DebatingAngel (PRO)Of course God is real. I am not just saying this because I am a Christian but I am saying it because it is true. Now, many people on this site are either Atheist or Christians. I am OK with that. What I am not OK with is when people start saying to change my belief or something like that. I'm sorry but that is just who I am also they should just deal with it! Anyway, if God isn't real, who made the simplest thing-like a blade of grass. Please tell me, I really want to know!
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-05-18 05:26:40
| Speak Round
Bi0Hazard (CON)In this debate, I am going to argue against Gods existence. Now first, I want to make it clear that I don't necessarily hold the views I am arguing for in this debate. I am arguing for atheism, but that doesn't make me an atheist. I am just defending that side.
In this debate, I will make the case for atheism. Before I begin, I will say you can't prove with absolute certainty that either side is correct, so my goal isn't to prove God doesn't exist, but rather to justify atheism.
Here are my Arguments:
1. Cosmological Argument for the non-existence of God
2. Non-Teleological Argument for the non-existence of God
3. Ontological Argument for the non-existence of God
4. Free Will Argument for the non-existence of God
Cosmological Argument for the non-existence of god
Theists will ask, "Where did the universe come from? God had to create it."
However, God couldn't have created the universe.
Here is the argument:
1. The creator(God) of the Universe would have to be outside of the Universe to create it.
2. The Universe is everything that exists.
3. Therefore, the creator(God) of the universe is outside of existence.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.
God would have to not be bound my space, time, and matter. If you define God as a non-entity, God still fails the test since any entity must have some relationship to everything that exists. The only way out of this is to accept that God does exist in the Universe, but then would be bound by the laws of the Universe and not Omnipotent or Omnipresent. If the first two premises of this argument are correct, then this argument is valid. The first premise is obviously true, even theists agree. The second premise is true since the Universe, by definition, contains all of existence and is expanding. This argument is valid since the Universe contains all of existence and God would have to be outside of the Universe(and existence) to create it. If God is outside of existence, then it follows that God doesn't exist.
Non-Teleological Argument for the non-existence of God
Its obvious that there is much randomness in our universe. Theists think that God has to have designed the Universe.
However, the Universe is Incompatible with God. Naturalism is more compatible with the nature of the Universe than Theism is.
Here is the argument:
1. If God designed the universe, nature would work perfectly because of Gods perfection.
2. Nature does not work perfectly.
3. Therefore, God did not design the Universe.
Our bodies have many flaws, we have diseases and failures and the universe is much larger than just the milky way galaxy. If theism is true, we would expect us to be the center of the universe and have perfect bodies and next to no randomness. There would be much order. However, we are not the center of the Universe and there is so much random order and radiation that this universe is better explained as the result of random processes without order. Naturalism wins in this category. If the first two premises are correct, then this argument would be valid.
The first premise is true since God has perfect nature and being omnipresent, God would have the Universe perfect as him. Theists would respond by saying that he may choose to design an imperfect Universe. However, this is incompatible with God's nature. Since God is Omnipresent and without flaw, God would have no justification for creating a flawed Universe. Evil and imperfectness is incompatible with God's nature. Therefore, the first premise is true. The second premise is true without question, the Universe does contain random events and imperfections. Since the two premises are true, it follows that God didn't design the Universe.
Ontological Argument for the non-existence of God
The Ontological argument is meant to be a proof, the ontological argument for God's existence was supposed to prove God exists. This is an atheist version of that argument. Here it is:
1. Nothing contradictory can exist.
2. God is contradictory.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
The first premise is obviously true. A married bachelor can not exist in any possible world, since its a logical contradiction. Anything that has a contradiction in its nature is logically impossible. Try to draw a 270 degree triangle, its logically impossible.
The second premise is stating that God's nature has contradictions. Here are a few of them:
Omnipotence(infinite power)- 1. Either God can create a stone so heavy that he can not lift it or he can not do this.
2. If God can, he is not omnipotent, since there is a possible stone that he can't lift.
3. If God can't, he is not omnipotent, since he doesn't have enough power to create a heavy stone for himself.
4. God is not omnipotent(from 1,2, and 3)
5. God is omnipotent and God is not Omnipotent.
Benevolence-Freedom- 1. God is essentially Omnibenevolent(infinitely good).
