The Instigator
Ku4nt3m
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God most likely 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: 3/21/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 889 times Debate No: 120950
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)

 

Ku4nt3m

Pro

I will be arguing that God most likely exists, Using the following definitions:

God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Existence: Reality of an entity.

Reality: The state of things as they are.

Entity: A thing with distinct and independent existence.

State: A condition or way of being that exists at a particular time.

Thing: An object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated.

Time: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, Present, And future regarded as a whole.

If a definition or more are missing, Con can state those and in case of disagreement we can quickly debate them. (maybe in another debate? )

Con can choose to have the floor first or not.
Hope this will be productive.

(if there are any mistakes in my writing such as grammar or spelling, I apologize beforehand)
WrickItRalph

Con

Ahh! The probabilistic God. I like it. Lets do this.

On the God definition. I'm assuming the supreme being comment was just a summation tool correct? By ruler, I'm assuming you mean he's a god who can intervene with humans correct?

On existence. I'm cool with that, But I need one elaboration. Does a thing that exist have to be eternal(always existed)? Did it get created from nothing (ex nihilo)? Can an existing thing stop existing (become ex nihilo again) When I say this. I mean on the atomic level. I don't mean that a person dies and goes ex nihilo because their atoms split up. Work that out and we're good on this word.

The others seem okay. If I think there is an equivocation later on, I'll let you know.

Now, Because of the structure of your question, I could just argue that god is not probabilistic and do fine. But this would not be my honest belief. So I will adopt the burden of proof along with you and declare that god most definitely does not exist. A couple of deductions:

1. Things that exist affect reality. Premise
2. If Things that exist can affect reality, Then those things can be observed. Premise
C. Things that exist can be observed. (MPP) P1, P2

1. Abstracts do not exist. Premise
2. Time and Space are abstracts. Premise
3. If Abstracts do not exist and Time and Space are abstracts, Then Time and Space does not exist. Premise
C. Time and Space does not exist. (MPP) P1, P2, P3

1. Things that exist must hold space in reality.
2. If Things that exist must hold space in reality then nothing can exist outside of space.
C. Nothing can exist outside of space. (MPP) P1, P2

the structures are valid. It's also sound assuming the premises are sound (wink, Wink)

Definition: Observe --- To detect with one's senses, Either directly or by the extension of a tool or object (Thing).

So my argument in a nutshell is that I'm arguing for a claim of non existence, Since things that don't exist can't be observed or exist outside of time and space. That means I have to use process of elimination or show the impossibility to the contrary. My argument will contain both methodologies.

I'll give the short run down so we can save steam for later.

My contingencies on something being a god are
1) It has agency
2) It Created the Universe.
3) Whatever my opponent adds to this.

Omni Gods: Easiest to debunk. These gods have to be infinitely powerful. Infinities cannot comport with reality. Therefore such a god cannot exist.

Maximally Powerful God: This god comports with reality and obeys the laws of physics. This god cannot surpass the speed of light and therefore would have to be in the observable universe. This means that such a god could be spotted, However. Scientists have mapped most of said universe and there is still no trace of a god to be found.

Minimally Powerful God: A god that is just barely strong enough to create the universe. Could even be mortal or died in "child birth" making the universe. Such a god would be unprovable at best and more provable than the previous example at worst. Since such a god would likely be dead. It can't really have an effect on us and might as well not exist at all.

Deist God: The first deadbeat dad in the universe folks. This god, Made everything and then fled on the scene. This one has all the same problems as the previous example but has even more assumptions, So the last example was slightly better.

God by Definition: The holy grail of gods. Honestly, These are the smart ones. Bide your time. Let someone figure out what caused everything and name that god. It could be energy, Gravity, The sun, The moon, A person (Korea) or yourself (Solipsist). This argument is annoying because it tries to just prove god by default. Its the intellectual equivalent of playing cops and robbers with your friend and having them tell you that they have a shield that makes them invincible the whole time. Even if this could win the argument, It would be a hollow victory.

That it my categorical proofs.

For the sake of a good discussion. I will be looking for you to either accept or reject the premises. If rejected. Provide a counter claim for reasoning and we'll put those into question. If you reject anything I say in my casual arguments, I will always need a counter claim so I can defend of concede it. Questions are welcome and lets try not to get hung up on definitions unless it becomes a big deal.

Your Floor.
Debate Round No. 1
Ku4nt3m

Pro

Hello, Glad someone with a respectful attitude and more than good explanatory skills chose to debate me.

On God definition. "the supreme being comment was just a summation tool correct? " Indeed, I consider an entity that creates the universe "supreme", But the "supremeness" is not a big deal for me. // "you mean he's a god who can intervene with humans? " Correct.

