Resolved: God most likely exists.

[Lannan13]

Greetings P&W, this is Kyro here. This shall be a 4 round God debate between Durmij and myself. This debate is set to begin Monday, 1/11/2016. A round will be represented by each argumentative post between the two of us that is outlined bellow. I request that no one posts until Durmij posts his 4th and final debate argument. After that you are free to converse about the debate or the topic itself. The two debaters are prohibitted from further debating each other after the debate has concluded unless an ad hom attack occurs between the two respective users. I thank you for your patience and I do hope that this will be a good read for you.

 

Rules
First Round is terms and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con.
Second Round is for Opening arguments, NO rebuttals.
Third Round is for Rebuttals.

Forth Round is for Rebuttals and conclusion.

My opponent accepts all definitions and waives their right to add resolutional definitions
No trolling.
Burden Of Proof is shared.
No Profanity. 

No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)

 

== Resolution ==

Resolved: God most likely exists.

(1) To exist is to "have objective reality or being." 

(2) "Likely," as used in the adverb form here, is defined as "probably."

(3) The God referenced here is defined as "the intelligence behind reality," or "a mind that grounds reality."

[Fox Fire]

(1) To exist is to "have objective reality or being."

 

Atheists win by default.

[Jack Mcfloyd]

but realistically i think it will be a good mach up

[Lannan13]

Please stop posting until after the debate occurs. This is a debate that we have had in the works for a great period of a time and I would appriate it if it occurs without a hitch and the two debating members are able to read each other's arguments in consecutive order so that for flows purposes, makes it easier on both debaters.

[Fox Fire]

Please stop posting until after the debate occurs. This is a debate that we have had in the works for a great period of a time and I would appriate it if it occurs without a hitch and the two debating members are able to read each other's arguments in consecutive order so that for flows purposes, makes it easier on both debaters.

If the debate is only 2 people take it to PM. Otherwise, this is a public forum my friend. I will post whatever I want.

[durmij]

Headed to bed in a bit, but now is as good a time to start as any. Stopping people from posting will be impossible, so I suggest that once we get underway we just directly quote each other directly so that those interested can follow.

One change I want to make to the resolution

 

 

== Resolution ==

Resolved: God most likely exists.

(1) To exist is to "have objective reality or being." 

(2) "Likely," as used in the adverb form here, is defined as "probably."

(3) The God referenced here is defined as "the intelligence behind reality," or "a mind that grounds reality."

 

I want to add "in an observable manner" to the end of resolution, with it defined as (4) "in an observable manner" meaning theoretically being able to be observed in some way or sometime either directly or through evidence.

 

This doesn't not mean god has to have been irrefutably measured at any point in history, I just want to make sure where debating over a relevant God instead of engaging in esoteric banter. 

[Lannan13]

Headed to bed in a bit, but now is as good a time to start as any. Stopping people from posting will be impossible, so I suggest that once we get underway we just directly quote each other directly so that those interested can follow.

 

One change I want to make to the resolution

 

 

I want to add "in an observable manner" to the end of resolution, with it defined as (4) "in an observable manner" meaning theoretically being able to be observed in some way or sometime either directly or through evidence.

 

This doesn't not mean god has to have been irrefutably measured at any point in history, I just want to make sure where debating over a relevant God instead of engaging in esoteric banter. 

I accept these new changes my Round 2 Arguments will be in the post bellow.

[Lannan13]

Contention 1: The Modal Ontological Argument

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William Criag: The Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.

S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]

This would mean if a MGB is possible then it exists in at least one possible world. Under this model it would have to exist in all possible worlds qua maximally great especially since MG entails absolute exsistance. Since this world is part of a string of possible worlds then God has no choice, but to exist in this world.

Anslem's OA

A statement is a priori = one can see that it is true using pure reason and given an understanding of the meanings of the words in it. We don’t need empirical evidence to know that it’s true. A priori statements seem to be true necessarily. 

A statement is a posteriori = our evidence for its truth is empirical, or based on data that we receive via sense experience.