2. God is essentially free.
3. God cannot do what is morality wrong(from 1)
4. God is not free(from 3)
5. God is free and God is not free
Omniscience(knows everything)- 1. God is omniscience, knows all and believes only true propositions.
2. There are true temporal tensed propositions to the effect that certain events and/or times are now past, present, or future.
3. It is conceptually impossible for a timeless being to know a tensed proposition.
4. God does not know every true proposition.
5. God is not omniscient.
6. God is omniscient and God is not omniscient.
These arguments show that God can not be omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, or omniscience. However, those fall under the definition of God. Since God is the greatest being, he must have these, but he can't. God can not be free and Omnibenevolent(infinitely good) at the same time, these are contradictions in God's nature. Therefore, the second premise is true. The third premise logically follows, therefore, God does not exist.
More on the arguments here: http://www.pitt.edu/~rmgale/atheological.htm
Free Will Argument for the non-existence of God
My final argument is on God's free will. This can actually fall under my Ontological argument, but I decided to keep them separate.
Here is the argument:
1. God is a being with free will.
2. God knows everything he will do in the future.
3. Therefore, God can not have free will.
4. God has to have free will but doesn't have free will.
Theists would agree with on the first premise, God has free will(God has to). Most theists would agree on the second premise, God knows the future since he supposedly created time and the Universe and since God is omnipotent. The third premise follows since free will is unpredictable. Free will is acting without constraint or necessity. Since anything can happen under free will, the future is not absolute. If the future is not absolute, then it is not truly knowable. The only way out of this is to say that God can not know the future or that God has no free will. However, these are part of God's nature.
Response to PRO:
PRO only really made one argument. It was more of a question than an argument, but I will answer it.
" Anyway, if God isn't real, who made the simplest thing-like a blade of grass. Please tell me, I really want to know!"
The problem with this is that PRO is assuming there has to be a "who" that creates everything. If PRO thinks this, then I can ask, Who created God? If she says nobody created God and God is just eternal, then why can't I say the same about the universe? I can argue that the Universe is eternal. I can also argue that the entire Universe began but God didn't create it. Just because we don't know that for sure doesn't justify God's existence. Here is what I mean from a site:
"Not quite. There is at least one very good reason to suspect that biogenesis will eventually be explained by science, not supernaturalism. In the words of Tim Michin, “every mystery ever solved has turned out to be…not magic!” This is the Inference to Naturalism, and it has stood the test of time (unlike the vast majority of supernatural claims). Elsewhere, Carrier puts it this way:
- See more at: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2623#sthash.jjE1VBTz.dpufThe cause of lightning was once thought to be God’s wrath, but turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces. We once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it’s all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. Disease was once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons, but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. In case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. Not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be God’s wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all. The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. A horse that runs a million races and never loses is about to run yet another race with a horse that has lost every single one of the million races it has run. Which horse should we bet on? The answer is obvious."
There are mysteries in science, but all the solved ones that were once believed to be the act of gods always turn out to be natural events. Naturalism has always won, this is a lesson we learn from science. Its likely naturalism will win again.
I will also say the Universe could have created itself. You may say, "from nothing, nothing comes", however, nothing also means the absence of laws and that is a law. This means that things coming from nothing is not prohibited. Nothing is unstable, so the universe can come into existence on its own. Nobody knows how the Universe truly came to be, but its quite ignorant to use a God of the gaps on the unknown. God didn't have to create everything because of the mysterious nature of the universe.
I believe this is enough to justify atheism.
I am looking forward to my opponents response.
Thanks for reading.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-05-18 11:19:46
| Speak Round
@DebatingAngel Why did you join this debate when you are already in a debate on Gods existence?
and why did you post the same exact thing as in your other debate?
This is not a short debate(this debate has no character limit), so I recommend you add more arguments and a larger case than that.
I know you favor short debates, but this isn't one, so you will have to make a larger case.
I am saying this in case you didn't know.Posted 2016-05-18 08:13:50