CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Arguments for and Against the Existence of a Deity/God
Please don't react emotionally or tell anyone they are going to hell. It doesn't matter if said deity is monotheistic or polytheistic. Please avoid common logical fallacies.
A male deity is a god, while a female deity is a goddess and they exist because people need to have faith in their existence.
People cannot agree on an explanation as to why we are here so God is the creation of people's need to create God within the hierarchical system we call religion through the need to seek more comprehensive answers to the problems we face than is provided by everyday beliefs.
If we knew why we were here we would not have invented God.
This seems more an argument for the existence of the idea of god, rather than of god itself.
As it is, I hold a somewhat divergent though not entirely dissimilar perspective on the matter as yourself. I think the genesis of faith and gods developed as an attempt to reconcile our survival instinct with the rise of our conscious perception that rendered us aware of our own mortality. I think religion emerged as a social mechanism that capitalizes upon that vulnerability to bend the will of the group toward a common interest (not necessarily there own).
While modern religious groups may seem to have a great deal of influence, I do not think that would be the case for early humans. Any new idea regarding deities would be viewed with skepticism as it would be entirely new concept. The amount of influence seen today would be impossible without an established following/acceptance.
Those who already hold an indoctrinated religious belief will most likely view any other religious view with skepticism. That is as true today as it was in our earlier history, so I fail to see your point. I never claimed that earlier religions would have exerted their influence as broadly as the major religions do today, nor need I have done so for my argument to be valid. The relative diversity of religion has no bearing on an argument premised upon the phenomenon of religion generally.
"A male deity is a god, while a female deity is a goddess and they exist because people need to have faith in their existence. "
Could you clarify who you mean by their? A god/goddess exists because people need to have faith in a god/goddess's existence? If that is the case, and I am not sure if that is what you mean, how does that prove the existence of a god or goddess?
"People cannot agree on an explanation as to why we are here so God is the creation of people's need to create God within the hierarchical system we call religion through the need to seek more comprehensive answers to the problems we face than is provided by everyday beliefs."
Would this not basically boil down to a god of the gaps argument? Also, if you grant that our existence is complicated with no known answer, how does that benefit us to explain something complicated with something even more complicated?
Since there is no specified deity for this debate, I will define deity as something that is capable of creating a planet and populating it with life or at least the inception of life.
I would postulate that at one point in the last 13.7 billion years, there was a civilization capable of such a feat.
If you wanted to go for lesser supernatural abilities, then someone who is using a flamethrower could be a deity.
There is absolutely no objective evidence of the existence of a deity/God. All attempts to persuade others of the existence of a deity/God become ultimately self-referential assertions of belief.
This lack of evidence taken in conjunction with research identifying religiousity as a genetic disposition indicates that a deity/God is more probably non-existent than otherwise.
Is there any objective evidence for the existence of conscious experience? Is the research that found a genetic disposition or religiousity repeated across more than one study? I only ask the second one because researches are incentivized to publish quickly.
I do not believe there is absolute objective evidence for anything, but rather that some sources are more probably objective than others and that we may construct informed opinions that are more probably correct than others from that basis.
That said, I also do not believe in the "conscious" self as it is commonly presented. Nor do I think it is especially pertinent to this matter, unless you mean to suggest that our perception itself is unreliable so we cannot reach any conclusions (in which case, I refer you above).
While genetics research itself is fairly young, and research on the religious disposition does remain admittedly limited it comes on the heals of a far more substantial body of work in other fields (e.g. neurology, neuropsychology, neurochemistry, etc.) that establish religion as a developed phenomenon that is "moderately to highly heritable" (ref, see esp. preface summary of findings).
I would not claim that genetic heritability is a certainty, but I would suggest that what evidence we have available favors the non-probability of the existence of a deity/god substantially more than the opposite.