1. God, by definition, is the greatest possible being. 
2. A being that does not exist in the real world is less great than a being that exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds. 
3. Suppose that God (the greatest possible being) does not exist in the real world. 
4. If the greatest possible being does not exist in the real world, then He is not as great as the possible being who is just like him but who does exist in the real world. 
5. But the greatest possible being can’t be less great than some other possible being. To say that “the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible†is to say something that’s necessarily false, because self-contradictory.
6. The supposition in 3 is false. God does exist in the real world. And he exists not contingently, but necessarily, or in all possible worlds. It is impossible for God not to exist. [3]

Here we can see that Point 6 is completely true. If we had this maximumly great being of some sort we could see that even if we took him out of our universe that there would still be a Maximumly Great Being. Thus we can simplify to see that when combined with the S5 argument of the Ontoligcal argument that God is Possible in All worlds and because of this we can see that it's a posteriori for God to Exist and arguing otherwise is futile. 

 

I'm going to add on to this argument by showing imperical evidence for this argument via the Godel argument.

On the matter of proving God, we can actually do it by mathematics one can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [14]
Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things. Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [15] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation. 



Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [16]


Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax. Also note how God is capitalized here. This is because this actually proves the Christian God. Not just a deity. [6]

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.

(1) Everything that began to exist had a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) The universe had a cause
(4) If the universe had a cause, that cause is God
(5) Therefore, God exists [4]

The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.

Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [5] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere. Even if we look at Tyson's theory on how this universe started and that it is a multiverse we can still see that the universe, this one, had a beginning.

For the 4th Premise I will be arguing Monistic Idealism which is bellow. We can see that since it had a cause the cause was transcendent meaning that it was timeless and spaceless. Only minds are from this sphere and if I can prove that God is a Mind/sphere then I win the debate.


Monistic idealism.


P1 Mind is mental
P2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mental
C1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mental
P3 Mind interacts with reality
C2 Reality is mental 

P1: Mind is mental.

Solipsism
P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).
P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).
C: Mind is not matter.

Metaphysical Solipsism shows that all exists within our own minds. Though we may think there is a world out there it is all actually in our minds. [6] Thus a world has to exist within our own minds and there are several reasons why this is completely true. It makes perfect sense since it isn't prima facie impossible and thus must be accepted as a solid fact, not to mention that it is perfectably reasonable and a sound argement. If we can see that the mind was matter, then it would be impossible to exist appart from matter itself. Things that are Metaphysically impossible are not even imaginable. Can you imagine a Square Hexigon? No, such a thing is perposterous. We can thus see that Metaphysical solipsism is consitstant with Metaphysically possible. Here we have to apply the Indentity of Indiscernibles. 

∀F(Fx â†” Fy) → x=y.

This is reflected by showing that these things are distinguished by some differential, but in the case of, let's say clones for the sake of arguing, is just a replication of it's own molecules. This is centered on the basis that all things have an individualistic characteristic and in the case of God it is the existance of it's own mind and it's consciencousness that shows this. I shall give an example bellow.

There are 3 Sphere, Sphere A, B, and C
Each have the same qualities.
Each of these Spheres exist in world 1.
Sphere A exists in World 2, but Sphere B and C cannot due to their likeness characteristics. [7]

We can see that this is a logically coherrant case and thus is sound. We can also see that due to the theory of Truely Large Numbers that there is a great chance that this world is that of a Solipsism one as many studies have shown. (but that's for another debate)

P2: Seperate Substances cannot interact
I will now debunk substance and property dualism for this to be true. 

Substance Dualism
This is best cleverly sumed up by the phrase "Mind over Matter" where they argue that there's escentially two distinct things: Mind and Matter. [8] Though the key question here is if the mind is seperate from matter than how does the mind and the brain interact? We would have to see in order for the consciousness and matter to interact there would have to be some sort of interaction. (See image bellow) The trap here is that since there is a linkage here we can see that there cannot be two seperate things since they would have to be interlinked. Thus the theory here is false.



Property Dualism
So you may concede to the above dualism, but then you might say, alrighty, if that is true then the mind must be a property of the brain. Though if this was true then it would lead to epiphenomenalism and that there would be no free will since everything that we do would have been created by some reaction in the Physical aspect. 

