I hereby challenge Oioioi to a debate on the statement:
There exists a god

I (St.Even) will be playing devils advocate, and will be pro the proposal, while oioioi, my opponent, will be opp the proposal.

For the purpose of the debate, god shall be defined as:
god: A omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent (non-contingent) and non-physical entity of a non-specific faith.

The Debate format shall be as follows (5 round format):
Opening Statement - St.Even
Opening Statement - Oioioi (An opening statement should contain no direct rebuttal of the opponents arguments, rather outlining your own)
Rebuttals - St.Even
Rebuttals - Oioioi
Rebuttals - St.Even
Rebuttals - Oioioi
Rebuttals - St.Even
Rebuttals - Oioioi
Closing Statement - St.Even (An closing statement should evaluate the effectiveness of both your and your opponent's arguments, but should not tackle anything in your opponent's closing statement.)
Closing Statement - Oioioi

Commentary Thread
A commentary thread will be opened for any discussions entailing anyone who is not an active participant in the debate. While the debate is running, neither me or oioioi will be able to post in the commentary thread.

This Thread
Only Oioioi and St.Even can post in this thread, any other discussion take to the Commentary thread here: viewtopic.php?f=175&t=5395

Timings
Each poster will have up to 7 days to post, each round.

Starting
I will post my opening statement shortly. Oioioi: reply with your opening statement if you accept the terms, or PM me if you wish to have a term changed.

EDIT: Changed to 4 rounds, as per feedback.

Opening Statement

Definitions
god - A omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent (non-contingent) and non-physical entity of a non-specific faith.
universe - The sum of everything that physically exists. ([/i]Note: Multiverse theory is an entirely different thread, if you wish to bring it up, go ahead, but for the point of my arguments, I will not, I do not believe it is well substantiated enough to use[/i])

Kalam Cosmological Argument

R1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
R2. The universe began to exist
C. Therefore, the universe had a cause. (R1+R2)>C

Possible objections
Objection: R1 - Not everything that begins to exist has to have a cause, that is an assumption.
Response: It is a reasonable assumption; there is nothing that we know of that begins existing or changes without an outside force. For example, a particle in motion with no force acting on it will continue until something changes, namely: another force.

Objection: R2 - The universe didn't begin to exist, it is timeless.
Response: Modern physics states that there was a beginning of the universe, namely, the big bang. Theories such as a cyclic universe still fall under the same problem (Namely, they must've began to exist at some point, as an infinite regress is impossible)

From this, we can derive:
Omnipotence:
If the cause of the universe is able to create the universe, it presumably is able to manipulate it at will: relative omnipotence to everything else that exists put together, which means that the cause is a reasonable standard for potency.

Omniscience:
As omnipotence. Furthermore, knowing the starting conditions (in leu of having created them) and the time, one could potentially know anything about the state of the universe.

Transcendent (Timeless)
In virtue of having created the entirety of the physical world (hence, everything else that exists) and hence being uncaused itself. Being uncaused, the cause is outside of the stream of cause-to-effect (In that, it is not within it, but rather at the beginning) and is therefore outside of time (defining time as the progression of cause to effect.)

Non-physical
Defining the universe as everything that physically exists: it is impossible for the cause to have created itself. Therefore, the cause is non-physical.


Argument by objective morality

R1. If objective morality exists, there must be an objective standard.
R2. For there to be an objective standard, there must be a being to uphold that standard.
R3. Objective morality exists.
C. Therefore, a being exists to uphold the objective moral standard.

Possible Objections:
Objection: Objective morality does not exist (R3)
Response: I will deal with this as appropriate, depending on your specific objection and proofs.



Balls in your court, Oioioi.

Hi all, I may as well introduce myself because I have only recently started looking at the forums because when playing BD I found that, in order to have some success, I had to stay online while my squads were on the attack in game, so here I am.

Great game by the way, people have been looking for a game like this for years and years and years. My thanks to the designer and his team. My only criticism is the way money/tokens effect the game, as far as I'm concerned a game is not a real test unless it is free. But I guess they deserve a reward for their hard work, thats life atm I pay happily.

