Naturalism is the only acceptable ontology - Belief in god is self-defeating
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
INTRODUCTION:
This debate is about naturalism and belief in god.
Naturalism, in its broadest definition, is an ontology which states nature is all there is: no higher powers, no super-natural, no gods, no angels, no devils. The nature is all there is: Nature is not being controlled or ruled by higher powers.
For this debate, we will dispute my version of naturalism. For me, naturalism is the position that the nature is not under control of an outside power, like god or angels. My naturalism is, nature is sovereign, nature is independant - no one controls it and it is not dependant on anyone or anything.
This debate is NOT about if god exists or not. I will argue that even if god exists, believing in god is irrational, self-refuting.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BURDEN OF PROOF and VERDICT:
Burden of proof is completely on PRO (me). CON (my adversary) does not need to provide any argument.
So, when the juries (it is you, dear readers) give their verdict, they should keep it mind that their verdict should be based on the arguments I provided and the rebuttals CON provided.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFINITIONS:
The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article of Naturalism). For this disputation, the definition I provided above will be used:
NATURALISM: the position that the nature is not under control of an outside power, like god or angels. Nature is sovereign, nature is independant - no one controls it and it is not dependant on anyone or anything. This position is independant from the existence of god or other so-called supernatural beings like angels and devil. Even if they exist, they have no control OVER nature.
GOD: A being that is believed to be omni-potent, omnipresent, omniscient, creator and ruler of the universe.
NATURE: Entirety of the physical and material system which is also known as the universe, determined by the laws of nature through which all the events and everything in that realm is aligned into each other.
LAWS OF NATURE: actional patterns that are found in nature. E.g. law of gravity.
INDEPENDENT: Not under control of anything else, nor is subject to control of anything.
ACCEPTABLE: capable of being accepted. adequate. worth-pleasing. something satisfactory to the needs and expectations, nor exceeding the capability.
SELF-DEFEATING: contradictory in its own. acting to refute itself.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
RULES:
1) Burden of proof is on PRO (me) - CON does not have any burden of proof.
2) All CON has to do is to rebutt the argument(s) put forth by PRO (me)
3) CON is not allowed to raise any arguments (if they so wish, they can challenge me to debate the same topic under the conditions in which they are PRO)
4) No ad hominems.
5) No semantics or trolling
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL:
Demonstrating that naturalism is the only acceptable (or plausible) ontology necessarily means belief in god is irrational but demonstrating that belief in god is irrational or self-defeating is not sufficient to conclude that naturalism is the only plausible ontology. As a result, keep in mind that if I succeed in showing naturalism is the only plausible ontology, the second assertion of the title is also established.
__________________________________________________
GOOD LUCK!
This leads to the commission of repugnant contradictions. For if one denies that the effects follow necessarily from their causes and relatesthem to the will of their Creator, the will having no specific designatedcourse but [a course that] can vary and change in kind, then let each of usallow the possibility of there being in front of him ferocious beasts, ragingfires, high mountains, or enemies ready with their weapons [to kill him], but [also the possibility] that he does not see them because God does notcreate for him [vision of them]. And if someone leaves a book in thehouse, let him allow as possible its change on his returning home into abeardless slave boy—intelligent, busy with his tasks—or into an animal or if he leaves a boy in his house, let him allow the possibility of hischanging into a dog; or [again] if he leaves ashes, [let him allow] the possibility of its change into musk; and let him allow the possibility of stonechanging into gold and gold into stone. If asked about any of this, heought to say: "I do not know what is at the house at present. All I know is that I have left a book in the house, which is perhaps now a horse thathas defiled the library with its urine and its dung, and that I have leftin the house aja r of water, which may well have turned into an appletree. For God is capable of everything, and it is not necessary for thehorse to be created from the sperm nor the tree to be created from the seed—indeed, it is not necessary for either of the two to be created fromanything. Perhaps [God] has created things that did not exist previously."
intentional action requires the same thing: we couldn’tbuild a house if hammers unpredictably turned into eels, ornails into caterpillars; we couldn’t drive downtown ifautomobiles unexpectedly turned into tea pots orrosebushes. Intentional action requires a high degree ofstability, predictability, and regularity.
Your debate title can be misleading. You say belief in god is self-defeating but you agreed with me in the comments that pantheism isn't, which is a form of god. Maybe you don't have to change the title (preferably you should, but it seems hard to do so). Just add more specifications to the description. But what you said seems good enough.
So, what do you suggest the title should be?
My case for naturalism makes the belief in god self-defeating, I will try to demonsrate that.
But yes, now your proposal sparked a new idea in me. The debate title and its content may well be updated to "either naturalism or absolute skepticism"
You should probably fix your debate title, as you said belief in god is self defeating. Which isn't always the case.
Paul Tillich could be described as a pantheist, although he himself would hate to be lumped in with pantheism, as he believed God was beyond even being. "Pantheism" is extremely common among famous philosophers. I personally disagree with him on many points, but I agree with him on others. I generally agree more with Hegel and Spinoza on God. I find his argument for God not being "being" nonsensical and contradictory. It assumes God cannot be the origin of being while being it, which he very easily could be if he's timeless (as energy we know already is), meaning no before him is necessary, meaning no need for a source of being outside of his existence, but I digress.
Like yours, naming something natural as god. Oxygen for example. Your case would just be re-naming things.
But Joseph Smith had a material god that was in no way super-natural but yet somehow god: mind, power etc.
Pantheistic god for example can be called naturalistic god. God, yet not "super"-natural but the nature itself.
Paul Tillich's case is interesting and maybe worth considering. For him, it is wrong to say god exists - rather, existense itself is god.
"Your concept of god (god being energy, energy being god) has nothing against naturalistic ontology and ontological naturalism.
You may become a pantheist for example, saying the universe itself is god. That too is not violating naturalism. But nor pantheistic neither your proposal is super-naturalistic god."
I'm unsure what the distinction criteria between a "naturalistic god" and a "super naturalistic god" are.
Your concept of god (god being energy, energy being god) has nothing against naturalistic ontology and ontological naturalism.
You may become a pantheist for example, saying the universe itself is god. That too is not violating naturalism. But nor pantheistic neither your proposal is super-naturalistic god.
It's very easy to say deism/God can exist even within a naturalistic framework. The spectrums of energy our physical senses can interact with are exceptionally slim compared to what we know is out there....... That's not even considering what we don't know, which will almost certainly be much more.
In theory, God could exist as a form of energy like me and you. After all, we know energy can create consciousness, we're evidence of it. He could simply just exist as energy in a completely different vibrational spectrum, hence why he's invisible and undetectable.
Here for example, in this debate, I set it in a way that states burden of proof is completely on me. My adversary does not have any burden of proof.