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.
There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
A debate forum is a place for people of different ideas to come together, present facts, and find the truth. Faith is belief without evidence. One cannot convince another, without evidence, of the truth of their position. One who believes in the bible can only convince others who believe in the bible. To many, it does not count as evidence and there is no longer a debate. The assertion that one must believe something without any reason to believe it has no place in reasonable debate.
I agree. Facts can be rerun, checked, compared to others' facts. Faith can not. It has no logical basis, it has no surety of it even existing. I mean the faith probably doesn't even exist. How are we, the fact users, supposed to know you really believe what you, the faithful people, say you believe. I won't name names, but after prolonged debating with religious people I feel an urge to give up because I feel like I'm being trolled.
Faith is not necessarily belief without evidence. Faith is simply believing in something with or without evidence. However, I digress, belief in God is not unreasonable. The only problem I would see is that I believe that the ontological argument, when looked at carefully and understanding the premises, actually says that God is a belief-properly-so-called. That means that is equivalent to asking whether logic or reality exists. When looked at carefully, one realizes that God is necessary if logic and reality are real. That, then, reverts in belief for everyone.
This debate isn't saying that belief in God is unreasonable, its saying that faith based debate is. If you believe something with or without evidence, you still need evidence to convince another. The evidence must be objective or it will not be accepted. Thus, the bible works as evidence amongst Christians, but has no place in debate with infidels.
And I'm saying that a belief in God is a belief-properly-so-called, which means every debate that revolves around whether God exists is a belief around faith
Most faith based arguments are not about whether God exists. They are about more particular things based in the Bible.
To go back and forth about simply whether God exists, is like arguing about if there are multiple universes. There can be no debate.
The ontological argument may be the best one for the existence of God, but still has little to do with faith. The NATURE of God is the problematic aspect.
The ontological argument proves the nature of God: omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, all-modal, all-logical, etc. There is only one God that has ever fit that criteria: the Abrahamic God (especially the Christian version because Jews and Muslims deny crucial aspects of this nature)
The ontological argument proves the nature of God no, no, no, it DEFINES properties of god, it does not proves it existence in any way.
There is only one God that has ever fit that criteria Not true, Zoroaster does same, there are also plenty tribal religios in central Africa that are monotheistic.
It is not true that ONLY the Abrahamic God fits the ontological definition. Countless non-religious people believe in God in a way that fits this definition but has nothing to do with the bible. The guy who came up with that definition was called an atheist by many.
The only God that fits the criteria is the abrahamic God. It cannot be a deistic God because that would not fill the role of being all-good and all-loving and etc
Spinoza created the ontological argument and was exiled from the Jewish community, and attacked by Christians. He is to this day occasionally called an Atheist. I am not certain that the ontological argument holds the greatest of beings as all-good or all-loving.
Your assertions that God hates the non-elect is not consistent with an all-loving God nor is the belief in predestination.
An all-good God is not consistent with an omnipotent God unless one adopts the contradictory perspective that bad things must really be good things.
Only belief without evidence can find consistency in contradiction.
Faith: "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." That is the definition of faith, can you please stop using your own definitions and go with linked ones. Ones we can all look up, and have a central agreement on. So that way, when everyone argues with you, it won't be about which definition was used, it'll be about the points you addressed.
when looked at carefully, one realizes that God is necessary if logic and reality are real. Haha :D Why? How is god, Harry Ptter or Frodo related to evidence?
1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied).
2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1)
3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2)
4. Every possible world includes the actual world (Modal logic necessity)
......... 5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof)
......... 6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5)
......... 7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6)
8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7)
9. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition)
10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9)
11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity)
12. Everything is possible unless impossible. (Premise 10 and 11)
13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)
14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13)
15. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14)
16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)
The ontological argument is probably the most compelling evidence for God. People that have attempted to disprove it, in what I've read, have done so quite successful but they have used whole books to do it. The reasoning in the argument is pretty sound. I think you'd really to study it to be able to criticise it fully. I know I can't.
Who says? Any figure that can enter a room and leave money for a tooth is pretty great.Why can't we say it is maximally great for being able to do those things?
