CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
10
Atheism Christianity
Debate Score:15
Arguments:13
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Atheism (5)
 
 Christianity (8)

Debate Creator

shoutoutloud(4303) pic



This is a private debate. See the FAQ for more info.

Challenge Debate: Christianity vs. Atheism

Just a simple and classic debate on Christianity or religion in general.
shoutoutloud(4303)

Atheism

Side Score: 5
VS.
LichPotato(362)

Christianity

Side Score: 10

Thank you for accepting the debate.

"God": "The omnipotent, intelligent, supernatural creator of the universe"

The definition of omnipotence is contradicting itself. The state of omnipotence is impossible, even as a supernatural power.

You could ask if an omnipotent power was so powerful that it could make a too heavy for it to lift. If the answer is yes then the power is not omnipotent, and if the answer is no the power isn't omnipotent.

But this is not that relevant, because your whole argument falls apart because of one simple thing.

"cause and effect"

Cause and effect is a philosophical principle, not a physical law. You cannot make a scientific proof based on something that hasn't been proved.

Your argument is based on this principle being true, and since there is no proof of that, there is also no proof of God.

Side: Atheism

Omnipotence is defined as "infinitely powerful". The concept of infinity is, for the most-part, meaningless

It is also defined as unlimited power. Unlimited means without limits, which means it should be able to everything, right? Even destroy itself?

dismissing the entire notion of an infinitely powerful force because you can't come to a reasonable conclusion

Wouldn't a reasonable conclusion be that such a power does not exist, given the contradictions it obviously has?

The entirety of existence points to cause and effect. No observed phenomenon has taken place without it.

My point was that you in your first conclusion claimed to have proven the existence of God using proven physical principles.

Cause and effect is not a proven principle, whether it is fair to assume its existence does not make your otherwise scientific argument valid.

Side: Atheism

"infinite" means we can't determine whether it's contradictory or not. Again, in the example you provided, you assume that "infinite" is quantifiable, when it isn't.

My assumption is that infinite is everything, if you oppose that statement, then you are also assuming infinite to be quantifiable? Because assuming something is and isn't is in both cases claiming it to be something, see where the paradox lies?

the principle of cause and effect is proven by, again, the entirety of existence. In fact, the basis of science revolves around it:

Alright then, let's say cause and effect is proven, still it is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts in science and is often misused by scientists themselves, as well as others.

The key principle of establishing cause and effect is proving that the effects seen in the experiment happened after the cause.

This seems to be an extremely obvious statement, but that is not always the case. Natural phenomena are complicated and intertwined, often overlapping and making it difficult to establish a natural order. Think about it this way: in an experiment to study the effects of depression upon alcohol consumption, researchers find that people who suffer from higher levels of depression drink more, and announce that this correlation shows that depression drives people to drink.

However, is this necessarily the case? Depression could be the cause that makes people drink more but it is equally possible that heavy consumption of alcohol, a depressant, makes people more depressed. This type of classic 'chicken and egg' argument makes establishing causality one of the most difficult aspects of scientific research. It is also one of the most important factors, because it can misdirect scientists. It also leaves the research open to manipulation by interest groups, who will take the results and proclaim them as a truth.

The proper way to use this tool is observing a cause that leads to an effect. The way you are looking at it is completely upside down - you are observing an effect, and then you try to explain it with a cause you have not and are not able to observe.

So even with me agreeing that cause and effect can be considered an acceptable tool to use in scientific proof, you are still not able to use it properly. You don't have a cause, you make up a cause and use the effect to prove it. That is not how it's done properly.

Side: Atheism
LichPotato(362) Disputed
1 point

"My assumption is that infinite is everything, if you oppose that statement, then you are also assuming infinite to be quantifiable? Because assuming something is and isn't is in both cases claiming it to be something, see where the paradox lies?"

The idea that, because something exists, it must be quantifiable (as you seem to be implying), is completely contrary to our understanding of the Universe. Take, for example, the concept of entropy. We know vaguely what it is, but, due to its nature, we have no way to definitely measure it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, however, or that it's inherently paradoxical.