On existence. "Does a thing that exist have to be eternal(always existed)? " No. But I don't think "eternal" is an impossible. // "Did it get created from nothing? " Interesting point; since God is the creator, The "source" of all things, God is the only entity that is over the "nothing comes from nothing" assumption. // "Can an existing thing stop existing? " Yes, But it doesn't becomes nothing again, It just becomes another thing, Different from what it was.
I hope this is well worked out, If not, Tell me and I'll address it again.

Premises.

1. "Things that exist affect reality". I agree.
2. "If things that exist affect reality, Then those things can be observed. " Not all of them. Assuming this premise as true puts -f. E- human emotion as something outside reality. I'll address this later on.
C. Don't agree with this conclusion. I address this in the definition of "observed".

(a definition of abstract would be helpful here, I'm going with "thought of apart from concrete realities, Specific objects, Or actual instances", If disagree, Counterargument)
1. "Abstracts do not exist. " They exist. If abstracts don't exist, Then any science nor any form of human communication doesn't exist, Since the only way we have to talk about them (or even think about them) is abstracting them, We can't "see things as they are" since our senses are known to be limited.
2. "Time and Space are abstracts". I agree.
C. Don't agree with this conclusion. Abstracts exist.

1. "Things that exist must hold space in reality". According to universal physics, Yes, But God its outside this laws, Since God comes before the universe.
2. "If Things that exist must hold space in reality then nothing can exist outside of space". ^
C. Don't agree with this conclusion. God can indeed exist outside of space.

The structures are in fact valid. I think the most important point here is abstraction. How can you recognize human thought and interaction as an existing thing, When abstracts don't exist? Or are you implying that these human characteristics (thought and interaction) as a whole doesn't exist?

"Definition: Observe --- To detect with one's senses, Either directly or by the extension of a tool or object (Thing). " I agree with this assumption, Although I think that one of God's features is that it can be a tool (and a thing, Of course), Ergo it can be an extension of our senses.

----

I sense we hitted a massive disagreement here, And think we should debate those premises to go clearly further. But I'll do, As you did, Some quick assessments in those god's "categories":

Omni Gods: Humans can't, But infinities can comport into reality. In fact, As one of the definitions of comport is "to behave in a manner conformable to what is right, Proper, Or expected", Fits God's "skill set".

Maximally Powerful God: Since physics, Light, Speed and even science is an abstract, I'll leave this one for later.

Minimally Powerful God: I found the assumption that "something that is dead can't affect us and might as well don't exist at all" to not be true. It affects us on every level; if we understand dead as an non-existence, Inexistence itself affects what it still exists.

Deist God: Same ^.

God by Definition: I think here is another "gold mine" in this debate, Besides the premises. I do think as God to be a "default" because cause and effect. Every effect has a cause; so if you start doing that process all the way back it leads to something/someone that was indeed outside of space, Of time and every other abstract and would have to necessarily "come from nothing", And since it was first, Inherently being the cause to the "first" effect, Thus the creator/source of all things. Very interesting point here.

I'm hoping to see some of my points proven has flawed. // I think I over-used airquotes here, I'll try avoiding it in further rounds/debates.
If something is badly or not-at-all explained, Please tell me and I'll try my best to address it. (newbie debater here, As you can't -hopefully- notice :P)

Your floor.
WrickItRalph

Con

Lets dive in.

So on the existing. I normally would say non existing is going ex nihilo and dying would be the deforming of your particles. But it won't be a problem because I know what you're saying. There might be times where I have to specify for sake of continuity. If you're defining god as existing, Then him being exempt for the ex nihilo would be a special pleading fallacy. This might change depending on how you structure your argument. But I'm just pointing it out.

On the logics. You don't have to verbally reject the conclusions. They necessarily follow from the premises. Your objections to my premises automatically puts the conclusions into question, But you could say my conclusion is bad if the structure is not valid. Just laying out semantics here.

(2. "If things that exist affect reality, Then those things can be observed. " Not all of them. Assuming this premise as true puts -f. E- human emotion as something outside reality. I'll address this later on. )

So by your word for existence, I believe that this would still be sound. You define it as an entity in reality. You define entity as having distinct characteristics and distinct means they're recognizable. I believe it would then follow that in order for them to be distinct. There must be something to recognize it as such. Another way to put it would be to compare it to the deist god. The deist god could have no effect on reality and therefore, We have no way to measure it. From our human perspective, It would be identical to not existing.

(1. "Abstracts do not exist. " They exist. If abstracts don't exist, Then any science nor any form of human communication doesn't exist, Since the only way we have to talk about them (or even think about them) is abstracting them, We can't "see things as they are" since our senses are known to be limited. )

Right, So an abstract is normally defined as being something that only "exist" in thought. The reason I say they don't exist has to do with the way things are generally defined. Scientifically, There are four types of existence. Type 1 is physical and the other 4 are some forms of abstracts. So when I say exist. I'm talking about holding space in the universe. Now I'm using your definition. But it still fits because abstracts are not entities, They have no bodies. They're timeless, And spaceless. An abstract is just a concept. Some are imaginary, Like unicorns, And some are theoretical, Like math. So space, Time, Triangles, Infinity and the like are all just tools we use to measure reality or they're place holders for imaginary things. Like the image of a unicorn in your head. Now I guess you could argue that the brain synapse is the abstract, But I would disagree with you.

