Instigator / Pro
11
1533
rating
9
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#5627
It Is More Probable That a God Exists Than That No God Exists
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
CatholicApologetics
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
9
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Apologies for the repeated debate topic. From what I have seen, this topic has been argued before so I apologize to the judges that may have read the previous debate.
This purpose of the debate is knowledge. Regardless of the winner, both parties will have expanded their scope of understanding with regards to this topic, which is the true purpose of the debate. That being said, the central question is: "Is it more probable that a God exists than that a God does not exist?" I will argue in favor of the existence of a God, while the opposing party will argue against it.
In this debate, the deity of "God" will refer to the God of the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) Bible. Which means that in my pursuit to argue for the probability of God, I will focusing on the God that the Bible talks about. If there are any questions or if anybody would like these rules changed, I am open for discussion in the comments.
Good luck.
Round 1
Pro
#1
INTRODUCTION.
Welcome! I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the opposition for accepting this debate and dedicating time to participate in it.
I would also like to restate the purpose of this debate. This debate is not intended to crown a 'Winner' and a 'Loser' but rather, the scope and purpose of this debate is to expand our domain of knowledge on the topic. The true winner is the one who absorbs and understands the knowledge that both parties will bestow. In this debate, I will not attempt to 'prove' anything, but I will only provide evidence to support my claim.
Finally, if any ideas from this debate resonate with you, whether from the Pro or Con side, I encourage you to conduct your own research on the existence of God.
PREREQUISITE.
God and science do not oppose each other. Science cannot be an impediment to God, just like science cannot be an impediment to truth. Meaning by that, that Science cannot hinder or obstruct the discovery of a God in the same way that science cannot hinder or obstruct the discover of how the universe works. To support this claim, I will propose a scientific-oriented argument for readers more on the science side, as well as a more relaxed and logical argument that is less depended on science for the other readers.
MAIN BODY #1.
This topic is a very complicated and multifaceted issue. Why should we believe that it is more probable that a God exists, than that a God does not exist? My belief in God is not based on answered prayers or personal prosperity. I believe a God exists because it is more probable to believe that a God exists than to believe that a God does not exist.
What does the evidence suggest? I believe it points to a creator, a God. Let me present the cosmological argument to support this claim.
This argument is pretty straightforward. Everything that has a beginning has a cause; the universe has a beginning therefore it has a cause. If the universe has a cause it necessitates an uncaused causer. Meaning by that, if everything that begins to exist has a cause, then the cause of the universe itself must not have begun to exist. It must be uncaused, otherwise, it would need its own cause, leading to an infinite regress. Time is understood to be a property of the universe. If the universe has a beginning, the cause of the universe must exist outside of time. Space, just like time, is also considered to be a property of the universe. Following the same train of thought, the cause must be immaterial and outside of space.
So far, we have determined that the cause must transcend its properties and exist outside of the universe; it must be immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and uncaused. However, I would like to add one more: personal. A personal cause follows from the need for a cause that can freely choose to create the universe. A personal cause, with the ability to choose to create, explains why the universe began to exist at a particular point in time rather than existing eternally.
MAIN BODY #2
The first piece of evidence suggests that because the universe has a cause, it is very probable that the cause is a God. The second piece of evidence is meant to illustrate that the universe as a result of chance is absurd.
Life is balanced on a razor's edge. The existence of our universe as we know it boils down to thirty numbers. Physicists have named these physical constants. These numbers are fixed values of a fundamental physical condition we find in our universe. These numbers are intricately precise and perfectly balanced with each other that they fall within a very narrow range that permits the existence of life. If any of these constants or conditions were even slightly different, the universe would not be capable of supporting life as we know it.
Allow me to help you visualize this precision. Imagine a dial with all the atoms in the universe. To permit life, you would need to hit a specific atom among all the atoms in the observable universe. The precision required is far greater than even this analogy suggests. Believing that these constants and conditions falling within the miniscule life-permitting range purely by chance is unreasonable. The physical constants points in the direction that the universe is not due to random chance but rather to some purposeful design. Since the beginning, the universe has been fine-tuned to permit for life. This illustrates that the uncaused designer is probable to be God.
CONCLUSION.
In summary, the evidence points to an intelligent mind, an uncaused cause. The universe, in its finite existence, leads the rational mind to conclude that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal being, which is understood to be God. From this reason alone, the premise is clearly established: it is more probable that a God exists than that a God does not exist. The chance for life is also astronomically low, leading a God to be one of the sole logical deductions.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Con has failed to provide any counter-arguments. They have made it clear they do not have any real points. I would have liked to engage in a proper discussion but it can't be helped.
I hope everything is well in your life Kramers and nothing is preventing you from participating fully in this debate.
Con
#4
Hello, I wanted to apologize to you for not replying in the previous round. It's my first time debating here and I thought all debates had a 2 weeks period between argument. Now I just saw every debate has different durations and this one had 3 days per argument. Sorry!
I hope you didn't feel disrespected as it was not my intention to seem uninterested in the debate or ignore you in any way.
After this apology, I'll reply to your argument:
1) God and science are usually not compatible as science relies on empirical evidence, accuracy and a prediction capacity while the concept of God relies rather on faith and personal experiences that are hardly ever proven. Besides from this, the concept of God has had and still has many forms that are often incompatible with each other while science is an almost unique form of knowledge that remains unvaried through time except when new findings debunk the previous knowledge. However, this is not that science changes forms over time as the concept of God does. Instead, science remains the same over time and it is us the ones who find out new stuff about her. If the world had a reset, 2024 years later our gods would be different from what we know nowadays but science would end up being the same as in this world.
2) Your cosmological argument falls into the composition fallacy and the circular reasoning. You are saying that, because "everything" has a cause in the universe, the universe as a whole must have a cause. First, not everything has a cause or not at least a known cause. For example, in Quantum mechanics we don't know why particles appear where they appear. There is not a clear known cause. This is known as the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Do physics students say it is God for that reason? No, it's probably another of the many phenomena we still have not discovered. Thus, the cause of the universe is most likely another unknown phenomenom we still are unable to discover. There are many theories that explain how the universe was created and they make sense, the problem is that we can't fully prove any of them yet (i.e cyclical universe model or the eternal inflation model). Thus, reducing everything to "God" is not appropriate as this is impossible to prove and makes no sense whatsoever with our current knowledge of physics as well as being a vague and limited explanation of the cause of the universe. Physics theories provide arguments and prove them through evidence that goes accordingly with our current knowledge of physics, the god theory, on the other hand, relies on magic and mystical beliefs that have had no evidence ever in the history of any religion.
3) Saying the cause of the universe must be personal and capable of choosing is a simple speculation backed up with nothing, not even an insight. Following this logic, we could say the cause of the universe is literally whatever we want it to be. Why God and not Batman? They both have the same probability of being the cause behind the universe following your argumentation. Batman could be the personal cause and has the capacity to choose what the universe is going to be like, just like God. This is the falsification principle of Karl Popper, and all physical theories try to follow this principle except the one of God.
4) Then, you say that the universe’s physical constants are precisely set to allow life, implying design. However, this overlooks the possibility of a multiverse (for example, the string theory), where countless universes with different constants exist, and we happen to be in one that supports life. This would simply not be compatible with the idea of having a "designer" as we know God is. If we assume the universe is eternal, no end nor beginning, and that it's a constant creating of new other "universes" then it's a matter of time whether or not one of them happens to appear with life in it. If you have an infinite amount of chances of hitting a dot with an arrow, you will end up hitting it in a 100% chance. This is the same with the universe, this universe is so "perfect" because in an infinite sea of possibilities, having a "perfect" universe is a 100% chance. In fact, there are surely other "perfect" universes as well that have life in it. But even so, our universe is not perfect and our planet is the only known planet in billions of years light of space to have life in it as the other planets are unsuitable for it. Is this a marvel o simple statistics? We live in this "perfect" planet because it's the only one we could exist in billions of years light of space where nothing has yet been discovered. Thus, randomness seems like a very likely possibility. I think you are falling into the anthropic principle.