"The proper way to use this tool is observing a cause that leads to an effect. The way you are looking at it is completely upside down - you are observing an effect, and then you try to explain it with a cause you have not and are not able to observe."

If a phenomenon takes place, in this case, the existence of the Universe, we know for certain that it had some cause, complex as that may be. We can, therefore, extrapolate certain conclusions about this cause from the effect, though we may not be able to define it in its entirety. For instance, we know that the cause of any effect must have been capable of causing that effect, since it had done so. That's the very basis of my argument: that the only possible cause of the existence of our Universe is an intelligent, omnipotent, non-physical "force". I'm not stating anything about this force, other than what can be fairly extrapolated from its observable actions; I.E. creating the Universe.

To put it another way, I'm not fitting the cause of the existence of the Universe to my definition of "God", I'm defining "God" solely by what can be extrapolated from its effect. In no way does this violate or contradict what you pointed out about Cause and Effect. In fact, I completely agree, at least with your point about correlation not necessarily implying specific causation.

Side: Christianity
1 point

I'm not fitting the cause of the existence of the Universe to my definition of "God", I'm defining "God" solely by what can be extrapolated from its effect. In no way does this violate or contradict what you pointed out about Cause and Effect.

I have two comments for this statement.

1. Whether or not your definition of God is flexible, the question still stands why God has to be the answer, why God has to be the cause. Is there proof that the cause is in fact God? Is there a way for you to observe and document it as a fact that a Godlike being made this happen? Furthermore, is there a reason to shun theories that define the force, the one you mention yourself, not being godlike at all, but something similar to the big bang theory? Because unless you can completely rule out those theories, as long as all other theories are theoretically possible, that means the theory of God or supernatural beings are not fact or scientifically proven, they are just one out of many theories.

2. When you say you are defining God solely by what we extrapolated from its effect, that makes me wonder what role God has. If we can just make the definition fit to something, what is the point of scientific proof of phenomenon? Let's say I'm set to prove the existence of unicorns, and my strategy to do so was to just fit the definition of unicorn to whatever I found from my research. What is the point?

If a phenomenon takes place, in this case, the existence of the Universe, we know for certain that it had some cause, complex as that may be. We can, therefore, extrapolate certain conclusions about this cause from the effect

You mentioned earlier that omnipotent and infinite are terms we humans can't comprehend. If God is characterized by these concepts then that means God is a being we can't comprehend - if that is so, then there is no reason to believe that we can make any sort of conclusion about this being.

You can't both claim God to be something ill-defined and incomprehensible when at the same time insisting on making extrapolated conclusions based on natural laws and science. That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Side: Atheism
2 points

Note: As agreed upon prior to this debate taking place, the subject of this debate will be "Atheism vs Theism", rather than "Atheism vs Christianity" specifically.

Side: Christianity
2 points

To start off with, I'd like to thank my opponent for allowing me to engage in this debate. Theology (or lack thereof) has been a topic of much controversy for some hundreds of years now, and, as such, holds a special place within the debate community.

Introductions aside, my case:

Before I can argue in favor of Theism, the belief in God or gods, I must first define a couple terms, specifically for purposes of my arguments:

1. "God": "The omnipotent, intelligent, supernatural creator of the universe"

2. "Universe": "The entirety of physical existence"

Further, for purposes of this specific argument, I must clarify several terms, as their meaning is not known by many:

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics: This physical law states that "energy can be neither created nor destroyed". This also applies to matter, as the two are interchangeable, as proven by Einstein's famous equation (E = MC^2),

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics: This physical law states, in essence, that the entropy of an isolated system can only increase. For the purposes of this argument, I'll only point out that, A. a consequence of this law is that the temperature of all matter in the Universe is slowly reaching equilibrium (at which point, all thermal reactions will cease, as they require temperature difference to achieve), and B. that all thermodynamic reactions (any reactions involving the exchange of heat) increase entropy (the aforementioned equilibrium).