It does actually. If the tooth fairy is "one who leaves money in place of lost teeth" then whoever fills that role is the tooth fairy.
The ontological argument says that whatever is the most great thing, is properly called God. That does not say that the most great thing will damn you to hell for stepping out of line.
Why don't we sum up the ontological argument? God by definition is that which is most great, therefore whatever is the greatest thing is God. There must be something that is greatest, therefore there must be God.
That argument is more in line with Pantheism than Christianity, and it says nothing about the nature of God.
Anything that does talk about the nature of God tends to be faith based when perhaps it should be science based.
It's one thing to say God is, and quite another to say God wants, hates, loves, etc.
1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied).
in other word Abrahamic god, stone issue
2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality
it rules everything or nothing
3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2)
same meaning as part 2
4. Every possible world includes the actual world
obviously
It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof
pointless, no proof, logical fallacy.
6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5)
Fails because of error in 5
7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6)
It does not, it has not been proven in any world nor all possible world
8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7)
Failed as 7
9. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition)
Obviously
10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9)
screwed definition of possible
11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity)
yes
12. Everything is possible unless impossible. (Premise 10 and 11)
No it's not. this thing works both ways.
13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)
it does have contradictions, lifting stone issues for example.
14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13)
requires proof, fails on 5 and 12
15. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14)
fails on 5 and 12
16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)
I understand why you say 5 is fallacious but reconsider it this way. Whatever is the greatest being, is God. It doesn't even matter in religious arguments because a Hindu will say its Brahman and a Christian will say its the Trinity. Then Jews will say that they are all poly-theists.
The point isn't whether or not there is something really great out there (the definition could be filled by the king of an alien race), the point is about reasonable debate about real things. You can't invoke scripture to convince the un-faithful.
If maximally great means omnipotent, all knowing... all the rest of it, it stands that this being is not lucid due to the rules of three, so said god may as well just be the universe, or 01k.
Maximal greatness is impossible, even trinity deities cannot equalise the three strengths and weaknesses. (Lucidity(awareness of own existence and capabilities), Power(ability to affect events), Awareness(of everything))
Then if it is indeed a trinity deity, it would not be maximally great. 2/3 of the trinity deity are ascended beings, and the other is 'lifted' into lucidity by their combined strong lucidities. It is impossible for two ascended beings to harness the power of all things- the only way to omnipotence.
K l3 p1 a2
.
B l2 p3 a1
.
D l1 p2 a3
I'm pretty sure that if this was seriously attempted it would trigger an apocalypse, or simply kill the ascended deities.
Spinoza was said to be a Pantheist. God is the universe or the nature of God is known by the nature of the universe. Einstein was said to have a similar belief.
1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied).
2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1)
3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2)
4. Every possible world includes the actual world (Modal logic necessity)
......... 5. It is not possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof)
......... 6. A maximally great being does not exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5)
......... 7. A maximally great being does not exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6)
8. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exists, then a maximally great being does not exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7)
9. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition)
10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9)
11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity)
12. Everything is impossible unless possible. (Premise 10 and 11)
13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)
14. Maximal greatness is impossible (Premise 13 and Premise 5)
15. Maximal greatness is not possible (Premise 12 and 14)
16. A maximally great being does not exist in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)
You are good all the way up until premise 14. You are taking from the conditional proof, which can only work if you apply that premise to the conditional proof as well. 14 also does not follow from your premises that you said proved it.
1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied).
2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1)
3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2)
4. Every possible world includes the actual world (Modal logic necessity)
......... 5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof)
......... 6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5)
......... 7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6)
8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7)
9. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition)
10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9)
11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity)
12. Everything is possible unless impossible. (Premise 10 and 11)
13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)
14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13)
15. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14)
16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)
My premise that God was possible comes from premise 12 and 14. 12 comes from definitions and modal logic necessities when regressed back. 14 comes from Premise 13, which is from Premise 1. 5, 6, and 7 prove 8, which is only brought back up on premise 16, which is the conclusion. My argument is logically necessary.
