The Instigator
Con (against)
11 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

There is no God

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
Con Tied Pro
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 for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,608 times Debate No: 16606
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (2)




Burden of Proof:
The pro must provide arguments for the proposition. Arguments should lead into the conclusion that there is no supernatural realm, not that there is no evidence for supernaturalism. I must provide evidence and arguments that there is a supernatural realm.

Contention One: Kalam Argument
Formulated by Dr. Craig:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

P1: This seems true by definition, since its negation is to affirm creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. But nothing, by definition, has no properties, especially causal properties. Therefore something cannot come into being from nothing, or non-being.

P2: The universe began to exist

a) Actual infinities cannot exist in reality. If the universe did not begin, that means the number of past events is actually infinite. This leads to absurdities. For example, suppose that I have an actually infinite number of cards. Now suppose I take out every even-numbered card. Infinity-infinity= infinity. But now suppose I take out all cards except the first three. Now infinity- infinity=3! These absurdities obviously cannot happen in reality. In concept, adding and subtracting the infinite is prohibited because of contradictions. If actual infinites could exist in reality, you can add and subtract things because there could be an infinite number of concrete objects. But since this leads to contradictions, the infinite does not exist in reality. But that entails that the universe began.

b) Science. The above conclusion has been confirmed in modern science. Let me just quote from the Vilenkin et al paper: "Our argument shows that null and time- like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in infla- tionary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in pre- vious work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when ex- tended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the bound- ary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time."

This conclusion works for any universe in a state of expansion since the only assumption on which their theorem is based is that the expansion is greater than zero (Hav>0). I could provide more evidence, but this should suffice for evidence that the universe had a beginning.

P3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. By definition, this cause must be beyond space and time since it is the cause from which space and time originated. It is therefore beyond the natural world. Moreover, this cause must be immaterial since all of the material world was created. Thus, this suggests that the cause is supernatural, and not natural, since we know of very little in the natural world about immaterial things causing physical events (except our own minds).

Contention Two: Modal Arguments (Plantinga's modal arguments)

Possible worlds are ways the world might have been but is not actually. If something is possible, it exists in some possible world. For example, unicorns do not in fact exist, but their existence is possible and therefore they exist in some possible world. God is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and who exists in every possible world. So IF God exists, He exists necessarily since its absurd to say that something contingent could bring into being God. Thus, IF God exists, He is necessary. IF God does not exist, then, necessarily, he does not exist.

1. Its possible that God exists
2. If its possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world
3. If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world
4. If God exists in every possible world, then God exists in the actual world
5. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists
6. Therefore, God exists

If P1 is true, the rest follows necessarily. 3 follows from 2 because God, as we have seen, cannot as a necessary being exist in only one world. Necessary beings exist in every possible world. Thus, if it is the case that God is possible, the He exists. So, why should we think that God is possible? Because the concept seems coherent and void of contradictions. Anything that is coherent is metaphysically possible. For example, it is coherent that I could have been born with three legs. Therefore, this is possible.

Another modal argument: Let M represent the MIND and let B represent BRAIN or BODY. This argument shows that our minds are independent of our physical parts. Leibniz's law is the following: if A=B, then every property A has, B has. So if M=B, then every property M has B has. Some of these properties are modal properties, or properties of what is possible for M and B.
1. If M=B, then every property of M (mind) is also true of B (body)
2. If there is a property of M that is untrue of B, then M is not the same as B
3. If it is possible that M exists independently of B, then there is a property of M that is untrue of B; namely the property of that which is possible of M but not of B
4. It is possible that M exists independently of B
5. Therefore, there is something that is true of M that is untrue of B (from 3 and 4)
6. Therefore, M is not the same as B (from 1 and 2)

Thus, supernaturalism is true.

Contention 3: Fine Tuning

This is the argument as formulated by Dr Craig, again:

1. The Fine Tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Is there fine tuning? Well, this is just a scientific fact. By fine tuning, I mean the fact that the constants have extremely precise values in order that life can exist. Fine tuning, in itself, does not lead to God. Many physicists recognize fine tuning but do not affirm God, instead wishing to appeal to the anthropic principle with the multiverse. One example of fine tuning is the rate of expansion. Stephen Hawking calculates that if the rate of expansion changed by one part in 100,000 million million a second after the Big Bang life would not exist.