Though this is completely false as this leads to an interesting contradiction of itself. Say I weigh 180 lbs (not my actual weight, but it's an example), the property of me would be 180 lbs. Now tell me, have you ever gone outside or to the zoo and seen 180lbs? No something that weighs that, but the 180 lbs by itself? Thus we can blatently see that it is an abstract that exists only as a property. It can only exist as a property of something else. 

If we remember my Solipsism argument from earlier we can see that the mind can exist by itself and thus it cannot be a property like the 180 lbs as the mind isn't a property thus it wouldn't be consevable much like the 180 lbs. 

P3: Mind interacts with reality. 

This almost seems like it's the most obvious here, so I'll try to not spend a whole great deal of time here. We can take many examples, but let's take pain for the greatest example here. I get hit in the head with a foul ball at a baseball game. Outside of the fact that I would probably have been KO'd we can see that the mind affects what I feel. I would feel a massive amount of pain and if it was great enough then I would lose consciousness and the mind would go dormant to protect itself and me as a person. 

Thus the reality is mental and God has no choice but to exist.

 

Contention 3: TA Arguement

Here we can observe Saint Thomas Aquinas's theory on teleologic which is the ultamate causes of objects or actions in relation to their ends. This is from the 5th of Thomas Aquinas's theories explaining the existance of God. His theory is bellow.

1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.
2. Teleology exists.
3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.

Here for the first part we may see that teleos exists on the basis that there must be intentionality and this exists in the mind. Hence one can see that if teleology truely exists then there must be intellect for it to be grounded to in the end. For this I site Edward Feser who states, "Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on." [9]

So ask yourself, does teleology exist? Obvious, does the heart beat and pump blood because it just happens? No, it has a valid purpose of pumping blood to keep you alive. Without teleology there would be no purpose. We can see that from everyday occurance by using this. I mean how else are we to say that a carborator needs replaced if it does not have a purpose? When we observe other things that are inorganic like the Nitrogen and Water Cycle we can see that they too have purpose and are thus teleological by nature. [10]

We can see that since all teleology has to be grounded to a singel being in the universe. It is obvious that this high being has nothing else higher than it and is thus the greatest being in the universe which it would make sense to call this said being God.

Last year scientists have actually found ripples in time and space continum. I believe that it actually helps prove the existance of God than disproves it. We can see after the Big Bang there was gravitational strips in the universe that ripped it appart in seconds. [11] We can actually see that a very very simplified version of this is in the Bible. 


6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause. 
7. The universe had a beginning in time. 
8. Therefore the universe had a cause. 
9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god. 
10. Therefore, god exists. [12]


For the 6th premise we have already found that is true, so let's move on to the next premise.

Now for the 7th premise Ross writes this in support. 

"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who god is and who or what god isn't. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe." [13]

Here we can see that there has to be an entity controlling time and something had to come before time. That the entirety of everything had another dimension and this God was in another dimension and created the universe and all the laws of physics that we are still yet to even begin to comprehend. He later to go on to further back this up by providing Biblical verses and stating that it has to be that God has another time dimension and this is one of the reasons that we do not have concrete proof of him yet as we have yet to be able to travel in other dimensions. [13]

 

Sources

1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
3. Anselm, St., Anselm's Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed. (La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962
4. (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-the-beginning-of-the-universe-have-a-personal-cause-a-rejoinder) 
5. Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
6. (http://academic.csuohio.edu/polen/LC9_Help/4/immediate.htm) 
7. Weatherson, B., 2008, "Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Properties", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
8. (http://www.philosophy-index.com/philosophy/mind/substance-dualism.php) 

9.. Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157
10. David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A.M. Gonz"lez (ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79
11. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/)
12. (Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1995), p. 14.)
13. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 76.)

14.Knight, David (23 October 2013). "Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove Gödel's God Theorem". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 28 October 2013.

15. Kurt Gödel (1995). "Ontological Proof". Collected Works: Unpublished Essays & Lectures, Volume III. pp. 403–404. Oxford University Press.

16. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html) 

Edited January 11, 2016 by Lannan13

[greatkitteh]

Lannan, how come you are never active in DDO anymore?

