Divinity is real in some form

Note* Wolf and I have agreed to amend the definition of "divinity", to the definition stated by Wolf in round 2. "The philosophical definition of "divinity", created around 700 BC, was the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived." Introduction Before I start I will request that voters read over Pro"s sources for any needed clarification. There are several items about Pro"s argument that must be questioned, and I can effectively refute all of his points here. Explanations, Rebuttals, and Failure to Fulfill Burden of Proof Even if we had stuck with the previous definition of "divinity" Pro would have not come close to fulfilling his BoP. Luckily, the new definition will make it immensely easier for me to explain the numerous failures in my opponent"s argument. Basically the resolution is now the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived is real in some form. Pro"s rules stated "the BOP resides on me proving that divinity more than likely exists." It is up to all of us to determine the Burden of Proof. It is commonly accepted that a greatest possible being would be necessarily omnipotent and omniscient, since anything less would not be "greatest". Several more qualifiers could easily be added, but this should suffice. Anything Pro proposes as a greatest possible being should be questioned. If it is possible to conceive of a greater being, then the BoP is not fulfilled since Pro argued for a lesser being. Now let"s look at the conclusions Pro has reached. If we can conceive of a greater possible being, then Pro"s arguments are for the existence of the wrong thing, and irrelevant. Augustinian Diostic Theory Pro"s arguments are a weird combination of two different arguments, the first being Augustine"s argument which can be located fully in pro"s provided source. I highly advise that readers go over Pro"s sources so you can differentiate between the two arguments clearly. The second argument is basically that universal constants can only come from a divine being. I will be bolding my explanations with numbers to refute Pro"s arguments from both aspects (1, 2) His first syllogism is not super clear so I will explain. "[P1] Humans arguably exist [P2]If something can be argued, then there is proof [C1] A man has reason if he can argue proof exists" All Pro is asserting here is that we exist, we are alive, and we have the ability to reason. (http://www.essortment.com... this is Pro"s first source, to confirm what I"ve said, see the opening paragraph) For the rest of Pro"s argument, Pro claims the existence of a "diosystem" (by the way, not an actual word. It"s located nowhere in Pro"s source and a Google search yields no results), better termed a hierarchy of things. His argument goes from rocks to trees to humans. Then he makes an incredible and unjustified leap- "Which lead Augustine to his final contention, that divinity must exist to explain that which cannot be reasoned. For example, if humanity cannot argue with proof on how the universe started (and don't say big bang theory, as there is no proof on what created matter), then there must be a. higher tier in the social order. The philosophical definition of "divinity", created around 700 BC, was the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived." 2. A simple look at Pro"s source reveals that this is not what Augustine was advocating. Augustine"s argument was that if he could show something greater than, or outside of human reason, then it was the equivalent of divinity. Pro basically claims that what science cannot explain can be attribute to a divine being. Notice how his formulated logic (below) presents Augustine"s version. The preceding paragraph (above) is supposed to contain support for the formulated logic, but argues for a distorted version! Pro"s supporting paragraphs make the argument that "divinity must exist to explain that which cannot be reasoned" which is an unsupported assertion and a god of the gaps fallacy. Resorting to divinity by default halts scientific thinking and is the equivalent of the ancient Greeks attributing lightning to Zeus. Methodological naturalism, or the scientific method "is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events."[1] The fact is the Burden is on the one claiming divinity exists, so resorting to divinity by default is foolish and unjustified. Throughout history science has been presented with problems, and these problems are continually being solved by science. When science can"t yet conclusively solve a problem resorting to the supernatural is essentially giving up. We can reasonably say that science not yet having the answer is not the equivalent of the answer not existing. Until evidence is given the divine actually exists, we cannot justifiably say that a lack of an answer is evidence for that divine being. Pro uses the big bang as an interesting example. This undermines his case. The fact that the big bang is a possibility is yet another example of science providing possible solutions. When we are proposed with two solutions, a scientific possibility or a supernatural one, we don"t have to accept either! In fact the existence of