The debate looks like it is going to be a long one, so I'll try to make it as interesting as possible, but I'm hoping for a bit of luck on that. As you can see St Even has challenged me to a debate; I am posting because it would only feed St Even's ego if I did not. It might even turn him into a full-god, not just a demi-god.

Firstly, I would like to bring up the context of the debate. St Even seems to be a seeker of truth so I'm sure he will not mind me divulging the truth here.

In a discussion topic where the poster (not St Even) had claimed the exsistence of God I referred him to a well known author on atheism and posted some vids in reply to the original poster's vids. I also invited the poster to read the book so we could have a discussion based around reliable and easily attainable texts. St Even, with his demi-god status decided to dismiss and deride the author and the author's readers (me and many others) as a reply to my post.
You can find the thread here
http://battledawn.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=112&t=5168&start=20
So I took issue with that by sending him a private message in which I told him, among other things, that he was a fool to dismiss the work of someone who has achieved so much in life.

He made this challenge in reply. I grudgingly accepted with a few suggestions for changes that he may or may not make. He is after all, the Head Moderator and Demi-God of the forums. Maybe I should try prayer next time.

I will argue a line here similar to that taken by Richard Dawkins in 'The God Delusion'. That is from a border-line Agnostic/Atheistic perspective. I may use parts of his work here, we'll see, but I thank him for his work none the less.

I will show you in this debate, beyond all doubt; that God does not exist.

However, I may still loose this debate simply because it appears to be a popularity contest and generally believers in God are more numerous and more vocal than those who are not believers.


The proposition 'There exists a God' is untrue.

God is an idea that has developed in the human mind over thousands of years; nothing more, nothing less.

Sometimes it is a good idea and sometimes it is a bad idea.

The idea of god has been propagated by people, usually men, in order to serve their own purposes and further their own interests. Sometimes those interests and purposes are good sometimes they are bad. However, they are generally the purposes and interests of men, groups of men or the societies they lead.

One case, right here in front of you is St Even using the idea of God, in this debate, to further his own interests. Those being to show-off and convince other people that his status is above their status. As it has been done for many thousands of years.

It was a lie back then and it is a lie now and will always be a lie.

Back at ya St Even.

[


4 rounds is fine, fixed grammar in first post. As for adjudicators; not my usual method, but PM me if you wish to go with this approach. I generally think the good in a discussion or debate is in the process, not in any result obtained.

]

Oioioi Claims:
God is an idea that has developed in the human mind over thousands of years; nothing more, nothing less
The idea of god has been propagated by people, usually men, in order to serve their own purposes and further their own interests. Sometimes those interests and purposes are good sometimes they are bad. However, they are generally the purposes and interests of men, groups of men or the societies they lead.

Let's examine this claim, picking a few major religious examples along the way.

Firstly, the use or misuse of religion or a deity has questionable bearing on whether the being exists to start with, it's existence is independent to the amount of abuse that has been performed in the name of the being.

Secondly, the idea of god being used as a reason for people to further their goals: while this is the case in a fair amount of cases, and I totally agree that this is the case, it is not necessarily true for any claim of a god.

For example, Modern Wicca (Neo-Paganism):
Wicca, formed in the early 20th century, is fundamentally a freedom-orientated set of beliefs. One of the fundamental tenets of Wicca-Paganism is the Rede - of which the closing lines are: These Eight words the Rede fulfill: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
This is not indicative of a religion created to serve anyone's interest; no particular rules and restrictions or control.

A further example would be the early days of both Christianity and Islam:
Regardless of your opinion on the later times of both religions, the early times of both were particularly unpleasant for the followers. The early muslims fleeing to Abyssinia because of persecution and the early Christians being heavily persecuted in the Roman Empire. Not being the religion of the state until much, much later when the Muslims took Makkah, and Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire respectively.





My well is sufficiently poisoned now, thanks

Your well was poisoned long before I arrived here sir. When you invited me to drink from it I merely showed you how poisoned it was.