"According to universal physics, Yes, But God its outside this laws, Since God comes before the universe. "

Special pleading unless you can pose a justification for his exemption from the rule. This will be key here.

In response to your question. I believe that thought exist because it's demonstrated in the brain and I believe that consciousness exist as a quality of our being. I also think that both of these things are purely physical. I'm going to stop for a second and explain that in my world view, I believe that particles are the only thing that exist. I believe that all abstracts are nothing more than descriptive concepts and I don't even bother with solipsism for many reasons that I won't cover in this debate unless you're gonna push it for some reason.

" Although I think that one of God's features is that it can be a tool (and a thing, Of course), Ergo it can be an extension of our senses. "

I'm going to need elaboration on this claim. I get what you're saying. But I need to know the methodology behind it at least to some degree.

Omni Gods: To the best of my knowledge, There is no real world application of infinity that does not result in a logical contradiction. I'm willing to except a sound example if you have one. I'm going to point out that I don't accept infinite time either because I don't think time exist.

Minimally Powerful God: Okay, I was being slightly hyperbolic. It would matter in the sense that the beings particles would diffuse into the ether and could maybe be special particles or something. But this single event can necessarily be the only time that it has an effect. I should have said that from our perspective it's as if it never existed.

God by Definition: If you're going to just define the first cause as god that's fine. But let me ask you. If the first cause didn't have agency or any intelligence at all and was just a natural process, Would you still want to call it god?

The only flaws were the two special pleadings, Which really counts as one because you wrote them para to each other, And the rejection of the conclusions. It's good practice to get into the practice of accepting structurally valid conclusions and try to laser your focuses on the premises. In reality. The conclusion is just a summation of two or more premises, It almost doesn't even have to be stated because of the way logic is structured. But we state it anyway so it's easy for other people to read.

I've seen a lot more flaws on a lot smaller arguments.

Your floor.
Debate Round No. 2
Ku4nt3m

Pro

On existing. God is exempt from ex nihilo following the argument of cause-effect (something/someone necessarily would have to come "from nothing"). If this doesn't justifies the statement, I agree that it is indeed a special pleading fallacy that can not be proven any further.
Just out of curiosity, -and this one is not my personal belief- how would you address it if God didn't "come from nothing" but "come from itself"? Since this is derrailing from the debate a little bit, It's fine if you don't want to address it.

On the logics. Yeah, It sounded clumsy while I was writing it, It makes sense. Thanks for pointing this out.

On how things that exist can be observed. You're right. It still would be sound. Though, God fits all these, It has independent characteristics which makes it recognizable as a god. (In fact, It has so distinct and independent characteristics that are only fitted by god, Like the creation of the universe)

On abstracts don't existing. A few things here. I can't agree with that assumption because it assumes that abstracts only exist in thought; I agree that probably any kind of abstract "originates" in thought, But it doesn't stay there. Tangible reality affects thought, Thought affects tangible reality then making abstracts a reality.
As humans, We can exist simultaneously in more than that type-I existence.
Abstracts are in fact an entity. I don't think that as a whole, Altought it could be argued that they are (The Abstract), But math is an entity, And unicorns are. They aren't timeless, Since math and unicorns weren't always there, We can track those through a timeline; I would say that they are spaceless, But for the sake of the argument, I'll say that they aren't, Since they occupy space -at the very least- in our brains (which by your definition its not an abstract, And following your premises, Therefore it exists).

On God coming before the universe and the statement being a special pleading fallacy. I remit again to the cause-effect. Following patterns/laws of physics all the way back, The answer must be that at some point in time, These would not were in place, And therefore anything that existed before those is outside them.

Response to the response of the question. "I believe particles are the only thing that exist". This is not true, Since the only way we have to understand particles is by abstracting them, And following that assumption, Particles themselves don't exist since they are part of an abstraction; I remit to "thought affects tangible reality, And tangible reality affects thought". Abstracts are indeed descriptive concepts, But not classifying these as reality leads to a total disconnection from reality, Because, Again, The use of abstracts its what allows us to know anything in the first place.

On God being a tool / thing that can be used as an extension of our senses. Since a tool is a means to an end, And God generates both means (through all the religions/mythologies writings which -f. E- tell us how to behave, Which I know, Weren't written by God, But by people that were undeniably affected by it, Since they all were generated from it) and ends (again, Depending on the religion we look, Different Gods have different ends that are desired/required). Althought it seems like it, I'm not arguing that God is a means to a God, Only that God is a means to an end, Whatever end that would be.

