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

It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
28days23hours40minutes48seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 day ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,019 times Debate No: 119317
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (75)
Votes (0)

 

logicae

Pro

Hello everyone! Today I would like to make the case for classical Theism, That is the case for God. This question has been debated throughout all of history and so it is quite an honor to continue this great conversation and build upon it in the present day.

To you who has accepted this challenge, Welcome! I will only propose one rule: Please be mindful of both sides of the debate and respond to the arguments made accordingly. Clash is important to debate and is where truth is able to be searched and hopefully identified.

This debate I will support two main contentions:

1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist)
2. There is good reason for Theism

That being said I want to clarify what Atheism I am talking about.

First, The definition of Atheism according to Merriam Webster dictionary is "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" (1) (see citation below)

This entails two different stances: One is an unbelief, Which entails that the Atheist is unconvinced of Theism (which is usually referred to as agnosticism). The other being a rejection of Theism by stating Atheism to be true.

In this debate we are debating Theism vs Atheism and so there must be reasons to support both sides, Meaning that there must be a statement of fact by both sides, Not just a statement of unbelief as agnosticism.

Now that the sides are clarified I will jump to my first contention, That is:

Contention 1. There are no good reasons for atheism
Atheism relies on a set of realities that seems absurd when you look deep into them. I will let side Con get into this contention (that is, Put forth arguments for why atheism is true) and I will respond accordingly.

Contention 2. There is good reason for Theism

There are many arguments for God, Many having whole books written on them. To start off today I will bring my favorite:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause

Where did the universe come from?

For Premise 1.

We know that all physical things began with some sort of cause, As something cannot come from nothing. To claim the opposite would be worse than magic, As with magic, At least you have the magician. Similarly we don"t observe things popping out of nothing. Simply, Out of nothing, Nothing comes.

For Premise 2.

In reality we know absurdities such as an actual infinite cannot exist, For example: For today's debate to come from an infinite past requires an infinite series of yesterday's. This would mean that today's debate would never be able to occur as today would only be prolonged time and time again by another past event on to infinity and never occur. But today did happen (and this debate), Thus illustrating this impossibility. I recommend you check out the Herbert's hotel paradox as my favorite example of this: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=j_q802eboxA

So what does this entail? This means that the universe is not infinite, But instead had a start. This is also the best explanation in modern science, As NASA details: "Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be. The mathematical underpinnings of the Big Bang theory include Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles. "(2) (see citation below)

For the Conclusion.

This means that there must have been a start to the universe, But is it God?

There are only two things that would fit in this conclusion: 1. An unembodied mind or 2. Abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects cannot cause anything, So we are left with an external transcendence personal cause which is what we mean by God.

First, This entity must not by physical, As physical things cannot create physical things. Second this entity must be all powerful, As to create the vast expanses of time and space itself would require ultimate power. Next this Creator must be uncaused as to fit the conclusion. Finally this Being must be the paradigm of good, Backing the existence of moral truths, Evil being a rejection of these moral truths.

I hope you well in this debate and equally hope for good clash

To truth! -logicae

Citation:
(1) (Definition of Atheism)
https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/atheism

(2) (NASA and Big Bang Theory)
https://science. Nasa. Gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang
omar2345

Con

I will be taking the side of the atheist. I personally take the stance that I do not know but I can make an argument why there are no good reasons to be a theist.

You forgot to add the definition of reason I will do it for you
Reason: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense
I chose C from Merriam Webster

Premise 1:

Believing in God is illogical. God is given so many titles it would be difficult to explain how God exists or might even be impossible.

Premise 2:

All arguments for God are flawed. Lets take your Kalam Cosmological Argument.
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause
Cause is not sufficient grounds to explain the existence of God. Afterwards you did ask the question Where did the universe come from? This states that even you do not know what caused the universe which leads me to believe you went straight to God without explaining how it could be God.

Premise 3:

No evidence so it is a belief. Belief does not require reason and the definition I gave requires a logical defense or ground of explanation which I am assuming you cannot do.

I will keep to these. Bear in mind Pro requires to give a logical defense for God. If Pro wants to know what I specifically want it to be reason it is evidence. If none is given then tell me how it is logical to base anything without evidence. If not then it is not reasonable to be a theist.

Like the title of the debate by the way can be misleading but I will let it slide.

May we both learn something new


Source:

https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/reason




Debate Round No. 1
logicae

Pro

Salutations omar2345!

Nice to see you have accepted this debate.
I have one question regarding your position:

"I will be taking the side of the atheist. I personally take the stance that I do not know but I can make an argument why there are no good reasons to be a theist. "

If I understand you right, You don"t personally believe in Atheism, But will you be able to defend and give arguments for its side this debate? It is important that this debate is not Agnosticism vs Theism.

Forgive me for not having the definition of reason, As the topic was only an analogy to get us thinking, That being said it is Theism vs Atheism.

Now to the debate:

I started off this debate with two contentions:
1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist)
2. There is good reason for Theism

To start off this second round I will defend the first contention:

You brought out three premises to this debate (please fact check) So I suppose this is your position on side Atheist.

Premise 1:
Believing in God is illogical. God is given so many titles it would be difficult to explain how God exists or might even be impossible.
Premise 2:
All arguments for God are flawed.
Premise 3:
No evidence so it is a belief.

(And I believe your conclusion was belief = not proven reasonable)

To premise 1,

You say that Believing in God is illogical because he has so many titles, But I ask why? A scientist will describe a new species of animal for example by giving it titles such as Carnivore, Nocturnal, Etc, But it doesn't follow that that animal is impossible or doesn"t exist. Similarly God has many titles/attributes that we find through logical reasoning, But it doesn"t follow that he doesn"t exist. In conclusion we find that titles are not a reason to discount something"s existence.

To premise 2,
"All arguments for God are flawed. "

I hope that you don"t mean this literally, But if so please explain why. This is what a hasty generalization fallacy is, A stereotype without evidence to support it. In order for this to be true you would also need to provide a deductive argument to why all evidence for God is flawed.

To premise 3,

I agree with you that a belief without evidence is not logical, But that doesn"t make it untrue. At best this debate is 50-50 as you have given no evidence for the belief in Atheism as I asked in the round before.

That being said, I did give you a fundamental deductive argument for God"s existence to which you responded and that leads me back to my second contention, Namely that there is good reason for Theism.

Before I get into my responses, I would like to ask if you find anything wrong with the premises and the conclusion established? You seem to skip them and critique my analysis of the conclusion. In other words, It seems that your agree that there is a cause, But you just contend that it isn"t God. Please let me know if this is the case.

Now on to your analysis,

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause
"Cause is not sufficient grounds to explain the existence of God. "

- > I would disagree in this case, Why is that so? What we mean by God, Is the fundamental creator of the universe. In addition this "cause" has certain attributes that makes him different than other causes (As I explained in round 1) and is what we call God. Please take a look at them and then respond in order to back up this claim.

"Afterwards you did ask the question Where did the universe come from? This states that even you do not know what caused the universe which leads me to believe you went straight to God without explaining how it could be God. "

-> Yes I did ask that question, The purpose was to illustrate the significance of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and set up my answer (which I explained in detail) that it is God.
Please take a look at my explanation of God"s attributes before you rush to a "god of the gaps" and ask yourself what is wrong with those.

