Instigator / Con
7
1541
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#3579
There is an evidence for the existence of god
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Pat_Johnson
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
5
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Description
The existence of god is an idea forced upon everybody. Unlike karma believers, astrology believers or reincarnation believers, god believers constantly try to impose their version of belief on others.
__________________________________________________________________________________
DEFINITION:
GOD: Creater [and ruler] of the universe who is considered omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. (It is my definition. The contender may dispute it in the comments before s/he accepts the challenge)
EXIST: : to have real being whether material or spiritual
did unicorns exist
the largest galaxy known to exist
b: to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions
strange ideas existed in his mind
2: to continue to be
(Taken from Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist)
__________________________________________________________________
RULES:
1) 1 ARGUMENT ONLY:
This debate is dedicated to dispute 1 attempt to persuade people into thinking god exists. PRO has to provide only 1 argument, 1 argument he thinks the best and we will debate that.
2) 3 ROUNDS ONLY:
The debate is set to 4 rounds but only 3 round will be for disputation. In the first round, I will pass the round stating "nothing to be writtin in this round". Similarly, PRO will have to write "nothing to be written in this round". Thus, both sides will have 3 rounds in total.
3) LIMITATION:
PRO has to raise 1 argument only and that must be expressed in the first round. Later rounds will be to dispute that argument, introducing new argument[s] by PRO in later rounds results in automatic disqualification - voters should keep it mind.
CON raises no argument. CON is to rebutt PRO's argument.
CON (me) is not allowed to bring something new in the last round speech of his, as PRO will no longer have round to respond back. CON's last round speech solely has to be focused on rebutting what PRO said in his last round - CON violating this rule results in automatic disqualification. Voters should keep it mind.
4) NO AD HOMINEMS.
Ad hominems or even insulting the opponent results in automatic disqualification.
5) NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE ARGUMENTS ALLOWED
PRO can raise philosophical argument which we can dispute on the standards we have. Talking like "I have seen god yesterday. He revealed me answers of my next exam and I passed the exam. God exists" results in automatic disqualificaiton.
Similarly, CON is not allowed to appeal to personal issues like "My friend knows that this argument has been refuted." etc. Arguments must be put forth here.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Good luck.
Round 1
Nothing to be written in this round.
_______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT AMENDMENT: I now realized that there has been a small neglection in the rules, a part was not included. CON yields this round, PRO will have to yield the last round. This "last round" part was neglected - I informed the opponent in the comments and informing you now.
"nothing to be written in this round".
Round 2
You were supposed to do that in the last round. Now, if you want, share your evidence in this round and write "nothing to be written in this round" in your last round. Thus, we each will have 2 rounds to dispute.
Or we can cancel this debate and do another one.
Yes I indicated in the comments of the misunderstanding.
As long as we both can express our views, I'm not going to be finicky over this.
Probably all I need is one round and it's a mic drop.
Moving on.
Ok, so the debate is about evidence. Now evidence is scientific and empirical.
The evidence to show something exists has to be seen. Not only I would be able to observe it but you and everybody else.
You're looking to be able to test it. Something demonstrable and repeatable is within the scientific method. That's what evidence is.
So what or where is the science that I have to introduce here?
Let's look at the foundation of everything concerning existence. The science of everything existing are under scientific laws.
We have the laws of physics, law of gravity, law of causality and so on.
These laws control things such as what a ruler does.
The law of causality creates, thereby being a creator or creater.
Laws that govern all of existence to create life, growth, produce fruit and quality and goodness, that's omnipotent,omniscient,omnipresent and omnibenevolent.
Really true that the laws constitute all of this.
I don't believe anybody would deny the existence of a cause which is a creator and the effect which is the creation.
The cause, the creator, can be called God if you like. Some people just simply say the creator. Others say in abstract, the universe or life.
Round 3
PRO has offered an argument. Thank him/her for her/his attempt. Sources are attached as link to the phrases that need sourcing.
Now, I hope I did not get it wrong. If I understood what PRO intended correctly, then I really think he is in a muddle.To begin with:
The evidence to show something exists has to be seen. Not only I would be able to observe it but you and everybody else.You're looking to be able to test it. Something demonstrable and repeatable is within the scientific method. That's what evidence is.