On Omni Gods: I would argue that there are uses. For example, Infinities helps us determine mathematically which expressions are within our ability to perceive by classifying others are infinite/limitless, And stating that those that are infinte, Are outside of any possible comprehension by us (since the infinite is virtually unreachable).

Minimally Powerful God: I'll try to elaborate a little bit further. There is universe X where Z exists. There is universe Y where Z doesn't exists. (X being the summation of everything that composes the universe, Including of course, Z) --> X = X. Y = X - Z. Therefore X it's not equal to Y. Inexistence affects the existence.

God by Definition: I am indeed defining God as the first cause. "If the first cause didn't have agency or any intelligence at all and was just a natural process, Would you still want to call it god? " God has agency (the capacity, Condition, Or state of acting or of exerting power); probably intelligence too although I'm not sure on this one (I'll look into it later); and since God came before all the things, God is associated with all natural processes, So I wouldn't call God an unnatural process. // I get from how its formulated that that question was an hyopothetic one? If God didn't have any agency nor inteligence and was a natural process, I would still call it God since it would became "the natural process that lead to the rest of natural processes".

Again, Thank you for pointing this debate protocols, They are really helpful for my next debates.

Your floor.
WrickItRalph

Con

On existence. That would be a valid logic structure. It's essentially the Kalam with the additional premise of something coming from nothing. The argument would not be sound, But you've been honest about it, So there's not need to press the matter cause I'm here to counter points and not to convert you, Lol.

That's not a derailment at all. I would have to take that statement as saying "God is eternal" Since we have inductive reasoning to show that all existing things always existed, I'm much more confident in an eternal god. The problem for me personally is that it violates Occam's razor. Which is to say that it is not irreducibly complex. If we're already inducing eternal existence, Then I think it's more structurally valid to remove god and attribute this quality to the physical universe instead. Since particles has been confirmed to exist, This would not be a stretch. Good question.

On observation. I'm okay with that assertion, However, My next question would be that if god is observable, By what means can we observe god? In order for this claim to stand, I would need some examples.

On abstracts. Well, It's not just a baseline assumption, I have justifications, You could argument that some of my justification are just assumptions, But that's you call. So the reasons I justify this is that I can tell between what I see and what I imagine in my head. I know that I'm not sensing it and I know that it's not inhabiting space. There is also no space in reality for them. If I draw a triangle on a piece of paper, That picture is just ink spread out in a pattern. The "triangle" itself cannot inhabit this space. So where is it? Now you could invoke alternate dimensions and I would reject it. But I'm not going to argue that too hard, Because that's a whole different conversation. I would just say that there is no good evidence for alternate dimensions in my opinion. The one thing that every abstraction has in common is people. If the universe had no minds, Then abstracts wouldn't exist. Humans invent abstracts. Somebody looked at a three sided object and named it a triangle. They invented the centimeter and measured it ends with it. They invented angles and measured them with the numbers they invented. Every quality given to a triangle is man made. The abstract is just a description. That's why they can only be in our minds. When I think of existence. I think of what holds space and affects reality. Abstracts don't that standard for me. We might have to agree to disagree on this one ultimately. Now when yo mentioned unicorns, You brought up a good point. There could be a time where, Say, Plato existed. He would not be an abstract. However, When we remember plato, The image that we hold is an abstract. The abstract does not bring plato back into existence. Furthermore, The abstraction of plato in our minds would not even look like him even if we met him in person. These are my arguments for why abstracts don't exist. A Platonist would reject me ironically, Lol.

On physics. We have no evidence that the big bang was the beginning of everything, But rather everything in our universe. There could have been a trillion to the trillionth power big bangs and we might not have known because space could be virtually limitless by human standards. Furthermore, The laws of physics are not light switches that can be flipped on or off. Physics is a description of the consistencies or lack thereof within the observable universe. A domino hits a domino hits a domino. The fact that there are no dominos does not change the fact of what would happen if you did have dominos.

On particles. It's not an abstraction, It's a caricature. They use a physical object the size of an atom to rub up against the proton like a record player needle and map the physical interaction piece by piece, Which then appears as a physical picture. You could say it's abstract in the sense that they add colors. But that would be no different from color coding a map. The very act that they're measuring a physical interaction shows that there is existence. Furthermore, I am not aware of any physical thing that cannot be reduced or derived from a particle. So how can we honestly say that there is anything other than particles? I know it might make the universe sound boring depending on your point of view. But after all the evidence I've seen, I can't help but believe it.

I would be willing to meet you halfway here and say that the belief in a god concept could be used as a tool. But I would not begin to illicit to the benefit or harm of this tool. It would be a slippery slope for me to do so.