To truth! -logicae
omar2345

Con

If I understand you right, You don"t personally believe in Atheism, But will you be able to defend and give arguments for its side this debate? It is important that this debate is not Agnosticism vs Theism.
I think an atheist would say I don't know about the existence of a God but do not shy away from critiquing modern religions. If you have to press me on an answer I would say I lack the belief of God/s.


Premise 1:
Believing in God is illogical. God is given so many titles it would be difficult to explain how God exists or might even be impossible.
Premise 2:
All arguments for God are flawed.
Premise 3:
No evidence so it is a belief.
Agree with this.

(And I believe your conclusion was belief = not proven reasonable)
Assuming that reason in my eyes requires evidence which belief in a religion does not offer. If that is not what you meant can you clarify it in the comments? So that I understand what you are saying.

My Premise 1 rebuttal
But I ask why?

God as in the case for Christianity. Is omniscient or all knowing. Meaning God knows what will or is going to happen. If parallel universes do exists then God knows what will happen in every different universe past, Present and future. We as humans cannot fathom knowing that much inform. That is why God is illogical. To retain that much information for a human is impossible even using machines to do so. I highly doubt even the Internet I don't think can handle that. The Internet would require servers. God knows everything and lets say everything is posted on a word document. To say that file size of that file would not be infinite would be a lie if parallel universes are true. If this is the only reality and when a choice is made another universe is not created then it might be manageable to gather every single point of data from the start of the universe until the present if the universe or Earth is 6, 000 years old. If it isn't and science is right then I highly doubt we can even hold the information using our tools not even mentioning processing the information. What I mean by information is everything that existed in each time. Basically we cannot or comprehend a thing that can hold that much data. It is llogical for us to believe this on just belief. I would say an outstanding claim would require outstanding evidence.

In conclusion we find that titles are not a reason to discount something"s existence.
If I did not make it clear above. We cannot fathom such a thing that can hold such information and the last sentence above would be my blanket statement.

My Premise 2 rebuttal
This is what a hasty generalization fallacy is
I did not do it on purpose. I wanted you to give me an argument that was not flawed to prove me wrong. Hopefully you would give one in the next. Yes it can be perceived as a absolute statement but it was also a blanket statement. The fault is mine. I should have been more clear.

In order for this to be true you would also need to provide a deductive argument to why all evidence for God is flawed.
I can do that to the arguments you make. I want you to pick the relevant arguments so that I am not mis-characterizing your stance and if I did all arguments I would require more then 8, 000 words.

My Premise 3
But that doesn"t make it untrue
Fair point. I simply stated the belief in itself does not make it true. Using science, Logic or reasoning would make it true. If it was believed to be true it is still a belief. Yes reasoning, Logic or science can say it is true but the belief did not make it true. If you mean subjective truth then everything is true to someone so I don't know where either of us are supposed to go with that.

as you have given no evidence for the belief in Atheism as I asked in the round before.
Did you? I don't think you made it clear or maybe I misread. I have read it again and there was no mention of burden of proof or evidence or proof that you stated in your Round 1. Maybe it is a fault of mine. You can state it in your next round and quote something you said in Round 1 that you think made it clear that I had a burden of proof. A belief does not require evidence but I will give some anyway.

The reason why Atheism is a better belief to have then Theism is because all God's that are mentioned today either are forgotten or have flaws. More specifically the Christianic one. God cannot be all knowing while also giving free will. If you mean free will in the confides of what God allows that is not free will. Free will if God did say it would be the freedom to go against God wishes. Wishes would be to me God's plans. The plans would be visions or whatever God has that determines what happens. Can a human go against what God predicted? Yes then we have free will but God is not all-knowing. No we do not have free will but God is all-knowing.

You might say well what about the hypothetical God? All ideas are limited to our perceptions. We cannot know something we do not know. Circular reasoning but it does make sense. An Atheist is a person who found flaws in religions that they know of and rejected the religion due to those flaws. Someone can be born atheist but it is unlikely that will go through life without knowing a religion. Someone might die in their childhood but I did try to fit a majority not all cases since that would be impossible for any human to have every person's case in mind. As of right now. Never know what might happen in the future.

Before I get into my responses, I would like to ask if you find anything wrong with the premises and the conclusion established? You seem to skip them and critique my analysis of the conclusion. In other words, It seems that your agree that there is a cause, But you just contend that it isn"t God. Please let me know if this is the case.
I used my first round to lay out my premises. I'll try to poke holes in your premises.

Your Premise 1
We know that all physical things began with some sort of cause, As something cannot come from nothing.
To improve your sentence since we do not everything that has occurred. As far as we know all physical things began with some sort of cause. As something cannot come from nothing. As far as we know was added to make sure we both have the idea that it is from our perception not an outside reality perspective where we can see everything looking in. I didn't understand your example so I leave it out that from my rebuttal and I did not think that was needed.

Your Premise 2
In reality we know absurdities such as an actual infinite cannot exist
I agree if this is the only reality. If there alternative realities do not exist then this would be right. I think infinite is tagged on to thing because we have not found an answer to it. When we do then that would be removed. I'll watch the video after finishing my Round comment.

But instead had a start.
I agree with that.

I would disagree in this case, Why is that so? What we mean by God, Is the fundamental creator of the universe. In addition this "cause" has certain attributes that makes him different than other causes

God: the Being perfect in power, Wisdom, And goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
That would be the definition. A beginning can happen without a being with perfect power, Wisdom, Goodness. This can be seen with evolution. You might equate to God since I don't believe God exists I simply state that evolution was not God so it does not require God to be the creator. I guess I would go with the Big Bang. You might say who started the Big Bang? I then would stay who created God? We would gives answers not sufficient for either of us. I will say the Big Bang can be the start. Nothing is impossible until proven otherwise. I would say this is an absolute statement. If not satisfied what would you find difficult to believe about the Big Bang?

Yes I did ask that question, The purpose was to illustrate the significance of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause
That would be the argument you made. Can the cause be not the creator? Yes so I can believe that the Big Bang started. That falls in line with a cause just like God.

There are only two things that would fit in this conclusion: 1. An unembodied mind or 2. Abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects cannot cause anything, So we are left with an external transcendence personal cause which is what we mean by God.

I could go the route that this is a fallacy but I will try to give another argument. Why can't the laws be the cause? We don't have enough information to say other wise so it would be a theory just like a God. From our limited time being intelligent creatures with our limited perception can you think we might possibly not have enough information to say how the universe was created? God can be a plausible argument but when we have enough proof that a God exists then we would have to choose which God is true. That part is only a food for thought not part of my argument but which God is true would still be a problem if it is more plausible then other arguments.

First, This entity must not by physical, As physical things cannot create physical things. Second this entity must be all powerful, As to create the vast expanses of time and space itself would require ultimate power. Next this Creator must be uncaused as to fit the conclusion. Finally this Being must be the paradigm of good, Backing the existence of moral truths, Evil being a rejection of these moral truths.

That is an assumption with the evidence you have. Physical things can create physical things (babies). Don't have enough space to address all the claim here but God does not need to be good to be God. That would be a might makes right argument. As far as we know might does not make right so God is no different. I will rebut other claims of these at the starting of my next Round argument.

