the viewers as well.

Let me please have basic, Short, Concise answers to these questions. This way we can move forward fast to invalidity cutting out a lot of lengthy text.

1. Is the core or epicenter of your argument for God being real, Causality?

This next question is assuming the premise has to do with what was before there was anything ever.

2. It's certain that causality has to do with logic so why is causality needed or how can causality exist before a law existed to govern it?
Debate Round No. 2
JohnJBannan

Pro

You have once again ignored my list of Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God. You need to address those arguments.

However, In response to your questions:

1. The core argument is that God is the uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality who decides what to make real and what not to make real out of the infinite logical possibilities for physical reality. Causality plays a major role in the Cosmological Arguments, But so do a host of other considerations, Such as: creation, Potentiality, Actuality, Spacetime, Paradoxes, Everythingness, Absolute nothingness, Dichotomy, Order, Contingency, Dependency, Necessity, Composites, Physics, Infinities, Time, Reason, Abduction, Deduction, Perfection, Maximum being, And design.

2. Metaphysical causality is necessary for the existence of physical reality, Because otherwise physical reality could not decide on its own what to make real and what not to make real out of the infinite logical possibilities for physical reality. Please see the Dichotomy of Existence above for further details. Because physical reality has to have a beginning point, Then a metaphysical cause is necessary to decide what physical reality among the infinite logical potentials gets created. Creation is necessary because time and causation must begin. See the Beginningless Time Paradox and the Beginningless Causation Paradox above. Also, The expanded singularity of Big Bang cosmology is scientific proof from which one can infer that spacetime had a definite beginning. Moreover, There is no scientific proof that any actual infinities exist in physical reality or that an infinite regress in time is real. There is also no scientific proof that the universe is infinite in scope or that any physical reality pre-dates the Big Bang. Because something cannot come from nothing, Then a metaphysical cause is necessary for physical reality to begin.

Here are some additional arguments:

THE ARGUMENT FROM GRADATION OF BEING
(BY ST. THOMAS AQUINAS)
The argument from gradation of being proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the existence of all things requires as their cause a maximum being we call God. We observe from the cosmos that there is a gradation to be found in physical reality. Some physical things are better or worse than others. Predications of degree require reference to the uttermost case. For example, A thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. Therefore, There must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, Goodness, And every other perfection. We call this God.

THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
(BY ST. THOMAS AQUINAS)
The argument from design proves the existence of God by demonstrating that non-intelligent natural things must be directed in their purposes by a supernatural intelligent being we call God. We observe from the cosmos that natural bodies work toward some goal, And do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge. But, As an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, What lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligent. Therefore, Some intelligent being is real by whom all natural things are directed to their end. We call this intelligent being God.
mall

Con

"You have once again ignored my list of Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God. You need to address those arguments. "

Also you're ignoring my response of NOOOOO. I've already addressed why but you can go ahead and continue to be inattentive.

"1. The core argument is that God is the uncaused metaphysical cause" STOP RIGHT HERE, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR A SHORT RESPONSE. SO IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, YES, IT'S CAUSALITY WHICH YOU REFER TO AS GOD.

"2. Metaphysical causality is necessary for the existence of physical reality, Because otherwise physical reality could not decide on its own what to make real and what not to make real out of the infinite logical possibilities for physical reality. "

HOW DO YOU KNOW THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE ANYTHING EXISTED? ARE YOU SAYING SOMETHINGS ALWAYS EXISTED?
PLEASE PRESENT PROOF FOR ALL OF THIS.

SEE THE BIGGG PROBLEM IS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. ON TOP OF THAT, YOU ARE POSITING ALL OF THIS DUE TO THAT WITHOUT IT, HOW ELSE CAN THE HUMAN MIND COMPREHEND ANYTHING OUTSIDE. . . . THE REALM. . . . . OF LAWS. . . . IT. . . HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN AND CONFINED TO?

ARE YOUR EXCESSIVE POINTS ARE NO GOOD UNTIL, UNTIL, UNTIL YOU CAN GET AROUND THIS BIGGGGG OBSTACLE RIGHT HERE. ALL YOU HAVE IS THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS. EVEN DEDUCTIVE REASONING CAN ONLY TAKE YOU AS FAR BACK IN TIME AS WE CAN POSSIBLY DATE.