Conclusion) The cosmological argument presented logical fallacies (composition and circular reasoning). Saying the cause of the universe must be personal and capable of choosing is speculation. Finally, the opponent ignores multiverse theories and Karl Popper's falsifiability.
Round 3
Pro
#5
INTRODUCTION.
I accept your apology. I have written a more detailed response in the comments.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS.
Your cosmological argument falls into the composition fallacy and the circular reasoning. You are saying that, because "everything" has a cause in the universe, the universe as a whole must have a cause. ... in Quantum mechanics we don't know why particles appear where they appear. ... This is known as the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
- COMPOSITION FALLACY AND CIRCULAR REASONING.
The cosmological argument does not commit a composition fallacy. The argument asserts that if everything that begins to exist has a cause, then the universe, which began to exist, must also have a cause. This does not automatically imply that the universe itself must conform to the same rules as its parts; rather, it is an inference based on the nature of causality.
2. HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle introduces elements of uncertainty at the subatomic level. On the contrary, the Cosmological argument address the universe as a whole, not the behavior as a whole, not the behavior of individual particles. The quantum realm does not negate the need for an overall explanation for the existence of the universe.
3. CYCLICAL UNIVERSE AND ETERNAL INFLATION MODELS
The theories mentioned face significant challenges and lack definitive empirical evidence. These models also assume a pre-existing framework or set of physical laws, which themselves would require an explanation. The cosmological argument attempts to answer why there is something rather than nothing. This question remains relevant regardless of the model of the universe's origin.
Physics theories provide arguments and prove them through evidence that goes accordingly with our current knowledge of physics, the god theory, on the other hand, relies on magic and mystical beliefs that have had no evidence ever in the history of any religion.
The claim that invoking God as the cause of the universe is "impossible to prove" and relies on "magic and mystical beliefs" misrepresents the nature of the argument. The cosmological argument does not depend on magical thinking but on philosophical reasoning. It posits that the best explanation for the existence of the universe is what we call God. This is a rational inference based on the principles of causality and the contingency of the universe, not "magic and mystical beliefs."
Saying the cause of the universe must be personal and capable of choosing is a simple speculation backed up with nothing, not even an insight. ... Why God and not Batman? ... This is the falsification principle of Karl Popper
- CLAIM THAT THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE IS BACKED BY NOTHING
The argument that the cause of the universe must be personal is based on the nature of causation and creation. The idea is that a personal cause has the ability to make a deliberate decision to create, rather than a cause that is impersonal or deterministic. The concept is that a personal cause can account for why the universe began to exist.
2. FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE OF KARL POPPER
Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability is a criterion for determining whether a theory is scientific, based on whether it can be proven false through empirical observation. Theism, particularly the cosmological argument, operates within the realm of philosophical reasoning rather than empirical science. The argument for a personal cause is not subject to empirical falsification in the same way scientific theories are.
3. WHY GOD AND NOT BATMAN
The cosmological argument posits the cause is necessary, uncaused, and outside of time and space. This cause must be fundamentally different from anything fictional or contingent. Aquinas and other theologians argued for a necessary being that possesses the attributes of necessity, immateriality, and intentionality. They distinguished this being from any created or fictional entity, as the former has metaphysical necessity rather than contingent existence.
Then, you say that the universe’s physical constants are precisely set to allow life, implying design. However, this overlooks the possibility of a multiverse. ... this universe is so "perfect" because in an infinite sea of possibilities, having a "perfect" universe is a 100% chance. ... I think you are falling into the anthropic principle.
