EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
3062

God exists

(PRO)
WINNER!
12 points
(CON)
0 points
JV-StalinJV-Stalin (PRO)

I would like to thank De@th for accepting.

Introspection argument

My first argument is formed like so

1. The mind exists

2. Mind is not reducible to non-mind

C1. The mind is not physical

3. Substance dualism is false

C2. Monistic Idealism entails

Premise one is justified. You can’t doubt the mind, because doubting is a mental process. Thus, doubting the mind is self refuting. Famous atheistic neuroscientist Sam Harris said

"Consciousness is the one thing in the universe that cannot be an illusion"

A more well known saying would be

"I think, therefore I am" - Rene Descartes[1]

Premise two is justified. We can doubt all matter, but not the mind. By Leibniz's law, the mind is not physical. Youtuber Johanan Raatz provided modal support for premise two [2].

P1.) Minds COULD exist in purely solipsistic universes.

P2.) Solipsistic universes are purely mental and immaterial. (as everything material* is an illusion of the mind)

C1.) Minds can exist in immaterial universes. (from C1 and C2)

P3.) Nothing material can exist in an immaterial universe.

C2.) Minds can not be material in any possible world. (from C1 and P3)

To quote Sam Harris again, [3]

"There is nothing about introspection that leads you to sense that your subjectivity is at all dependent or even related to voltage changes and chemical reactions going on inside your head. You can drop acid, you can meditate for a year, you can do whatever you want to perterbe your nervous system, you can feel yourself to be one with the universe, and at no point in that transformation do you get a glimpse that there is a hundred trillion neurons in your head, or synapses in your head that are doing anything."

C1 follows.

Premise three is justified by the problem of interaction.

"According to substance dualism, there are two fundamental kinds of substances; matter and mind. However, this view quickly leads to problems regarding the interaction of matter and mind. The internal contradictions of interactionalism demonstrate that two fundamental types of substances cannot interact. If the did, they would interact via a shared property. However, if they share a property, then they are not separate substances at all. Either mind shares a physical property with matter, or matter shares a mental property with mind. As such substance dualism becomes incoherent on close inspection, and must be rejected"[4]

This argument either means solipsism or idealism is true. We can rule out solipsism because if my mind projected reality, I should be able to control reality. We can easily test this. I can conceivably fly around and turn everything into puppies, but this doesn’t actually happen (unfortunately). This means it follows that our reality is simply a mental projection from a higher mind (Idealism).

Digital Physics Argument

This is an interesting argument from physics.

P1. Simulations can only exist in a computer or a mind

P2. The universe is a simulation

P3. A simulation on a computer must still be simulated by a mind

P4. Therefore, the simulation must exist in a mind

P5. This mind we call God

C. Therefore God exists


This may seem absurd at first glance, but it is supported.


Premise one is obvious. A powerful mind could run a simulation because that’s what it means to be powerful. Also a mind could process information. Or it could be in a computer, after all that’s where simulations we see are.


Premise two is not so obvious, but it is supported when you examine the evidence. Computer scientist Brian Whitworth compiled a list of what we should see if the universe is a simulation. His paper shows thinking the universe is simulation explains much more than thinking otherwise [5]. For example, why is there a maximum velocity? Non-virtual thinking has no answer. But thinking of the universe as a simulation does! Your computer has a limited speed by its processor, similar to the universe. We’ve all had our computer freeze up and slow down when we have a massive program that takes up our CPU running. The universe acts in a similar way. When there is massive gravitational attraction or if something is traveling at a very high speed, time dilates [6][7]. Everything digital can be reduced to the pixel. Similarly, everything in the universe can be reduced to the atom.

Another interesting example with the atom. In quantum mechanics something such as a particle isn’t there until you measure it.

“Quantum probability is not the probability of where the atom is. It's the objective probability of where you, or anybody, will find it. The atom wasn't someplace until it was observed to be there” -Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner[8]


“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” - Werner Heisenberg [9].

Much like a video game. All of the textures aren’t loaded. Different textures and objects have to load when the player requests them. In Skyrim, Whiterun isn’t there when you’re in Winterhold, when you fast travel you load it up.