May we still learn something new


Source: https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/god

Debate Round No. 2
logicae

Pro

Round 3! Joyful that we have made it farther than most structured debates on this website. May we continue!

I want to point out a few things, First thanks for taking the duty of proving atheism true, I did indeed point that out as a criteria for the con side in round one: "In this debate we are debating Theism vs Atheism and so there must be reasons to support both sides, Meaning that there must be a statement of fact by both sides, Not just a statement of unbelief as agnosticism. "

Glad that this is cleared up.

Next I am happy that we agree to your premise structure.

"Assuming that reason in my eyes requires evidence which belief in a religion does not offer. If that is not what you meant can you clarify it in the comments? So that I understand what you are saying. "

My summary of your conclusion was basically Belief in God = not proven reasonable. Sorry for the shortened version.

That being said, I want to examine some resolutional analysis to clear any future questions:

1st, I think we agree now that it is the debate Pro for God"s existence and Con Against God"s existence.
2nd the Weighing mechanism will be the evidence for your side (including refutation of opponent"s arguments)
3rd and lastly what evidence and arguments is strongest will determine the winner.

So let"s jump right in:

Starting once again with my first contention, (there are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist)) I will examine your responses to my look at your premises:

Premise 1

Before I get into responses, I will agree that it is amazing and unimaginable how much power God has (and so I feel for you when you express doubt in His power). There are many things which fascinate me, My favorite extremity being is that of the Black Hole.

"If parallel universes do exists then God knows what will happen in every different universe past, Present and future. We as humans cannot fathom knowing that much inform. That is why God is illogical. "

First, I would agree if God was human, Or physical for that matter, Than He could not possible do these things, But God is not human or physical material (and yes he is not a computer chip for that matter), But God is being itself, Who by definition exists outside of space and time and created all matter. It is not illogical for a Being of maximally great power to be able to do these things (you just have to prove he doesn"t exist).

Second, I would say doubt doesn"t make something untrue, For example: I could doubt that God does not exist, But unless I provide sound reasoning for this, I can"t simply say that my doubt makes this statement untrue.

"It is illogical for us to believe this on just belief. I would say an outstanding claim would require outstanding evidence. "

I agree that just one belief this is crazy, But bringing you back to the deductive arguments for God, This is not founded on plain belief. Please go back to my analysis of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for example.

At first glance the second sentence here seems reasonable, But you have to ask:
a. Why do we need outstanding evidence? To start, We find crazy cosmic truths all over the universe using simple logic. Black holes for example are measured by the things they suck in, Nothing special. But these cosmic vacuum monsters are said suck in everything, Nothing can escape, Even light. We can"t see them but we know they are there, The same goes for God.

b. What "crazy" evidence are you looking for? The universe was said to come into being from nothing! But nothing comes out of nothing, So I think the most outstanding piece of evidence is that fact that the Universe popped into being out of nothing, As if by a miracle and therefore God. (pun intended ;)

"In conclusion we find that titles are not a reason to discount something"s existence. "

If I did not make it clear above. We cannot fathom such a thing that can hold such information and the last sentence above would be my blanket statement. "

I wish we could fully understand Black Holes too, But this still doesn"t disprove their existence, Nor God"s.

Premise 2

"I did not do it on purpose. I wanted you to give me an argument that was not flawed to prove me wrong. Hopefully you would give one in the next. Yes it can be perceived as a absolute statement but it was also a blanket statement. The fault is mine. I should have been more clear. "

1. It"s all good. Glad that we can get that out of the way though.
2. I gave one in the first round, (going to abbreviate it now to save room) the KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument). You have 3. Still yet to disprove this nor my conclusions of it.

"I can do that to the arguments you make. I want you to pick the relevant arguments so that I am not mis-characterizing your stance and if I did all arguments I would require more then 8, 000 words. "

1. Are you saying that you cannot fit an argument here? If not can you at least give an outline to a deductive argument for Atheism?

Premise 3

"
Fair point. I simply stated the belief in itself does not make it true. Using science, Logic or reasoning would make it true. If it was believed to be true it is still a belief. Yes reasoning, Logic or science can say it is true but the belief did not make it true. If you mean subjective truth then everything is true to someone so I don't know where either of us are supposed to go with that. "

I didn't mean to say subjective, I simply stated that premise 3 doesn"t prove anything. The funny thing is that Truth by definition is an objective fact, And so it is contradictory to say "subjective truth".

" I have read it again and there was no mention of burden of proof or evidence or proof that you stated in your Round 1. "

I placed the quote up above in this post.

"A belief does not require evidence but I will give some anyway. "

A rational one does, One that proves to be true.

"The reason why Atheism is a better belief to have then Theism is because all God's that are mentioned today either are forgotten or have flaws. More specifically the Christian one. "

Please do not do a whole to part fallacy, We are only discussing the God of Theism (and yes the Christian God)
I agree that there are irrational gods like the gods of Greek mythology, But those were only plain unsubstantiated stories, Even ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle noted this and still deductively found the Theistic God. In other words, Theism"s claim for God is unlike all other claims for gods.

Now to your new arguments:

"God cannot be all knowing while also giving free will. If you mean free will in the confines of what God allows that is not free will. Free will if God did say it would be the freedom to go against God wishes. Wishes would be to me God's plans. "

1. Free will is simple, It is the ability to reject or accept God"s will.
2. Why? Are you saying that God cannot have a good reason for granting us free will? There are many good things that come from free will: Independence, Love, Etc. It is what it means to be human.
3. This simply does not disprove God"s existence.

"The plans would be visions or whatever God has that determines what happens. Can a human go against what God predicted? Yes then we have free will but God is not all-knowing. No we do not have free will but God is all-knowing. "

I agree, To the second sentence, But to the rest:

1. Why can"t I have free will and God be all knowing? Please set a rational for this.
2. God can let people have free will even though they can reject him. Without free will we would be as useless as robots, As instead of being able to choose God out of love, We would be forced. Indeed freewill is a good that God thankfully decided to give us.

"We cannot know something we do not know. "
1. Agreed
"Circular reasoning but it does make sense. "
1. Agreed
2. What does not make sense about God? Again, When you prove something deductively, That means the rational is absolute, It is proven factual. Please instead talk about how my deductive reasoning is false. It is important that you attack the logic of God and not pretend that there is no evidence for God.

"An Atheist is a person who found flaws in religions that they know of and rejected the religion due to those flaws. "

Are you familiar with Agnosticism? This modern definition of Atheism seems to confuse people, As classical Atheism is simply the opposite of Theism (hence the A - Theism), Meaning instead of believing in God, Atheism rejects God. Now I understand that you do not believe that God is not real, But you are not yet convinced of either Theism or Atheism. This is Agnosticism. So then it is important that you find real reasons for Atheism (that God cannot exist) rather than just writing off Theism. Both sides of a debate must prove their side true.

"Someone can be born atheist but it is unlikely that will go through life without knowing a religion. "

If that is really Atheism, Than I find it unintelligible, As it asserts a two year old to have the same belief. Please tell me you have found reason beyond this. But I think rather that you cannot hold a world view when you are born, You simply do not start outs knowing anything and so Atheism (rejection of God) could not be an innate quality of everyone.