The multiverse hypothesis itself remains speculative and unproven. Entertaining the multiverse hypothesis, the multiverse itself requires an explanation. If our universe is just one of many, who or what created the multiverse? The existence of a multiverse with its own set of physical laws and constants would itself be the product of a higher intelligence. The argument that an infinite number of universes would eventually produce one capable of supporting life assumes that there are indeed infinite universes and that they have varying constants. Even if this were true, it still does not address the origin of the laws that govern these universes.
The anthropic principle is a tautology that does not provide an explanatory mechanism. It states the obvious without addressing the underlying cause of the fine-tuning. The principle acknowledges the precision required for life but does not explain why the universe has these precise conditions in the first place.
Con
#6
- Whether or not you consider the cosmological argument a fallacy, the truth is that the supposition of the universe having a cause in the same way the events happening inside of it do is not a valid argument, and there is no reason why this should be the case. The universe as a whole could perfectly work in a totally different way from how we know space events happen inside of it. Implying everything needs to have a cause because it started to exist once is also speculation based on philosophical thoughts. As I said earlier, the universe could be a cycle, and if multiverses exist, the universe could be existing in different realities at different times and maybe it never started or ceased to exist. Plus, we don’t know if the universe started to exist because the Big Bang theory doesn’t cover the beginning of the universe itself; it only covers the beginning of its expansion, not its creation. The universe was still there before it started expanding and forming what we see nowadays, but science doesn’t know what was going on in that previous phase to the Big Bang, so you are being speculative by assuming it follows the nature of causality.
- Heisenberg’s principle is applied at a subatomic level, but that still shows that not everything in the universe has a clear or defined cause, at least not known to us due to how complex it might be. Thus, assuming the cause of the universe is as simple as what the cosmological argument says is quite questionable.
- It’s true that current scientific theories lack definitive evidence, but so does the cosmological argument. We are talking about probabilities, and according to science, the cosmological argument is not one of the likely-true theories that are available right now for us to explore, while other physical theories do have evidence even if it’s not definitive. The cosmological argument has no direct evidence whatsoever, so in terms of probabilities, it is less likely to be the correct cause of the universe than any of the theories I mentioned in my last post. These already set frameworks and physical laws that you mention could have other physical laws and frameworks as their cause and not a God. This could follow an infinite cycle of physical laws and frameworks, leaving no room for God. We can literally make up any other cause, and it would be as valid as the one of God.
- I repeat that thinking the cause of the universe is personal and capable of choosing is a total philosophical belief and not a conclusion based on empirical evidence or any scientific proof. This belief is as speculative as any other I could make up myself right now out of nowhere, as all of them would have the same scientific validation and probabilities of being correct.
- Even if the cosmological argument is philosophical, it still has to follow a certain rationality and coherence. Not following Popper’s principle makes it have weaker validation even if it’s not an idea coming from a scientific area. Can you prove Batman is NOT the cause of the universe? You can’t. Well, that makes my argument weaker in the same way as me not being able to prove the idea of God NOT being the cause of the universe makes your argument weaker as well, even if they are not scientific.
- The ideas of how God should be like to be the creator of the universe are also speculative and have no evidence. For that reason, it doesn’t matter which character I choose or what traits I want to give him, as both ideas have the same scientific probabilities of being true. None of the characters can be proven real or fake. All that backs up the idea of God and not the one of Batman are the ideas of some philosophers that could be or could not be right as they haven’t been tested in a scientific way. That means the idea of God having X traits is not backed up by anything, at least not anything valid in a scientific way, just like the idea of Batman.