I do not believe there is absolute objective evidence for anything
I brought up the conscious experience because, not only do we not have absolute objective evidence, we have essentially no objective evidence. The entirely subjective aspects of reality nonetheless exist. While a scientific view is most useful most of the time, it does not constitute the whole picture. There are things that fall outside the bounds of what science is and does. These things are not scientific that's true, but they are not necessarily false or absent from reality either. There's a reason that the multi-verse "theory" has been called non-scientific.
Incidentally, I don't actually believe in God in any way religion recognizes and I don't actually mean this to be a defense of any view of God. I simply wanted to illustrate that lack of evidence can mean a thing does not exist, but it can also mean a thing is not subject to scientific methods such as other certain aspects of reality.
I appreciate that non-scientifically derived beliefs may ultimately be accurate reflections of actual reality. However, I do not consider them to bear any substantive weight in a credible discussion, as they can only be asserted and (dis)proved to any degree of probability.
Similarly, I understand that a lack of evidence for a thing does not imply the truth of its opposite. My view is that based upon what evidence we do have the opposite is more probably true than the original claim.
I am always curious when people speak to some god(-like) entity or force that would not typically be encompassed by traditional conceptions of the term "god". I have truly had few occasions to speak in depth with those who do, but it has always seemed to boil down to those persons ascribing the term to a phenomenon that can just as easily be described without that ascription. Not an argument so much as a casual observation, I suppose.
I wasn’t talking simply about non-scientifically derived beliefs; I was talking about those where scientific beliefs aren’t possible.
I didn’t mean to imply that you took lack of evidence as evidence of lack; rather I meant to illustrate that some things cannot be discussed in these terms.
There can be no reasonable debate or credible discussion without commonly accepted premises. This is a subject where the premises themselves lie outside the realm of science and are thus not subject to scientific critique.
Rather than using science to discuss that which is outside the scope of science, it would be more appropriate to use science to derive the source of ones beliefs about the non-scientific. This method (which I see you are using elsewhere) causes me to argue on the side of atheism in most discussion. However, this method can only go as far as critiquing ones beliefs on a subject, rather than an actual critique of the subject itself.
People commonly accept that there are matters outside the scope of science. One must drop the premises of science to seek the cause of something which comes from nothing, such as in quantum physics or the big bang. If one asserts that there is no cause, they drop the premise of causality. If one asserts that there is a scientific cause, they must theorize on a matter that cannot be tested or observed. There are numerous subjects of this kind and they are relatively small when compared to the ultimate foundation/reason for all that is. Yet we don’t even bother with discussion on these matters because essentially no discussion can be had. If one takes a position and chooses to believe it, it may serve them well internally, but they cannot reasonably argue for it unless with those who accept common premises. This is the same with one who asserts the opposite position.
but it has always seemed to boil down to those persons ascribing the term to a phenomenon that can just as easily be described without that ascription
Electricity has the same properties now as when it was considered magic. One can use any given term so long as the phenomenon is understood. You seem to take issue with certain re-interpretations of concepts based on the disposition of those who hold current/common interpretations. This was the case with the concept of morality and it seems it may be the case here as well.
While others may commonly accept that some matters fall outside the realm of objective, scientific inquiry that is a claim I personally reject. There will always be things that science has not yet satisfactorily addressed, but that in no way places them beyond the purview of the process itself. That the common premise for god's objective existence is subjective belief, that speaks only to the invalidity of the premise not necessarily the conclusion and the latter may still be explored scientifically.
Electricity was not called electricity when it was considered magic. It was called magic. When it become understood as a distinctly different, scientific phenomenon we began calling it electricity. My objection would be akin to that of continuing to call electricity magic. The reason I object is because calling electricity magic rather than referencing it by a new and more accurate term would be inherently misleading given the common connotations of magic (or god, or morality, etc.).
There are things that are by their nature unobservable, not simply yet unobserved. Some things are subjective by nature and cannot otherwise. Reject away, but this is the way of things.
