I thank semperfortis for a worthwhile debate.
Semantics
insubstantially pedantic
My substance was the definitions I gave that were the most popular results I found. Sorry for being pedantic for the very thing we were arguing about. Next time I'll argue the definition of chocolate instead in a God debate.
He states that I specifically “defined myself to win”. However, nowhere did Pro specify that God must pertain to a Theistic denotation.
If you look closely. semperfortis did not in anyway defend himself over the truism claim. I don't need to state that the most common use of the word should be used. If that was the case why are we using the same words while we speak? Why aren't you using attack instead of defense?
My interpretation of “God” fits perfectly with Deism i.e “belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe”
Nowhere did you specify that we ought to use your definition and a rule was created that enforced that in a debate rule so I am well within my agency to have a problem with it. This quote is directly from the first. Instead of stating why we should ought to deny my definition or use his he simply states well my definition goes align with Deism. Bearing in mind the amount of people calling themselves
Deists. 49,000? That is minuscule. Just comparing the
Christian population which is 2.4 billion. There is a giant difference comparing just one Religion. More compared would simply increase the Religious population.
Moreover, it is intellectually dishonest to assert that I am arguing a truism – if my opening case is true, we are to accept that our universe was created by a conscious entity that “willed” our universe into existence
Note that semperfortis didn't actually defend the claim instead stated what would likely occur. Since the defense gave is not even in the same ballpark a defense of the truism it is a non-sequitur. It is more persuasive than anything else. If you can clearly see a person with biases before this debate would either find the non-sequitur to be negative because how possibly can an entity will something into the universe whereas another would just simply see this as what it is. Not a defense just persuasive rhetoric aimed to appeal to the crowd instead of defending himself which he did title this entire round as.
I am sure if this were a truism, Atheism wouldn’t be such a popular position.
Another if position. Con doesn't understand there is a cause of the universe and having God defined as a cause means both are the same thing. The reason why atheism is popular is because people don't use the same definition you do instead a more charitable version which gives people to work with not a less charitable and less agreed upon definition which I have clearly stated to be in the earlier round.
Pro doesn’t really justify why we ought to prefer a Theistic denotation over a Deistic one outside of the fact that he would rather rebut the former.
I guess my opponent didn't read this: "Given this the definition is not meaningful since the majority of people use the one I will just mention it is invalid." Do I need to an ought or should for it to be consider an ought claim? I don't think I do because I can't force anyone to do anything simply state what is like the majority don't use your definition and what it should be considered which is invalid.
unless he can show that my interpretation of “God” is inconsistent or incorrect, he is unjustified in disputing it
Inconsistent with majority of people around the world define it therefore being incorrect if we ought to care about speaking the same thing to one another.
especially when I carry the full burden of proof
So I ought to let you win because you have the burden of proof? If I didn't contest the truism I would've lost this debate because the flaws found in the KCA are very few but the more important ones is when people use this as an argument for God as in the general agreed upon definition. You essentially said since I was giving full burden of proof you should let me win. No that isn't how debates work. We contest an idea and we come to a resolution given to us by our voters.
I should be the one to define what I am making the positive claim for as long as it accurately pertains to the resolution.
The resolution was God does not exist. If it wasn't clear already the generally agreed upon use of God was not followed. You instead disingenuously changed the definition to suit your narrative.
Pro’s Definitions
Pro cherry picks three, albeit common, definitions of “God”,
Cherry-picking is a fallacy that is picking out data to suit your narrative. I didn't. I instead like you stated picked out a common definition. The greater question would be how am I cherry picking from a commonly agreed upon definition of God? It is rhetorical since it wouldn't be consider cherry picking if the majority agree with this definition.
but to assert that I need to abide by these definitions is nothing short of moving the goalposts.
Nowhere did I state you had to abide by my definition nor was I to abide by your definition. We are arguing about the existence about God and if I don't feel it is fair I will question it and I am allowed to.
Pro misconstrues and over extends the burden of proof by stating that these are the correct definitions to use.
I stated we ought to value my definition because it isn't invalid due to it being commonly agreed upon. You already agreed with the commonly agreed part. You are now assuming I expected you to respect my definition. No I didn't like how I didn't respect your definition because of how unfair it is.
There are many definitions and interpretations of “God” which is why there exist many religions that possess many different deities.
Yeah and I am using the most common one.
The wholly veracity of Pro’s definitions would entail that the Egyptian, Greek, Norse, Hindu and Buddhist interpretations of “God” are incorrect.
A definition doesn't make an idea correct or incorrect. It is the arguments you use around it. It just so happens you labelled God as the cause of our existence instead of what is commonly used.
Given that Pro failed to narrow the scope of the resolution, he is unfair to state that a Deistic interpretation (which is more than fair) is inapt.
More fair in terms of giving you essentially truism debate like in the ones here?
Now I just found out sp is not consistent with his own definitions of God.
