A creator exists
Debate Rounds (5)
I wish my opponent good luck and see no need to waste time.
Science has concluded that the universe had a beginning, which is commonly referred to as the Big Bang, and in that moment, time and matter came into being. Before that, nothing existed and as nothing comes from nothing, I believe it was created. Creation implies intent. Such a being would also have to be uncaused as well as allknowing and allpowerful. Therefore I believe an eternal, sentient, omnipotent, omniscient being exists and I respectfully ask that this being be referred to as TRUTH. For convenience the letter T may be used as he or it is inappropriate.
Humans are creatures of curiosity and, throughout their written history, have searched for answers to events, phenomena, and physical observations that incite the curiosity of the species. To our knowledge (that we are able to establish, with relative certainty), humans are the only species capable of passing the sum total of the accumulated knowledge from one generation to the next. This allows each successive generation to increase the available knowledge or, perhaps more accurately, decrease the vast chasm of ignorance that once existed. In the early stages of development, humans operated on the assumption that there was a cause for EVERYTHING, though this was not explicitly stated. As mysteries such as lightning, volcanoes, tornadoes, running water (rivers/streams/creeks), fog, ect. were encountered, explanations were sought by the curious and adventurous. While it is pure speculation as to the motivation of early "witch doctors" and tribal "wise men," supernatural entities seem to have arisen to explain things for which no discernible cause was readily discernible. Over time, more of our physical universe became explainable, as physical and natural phenomena. As the mysteries began to fade, so did the number or supernatural entities. Unfortunately, we are left with a handful that are so historically rooted in human superstition that the very existence seems to be the one presumption of which far too many humans cannot let go.
My contentions are as follow:
1) The fact that something has not yet been explained naturally does not automatically point to anything supernatural.
2) Absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence.
3) Interpretation of data MUST fit all logical possibilities, without fail, or it is the interpretation that fails.
4) All "holy" or "sacred" texts that have ever been written "explaining" or ASSERTING any deity have been factually discredited to the point that they cannot be taken seriously, even as "allegory."
I am not an atheist, and I do not contend that a deity absolutely does not and cannot exist. However, until such time as such a deity is presented that is at least (at the VERY least) feasible, provable/disprovable, borne of EVIDENCE (rather than faith), and NOT detrimental to its own creation, the only rational position is one of disbelief. Any deity that has not been presented before MUST be uniquely separate from ALL previous attempts (though properties may remain), or must be equally rejected, due to a complete lack of any REAL evidence.
My opponent is now free to Introduce the meat of his presentation...
I too believe a creators existence can not be proven. I believe the creator specifically designed it that way for a reason. As to the reason, it calls for speculation on my part and therefore I will not mention it. So true there is no priori proof of a creators existence yet something created the universe. I need to correct Con on a minor gramatical error which has mojor implications. "humans operated on the assumption that there was a cause for EVERYTHING." is incorrect. Humans operate under the assumption that there IS a cause for everything, is more accurate. And rightly so. Water evaporates into the atmosphere where it condenses, forming raindrops, which fall to earth., resulting in creeks/streams/rivers. Each of the occurrences mentioned does in fact have a cause. I'm not going to explain or copy and paste how each of these events occur as its just time wasting. The point is that EVERYTHING does have a cause. And true, humanity has attributed these occurances to supernatural beings and still do. Nobody can prove that a supernatural being is not behind evaporation. Why does water turn to a gas when heated? Nature? Who or what is nature but a specific set of rules that everything obeys. Well who created those rules? Everything has a cause remember. Did water just decide it will turn to a gas at 100 degrees celcius? Did all the rules governing everything in existance just decide for itself? Or is there justification in assuming that a scentient being is behind it?
The universe exists where there was nothing before. There must be a cause. Why not a Creator? To be honest, I see no alternative.
I'm sorry, but no. Reasonable people don't take anyone's "word for it." If there is to be a debate, it must be according to reason and logic. Given that my opponent has already commented that logic (in and of itself, apparently) is flawed, on what basis is ANY debate to take place? Unnamed speculations? Such a debate would not only be pointless and fruitless, but completely without merit and doomed to failure.
