Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5988
Does God Exist?
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1389
rating
407
debates
44.1%
won
Description
Logic and Reason demands that a God must exist. Given Quantum Physics, the Big Bang, and the Paradox of Infinite Regress I have concluded it is highly probable that there exists a God. I will be using classical arguments (the Contingency Argument) to prove that Theism is not only true but that Atheism is logically incoherent and cannot account for faculties of reason and objective morality. Anyone that can account for objective morality without God or explain the existence of the Universe without an initial Necessary Eternal Cause..I'm all ears!
Round 1
So this argument is very simple lets start with the fact that the Universe according to science has a beginning. We know the universe is expanding because of the phenomenon called "redshift," where light from distant galaxies appears stretched towards the red end of the spectrum, indicating that the space between us and those galaxies is expanding, causing the light waves to lengthen as they travel towards us; the farther away a galaxy is, the greater its redshift, signifying a faster rate of expansion.
An effect cannot be produced by itself.
- An effect cannot be produced by nothing.
- A circle of causes is impossible.
- Therefore, an effect must be produced by something else.
- An accidentally ordered causal series cannot exist without an essentially ordered series.
- Each member in an accidentally ordered series (except a possible first) exists via causal activity of a prior member.
- That causal activity is exercised by virtue of a certain form.
- Therefore, that form is required by each member to effect causation.
- The form itself is not a member of the series.
- Therefore [c,d], accidentally ordered causes cannot exist without higher-order (essentially ordered) causes.
- An essentially ordered causal series cannot regress to infinity.
- Therefore [4,5,6], there exists a first agent.
- This is what we call God.
Forfeited
Round 2
I win!
Pardon my misadventure.
I underestimated twelve hours.
Greetings, I've taken the Con position saying specifically I'm against the following:
"Logic and Reason demands that a God must exist. Given Quantum Physics, the Big Bang, and the Paradox of Infinite Regress I have concluded it is highly probable that there exists a God."
What is the evidence in direct terms, layman's terms?
Does it just boil down to simple cause and effect?
So now we're talking the law of causality. Meaning there can't be an effect without a cause which is what logic and reason teaches. Physics is explained with chain reactions, catalysts, natural provocations, etc.
Now have the natural laws always existed, what is the evidence?
If they didn't always exist, what is the evidence?
If God which according to this topic, a transcendent reality existed prior to the laws, this reality existed without those laws.
So for that reality to cause everything, it didn't require logic so to assert or postulate the existence of that reality with logic doesn't follow and is incoherent, let alone atheism.
"the Universe according to science has a beginning. We know the universe is expanding because of the phenomenon called "redshift," where light from distant galaxies appears stretched towards the red end of the spectrum, indicating that the space between us and those galaxies is expanding, causing the light waves to lengthen as they travel towards us; the farther away a galaxy is, the greater its redshift, signifying a faster rate of expansion.
An effect cannot be produced by itself."
The opposing side is right. According to science which is what man thinks, is the case based on subjective perspective. Unless the opposing side is one of these scientists that has been involved and completed testing of years and years in research, back finding, analyzing analytics, etc., the opposing side is regurgitating what has been said, written or told.
Nobody knows what was, before they existed. They know what they've been told. Now, we don't know if everything always was or had a beginning. We don't know if the big bang as it's called happened like it did, if there are infinite universes, multi universes, parallel universes or a simulation of it all or part of it. I can go on and on.
Why does the God debate go on and on and on?
It's because there is never a final resolution of proving anything. So it remains controversial until one is dead. It'll certainly be proven or not by that instance.
"An effect cannot be produced by nothing.
A circle of causes is impossible.
Therefore, an effect must be produced by something else.
An accidentally ordered causal series cannot exist without an essentially ordered series.
Each member in an accidentally ordered series (except a possible first) exists via causal activity of a prior member.
That causal activity is exercised by virtue of a certain form.
Therefore, that form is required by each member to effect causation.
The form itself is not a member of the series.
Therefore [c,d], accidentally ordered causes cannot exist without higher-order (essentially ordered) causes.
An essentially ordered causal series cannot regress to infinity.
Therefore [4,5,6], there exists a first agent.