- The anthropic principle shows that our existence in the universe doesn’t need a designer; it can simply be a result of the possibilities of the multiverse. And thinking about the cause of the multiverse is the same as thinking about the cause of the universe; it can be a cycle. What is almost certain is that there is no God behind it because, following your own argument, if the cause of the universe is the multiverse and the cause of the multiverse is God, what is the cause of God then? Another God? Even if we don’t pay attention to scientific evidence, the same idea of God being the cause of the universe still doesn’t solve any of our issues philosophically, as we would still need to know where God came from as well. This is a constant cycle, infinite, with no end or beginning because it doesn’t matter how far you go, you will always need to find the cause of the cause of the cause… God doesn’t solve this question. That’s why, even philosophically speaking, the idea of an infinite universe following a cycle seems more likely than the existence of God.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Though I am and remain an atheist, this debate has made me question a few things. Pro's arguments were well-structured, clear, and logically presented. Pro introduced the cosmological and fine-tuning argument to support the existence of God. The use of both scientific and philosophical reasoning helped establish a comprehensive approach, which was not equally matched by Con in my opinion.
In Round 3, Pro effectively addressed Con's counterarguments and refuted the idea that the cosmological argument commits a composition fallacy. They also clarified the scope of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and defended the philosophical basis of the argument for a personal cause. Pro also challenged the speculative nature of the multiverse theory and argued that even if it were true, it wouldn't necessarily negate the need for a divine cause. While Con raised some important philosophical and scientific points, their arguments often leaned on speculation without sufficient support or evidence. Con's attempt to equate the likelihood of God with that of a fictional character like Batman did not resonate as strongly with me because it seemed to downplay the philosophical foundations of the debate. In Round 4, Con restated some arguments that were already addressed by Pro, which I didn't think was very honest of them.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Arguments: Con made very good rebuttals to all of Pro's points. Then Pro did not do a very good job of refuting the rebuttals. For instance:
"Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle introduces elements of uncertainty at the subatomic level. On the contrary, the Cosmological argument addresses the universe as a whole, not the behavior as a whole, not the behavior of individual particles. The quantum realm does not negate the need for an overall explanation for the existence of the universe." -Pro
Con's point was that the cosmological argument was false because some things don't need a cause. Pro claimed that this only applied to quantum physics, which is true as far as we know, but it doesn't change the fact that not everything necessitates a cause.
In conclusion, Con did a very good job in the rebuttals round. Pro made good initial arguments, but could not discount the rebuttals of Con successfully, so loses the debate.
Sources: Neither side provided any sources
Legibility: This one is stupid. I only award it if one side had an abysmal lack of it.
Conduct: Con forfeited one argument. I get that it wasn't intentional, but one forfeit is grounds for a conduct point to be taken away.
I forgot to mention in my vote that conduct point was lost due to the forfeited round.
I fully accept your apology and totally forgive you. I find it commendable that you were willing to be humble and apologize for the forfeit. Out of everybody that I know, very few would be as humble as yourself and choose to apologize. I do not feel disrespected in any way. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was either something going on in your life that prevented you from participating in the debate, or some other reason. Regardless, I hold no ill-intent towards you. Rather, I respect you for choosing to behave in a righteous and dignified way, and in a way deserving of praise. Thank you for your honesty.
I take several issues with your argument. First, your argument hinges on the belief that everything, including the Universe, has a beginning, but Modern science debunks that. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter, also known as energy, cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the universe has no beginning because there was never a time when matter did not exist. Thus, saying the universe has a beginning is false.
The second issue is that while your logic works to a degree. There is nothing empirical about it. It all hinges on conditions and speculation rather than theory and observation.
Sorry for forfeiting, I thought all debates had a 2 weeks duration to write your arguments. Im new to this website, I hope this didn't bother you
In my body paragraph #1 I forgot to correct a wording error from the following sentence: "So far, we have determined that the cause must transcend its properties and exist outside of the universe"
To clarify, I meant: "So far, we have determined that the cause must transcend the properties of the universe and exist outside of it"
Absolutely. I will keep you in mind for the future debate topics I have.
Same here. I’m always down for a good god/no god debate.
Thank you for your kind comment. I am planning to host more debates similar to this one in the future. If you'd like I can mention you in the debate next time.
I am rather disappointed that I've missed the opportunity to accept this debate. If you'd like another opponent, please let me know.