Omni: Right, I would agree that infinity is one of the most useful tools in math. But that has nothing to do with physics. If infinity cannot be applied to physics, Then it cannot manifest physically. The only way that infinity could apply as far as I can tell is if it represented a number that just kept getting higher for all eternity. But even this would not be infinite because the rising number would still be finite. You see the problem here? Infinite is just the polar opposite of zero. They're both place holders for any possible number that a person can think of when the finite number is too big to calculate.

Minimal: I agree with that statement. It's basically chaos theory/butterfly effect. I'm sure that we could ever know what the minimally powerful god was or if it existed. The best we could do is discover it's particles and then maybe get a shady concept of it's composition.

If you're okay with defining a non agent god as such, That's fine by me. At least then we'd be clear on what god means. Isn't that what we all want at the end of the day?

In summation, Our two main contentions are the existence of abstracts and the ex nihilo concept. My worldview suggest that particles made everything through motion and that consciousness is a property of some particles. So in the end, If this discovery was true, I'd be right by description, And you'd be right by definition. That might be the axiom of our debate unless you want to challenge this assessment? Which you are justified to do.

You floor.
Debate Round No. 3
Ku4nt3m

Pro

On the eternal god that came out of itself. I'm not sure that it violates Occam's razor, Since attributing that quality to the physical universe makes it way more complex (from the patterns that we know, Not to say the ones that will probably be discovered in the future) than attributing it to a very powerful entity. I could agree though, That although God as a creator would be a simpler explanation than an eternal physical universe, It would be a pretty narrow explanation that wouldn't satisfy the "craving" we as humans have to know about the subject. So. . . Yes, It presents a problematic of simplistic but superficial explanation vs. Complex but thorough explanation.

On the observation of god. I would say that is really hard if not impossible to observe it rejecting 100% the possibility of a god. Yes, Probably you can't observe God in any way if you don't take any god-related assumption as possible, Since where one person observes the "work" of God, Another observes scientific patterns: the way light behaves when it hits certain materials and how our eyes perceive color, Etc. (in this case I'm talking about a sunset/dawn, For example); but I don't see why those reject one another, In my opinion both of those observations can co-exist in the same person. This leads me to a question though; would you say that -f. E- one is capable of observing/feeling hope if one does not believe that hope exists?

On abstracts. I agree, Most of us can tell what we see and what we are imagining. Though, I argue that you sense it, For putting a rough example, When imagining something threatening, Senses outside the mind are activated (legs get warm, Hands get cold, Vision turns slightly tunnel-like, And so on -if I remember correctly, This are some of the responses the human body has to fear-). Also, When imagining something, You use neurons to do so, Neurons occupy physical space, So therefore imagination occupies physical space. Following this train of thought, When you draw a triangle in a sheet of paper, The ink occupies physical space in that sheet that itself occupies physical space (although I don't think I understood you properly on the triangle bit; if you don't mind elaborating a little bit more on that it would be nice). // I agree, If minds didn't exist, Abstract wouldn't exist either. But, I wouldn't say that humans "invent" abstracts, More than observing them, Since again, The only way we have to observe is by the act of abstracting it. Also, Even if this last assumption weren't true, Without humans not only we couldn't abstract things, But we couldn't even observe them, Therefore there wouldn't be a way of knowing if anything exists at all. // "When I think of existence, I think of what holds space and affect reality", I argued before that abstracts exist, And even following the premise that those things that exist affect reality and hold space, I argued that they do, They occupy space in our brains and our brains affect reality. // On the abstract of Plato, I agree that thinking of him does not bring him back to existence, But thinking of him in the time he still existed doesn't "confirms" his existance either. This is a broader subject, Since it could be argued that even if we met him in person [how cool would that be, Huh? :P], No one, Not even himself could look him and asess "how" he exists, Since again, We can only observe by the use of abstraction.

On physics. "A domino hits a domino hits a domino. The fact that there are no dominos does not change the fact of what would happen if you did have dominos. " It does change it, Because the assessment of what happens when a domino hits a domino hits a domino is a result of an observation of the first domino-hitting-domino, And therefore, There is no humanly way possible to know how would the dominos behave before there were any dominos to observe.

On particles. They are indeed abstraction, Just look at how many abstractions are listed there: size, Interaction, Colors, Map, Even object. In fact, What we consider physical and what isn't, Is an abstraction within itself. // I can't prove that there are things that exist that aren't related to a particle, But I can argue that those particles are indeed related way back to something/someone that wasn't reduced or derived from one. // Whatever I'm discussing, If it's related to the universe somehow, I don't attach boredom to any of that, I find it quite entertaining.