the divine should not rest on the antithesis of scientific principles. Pro"s argument is a god of the gaps fallacy that has been effectively refuted. Pro"s formulation of the logic (P1-C2 is Augustine"s version. P3 and C3 are not) "[P1] There are matters and subjects that humanity cannot reason or conceive [P2] All answers of life and nature have a reason or conceivable explanation behind them [C2] That which humanity cannot reason or conceivably explain is of higher status than humanity [P3] Whatever is of highest status is divine [C3] Divinity must exist" After Augustine reached C2, he would claim that anything higher than humanity was divine. He would then point out a mathematical truth like 5+5=10 and call it divinity because it existed independent of humanity! Unfortunately all Augustine can show is that something is a "higher tier in the social order", not highest. Pro is utilizing a false equivalency here. Augustine"s definition of divinity is very different from the accepted definition. Augustine attempts to define anything above humanity and reason as divinity. This won"t work in this debate since we are using greatest possible being conceivable, and not Augustine"s distorted definition. We can test Augustine"s definition against ours. Conceive of a law that would exist regardless of human reason such as gravity. Gravity is constant regardless of humanity"s existence; therefore, according to Augustine gravity is divine. All voters can conceive of a greater being incredibly easily. Imagine an omnipotent, omniscient being that is responsible for creating the law of gravity. Such a being would be necessarily greater. This same test can be applied to any constant Augustine can throw at us, such as mathematics. Augustine"s definition fails every time. I will now be addressing P3 and C3. P3 rests on the assumption that Pro has proven the existence of this highest status, or greatest possible being, but if we look at C2 we see that he concluded with something that "is of higher status than humanity". There is a significant difference between higher and highest. We"ve already decided on several qualifications a greatest being conceivable must have, and universal constants do not meet these standards. C3 is negated. Ciceric Humanist Theory "[P1] Humanity is capable of conceiving all things [C4] The Human life is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived [P2] Divinity is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived [C5] The Human life is divine" P1: First of all this is not supported at all. This is also an enormous fallacy. By definition, everything that we can "conceive" would be considered "all things" to us. Assume for a second there was something we could not conceive. If we could not conceive it we would not be aware it existed, therefore not aware it was a thing. This would mean that "all things" does not necessarily mean "all things" since by definition we are only aware of what we conceive, so we would not be aware of what we don"t. From our perspective we might think we conceive all things but there is no reason to believe this. The logic is not sound. C4: Pro"s only "evidence" for this is P1, but as we have already found out that P1 is not true. Even if we assume P1 is true the conclusion does not follow. Just because something is capable of conceiving all things does not mean it is the greatest thing conceivable. I refer you back to our qualifications of greatest possible being conceivable. A being that is capable of conceiving all things, and is also omnipotent and omniscient would necessarily be greater than humanity. C4 is not supported. P2: Agreed. But Pro has not shown that this thing exists. C5: This conclusion is unsupported. Xenoic and Aurrelic Universal Theory "[P1] The Universe is the greatest, in that it encompasses all things [C6] The Universe is the greatest possible thing that may be conceived [P2] Divinity is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived [C7] The Universe is Divine" P1: This point is important to address, because my opponent makes a large mistake here. Saying that the universe is the greatest is unsupported. We can conceive of a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and created the universe, which would be necessarily greater. Many religions conceive of beings like this, such as Christianity and Islam. The universe is not the greatest, and my opponent has not given evidence that it encompasses all things. An immaterial conscious god, such as the Christian god would not exist in the universe. We can also conceive of a universe that encompasses all things, plus one more planet, which would be necessarily greater. C6: This conclusion is unsupported. P2: True. C7: There is no evidence to support this, since it is easy to conceive of something considerably greater. Conclusion None of my opponent"s arguments are sound, and none even come close to fulfilling the BoP. The majority of them address beings that aren"t even considered "divine" by the definition! I have successfully refuted all points. I"ll give it back to Pro in hopes that next round will be more difficult. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...