Our current view of the universe’s early stages fits right in line with this idea.

“…..virtual reality theory fits well with a big bang. No virtual reality can have existed forever, since it needs a processor to start it up. All virtual realities “start up” at a specific moment of time, typically with a sudden influx of information. Every time one starts a computer game or boots up a computer, such a “big bang” occurs. From the perspective of the virtual world itself, its creation is always from “nothing”, as before the virtual world startup there was indeed no time or space as defined by that world. There was nothing relative to that world because the world itself did not exist. It is a hallmark of virtual realities that they must come into existence at a specific event in their space and time, which also initiates their space-time fabric.”[5]

String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity both assume our universe is an illusion. Which is a prediction of the VR theory.

"I seem real enough, don't I? Well, yes. But surprising clues are emerging that everything that you and I, and even space itself may actually be a kind of hologram. Everything we see and experience, everything we call our 3D reality, may be a projection of information that is stored on a thin, distant, 2D surface." - Brian Greene [10]


"If the horizon of de Sitter space is similar to the horizon of a black hole - and mathematically it is; mathematically they are almost identical - then that must mean that everything that is on the inside of the universe must be describable as a hologram, or a kind of 'film' on the surface way out there on the horizon of de Sitter space." - Leonard Susskind [11]

Now, String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity haven’t been verified, but I’m just showing how it fits.

Brian Whitworth states

“Individually none of the above short points is convincing, but taken together they constitute what a court might call circumstantial evidence, favoring virtual reality against objective reality. When coincidences mount up, they present a plausibility argument if not a proof. More powerful evidence is provided by cases which a VR theory explains easily but which OR approaches have great difficulty with.”


Now the question is, where is this computer and who programmed it? One idea that was famously proposed by Nick Bostrom is that we’re being simulated by other humans in the future who are identical to us. But, if they’re identical to us, then they too must bear the marks of a simulation. Bostrom himself agrees

“Moreover, we would have to suspect that the posthumans running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings.” [12]

Alternatively we could have a computer ran by humans existing in a world with classical physics. However, all qubits would have to be in the form of classical bits. But this means the computer must be bigger than the universe itself [13]. This justifies premise three. A mind is the best explanation for the way a simulated universe can run.

Premise four, five and the conclusion follow.

I await Con’s response.


Sources

[1] Principles of Philosophy (1644)

[2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWyPqyjbVxQ

[3]http://www.transcriptsearch.com.es/id/wi2IC6e5DUY

[4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw

[5]http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

[6]http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html

[7]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FflcA85zcOM

[8] Rosenblum, Bruce, and Fred Kuttner.Quantum Enigma. London: Duckworth, 2010. p. 129

[9] Heisenberg, Werner.Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper, 1958. p. 160

[10]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfdMdbSnNSw 4:21

[11] Ibid, 5:02.

[12]http://www.simulation-argument.com/classic.html

[13]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/books/chapters/0402-1st-lloyd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“....quantum analog computers can perform computations that would require a classical computer larger than the universe itself.” If the universe is such a simulation, it would need to contain these in classical bits.




Return To Top | Posted:
2014-01-13 16:43:33
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
JV-StalinJV-Stalin
lol I love all the RFDs!!!
Posted 2014-02-10 10:52:37
De@thDe@th
ohhh god....why don u end dis fight over ur existence???
and yeah, it will remain an eternal question unless man starts being really spiritual or really scientific. In either of these cases, existence of god becomes irrelevant. For, in the 1st case he would be seeking his own inner spirit and in the 2nd case he would be seeking the heights of science....god is always for those who prefer and take the middle path....
my personal belief.... :)
Posted 2014-01-13 04:51:06
JV-StalinJV-Stalin
It's probably the most popular debate topic in general. It's an eternal question, probably will always be.
Posted 2014-01-11 13:06:24
adminadmin
Another one! This topic is definitely the most popular one on EDEB8, that's for sure.
Posted 2014-01-11 09:52:49
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-02-06 09:52:34
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: JV-Stalin
Reasoning:
I considered this decision for quite some time. Both sides presented a thought provoking case but ultimately I felt that PRO's strategy of using WORDS to articulate his points was the better one. I felt like I THOUGHT I knew what CON was getting at with his constant forfeits, but with PRO's case I was left in no doubt. Words was definitely a smart way to go and Magic used a whole mess of them. I especially liked his Confucius quote in the final round. Succinct and relevant.

