Resolved: God most likely exists.

[Doktor Avalanche]

@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 is Love,

Love is Blind. Therefore,

God is Ray Charles.

[Fistandantilus]

God is Love,

Love is Blind. Therefore,

God is Ray Charles.

 

May The High Priest of Soul forgive my trespasses

As we forgive those who trespass against us

And lead us not into modern R&B

But deliver us to the Genius

Amen

Edited January 13, 2016 by Fistandantilus

[Captain_Vietnam]

athiest are delusional. most athiest only say they are as they hate god. they know hes real inside.

[Lannan13]

athiest are delusional. most athiest only say they are as they hate god. they know hes real inside.

Haven't you said that already?

No worries

Once my Google Docs opens up I can pull my case and continue, but I'll have to wait until that happens.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

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? 

 

1. The absurdity of an 'infinite regress of causes'.

 

If the cause of the universe had a cause, then we'd be forced to ask: What caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the Universe? (Ad infinitum) And we wouldn't have a universe in which to ask such questions in the first place. For example, Imagine you're in the front of a queue to purchase the latest iPhone and behind you is an infinite number of people wishing to do the same but before you're allowed to make your purchase, you have to ask permission from the person behind you, and that person has to ask the person behind them to give you permission ad infinitum... are you ever going to be able to purchase the phone even if everyone that is asked gives you permission? No, because you would have to wait an infinite amount of time. 

 

2. Occam’s razor.

 

In philosophical terms this rational principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. Meaning: We should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe: Only one, uncaused, cause is required. 

 

Did god always exist? Well, if we can say that about god, why not the universe?

 

It's been scientifically proven that our universe came into existence. 

 

There is no doubt among scientists that this universe in which we live is the aftermath of the emergence and expansion of space-time, which occurred approximately 13.82 billion years ago.

 

“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.†(Physicist, P. C. W. Davies)

 

 â€œâ€¦the discovery of the century, in cosmology at least, was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the Universe is not eternal, static, and unchanging.†(Astrophysicist, John Gribbin)

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

I'm only responding because your entire 'rebuttal' to this argument has been to ask a load of cheap questions in order to (I assume) try and overwhelm your opponent.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Ibrahim

[Lannan13]

 

1. The absurdity of an 'infinite regress of causes'.

 

If the cause of the universe had a cause, then we'd be forced to ask: What caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the Universe? (Ad infinitum) And we wouldn't have a universe in which to ask such questions in the first place. For example, Imagine you're in the front of a queue to purchase the latest iPhone and behind you is an infinite number of people wishing to do the same but before you're allowed to make your purchase, you have to ask permission from the person behind you, and that person has to ask the person behind them to give you permission ad infinitum... are you ever going to be able to purchase the phone even if everyone that is asked gives you permission? No, because you would have to wait an infinite amount of time. 

 

2. Occam’s razor.

 

In philosophical terms this rational principle enjoins that we do not multiply entities beyond necessity. Meaning: We should stick to explanations that do not create more questions than it answers. In the context of the cause for the universe: Only one, uncaused, cause is required. 

 

 

 

It's been scientifically proven that our universe came into existence. 

 

There is no doubt among scientists that this universe in which we live is the aftermath of the emergence and expansion of space-time, which occurred approximately 13.82 billion years ago.

 

“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.†(Physicist, P. C. W. Davies)

 

 â€œâ€¦the discovery of the century, in cosmology at least, was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the Universe is not eternal, static, and unchanging.†(Astrophysicist, John Gribbin)

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

I'm only responding because your entire 'rebuttal' to this argument has been to ask a load of cheap questions in order to (I assume) try and overwhelm your opponent.

 

Could you please wait until after the debate? I would like to debate him on my own without any help until after the debate.

[Doktor Avalanche]

 

 

It's been scientifically proven that our universe came into existence. 

 

There is no doubt among scientists that this universe in which we live is the aftermath of the emergence and expansion of space-time, which occurred approximately 13.82 billion years ago.

 

No, it has not been proven. It has been postulated from a certain point of view, but there is no evidence.

There has been other theories which hold that the Universe itself is a constant and has never been created, constantly building on itself eternally. Remember we are the ones who measure time.

[Lannan13]

R4

 

This is the final round of this debate and I would like to say that it has been a pleasure facing my opponent over the last couple days and do hope that I have entertained the viewers with these arguments that I have provided here today.

 

Contention 1: Ontological Argument

 

Possible Worlds is also self explanitory. PW is simple in all other worlds it would be true. [1] Which I have shown and my opponent has dropped, however we can see that the Greatest Possible Being is self explanitory and doesn't exactly need an explination within itself as I have shown and it was dropped that God is A priori and A posteriori. So what does this drop mean? It shows that my statement on the sole fact that my opponent dropped it that it is true and empiracal. Not to mention that we don't need evidence for this and the fact that A priori was dropped this actually negates his own argument in having me have to prove myself as this now shifts the BOP to more of my opponent.  The shift from "PW" to actual world was shown in the S5 argument which showed that:

 

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

 

This shows a direct relationship that if God's existance is possible in one universe, which my opponent has conceded to, it can happen in this world, which is the PW argument. Then we move on with the S5 argument which shows that:

 

If Possibly neccessarily God exists, then necessarily God Exists. 

