Instigator / Pro
0
1525
rating
23
debates
58.7%
won
Topic
#5035
Is god real?
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
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1264
rating
357
debates
39.64%
won
Description
In this debate the 2 contenders will debate over if god is real
con - god isn't real
pro - god is real
Round 1
Im going to copy & paste the argument from our previous argument (and ill add all the extra premises I excluded as well
But 1st lets define god:
a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:
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
Perfection
Premise 44: To be further perfectible entails having some potentialities awaiting actualization
Premise 45: Therefore, whatever has no potentialities cannot be further perfected
conclusion: Therefore, the unactualized actualizer is perfect
Good
Premise 47: Something is good in proportion to its perfectly being what it is according to its nature
Premise 48: But the unactualized actualizer perfectly is subsistent existence itself
Conclusion: Therefore the unactualized actualizer is good, simply put.
Personal
Premise 50: To be personal is to have a certain power
Premise 51: Therefore, whatever is omnipotent is also personal
Premise 52: Therefore the unactualized actualizer is personal
Intellect
Premise 53: Whatever is in the effect must, in some way be in the cause
Premise 54: There are universal patterns or forms in the world, as effects of the unactualized actualizer
Premise 55: Therefore, the unactualized actualizer contains all these forms in some way
Premise 56: But, the unactualized actualizer, being subsistent existence itself, is not an instantiation of any particular form
Premise 57: But to contain form without being an instance of that form is just have intellect
Conclusion: Therefore, the unactualized actualizer has intellect
Omniscient
Premise 59: But to have intellect and also be the universal cause of being is just to be omniscient
Conclusion: Therefore the unactualized actualizer is omniscient
Truthful
Premise 61: Intellect is perfected to the degree that it has truth
Premise 62: Therefore, whatever is perfect and has intellect must perfectly possess truth.
Conclusion: Therefore, the unactualized actualizer possesses truth.
Life
Premise 64: The unactualized actualizer is perfect with or without having caused anything else to be
Premise 65: But an intellect which causes things to be which it does not need is free with respect to what it causes to be in particular and wheter anything else is cause to be at all
Premise 66: But this implies the unactualized actualizer has (free) will/volition/rational appetite by analogy
Premise 67:If something does not have life, it cannot have intellect or will (in the sense of rational appetite)
Premise 68: But the unactualized actualizer has both intellect and will
conclusion: Therefore the unactualized actualizer has a life
Eternal
Premise 70: To be immutable, without succession, perfect, and have life is just to be eternal.
Premise 71: Therefore the unactualized actualizer is eternal
Conclusion:
Premise 72: Therefore the unactualized actualizer is subsistent existence itself, simple, one, transcendent, immaterial, has necessary being, immutable, without succession, omnipotent, personal, omnipresent, perfect, simply good, has intellect, omniscient, has truth, has will, has life, eternal.
Premise 73: But this is just to say that god exists
Premise 74: Therefore god exists
God would have to be all powerful, therefore smart.
This world is designed poorly, in a not so smart way.
So I think that this world is a product of an evil demon, not God.
Anyway, let us know what you think.
Round 2
Well how do we know it’s poorly designed?
Also perhaps this helps us prove god, because where would this since of objective bad come from? I couldn’t explain it without reference to God. Which it’s also odd because you reject a objective sense of morality.
I have eyes.
Round 3
Okay but how does this object to that it helps us prove god, your saying this world was badly designed where did you get that objective sense of bad?
The theist could also simply explain god created it good and it was corrupted by Adam & Eve
This universe is actually quite intelligently designed to permit us to live here
1 - If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible.
2 - Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10^40, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.
Source: THE FINE-TUNING DESIGN ARGUMENT By Robin Collins From Reason for the Hope Within (1999)
I dont understand what you are saying, but anway...
bad world = bad demon.
Seems simple enough.
Now bad God doesnt sound right because God is supposed to be smart. So why isnt he? Because he doesnt exist.
This world is bad, so it could have only been created by bad demon.
Well, there are good demons too who are trying to fix the world and help humans.
Round 4
Your saying this world is bad, where did this objective sense of bad come from? It is intellectually dishonest of you since you deny objective morality.
bad world = bad demon.Seems simple enough.
Not really, I could simply argue
bad world = bad people
Now bad God doesnt sound right because God is supposed to be smart. So why isnt he? Because he doesnt exist.
Okay you haven’t proved god isn’t smart yet, and haven’t even tried attacking my argument for his existence
This world is bad, so it could have only been created by bad demon.
Again this doesn’t help your case, it helps mine because we can’t explain objective morality without god.
And again I could simply argue it’s bad because people corrupted it
Well, there are good demons too who are trying to fix the world and help humans.
Is there even a such thing as a good demon?
Lucifer is a good demon. He fights against evil demons who created this world.
I pray to Lucifer often. I think it helps me in life. Plus, pleasure is everything in the world of pain, and Lucifer stands for pleasure.
Indulgence, not abstinence... although I practice both. Its good.
Round 5
Lucifer is a good demon. He fights against evil demons who created this world.
Lucifer killed 10 people in the Bible, that’s not very good.
You may say that god killed more but that’s because he has the right to where Lucifer doesn’t, it’s like how a artist can judge his painting.
I pray to Lucifer often. I think it helps me in life. Plus, pleasure is everything in the world of pain, and Lucifer stands for pleasure.
Have you tried praying to god? Lucifer isn’t going to help with anything
I did pray to Jesus before, but then I converted to demon worshipping.