With that out of the way, I can begin:

First, I will prove that the Universe was created by something:

The Universe has always existed, or it began at some point. That statement, by its structure ("P v ~P" in symbolic form), is true. Further, if one half of it can be proven to have definite truth value (true or false), the other must have an opposite truth value.

A consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, to reiterate, is that the temperature of all matter in the Universe is slowly reaching equilibrium. If the Universe has existed forever, then it follows that all matter in the Universe would be of equal temperature (due to having an infinite amount of time to reach said temperature), therefore life would be impossible. This is obviously not the case, therefore I can confidently say that the Universe has not existed forever, therefore the Universe had a definite beginning.

Since the Universe began, it follows that something created it, due to both "cause and effect" and its inherent complexity (more on that later). For the sake of simplicity, I'll refer to this "something" as a force.

Second, I will prove that God created the Universe:

Keeping the above information in mind (particularly the First Law of Thermodynamics), I will form a formal logical syllogism, first in propositional form, then in plain English:

Propositional:

All Universe-creating forces are physical law-violators,

No physical forces are physical law-violators,

Therefore no Universe-creating forces are physical forces.

Plain English:

The "force" that created the Universe performed actions that conflict with the laws of physics (matter and energy were created with the Universe, violating the First Law of Thermodynamics), and no physical forces are capable of conflicting with the laws of physics (physical forces must follow physical laws), therefore the "force" that created the Universe is non-physical, or supernatural.

This syllogism is valid due to its structure (All U is V, no P is V, therefore no U is P), and, as previously demonstrated, has true premises, therefore the syllogism is sound and the conclusion (that a supernatural "force" created the Universe) is true.

But that, in of itself, doesn't prove much. It fulfills one of the criteria for "God" (supernatural), but that's it. So let's do a bit of extrapolation:

The remaining criteria for this "force" to be "God" are are that it must be both omnipotent and intelligent. The former can be easily proven, as the "force" created quite literally all of our existence, the latter being indicated by the complexity and deliberate orderliness present within the Universe (the regularity of the physical laws, actual celestial bodies, etc.).

In conclusion, I have proven the existence of God using proven physical principles (the first two Laws of Thermodynamics) and formal logic.

Side: Christianity
1 point

"You could ask if an omnipotent power was so powerful that it could make a too heavy for it to lift. If the answer is yes then the power is not omnipotent, and if the answer is no the power isn't omnipotent."

Omnipotence is defined as "infinitely powerful". The concept of infinity is, for the most-part, meaningless, as we have no physical analogue to measure it against. Given that lack of knowledge of it (because of our physical nature), it's literally impossible to grasp the entirety of its implications.

One must keep this in mind when performing thought experiments revolving around the concept, namely the experiment with the rock you mentioned. When trying to decide whether an infinitely powerful force could defeat itself, dismissing the entire notion of an infinitely powerful force because you can't come to a reasonable conclusion (again, due to having no analogue) is unhelpful.

"Cause and effect is a philosophical principle, not a physical law. You cannot make a scientific proof based on something that hasn't been proved.

Your argument is based on this principle being true, and since there is no proof of that, there is also no proof of God."

The entirety of existence points to cause and effect. No observed phenomenon has taken place without it. Given that, it's pretty safe to say that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Side: Christianity
1 point

"Wouldn't a reasonable conclusion be that such a power does not exist, given the contradictions it obviously has?"

As stated in my previous argument, our inability to comprehend the concept of "infinite" means we can't determine whether it's contradictory or not. Again, in the example you provided, you assume that "infinite" is quantifiable, when it isn't. It defies our understanding of mathematics (infinity + 1 = infinity), not to mention physical analogue.

"My point was that you in your first conclusion claimed to have proven the existence of God using proven physical principles.

Cause and effect is not a proven principle, whether it is fair to assume its existence does not make your otherwise scientific argument valid."

I'm not sure how I can restate this, but the principle of cause and effect is proven by, again, the entirety of existence. In fact, the basis of science revolves around it: science is about explaining observed phenomena through testing hypotheses, implying that something caused said phenomena. If causation were an unproven principle, then the entirety of science would be meaningless.

Side: Christianity