 

This point is key to the debate as it shows that this possibility to which my opponent has acknowledged is possible and he thus acknowledges God's existance. He defeats his own arguments. 

 

My opponent attempts to assualt the Anslem argument, but he misses an important part here. The points preceding it shows that let's say for instance that God, as a MGB, does not exist. This would mean the former MGB wouldn't exist, but there would be another one which is known as God. Either way, the MGB is God no matter which way it is phrased.

 

My opponent attempts to Strawman my argument by stating that it might be false. This is not at all a refutation and I will thus expand it across due to it not being properly refuted.

 

Contention 2: KCA

 

Believe it or not, but my opponents own series of questions refutes himself. There might be a beginning of the universe, but we have seen the Big Bang/Big Crunch life cycle of the universe that causes a great deal of change. This is due to several things one of which being gravity, but I'll get to that in a few moments. You see with this great series of life cycle changes you can understand the fact that the universe, overall, did have a beginning, and does with the beginning of each life cycle of the universe. My opponent, once again, concedes to the fact that he "might" have existed and then ceased to. This small acknowledgement begs the question of if it did, then does it still. This can be easily taken through another process to be shown that he does indeed exist due to the S5 theorum that I had originally introduced. This again refutes my opponent's own case. I have also shown that, in many cases, the universe has a creation, which I also had in my C3, but is once again, something I'll get into in a bit. The BVG has even shown, with background radiation, that the universe had a beginning. 

 

Monistic Idealism

 

I will repost this argument chain in order to remind us what all is included here. 

 

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 

 

 

My opponent's first objection is that why isn't the mind and the brain the same thing, but as I have shown in my first round that of the ball aspect, though for the sake of the debate I will give you another example for P2. Let's say you clone yourself. I don't mean just a twin, but everything like you in everyway, but it will be unable to have a consciousness. This is known as a zombie (excluding the decay and rotting corpse). We can see that it looks like you, talks like you, and it Physically like you, BUT it doesn't have the mind and hence not aware. Thus we can see that the mind is able to interact with reality, because if it wouldn't then we would all be mindless zombies like my opponent's clone in this example. Thus P2 is correct.

Thus Conclusion 1 is true. 
 

As for the free will argument. One could easily argue both ways, but under this case and either way we would be under the "illusion" that we have free will. For all we know we may be puppets on strings, but this still does not truely disprove the argument in this debate at this point. Though this could be grounds for a different debate outside of this thread. My opponent is confused as to why I'm going from an argument of the mind to God, but remember the definition at the beginning of the debate that showed that God is a mind that grounds reality. In this argument I have shown that Reality is mental as well as a mind. This makes God completely possible in this sense and that is to also mix with God being outside of the Spacetime continium which goes to answer my opponent's "Where's God" argument in it's simplicity. 

 

Contention 3: TA

 

My opponent states that everything is running like clockwork, like a machine, but let's disect this machine for a minute. Let's look at the phone. Why does it worK? The circuts inside of it provide the computer programming while the electricity provides it's power. Wifi and satellites (and towers) provide signal and internet. Why? This is all for your consumption which is a purpose of why it works. You may not know your purpose or the purpose of humanity, but everyone does indeed serve a purpose whether you want to believe that or not. 

 

My opponent then goes and question why I went from a Deist argument to a theist argument. The answer is simple. They can all overlap in this case. Each of the arguments can indeed compliment each other, in the common sense. 

 

With that I thank my opponent for this great debate and wish them luck in their final round. 

 

 

 

 

Sources

1. (http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/article/possible-worlds) 

2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.

[Bilal the Great]

Ah yes, another fine analysis by self-important delusional apes that is only limited to a single planet.

[Jaime Lannister]

Ah yes, another fine analysis by self-important delusional apes that is only limited to a single planet.

You mean the entire universe, with something like a hundred billion galaxies and uncountable stars wasn't created soley to hold us and our one little ball of dirt? .

Edited January 14, 2016 by Jaime Lannister

[WISD0MTREE]

You mean the entire universe, with something like a hundred billion galaxies and uncountable stars wasn't created solely to hold us and our one little ball of dirt? .

Please point to me where in the Bible it says we are the only life God created? 

 

Protip: You can't. 

[durmij]

Apologies for my late and infrequent replies, work was much heavier this week than anticipated. I want to thank my opponent as well, I have enjoyed this far more than I thought. I forgot that debates aren't about changing a persons mind, but refining your own arguments. No one's mind will be changed here, minds are far more often changed by personal introspection then through persuasive statements of others.