As for my opponent's "grammatical correction," it seems my opponent has taken a portion of one sentence and made what would be a correction, had my opponents understanding of the statement not been incorrect:
Humans once operated on the assumption that there was a cause for EVERYTHING, though this was not explicitly stated.
Had my opponent continued reading and applied the subsequent statements, he would have understood that the implication, by early man, was that such a cause was assumed to be an entity. And entity of volition and intent. We know, today, that this is not the case, and it is precisely the logic and reason with which humans are gifted by evolution which allowed us to arrive at a place where even our young are aware that volcanoes do not erupt because there are angry gods inside of them, and that there is no god sitting on Mount Olympus, hurling lightning bolts because he is having a temper tantrum. Thus, yes, "Humans operate under the assumption that there IS a cause for everything." However, we no longer attach a personage to the causes for what we understand to be natural events, following the laws of physics. This is precisely what allows our meteorologists to give fellow humans early warning of impending disaster due to tornadoes, hurricanes, flash floods, etc. This is precisely what allows our seismologists to use ULF waves to predict earthquakes, and save human lives. This is precisely what allows air travel by thousands of flights, around the globe, weekly. All of these are based on knowledge accumulated over centuries, extrapolated by the use of reason and logic, which my opponent claims are flawed. I assumed my readers would have been able to extrapolate that from context. I will be more clear about these things, in the future.
This brings us one more step toward my opponent's "creator," to which only reference and description have been made. Here is what I understand, so far:
My opponent, in effect, is attempting to rehash the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and attribute it to "TRUTH." Further, that this particular ("creator") entity has intentionally created this universe in such a manner as to make itself unprovable. My opponent then goes on to state that nobody can disprove that this entity is behind evaporation. That, if evaporation follows the laws of nature, we must ask "WHO created those rules," without ever having established that it was indeed a "who," to the exclusion of all other possibilities. In order to accept the argument of my opponent's admitted speculation, we must dismiss the notion that circumstances and conditions of a young universe were not a natural event. On my opponent's speculation, we are asked to return to the early developmental days of humans, and ASSUME that the CAUSE for EVERYTHING was a personage. Thus far, my opponent's strongest argument is "you can't PROVE I'm wrong." This is not a compelling argument. No evidence has been put forth that "TRUTH" even exists (other than an inability to disprove an implied existence). No mention of any correlation between this "TRUTH" and the laws of nature (other than an inability to disprove an implied correlation). Nothing has been produced to indicate that this "TRUTH" created this universe (other than an inability to disprove an implied creation).
I must state, at this point, that this "TRUTH" is beginning to smell a great deal like the Abrahamic gods, with all the same inferences, and all the same attributes. The final point my opponent attempted was based on a very fragile presumption:
"The universe exists where there was nothing before."
The fact of the matter is that humans have absolutely NO idea what existed prior to the universe we are able to observe. The BBT does posit that it began from a singularity (which is not "nothing"). Our leading scientists have, after the fashion of generations before them, continued to build upon the knowledge and discoveries of those that have come before them. The scientific community continues to (quite literally) reach for the stars, in an attempt to discover more, learn more, know more. The simple truth of the matter is that I am currently simply marking time, waiting for my opponent to post something substantive. I am unable and unwilling to rebut "speculation" and "why not" arguments. In the most fundamental terms, I must answer my opponent's "Why not a creator?" I must answer with a very simple sentence:
Because there is nothing to indicate that there even IS a creator.
I, personally, am quite capable of saying, "I don't know." I don't need to know how the universe came into being, in order to live happily. I don't need to have a creator, in order to exist. I don't have the ancient and ignorant need to attribute a personage to the fact that I am here, living, breathing, thinking, wondering, speculating, dreaming, positing, hypothesizing, and concluding. I am an human being that is. If my opponent feels the need to attribute his existence to a creator, then by all means, this is my opponent's right. However, my opponent has taken the pro position in a debate over the existence of a creator. It is his responsibility to prove that this creator exists, not mine to prove that it doesn't. Logic is not my god; I have no god. Reason is my guide, in this life, and it has served me well, so far. If my opponent's entire case rests upon "You can't prove otherwise," then we are already at an impasse, and my opponent has failed to prove his case for the existence of a creator.
