Instigator / Pro
0
1525
rating
23
debates
58.7%
won
Topic
#5030
Does the argument from change/motion succeed in proving god?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1264
rating
363
debates
39.81%
won
Description
Well this is going to be a long one, the argument of change does have 50+ premises after all (at least the version I'm using), hence the 20,000 character limit.
Pro: The argument from change works
Con: The argument from change doesn't work
Round 1
Alright thanks best.Korea for this debate, to make this simple I will break my argument up into a few sections, the 1st section will be establishing that there is an “unactualized, actualizer” and the sections after that will be establishing qualities of that unactualized actualizer
The unmoved mover
Premise 1: change is real
Premise 2: change is the actualization of a potential
Premise 3: therefore the actualization of a potential is real
Premise 4: The actualization of a potential can only be caused by some other actuality (principle of causality)
Premise 5: the other actuality must either be actual (underived) or must itself go from potential to actual (derived) in order to actualize another
Premise 6: therefore there is either that which is already actual or this other actuality must be
Actualized by yet another which is per se responsible for its actualization
Premise 7: therefore, there is either that whose being is already actual or there is an infinite hierarchical (essentially ordered) series of actualized actualizers
Premise 8: but an infinite hierarchical series of actualized actualizers and things is impossible
This is because each member of this series depends on the actualized actualizer that actualized it, simply put an infinite amount of events doesn’t remove or deny the conclusion
Conclusion: Therefore, there must be that whose very being is already actual and does not go from potential to actual in any way: an unactualized actualizer
Tanscendental
Premise 10: whatever has an essence distinct from its existence must be caused or actualized to exist
Premise 11: but the unactualized actualizer is not actualized
Premise 12: therefore the unactualized actualizer must have an essence which just is it’s existence: what is is actuality, simply put
Premise 13: whatever is composite in being must be actualized to exist as a composite being
Premise 14: therefore, the unactualized actualizer must have non-composite, or simple, being
Premise 15: but the sun total of physical reality or finite realities is not simple being
premise 16: therefore, whatever is simple being cannot be identified with the totality of finite realities
Premise 17: but to not be identified with the totality of finite realities is just to be transcendent
Conclusion: therefore the unactualized actualizer is transcendent
Without succession
Premise 19: whatever has an essence which just is it’s existence must necessarily be
Premise 20: therefore the unactualized actualizer must necessarily be
Premise 21: whatever has necessary being does not being to exist or cease to exisr
Premise 22: therefore the unactualized actualizer does not begin to exist or cease to exist
Premise 23: to change requires having potentialities
Premise 24: but that whose essence is it’s existence has no potentialities
Premise 25: therefore the unactualized actualizer must be immutable
Premise 26: to be immutable entails being without succession
Conclusion: therefore, unactualized actualizer is without succession
Omnipotent
Premise 28: to have a power is to be able to make something happen and communicate being to another
Premise 29: but that which is subsistence existence itself can communicate any being since it just is actual being
Premise 30:but to be able to communicate any being whatsoever is just to be omnipotent
Conclusion: therefore the actualized actualizer is omnipotent
Immaterial
Premise 32: whatever is material being is composite being
premise 33: therefore, whatever is simple being must be immaterial
Conclusion: therefore the actual actualizer is immaterial
Eliminating polytheism
This section isn’t needed to make the argument work but I’ll include it
Premise 35: if there were more than one thing whose being is simple, then they would have to differ in atleast one respect, which entails having a part another has not and thus composite, I.e not-simple
Premise 36: Therefore, the assumption that there is more than one simple being leads to contradiction
Premise 37: therefore, there is only one simple being
Premise 38: therefore there is only one unactualized actualizer
Conclusion: Therefore, the unactualized actualizer is the universal cause of being.
Omnipresent
Premise 40: A cause must be present, in some way, to it’s effect
Premise 41: So, the cause of something’s existence must be present to it in some way, otherwise it would not exist
Premise 42: But the unactualized actualizer is the universal cause of being
Conclusion:therefore the unactualized actualizer is present to all things, hence omnipresent
Conclusion
I could go on for about 25 more premises but I think I’ve pointed out enough here to entail that the unactualized actualizer would be god, to summarize it is:
transcendental, omnipotent, immaterial, singular, omnipresent, and without succession
If such a being exists it would be called god
It doesnt have to be God. It can be any supernatural being.