While I see no problem with referring to electricity without reference to magic, there is a problem with assuming that, as with magic, other more philosophical concepts such as God or Morality have common connotations that persist. These are concepts that are repeatedly redefined by various philosophers, usually with far reaching philosophical implications that may nonetheless be internally consistent given the stated definition. In other words, going from God to physical science, is not the same as going from magic to electricity. Perhaps the bad analogy was my mistake.
There are things that are by their nature unobservable, not simply yet unobserved. Some things are subjective by nature and cannot otherwise. Reject away, but this is the way of things.
The problem with these claims is that you can in now way prove any of them. You have no way to demonstrate that a thing may be unobservable simply because we have not yet observed it; we are operating within the constraints of our present knowledge which renders our perception unreliable on the matter. To assert that god is subjective by nature and that god is thus unobservable (I believe this is your argument), is to beg the question itself.
While I see no problem [...] bad analogy was my mistake.
I am not assuming anything; words like "magic" and "god" and "morality" presently bear certain connotations. The meaning of words may change over time, however this is neither guaranteed nor rapid. Applying a word outside of its current common conception in the hopes that it will change over time to mean what you intend for it to mean strikes me as being pointlessly inefficient. This is particularly true when we already have language for discussing whatever we are attempting to misapply a different word to, which is generally the case for those scientific phenomenon which some would try to reference as "god".
There is absolutely no objective evidence of the existence of a deity/God
This is what I was initially responding to. I did not mean to imply that God is subjective, or that God is anything at all. I meant to point out that some things lack objective evidence. Some of these things, such as the conscious experience cannot be made objective by their very nature.
Applying a word outside of its current common conception in the hopes that it will change over time to mean what you intend for it to mean strikes me as being pointlessly inefficient
This is exactly what moral philosophers and meta-physicists have done since the beginning of philosophy.
This is what I was initially responding to. I did not mean to imply that God is subjective, or that God is anything at all. I meant to point out that some things lack objective evidence. Some of these things, such as the conscious experience cannot be made objective by their very nature.
Ah, I misunderstood; thank you for the clarification. I am rather in agreement, although I do think we can objectively observe the process of the subjective conscious (as distinct from the experience of that consciousness).
This is exactly what moral philosophers and meta-physicists have done since the beginning of philosophy.
I would contest the prevalence of that practice in successful application, given that both fields have also generated their own terminology. It is worth noting as well that appropriating an old word to new use can mean very different things depending upon how commonly the word is used and how strong the associations attached to it are (and I would suggest that "god" is more common and has stronger associations than most re-appropriations of language in the fields you highlight).
All of that aside, your counter hardly renders my point incorrect. That some people have been doing this already does not mean the practice is actually efficient.
That some people have been doing this already does not mean the practice is actually efficient
Fair point. I don't think efficiency is what Spinoza was looking for when he used the term substance to describe God. I just don't think there was a more fitting word for his concept.
Not only is there no evidence for God but he can be disproved. There are many omnipotence paradoxes which shows that God would be impossible e.g. the one about whether God would be able or not to create rock so heavy that even he cannot lift.
Ok seriously, none of those paradoxes are actual paradoxes. They are founded on shaky assumptions regarding omniscience/omnipotence, or just faulty logic.
Regarding the rock example: An omnipotent being would have zero limitations regarding what mass of a rock he or she could create OR what mass of a rock he or she could move. The inability to create a rock so heavy that he or she cannot move it is not in fact an inability, it is the absence of a limitation on how much mass can be moved. And that's not even getting into the more clever responses that look at the definition of lift.
No, it is an apparent inability that is in fact merely the result of a quirk of our language. It is not in fact an inability.
But, if you insist...
Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that he or she cannot lift it?