In the link above he uses "the creator of the universe" but in this
one he uses "the sentient, eternal. efficient cause of the contingent universe" and in this
one he uses ""God" is defined as "being the creator of the universe and possessing the following attributes:
-Omnipotence (has the power to do anything)
-Transcendence (outside space-time)
-Omniscience (has unlimited knowledge)"
If it wasn't clear my opponent definitely doesn't like being consistent. If he used one of these definitions he is being incorrect on the other two. His very argument about interpretations about God would mean he is incorrect if people actually think that was a good enough argument.
A1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
As it stands, the rebuttals forwarded by Pro that refer to a different denotation of “God” are irrelevant and can be dismissed.
I have shown the opposite to be the case.
I noted in the previous round that a hypothesis is an “initial guess” that allows for testable predictions to be made.
The initial guess is a very small part of a hypothesis. The more important and the one you clearly missed was collecting data. If your measurements are wrong or you don't know how to use it, it doesn't matter how good your guess is. It is still a guess.
Hence, until we are faced with an occurrence that violates this hypothesis, we are to hold it in high regard.
You base yours on intuition. I base mine on evidence. I have clearly show before this how mine is superior to yours.
the factor of one’s personal feelings at the time of pondering the hypothesis is extraneous.
Loss of time. Loss of funds. Given the situation it varies of the amount lost. Personal feelings do matter which is why scientists try to remain objective not clouded by biases and feelings.
Premise Two
Pro does not contest the second premise.
Neither needed too nor wanted too.
Preliminary Address
An un-caused being goes against the very principle I didn't reject in premise one yet you are so adamant to forget about it here.
A2. The Incoherence of Personal Causes
Given my interpretation is more fair your entire points breaks down which gives me very little to rebut given the foundation was invalid.
because I can continuously just add another cause to the chain to avoid grounding an axiomatic explanation for the causes [2].
Yes that can happen but you have yet to justify that given that this exception is only offered for God you can't compared this to another entity.
Conclusion
I thank my opponent again for a worthwhile debate. I think I have done to show my side is better than my opponents and hope it shows in the voting period. Thanks again semperfortis.
This is interesting. Semperfortis looks like my kind of debater. Its a shame he's no longer active. I would of loved to debate this with someone who has such a good grasp of philosophy.
There is no god.
Things beyond human reasoning have always been drafted into a greater thing than us in order to understand ourselves and control others, most of all.
yeah sempor won
This was a pretty close one. I believe the debate largely moved in goalpost to definition of God, and under that I found con's chosen definitions more reasonable, especially since he had BoP and it was a two round debate to which he would not have the last word (I think I explained in my RFD that forcing him to restart with another would reduce it to a single round debate, which would be extremely unfair). That some definitions are more commonly used, doesn't mean they are better; and con did include a whole contention linking his definition to being an agent of volition rather than just chance (which was challenged under pro's definition, not cons).
Comparing the strength of the contentions for and against, and then the refutations for each, that God exists (at least within the stated definition) seems true. I was not left in question of the validity nor soundness of con's case (https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/), and his pre-refutations took the major sting out of the offense (things like mentioning the infinite regression problem).
Can you tell me how semperfortis won?
It wasn't clear in your vote.
No worries.
Thanks for taking the time to vote!
I won’t be voting here; as a comment I made to TRN made it into his debate argument - I wasn’t intending it as coaching or an argument suggestion, nor offered any further advice; but Given that the comment was made, I won’t be voting and I’m going to avoid any impression of impropriety; and recuse myself from vote moderation on this debate too.
Looking at SFs definition, my first thought was that we know the universe is caused, and an atheistic explanation would qualify as God under SFs definition, so I inherently agree with TRNs objection, and I made a comment along those lines - and my comment to him seemed to have spurred this round. I won’t comment further on whether he made a good defense.
Hi, if any of you have time to spare over the next two days could you please vote on this debate?
Good luck as well.
No, I now must prey to my very specific, uncommon, incorrect, unfair definition of God -- thanks for the debate and good luck.
Guess you deleted your blatant vote influencing.
Do you want to carry on speaking or is this it for you influencing voter decision?
Why are you telling me this now?
Are you trying to influence voters?
I didn't start this in the comment section you did.
Are there other things you would like to tell voters to influence their decision?
Not going anywhere and don't want to talk about it.
Please make another debate which puts an unfair burden on your opponent if they don't decide to challenge your assumptions.
Again, purely pedantic. Theism differs -- so slightly -- from Deism insofar that they believe that the creator intervenes in the universe. Craig might believe that the amalgamation of "uncaused, timeless, supreme etc. being" represents a theistic interpreation, even though the properties don't directly imply that -- this part is purely up to personal opinion.
How does there exist a 'most' common definition? Christianity represents a mere 30% of the religious population -- Hinduism has a multiplicity of Gods which wouldn't match your definition. Allah and the Christian God might prima facie have the same definition yet posit different things about our universe which would render them as different interpretations -- if one were to choose one interpretation over the other they are burdened with the scripture that comes with it.