You see logic is based on preconceptions. Preconceptions limit our mind from observing anything objectively. We superimpose our preconceptions on our perceptions. A fact can be staring you in the face, but you won't see it. Blinded by logic. Its a human flaw from which none are immune. Myself included. Therefore I do not believe my own logic. There is however a way of determining whether a concept is flawed. It must pass all objective tests. And that is why I am here. If I am stumped by a objective question I will admit my logic is flawed. But I will ask Con to keep his subjective opinions to himself.
Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence? A typical example of flawed logic. I can neither see, hear, smell, taste nor feel Cons brain. Apart from cutting open his head, that is. I'd rather not go that route. But by Cons logic, his brain does not exist. Well anyone can see that he has one. Not through priori proof, but by observing him perform the actions requiring a brain. He thinks, therefore he has a brain. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I don't need priori proof of TRUTHS existence to prove TRUTH exists. Proof can be found by showing that the universe is not random, but designed.
Now I have put forward an idea. Is it plausible? Well its not implausable. As I said before, priori proof is not available. But we have the universe, with no explanation of how it got here. I put forward the claim that TRUTH created it. Con dismisses the idea stating no proof exists. Well no proof exists that a creator does not exist. But no alternative is offered as to how the universe came into being. Con claims ignorance. Lol I agree.
I have put forward a logical explanation for why the universe is here. Nobody can prove it wrong or offer a alternative. The most fundamental question in human history. Why are we here, is answered with," I don't know. I don't need to know to be happy" Am I the only one who sees the how illogical that is? Why are you even on a debating site, busy arguing that a creator does not exist, if you don't need to know? So I must either give my opinion why TRUTH does not want humanity to know why T does not exist or try another route.
Very well, lets try probability. Scientists have determined that a male releases between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm cells in one ejaculation. So that means if the universe is just random, you had a 1 in 40 million chance of being here. And 39 999 999 other people are just unlucky. But wait, there's more. If your parents weren't around you wouldn't be born either. So 1 in 40 million for your mum and 1 in 40 million for your dad. That gives you a shot of 1 in 40 million to the power of 3. Do you feel lucky? With TRUTH behind creation your existance was inevitable. You are here because TRUTH wants you here. You may ask why? What makes me so important. I'm not worth all the effort required so its impossible. I don't even believe in TRUTH.
I don't blame you for it. Our whole life we are taught that we are sinners. That God is a uncaring master. You just don't realise it. Its done subliminally. Its no coincidence that God spelt backwards is dog. In our perception the role is reversed. We become the dogs and God the master. Is it any wonder the word God leaves a dirty taste in your mouth? Then we have evil. To live is evil. We feel guilty about things we enjoy. Like sex. How can we matter to God?
But TRUTH is not God. TRUTH wants you to enjoy life. You are worthy. So what stops you from believing TRUTH exists?
I put this to Con. There is no proof TRUTH doesn't exist. Without TRUTH we have no explanation why we are here. Without TRUTH you have a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of never being born. Give me 1 logical reason I should not believe TRUTH exists.
First, logic never determined that the earth was the center of the universe, that the stars and sun revolved around us, that the earth was flat, or that men could not fly... IGNORANCE did all that. It was logic that proved them all wrong. My opponent did get one thing right: science is not a tool of logic. Logic is the primary tool of science. It is a means of REASONING. Modern logic and science still follow, to a large degree, the Aristotelian "formal" logic, and this formal logic does, indeed, assume the truth of priori knowledge. However, priori knowledge is subject to change, should it be discovered that such knowledge was incorrect. It is the logical thing to do. It is also that which corrects subsequent logic and that which is derived by it.
Next, we have an attempt to rebut the idea that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Unfortunately, my opponent went about this in a manner that was detrimental to his own argument. My opponent stated:
"I can neither see, hear, smell, taste nor feel Cons brain. Apart from cutting open his head, that is. I'd rather not go that route. But by Cons logic, his brain does not exist."
If that was the extent of things that were evidence of the existence of my brain, Pro would be absolutely correct. However, Pro goes on to offer the very evidence that disproves his own position:
"Well anyone can see that he has one. Not through priori proof, but by observing him perform the actions requiring a brain. He thinks, therefore he has a brain."