IF THE PREMISE IS: THE PROOF THAT GOD OR A CAUSE IS REAL BASED ON ALL OF EXISTENCE REQUIRING A CAUSE BEFORE THE LAW OF ITSELF DID, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE AND HOW DO YOU KNOW?
AT THIS POINT YOUR SUGGESTING THERE HAD TO BE A CAUSE. NOTHING HAS EVEN BEEN PROVED THAT THE CAUSE IS GOD. YOU CAN CALL IT GOD. IF YOU WISH TO SAY GOD IS THE LAW OF CAUSALITY, WELL NOW, WHAT PROOF IS THERE THAT GOD REQUIRES SUCH A NATURE?

HOPEFULLY NOW YOU CAN COMPREHEND WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE WITH LOGIC BUT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT IT WASN'T OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARILY LOGIC THAT STARTED OFF WITH THIS THING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Debate Round No. 3
JohnJBannan

Pro

You continue to refuse to address the Cosmological Arguments I posted. This is tantamount to refusing to debate me.

In response to your most recent statements, Physical reality has not always existed. Rather, Physical reality began with the expanded singularity in Big Bang Cosmology. Moreover, The Beginningless Time Paradox and Beginningless Causation Paradox prove that physical reality must begin.

God is UNCAUSED. God is not subject to time, But outside of time. God creates time and hence cannot be subject to that which God creates. God is also not made of parts. God cannot be made of parts, Otherwise God would be caused by those parts. If God were caused by parts, God would not be UNCAUSED. God must be UNCAUSED, Because God is what begins time and causation and therefore, Must be outside both time and causation. God is in no sense causality in physical reality - both of which are subject to spacetime, Time and causality.

The Cosmological Arguments which I posted above and which you refuse to read provide circumstantial evidence that God is real. You can know that God is real from the use of logic giving rise to the circumstantial evidence set forth in the Cosmological Arguments. God is not the law of causality. God begins the law of causality by His creation of physical reality.

I assume that your demand for empirical evidence of God is a demand for scientific proof of God. However, Science has its limits. Neither scientists or scientific instruments can leave the universe in order to prove the cause of the universe. If scientific instruments or scientists left the universe, The mass and energy of those instruments and people would leave the universe which would violate the laws of physics, Specifically the principle of conservation of energy and mass. Accordingly, Scientific empirical proof of the cause of the universe is impossible to obtain. Therefore, One must look to philosophy to understand the cause of the universe and physical reality. This philosophy is set forth in the Cosmological Arguments I set forth above and that you refuse to read or address.

Again, God is necessary for physical reality to begin. An uncaused metaphysical cause not subject to time or causation is necessary to start time and causation going in spacetime aka the universe.
mall

Con

"You continue to refuse to address the Cosmological Arguments I posted. This is tantamount to refusing to debate me. "

I truly believe I'm debating a wall when it comes to this segment. Maybe I'll get a response now to this particular statement in regards to my previous response to this portion.

Everything stated you have no proof for or you're failing to present proof for. They're just claims and I've asked how do you know, What's the evidence and it's clearly just circular.

Can you honestly just admit that you're basing all this on some degree of logic but you can't explain how you can do that when you haven't corroborated that everything came to be through some sort of logic?

God or an uncaused cause presumably is outside of the existence of logic or was initial prior to the laws as we understand them now but yet we or you rather are attempting to prove all of this with something that wasn't there to orchestrate all events there after. You have to realize the non-sequitur here.

If we continue to follow that a cause without beginning has no subjected rules of causality, We can't understand or prove it with the nature of causality. What do we have left? Intent, Personal choice, A plan for a design, How or what proof could we find for that? If just arbitrary, Happenstance and nothing special, Same question.

