The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1H

>>>"My arguments have nothing to do with science. It can be classified under logic or philosophy."<<< This was in response to one of my statements stating how you push the problems one step back further. If you read more carefully, I did state that you were addressing philosophical issues instead of scientific ones, so you are the one who is clearly misreading. The issue of defining existence shouldn't be a problem. I offered a basic definition of it in my previous round, and you seem to have no contentions against it. And yes, I accept the premise that we, being humans, exist. There shouldn't be much controversy over things like this, so I'll just address the arguments: ==================== Argument #1: If nothing exists - then nothing exists ==================== >>>"Before answer the objections, I would like to ask him. Does he really disagree with this statement. If nothing exists - can something exist?"<<< No, but this was obviously not the intention of this point. When you addressed this, you attempted to come to the conclusion that some entity called God can be the only way out of this supposed problem. I attempted to address such intentions. >>>"It does not make logical sense because BEFORE is not defined when applied to big bang. This does not negate my argument in any way."<<< Have you even read my argument? I did agree that nothing can be defined to come before the Big Bang, since time is nonexistent. There is no "before" the Big Bang. >>>"A perfect example of how I might 'push back' an argument. There is nothing north of North Pole if you stick to the surface of earth. If you look at the globe and consider north as the direction from South Pole to North Pole - you get lots of thing north of North Pole. Just stare upwards from North Pole."<<< Actually, this is actually a perfect example of how you might distort an issue, rather than address the actual problem. In the same way you've purposely misinterpreted the analogy, you've abused the supposed problem of something coming out of nothing. >>>"Coming back to the science, my opponent should make up his mind..."<<< Concerning the issue of science, I offer that there can be several explanations. A feasible explanation could be that nothing "came before" the Big Bang because time did not exist then - this seems to be a popular explanation by physicists today. Another explanation can be offered by another minority view, in which hypothesis of string theory and multiverse come into play. I submit that these scientific explanations, while none are as solid as they can be, should not be superseded by some mysterious, unparsimonious entity called God. I will address this later in an argument of my own. >>>"Dubious logic. How can you control a computer while you are not a part of it?"<<< So you admit that this entity is even out of the framework of spacetime? This adds more to the incomprehensible nature of God - he is divorced from causality and comprehension. As stated in my previous argument, I will address this problem later in an argument of my own. ==================== Argument #2: For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothing ==================== >>>"Indeed yes. The self-existing entity has something very special. It defines existence. Without such an entity, nothing would exist. That is why we call him God."<<< Again, you are merely sidestepping the problem in front of you. I specifically asked why God can be self-existing, but not the universe. What is in God's nature that allows for this special fact? There must be, if we are to assume God is self-existing, something supernatural about him. Again, the idea of God is divorced from human comprehension. As stated before, I will address this later in an argument of my own. ==================== Argument #3: We are not God ==================== Mutually agreed. ==================== Argument #4: God is All Powerful ==================== So by "defining everything's existence", you merely meant that he is a necessary precondition. Fair enough, though it was your own usage of language that leads to confusion. >>>"I am not talking about just creating things. I am talking about creating things where nothing existed. I do think that puts the creator in control of everything. I would definitely call that All-powerful."<<< Again, you 'think' that makes God omnipotent. There is a problem with defining a being as omnipotent. Exactly how is one to measure "power"? What operational definition do we have to say if something is more powerful than the other? Power is inherently subjective unless it can be guided. For example, which gun is more powerful, an AK-47 or a M-16? If we are to ask this question at first glance, there is no feasible way to judge this. However, only when we take specific characteristics and compare them do we have a chance at determining which has more 'power'. Perhaps the speed of which the bullet travels, or how much damage it does. An AK-47 packs more punch in it's shot, but a M-16 is more accurate to use. It is only when we examine it closely can we even try labeling something more powerful than the other. You can see the problem with quantifying power when you think of simple thought experiments. What act takes more power from God, the creation of a mountain or an ocean? The sun or the planets? There is no way of determining what takes more 'power' because we have yet to even define what act takes more power than the other! If we haven't even given a foundation for what 'power' is, then how can we truly call an entity omnipotent? So even if my opponent is successful in showing that some acausal entity created reality, he has shown no reason for why it is omnipotent. If he doesn't show that it is omnipotent, which by his definitions he needs to, then he has lost this debate. ==================== Counterargument #1 - Problem with God's nature ==================== My opponent has made several claims about the nature of God. He has stated that he omnipotent and he is outside the framework of spacetime (effectively causality). These two unique aspects demonstrate a flaw in this conception of God. The phenomenon of the "unlimited attribute" is the central epistemological contradiction of God. Let's examine the quality of omnipotence. It is meant to signify 'unlimited power', but there are contradictions found amuck. Can God make a square circle, or a married bachelor. The theist is commonly confronted with this dilemma, and he has responded by saying that God's power is limited to logical possibilities. That, fortunately, is not something I am seeking to exploit. Instead, I turn my attention to the fact that for a being to be omnipotent, it has to exclude itself from causality. Mill pointed out the same thing, that the necessity of employing means to accomplish an end is the consequence of limited power. The very process of ACTING is a limit in itself. This means that for God to be truly omnipotent, he has to be acausal. This then brings a problem. Here we are confronted with the theist telling us that this mysterious entity called God can do things in an unknowable way (it "wills" things) through some unknowable process. It is divorced from man's comprehension, an utterly unparsimonious explanation. It is an idea so absurd and far-fetched that the rational thing is to turn to science, which though not perfect is close to the answer, than this 'fantastic' creation. ==================== Conclusion ==================== When I say my opponent uses "fuzzy terms", I really do mean it. He has yet to assess what power is, let alone to give an operational definition for it. Not only so, but the nature of his God is divorced from comprehension, and is in nature utterly absurd. I thank my opponent for this debate - vote CON. ---References--- 1. See comments