St Even I find it very interesting that you use such ideas. One can find a fairly reliable summary here:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

By implying that I have 'poisoned his well' St Even entreats the observer to think that I am attacking his character unjustly because I can not defeat his intellectual argument. By doing so he suggests this debate is not actually about the existence of God, but about his and my personal characters. It is a kamikaze attempt. He is suggesting to the observer that they not bother reading because the debate is now personal and not intellectual. In some instances it is true. In this debate it is not true.
Both St Even and myself have included human existence in our opening statements. St Even has in the form of 'Objective Morality' and I have in the form of 'human ideas'. We are both examples of the subject this debate is about. Hence, in this debate it is entirely justified and purely circumstantial.

The existence of God is probably the most important idea in the known history of mankind. I for one will treat it as such by using all the evidence available to me. I will not give up because someone calls me nasty names. Beside that, poisoning is not enough to end this debate, my arguments are stacking up and they will continue to stack up. Furthermore, I have not lied about anything St Even has said or done. I have merely shown him my view of the context in which he has acted. And I will defend my view, I did not make this public, St Even did.

I may return to the ideas St Even has brought up with 'poisoning the well' but now I wish to return to my original argument to make sure we are all on the same page.

I say again, the proposition 'there exists a God' is false. What I am trying to do is explain and describe God inside human knowledge and experience. Proponents and propagators of the idea 'God' often position God outside of human knowledge and experience. Anyone who has watched the X-Files will be familiar with the idea 'The truth is out there'. Both Science and Religion make that claim about God. St Even has provided some logical premises in his opening statement.
R1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
R2. The universe began to exist
C. Therefore, the universe had a cause. (R1+R2)>C
From this he derives the claim that the universe was created by an entity (I assume is God; he does not actually state it) that would be Omnipotent, Omniscience, Transcendent (Timeless)and Non-physical.

St Even also lists what he claims to be the two possible objections to the premises. Not only that but he proceeds to claim that R2 is actually impossible. Which is it, possible or impossible?
Well, I will give him the opportunity to clarify his position by rebutting as follows.
Cause and effect is subject to time.
Time began after the universe began.
Cause and effect does not apply to the beginning of the universe, therefore infinite regression, in that instant is entirely possible.
Furthermore, the universe does not need a creator. It is quite possible, as far as we know, for the universe to have created itself.
I did not think of this myself, and will be happy to reveal sources at the end.

St Even's case is very much the typical argument of a propagator of the idea 'God'. What they, scientists, academics and preachers do not acknowledge often is that there are limits to our knowledge of the universe and limits to our knowledge about ourselves.
When people impose their belief in God on me this is how my mind understands their assertions:
God is unknowable
Humankind has a bubble of known information about the universe.
Humankind is inside the universe.
Humankind does not know, completely, what happens inside its peoples brains.
There is a bubble of unknown information within the bubble of known information.
If I fill the unknown bubble with God I can never know what is there.
If I fill in what is outside the known bubble of information with God, I can never know that either.
I conclude, the proponent is lying in order to stop me learning and/or to further their own ends by using me as a tool.

Such is my personal, observable experience.

From the historical and archeaological record I can glean the following. (Once again I will be happy to give references at the end)
The majority of ancient and pre-ancient people, both sedentary and nomadic as far back as 10,000 BCE were dominated and controlled by men who spouted the same idea that is around today, 'God'.

Ancient cultures generally learned very, very, slowly.

I can hazard a guess at why cultures did andvance. Not everyone would have been dependant on the ruling class, technicians, traders and warrior generals would have had some autonomy and because of that would have been able to take 'God' or leave it. Their professional knowledge and skills would have been more important to them.
But for the average person, belief was generally necessary to remain within society and have access to communal assets such as food, water, shelter, security and family. To refuse the idea would have been to be an outcast; impoverished, lonely and insecure.