On God as a tool. "But I would not begin to illicit to the benefit or harm of this tool. It would be a slippery slope for me to do so. " I 100% agree on this point; I think it is a slippery slope for anyone to do so. :P

Omni: "I would agree that infinity is one of the most useful tools in math. But that has nothing to do with physics. " Ok, I'll take little step here (because my knowledge on this is fairly limited), But I can only but wonder, How would physics look like without math? They are intrinsically related if you ask me, In fact, When talking about the universe we keep hearing "the universe is infinite" as a statement; from that, I derive that the universe manifests physically in a way that follows the concept of infinity, Therefore you can't disattach math from physics (I'm hoping to be proven terribly wrong on this one; it would be awesome). Also, From my understanding, Infinite is not the polar opposite of zero, The polar opposite of infinite is the negative one. -Infinite, +Infinte.

Minimal: I agree here. We can't possibly know. I don't know about finding particles and then making some kind of composition of it, But t would be great indeed if such thing could happen.

On the definition. Yes, I could define a non agent god as such; although I'd like to state that I still "don't know for sure" what God is and which are its characteristics, And that I stated a definition for it at the beggining of the debate just to have a clearer debate. // And indeed, I think most of people would like to know what God is, Hence why I think it will always be discussed as it is a matter in which so many differences in concept exist within people. Fascinating, Really.

I think that what you stated on the last paragraph is true, Yes. Although, I feel like keep debating since I feel most of the "gold" in our debate is in our different notions on abstracts and reality more than in the concept of God. In fact, Once we are done with this debate, -if you want to- I would like to debate you on some of this issues disattaching them from the god concept. For now, I think it is better if we keep them attached.

Your floor.
WrickItRalph

Con

You brought up some interesting points. I think we can mine a bit further.

On Occam's Razor: I would say that God seems like a simple explanation in terms of details. But it only seems that way because we think of God as one piece when really God would be a bunch of super complex pieces. If it was an omni god, For instance, It would be the most complicated thing in all of existence. But I want to show you what I mean when I say that the physical universe is simpler. So we have two scenarios:

1. If (U & P) Then E

2. If (G & U & P) Then E

G= God Exist
P= Physics exist
U= Uncaused causes exist
E= Everything Exist

So if we look at the two propositions. We have U & P and G & P attributed as justification for Everything existing. Physics is irrelevant because it's in both models. So we can cross them both out for comparison. Both models also have Uncaused causes in them. So those are crossed out too. So what we're left with is God. This is a violation of Occam's Razor depending on how you do it. Now in the model for a definitional god, Both models would be equally viable. But the minute you start adding any properties to god, Like agency, Omnipotence, Etc. It all starts getting packed into that G. At that point. The first model starts to look more likely. I will be fair and say that the first model would fail if it cannot account for the things that G accounts for. So in that case. G would be a necessary minimum piece. Unfortunately. We have no real information for G. So we have no way to tell if it can actually account for something better than Model 1. Furthermore, There is no evidence to support that method 1 requires G at this point in time. That could change in the future. But this is what I meant by Occam's Razor.

On Observations. The problem is that we could say that about anything. We could say that leprechauns are impossible to observe so we can't rule them out. This is why it's logically more sound to start with the assumption that nothing exist until it is observed. So logically speaking, The current inability to observe god is the current proof that it doesn't exist. You can't do it the other way because you would start off believing every single thing is true, Including every god claim and this would be a poor model for logic. Now I understand that's not what people do, But why do we hold god to a different standard? Surely if we're holding god to a different standard, There should be a justification for doing it. It would have to be different justification from the other gods that are professed. I'm not sure it can be done.

On Abstracts. This was the fun part to read. So you're correct that what humans observe with their senses are abstractions. None of those things really exist physically. But these are not the same as the abstractions in your imagination. The difference is that I cannot choose to change my abstraction of reality. It necessarily conforms with reality. So while the image itself doesn't exist. It's a functional representation of reality. One could actually argue that our mind actually improves our view of reality. Everything we see is actually 90% Empty space between atoms. Yet we can't put our hands through them. Isn't it funny that our minds set things up so we could see the barrier of movement. Furthermore, Here's an interesting thought. The image that we see of things does actually exist physically for an instance. Because it's not the atoms that we see, It's the light bouncing off of them. So in that sense, We're actually seeing something that exists for a short instance in time. That light pattern. It is true what you said about the term physical being an abstraction. It's an arbitrary observation we make and then set a standard of definition for. But that brings us back to what makes it physical. I think there are only two fair answers.

1) Something that holds matter.

2) Something that holds positive space.

the first definition would exclude certain particles and the second definition would just include everything except virtual particles which have not yet been proven as things but possibly events.

I have no problem with people saying abstracts exist in a conceptual manner. The part I don't like is when they say start attributing qualities to abstracts that they would attribute to particles. Or physics. That's why I define things the way I do.

To your comment about particles being abstractions. That's not entirely accurate. Observations we make about particles are abstractions. But the particle itself if physical. The "qualities" don't actually exist but rather describe how the particle behaves. All abstractions can basically be reduced to relationships between various states of affairs. With this in mind, We could think of abstractions as representing causality or lack thereof.