The observation of my performance of tasks/actions that require a brain comes from the PRIORI knowledge that a brain is a requirement for the performance of these tasks/actions. The observation of the tasks/actions IS THE EVIDENCE that I have a brain. Thus, there is no "absence of evidence," and my opponent's evaluation is incorrect. The first segment of this argument deals strictly with EMPIRICAL evidence. Since logic entails three types of reasoning (Inductive, Abductive, Deductive), any of the three, to varying degrees, are used in logical argumentation. This example fails, and the statement still stands: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
My opponent then follows with "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." I absolutely agree, which is why I have never stated the contrary. Evidence and proof are not interchangeable. Proof is much harder than conclusion. Conclusions can be wrong. That which is proven cannot be considered wrong.
My opponent goes on to make the following statements:
"I don't need priori proof of TRUTHS existence to prove TRUTH exists. Proof can be found by showing that the universe is not random, but designed."
This is, indeed, an Herculean task. I agree that "truth" (the human concept) exists. To elevate the human concept of "truth" to the triple-omni PERSONAGE of "TRUTH," requires most astonishing evidence, indeed. Indeed, if the universe can be PROVED to have been created, that would support the belief that there is a creator. We shall see whether or not the universe can be PROVED to have been created, by my opponent. Thus far, I have seen not even evidence, let alone "proof."
My opponent states:
"I put forward the claim that TRUTH created it."
At least my opponent admits that this is a claim (not proof). However, my opponent then goes on to state:
"I have put forward a logical explanation for why the universe is here."
I have not seen ANY explanation for why the universe is here; most especially a logical one. He makes the claim that nobody can prove it wrong, but there is no point in trying to disprove something that has not been put forth. I scoured the previous postings, looking for that which I might have overlooked, but I have found ZERO explanation for the existence of the universe. My opponent then asks why I am debating, if I don't NEED to know, in order to be happy... The answer is simple. I am here (on this site) combating the spread of destructive RELIGION. That does not presuppose that I am opposed to the existence of a creator. Until a creator is posited that is actually feasible, logical, and has SOME EVIDENCE for its existence, I must continue in my belief that none exists. My opponent's next move is a bit puzzling:
"So I must either give my opinion why TRUTH does not want humanity to know why T does not exist or try another route."
This sentence is self-contradictory. Something that does not exist cannot "want" ANYTHING. It is at this point that the quality of argument actually starts to decline...
The example of probability has been attempted, before (most notably by William Lane Craig), and has failed due to logical fallacies and false premises. The number of spermatozoa produced in a single ejaculation is only indicative of the odds against a SPECIFIC spermatozoa FERTILIZING the egg. Pro asks if I feel lucky to be here. My answer is, "Yes." I do feel lucky. It could have been an entirely different person, or none, at all. This, however, in NO WAY offers any evidence that there is a creator, and is so far down the chain of the evolutionary progression that it is only indicative of the luck that I am here, not the human species... How does this infer a creator? No correlation is made. How does this contribute to the creation of the universe? No correlation is made. And I didn't even bother with my opponent's "math" in calculating the odds, given that my father MEETING and MARRYING my mother was not even considered among the odds, let alone the odds, had my mother met someone else...
Now, we have arrived at my favorite part of the post! My opponent states:
"I don't blame you for it. Our whole life we are taught that we are sinners. That God is a uncaring master. You just don't realise it. Its done subliminally. Its no coincidence that God spelt backwards is dog. In our perception the role is reversed. We become the dogs and God the master."
What my opponent fails to realize is that a play on words is evidence of NOTHING. Further, this example works ONLY in English. What can my opponent deduce from the Spanish version of "DIOS" (god) and "PERRO" (dog)? What is the "subliminal"
Why did Pro assume that I feel guilty about sex? I don't. I thoroughly enjoy sex. My wife is an exceptional lover, and every moment with her, in that capacity is bliss.
With this, my opponent challenges me with the following:
"There is no proof TRUTH doesn't exist. Without TRUTH we have no explanation why we are here. Without TRUTH you have a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of never being born. Give me 1 logical reason I should not believe TRUTH exists."