I think some mysterious non-God being created the world. Right now Lucifer is trying to fix the world, but his power too is not infinite.
Round 2
Alright you didn’t object to my premises so I’ll presume you accept them and their conclusions (unless of course you object in your next argument)
Let’s define god: (according to Oxford)
a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Certainly omnipotence puts you on a “superhuman” level and being transcendental & immaterial could make you a spirit as well
It also appears to have power over nature & human fortunes, as it’s the result of change
Therefore a god.
Wouldn’t such a being that created the universe & is omnipotent be called god?
It can be non-God supernatural.
Kinda like Harry Potter. He is not God, but he is supernatural. He can create stuff and do many things that are supernatural.
Also, fuck Christian God. Christian God sucks and we should just throw our poop at him in case he is real.
Round 3
My argument never relied on god being supernatural, I said he transcendental as in he transcend the material world, but being supernatural doesn’t instantly make you god, not by the definition I was using where god is either a spirit or super-human that’s worshipped
Now Harry Potter isn’t really supernatural, his powers are but he, himself isn’t. Maybe you could argue he falls under the superhuman category, in which case if Harry Potter was worshipped in the franchise then I’d say he’s represented as a god like figure
So just to take stock, you haven’t disagreed with my premises, you just disagree that the unactualized actualizer is god, although I feel as if I’ve made a somewhat compelling case here
I think it was non-God supernatural. That makes more sense, because God is illogical and dumb. Plus, he is a tyrant.
Round 4
Well I’m not sure why you think that, again we defined god as:
A superhuman or spirit worshipped and believed to have control over people’s fortunes and actions that happen
Premise 1: the actualized actualizer is worshipped
He is responsible for the creation of the universe and people worship a god that created the universe
Premise 2: he is a spirit in some sense
He is transcendental, although even if you don’t grant this he would fall under super human from omnipotence
Premise 3: he is responsible for things that happen
I cover this more in my original argument, but simply put everything is derived from him
So let’s collect stock
Premise 1: the actualized actualizer is worshipped
Premise 2: it is a spirit in some sense
Premise 3:he is responsible for things that happen
Conclusion: therefore he fits all the qualities for god, therefore is god.
Now this debate was for someone to argue against the argument from change, you said you feel as if it’s non-god like supernatural being, well the thing about premises like this is how it makes you feel doesn’t exactly object to it
I disagree with my opponent's position on the topic.
My opponent needs to prove that God exists now.
Even if we accept his premises of God existing back then, there is no proof that God didnt commit suicide after creating the world, therefore doesnt exist right now.
Of course, I think that God never existed. That is my position. I am for that position.
I think the world was created by supernatural being that is not God but evil demon (only evil demon would create this evil world) and right now Lucifer is fighting to save humanity from that demon.
Round 5
I disagree with my opponent's position on the topic.My opponent needs to prove that God exists now.
You didnt refute the argument from change, you never even tried denying it, you just said its not a god that created it, but it appears as if it fits the description of god, and most certainly would be called one it revealed itself to us
Even if we accept his premises of God existing back then, there is no proof that God didnt commit suicide after creating the world, therefore doesn't exist right now.Of course, I think that God never existed. That is my position. I am for that position.
There is no proof he did, you'd have to make a claim that it committed suicide so you should back it up, even then that doesnt lead to atheism, that leads to deism. And its clear he didnt commit suicide since there is still change happening.
I think the world was created by supernatural being that is not God but evil demon (only evil demon would create this evil world) and right now Lucifer is fighting to save humanity from that demon.
Again definition of god:
A superhuman or spirit worshipped and believed to have control over people’s fortunes and actions that happen
the actualized actualizer checks all these boxes, he is worshipped as well which would prove at least one religion that follows it.
I think that God doesnt exist, but we will see what voters think.
Oh no, all is well I was just curious since most atheists are naturalists
No. Given that I have witnessed so many supernatural things in life, I am not a naturalist.
Although I can pretend to be naturalist if its needed.
Alright, also just to clarify are you a naturalist?
Sure.
Now Korea if you wish we could do another debate about god where you make counterarguments against it, since it seems as if you like the problem of evil.
Would you perhaps like to do another one of those?
Alright we’ll see, I’ll post my argument in a bit
"Well this is going to be a long one"
No, I can assure you its going to be a very short one.