From my personal experience today and what I can reasonably assume and deduce of ancient people's lives and their cultures' progress. The idea of 'God' is not a positive influence on one's ability to learn.

Rebuttals of St Evens' Rebuttals

You have not proved the existence of God.


In this case it is nessecarily true that you can not make a claim about God without furthering your goal of winning the debate. I acknowledge your agreement but ask you to demonstrate how it would be different for me if I was having this debate with someone other than you who made the same claim? I assert that it is always in a believers interest to argue the claim with a non believer.


Wicca is not a major religion, at least not in the way you have described it as 'forming in the early 20th Century', not even close in the scheme of things.
Wicca also practice magic, and while the effects of their magic may not directly result in harm, they are still humans who compete for resources and it is reasonable to assume that their advantage through magic will untimately lead to other human non practitioners missing out on what they would otherwise have. Plenty of self interest.
This seems to contradict your claims about 'objective morality'. More on that later.
Wicca was started by a man called Gerald Gardener and they do have a three level hierarchy. It follows reasonably that Gardener gained alot from propagating the idea of God.

Not a bad point. It was about 364 years from the birth of Christ to the adoption of Christianity by Constantine (if memory serves me correctly). Less than 10 generations of people, not alot in the scheme of things. I also believe the historical record is quite different to the biblical accounts of those years. But I will come back to it if I need to.
So your saying the Muslims and Christians had a rough time but the Muslims ended up taking a city, and the Christians ended up taking an empire, and together they arguably took most of the world. What is unpleasant about that, all things considered?
Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that believers who are controlled by a superior believer are generally promised fair reward for their hardship by the superior.

Despite looking up the fallacy yourself, I don't see how that at all makes sense. Poisoning the well is a type of ad hominem argument - by definition, my well wasn't poisoned (I.E. My opponent hasn't attacked my character) before my opponent has attacked my character. Hence, my well wasn't poisoned before you invoked the fallacy.



The first part is correct. The second not. Ad hominem attempts are not necessarily because the arguer is UNABLE to tackle an argument, but it is definitely a method of sidestepping the point, and it is most definitely fallacious.



Nor shall I. I was merely pointing out that your attempts to blemish my character are beside the point, and unhelpful.



Science doesn't make any claims about non-natural phenomena: namely, any phenomena that can not be observed physically and methodically.

You Go on to state that I said that R2 is impossible, which is a misquotation. I state that:



This is saying that an infinite regression is impossible, hence, they must've began to exist at a specific point.

You go on to argue that:


I stated that time is the progression of cause to effect. Here, have a shoddy, paint-made diagram. Needless to say that graphics design is not my area.


T=0 is the moment that the universe began to exist, and it is T=0 because before then, no other cause-to-effect has occurred. C0 is the cause of the universe, Concluded from (C) of the argument provided.

In order for your rebuttal to work, you shall have to demonstrate that time is independent of cause to effect.

Furthermore, assuming that the progression of (R1+R2)>C is correct and deductive, which I believe it is. You will either have to disprove R1 or R2. If R1 and R2 are true, the conclusion is therefore true, and C0 (as the diagram) must exist.

IN a separate series of arguments, I have deduced that C0 must have the aforementioned qualities.



You also state:


My argument is not an argument by ignorance. I am being quite specific. C0 exists, and has qualities X, Y and Z. Your anecdote here has no relevance to the arguments I have presented.

Furthermore, I have not seen a rebuttal of yours against my argument by objective morality.

-------

I can't find any sources for your claims that since BCE: 10,000 people have been involved in religion, but for this, I shall assume that this is true.

Assuming your claim is correct, which it may well be, I propose that this proves nothing, as this can be taken one of two ways.

1- For a long period of time, people have been creating religion. It is part of human society to create religion in order to [insert reasons here].
2- Humanity has a psychological tendency towards a higher being, which is consistent with many religious claims of a deity making people to "seek" them.

I accept 1 is perfectly possible, but I also propose that 2 is also true.