Please, Why not open up your mind to what I'm communicating, Instead if shutting this out? You're not being asked to drop your position and you don't have to feel like you have to keep your defenses up.
Sometimes you have to realize when you've been traveling around in a box. Come to know when the premise you've been working with is specious and there are actual greater, More appropriate ones to consider.
Debate Round No. 4
JohnJBannan

Pro

I've responded to all your objections. You have completely ignored the Cosmological Arguments I posted above. You have refused to debate me, And desire only to argue your debate points. That is not how a debate works. You've lost this debate by refusing to even discuss the Cosmological Arguments. Nevertheless, I will respond to your latest comments.

God is the uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality who decides what is made real and what is not made real out of the infinite logical possibilities for physical reality. Such a metaphysical reality we call God is necessary, Because physical reality must have a beginning. We know that physical reality began scientifically, Because of the first appearance of spacetime as the expanded singularity in Big Bang cosmology. However, We also know that an infinite regress of spacetime would cause paradoxes. See above The Beginningless Time Paradox and The Beginningless Causation Paradox. Furthermore, There is no scientific proof of an actual infinite in physical reality, Such as an infinite regress. The fact that spacetime had a beginning means God must be real in order to create physical reality. Something cannot come from nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit. That's absurd thinking.

You suggest throwing logic out the window as if only physical reality possesses logic. The logic of physical reality originates with its cause for existence, Which means the uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality also possesses logic. There is no good reason to believe that the utterly illogical occurs. It's completely absurd to believe that physical reality comes from nothing at all. Nothingness has nothing to give and cannot cause something to exist. The incoherence, Impossibility and lack of logic proves that physical reality cannot come from nothing.

As I already explained to you, Scientists and scientific instruments cannot leave the universe to prove its cause. The laws of physics prohibits scientists or scientific instruments from leaving the universe, Because then the mass and energy of the scientists and scientific instruments would have to leave the universe which would violate the principle of conservation of energy and mass. It is unreasonable to demand scientific evidence of God, Because science cannot leave the universe to prove or disprove the existence of God. However, We can use the logic and reasoning of philosophy to deduce the existence of God through the circumstantial evidence set forth in the Cosmological Arguments. There is no circular reasoning in the Cosmological Arguments. These arguments use the behavior of the cosmos as a basis for circumstantial evidence of God. There is nothing circular about these arguments. It is unfair of you to refuse to even address the Cosmological Arguments, And then turn around and claim they are circular acting as if you've read them which you obviously haven't.

Because physical reality must have a beginning, Then there are no natural explanations for the creation of physical reality. All natural explanations would involve time, Natural causation (as opposed to metaphysical causation) and spacetime. Because all these things must ultimately begin at some point, Then that which creates them cannot be subject to them. This means the only answer lies with an uncaused metaphysical cause not subject to time, Natural causation or spacetime. There are no other greater premises to consider. This means God is real.
mall

Con

You're not dealing with what I've asked and presented. You're going on in roundabout, Lengthy responses of verbosity.

You have no proof. I've been basically communicating that when you get down to it, Round after round.

You say I refuse to debate. You're in this debate all by yourself. You might as well be. I still haven't gotten an answer to my question which I've repeated enough.

You're saying something has to be a certain way IS NOT PROOF, It's just your "say so".
Just stuff like this: "God is the uncaused metaphysical cause of physical reality who decides what is made real and what is not made real out of the infinite logical possibilities for physical reality. Such a metaphysical reality we call God is necessary, Because physical reality must have a beginning. We know that physical reality began scientifically, Because of the first appearance of spacetime as the expanded singularity in Big Bang cosmology. "

These are all unfounded claims at best just theory and you don't know. Why? This isn't an empirical conclusion. All you have is what it appears to be. Scientific theory suggests something and at the end of it, You throwing God in like the God of the gaps.

My lost friend, This is all what you believe, Not what you know. The truth is, You don't know what anything was like externally of the realm we have consciousness in as the mind has only been grounded in the senses to supply understanding of that realm.

But I think your mind is made up and just fail to understand and
receive anything else here.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
God is real? ". . Well could not happen without you. . Right?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 9 months ago
kbub
JohnJBannanmallTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice debate. Con actually did pretty well too--but should have refuted each argument in turn.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
dsjpk5
JohnJBannanmallTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped Pro's cosmological arguments for entire five rounds. With that in mind, I have no choice as a voter but to assume they're valid, winning arguments.

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