The Statement 'God Exists' is Rationally Justifiable.

I thank Yassine for this debate. Preface Thusly we come to the end of this debate. I am somewhat frustrated by Pro’s case, which is riddled with poor precision in language, unsupported presuppositions, and definitions that change on a whim. Pro probably disagrees with this, but I will leave that much to the voters to decide. I feel a quote from Tim Hoare is an appropriate description of this debate: “There are two ways of constructing a piece of software: One is to make it so simple that there are obviously no errors, and the other is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious errors. ” Good debating conduct, and philosophical conduct is to define all terms, especially controversial ones before one begins debating. Here we had Pro introducing definitions in round 3. I honestly don’t know what to say. =Negative Case= Reducio Ad Absurdum Did Pro ever define what he meant by inductively in this debate> Even after I raised the point that inductive was clearly being used epistemologically (which is obviously the incorrect definition for Pro). Because as it stands, Pro has STILL yet to state why the law of causality applies to everything but God (the simple fact he’s defined as an uncaused cause does not get around this! It only helps affirm it! ). Invalidating the Law of Causality is the same as falsifying the law of causality, this is only affirming the reducio. Pro can define ‘cause’ and ‘efficient cause’ all he likes, it still doesn’t get around the fact that an ‘event’ is defined as an ‘existent entity’, which is what the law of causality requires. Pro is trying to square the circle here, it just doesn’t work, a contradiction is a contradiction and Pro has done nothing to escape this simple fact. He even drops my point that God IS an event as defined, which was his first objection. If voters can see otherwise, then please by all means vote Pro and show me how my analysis here is incorrect. If this argument succeeds, then Pro’s entire case goes out of the window. Cartesian Essentialism It is now, in round 5, that Pro finally provides some support for his crucial presupposition of essentialism. Despite having 4 rounds to do so. I made 3 main points, and 3 sub-points against Cartesian Essentialism: 1. It’s not parsimonious 2. Lack of Sound Pre-Ontology 3. Existence is not a predicate a. Coherence of denying the predicate b. Predicating existence to Australia c. Non-existance would also be a predicate Given this presupposition is absolutely essential for Pro’s case to get anywhere, Pro failing this area undermines his entire case as I have continuously alluded to this debate. Pro’s only arguments for essentialism are an argument from ignorance where he demands I prove essentialism false first, which is a blatant shifting of the burden of proof. Pro is making the necessary presupposition thus Pro needs to justify it. His other argument is an attack on descriptivism, which I do not necessarily need to advocate. Moreover he doesn’t actually attack descriptivism, he just asserts it. I also mentioned existentialism and existential nihilism in this debate, both are mutually incompatible with essentialism. Pro has made no attempt to show why we should prefer essentialism over other views. His arguments thus are already unsound. 1. Parsimony Pro drops my arguments that essentialism is not parsimonious (it makes additional, unsupported, unnecessary assumptions). Thus fails Occam’s Rasor. 2. Lack of Sound Pre-Ontology This point was hand-waved away by Pro as irrelevant, yet it is the most fundamental philosophy. Pro cannot hope to make claims about what existence is and whether it can be predicated or not in essentialism IF he doesn’t have the concept of ‘being’ worked out. If ‘being’ in principle cannot be conceptually encapsulated, then obviously it is impossible to predicate it. 3. Existence is not a predicate a. Pro drops my Kantian argument about the coherence of denying the predicate (thus an essential existence doesn’t necessarily entail existence, it is a conditional). b. Pro essentially drops my argument from Australia, which if valid demonstrates that attributing existence at part of an essence is not sound. His only defence “Simple, make the difference between what is Universal & what is Particular”… is incomprehensible (tell me otherwise). c. Pro drops my point that existence being a predicate would also entail non-existence being a predicate, which is obviously incoherent, since we would have an essence that doesn’t exist (which contradicts the very nature of an essence). Thusly, all of Pro’s arguments automatically fail at this domino. Causal Power of Essential Existance Pro has STILL made no argument that essential