The fact I haven't proved the existence of God is irrelevant, I am saying here that "use or misuse of religion by man has no bearing on whether the being exists. It's existence is independent to the amount of abuse that has been performed in the name of the being." - That it has no effect on the existence or non-existence of the being.



It's still irrelevant, see my above point. Furthermore, this argument can be used against people who argue any point. "Oh, I see. You're arguing against murder? That's because you don't believe murder is wrong" - People have reasons for arguing things, but it's irrelevant to the validity of the actual arguments. Let me give a more realistic example, using, ironically, Richard Dawkins!

Dawkins has a reason for debating against religion - No doubt you'll agree. Hence, every time he makes a point for the non-existence of God, he is furthering his goals as an anti-religious apologist.

People have reasons and motivations for making arguments. This is true. However, I propose that the truth of the matter is unaffected by people's motivations.



First point: Apologies, yes, it's not a major religion. Although gaining ground, it is nowhere as big as it's other religious counterparts. I added this example later, after deleting a buddhist example, thinking it'd be more appropriate.

The particular strand of neo-paganism, Wicca, was formed in the early 20th century, but was based on a culmination of older ideas.



This isn't in the creator's self interest. It may be in the Wiccan's interest, but not the creator's interest, as was your point that "The creation of religion is for benefit" (paraphrased) - the practice is another matter.



No, it doesn't. The fact I use a religious example which lacks an objective moral standpoint doesn't mean that it contradicts my previous point. This is a different example, and I am using Wicca for it's specific nature of being non-obtrusive.



Non sequitur. The fact there's a hierarchy does not mean that people gain. Infact, it's less likely that the people "at the top" gain with the loose nature of the religion. If they were trying to gain from this, they would make the religion more legalistic, surely?



Roughly. However, the founders of the religion would not only see no benefit from the creation of the religion through their life, they would actively suffer for it throughout their life. 10 generations of people is a lot to wait if you are creating a religion for your own personal benefit, it doesn't follow that they would create a religion when they know that they would be actively persecuted for it. EVEN the benefits people down the line would receive, they wouldn't be around to see it.

Just an additional point, on a semi-related topic. I do dislike arguing by weblink, but here's a extract from an essay, by JP Holding, situated here.
I won't hold you responsible for having to refute this, as even the section I extracted that from is very lengthy, you may find this interesting.


Over to you!

You have soundly defeated yourself sir, and your character is in question, it has been in question from the very beginning. You have demonstrated to me that you have started something that you do not fully comprehend. A debate is not about one argument, it is about two arguments, adjudicators generally decide which argument is strongest and therefore wins the debate. A discussion generally revolves around the truth of one argument; participants can then present different points of view. A debate and a discussion are very different methods sir, hence different words. This seems to have escaped you, or never been pointed out to you.
In this debate you make a claim and support it, I make a different claim and support it. We then make rebuttals of each other's claims and attempt to weaken their foundations or disprove them. You have shown that you understand terminology involved in testing the truth of claims, such as fallacy, and non sequiteur. However you have shown little or no regard for the actual method of debating. This is a public forum sir, and an important topic. You have an obligation as an authority here to uphold standards, but you either have little comprehension of standards or no standards yourself.

You have soundly defeated yourself in the following ways.

You claim
Humanity has a psychological tendency towards a higher being, which is consistent with many religious claims of a deity making people to "seek" them.
How do you propose to test the validity of this claim sir? How can people seek a higher being if not through truth? If people seek a higher being without truth, how are they ever going to know whether it exists or not?
I therefore claim that people who claim to have sought and found a higher being, without truth actually believe and propagate untruth which we commonly refer to as a 'lie'.