Now to your response to the KCA:

Premise 1:

"As far as we know all physical things began with some sort of cause. As something cannot come from nothing. "

1. Good, Glad we agree. So then I find no objection to premise one

"As far as we know was added to make sure we both have the idea that it is from our perception not an outside reality perspective where we can see everything looking in. "

1. Then we are all insane, But thankfully to the contrary I think that we all know what the reality of things are, As philosophy and science is based on constant principles that allow us to deductively discover the objective truths of our reality.

And so premise 1 still stands

Ran out of room, So I will be extending debate into the comments:
omar2345

Con

Round 3! Joyful that we have made it farther than most structured debates on this website. May we continue!
Don't worry about it. I haven't quit yet on this site and don't have any reason do quit for this debate.

Premise 1

First, I would agree if God was human, Or physical for that matter
What I am getting through this is that. God is not human and non-physical. My argument was God being illogical. Why? We cannot apply reason to God which is why it is illogical. Can we find out God is all-knowing, All-powerful etc no. Theists based that upon belief. They do not actually know. So going by logic theists believing is illogical because God cannot be reasoned into existence if we were being honest instead say God did this and that without answering how and why.
Logic:a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (Merriam Webster)

by definition exists outside of space and time and created all matter.
This is why I wanted you to define God. I will do it for you. The universe means he is apart of our universe. No mention of outside space so you assumed that instead going by what the definition.
God: : the Being perfect in power, Wisdom, And goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe (Merriam Webster)

I would say doubt doesn"t make something untrue, For example: I could doubt that God does not exist, But unless I provide sound reasoning for this, I can"t simply say that my doubt makes this statement untrue.
God is illogical. My point still stands. We cannot provide solid reasoning for God's existence. We have no evidence only belief.

Please go back to my analysis of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for example.
I thought I made it clear the argument is flawed therefore you are analysing a flawed argument. I guess I will rebut the argument again without your analysation because first the argument has to be true before your analysation could be.
Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore, The universe has a cause
Theist's stretch cause to be God. Another way this falls flat is God goes against the first premise. If God existed without a cause then Kalam Cosmological Argument is wrong.
(I used this from an earlier forum post that was mine) This should be enough to debunk this argument. If you have problems stick quote what I said and tell me what I did wrong. You did say: Pro for God"s existence so you agree God does exist. Meaning if this argument was true God will also require a cause. If God does not the argument is wrong.

Why do we need outstanding evidence?
It was more of a blanket statement, But I will tell you why we need it for God. God is the most powerful going by the definition I used above. If we have no evidence stating how God does it, Why then we are not answering the most important ones of the 5 W's. How is important in telling us where should we point to God doing something and why would make sure all religions that do not the same as God itself are wrong. Note this would happen if we can actually test God. As far as I know we cannot. You made the argument about black holes. We can apply logic to black holes to say it does exist. We cannot apply logic to God because God does not exist and from what you said I don't think you have made argument that I have not rebutted about your side that is pro God's existence. Black hole is simply something that devours matter. Yes that really boils it down but lets take God. Perfect power, Wisdom, Goodness and worshiped by all. No one worships the same God and everything makes it require outstanding evidence because of pedestal God is on. Without outstanding evidence how do you prove God's existence?

b. What "crazy" evidence are you looking for? The universe was said to come into being from nothing! But nothing comes out of nothing, So I think the most outstanding piece of evidence is that fact that the Universe popped into being out of nothing, As if by a miracle and therefore God. (pun intended ;)
Not evidence by the way. You saying nothing comes out of nothing goes against God. What caused God? Is God the start? If so that goes against your statement nothing comes out of nothing. The logic you are using here is I don't know what created the universe so I will use the thing that is close to me God. That is not how logic works. We do not have enough information about the beginning of universe to make an informed decision so everything is theories. Yes we can find holes in theories like God. God cannot exist because that goes your arguments that go in lines of cause and effect. What caused God?

I wish we could fully understand Black Holes too, But this still doesn"t disprove their existence, Nor God"s.
The sentence above stated we require full understanding of black holes to know it does exist but we don't. If we can find something in space that is devouring matter we can equate that to black holes. On the other hand God does not also require full understanding to know God exists. We only require evidence to the claim of God. We can ask God why but that is not required for God's existence. I still have not seen evidence for God and if you ask for evidence from me. I would say the more rational position would be to disbelieve then to believe it.

Premise 2

You have 3. Still yet to disprove this nor my conclusions of it.
Did not have room for it.

1. Are you saying that you cannot fit an argument here? If not can you at least give an outline to a deductive argument for Atheism?
Had no space so I will add it here.
Atheism is the rejection of the God's people follow today. The reason why this is right is because religion have flaws in the book which they state is from God. Mentioning only Christianity since it is the most popular one. Hebrew cannot be fully translated nor does it have numbers. Love and God are the same word in Hebrew which is a problem when reading the Bible. Numbers did not exist so they are using words like first, Second, Third to make numbers. That is wrong and when translating a word Hebrew has masculine and feminine versions of the same word. Meaning when translating you have to find something similar in both to make the Hebrew word then it can be translated. So Hebrew is required to be translated twice and even that is wrong. With the link below I see that by finding something similar for it to be translated to 2 the word they have come up with is not in the masculine nor the feminine versions of the word.

Premise 3

I simply stated that premise 3 doesn"t prove anything.
I didn't need to require to prove the existence of God because I do not say God exists. The burden of proof is on your end and you have not fulfilled it. Since this is a debate I have stated arguments and my premise is correct since there is no evidence for the existence of God.

We are only discussing the God of Theism (and yes the Christian God)
You know you could have made it more clear that it was about the Christian God. Oh well. At least I did target it to Christianity. There is no God of theism. There are many different Gods theist's believe in so your statement is wrong.

Theism"s claim for God is unlike all other claims for gods.
I guessing your are changing the definition. The definition does not state what is true theism. If I am wrong with my assumption then the God of theism is different in every religion. Even the Abrahamic ones, They do not agree what God does so how are there God's the same?
Theism: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world (Merriam Webster)

1. Free will is simple, It is the ability to reject or accept God"s will.
2. Why? Are you saying that God cannot have a good reason for granting us free will? There are many good things that come from free will: Independence, Love, Etc. It is what it means to be human.
3. This simply does not disprove God"s existence.
Free will:
voluntary choice or decision orfreedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. (Merriam Webster)
1st one yes but that definition is too simple. The second definition (after the or) states without divine intervention. Where humans free to not be forced into writing Bible? Are humans free to go against what God already knows what will happen? No. If you want me show you only you also agree. A quote from you: But nothing comes out of nothing You did make a similar point in Round 1 but I will stick to this. By you agreeing to this free will does not exist. We are all affected by prior causes even though you do not think you are. We cannot make choices not determined by our prior causes. These causes can be going to school, Going to church, Being raised by a select family. All this has made you the person today. You did not choose to learn what you did when you did. You did not get the choice to be born. You did not get the choice for going to church. All that has made logicae that is debating me now. Yes you can choose simply to not go church, Not go church, Not go school but that is determined by prior causes. Maybe you saw me right this and said I want to prove him wrong. I can say me speaking about free will was the prior cause of changing your mind.

Why can"t I have free will and God be all knowing?
If God knows what we are going to do before we do it then how do we have a choice? We don't since God already knew the choice we are going to make. You might at that moment we had free will but I tailored an example to you above.