Feedback:
As stated above, PRO is on a winning strategy by using words to communicate his points. I liked being able to read his case clearly and understand his ideas.
CON should possibly look at adopting this strategy as well. The forfeits made a powerful point, that much can't be denied, but I was left unsure of exactly what the point was. I feel that that was where CON lost this debate.
Over all I enjoyed this debate and I will be sad to see it gone. Fortunately I still have Rebekah's Salmon debate which should tie me over for another 8 months or so.
3 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-02-07 11:36:52
OrangeJudge: Orange
Win awarded to: JV-Stalin
Reasoning:
Pro made a very convincing case that the universe is a simulation, and neatly tied in his conclusion to his arguments. I liked his use of quotes. I found the arguments regarding computer simulations fascinating because I've designed computer games before and the arguments just blew my mind. I was like wow. So Pro not only succeeded in making a logical case, he made a very emotionally pleasing one too.

However, Con also made an emotional case. I can't say it was pleasing, though. I think he was trying to invoke some sort of emotional response from the voters that would cause them to feel rebellious. This may have been an attempt to get voters to rebel against the idea that God exists, since it is a commonly accepted premise in the modern world and being contrarian gives one a sense of rebelliousness which some find emotionally pleasurable. Personally, I'm not one of those people, so I'm voting for Magic of Elea.

Feedback:
Magic of Elea, I don't have much advice to give you except for this: arrange your debate with an opponent beforehand, to reduce the likelihood of them forfeiting.

De@th, my advice to you is don't forfeit. I also advise you to pick a different username. I fear that there is more to your username and your ominous forfeits than just mere coincidence.

That is all.
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-02-08 11:41:37
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: JV-Stalin
Reasoning:
Pro made a very convincing case that the universe is a simulation, and neatly tied in his conclusion to his arguments. I liked his use of quotes. I found the arguments regarding computer simulations fascinating because I've designed computer games before and the arguments just blew my mind. I was like wow. So Pro not only succeeded in making a logical case, he made a very emotionally pleasing one too.

However, Con also made an emotional case. I can't say it was pleasing, though. I think he was trying to invoke some sort of emotional response from the voters that would cause them to feel rebellious. This may have been an attempt to get voters to rebel against the idea that God exists, since it is a commonly accepted premise in the modern world and being contrarian gives one a sense of rebelliousness which some find emotionally pleasurable. Personally, I'm not one of those people, so I'm voting for Magic of Elea. - Orange

I considered this decision for quite some time. Both sides presented a thought provoking case but ultimately I felt that PRO's strategy of using WORDS to articulate his points was the better one. I felt like I THOUGHT I knew what CON was getting at with his constant forfeits, but with PRO's case I was left in no doubt. Words was definitely a smart way to go and Magic used a whole mess of them. I especially liked his Confucius quote in the final round. Succinct and relevant. -nzlockie.

...-Rebekah



Feedback:
Magic of Elea, I don't have much advice to give you except for this: arrange your debate with an opponent beforehand, to reduce the likelihood of them forfeiting.

De@th, my advice to you is don't forfeit. I also advise you to pick a different username. I fear that there is more to your username and your ominous forfeits than just mere coincidence.

That is all. -Orange

As stated above, PRO is on a winning strategy by using words to communicate his points. I liked being able to read his case clearly and understand his ideas.
CON should possibly look at adopting this strategy as well. The forfeits made a powerful point, that much can't be denied, but I was left unsure of exactly what the point was. I feel that that was where CON lost this debate.
Over all I enjoyed this debate and I will be sad to see it gone. Fortunately I still have Rebekah's Salmon debate which should tie me over for another 8 months or so. -nzlockie

...-Rebekah
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
God is defined as the external conscious creator of the universe.