Instigator / Con
1514
rating
6
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#5863
God exists.
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 8,192
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description
The burden of proof is shared.
Definitions:
God: Deity of classical theism. Omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Exists: Exists as an actual entity in reality, not only as a mere concept in someone's brain or something.
Round 1
1. Prior probability.
The God of classical theism has quite a few properties and elements, therefore their existence is a very specific hypothesis. Thus, due to Occam's Razor, we should assign a low prior probability to their existence.
2. Argument against libertarian free will.
VOTERS, BEFORE READING, PLEASE CHECK THE BEGINNING OF PRO'S R1 RESPONSE TO THIS TO SEE IF THIS IS EVEN IMPORTANT. They could be a compatibilist or something, in which case this argument would be entirely useless.
Much of muslim theology (particularly the punitive punishments and philosophies behind what people deserve what) seems dependent on the existence of free will (defined as that which is sufficient to justify moral responsibility), and generally Muslims are metaphysical libertarians, so at first I will attempt to refute the relevant forms of libertarian free will.
P1. If the probability of an event is 0% or 100%, it is entirely determined to occur or not occur.
P2. If the probability of an event is between 0% and 100%, we can break the probability down into a deterministic part and a random part. (By saying that it's entirely determined to have the particular probability that it does, and that it's entirely random what the actual outcome will be within that probability.)
P3. Given premises 1 and 2, every event must be entirely made up of random and/or deterministic part(s).
P4. No one can have control over anything without in some way having some causal influence over it.
P5. It is impossible to have causal influence over anything entirely random. (If you have causal influence over it, it must be partially determined by you. Something partially determined cannot be entirely random.)
P6. Given premises 4 and 5, for any given event's random part(s) (if it has any), we cannot have control over them.
P7. For anything that can fairly be called a human choice, the human must consciously decide it.
P8. All human conscious decisions are largely caused by underlying mental processes.
P9. Given premise 3, All events in human mental processes must be entirely made up of random and/or deterministic components.
P10. Given premise 6, humans cannot have control over the random components of the events in their mental processes.
P11. Given premises 7-10, whatever ultimate control a human has over a choice must be from their control over the deterministic components of the events in their mental processes that contributed to that choice.
P12. Given premises 7 and 8, more than a small group of irreducible mental processes would have to be used for a human to control what the deterministic components of a small group of irreducible mental processes would do. (So multiple choices would have to be used to control a portion of what contributed to a given choice, requiring an infinite regress.)
P13. It is very unlikely that we have an infinite past of somehow controlling infinite choices. (Because it is such a specific and unsupported hypothesis, and Occam's Razor.)
Conclusion. Given premises 11-13, it is very likely that every human's choices are all entirely caused by things ultimately outside of their control.
Not published yet
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet