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

Again, I'll move quickly through the numbered points and then address my opponent's closing argument... 1. Omnipotence Paradox. Omnipotence does not fall outside the bounds of logic regardless of the way one speaks of it. The fact remains that logically incoherent things are impossible for even an omnipotent being. All-powerful doesn't mean you can simply do everything. There are things that cannot be done because they are simply impossible. Again - omnipotence cannot escape logic. 2. The Cause of God. My opponent misunderstands my argument on this point. I'm not stipulating additional pieces of my definition of god, I'm stating that there is nothing in my definition that necessitates that god fit in the causal structure of our universe, and thus, nothing that necessitates it had a cause. 3. Something Can Come From Nothing. A better way to frame my opponent's argument on this point may be "there are things that appear, and we don't know where the come from or if they have a cause." Thus, when considering virtual particles as a possible cause of the universe, regardless of the fact that if they DID cause something, they lose their distinction as virtual particles, he combines the red herring and appeal to ignorance fallacies in an incredibly weak argument against causation in general. Science can't tell what causes virtual particles to appear... but then again, science can't see god, can it? 4. Possible explanations for pre- Big Bang (Multiverse hypothesis). [A & B] As my opponent is no doubt aware, deviation from equilibrium requires an impetus of some sort. Positing that god was the ultimate cause of the deviation from equilibrium that caused bubbles or branes to form is in no way an addition to my definition of god. 5. Occam's Razor. I'll follow my opponent's example and tear apart his weak defense of Occam's Razor's application to the case at hand in a few paragraphs. 6. A Possible Other God(s). My esteemed opponent seems to lack an understanding of the phrase "would be able." This does not indicate a desire or tendency of an omnipotent being to destroy lesser beings, it simply indicates the ABILITY. The argument against a non-omnipotent god IS a semantic one, yes, but then again, my opponent agreed to operate within MY definition of god, and under that definition, a non-omnipotent entity is not god, and is irrelevant to this discussion. Also, there is nothing that excludes the possibility of the omnipotent and limited entities coexisting, or bizarre situations like the omnipotent entity controlling the lesser entity. ************************************ "I basically accepted or "forfeited' every point (except virtual particles) that my opponent refuted." >> Much thanks for the concession... the virtual particles don't matter anyway because it's completely irrelevant. "Characteristics of my opponent's god: 1) Omnipotent in the bounds of logic (or not, either way doesn't matter). 2) Undetectable by science 3) Uncaused 3) Caused branes 4) Caused chaotic inflations 5) Destroys lesser gods" >> Actually, we have established in my counterarguments that your first 3) is indeterminate and irrelevant and that your second 3), 4), and 5) are not what I stated and a brilliant use of the straw man fallacy. The only remaining pieces of my definition in your list are 1) Omnipotent; and 2) Undetectable by Science. *************************** 7. On the Proposed Failure of Occam's Razor (Herein, OR). A - Undetectable by Science. I was not aware that detectability by science was a criteria for the application of OR. In fact, there are many things that aren't detectable by science that we utilize in everyday life. Perfect polygons, pi, infinity. None of these concepts fail OR. The purpose of OR is to illustrate that, often, the simplest explanation is correct. Surely the one step from phenomenon -> god is much simpler than the complexities of theoretical physics. B Too Many Assumptions. Actually, most of my opponent's argument in this section has been destroyed. I'm not sure why he states that we "assume it is opnipotent in the confinement of logic" - there is no alternative to the confinement of logic. I would love to see someone, even an omnipotent deity, conceive of a square circle. My original argument does not facially fail OR, but my opponent has purported it to fail with his incorrect additions to my definition. As the reader can plainly see, there is no failure of OR on these two points. **************************** In straying from the resolution, my opponent delivers a somewhat comical conclusion. Perhaps it WAS the Flying Spaghetti Monster that caused branes to collide. But then again, perhaps it was god that caused the branes to form in the first place. There is nothing that necessitates the universe be created by an omnipotent being, but, as you recall my opponent has already acquiesced that a non-omnipotent first cause wouldn't BE "god." I'd like to draw attention to this quote of my opponent's: "My opponent's argument for the existence of his posited metaphysical being relies on the question of the universe's creation." Let us pretend for a moment that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did indeed create the universe. My opponent has not shown that this necessitates the non-existence of an entity that fits my original definition of god. Let us re-examine said definition: "God" is simply a force, omnipotent and omniscient, but NOT omnibenevolent. This force has causal power to interact with the physical world and is by principle, not detectable with scientific instruments in the exact same way a perfect equilateral triangle is not detectable. In order to fulfill the burden of proof to combat the proposition that god is the creator of the universe, my opponent has to show that there is no necessity that such a being exist, AND a necessity that the premise could not be true. My opponent has fulfilled the first part of this requirement, but then again, the first part was not in doubt. He has utterly failed on the second part. The possibility remains that god, as outlined by my definition, COULD have been the first cause. In order to prove invalidity in an argument, my opponent my prove that my premises were true, and the conclusion false. Since the conclusion is indeterminate, there is no way to prove the argument invalid. To prove the argument unsound, he would have simply needed to undermine one of the premises of the argument. However, since the premises were defined by me and accepted by my opponent, he has already agreed that they are assumed to be true for the purposes of debate. I ask the reader if my opponent has satisfied the following: 1. God is defined as above in my first argument, and repeated in this round. 2. This entity could exist or not exist. 3. (as per 1) This entity could be responsible for the creation of the universe. -------------------- :. This entity does not exist. Clearly, my opponent has not satisfied the conditions for his conclusion. In order to win, he must disprove the second premise. The only way to disprove this premise would be to show some logical incoherence in my definition of god. Since he has not done this, the argument that this god could exist stands. *************** My thanks to The Skeptic for a challenging debate for an atheist.