Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

RFD: AWSM v. Jerry (Existence of God)

Posts: 6,865
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 7:03:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This RFD is on behalf of the Voter Union (contact donald.keller for details).

I. Resolution

"God most likely exists"

II. Burdens

Fact claim resolution, therefore Pro has the burden of proof.

III. Arguments

a. PRO:

(1) Cosmological argument: Everything that begins requires a cause; universe began; universe requires a cause; that cause fits the definition of God. (Clearly explained; only objections can be in clash.)

(2) Truth argument: All truths require a mind; there are "universal truths"; universal truths require a universal mind. (Argument is insufficiently explained; "universal truths" not explained, and I don't know what a "universal mind" is or how that is entailed by universal truths; does not explicitly link to the definition of God provided.)

b. CON:

(1) Eternal: The property of "eternal" depends on time, since "eternity" implies "existing forever." Terms such as forever are incoherent without time, because "forever" implies a passage of time. (Strong, sound, and clearly explained argument; only address in this RFD depends on clash.)

(2) Omnipresent: "Omnipresent" is a state of being located everywhere, but "locations" imply space. If God is transcendent (i.e., outside the universe and all space, as assumed by the cosmological argument), then God does not have a location, thus is not omnipresent. (Strong and clearly explained; only address depends on clash.)

IV. Clash

(1) Con argues that the cosmological argument does not prove all the properties of God. As outlined by the "omnipresent" and "eternal" offense itself, the cosmological argument merely entails a conscious creator of the universe. Con also argues that it is unclear how omnipotence is entailed by the CA, since one can't assume the universe is everything that can logically be created. Con also argues that sensory perception =/= morality, and that Pro doesn't prove that sensory perception can exist independent of a physical brain.

(2) As for the truth argument, Con argues that "universal truth" is undefined, and it is a non-sequitur as to how a universal truth entails a universal mind, or how that mind is God. (Strong rebuttals, all outline major flaws in Pro's argument.)

(3) Pro argues that eternity is not having existence "forever," rather it is existence while an object "never have had a beginning or a end." (Weak rebuttal; the word "never," as Con notes, also presupposes time since "never" implies "ever existed in time." Pro doesn't explain how one can cognize this.)

(4) Pro argues that since God created space, God can exist in it. (Weak rebuttal; I don't understand how "created space" entails "can exist in it." It is not clearly explained.)

(5) Pro tries to escape the definition of omnipotence by saying, "I mean that he is all ruling and the most powerful being that exists."

Regardless, Con concedes the eternity offense, as well as the omnipotence.

V. Outcome

The cosmological argument is lost by Pro because the omnipresence argument is not clearly rebutted by Pro. Con clearly shows that "creating space" is not "omnipresence," and I buy that if God is transcendent by definition of the cosmological argument, thus is not omnipresent. Pro claims that he doesn't have to prove objective morality, but I don't buy that, because to claim God is "moral" is to claim something beyond his mere sensory perception. Pro doesn't explain his burden.

The truth argument is incoherent. Pro defines "universal truth" as "any objective truth." But how does objective truth entail a "universal" mind? Pro doesn't explain what a "universal mind" is. Con shows that a universal mind is an "independent of the mind mind," which is incoherent. Pro says it is a mind independent of human minds. Which means Pro manages to prove a mind that grounds reality, which may fit some definition of God. But I have two notes: (a) that is a new argument made by Pro in the final round, and (b) it doesn't prove an "omnipotent, omnipresent, moral" God as described in the definitions, which is Pro's burden.

Pro doesn't fulfill their burdens. I vote Con. Overall, a good debate.
Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real.