There is also no proof that "Jehova" doesn't exist. There's also no proof that Allah doesn't exist. There is also no proof that Zeus doesn't exist; or Jupiter or Athena or Odin or Loki or Thor or...
There is not one single bit of evidence to suggest that "TRUTH" is a cognizant entity, that the universe WAS created, or that "TRUTH" is connected -- IN ANY WAY -- with my existence, no matter how unlikely. Once again, the best argument my opponent can muster is, "You can't disprove it!" Here is a ridiculously short list of things that cannot be disproved, all of which are far more feasible/viable than the volitional act of creation, via "TRUTH":
Universe was created by the collision of two super massive black holes.
Universe was created by the collision of two super massive white holes.
Universe was created by the collision of one super massive black hole and one super massive white hole.
Universe was created by a middle school being from the fifth dimension as a science project.
"TRUTH" = No
You do in fact claim that absence of proof is proof of absence. Yet you claim you never made such a statement. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
The objective truth of any concept can be confirmed by the fact that it will never contradict itself.
The problem with logic is that it evolves as science reveals more evidence. unlike religious beliefs which are written in stone, so to speak. Its easy to say ignorance was the cause that the logical conclusion was mistaken but as yet, logic has no explanation for creation. Neither how, nor why. If the very foundation of logic is built on ignorance then logic is no better than any other religion. It is merely a belief system, based on ignorance.
2 black holes, 2 white holes... Where did these black holes and white holes come from? Who or what created them? These are merely diversionary tactics and not valid explanations for creation. Its basically claiming we are in a simulation and the programmer created us. Well who created the programmer? Back to square one.
As Con seems unable or unwilling to answer the question Why he doesn't believe TRUTH exists, I will answer it for him. So far, every religious belief in God contradicts itself. Therefore logic determines they are false beliefs. Con also believes in free will. He believes mas is responsible for his own actions and will be judged accordingly. Judged not by God, because God does not exist, but rather judged by those who know him. The idea that his actions are predestined by some omnipotent being is impossible for him to accept. Therefore TRUTH does not exist. Cons belief makes TRUTH impossible.
As noboby can offer a valid theory for creation, I will do so. I call it time fluctuation theory on creation.
The biggest problem with any theory of creation is time. If time started with the big bang, no time existed before the Big Bang and therefore nothing could have caused the big bang. So far science has determined nothing capable of travelling back in time to create the Big Bang. So the universe itself could not create itself. But everyone seems to make one logical conclusion, namely, that time travels at a set speed and is one directional. This is merely based on subjective observation. We have no objective means to measure how fast time travels as we exist only in one instant of time. Any past is merely memory and any future is merely a imaginary construct of the mind. Time could in fact be standing still and we wouldn't know it. I know that's complicated so I'll try to simplify it with a mathematical equasion. Y/X=1. Where Y is our perception of time passing and X is the actual speed of time passing. If X is halved, so is Y. So we get half Y/half X = 1. Likewise 2Y/2X = 1. No matter what speed time travels at, we will always perceive it to be constant. Well my contention is that time is slowing down. To prove this we need to look back in time. And we can. Light travels at a set speed. Although fast, it still takes time to travel. The further away an object is, the further back in time we are looking. If rays from a star take 200 years to get here then we are in fact looking back in time 200 years. The outer limits of the universe are very far away and therefore, way back in time, from our perspective. If I am right we would expect to see things travelling faster than they should. Well guess what... they do. Scientists have observed that the universe is expanding faster than it should when science dictates it shiuld be slowing down. Lol imagine their suprise when nature seems to defy science. But what does it mean? Time is slowing down. Something is exerting force on time to slow it down. Eventually time will stop and start running backwards. Everything will return to the moment of creation and this gives the singularity the energy it needs to repeat the cycle. The big bang happens again.
No creator is needed.
"You do in fact claim that absence of proof is proof of absence."
"2) Absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence."
Pro appears to be inaccurately conflating "proof" with "evidence," and that is simply not the case. Further, it does not contradict itself, nor have I.
Pro went on to state:
"...logic has no explanation for creation."