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Lannan, I applaud your tremendous effort but the Kalam Cosmological Argument was fully articulated by Muslim scholars long before modern day defenders of the argument (like William Lane Craig) were even born.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Ibrahim

[Lannan13]

Lannan, I applaud your tremendous effort but the Kalam Cosmological Argument was fully articulated by Muslim scholars long before modern day defenders of the argument (like William Lane Craig) were even born.

Aye, but it was both popularized and brought further into life in the modern era by Craig.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Aye, but it was both popularized and brought further into life in the modern era by Craig.

 

True: I've watched his videos and visited his website when i was first learning about the argument.

[durmij]

I will be going through the resolution part by part for my statement. "God most likely exists in an observable manner"

 

"Most likely"

 

Human knowledge has expanded exponentially since we have started acquiring knowledge. Civilization began when history was able to be recorded; without the ability to pass information on, there is no way to have a life experience that isn't basic survival. Genes make life, but memes make living. At the start of recorded history, we knew almost nothing about how the universe worked. God, or other supernatural elements were ascribed to basically every function of what we saw. But knowledge expanded, slowly at first but even more rapidly as techniques surrounding better observation became more come. Everything, from stars to weather to disease, was studied in great detail. And every time we learnt a little bit more about the universe, the answer is always "not God". If God is likely, than how come evidence of it hasn't shown up in the vast swaths of new knowledge we have obtained?

God or "The Intelligence behind Reality"

The universe is the only thing that completely fits the scientific definition of a closed system. For those unfamiliar, a closed system is any system that has no interaction with anything outside it. You can treat some open systems with limited interaction as closed for problem solving, but only the entirety of everything fits to strictest definition. If Gods is the thing that runs reality, 2 possible scenarios follow from this understanding of a system. Either God has no interaction with the universe in order to not be considered part of the system, and thus can't be the thing that grounds reality; or God does interact with the universe and in doing so becomes a part of the system. No longer separate from the universe, this intelligence ceases to be a "god" but some sort of superbeing with above average influence over the universe.

"An Observable Manner"

When any 2 objects interact, both are changed in someway. This is universal fact. We ignore smaller interactions like the force on the Earth by a person jumping, but the change is always there, for both parties. If God interacts with reality then it is changed by reality. There is no reason to afford God special privileges in this regard. And if God is changed by reality, then it can't ground reality as it just another part of reality. Again we are left with a theoretical super being that is excluded from the possibility of being God. The most simple act of interaction is mere observance. Measuring something changes the result, this is scientific fact again. Most things being measured are large enough that the measuring doesn't affect the results, but they interaction is still there.

If God is observable and likely, then why hasn't there been an observation yet? If God influences reality in anyway, how is it possible for it to be considered separate from the universe? If God is observable, it is influenced by the observer, and how can it be a God if it can be influenced?

Edited January 11, 2016 by durmij

[Nadir Aminu]

*Claps*

[Lannan13]

Round 3 will be up in the next hour and a half.

[Abu Haddad]

Religion 2 : Atheism 0

[Jaime Lannister]

Religion 2 : Atheism 0

At best it would be points for Deism. 

[Abu Haddad]

At best it would be points for Deism. 

 

Well your technically right and technically wrong

[Jaime Lannister]

Well your technically right and technically wrong

How?  The existence of a prime mover doesn't mean that any religions are accurate.

[Lannan13]

R3

 

I thank my opponent for his timely response and in this round I plan to disprove my opponent's arguments as this round is for my rebuttals.

 

Rebuttal 1: Most likely

 

Outside of my opponent using semantics he brings up a good point when he highlights this definition. The only problem is that he pulls the whole "if God exists then where is he?" argument. I will attempt to leave out the arguments that I had brought up in R2, but will answer it nevertheless.This Argument is actually very easily answered. With this I would like to bring up the Watchmaker analogy. It is shown when a watchmaker makes his watch he must walk away afterwards and leave it be. If it breaks then it does, so be it. It has then left us with Free Will (but that's up for another debate) to control our own destiny instead of being puppets being pulled on by some puppet master. It is due to this policy that God's hands-off polilcy has created us to live our lives as the Enlightenment found that this had occurred, but it is our "job" to fix society. Think of it this way. You go out to your backyard and there's a watch on the ground. How did that rock get there? Was it shown, there since the beginning of time? If you traced it back you will find that someone had to have made it or had given the watch a purpose. [1] The question lies in the fact that God can exist rather than not. 