With that said, I'm not as prepared or invested as my opponent is. I don't have a doc of arguments, and tempting though it was to just google the many refutations done by better debaters than myself, I will handle this on my own. I'm not going to address my opponents arguments directly, but rather the most common thread through out them. This thread has run through many posts here in this forum as well, and has been part of a big push by theists in recent years. It's the push to use the vagueness of new science as justification of old, flawed axioms in classical arguments for God. But there is a fatal flaw in this approach. None of the cited phenomenons prove God, they simply fail to disprove the flavor of the month interpretation of whatever 2000 year old book you subscribe to. The reason I asked for the change to the debated point is simple. No scientific evidence of God exists. That is fact. Science is rigorous and harsh, and any observation is handled by many minds in order to test it's validity. Some may not explicitly run contrary to your view of the universe, but the absence of evidence of absence is not the presence of evidence of presence. Science is not on theologies side.

I want to close with a little aside. Whether or not you believe God is actually pretty far down on the list for most people in terms of world view shaping. My best friend is Catholic, and I've met many atheists who are utter shit. Just because science doesn't back up your faith, it doesn't mean you need to stop having faith. Just live well, do good, and don't be a !@#$ing prick. 

[Captain_Vietnam]

Apologies for my late and infrequent replies, work was much heavier this week than anticipated. I want to thank my opponent as well, I have enjoyed this far more than I thought. I forgot that debates aren't about changing a persons mind, but refining your own arguments. No one's mind will be changed here, minds are far more often changed by personal introspection then through persuasive statements of others.

 

With that said, I'm not as prepared or invested as my opponent is. I don't have a doc of arguments, and tempting though it was to just google the many refutations done by better debaters than myself, I will handle this on my own. I'm not going to address my opponents arguments directly, but rather the most common thread through out them. This thread has run through many posts here in this forum as well, and has been part of a big push by theists in recent years. It's the push to use the vagueness of new science as justification of old, flawed axioms in classical arguments for God. But there is a fatal flaw in this approach. None of the cited phenomenons prove God, they simply fail to disprove the flavor of the month interpretation of whatever 2000 year old book you subscribe to. The reason I asked for the change to the debated point is simple. No scientific evidence of God exists. That is fact. Science is rigorous and harsh, and any observation is handled by many minds in order to test it's validity. Some may not explicitly run contrary to your view of the universe, but the absence of evidence of absence is not the presence of evidence of presence. Science is not on theologies side.

 

I want to close with a little aside. Whether or not you believe God is actually pretty far down on the list for most people in terms of world view shaping. My best friend is Catholic, and I've met many atheists who are utter shit. Just because science doesn't back up your faith, it doesn't mean you need to stop having faith. Just live well, do good, and don't be a !@#$ prick. 

athiest bad as have no morals

 

Vietnamese people good and no athiests in Vietnam exitst

 

athiest believe world created in explosion and come from nothing

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Captain_Vietnam

[Lannan13]

 

Thank you for the wonderous debate.

[durmij]

Thank you for the wonderous debate.

 

To you as well

[Buorhann]

Lannan13 - I noticed you've copy and pasted a lot of your statements from searching it on Google.  Granted a lot of it is traced to your debate.org account, but bits and pieces are taken from other sites as well.

 

Not that this takes from the debate, but I'm curious as to who's actually debating here.

[durmij]

athiest bad as have no morals

 

Vietnamese people good and no athiests in Vietnam exitst

 

athiest believe world created in explosion and come from nothing

 

Having had such an excellent exchange, it real puts into perspective the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just spouting shit.

Edited January 15, 2016 by durmij

[Captain_Vietnam]

Having had such an excellent, it real puts into perspective the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just spouting shit.

nice to know athiest cant debate

[The Governor]

nice to know athiest cant debate

I really, really !@#$ing hate you.

[durmij]

nice to know athiest cant debate

 

The hell was i doing for days dingledorf?

[Lannan13]

Lannan13 - I noticed you've copy and pasted a lot of your statements from searching it on Google.  Granted a lot of it is traced to your debate.org account, but bits and pieces are taken from other sites as well.

 

Not that this takes from the debate, but I'm curious as to who's actually debating here.

The only thing that I have taken from research is stuff that you see that I have sited. Nothing more.

I really, really !@#$ hate you.

I mean, I may be a theist, but that is just uncalled for (referring to Capt. Vietnam's statement.)

[Captain_Vietnam]

The hell was i doing for days dingledorf?

my response is you not responding to my post

[Doktor Avalanche]

Most debate points in this forum are copypasta. Its expected.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Most debate points in this forum are copypasta. Its expected.

Well that, and they're somewhat incoherent.

[Captain_Vietnam]

lannan make arguements in own words or make your own arguements up rather then copy paste