Without free will we would be as useless as robots
Does not mean my argument is wrong.

Indeed freewill is a good that God thankfully decided to give us.
Assuming it to be true not proving it to be the case.


Source:

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Hebrew_numerals


Debate Round No. 3
logicae

Pro

Here is the rest of my round 3 responses:

Sorry I am so late, It deleted my post and I had to restart once I realized the glitch

Premise 2:

"I agree if this is the only reality. If there alternative realities do not exist then this would be right. I think infinite is tagged on to thing because we have not found an answer to it. When we do then that would be removed. "

-1. You really have not responded to my argument of infinites, Simply if infinites don"t exist, Then we cannot have an infinite of anything, Even universes. Please show me how infinites exist in reality.
2. Even if we had all of these universes(which you haven't proven as of yet), They would still need a cause, As you agreed that everything has a cause and this cannot go on to infinity. An example to illustrate this would be a train. You can say that the train cars of a train only go on for so long until we reach the source of the motion, The engine. This does not work with an infinite series of train cars, As the train cars do not explain why they are moving, But instead there must be an end, The engine, To explain the motion. The universe (or universes) is the train cars and God is the engine.

And so premise 2 still stands

"A beginning can happen without a being with perfect power, Wisdom, Goodness. "
The beginning of something within the physical constraints sure, But we are talking about the creations of everything, Space, Time, Matter, So you cannot just simply ignore the power required to do this. The same thing goes for goodness and wisdom as they are part of creation.

"This can be seen with evolution. You might equate to God since I don't believe God exists I simply state that evolution was not God so it does not require God to be the creator. "

Actually I will turn this argument, Because evolution does not explain itself, Nor the extremely improbable factors by which it claims to have happened. Ask yourself, Could something so improbable happen by chance? But even if you agree that all of this happened by chance, This still ignores the question how it all got here. Please look back to the KCA.

"I then would stay who created God? "

This is an absurd argument. To deduce a cause, You don"t need to find its cause. If that were true, Then we would never be able to detect the cause of anything, Because as we found one cause, We would need to find its cause, Etc to infinity and nothing would be true. But as I pointed out earlier there must be a cause to everything, A engine if you will to everything.

"I will say the Big Bang can be the start. "

Earlier we agreed that everything has a cause, So then you now say that nothing caused everything (the big bang). This contradicts and you must acknowledge a cause to the Big Bang. An engine must exist.

"If not satisfied what would you find difficult to believe about the Big Bang? "
That nothing caused something, Simple.

"Can the cause be not the creator? Yes so I can believe that the Big Bang started. That falls in line with a cause just like God. "

Why? Again you give no reason for this statement, As I proved this false in the first round.
The Big Bang does not fall in line with God, As the Big Bang cannot justify itself, It needs a cause.

Why can't the laws be the cause?

Because laws cannot explain themselves, They need to be created and they cannot create, Only dictate.

"From our limited time being intelligent creatures with our limited perception can you think we might possibly not have enough information to say how the universe was created? "

I find this an ad hominem in disguise, As it does not address my point. The rest of the paragraph is like it.

"Physical things can create physical things (babies)"

Yes, In the sense that the material is reformed, But physical things cannot actually create new matter. Hence I can"t make my toaster pop out a baby that didn"t consist of available matter. (weird analogy, But you get the point XD)

"God does not need to be good to be God. "
What is good? It would depend on what you mean by good. (Keep in mind good is just a shortened version of God) Goodness is just a statement of perfect being, Creation as it was intended to be, God wills things to be a certain way and evil is just a rejection of that. God doesn"t contradict his own will and so God cannot be evil.

Now to your round rebuttal:

"Don't worry about it. I haven't quit yet on this site and don't have any reason do quit for this debate. "
1. Happy you have that commitment!

"We cannot apply reason to God which is why it is illogical. Can we find out God is all-knowing, All-powerful etc no. "

1. Why? Circular reasoning.
2. Agreed do definition of logic, Now prove me wrong

"The universe means he is apart of our universe. No mention of outside space so you assumed that instead going by what the definition. "

1. No it does not, You cannot be your creation (example: A builder cannot build himself)
2. By definition you put forth, God is the creator of the Universe, Meaning he existed before it.
I think it is pretty obvious what the Theistic God is. But regardless I spelled it out in the first round and here is it in basic form:

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (Oxford Dictionary)

Simply God is the creator of the universe.

"God is illogical. My point still stands. We cannot provide solid reasoning for God's existence. We have no evidence only belief. "

1. Circular reasoning, Cross apply above response.

"Theist's stretch cause to be God. Another way this falls flat is God goes against the first premise. If God existed without a cause then Kalam Cosmological Argument is wrong.
(I used this from an earlier forum post that was mine) This should be enough to debunk this argument. "

1. Be careful before you start accusing people of "god of the gaps" arguments, Please take a look at my conclusions of the KCA and then talk about that instead.
2. That again does not debunk the KCA, As the premises have yet to be disproved.

"Meaning if this argument was true God will also require a cause. "

1. No as proved above there must be a first cause, An Engine if you must.
2. Cross apply my above argument above about needing to prove a cause to a cause to make it true, Simply a flawed argument.

"If we have no evidence stating how God does it, Why then we are not answering the most important ones of the 5 W's"

1. This is an assertion about no evidence, Please refute the KCA and let"s talk about that.
2. Cross apply above response, There must be an engine.

"We can apply logic to black holes to say it does exist. We cannot apply logic to God because God does not exist and from what you said I don't think you have made argument that I have not rebutted about your side that is pro God's existence. "

1. Assertion, Evidence needed.
2. Please reference my evidence for God. (KCA)

"What caused God? Is God the start? "

1. Cross apply response above

"If we can find something in space that is devouring matter we can equate that to black holes. On the other hand God does not also require full understanding to know God exists. "

1. Glad we agree here, This is a very reasonable stance that I unfortunately don"t see many Atheist take.

"Atheism is the rejection of the God's people follow today. The reason why this is right is because religion have flaws in the book which they state is from God. "

1. Does not disprove God.
2. I agree that religion is an important debate in itself, But this debate is not about the Bible or Christianity or for Religion for that matter. I would love to debate this if only we had enough room!

"I didn't need to require to prove the existence of God because I do not say God exists. The burden of proof is on your end and you have not fulfilled it. "

1. Assertion, Please show where I did not uphold my burden of proof.
2. Not a one sided debate. You have the burden of proof as well, Again as I have restated throughout this debate, You have to proof that God does not exist. We have yet to see this.

"my premise is correct since there is no evidence for the existence of God. "

1. Circular reasoning, Please prove this.

"You know you could have made it more clear that it was about the Christian God. Oh well. At least I did target it to Christianity. There is no God of theism. There are many different Gods Theist's believe in so your statement is wrong. "

1. What you are asserting is not what actually exists, As there are many religions that Believe in the one God that made the universe (Theism). Please show me how this disproves my above definition
2. Regardless I spelled out who God is in this debate when I examined His attributes in round one.

"Theism: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world (Merriam Webster)"

1. Yes, Proves my point. Here there is one God, That created the universe: Theism (what am I missing? ). Now I agree that every Theistic religion has their own off shoots from this, But we are debating the bare bones God and whether he exists or not. If you want to get into religion, We can debate this another time.