This appears to be treating the CONCEPT of "logic" as a personage, and attempts to belittle it by stating that it cannot accomplish something. Logic is not an entity. It is not even anything tangible. It is a CONCEPT, and nothing else. There is no explanation for creation because, as yet, creation is not even a viable hypothesis, let alone an explanation or theory. Further, logic is not "built on ignorance," as my opponent claims, but that which removes ignorance. Its use is essential in extrapolating truth from observation and testing. Even the straw dummy created by my opponent is incapable of removing logic as a valuable tool in humanity's existence and advancement.
The black holes and white holes were merely examples of things that cannot be disproved. On equal footing with my opponent's assertion that "TRUTH" is a creative deity, the white holes and black holes have more evidence behind them, and are more credible that my opponents blank, unfounded assertions about a made up entity called "TRUTH." No simulation is even inferred, let alone claimed. This was a disingenuous misstatement.
Pro continues with yet another disingenuous misstatement:
"As Con seems unable or unwilling to answer the question Why he doesn't believe TRUTH exists,..."
I did answer the question, at the end of my last round:
""There is not one single bit of evidence to suggest that "TRUTH" is a cognizant entity, that the universe WAS created, or that "TRUTH" is connected -- IN ANY WAY -- with my existence, no matter how unlikely.
Then, my opponent goes on to make statements on my behalf, and do so, INCORRECTLY:
"I will answer it for him..." "Con also believes in free will. He believes mas is responsible for his own actions and will be judged accordingly. Judged not by God, because God does not exist, but rather judged by those who know him."
First, Pro has no idea whether or not I believe in free will (I don't, not fully). While I do believe in free volition, an individual seldom controls which thought enters their brain, next, one is fully capable of choosing how to act upon said thought, if one chooses to act on it, AT ALL. Further, Pro is not in ANY position to try to answer ANYTHING on my behalf. It appears that Pro can barely keep track of his own beliefs, let alone sort out someone else's. While I do not believe in predestination, I have never stated that it was impossible. Further, I do not state that "TRUTH" does not exist on this basis. I state that my opponent's fantasy deity does not exist because not one shred of evidence has been presented that even infers that this is a person, let alone a triple-omni entity being fully responsible for any creation, or intervention in my or anyone else's life. I would caution Pro to make no further attempt to speak on my behalf, or put false words in my mouth. This disingenuous debate tactic is easily recognized and serves to discredit him, further than the illogical and unreasonable assertions he has put forth.
Now, my opponent claims to put forth a creation theory (when it's not even an hypothesis, yet), with the following opening:
"If time started with the big bang, no time existed before the Big Bang and therefore nothing could have caused the big bang."
The truth of the matter is that NO ONE knows what existed prior to the BB, and no one has claimed to know. Pro is, once again, making statements on behalf of others that are simply not true. After this, my opponent launches into a pseudo-mathematical "explanation" of his incorrect conclusion: That time itself is slowing down... While humans have developed a system or MEANS of MARKING time, this system is valid ONLY within our solar system, and ONLY with respect to our planet. "Years" are subjective units, based on the time it takes for OUR planet to circumnavigate OUR star (the Sun). Months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds are simply subdivisions of OUR SUBJECTIVE time UNITS. Not one statement that my opponent made applies, as far as we know, to ANY other part of the universe. Time marches forward, irrespective of anyone's "perception." It does not speed up or slow, but passes from one instant to the next, in the same manner it has always done.
Rate of expansion of the universe is, likewise, independent of my opponent's perception or perspective, as he explained it. What my opponent perceived as an increase in the passage of time is, in fact, and increase in velocity of masses. Velocity is a vector, consisting of two parts: Rate and Direction. This vector is represented by V=(d/t, (theta)), where V (velocity) is calculated by d (distance) divided by t (time), traveling in direction (theta). What my opponent has observed is that "...we would expect to see things travelling faster than they should." This means that the factor that has changed is not time slowing down, but the distance being covered in that SAME TIME is increasing. Nothing is exerting any "force on time." There is no "force" that has even been speculated that can impact or affect TIME. There ARE, however, forces that can be exerted on MATTER, to impact its velocity.