existence has any causal agency. Pro can’t simply ‘define powers’ to an essential existence. An essential existence only exists by it’s own nature (essence), that’s what essential existence means! It says absolutely nothing about it’s causal agency. Just because an ‘essential existence’ itself is uncaused doesn’t mean that it is the only possible uncaused entity. Thus simply arguing all caused entities need a cause (duh), doesn’t follow that the essential existence IS the cause, or even can be in principle. I brought up Platonic realism as an example of such a case. Pro’s argument against it is to assert the essential existence would entail numbers do not exist… but that would only be the case IF numbers existed by their own essentially, which is not necessarily the case. Necessary vs Contingent Existence How the heck is it an ad hoc argument if I am showing a coherent set of conditions by which Pro’s reasoning fails> It doesn’t matter what notion of causality is used (I assumed inductive, and Pro has poorly defined the law of efficient causality), it is beside the point. I showed a coherent set of circumstances where: 1. The universe exists without a cause (necessary, according to Pro’s definition) 2. The universe itself doesn’t have causal agency 3. All components of the universe are caused 4. There is no ‘first cause’ Thusly, Pro’s assumption that IF the universe is necessary, then the universe is the first cause is false, because I have shown one set of circumstances where this doesn’t apply. Moreover, the universe is not necessarily an essential existence in this case. Furthermore, IF we assume the universe is an ‘essential existance’, then I showed a set of circumstances here where it is also not the ‘first cause’, despite grounding everything within the universe. The reason being is that all causes occur simultaneously (since there is no time). Thusly both Pro’s inductive and deductive arguments fail. Uniformity of Nature Pro ignores that quantum mechanics is a physical theory, which is predicated on nature existing. I didn’t address Pro’s quantum arguments since they weren’t made seriously (no evidence given either), but also just because it’s beyond the planck time (within the first tiny fraction of a second) does in no way show it works outside time! Being very early in time doesn’t mean you are no longer temporal! !! Pro concedes exactly what I have been saying this entire debate: “- That’s another Strawman Fallacy! Inductive Causality holds within the Universe, who said anything about it being true beyond the Universe! ” Exactly. My. Point. Even if inductive causality holds within the universe, we have no reason to believe it holds outside of that context. Thusly all of Pro’s arguments about how the universe behaves outside of that context are invalid. Thus, we have good reason to: 1. Doubt the uniformity of nature holds without nature existing 2. Doubt the law of causality holds Thus: 1. The universe as a whole is not necessarily subject to the same laws that occur inside the universe Thus, if the law of causality doesn’t hold for universe, then none of Pro’s arguments that necessitate a first cause are valid. Singularity “No such thing. Apparently Con forgot about argument, I demanded the explanation of the non-equality between these two essential existences” Pro ignores my argument, that he doesn’t have the right to demand an explanation of the non-equality because he conceded the (“inductive”) law of causality doesn’t hold. Thusly, all his reasons for the singularity of an essential existence fail. Eternalism: Pro misunderstands the consequences of eternalism, which entails there is no objective ‘change’, and there is no objective ‘cause’ to the universe, and the universe itself doesn’t ‘cause’ anything itself. Thus both his deductive and inductive proofs fail. Pro invents ad hoc arguments against an eternalism universe, such as “that doesn’t say anything at all about it’s factual eternity, for outside Time, the Universe is inexistent”. Pro hasn’t even attempted to show that ‘factually eternity’ is a metaphysically coherent notion. Let alone proven it. The universe ‘existing for a planck time’ is an incoherent statement since the universe is the boundary of time in eternalism, that would be like saying the volume of the sphere that is outside of the surface of the sphere, it’s logically incoherent! The sphere… just is. It’s atemporal. Conclusion I am glad this debate is finally over. Pro’s case is like a series of dominos, all fo which must fall perfectly for his conclusions to follow. If one domino fails to fall, then they all fail to fall. Pro’s arguments are based on numerous dubious presuppositions regarding change, essentialism, the principles of causation.