"We don't since God already knew the choice we are going to make. You might at that moment we had free will but I tailored an example to you above. "

1. If I knew someone was going to win the lottery by buying a ticket and then they bought the ticket, Were they then restricted and forced to bye the lottery ticket? No, This simply does not follow and so is it in God"s case. Also you are not a slave to your past, Not being able to choose the past does not mean that you can't make free decisions in the future. Please freely show me where I"m wrong.

Thanks again!

-Logicae
omar2345

Con

This is a bit confusing. I will require to look through two Rounds to see if I have addressed the point in the next Round or what Pro is saying I have not stated.


-1. You really have not responded to my argument of infinities, Simply if infinities don"t exist, Then we cannot have an infinite of anything, Even universes. Please show me how infinities exist in reality.
I said if. I would go with the Universe is finite. The cause does not require to be God. Leave it at that since I am sure I have addressed it in Round 3.

So you cannot just simply ignore the power required to do this. The same thing goes for goodness and wisdom as they are part of creation
I am not ignoring it. Power is relative. It may seem God has infinite power or it is perfect but current sources say otherwise. A President only has the power that the people offer him. Kim's power is on the basis of his dictatorship. God's power is if I assumed It's existence was only shown to create the universe. We do not know the full extent of It so it is all predication. Evidence has still not been found.

Because evolution does not explain itself
God does not explain itself. So I do not see your point. Being the creator of this universe does not mean he created others.

But as I pointed out earlier there must be a cause to everything,
If God is the cause of everything. God still requires a cause. You do not seem to see that. What created God?

So then you now say that nothing caused everything
Big Bang is nothing. It is the start of the universe. There was nothing before the start. Meaning the cause of the Big Bang was the start. So God causing everything? Nothing causing everything. God cannot just appear. Meaning God also came from something. The flaw you pointed out applies to God also. Mine does not require purpose therefore I cannot understand what It wants instead it just exists. God requires purpose and that is where Religion comes in.

An engine must exist.
God would also require an engine. If you cannot agree that the Big Bang cannot be the start of the universe then how can you agree God is the start of the Universe?

As the Big Bang cannot justify itself, It needs a cause.
As God cannot justify itself, It needs a cause. You are for the side that God exists. So how did God exist?

laws cannot explain themselves,
So I am guessing you require purpose for the start of the Universe? I don't see why that is the case. Evolution has no purpose because it is not sentient. For you to assume the universe requires sentience does require proof.

They need to be created and they cannot create
God can create but cannot be created is why I am getting from your stance. Which does not seem logical is something comes from something. God also requires a cause.

I find this an ad hominems in disguise
No it isn't. We only have 5 senses. We do not have a six once. Therefore the statement cannot be considered an Ad hominems in disguise. I don't know how an ad hominems can be in disguise.

God doesn"t contradict his own will and so God cannot be evil.
God can still be good with contradictions. So this requires burden of proof.

Agreed do definition of logic, Now prove me wrong
The burden of proof is on you to say how God is illogical. I am not saying God exists you are.

A builder cannot build himself
But a God can?

Meaning he existed before it.
We don't know there are other universes or there was a universe before this one.

I think it is pretty obvious what the Theistic God is.
No it isn't which is why there are so many religion. Why are Palestine and Israel fighting is they believe in the same God. Religion and theism are linked. You cannot have one without the other. I have not heard of a theist which is not apart of a Religion.

1. Circular reasoning, Cross apply above response.
No it wasn't. We do not have solid reasoning for God's existence therefore God is illogical.

1. Be careful before you start accusing people of "god of the gaps" arguments, Please take a look at my conclusions of the KCA and then talk about that instead.
This is the problem. An argument must first be first before the conclusions can be assessed. I stuck with the arguments because they are flawed. If the arguments are flawed then conclusion would be on a flawed argument. I don't see the point in rebutting the conclusion when the argument is wrong.

Assertion, Evidence needed.
I don't think it does. I am not supposed to prove God's non-existence you are supposed to prove God's existence.

1. Does not disprove God.
You are supposed to prove God's existence. God cannot have flaws since God is supposed to be the source of all moral authority. If he is wrong then he is not the source of all moral authority.

1. Assertion, Please show where I did not uphold my burden of proof.
Your arguments were the KCA and many other conclusions. Conclusions did rely on the KCA being right and I have proven KCA to be wrong.

1. Circular reasoning, Please prove this.
Again no it wasn't. No evidence for existence of God is not circular reasoning.

1. What you are asserting is not what actually exists, As there are many religions that Believe in the one God that made the universe (Theism). Please show me how this disproves my above definition
Allah is not Yahweh. Yahweh is not Allah. Allah says the Quran is It's holy book. Yahweh says the Bible is It's holy book. Both of them cannot be right therefore there is no God of theism.

2. Regardless I spelled out who God is in this debate when I examined His attributes in round one.
You missed out what God does. God either had divine intervention in the Torah, Bible, Quran etc. Without noticing this you are clearly removing what God does in order to say there is a God of theism which is simply not true.

But we are debating the bare bones God and whether he exists or not. If you want to get into religion, We can debate this another time.
The barebones is not what God can be simplified too. God is shown many different Religions. They all state what God does and 1 is right or all of them are wrong. Theism requires a belief in religion so we cannot not account for it.

If I knew someone was going to win the lottery by buying a ticket and then they bought the ticket
You are not all-knowing.

Were they then restricted and forced to bye the lottery ticket?
You forgot to mention the capabilities of God and you. God is the creator of the universe and you are a human. There is a difference.

Not being able to choose the past does not mean that you can't make free decisions in the future.
You might think you have decisions but there was only one outcome. The brain can make many illusions I can simply state the brain make another illusion. An illusion of choice.


logicae do not rebut what I said here. Rebut only what I said in Round 3. This is more of the same what I said in Round 3 but since you did not rebut my claims in Round 3 that requires rebutting and take priority in what I said here.

Debate Round No. 4
logicae

Pro

The final round has finally come! I thank you omar for taking part in this debate and I hope all who view this can truly take the evidence where it leads.

Now I want to take you back to my contentions of this round:

1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist)
2. There is good reason for Theism

1. In the first contention I asked Con to make the case against God and bring evidence to back this claim. I clearly made this rule in round one at the beginning:
"In this debate we are debating Theism vs Atheism and so there must be reasons to support both sides, Meaning that there must be a statement of fact by both sides, Not just a statement of unbelief as agnosticism. "

And so, By that rule we must be proving for and Against God's existence. The following round Con stated that his belief resided in a more agnostic Atheism, Which I then asked if that would affect his side for God does not exist. It seems since then that Con has swayed from the original debate guidelines and gone for a one-sided approach, Demanding and rebutting evidence from Pro for Theism, But not providing evidence for Atheism or God not existing.

Unfortunately, At best for Con the debate is 50-50 given there is no evidence for his side. Debates are meant to be two sided exchanges of information, Not a one-sided approach.

2. Now to my second Contention. In this debate I have presented the deductive argument for God named the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause

A deductive argument is an absolute statement, Meaning if the premises are true, Then the conclusion is true.

Here is my overall responses to Con"s objections in today's debate:

R = Response:

1. "Believing in God is illogical. God is given so many titles it would be difficult to explain how God exists or might even be impossible. "

R: My response to this point was essentially dropped. Titles do not make something illogical, As the numerous titles of a black hole do not make it illogical.