 

How we come to this conclusion is ironically provided by your own argumentation. You see God is outside of time and this relm, but since he also does things in this relm then spacetime becomes a factor. So we can see that everything can exist outside of the relm of spacetime, but once it comes on to this plane then it is affected as his own actions and words are in the Bible and we can see that this is obvious and thus by this own argumentation that God can exist. Once again we can see that through Neil Tyson's theory on Black Hole Universes that it is highly possible for God to exist elsewhere and for the Universe to exist before itself. We can also see by observing the Big Bang-Big Crunch timeline that the universe also could have easily existed before itself as the Big Crunch shows the universe shrinking back down to a singularity and then exploding back out into that of another Big Bang. [2]

 

Rebuttle 2: Zero Sum

 

I appologize for grouping my opponent's arguments together, but his arguments he has made for these next two contentions are that of the Zero Sum theory which argues that of "If God exists, where's the proof, if he's there then there is some sort of evidence of his interaction. " In this section I set out to refute the Zero Sum argument that my opponent has posted with his 2nd and 3rd contentions. 

 

I enjoy space science as I'm sure my opponent does which is why he provided this argument. The only issue is that the argument is false. Why's that you may ask? Because of the universe's structure.

Zero Total Energy Implies this equation:
+1-1=0 (I'm using 1 to have it make a little more sense for some of these arguments) The only issue here is that this theory has no room for universal exspansion. The theory also imposes that the universe can last forever on the basis that there is little to zero energy used. [3]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics- Ethropy of an isolated system, in this case the universe, that is not at equalibrium will move towards equillibrium over time.
3rd Law of Thermodynamics- As temperature approaches Absolute Zero the Entropy becomes more constant. [4]

What this means for this debate is that if my opponent is correct on this theory there would be no energy movement. We can already see that the universe is not at equilibrium as my opponent seems to think. If we observe the works of Stephen Hawking one can see that the universe is growing and exspanding, if we were at equalibrium then we should see no exspansion. In his book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking even addressed this issue by showing the following scenrios and equations.

+2-1=1, Universe is exspanding, current universe.
+1-1=0, Universe has reached equalibrium as matter and gravity are now equal.
+1-2=0, Universe has began to start to shrink back to the Big Crunch as Gravity excedes matter.

In this case we can see that due to BGV and the Radio background that the universe is exspanding. With that said it would be practically impossible for this theory to be true, because it requires that the universe at equalibrium. It also ignores that things can be hotter, or sometimes, colder than temperature. A Kugleblitz occurs when the Temperature of an object gets so hot to the point that they create a black hole. There are several known Kugleblitzs in the universe and showing this can show an outright interesting factor as energy of an object can go to the point of nothing to the Big Bang energy levels itself. [5] 

Remember that since God is transcendent and that of a mind that he opperates outside of the relm of spacetime as I have shown in my previous round.

 

With that I now await my opponent's arguments.

 

 

 

 

Sources

1. Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature- William Paley

2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch) 

3. (Edward P. Tryon, "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?", Nature, vol. 246, p.396–397, 1973.)

4. (http://www.icr.org/thermodynamics) 

5. (http://futurism.com/kugelblitz-black-holes-lasers-doom/) 

[Lannan13]

At best it would be points for Deism. 

True, Diesm=/=theism

[durmij]

I apologize to my opponent and to anyone enthralled in this thread for the length of time between my responses. Other priorities have consumed my time.

The Ontological Argument.