This is what we call God."
This is all based on logical rules, laws, right. Going with the premise that logic was created, it didn't exist for the cause of everything to exist including logic to figure it with logic.
So it's a never ending conundrum with an inconclusive matter .
Round 3
What is the evidence in direct terms, layman's terms?
The evidence would be the argument I gave that you haven't rebutted or concluded false.
Does it just boil down to simple cause and effect?
Yes, specifically contingent realities like the Universe.
So now we're talking the law of causality. Meaning there can't be an effect without a cause which is what logic and reason teaches. Physics is explained with chain reactions, catalysts, natural provocations, etc.
I agree
Now have the natural laws always existed, what is the evidence?
From a Platonist standpoint, yes. On whether laws of logic and quantum mechanics are have always existed is irrelevant to my initial argument. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that according to the Big Bang which I gave evidence PROVES the Universe came to a beginning demand that the effect(Universe) has a cause. You haven't critiqued this claim because you cannot possibly accomplish such a task. The body of cosmological evidence is not in favor of multiverse, string theory or Eternal Universe hypothesis. One of which is outdated in scientific literature.
If they didn't always exist, what is the evidence? Never made this claim. Red Herring
If God, according to this topic, a transcendent reality existed prior to the laws, this reality existed without those laws.
Yes. This Transcendent Reality that created/caused the initiation of the space time continuum must itself by definition be absent of temporality, physicality and space. This is what we call God.
So for that reality to cause everything, it didn't require logic so to assert or postulate the existence of that reality with logic doesn't follow and is incoherent, let alone atheism.
These premises are not matching and will not lead to your conclusion because you're strawmanning my whole argument. When I say logic demands God must exist I'm not saying that ''ontologically'' as in the apparent nature of logic I'm saying ''epistemologically'' as I am using reasoning we can know there exists a God. Revisit my Contingency Argument.
Let there not be my turn shortly after I awake.
"The evidence would be the argument I gave that you haven't rebutted or concluded false."
Don't actually ignore my response :
"This is all based on logical rules, laws, right. Going with the premise that logic was created, it didn't exist for the cause of everything to exist including logic to figure it with logic."
"From a Platonist standpoint, yes. "
So from other stand points, no. That is inconsistent and evidence is not that.
"On whether laws of logic and quantum mechanics are have always existed is irrelevant to my initial argument. That's not what I'm arguing."
If you're going to attempt to demonstrate by argument what existed from the very beginning of everything, you first have to establish if there was a beginning of everything. Which would include logic and everything else that man uses to explain the reality around us. If you can't answers these questions, you're really not qualified to take the position you've taken in trying to argue it.
" I'm arguing that according to the Big Bang which I gave evidence PROVES the Universe came to a beginning demand that the effect(Universe) has a cause. You haven't critiqued this claim because you cannot possibly accomplish such a task."
Ok here's my critique. You've given no evidence. You've made arguments in which they crumble with simple questions I asked and you can't answer. Saying irrelevant is not answering.
Debate is over my friend.
"The body of cosmological evidence is not in favor of multiverse, string theory or Eternal Universe hypothesis. One of which is outdated in scientific literature."
Are you a scientist that discovered this or are you just repeating what somebody else said?
"Never made this claim. Red Herring"
Another question you crumbled under pressure unable to answer.
"Yes. This Transcendent Reality that created/caused the initiation of the space time continuum must itself by definition be absent of temporality, physicality and space. This is what we call God."
So therefore it is incoherent to apply logical rules to an entity that does not or did not operate by such rules. You entire argument is built on rationalization which you argue for everything to be has to be rationally so.
But based on what has been stated so far , was not rationally so actually because the parameters of rationality didn't exist. If what was , was before logic, it would not be what we can logically assert at all.
"These premises are not matching and will not lead to your conclusion because you're strawmanning my whole argument. When I say logic demands God must exist I'm not saying that ''ontologically'' as in the apparent nature of logic I'm saying ''epistemologically'' as I am using reasoning we can know there exists a God. Revisit my Contingency Argument."
Just recant your statement that logic demands God because according to the premise, God was before logic. So logic does not or can demand God. It is God that demands or will what logic is to do or is allowed to do or to do within the minds of people.