This statement stands vague. If he meant that "in order to be considered evidence, the proposal must be scientific." Then I oppose it on two ways:
In our debate rules, I did not have such requirement.
The second way is, evidence does not need to be scientific and empirical. Epistemological or philosophical justification may also count as evidence, even if not for everything, but they can count for something. That is what philosophy of religion is.
But if PRO meant that his evidence is scientific and empirical, instead of the way I understood it above, then his next statement of PRO contradicts PRO's position:
Let's look at the foundation of everything concerning existence. The science of everything existing are under scientific laws.We have the laws of physics, law of gravity, law of causality and so on.
These are not in the realm of science, which is something PRO has been asserting to rely his evidence on. These statements too stand vague, but all the different meaning it may have in conventional English are wrong.
Science does not inquire the foundation of existence. The study of foundation of existence can be metaphysics and/or ontology. Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Metaphysics has listed all the disputations concerning the exact definitions of metaphysics. What they classify as Old Metaphysics revolve around "being as such", "first cause", "Substance", "Universals" etc whereas what they label as New Metaphysics studies things like space and time, causality and determinism etc.
The second sentence is similarly wrong. "The science of everything existing are under scientific laws" is bold but yet un-established assertion. Science is a discipline like Mathematics and Philosophy: If Mathematical Platonism is true for example, it means numbers and other mathematical abstract formulas do exist - then, they are part of everything existing but not are under scientific laws. Here is what Stanford Encyclopedia says about it: "Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices."
PRO then states that the law of causality creates. It is not clear in which sense he used the word "to create" - to create out of nothing, a trait that has been attributed to many gods, or "to make something transit into something else". I assume the second one. He then states that law of causality is creator due to being creating. It is semantics: he just re-names things without any elaboration or justification. Does being a cause (which he names creator, and then god) equate to being a god? I am the "creator" of this text, does that make me god? Even if it does make me good in your description of god, that description is not the definition of god the debate has put forth, re-check the introduction
But the problem does not end there. He further equates sustaining the universe into being "omnipotent,omniscient,omnipresent and omnibenevolent." but he offers us no understanding, no elaboration or justification on why regulating the universe is tantamount to being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. As it stands now, this part is non-sequitor fallacy. Continually creating and sustaining the universe does not equate to being omnipotent or omniscient etc: It does not necessitate those traits. Our universe might just be a video game of a child who just sustains the universe by being present in his own room, without being present anywhere and without being omni-potent.
Also, none of these conclusions are scientific and empirical, unlike what PRO designated. they do not need to be scientific, but PRO asserting his argument being scientific and empirical is wrong. Re-naming cause as creator and then god is not a scientific step for example.
SUMMARY:
These are the problems PRO's presentation has:
1) PRO gave wrong definition of evidence.
2) PRO confused science and philosophy (metaphysics and ontology.)
3) PRO's argument is non-sequitor (so far, he still has 1 round to go in which he may elaborate).
4) PRO arbitrarily re-names the terms, which I called semantics.
I could elaborate on ontology part but no needed, metaphysics is enough.
Back to pro. Good luck.
The point is, you want evidence. Now how is something evident to you that you can't see for yourself?
That's why I'm saying it can't be just something I say is evidence to me because I can witness or understand it.
That makes it subjective. No problem when I'm just dealing with myself. But I'm dealing with the masses. So it becomes objective now. Do you see what I'm saying?
I'm sorry and I want to help you. What more specifically is there to be stated about the natural laws ?
Also they're laws that we understand scientifically by the way.
Is not the big bang theory not a inquisition from scientists and researchers?
Remember, science is how these things are explained. That is unless you know any other way. It's experimenting, theorizing and hypothesizing.
I just said the law of physics. How would science have nothing to do with it?
That's the part you have to explain.
These things are learned in observation. Which is what science is. The observational studies are taught in textbooks.
I think we just have two different approaches to science and scientific laws.
For instance, the law of gravity. We understand it through science. What is meant by science here?
We can test, demonstrate the cause and effect of this law. Which indirectly proves the law of causality. All within the natural world as everything exists.
It just helps not to complicate that.
Well that's what is said about the "big bang", isn't so?
No matter what you call it, it has those properties. The creator is the cause. The creation is the effect.
We know cause and effect exist. Why? Well we have the evidence.
According to the properties you've given it, yes. That's the whole point. I'm only arguing based off your definitions, words or semantics as you call them.
Words are important and not to be thrown all over the place or thrown away like they're meaningless.
I can check it again but I'm quite confident on what you said. I went line by line to cover all the bases. You can see that when I listed back all the "omni" verbiage.
So are you god of a text? If god means the maker of it , then yes. You made the text.
Pay attention, sharp attention to words .
I apologize once more. I just assume often to give credit in intelligence to folks. But when you don't understand something, you should ask questions. You kinda did that indirectly I suppose.
So the creator, the cosmos, the universe , etc. , that which brings cause and or responsible for , is omnipotent.
Why? That cause has to be all powerful to make everything within it.
It is all knowing or omniscient because it has all knowledge or all information to provide everything within existence as is.
All knowledge and information constitute facts in some form or fashion which is what all of reality and existence is made of .
We observe , demonstrate that information and explain it in the language of science.
It is omnipresent meaning everywhere that's evident and even in absence of view, causality is happening.
This world is ruled, ran by causality.
Looks like a coined expression "omnibenevolent " but correct me if I'm wrong, it would mean all good or good doing.
Now from the beginning of the cause life, onto the reproduction of it, is that not good?
If you're conscientious to protecting life, flourishing what is conducive and constructive to it, I acknowledge that we understand the goodness thereof.
Ahh but even in that example right there,
we still have a creator, a cause. When the child is able to have the power to control and cause everything we do , it's all powerful to us. Also what created that child is our creator as well . So cumulatively, cumulative power adds up.
Also it applies with all the other properties as well. See it helps to not put something in a box. But we have tendency to do that due to our limited minds, see .
So scientific laws have nothing to do with science according to you. These natural laws don't enter in at all .
Even the law of physics I guess need I remind you is a branch of science.
The law of causality and gravity are empirical.
Please rethink what you're putting forth.
What do they need to be?
Think about it, if you can't witness something for yourself or a thing you know you've observed before, are you saying just telling you about it here in this debate is evidence?
If I just tell you something, you can either believe or disbelieve it. But you would know it to be true based on helping your eyes to get pointed to what you see on a daily basis all around you.
That is god as the debate title puts it.
Let us not get carried away with the preference of semantics comrade.
So basically to wrap up this round I've indicated these two basic things.
The first is I took the properties that were give by the Con side and explained how they fit into reality. I have to do that in order for it to be evident. If it's not in reality, how can it be evident?
To try to argue that the proof is not warranted by empiricism, all you have is he said , she said really.
The second is that the basis to be finicky over terms is non-existent. Not a justifiable one anyway. It's more or less a copout in resorting to some type of objection to how a term is used.
Am I god or a god because I run my life, answer to myself, have wonderful abilities?
If that's all being a god is when I say it, duh.
I rule the world. This is a man's world. I'm a man and when I say god, that who that is, a man.
I just defined the properties as you the Con side did.
As long as we understand what each one is saying, that's the key to communicating with any words and definitions.
Due to the character limitation chosen , I could not fit what I'm responding to in quotations along with my responses. But the main take away is at the wrap up with those two basic points.
Round 4
PRO asks "how can it be [considered] an evidence if it is not seeable by me?" It is a muddle: Evidence is not supposed to be a proof you can verify - evidence is something that increases probability of being it true.
PRO now asks "what more should be specified about laws of nature?" That is irrelevant, I did not ask PRO to elaborate what laws of nature is. What I rebutted him was that learning causality, nature of laws of nature etc are not part of science but part of metaphysics. PRO was initially supposing his argument which he calls laws of nature are god are scientific and empirical, they are not. I specified it in my previous speech.
PRO then asks "How would science have nothing to do with laws of nature? That is the part you shall explain". But it is a straw man - I did not say science has nothing to do with them, what I said is science does not inquire them: science relies on them, laws of nature and their uniformity is the main assumption/presupposition of science. It is a basic in the philosophy of science. The scientific inquiry itself relies on the laws of nature, you can not inquire them scientifically.