It would appear that my opponent has misconstrued fundamental junior high physics, and supplanted his own "interpretation" in order to support a conclusion at which he seems to have arrived prior to investigating any data or evidence. Furthermore, this speculation does absolutely nothing to support the existence of any deity. Thus, I must conclude that my opponent is merely asserting something that he has not even thoroughly thought out, in an effort to put forth his beliefs in a "scientific manner," and has completely missed the mark. At this point, I consider the measure of arguing that there is a creator to have been defeated, at least from the perspective of my current opponent:
1) The assertion is that there is a creator.
2) No evidence, argument, or inductive reasoning has even been offered in support of "TRUTH."
3) All assertions that have been made by Pro have been easily refuted and dismissed.
4) There is still ZERO evidence of the existence of an entity "TRUTH"
5) There remains ZERO evidence put forth that the universe was created.
6) There has been zero correlation between the unproven creation and the speculated entity "TRUTH"
There is no creator named "TRUTH."
And need I remind you of your promise? I removed the automatic forfeiture clause because you promised not to lie. The first quote on your profile states that that you are free because you are morally responsible for your actions. A total contradiction I might add. Because morality implies a belief in God, but a belief in God implies predestination. Now they say actions speak louder than words and I don't know about other people, but personally I pick quotes which have profound meaning to me. And what that quote tells me is you believe you have free will, and you believe in God. I was unsure if you meant moral responsibilty to God or social morality, which is why I posed my question in that particular fashion. It would seem that you do believe in God but are ashamed to admit it. Furthermore I will have you know I am right on track with my arguments. In fact I am keeping track of things you seem to have forgotten about yourself. So to sum this up, you end your sentence with,"While I do not believe in predestination, I have never stated that it was impossible. yet prior to that, you claim,"one is fully capable of choosing to act upon said thought, if one chooses to act on it, AT ALL" (NOTE THE CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTING A POINT IS BEING MADE). In the first sentence you say that you never stated predestination was impossible. In the second sentence you say everyone has the ability to choose. So which is it? Is predestination possible or impossible? Please answer honestly. I may be uneducated but I'm not stupid.
Logic may claim not to know, but science has proven that time started with the creation of the big bang. And do you really think science doesn't know how fast the universe is supposed to be expanding? Logic is good at one thing, taking credit for scientific discoveries. But all science does is prove logic wrong. Logic said man can't fly, science proved them wrong. Logic claimed man could never set foot on the moon, science is planning a mission to mars. (unless you believe some logic which claims the whole moon landing was staged) logic claimed blind people will never see, science just implanted a mechanical eye into a human, allowing them to see. And guess who is standing ready to take the credit? You guessed it, LOGIC. Logic has been standing in mans way since man first discovered fire. You see, logic is a set of preconcieved ideas. Ideas based on our perception. But our perceptions are flawed. To advance we need to put aside preconceptions. Turn our backs on logic. It is just the latest in a long line of outdated beliefs. The latest religion, so to speak. Worshipping knowledge. Preaching its lies to our children. Building great universities and museums to discuss their beliefs and display the triumphs of science as their own creations.
On a side note, I see a lot of debate about the definition of atheism. One claims,"I believe no God exists." And the other claims."I do not believe a God exists." To the layman it may seem like the same thing, but they are two different meanings. The first, who I refur to as Nus, are making a theological statement. They are stating a belief that no God exists. These people need to back up their beliefs with proof. The second bunch, who i call Holes, are making a psychological statement. They believe anyone who believes in God is dillusional. They do in fact not have to give a reason why they do not believe God exists. The question of Gods existance, is however, a theological question. As Holes have no theological position they may view such discussions, but not participate. As by participating you automatically assume the position of a Nus. Its like 2 mechanics discussing the best way to install a carberettor and a accountant chips in. You Holes need to stick to the science section in the psychology section. I'll be happy to point out that 90% of humanity believes in some God or another. So you 10% are the dillusional ones. Anyway, you atheists can choose. Are you a A. Nus or a A. Hole?
"Evidence is not proof? Lol what dictionary do you own? The disney version?"