Yes. To "lift" an object is to move it away from the local source of gravity. This is why an individual on one side of the planet and an individual on the opposite side of the planet can both be said to be lifting objects, when they are moving them in opposite directions from one another. An omnipotent being could create a rock so massive such that the center of mass and gravity of the entire universe is contained within that rock, would not be possible to lift, by the very definition of lift. The omnipotent being would still be able to move it, and the inability to lift it is a limitation on the term 'lift' as we define it, not a limitation on the omnipotent being in question.
Want to change it to 'move?' Fine. Movement is relative. The omnipotent being aggregates all matter in the universe into a single rock. Technically this rock could not move, as movement is relative and there is nothing else for it to be considered moving in reference to. Of course, the omnipotent being would still be able to manipulate it and change its position; the inability to move it would be a limitation on the term 'move' as we define it, not a limitation on the omnipotent being in question.
Well while that physically is accurate, the essential problem is: a being that is all powerful and can do anything cannot, by definition, create a being greater than itself, which makes the being not all powerful. That's the paradox
First method: An omnipotent being could in fact create a being greater than itself, by creating another omnipotent being, mirroring its own capabilities, with a single change such that it has the exact same capabilities of the original, but is immune to the originals further influence.
The moment this is done, the original omnipotent being could no longer be said to be omnipotent.
Second method: A simpler version, and similar to one of my points above regarding creating the massive rock. An omnipotent being could create a being itself of limitless power. The fact that such a being would not technically be more powerful than the original is not a limitation on the power of the original. This is counter-intuitive due to the inability of the human mind to actually conceptualize infinity, but still does not constitute a limiting factor on the omnipotent being.
Put it this way: If there is no limit to the capabilities of an omnipotent being, there is similarly no limit to the capabilities of a derivative omnipotent being created by the original. When we are referring to infinite things, concepts of one being greater than the other are nonsensical.
There- two different explanations invalidating this paradox.
Incidentally, the problem of free will, from a philosophical standpoint, can be addressed along these lines.
Free will problems associated with omnipotence
Assuming 'perfect' omnipotence, Free Will could be accomplished in a couple of ways. The omnipotent being could consciously refrain from interfering with the creatures with free will; they are not immune to its influence, but it is choosing not to influence them. Alternatively this could be accomplished by creating the beings with Free Will such that they are immune to direct influence by the omnipotent being. At that point, the being could no longer be said to be omnipotent, but that doesn't retroactively invalidate the prior omnipotence.
Free will problems associated with omniscience
Another major issue with the free will argument, philosophically, is the attribution of omniscience to a deity. Many interpret this to mean that the being in question has all knowledge of everything, past, present, and future. From that, they infer that the future is set in stone and everything is predetermined, but this is not necessarily the case.
I will agree that one possible predetermined future invalidates the idea of free will. But, consider- this makes assumptions regarding the nature of time, space, and the universe in general that are far from proven.
Further, omniscience is based on the root scientia, or knowledge. Knowledge, by definition, refers to information acquired- note the usage of past tense. Future events, strictly speaking, do not qualify as knowledge because of this, and as such would not necessarily be included in the term omniscience.
Even in the face of a predestined single path for time to take, and the assumption that omniscience must include such, a being who was both omnipotent and omniscience could consciously refrain from accessing those portions of his knowledge in the process of creating the free will beings.
But that is far from the only way to look at omniscience in terms of space-time. As I've mentioned before in other debates, the possibility is there that the future is not set, but is shaped based on numerous actions attributed to chance and/or decisions made by beings with free will. This would also serve to reinforce the idea that future events are not considered a part of knowledge or omniscience. Despite that, omniscience could take the form of prescience similar to the character Paul Mua'dib from Frank Herbert's Dune; a view of all possible paths that the future could take, the various factors influencing the probability of these, etc etc.
Some might argue that this is still a limit on omniscience, given that the deity wouldn't know specifically which path would unfold. Enter the many worlds theory. Suppose that rather than having innumerable possible paths for the future to take, all of the paths actually occur within their own 'universe' for lack of a better word. The omniscient deity would then see every path that the universe takes, and will know every action an individual will take, because that individual actually takes every single action possible in their own branch of the universe.