>>I literally stated the KCA as William Lane Craig would argue it
How about the definition of God?
Oh wait they are different meaning both of you actually meant different things when referring to God. Okay.
>>remarking upon the theological implications of this union of properties."
Oh so Craig meant it with the theist perspective but you meant it with the deist perspective as in 49,000 people vs a lot more.
>>Would you personally, not consider a conscious cause of our universe to be God?
Why does what I personally think matter? You changed the definition to make the KCA pretty much align with it even though it doesn't. God is defined one way and you changed that majority definition which made the KCA different given the change in meanings.
>>There is no socially agreed upon definition of "God" as there exists hundreds of different "God's" pertaining to different religions.
I don't know what you are doing here but you are not convincing me of there isn't a consensus of the word God.
>>Many argue that they, themselves are God in a framework of solipsism -- the fact that they are not omnipotent or omnibenevolent wouldn't refute that.
How many people?
>> If our universe were simulated by a greater intellgence, we would ascribe them as being God. If we were to simulate a universe identical to ours and create life -- we would consider ourselves the "God" of that universe, yet we don't match the definition of God you provided.
What if it isn't? I would like concrete examples how the Abrahamic version of God is not the consensus. Even Hindus also call God the supreme being which if we total all of them up would mean a majority of the population have the same definition of God. Even excluding Hinduism just Christianity and Islam is more than 50% of the population. Hinduism agreeing just makes my case even better.
I literally stated the KCA as William Lane Craig would argue it; appending his additional premise of a personal cause. Please observe:
"Craig concludes that the cause of the existence of the universe is an "uncaused, personal Creator ... who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful"; remarking upon the theological implications of this union of properties." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)
I am still very unsure why you find a personal cause of our universe to be an unsubstantial view of God. Would you personally, not consider a conscious cause of our universe to be God?
>>But my argument wasn't just the KCA
That was the main argument. The other argument required the first because of how the ideas link. Cause and effect was again used in the second argument but was more important in the first given the KCA was the one that actually fulfilled the burden of proof if I followed your definition. You even mention it here as an addition "Now that it has been established that the universe is contingent upon an efficient cause, I assert that the only a personal cause (i.e an agent of volition) could be the only rational explanation."
>> If that were a truism we would be faced with the fact that our universe was caused by a conscious being.
It is a truism because you defined God differently to fit in the KCA argument basically removing the most important gripes when using the KCA as an argument for God. I called you out in the debate for using different definitions of God when I am guessing you know the commonly agreed definition of God.
>>That's why I stated that Atheism wouldn't be very plausible if it were a truism.
This was about whether or not God exists. Not about atheism.
>>Moreover, the idea of a caused universe is certainly not a truism, the KCA is heavily criticized.
Yeah because it is link to God as in the perfect being not the efficient cause to our universe. Please see my arguments again for a run down on why I challenged the assumptions and how I went about it.
There is no socially agreed upon definition of "God" as there exists hundreds of different "God's" pertaining to different religions. Many argue that they, themselves are God in a framework of solipsism -- the fact that they are not omnipotent or omnibenevolent wouldn't refute that. If our universe were simulated by a greater intellgence, we would ascribe them as being God. If we were to simulate a universe identical to ours and create life -- we would consider ourselves the "God" of that universe, yet we don't match the definition of God you provided.
But my argument wasn't just the KCA, i also provided that the cause was an agent of volition (i.e consciousness). If that were a truism we would be faced with the fact that our universe was caused by a conscious being. That's why I stated that Atheism wouldn't be very plausible if it were a truism.
Moreover, the idea of a caused universe is certainly not a truism, the KCA is heavily criticized.
That isn't my position.
The resolution was God does not exist.
KCA is an argument for a cause of its existence.
You decided to call God the cause of its existence.
I called it a truism because of that.
You used a very different definition to God essentially make the KCA be an argument for God when it never was if we care about using the socially agreed upon definition of God.
By the way, I forgot to ask why you think that Deism is a truism?
:1
There is a small typo in my second round, it should read "A2. The Incoherence of Impersonal Causes"
Thanks. Good luck to you as well.
Thanks for instigating the debate. I enjoyed how the resolution was left ambiguous and required justification throughout. Good luck in the final round.
semper
Has a temper
His opponents whimper
When he posts his arguments
Okay.
I'm defining God as like an efficient cause of the universe -- I will formally define it in my round.
I think that in this debate, the burden of proof should be shared and not only on Con, since you're making a claim as well. It's the job of the person making a claim to prove that claim, not the job of the opponent of the claim to prove that claim wrong. It would be wrong for your claim that God does not exist to win simply because Con could not provide sufficient evidence. As I'm sure you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and just because we cannot prove the existence of God does not mean that God does not exist.