You are also still trying to claim, in regards to Wicca; that a man has no interest in creating a religion like Wicca. I did not want to be indecent here sir, but you just do not get it. One man, many witches (females) with no moral stand point, out in nature. This situation is what every adult male, of most species has always sought. IT DOES NOT GET ANY BETTER.
I suggested that a free religion like Wicca contradicted your claim of objective morality. You replied

Are we debating in the same reality sir? Yes. So how can the real, observable, definable qualities of Wicca; that you introduced to the debate serve to rebut my claims but not affect your own? What is good for one side of the debate must be good for the other; otherwise there is no purpose to the debate.
Furthermore you have defined God as:

An "entity of a non-specific faith" is not exclusive of all faiths it must be inclusive of all faiths. In other words it must comply with evidence that can be drawn from all faiths, not one, or the majority, all. Hence you have defeated objective morality in your own words.
But this is not to say I have not made moral claims that defeat your argument.
I have said
The idea of god has been propagated by people, usually men, in order to serve their own purposes and further their own interests. Sometimes those interests and purposes are good sometimes they are bad. However, they are generally the purposes and interests of men, groups of men or the societies they lead.
That is a statement on morality; you just did not recognise it or could not object to it. You proceeded to claim
Furthermore, I have not seen a rebuttal of yours against my argument by objective morality.
I do not need to rebut because you can not deal with the suggestion that an idea is good AND bad. And I could clearly see that you were contradicting yourself. Furthermore, it is NOT your argument; you have read it somewhere and are reproducing it here and claiming it as your own. If it was your argument you would be able to put it in a context and explain it with anecdotal evidence as I have done with the claim 'belief in God is harmful to learning'. That is my argument; the fact that it is similar to arguments found in published works is merely coincidental. However, I can and do defend those works that do include that argument because I know it to be true.

You said

Assuming I am correct huh?
There is evidence of ceremonial burial dating back 200,000 years ago, and you can not find sources for religion previous to 10,000 BCE. Well learn how to use your brain.
I suggest this is more evidence to support my claim that belief in the existence of God is detrimental to education. You can not find a piece of work that mentions religion at 10,000 BCE so you assume I am correct, you do not actually think about what I am saying to you.
I did not wish to publicly demean you sir, but because you do not mind publicly demeaning a successful and prominent academic I think it is quite just.

And so we have the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
You claim

Does non-seqiteur mean anything to you now sir?
Just because you are being specific does not mean you are not ignorant.
Once again it is NOT your argument. It was developed by a group of Muslim Theologians who obviously already believed the idea of God.
Did it never occur to you that those people made the argument because they were unsure of the existence of God or that they were trying to find truth in the statement 'there exists a God'?
They were unsure of the existence of God and they did not find the truth.
You state

Fine; you have backed up a baseless and unprovable claim with a baseless and unprovable argument. Well done, lets see what position it leaves you in.

Without objective morality you still have an unanswered claim that God exists simply because I can not deny it. Well you can not prove it either.
You state

Tell me then what is more relevant or important to debating than proving your point? Why bother having a debate if you think it is irrelevant whether you prove your point or not? You have wasted my time.

But once again, I will not feed your egotism by backing down.

You have successfully argued that there is a superhuman, etc, etc. Its existence can not be verified and its properties can not be known. The conceivers of the cosmological argument are simply making a guess informed only by the idea of God; at best, sir - a guess.
To make the point more clear sir, even if they are right, they can not link religion to it by morality and therefore anything religion says about it is meaningless to our lives as human beings.

Without a strong argument for a moral standard (you can not succeed here) your argument merely supports my claims that are true and verifiable.

God is an idea - Fact
Belief in the existence of an unknowable God is detrimental to learning. I hold this to be true, you have not rebutted it, and your inability to think about a situation gives me more reason to claim it is true AND I can argue this from a historical basis that is derived from real evidence.

I would have liked to conclude my argument at this point by fixing the biggest problem with it; but I do not need to because you have not got the skills to even identify it.

As I said.

Your well was poisoned long before I arrived here

Do you wish to have another round of rebuttals or go into the closing statements?

Why would I want another round of rebuttals sir?
You can have the cosmological argument - it is meaningless without a link to humanity.
Under your rules I don't see why I can not complete my argument in closing. I know that is not the traditional approach but you designed the rules, not me.

If you desire another round you should be honest about it.

Very well. I'll prepare my closing statement. I was merely thinking this has been a little short.