Many-world theory with an omnipotent deity, implications re: heaven/hell
This has interesting implications for the heaven/hell thing. Perhaps heaven and hell exist outside of space and time as we know it, and each of us has numerous paths, some of which end in heaven, some of which end in hell. When each 'instance' of a person dies, if that instance is on the 'heaven' path, it merges with all instances of that individual who dies on the 'heaven' path- and the same thing with all instances on the 'hell' path. The end result of this would be that the 'copy' that enters heaven will have the combined knowledge and experience of all possible virtuous lives that could be led by that individual- even without a paradise-type heaven, this could be considered a heaven of sorts as the individual muses over all the good he has done over a countless number of lifespans. Hell, similarly, could be subjecting the final 'copy' to the horrors and fallout of every single action taken along the non-virtuous paths, seeing the very worst of himself or herself in near-infinite variety. Living with all of that knowledge and experience could be said to be a hell of sorts, without any need for Dante.
Of course, this assumes there is any kind of equivalence to what we call heaven and hell whatsoever, which we cannot know at this time.
I should probably clarify here that I am an atheist, do not believe in any particular deity, or in heaven or hell personally. But I do not believe there is any merit to the idea that the concept of a deity can be invalidated through logic, given the qualities we're already attributing to deities- though certainly individual deities could be refuted, a la the Greek Gods upon exploration of the summit of Mount Olympus (though even then, they could have the wrong mountain, and the mountain in question need not necessarily exist within the universe as we can perceive it).
I should also note that this only explores free will from a philosophical perspective assuming the existence of a deity, and does not touch on our understanding of how the brain works physically.
First method: This doesn't work, because it nullifies the power of the deity! If the deity is all-powerful, NOTHING can be more powerful than it, because there is nothing it can't do. By definition, nothing can be greater than it. By creating a being outside it's influence, it would no longer be omnipotent, which would mean the deity would no longer fit it's own logic.
Second method: Certainly that is a limitation. If something has infinite power, it should be able to do anything. And yet, it can't create something with greater than infinite power. That's the paradox.
First method: With all respect, nothing about omnipotence suggests that it must be eternal. This would be within the capabilities of an omnipotent being, and would come at the cost of its omnipotence. Not all deities are asserted to be omnipotent or omniscient, so they are not fundamental requirements for a being to be considered a deity anyway.
Second method: This is not a paradox at all, it is simply your inability to comprehend infinity. "Greater than infinity" is a nonsensical statement, because infinity is not a numeric value.
Surely, the ability to cede ones own omnipotence would be a capability required for the individual to be considered omnipotent, would it not? And doing so, again, would not invalidate its prior omnipotence.
For that matter, two beings may both be infinitely capable in terms of what they can do, with one being superior due to being able to accomplish the same faster. "More power" is hardly the only criteria for considering one thing to be superior to another.
Ok, so you think that most Christian people, or religious people in general, will argue that omnipotence is not eternal. If that was so, why would they continue to worship their deity? I mean, can you name a deity that people truly believe in that those who believe in them don't believe the deity's omnipotence is eternal?
Right… that's the point. A being with infinite power cannot create something that is more powerful than itself. That is a limitation, something that an omnipotent and omnipowerful being should not have. Because of this, true omnipotence is impossible.
Also, this is a separate argument here. Ignoring the flaws that a being like this could exist… what suggests that one does? If an omnipotent being that's so powerful it can even overcome these problems (something it's easy to talk about in a hypothetical sense), what suggests that a being like this exists?
First paragraph is limited to specific religions, the majority of theists falling into the category of monotheistic religions that assert omnipotence. Argumentum ad populum. Regarding the deity people truly believe in, I already noted Shakti, one of the major gods of Hinduism, which is still practiced widely.