On physics. So the problem here is that we're talking about two different things. But both of our observations are valid. You're saying that we can't KNOW what will happen to the dominos until we abstract it. Which is true. But what I'm saying is that the fact that it will happen under those variables is always true in all times and all places regardless of observation.

Omni: Without math, Physics would look exactly how it does now. Just like it did before humans invented math. This helps support what I'm talking about when I say abstractions don't exist. What you're really asking me is what would the universe look like if it didn't obey the laws of math? This is actually a good question and brings up an interesting point. If the universe was inconsistent such that one could never describe an accurate physical law. It would likely be the case that nothing would exist for long. Particles might pop in and out of existence and randomly form and then deform living things with no pattern in it. But the funny thing here is that in a weird way, The universe is still being orderly. Because it's following a rule. The rule of change. The fact that the universe is not allowed to have a pattern is a pattern in itself. This means the universe would never be allowed to have a consistent pattern and a Outside observer would be able to derive what things "won't happen" instead of what things "will happen" like a bizzaroverse. On the comment about infinity and negative infinity being polar opposites. That can only be true in theory. In the physical world, There are not negative numbers. Furthermore. The results of these two numbers equals zero, Which is another number that can't exist in reality, So the very fact that this can't produce a real number disproves it.

You brought up some good points on abstractions. I believe that it's good in general to talk about how we define existence versus nonexistence because it is key to producing proper logic.

Your floor.
Debate Round No. 4
Ku4nt3m

Pro

On Occam's Razor: "If it was an omni god, For instance, It would be the most complicated thing in all of existence. " Yes it would be, But that could also be said if there was no god and only physics, Physics would then become the most complicated thing in all of existence. So I think at this point is just a matter of choice, Since I found that both answers are equally complex when breaking them down. // I find your 2 premises to be true, Only with the detail that I'm not arguing that many uncaused causes exist, Just one. Although, I can see why this, If not taken as a special pleading fallacy then it would kind of have to create a new rule which leads to the possibility of more uncaused causes. I agree with most said on this subject, And concur that is rather unfortunate that we don't have any not-purely-abstract information on G.

On observation. That wasn't exactly my point. On the leprechaun issue, I'm not documented, But it could be argued that only those who see the possiblity of the existence of leprechauns, Can in fact observe them. Again, Not everyone is unable to observe God. To be honest though, I think this is one of my weaker points in the whole debate and that it could be easily debunked. // "But why do we hold god to a different standard? " Well, If that's not a rhetorical question, I would say because that in case it would be true, It would dramatically change the way people see their lives and those from everyone around them; to elaborate a little bit more, The existence or the non-existence of a horse with a horn or a little guy with a bucket of gold wouldn't change our perspective much, But when we are talking about the creator of the universe and source of all moral authority, I don't know if justified, But rather very understandable for the standard to change.

On abstracts. "The difference is that I cannot choose to change my abstraction of reality. " I can't see this as the case since -I'll use for example, Any kind of resource (food, Building materials, Even money)- resources are an undeniable part of reality, But our abstractions on them change rather usually, People don't always abstract the same from the same resource, The way they perceive it (thou making it an abstraction) changes many many times through their lifetime if not every different time they observe it. For further elaboration, Some simple examples: someone who sees money as a priority can change their abstraction of it to push it down the list, Someone who likes certain food might choose to see it with "different eyes" due to health, Etc. // "One could actually argue that our mind actually improves our view of reality. " I would personally like if this would be the case, But as said in the previous argument, This can't be proven since that without minds there isn't view and therefore we can't know if there is any reality at all. // "Everything we see is actually 90% Empty space between atoms. Yet we can't put our hands through them. Isn't it funny that our minds set things up so we could see the barrier of movement. " Fascinating, Indeed. // "So in that sense, We're actually seeing something that exists for a short instance in time. " Although, It could be argued that it keeps on existing after that and/or that it existed before that short time. // I agree on what makes something physical, Although I think we might have to agree to disagree that only the physical exists.

On particles being abstracts. Without observing, The non-existence of particles is more likely than their existance, Since, As you stated "it's logically more sound to start with the assumption that nothing exist until it is observed". // "We could think of abstractions as representing causality or lack thereof. " I'll think of this, But it well likely to be the case, Really good point.

On physics. "But what I'm saying is that the fact that it will happen under those variables is always true in all times and all places regardless of observation. " Wouldn't this contradict "it's logically more sound to start with the assumption that nothing exist until it is observed"?

Omni: " Without math, Physics would look exactly how it does now. Just like it did before humans invented math. " Yes, But they wouldn't be physics as we refer to them today since they go hand in hand with math, It would be just. . . "the stuff we see happening"? I don't know about this one, Lol. // I think I agree on the rest you said, Since my knowledge on physics is poor, And the short lesson is appreciated, Haha.