Physical necessity: this seems false since even if our laws may be necessary (even this is questionable) the constants are not. In fact, string theory predicts that there are 10^500 different possible universes consistent with our laws but which contain different values for their constants. Thus, it is not physically necessary that we have to have the values that we have.

Chance: The problem with chance is that the odds of there being a life permitting universe is overwhelmingly more improbable than a life prohibiting universe. For life, all of the constants have to be extremely precise or else life could not exist. So the only way to escape this problem is to appeal to the Multiverse hypothesis so that there exists enough universes to ameliorate the problem of chance. Dr. Craig refutes this well:

"Roger Penrose calculates that the oddsof our universe'slow entropy condition obtaining by chancealoneareon the order of 1:1010(123),an inconceivablenumber.If our universewerebut onemember of a collection of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that weshouldbeobservingamuchsmalleruniverse.17 AdoptingtheManyWorlds Hypothesistoexplainawayfine-tuningwouldthusresult inabizarreillusionism: it is far more probable that all our astronomical, geological, and biological esti- matesof agearewrong and that theappearanceof our largeand old universeisa massive illusion (recall the dreaded Boltzmann brains). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a World Ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature's constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range."


you want proof that god exists? read the bible!! it's not a story of nothing!
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has not answered any arguments.


i misinterpreted, didnt realize u were arguing that god exists
sorry bout that
Debate Round No. 2


Post your argument then.


flyinitalian88 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Well, I guess all my arguments should be extended ha. Shame.


flyinitalian88 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 7 years ago
CON's second post is very badly written. His comment, not argument, would fit a forum page better than a debate...Who argues by asking his opponent to "read the bible" and then says he misinterpreted the argument?
What a shame.
Posted by ExNihilo 7 years ago
Another forfeit. wow
Posted by ExNihilo 7 years ago
I'm afraid I am involved in two debates, one of which is relatively similar to this one.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
You should recast this argument.
Posted by ExNihilo 7 years ago
You will have to say what you mean about reality. If you mean God REALLY exists, then yes, the KCA does prove this. And no, there is not an infinite number of possible things. At best, there is a potentially infinite number of possible things, not an actual infinite. So I would not say God is composed of any parts and is therefore immune to the argument from there not being an actual infinite, to say nothing of the fact that there is only a finite number of possible things.
Posted by mecap 7 years ago
I see that there are two infinite sets:
1. An infinite set of possible things.
2. An infinite set of impossible things.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Posted by mecap 7 years ago
"Omnipotence it seems is not "infinite" since it says that God has the power to do all things that are logically possible."
-- Is there a finite number of logically possible things or is there an infinite number of logically possible things? And is God's existence infinite?

#2 again: based on Kalam's conclusion, does it mean that God exists IN REALITY?

I want to agree on some things first...
Posted by ExNihilo 7 years ago
No. Omnipotence it seems is not "infinite" since it says that God has the power to do all things that are logically possible. It therefore has a limit. Same with omniscience. God cannot make a round square. Similarly, God cannot know what a round square looks like.

So you want a debate on just one of the arguments? I already did one with the Ontological one, so I reckon the KCA will be you want to set it up?
Posted by mecap 7 years ago
You can, but you have 4 arguments in this one... how about we pick one and just do that one? Pick what you think is the strongest, you can post the other ones a as separate debates.

I personally think that Kalam is the strongest, so I'd like to determine some things:
1. Does God have any infinite properties?
2. Based on Kalam, does God exist in reality?
Based on the definitions of God I would say that he has at least these infinite properties: infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite existence. Do you agree with these?
Posted by ExNihilo 7 years ago
Should I post another?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't not sufficiently rebut anything Con argues.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: All votes awarded as a result of argumentation, supplied arguments, and non-forfeiture.