And again, this is not a limitation. A being with infinite power cannot create something that is more powerful than itself, not due to a lack of power, but due to an excess of power. I believe your understanding of infinity and omnipotence are both at fault here, and your deduction is false.
I am not arguing that an omnipotent being does exist- I do not believe that one does, and further do not believe that any beings who could be referred to as deities actually exist. My objection is merely to the ridiculous assertion that an omnipotent being is logically impossible. It isn't, and every single argument I've seen that suggests otherwise is fundamentally founded on assumptions regarding the nature of space/time and the universe in general that are wholly unfounded. That assertion is every it as ridiculous as the assertion of any theist you might meet regarding the concrete existence of the deity or deities he or she believes in.
An all powerful God, has no limit to what he/she can do. In essence this means that God could change reality in any way he/she may wish to. This precludes the possibility of the paradox of the rock, as well as any other we can imagine.
If they could change use their power to create limitations of their power then they would no longer be omnipotent and therefore not fit the definition of God.
The change you describe is an alteration of reality. When God can change reality, anything is possible. As in change the past. No paradox can exist with limitless ability to change.
If those who worship deities truly believed that their deity was ever-changing, they would not worship them as they do. They believe their God(s) to be eternal, and as such they can go to them for all time. If their God could, at any time, no longer be omnipotent, they would not have enough trust to continue worshiping them.
Isn't 'ever-changing' a bit of an exaggeration? The capacity to do such does not mean that it is constantly being done.
Many religious actually demonstrate within their pages changes in their deity, some minor, some major.
A deity need not be omnipotent in the first place. Even if not omnipotent, the deity would afterwards still be in possession of monumental power, even if it now has an eventual limit.
Also: While omnipotence and omniscience are attributed to the deities of some religions, they are not attributed to the deities of all religions, and as such it cannot be said that omnipotent or omniscience are necessary traits for a deity to have. As just a few examples: Neither omniscience or omnipotence are asserted for Thor, Aphrodite, Bastet, Enki, or Shakti (the latter having the exception of a few specific sects of hinduism).
Further, even amongst those cases where omnipotence and omniscience are asserted, these are not necessarily directly asserted by the scriptures. The Christian god, for example, is called omnipotence because of the line (paraphrased)"through him, all things are possible." Claims of omniscience are based on similar statement. But do these literally mean "all things" and "all information?" Or do they mean "all things and information that men at the time the statement was made could conceive of?" If the actual limitations on the Christian god's power were completely beyond the ability of men at the time to understand, and the god opted not to enhance the capabilities of the individual so he or she could conceptualize those limitations, it would be entirely simpler to just say everything; this has parallels in how parents simplify things when teaching their children.
God is considered to be the most highly-developed being in existence, highly surpassing humans.
Development cannot happen unless it's gradual.
Development is tirggered as a reaction to outside stimuli.
If we consider that at the beginning, there was nothing, that would put a god entity candidate in the same position as every other living being, reacting to the same set of stimuli.
Ergo, a god candidate would be no more or less developed than any other creature at a given point of time.
Whilst the the argument for the existence of an all powerful higher intelligence is more believable the the big bang ''theory'', I do not believe in the supernatural mumbo jumbo scriptures of the mainstream religions and their gods. I also feel that anyone who believes in any part of the backward superstition teachings of these ancient codes should automatically be eliminated from running for public office. As large sections of the scriptures, of all faiths, are disproved, so the elaborate imaginations of the respective clergy invent new explanations for the absurdity of their inclusion in these ancient books. The theologians keep moving the goal posts in a pitiful attempt to make their religions appear more compatible with scientific findings. A virgin birth, Noah's ark, with two of every animal in existence aboard, the parting of the waters and all that jazz;- 'tell it to the Marines''.
First of all there is too much evidence for the Big Bang for it to be denied, also if you don;t believe in mainstream religion then why do you have the Islamic crescent and star for your profile picture?