PRO then brings up variou things that muddle the philosophical picture on causality. He states that we know cause and effect exist, it is plainly false. David Hume is famous rebel against causality: In short, what we know is the patterns, not causation or causality. It is a very famous topic in philosophy and here is what Internet Encyclopedia of Internet says about it[1]:
Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains. For Hume, the necessary connection invoked by causation is nothing more than this certainty.
All the assertions of PRO about causality and laws of nature being empirical collapses as a result: we simply do not know. What is empirical there is the constant conjunction.
We do not know if cause and effect exist, we just assume them and accept them without knowing: that is the way our brain works.
PRO still claims that causes are creator and then calls them god. He asserts that "cause has to be all powerful to make everything within it." But he does not offer us any analysis or justification - he just asserts boldly. For example, he goes to call me god of the text I caused to exist but does he and you (reader, voter, jury) accept me as omnipotent? I am not omnipotent yet he sees me as the cause of the universe. PRO is in contradiction here.
PRO says causality is "omnipresent, omniscient" etc and asserts it has all the knowledge and present everywhere in the universe. The very first main problem with his assertions is that, laws of nature are PART of the universe, not creator of the universe: Our definition of god at the beginning of the debate was to be creator and ruler of the universe. PRO's argument already fails there, without needing to go further. But there are more problems: he asserts laws have knowledge, but we do not even agree that the laws of nature have consciuosness, knowledge requires mind. He does not demonstrate the laws have mind, nor do I agree with that but he acts like as if we agree on this. That is one of them problems among several others but I am not talking of that problems due to character limit and PRO's argument already failing in that what he offers as god is not the creator or the cause of the universe.
PRO asserts that the laws are omnibenevolent because they caused life and sustain it, and then asks "is it not good"? Let us ignore the subjectivity part here, having good results do not necessarily show omnibenevolence: there are many suffering in the world, which refutes omnibenevolence. There are many problems with this argument but I skip them due to limit.
PRO offers some definitions of god, they are arbitrary definitions - the problem is not them being arbitrary but the problem is that none of those definitions fit the definition of god we agreed upon.
SUMMARY:
These are the problem's PRO's rebuttal has:
1) He states that I said science has nothing to do with the laws: plainly false. What I said was study of them is metaphysics, not science.
2) PRO states that causality is empirical - it is plainly false. What is empirical is the constant conjunction of what we call cause and what we call the effect.
3) Even if granted everything, PRO's arguments do not serve the definition of god of the debate: CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. PRo states that causes are the creator but they are part of the universe, not creator of the universe.
4) PRO self-contradicts: PRO states cause is all-knowing and accepts me as cause of the text but I presume he does not reckon me all-knowing
5)PRO's attempt at omni-benevolence fails.
And other problems I elaborated.
My last round. PRO now shall pass his last round as agreed upon.
REFERENCES:
[1] IEP's article titled David Hume:Causation https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
I believe this is where I am to state "nothing to be written".
Just look back on those two main points I made in the previous round.
It's true , we all agree in spite of a tight clinging to our personal biases or positions.
I bid you well .
I read you RFT. You talked that con should have head burden of proof in this debate.
If you want, let us debate if the atheist side has (or should have) burden of proof in the disputation about the existence of god.
Also, you made some misleading remarks in your RFT but the jury is you and I am not gonna dispute your spectation.
Yes, I did not specify it properly, my bad. Next times I will not make such mistake.
The two known massless particles that are both gauge bosons are evidence for the existence of the Universe being a simulation.
Unless you meant last round of the first round. That wasn't very specific. I don't fully get what the issue is. Maybe because you're on the CON side, PRO side is supposed to argue first. But I didn't see anything specified in that way either.
I think I misunderstood. I believe you were requesting me to put the verbage in the 4th round.
Look, I now realized I made a small mistake when typing the rules. This one:
"Similarly, PRO will have to write "nothing to be written in this round". - You have to write so in the last round. I am making it clear in my first round speech.