The Instigator
MechanicalKeyboards
Pro (for)
The Contender
primeministerJoshua812
Con (against)

There are no Gods of any type

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
MechanicalKeyboards has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 118222
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

MechanicalKeyboards

Pro

There are no Gods of any sort. For anyone who wants to debate me, The Bible is not a valid source of arguments, As that is divine revelation. I am interested in natural revelation arguments to back up your claims.
primeministerJoshua812

Con

I shall attempt to present 2 arguments for God's existence:

Alvin Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument:

P1. It is possible that God exists.
P2. If it is possible that God exists, Then God exists in some possible worlds.
P3. If God exists in some possible worlds, Then God exists in all possible worlds.
P4. If God exists in all possible worlds, Then God exists in the actual world.
P5. If God exists in the actual world, Then God exists.

So first some definitions. A "possible world" means any hypothetical situation within reality. God is defined as a "necessary being" a being that must exist in all possible worlds and if you need an example here are some: Numbers, Shapes and Definitions and Facts of Reality. For example, The number 2 must exist in all possible worlds and a square must have 4 sides in all possible words. A square can't have three sides because that would be a triangle, Not a square. God might also be referred to as a Maximally Great Being (MGB) as God in the definition of this argument would have the maximal "dosage of "greater making properties" such as Omniscience and Omnipotence and no lesser-making properties such as corruption. Does the feel convincing? No, At least not to me but when you boil it down to the facts it is a logically coherent argument. The only way to debunk this argument is to debunk P1. I will address the most common objection to P1 pf this argument. It is called the Omnipotence Paradox you may have heard of it.

It is usually presented like this. Can God create a stone he can't lift? If he can't he is not all-powerful if he can then he is still not all-powerful because he wouldn't be able to move the stone. Therefore the idea of God as defined in the argument is impossible. Impossible in this argument is defined as a being that cannot exist in any possible world. The problem with the paradox is that it presents a definition of omnipotence that is logically absurd. The people who propagate this argument define omnipotence as being able to do the logically impossible which is not consistent with the definition of omnipotence. This question is based on gibberish such as asking whether an omnipotent being can create a square circle or tell you the shape of purple. The questions and the arguments derived from them are all logically incoherent. Now you might ask why can't God do everything is he not ALL-POWERFUL? Well, You must understand that logic derives from order without order nothing makes sense including existence. In other words, You cannot use logical absurdities to disprove God because if logically absurdities were in a world with God then essentially nothing can exist. Inclusion the paradox is not a valid argument. There are of course other objections to this argument (Logical Problem of suffering and evil, Reverse ontological argument etc) but I won't address them right know as I have other arguments to present.

The next argument I present is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The Universebegan to exist
P3/C. Therefore the Universe has a cause.

Is the first premise true? Well, Let's take a look. Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic, You've got a hat and a magician and if something can come into existence being from nothing, Then why don't see this happening all the time? Everyday experience and Scientific evidence confirm our first premise. If something begins to exist it must have a cause, For example, A Chicken laying an egg. However what about our second premise. Did the Universe begin or has it always existed? Many atheists I've debated before have typically said that the Universe had been here forever. I quote British philosopher, Logician, Mathematician, Historian, Writer, Social critic, Political activist and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell when I say "The Universe is just there and that's all". First, Let's consider The Second Law of Thermodynamics which states the following: Processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. In simplicity, The law tells us The Universe is slowly running out of usable energy. That is the point. If the Universe had been here forever it would have run out of usable energy by now. The Second law points us to a universe that had a definite beginning. This is confirmed by a series of remarkable Scientific discoveries. In 1915 Albert Einstien presented his General Theory of Relativity, This allowed us for the first time to talk meaningfully about the past history of the Universe. Next Alexander Friedmann and Goerge Lemaitre each working with Einstein's equations predicted that the universe is expanding. Then in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies, Empirical evidence which confirmed not only that the Universe is expanding but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past (The Big Bang). It was a monumental discovery almost beyond comprehension. However, Not everyone is fond of a finite Universe, So it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence but eventually, All failed the test of time. More recently three Cosmologists- Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, And Alexander Vilenkin proved that ANY UNIVERSE which has, On average, Been expanding throughout its history CANNOT BE ETERNAL IN THE PAST, But must have an absolute beginning. This even applies to a multiverse (if there is such a thing). Alexander Vilenkin summed it up best when he said: "This means that Scientists can no longer hide behind a past eternal universe. There is no escape, They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning". Any adequate model must have a beginning. Just like the standard model. It's quite plausible then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true. THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE. Since the Universe can't call itself, It's cause must be beyond the space-time universe or continuum. Its cause must be SPACELESS, TIMELESS, IMMATERIAL, UNCAUSED AND UNIMAGINABLY POWERFUL. Much like the Christian GOD!

I was hoping to present at least 4 arguments in my first round. I was going to present the Telelogical and Moral arguments but I do not have enough space to give a comprehensive overview and defence. So may another time. I look forward to a rebuttal.

Blessings.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheBoldDebator 3 years ago
TheBoldDebator
If you can't believe the Bible, How much more can you believe in anything else?
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
You want people to use natural revelation in their argument? That's a religious term, You are essentially asking people to defend the existence of any gods using religion but not any biblical texts.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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