12. Is equivalent to Everything is impossible unless possible. 14 comes from 13 and 5, which you are missing. A contradictory feature would be that it is both possible and impossible. The only way to avoid impossible is by including premise 5.
In what way have you shown that God is possible?
Premise 1 does not allow you to include possibility. You have to demonstrate that possible existence is a property of maximal greatness. All you can do is claim it to be true which is begging the question.
1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied).
2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1)
3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2)
4. Every possible world includes the actual world (Modal logic necessity)
......... 5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof)
......... 6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5)
......... 7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6)
8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7)
9. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition)
10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9)
11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity)
12. Everything is possible unless impossible. (Premise 10 and 11)
13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)
14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13)
15. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14)
16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)
14 comes from 13 and 5, which you are missing.
That is not true. 14 comes from premise 13, which comes from premise 1. I have already shown you that.
A contradictory feature would be that it is both possible and impossible. The only way to avoid impossible is by including premise 5.
Not at all. Simply by defining a being as maximally great, it is maximally excellent in logic too.
In what way have you shown that God is possible?
God is not logically impossible, which is derived from premise 1. Therefore, He is possible.
Premise 1 does not allow you to include possibility. You have to demonstrate that possible existence is a property of maximal greatness. All you can do is claim it to be true which is begging the question.
Premise 1 is simply defining that a being with these qualities would be maximally great. However, if you watched what I have been saying this entire time, then you would have noticed that I said the argument does beg the question. The ontological argument solely is to define God. My argument is to beg the question.
God is not logically impossible, which is derived from premise 1. Therefore, He is possible.
Logically, everything is either possible or impossible. Therefore it is impossible unless possible. You have not demonstrated that it is not impossible.
Premise 1 is simply defining that a being with these qualities would be maximally great. However, if you watched what I have been saying this entire time, then you would have noticed that I said the argument does beg the question. The ontological argument solely is to define God. My argument is to beg the question.
Your definition is a proof. That's kind of dumb. Sorry, it just is.
Logically, everything is either possible or impossible. Therefore it is impossible unless possible. You have not demonstrated that it is not impossible.
I have by definition of it being maximally great.
Your definition is a proof. That's kind of dumb. Sorry, it just is.
That is what the ontological argument is: it defines some being.
Premise 1 does not allow you to include possibility. You have to demonstrate that possible existence is a property of maximal greatness. All you can do is claim it to be true which is begging the question.
I demonstrated in the first part of the argument that maximal greatness necessarily means that it is real.
It doesn't require existence. We as humans believe that existence is such an awesome trait, but maybe it isn't. Everything that exists that we have observed has a flaw, how do we know that it is not because the thing exists. Maybe existence is a flaw and maximally great would have to not exist. BOOM, that's clever.
No, it does not. So far, everything real is not maximally great. Everything we have ever experienced has some flaw in it. How do you know this is not a by product of existence?
Obviously, I have called the exact same thing with possible instead of impossible a fallacy. I was demonstrating that showing God is impossible is just as logically sound.
To believe in something that you have evidence for believing, is not faith. When the evidence falls apart and you still believe, that may be called faith...or insanity depending on the topic.
In reference to our other debate. I am not an Atheist. Neither am I a Christian. I do not believe the Bible was written by God. It is impossible to LOGICALLY convince someone that God wrote the Bible. The consistency of the Bible is a matter of perspective. One can logically argue only about things that there is solid evidence for.
Beliefs properly so called are beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven and all they can do is beg the question. If you revert an argument back far enough it reached one of these beliefs.
Well it was true. it wasn't meant to be taken as a stab at you, it's just something I've noticed about how you carry your God. If I can offer you anything that resembles a compliment though, it's that you're respectful.
You and I have never bickered, or at least never blatantly used ad hominem to one another.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Nowhere does it say faith is sometimes, or ever belief with evidence. The fact that there isnt evidence makes it faith. if there was evidence we wouldnt be using this word.
Webster-Miriam Dictionary.com-
Faith-
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
If someone claims they live without faith, then they have a gross misunderstanding of the idea of truth, validity of opinions and the scientific process by which we accumulate knowledge.