2. "We as humans cannot fathom knowing that much inform. That is why God is illogical. "

R: As agreed upon earlier, God is not a human and so he can do things beyond our abilities. Back holes for example have the power to take in all matter (including light) within a certain distance. Nothing else in the universe (including humans) can harness that power, But that doesn"t make black holes illogical. The same is true with God

3. "Circular reasoning but it does make sense. "

R: No proof for your side. I can simply counter assert that it is illogical to disbelieve in God and say it makes sense.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

To premise 1,

1. (we don"t know everything so it can"t be true)

R: You do not have to know everything to know something. Black holes for example are still largely unknown phenomena. We know that they exist and have the property of great gravitational forces, But we cannot see them or explain what really happens in them.

2. Cause is not sufficient grounds to explain the existence of God

R: Review the Attributes of God. I showed in the past debate, This cause to the universe has certain attributes (spaceless, Timeless, All-powerful, All-knowing, Etc) that would only this cause God. This was largely unresponded to and I hope Con finally recognizes this.

To premise 2

"I agree if this is the only reality. If there alternative realities do not exist then this would be right. I think infinite is tagged on to thing because we have not found an answer to it. "

R: Here I responded that in any reality, Infinities could not exist. Just like a married bachelor, An infinite is a paradox that contradicts itself and cannot exist. This is even well known and explained by scientist (most well known being David Hilbert) to be only an abstract idea and not a real principle of any reality. The impact here as most scientist agree is that the universe had a beginning.

To the Conclusion:

"A beginning can happen without a being with perfect power, Wisdom, Goodness. "
R: Sure, But as I pointed out out in my earlier responses this cause has these attributes

"Evolution explains everything"
R: My response here is simple, As Con agreed in round four, That evolution does not explain itself.

"Bigbang is the cause"
R: The Bigbang does not explain itself. This is just like saying a painting caused itself or anything really, Caused itself. No physical thing can cause itself. Instead something most have created the bigbang.

"Why can't the laws be the cause? "
R: As I pointed out earlier, Laws are literally created and cannot create.

"We need outstanding evidence to prove God"
R: Con seemed to agree to my response here, As this simply does not pan out to reality. We can prove amazing things without amazing evidence. Black holes for example.

"The Bible has Flaws"
R: Not relevant to this debate, All religion is: Man"s response to God. We are just debating if God exists, Not what Religion is true.

"God needs a cause"
R: This ignores the necessity of a causeless creator. First Con did not respond to the impossibility of infinites and so the causes of the universe cannot go on forever. Using my train analogy from earlier, Saying that God needs a cause is like saying a train engine needs an engine. We know that that is not true as an engine is all that is needed to pull a train. The universe is like a serious of a finite line of train cars and God is the engine that put it all into motivation.

These objections really do not disprove the KCA nor my conclusions of it.

In this final round my two contentions still stand and hopefully the case for truth has become clear.

To Truth! -logicae
omar2345

Con

I do owe some burden of proof but I did not see how logicae even completed his proof. An argument without a conclusion is not proof. It is not an argument which is what he did what KCA. This means logicae does not have proof for theism. If logicae did he would have shown proof for the belief in God. Reason is a different matter and I do also feel I gave the better argument and logicae my rebuttal to KCA.

I want to also thank Pro for making and staying for the debate. Next time hopefully it is just about the KCA argument or something more specific so that we both do not have the room to rebut each others arguments.


1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist)
2. There is good reason for Theism
I don't see how I did not successfully rebut your reasons and burden of proof was not fulfilled by your part.

And so, By that rule we must be proving for and Against God's existence. The following round Con stated that his belief resided in a more agnostic Atheism, Which I then asked if that would affect his side for God does not exist. It seems since then that Con has swayed from the original debate guidelines and gone for a one-sided approach, Demanding and rebutting evidence from Pro for Theism, But not providing evidence for Atheism or God not existing.
I did also gave arguments. See my Round 1.

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause

A deductive argument is an absolute statement, Meaning if the premises are true, Then the conclusion is true.
I believe that I gave enough contentions to disprove this argument. You said it here if the premises are not true the conclusion cannot be true. I stuck with the arguments and found many flaws. I did this in Round 1, 2 and 3.

Titles do not make something illogical, As the numerous titles of a black hole do not make it illogical.
The titles make it difficult to explain. All-knowing, All powerful, Everywhere requires proof for every single attribute. My statement is still true. Titles can make something illogical. The title do have definitions and my reasoning for it being difficult to explain God is everywhere is enough grounds to say it is illogical since to this day there is no evidence for God.

As agreed upon earlier, God is not a human and so he can do things beyond our abilities.
If we cannot know what something superior can be how do we fathom it, Put in into words and make it proof? The arguments still stands because none of our 5 senses can prove the existence of such a creature.

But that doesn"t make black holes illogical. The same is true with God
Black holes devour matter. God is all-knowing, All-powerful and everywhere. Do you see the difference between the two? Another difference is one can be seen and cannot as far as I know.

No proof for your side. I can simply counter assert that it is illogical to disbelieve in God and say it makes sense.
My argument was still correct even if it was circular reasoning. What cannot know something what we do not know.

You do not have to know everything to know something. Black holes for example are still largely unknown phenomena. We know that they exist and have the property of great gravitational forces, But we cannot see them or explain what really happens in them.
The probability of us seeing a black hole is higher then seeing God.

Review the Attributes of God. I showed in the past debate, This cause to the universe has certain attributes (spaceless, Timeless, All-powerful, All-knowing, Etc) that would only this cause God. This was largely unresponded to and I hope Con finally recognizes this.
For me to agree to your conclusions I must first agree with your premise. The KCA I debunked in 3 rounds. The 3 round would be my best attempt. I will copy my argument from Round 3 here:
Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore, The universe has a cause
Theist's stretch cause to be God. Another way this falls flat is God goes against the first premise. If God existed without a cause then Kalam Cosmological Argument is wrong.
(I used this from an earlier forum post that was mine) This should be enough to debunk this argument. If you have problems stick quote what I said and tell me what I did wrong. You did say: Pro for God"s existence so you agree God does exist. Meaning if this argument was true God will also require a cause. If God does not the argument is wrong.


Sure, But as I pointed out out in my earlier responses this cause has these attributes
The big bang can produce such a thing without requiring attributes or a purpose. I think you are making an intelligence design argument. If you are it is flawed since humans are flawed. The way Theists go around this is that God made us flawed even though God has the power to not make us flawed. That makes no sense and with the attributes God has it is illogical for God to create us flawed.

My response here is simple, As Con agreed in round four, That evolution does not explain itself.
I did not agree. Type in evolution and find it in Round 4 in logicae's response. He quoted me not conceding evolution.

R: The Big bang does not explain itself. This is just like saying a painting caused itself or anything really, Caused itself. No physical thing can cause itself. Instead something most have created the big bang.
God does not explain itself either. You said that anything cannot cause itself. If I am right in your statement God cannot cause Itself therefore God has a creator. This goes on infinitely if we go by your logic. Mine was not.

As I pointed out earlier, Laws are literally created and cannot create.
But a God can create itself if I don't follow your logic above about the Big Bang.