To give some closure: My purpose for this debate was to see how far I could take the assumption of a god that exists/existed, And I think I accomplished that (for a couple of years, To the very least :P). I was aware that I wasn't going to be able to prove the existence of god (I mean, No one in the whole history of mankind could, It would be rather pretentious from my behalf to think that I could, Lol). On that note, I would say that all your points hold pretty steady and some of mine have nasty holes in them :P. This debate (my 1st) made me want to be around this website more, To further develop my debating skills. I'd like to thank you like I did at the beggining for the respect shown (in my experience, Most of the people who reject the existence of a god aren't very respectful to those who believe in it) and for those early tips on premises; and to say that I would much likely debate you again on some other subject some time from now, Since I sense we hold pretty different views in many things.

You may have the floor once more.

Good debate.
WrickItRalph

Con

Alright, Lets land this gently.

Occam's Razor: We're good on everything but one. You said that physics would be the most complicated thing when god is not the picture. While that is technically true, The God model has all of the complexity of physics and all of the complexity of god combined, Because physics still exit in the God Model. I agree that if G had tangible information, This conversation would go much differently.

Observation: My problem with that reasoning is that the standard has to exclude other unlikely things. For instance, If you say that god is exempt from the rule because it would make a massive change and importance to human history, Then you have to include any hypothesis that does this. If fairies or Warlocks existed, Then that would have a huge effect on and important to us. So you would need a standard that doesn't open the door for just any argument to get in. Scientifically speaking, Your best bet is to show a need for agency. I think that's why the Teleological argument is so popular.

On abstracts: It's true that I can abstract qualities about what I'm observing, But what I actually meant here was that a person cannot alter the image that they see or the way something smells/sounds/tastes etc. You can abstract things in your imagination after the fact, But the image itself cannot be changed. You're right that the image that hits your eyes keeps existing in the sense that the photons that bounced off your eyes are still out there. But that specific pattern is no longer arranged that way in reality.

On physics. It would only be a contradiction if I said "Nothing exists until it's observed" The fact that something is the case and that fact that we know something is the case are two different things. So I can't know the dominoes will fall until I observe it, But it was true that they would have feel before I observed it regardless of if I was there or not.

Omni: It would still be physics. It just wouldn't have the name physics and we wouldn't have math to measure it, But it would still be there. I'll give an example just to clear this up. Before math was invented, Cavemen were held down by gravity. They didn't know what gravity was, They didn't have math to calculate it, But it was still pulling them to the earth. This analogy basically sums up what I mean by this statement.

It was a good and robust debate. We basically hashed the argument out in the first two statements and then vigorously argued for the points that were already structured. I don't get to be in a debate like this very often. Most people want to chuck their opponent's points straight out the window.

I'll see you on the other side.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
*God out of it* typo
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@Jayaram. I could say everything you just said and take the word God of it and it would mean the exact same thing except it would be more coherent.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@Jayaram. That's just you defining God into existence. Saying that God is us just makes it a synonym for the word us. It's as meaningless as saying us is us.
Posted by Jayaram123321 3 years ago
Jayaram123321
Some believe that the universe came into existence from nothingness. Some believe that god made the universe and some others believes in some other theories, I'm not getting into that right now. Basically nothing means no-thing. There's no matter in nothing. Which means something cannot be made from nothing. God is not a matter, God exists like nothingness. In short, We are our own gods. God is not a single individual, God is us. The positivity in us is godly, And the negativity is evil, It's that simple. Our ancestors worshipped an entity named God because they needed someone or something to gain hope and faith. They also considered God, As their judge or law. Because they wanted to create the idea that everyone is equal under the law just like everyone is equal under the God. Each part of society believed in different rules and laws and later different gods came into existence and then later different religions. This beliefs was later passed on to the next generations and now we're here debating over something out ancestors created. I'm not an atheist, I do believe in God. But the God I believe is none other than me. My positivity is my symbolises my godliness and my negativity symbolises my evilness. And yes, The God and the evil are with in ourselves. You will learn to trust, Believe and respect yourself once you understands that you are your own God.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
and using the word "If" doesn't assert validity or plausibility anymore than throwing a chicken at a crocodile. It brings an idea to mind, Which I had to use seeing as you don't understand the omnipresence of God and how nothing is non existent as far as humans are concerned.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
its not assumption based at all. God is omnipresent by his own understanding, There can be no such thing as "No thing" even by human perspective, Once we would identify something as not a thing, It would immediately become something, That is, Nothing.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@melcahraz. That is just a series of assumptions. Anything sounds plausible when you through enough "If" statements on them.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
if we were debating specifically the God of he bible, Then we know he "Always has been" and if God always has been, There has never been such a thing as nothing. It cannot exist.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
My argument systematically debunks all gods at once. It is indiscriminate to any particular god.
Posted by Ku4nt3m 3 years ago
Ku4nt3m
Any of those gods that fit the description in the debate, Why is that so hard?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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