Just recant that statement.
Round 4
407 debates and you argue this much in bad faith?!?!!
You're persisting on strawmanning my position. I never said God was before logic. You said that. You're strawmanning because you know you cannot debunk my argument and quite frankly I haven't met an atheist who can. Allow me to reiterate my point. Logic demands God's existence. Why? If I use deductive reasoning (logic) I can infer that God exists. How? With the Contingency Argument my opponent has not addressed.
So therefore it is incoherent to apply logical rules to an entity that does not or did not operate by such rules. You entire argument is built on rationalization which you argue for everything to be has to be rationally so.
This is grossly misrepresenting any argument I made. So I'll just dismiss them because I never claimed any of that. You are literally saying nothing and avoiding my Contingency argument.
Are you a scientist that discovered this or are you just repeating what somebody else said?
Are you kidding me? Are you actually serious? When did I need to be a scientist to read the literature and conclude it points to the beginning of the Universe? Even so, I gave evidence on why the Universe began to exist.
Ok here's my critique. You've given no evidence. You've made arguments in which they crumble with simple questions I asked and you can't answer. Saying irrelevant is not answering.
Scroll up. It's in my first published argument at the top.
This is embarrassing. I though this would have been a good discussion in good faith because you have more debating experience them me. You haven't addressed my initial argument and persist to strawman my position that I clarified repeatedly.
"Logic demands God's existence. Why? If I use deductive reasoning (logic) I can infer that God exists. How? With the Contingency Argument my opponent has not addressed."
I'm short on time so.
I'll reiterate, maybe the opposing side has got to read this again:
"Just recant your statement that logic demands God because according to the premise, God was before logic. So logic does not or can demand God. It is God that demands or will what logic is to do or is allowed to do or to do within the minds of people."
"This is grossly misrepresenting any argument I made. So I'll just dismiss them because I never claimed any of that. You are literally saying nothing and avoiding my Contingency argument."
Anytime you say you didn't say this , I didn't say that, you concede. I accept your conceding.
"Are you kidding me? Are you actually serious? When did I need to be a scientist to read the literature and conclude it points to the beginning of the Universe? Even so, I gave evidence on why the Universe began to exist."
Ok so you're repeating what you read, right. That's all you had to say. See, that's not evidence. You're just telling me what somebody wrote. Just like you can tell somebody else what I wrote . Not proof, it's regurgitation.
"Scroll up. It's in my first published argument at the top.
This is embarrassing. I though this would have been a good discussion in good faith because you have more debating experience them me. You haven't addressed my initial argument and persist to strawman my position that I clarified repeatedly."
Oh it didn't take much to debunk you.
"Just recant your statement that logic demands God because according to the premise, God was before logic. So logic does not or can demand God. It is God that demands or will what logic is to do or is allowed to do or to do within the minds of people."
Do you get what this means? You can't coherently argue a subject existing based from a logical, inferring, deductive, cause and effect derived conclusion with a subject that is not bound by logical, inferring, deductive, cause and effect derived parameters.
Atheists and theists will tell you that. Makes no difference. Your arguments, not evidence, your arguments are weak.
Round 5
Just recant your statement that logic demands God because according to the premise, God was before logic. So logic does not or can demand God. It is God that demands or will what logic is to do or is allowed to do or to do within the minds of people."
Do you get what this means? You can't coherently argue a subject existing based from a logical, inferring, deductive, cause and effect derived conclusion with a subject that is not bound by logical, inferring, deductive, cause and effect derived parameters.
I literally never made that claim.
You're repeating a position that is irrelevant to my argument. God is bound by logic that's why I utilized it in my syllogistic argument you apparently don't know how to respond to. I know I'm the first person you debating that didn't allow you to gaslight them. Your response is null and void because it misrepresents my argument to make it easier to attack. This is what philosophers call a ''straw man fallacy".
My argument hasn't been rebutted. Therefore, it stands God exists.
Saying a subject exists without actually proving it doesn't make it so.
Case closed.
Im new how do I rate it?
I am interested in the debate, sadly my time is limited, I'd be tempted to take it if it was rated. Hope someone accepts!