A Creator is the only rational explanation for the existence of the Universe.
Debate Rounds (3)
Standard format. Opening argument, rebuttals, closing argument.
The existence of a Creator is probably the oldest question in the world. Many arguments have been proposed, for and against, yet nothing is ever resolved. Here is my logical argument in favor of.
First of all, let's take a gander at the universe in question. It contains order. It would not exist without this order.
Now. Where did this order come from? Did it create itself? This is what atheists want us to believe. That a purely naturalistic origin is not only logical, but self evident.
I suggest that the opposite is true. Order cannot come from chaos. Every observation man has ever made supports this. One could argue that the formation of crystals is order from chaos, but they would be wrong. There are underlying laws that govern the formation of crystals. Therefore, order has not come from chaos, but from universal constants that allow such a formation to happen.
Now, one must ask themselves. Where did these universal constants come from? The simple fact is that scientists don't have a clue.
We also have the fact that no material object can explain it's own existence. That includes the universe. We live in a universe of cause and effect. For every effect, there is something, or someone, that caused it to happen. So. What caused the universe to exist? One could claim that it was random fluctuations in the quantum foam, or some other pseudo-scientific BS. But then you are left with the question. Where did the quantum foam come from?
What it all boils down to is that the universe requires a primal cause. This primal cause would have to be eternal, without a beginning, since an infinite regression of causes is impossible.
Since everything of a material nature had a beginning, the ultimate cause of the universe would have to be immaterial. And that leaves us with but a single option. A Being of pure spirit. All powerful and eternal. No other explanation makes any sense.
Pro has stated that the universe has order and that order cannot come from chaos. This order pro is referring to is a reference to the natural laws that we can find in our natural surroundings. They can be tested and repeated to the same result. These natural laws do not need a creator. Science has always been able to take steps to explain the origins of these laws. Let's take a look at gravity for example. First, things fell to the earth and people paid no mind. They just said it falls because it does. Then Isaac Newton came up with the idea that items fall because the earth has some kind of pull. Take another brilliant scientific step forward and they start measuring the pull of the earth and start deducing other variables that one must take into account when measuring an item's fall. Resistance, friction etc.
The point is that natural laws or orders of the universe like gravity do not have a creator. We now have enough information to know why, what, and how. This is no different from any other natural laws. Science does not start at the conclusion then try to direct evidence towards that end. On the contrary, it follows where the evidence leads.
Pro's point of how scientists don't have a clue as to the origin of constants is a point I would wholeheartedly agree with. There is no shame in just saying I don't know. There is however, shame in saying I know this and that, then for that fact to be proven to be untrue. Creationists have come too far with their conclusion based arguments to back out not but that is a different debate in itself so I will leave it there.
The true nature of universal constants and its origins will one day be known just as other constants have been explained. It will take time. We might not see it even in our own lifetime but it will happen but unfortunately, the creationist has the upper hand in instances where new discoveries are made and they say "but then where did THAT come from." This argument will always go around in a never-ending vicious cycle.
One question I would like to ask anyone interested in this topic is that: Do you think that the universe is perfect? or even the earth for that matter. Creationists are tempted in this case to say: the earth is conditioned perfectly to sustain life, therefore it is perfect. When we flip the argument and say that life is conditioned imperfectly to the nature of this earth, this goes back and forth turning into yet another debate.
If indeed there was a creator, why are there so many faults in the stars? Why create this universe for people on a ticking time bomb? Why are we inevitably doomed to be sucked into a vortex in space in the far future? If they are all powerful and eternal, these faults are all deliberate and therefore unbelievably heinous and cruel. I do not believe a creator would create something so vast and marvelous just to watch the living beings in his creation be swallowed up by its sun, just for that nova to be sucked into a black whole.
I will admit, there is a chance of a creator. However, I will also argue that the chances of there being an intelligent creator is the same as the chance that the big bang was the result of some failed science project which has the same chance that the big bang was actually a fart from the magical unicorn and that we are all bacteria, living on one of it's fecal particle.
So out of all these possibilities, to choose one and to say this is the absolute truth, has a far far smaller chance of actually being true than saying we understand that natural laws govern themselves and there doesn't need to be a creator for these laws.
B0HICA forfeited this round.
Tulgovski forfeited this round.
B0HICA forfeited this round.
Tulgovski forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.