Karl Popper's Theory of Scientific Falsifiability states that something to be supported by evidence, it must also be possible for it to be falsified with evidence - all that which it is reasonable to believe, because we have evidence for it, may be potentially unreasonable if evidence arises which goes against it. From this, we can deduce that humans can never know any absolute truths about the universe, as anything which we can believe can also be disproven.
For example, we accept it as a fact that gravity is true - we experience it every single second of every single day, everywhere in the universe. But if tomorrow, we woke up and flew away from the earth, and we could no longer experience gravity, then we would begin to question whether gravity is a valid belief.
Essentially, every opinion/belief you have, which you believe is a fact, can be disproven, so requires faith. Science is dependent upon faith. But that's not to equate a religious faith & a scientific faith, rather to point out that the degree of proof is important in all instances. Only when I see as much proof in a God as I do in gravity, then I will allow someone to use the reasoning of that God in a debate.
To recognize a potential falsifiability is not the same as faith. One can know truth about the universe when it is unreasonable to believe that what is required to falsify a condition is possible. It is not unlikely that gravity will give out, it is impossible.
To be surprised that once again the sun rose and you are still stuck to the planet is similar to being born yesterday.
Incidentally, can anyone conceive of a condition where Poppers theory does not apply? Could evidence ever be presented against Poppers theory?
To recognize a potential falsifiability is not the same as faith.
How so? If I accept that I can be wrong, I accept that my thoughts can never be shown to be absolute truth (that is my opinion can never be absolute truth, not that there cannot be absolute truths), so I must have faith that they are truths.
One can know truth about the universe when it is unreasonable to believe that what is required to falsify a condition is possible.
I'm not saying that 'knowing' a truth is unreasonable. Having a belief backed up by faith is not necessarily unreasonable.
It is not unlikely that gravity will give out, it is impossible.
How so? As I have said, all evidence suggests that it will not. Around this evidence, we have modeled equations and laws and constants, through the relationship between various masses. But the only proof we have for gravity is evidence. Therefore new evidence is just as valid as the evidence we currently have. Therefore new evidence could 'disprove' gravity (in our current understanding).
To be surprised that once again the sun rose and you are still stuck to the planet is similar to being born yesterday.
Again, you are misunderstanding what I mean by 'faith'. To me, 'faith' means the difference between what evidence suggests, and the strength of your belief. Quite frankly, I do not see any chance of gravity giving out. But as I have said, there is a chance. Hence there is a difference between my belief, and the rational position. Hence I have faith. You can say the same for all other scientific beliefs - and all beliefs.
Incidentally, can anyone conceive of a condition where Poppers theory does not apply? Could evidence ever be presented against Poppers theory?
I don't thinks so. Philosophical/logical proofs are fundamentally different from scientific proofs, because they rely upon logic & reason & language & impossibilities, rather than evidence. Just as you could not disprove '1+1=2', you cannot disprove a philosophical proof (unless it is not a proof). However, science relies on inductive reasoning, which can show an absolute truth.
that is my opinion can never be absolute truth, not that there cannot be absolute truths.
When your opinion matches that which is actually absolute truth, your opinion is absolute truth, whether you are sure of it or not.
Having a belief backed up by faith is not necessarily unreasonable.
It's not that having faith is unreasonable, but attempting to convince others of something where faith is the premise is unreasonable. This is the discussion at hand.
But the only proof we have for gravity is evidence. Therefore new evidence is just as valid as the evidence we currently have.
New evidence WOULD BE valid. Potential evidence (non-existent) is not the same as actual evidence. To say that we don't really know about gravity requires faith in the possibility of new evidence randomly popping up. Recognizing that gravity would be disproved IF new evidence occurred is not the same as recognizing new evidence that disproves gravity as possible.
It takes no faith at all to recognize existential constants, i.e. gravity. Black swans and Gravity are not in the same category.
1+1=2 is a mathematical principal. Poppers falsifiability is a principal as well. It's funny to refer to it as a theory since, by it's own definition it does not qualify.
