Is God Necessary for Existence? Debate

[GetMeThere]

Participants:
Majesty
GetMeThere

Commentary Thread:  LINK

Debate Question: Is it necessary to assume the input of a “god” for existence to be as it is?

For the purposes of this debate a “god” is defined as a creative or productive force with a human-like consciousness: it thinks, plans, and wills creations and productions. Furthermore, the god has created, at least in the primary sense, our cosmos. This is NOT a debate about the existence of such a god. The requirement is to demonstrate that a god is NECESSARY for things to be as they are. It follows directly, then, that an affirmative demonstration of the question would ALSO show that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for things to be as they are WITHOUT the input of a god.
 
If there were a god who could be easily and clearly observed by all, it would be difficult to ask the debate question, or to ask the question “Could existence as we see it be so without a god?” But such a god does not exist—the atheists from the forum are part of “all,” and they haven’t observed it.

Direct proofs for the existence of a god have been invariably rejected by skeptics. It’s unlikely that a new debate would unexpectedly convince skeptics.

But the debate question can be addressed WITHOUT the need to demonstrate the existence of the god directly, yet it would prove its existence indirectly. On the other hand, FAILURE to answer the question in the affirmative would NOT disprove the existence of a god. Thus this would seem to be a risky question for atheists to address, and a risk-free question for theists to address. However, a common idea of theists is the obviousness of god’s input into existence. If a theist were unable to demonstrate that the input of god was necessary for things to be as they are, that failure would demonstrate that the reported obviousness of god’s input which they claim is erroneous.

Final Note to Majesty: If you have any problems with the above, let me know and we will make changes that satisfy us both.

[GetMeThere]

The Burden of Proof:

The con position here is at a disadvantage—anyone on the pro side CANNOT FAIL in a way that shows there is no god. A win for the con position shows only that no good demonstration that there MUST be a god was made—but there still could be a god. The other side of the coin is that there is no burden on the con side to demonstrate anything: the pro side must directly demonstrate that a god is necessary for our existence as we observe it.

Nevertheless, it’s only fair for the con side to show that there is at least prima facie indications to think that existence could be as it is without the input of god (a one-time reminder: “god” is used as described in the notes of the original post). Here are two indications:

• Except for the mind of man, all things observable act in an “undirected manner” as far as we can observe. If the input of a god is not needed (as far as can be determined) in all observations so far made, then there is no good reason to expect we will make future observations that show the input of a god has occurred or is necessary.
• We have evidence that VERY complex structures form spontaneously in our existence, without the observed input of a god. The formations of galaxies, stars, planets, and living creatures have all been shown, to varying degrees of rigor, to be able to form naturalistically, without non-natural input of any kind. Therefore, there's no a priori reason to assume that a singularity couldn't be caused by an as yet unknown naturalistic process.[1]

The Burdens of Proof:

• To demonstrate that god is required for existence it’s also necessary to demonstrate that existence is IMPOSSIBLE without god. A demonstration from the pro side requires both aspects.
• The proof must be EXCLUSIVE to god. It’s possible to say that god’s input was necessary ONLY if NO OTHER FORCE/AGENT could have produced existence as it is.
• The Singularity Ejector (SE). Majesty may correct me if I’m wrong, but I take from his KCA presentation that he asserts that the present universe/cosmos began as a singularity, and the cosmos it created is finite in time and space. The singularity is something not as yet well-defined, but when it expands it creates space-time as it goes, and sets free energy which eventually coalesces into elementary particles, sub-atomic particles, atoms, stars, galaxies, etc. Furthermore, that singularity was caused by something that is not part of this cosmos. It’s fair to say the something is “unknown,” although Majesty claims he can demonstrate that it’s god. It is unknown to science, at present. Since what came before the singularity is unknown by science, I wish to assert that what produced the singularity for our cosmos was a Singularity Ejector. It exists outside our universe, and produces and ejects singularities. It has a modulator for cosmological constants which naturally balances them to produce “interesting” singularities that aren’t just duds. It has always existed—a quality that is not logically problematic in the place where it exists, outside our universe. Majesty then has the burden of showing why a god, and not an SE, must be the originator of our existence.
• Special pleadings—an advance warning. I intend to re-apply most claims by Majesty back upon his god. If he asks rhetorically “Why is there something rather than nothing,” I will expect him to be able to answer the question “Why is there god rather than nothing?” If he claims “only a creative mind could create something as complex as our cosmos” I expect him to explain “how can the complexity of a cosmos-creating mind arise without a creative mind creating it?”

1.	This last sentence was added by edit, after making the initial post.

[GetMeThere]

DEBATE CANCELLED!

Majesty has notified me by PM that he declines this debate. He said that he is in the process of learning "all the arguments" to prove god, but at the moment he is still perfecting the Kalam. He thinks that he might need "all the arguments" to debate the topic I propose, so for now he declines--although he might accept "soon."

For now, he offers to debate me, or any others, on the Kalam argument.