We can prove amazing things without amazing evidence. Black holes for example.
Black holes is a theory until proven to exist. As tools are updated we have more technology to prove that black holes do exist. From the source below it states that in July 12 2018 Fermi Traces Source of Cosmic Neutrino to Monster Black Hole so that would be proof of the black hole. Seems like God does not have the same evidence on Its side.
https://science. Nasa. Gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes

Not relevant to this debate, All religion is: Man"s response to God. We are just debating if God exists, Not what Religion is true.
For a God to be true a religion must also be true. Since God if real would either ask something of us or has no impact. First option requires Religion. The other does not but that was not what logicae was stating for since he did give attributes similar to what Christians believe not what a no impact God would have.

This ignores the necessity of a causeless creator. First Con did not respond to the impossibility of infinities and so the causes of the universe cannot go on forever. Using my train analogy from earlier, Saying that God needs a cause is like saying a train engine needs an engine. We know that that is not true as an engine is all that is needed to pull a train. The universe is like a serious of a finite line of train cars and God is the engine that put it all into motivation.
I made it clear I had two direction. One with infinities and the other finite. I am sure I stated I believed in a finite universe. Creator requires purpose. The Big Bang does not. It is not a necessity if the Big Bang can be the start of the Universe. The engine of the train requires a human. That human requires oxygen. So on so on. The engine doesn't just work by itself. It requires human input and if you want the engine of the train would be a human since without one the train would not move.

These objections really do not disprove the KCA nor my conclusions of it.
I say otherwise.

Hopefully we both have learnt something new
Debate Round No. 5
75 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Roi 2 days ago
Roi
Logicae, You say that atheists must also provide evidence for their beliefs. That is simply false. Atheism is not a claim, It is the rejection of theistic claims. One can reject a claim, Based on it not being supported by sufficient evidence, Meaning that if you don't provide sufficient evidence for God, Atheism would be the position that is reasonable to accept. To prove, You can't just say leprecons exist, Provide no evidence, And then say it's a 50-50 situation. If you state that leprecons don't exist, And provide no evidence, Or no sufficient evidence, The correct position would be that leprecons don't exist. Same thing with God. If you say that God exists, But you don't provide sufficient evidence, The correct position would be that God does not exist; atheism. The burden of proof lies on you and not on the atheistic side, Just like it would lie on you if you claimed that leprecons exist, And the opposition would not carry a burden of proof.
Posted by backwardseden 3 days ago
backwardseden
@logicae - Remember when I said in response to. . . "I'm not sure what made you so angry towards me". I'm not. But I have an extreme distaste for those who do not have an education or intelligence on the subject(s) that they profess to having knowledge upon and they really don't, And yet they pretend that they do. And because they don't they invent excuses for it and or flat out lie. You just did it. When this happens, You will soon have no genuine friends or loved ones if it keeps up (hey you may not now) and your teachers will ALWAYS mark that paper with an F. And it is my right to degrade, Dehumanize and belittle you or walk away. This is something that is taught in college.

Noi speaking of black holes. Let's look at them. Your god favors black holes over man. There are supermassive black holes at the centers of each large galaxy in the known universe. There are at least 125 billion galaxies in the known universe. There have o even been 125 billion people ---ever--- here on planet earth. Not only that but what are black holes other than nothingness? So your god favors nothingness over man. Not only that but black holes in effect are super mega weapons that swallow everything that gets close to them, Including light. So your god loves super mega weapons. Not only that but for many spiral galaxies, Black holes control them. The one that is at the heart of the Milky Way is one. Indeed your god, In which you cannot even prove even exists, Easily favors black holes over man. Please tc and have fun.
Posted by omar2345 4 days ago
omar2345
@logicae

"logicae do not rebut what I said here. Rebut only what I said in Round 3. This is more of the same what I said in Round 3 but since you did not rebut my claims in Round 3 that requires rebutting and take priority in what I said here. "
That above is wrong. I did not know you were also rebutting my Round 3 claims. I did rebut your claims but did not realise the source was coming from so I rebutted your claims from the quotes you have given me. Mistake on my part. For this reason I think my Round 4 would be lacking since I thought you would be responding to what I said in Round 3 in Round 5.
Posted by omar2345 4 days ago
omar2345
@logicae

Could you not have included your Round 2 rebuttals in Round 4?

Some of these points have become null or only require a few sentences to clear up. Next Round can you stick to what I said in Round 3?
Posted by logicae 4 days ago
logicae
@canis

"Great to be an atheist. . It takes no "faith" at all. . A theist is just debating dreams"

I respect your opinion, But I fear that this is only what this is. Please show me how that is true by proving:

1. The deductive proofs for God false (take the Kalam Cosmological Argument for example) and by
2. Showing me deductively how God cannot exist.

Answering these questions will be a real look into this issue.

Thanks for the comment!

To Truth! -logicae
Posted by logicae 4 days ago
logicae
@jackgilbert

About that activity you were talking about.

1. The evidence for God will be found within the circle. An example of this will be the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Please respond to this instead.
2. Draw outside of the circle "God does not exist" as there is still no deductive proof of this.

@backwardseden

I will let your ad hominem attacks slide from the past, But I still have yet to see a logical response to my questions from you. God is an important question that should not be covered with blatant attacks on people. If you want to have an objective conversation then please instead insert logic to your arguments and show me how:

1. Deductive proof for God is false. (take the Kalam for example)
2. How God cannot deductively exist.

Thanks,

To Truth! -logicae
Posted by logicae 4 days ago
logicae
I have to agree with @GuitarSlinger about not needing to know everything to know if something exists or not. A great example of this (As seen in this debate) is our limited knowledge of black holes. Although we don't know everything about them, We know that they exist by the way they affect their environments. Indeed you do not need to know everything to know something, In this case the existence of God.

Thoughts?

To Truth! -logicae
Posted by backwardseden 4 days ago
backwardseden
Oh and jackiebaby is also a compulsive liar. He's been caught in many lies.
Posted by backwardseden 4 days ago
backwardseden
@Adrian14 - Though jack will ---never--- get it, You might and I think you will. Here's what the definition of an atheist is. . . 1. "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. " Notice that word "disbelieves"? In other words, Its NOT definitive nor is it absolute. And that all an atheist is. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Atheists are bound by nothing except for that definition whereas theists are bound by their little blank black book in which no one, Not one person, Not ever has proven any hint of their god. THat's true for all religions and all gods and anything that has to do with the supernatural. All they have is gullibility. THere's no consensus from church to church. If you try to find it on many major issues that you'd expect churches to agree upon worldwide you would not get it which is the reason why christianity is crumbling worldwide except for in China (pew 2015) and atheism has doubled. Jackiebaby proved it with his idiot test. "because he can personally reveal himself to anyone. " But doesn't especially to suffering children in which if to be believed in his god knowingly creates to suffer in the first place so his god is an arrogant thumb sucker. So is jackiebaby for bringing such a stupid argument up.

Now as far as "How do you know Jack plagiarized it if you didn't even read it? "Because he's done this before AND he will continue to do it AND you don't know jack AND jackiebaby gives off his tells sooooo easily, He's an open book.
Please tc and have fun
Posted by omar2345 4 days ago
omar2345
@GuitarSlinger

I am going off what Adrian14 is saying.

Stop with the questions. I can't take it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.