"It is possible that maximally great being exists". Is it? There are so many holes in even this assumption. What is "great" referring to? How would we know it's greatest is maximum? Maximally great is such a empty phrase I can't even figure out how to approach it. But I do have one question if we accept this obtuse assumption. If the universe tends toward disorder, if all things break and change under entropy, then this being will have being at maximum "greatness" for only one instant in eternity. Unless we extend it special physics breaking privileges again.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

There is a lot to unpack here. What is the definition of world? I assume from the structure of the argument that we are assuming the universe is made up of many parellels. Going off this theory, I really have to challenge the assumption that the being would be in every world. Would it not follow that some worlds are not maximally great? If every world is possible, does it not follow that the being doesn't exist in some of those worlds? I know the flippant summary of this argument is "God is too perfect to not exist", but I'm just not following these chains of assumptions. And the wording of the 4th statement is very peculiar. Are we suddenly abandoning many world theory, to focus on the "actual" world again? Are not all those other beings and worlds "actual" in these assumptions?

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Forgive me if I just can't follow the logic, but aren't these just the same statement, albeit with much one more presentable? Nothing more to add here then that this is just the end of a chain of assumptions forming, in my opinion, the most historically weak argument for god.

I don't have time to run through the second wording of this argument, but I will touch on Godel's argument. Representing an assumption chain in formula doesn't make it any stronger. Making you argument modal doesn't free the axioms from error.

Cosmological Argument

(1) Everything that began to exist had a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) The universe had a cause
(4) If the universe had a cause, that cause is God
(5) Therefore, God exists

Getting the obvious out of way, why doesn't God have a cause? Again we get special privileges for the great being. Did god always exist? Well, if we can say that about god, why not the universe? 

And why is the cause of the universe god? Why does it have to have a cause? Couldn't god cause the universe, then cease to be? Again, I just see too many flawed, puesdo-intuitive axioms to even bother to wade through, but I'll try for your lengthy support of number 4.

Monistic idealism

Let me try to pare this down from a small novel. The "mind" is of mental properties, which precludes it from interacting with non mental things. The mind interacts with reality, therefore reality has the element of the mental. Then it follows that if reality has the element of the mental, the source of that element is god? Is that correct enough? 

First off, why the assumption that reality is separate from the mind of the person in question? Why is it interacting rather than just being one entity? Just your mind, what it experiences and no real evidence of source.
And why are you so quick to write off mind as a property of the brain on behalf of free will? Doesn't that beg the question, is free will real? Are we not the end result of a pile of processes?
I honestly have no idea how the leap from reality being mental to god existing is made, unless your inferring that since a mind and reality share one element and can interact, reality must be a mind? Is that what the Identity of Discernibles was about? But hows does it follow that one property means the entire object is the same?

TA Arguement

Another classic. My favourite refutation of teleology is just asking, what is our reason? What is the universes "end"? Why does order need an intellect behind, when order is just something we perceive? You say with out teleology we have no purpose. I argue that we have no purpose. I've never seen evidence of a "purpose", just functions being fulfilled

On that note, the heart analogy proves function not purpose. My body has no purpose in a cosmic sense. 

Scientist finding ripples in the time space continuum is not evidence of god, it's evidence of ripples in the time space continuum. 

Lastly, why did you make the leap from vague great being to Christian God only in passing at the end? In all your logic chains, you never mention a specific god until the very end. What proves this god to this disproving of all others, because I'm not even seeing an attempt at arguing that point.
 

[Fistandantilus]

@Lann #partycrash

 

No offense, but those logic chains are ridiculous and incorrect.

 

it would take me a while to go into why statements like "3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world." are absurd, but i'll take some time to do it with one of them.

 

God(maximally great being) is not a "Possibility" that is supported by any accurate evidence or model(Yes, half baked Astronomy/physics is not evidence! The absence of evidence, anti evidence, is also not evidence!. If 2 socially removed people found a modern day automobile, and we assumed it was evidence of God because they didn't understand it, they'd be wrong. That's where we are on the greatest level of astronomy, we can not sanely use it to argue for or against "God" at this point in time, as we don't understand it yet), thinking that it is, is delusion. God being real is about the same likelihood of flying, invisible, unicorns that smell like roses. Ergo, not a possibility in any rational sense

Edited January 12, 2016 by Fistandantilus

[Lannan13]

I'll get to this tomorrow. Sorry I have something today.

[durmij]

I'll get to this tomorrow. Sorry I have something today.

 

No worries