No, Evidence is NOT proof. SUFFICIENT evidence can constitute a conclusion that is seemingly impossible to contradict. The concept of "proof," however, implies that the conclusion is incontrovertible. Evidence, by itself, can be misleading and, as a result, misinterpreted. In essence, no. The two words are not interchangeable; Pro's ad hominem notwithstanding.
Next, my opponent moves on to a veiled accusation:
"And need I remind you of your promise? I removed the automatic forfeiture clause because you promised not to lie."
And I have kept that promise.
And Pro's misinterpretation (or perhaps reading comprehension challenges?):
"The first quote on your profile states that that you are free because you are morally responsible for your actions. A total contradiction I might add."
No, the first quote on my profile states that ROBERT HEINLEIN is free because ROBERT HEINLEIN is morally responsible for HIS actions. This is a quote, not a statement of my own. I happen to agree with the principle behind it, but that is not a contradiction, by any stretch of even the most convoluted imagination.
Next, we have Pro's two part, unfounded assertion that I find to be completely incorrect:
"Because morality implies a belief in God, but a belief in God implies predestination."
No, morality does NOT imply a belief in a deity. It implies an ethical standard. Neither does a belief in a deity imply predestination. If my opponent is going to make blind, unconditional and unfounded assertions without any support, then any pretense that this is a debate goes right out the window.
Next, Pro states:
"And what that quote tells me is you believe you have free will, and you believe in God."
First, my opponent misinterprets my statements, and uses quotes to imply falsehood, on my part. Next, he is (once again) attributing beliefs and positions to me that both are incorrect and that he is in no position to assert. I have free volition, not free will. Further, I fully explained this in my previous entry. Pro seems to have either missed this, or ignored it, for the purposes of making his ad hominem post easier on himself.
Pro's presumptuous conclusion:
"It would seem that you do believe in God but are ashamed to admit it."
I am not ashamed of any of my beliefs, and a deity is not among them.
Several rambling senteces later, Pro attempts to create an apparent contradiction between my statement ("one is fully capable of choosing to act upon said thought, if one chooses to act on it, AT ALL") to imply that I posit predestination to be impossible. This is an incorrect interpretation ( I keep warning Pro not to put words in my mouth, to no avail...) of the statement. Nothing about that statement makes anything an impossibility. If my volitional choices were predestined by some vast entity beyond human comprehension, I would have no way of knowing it, let alone doing anything about it. The statement about freedom of volition is mutually exclusive with the possibility/impossibility of predestination. The two THOUGHTS are mutually exclusive, and I have STILL not stated a position on predestination. While predestination would ONLY be possible outside of my own knowledge, I cannot state whether it is possible or impossible. I don't believe in it, but my belief is not concrete proof of the veracity.
The next paragraph is a revisiting of Pro's attempt at personification of "logic" and science, along with more blind assertions of the "...creation of the big bang." The entire paragraph is a rehash that has already been refuted, and I will not waste additional words beyond pointing out that the entire paragraph is an incoherent hodgepodge of assertions and claims devoid of meaning or accuracy, and replete with misconceptions.
In Pro's final paragraph, we finally arrive at the one accurate point in the entire diatribe of incoherent ramblings:
"On a side note, I see a lot of debate about the definition of atheism. One claims,"I believe no God exists." And the other claims."I do not believe a God exists." To the layman it may seem like the same thing, but they are two different meanings. "
Yes, they are two different statements; one is a dismissal of the beliefs of others, the other is a statement of belief by the speaker. Good job, to Pro... Finally an accurate statement and assessment. Unfortunately, Pro follows up a perfectly good assessment with yet another diatribe commentary, way out in left field.
"The second bunch, who i call Holes, are making a psychological statement. They believe anyone who believes in God is dillusional."
First, there is NO implication in the statement "I do not believe a god exists," that labels the contrary belief as "delusional" (not "dillusional"). Even the "names" that Pro gives each group seems to imply a very childish view of others' beliefs. The remaining diatribe goes on to "slam" the beliefs that he is incapable of refuting, and offers NOTHING in support of his own delusional and quite unorthodox assertions about his god, "TRUTH."
Throughout the entirety of this "debate," I have been waiting for Pro to produce just ONE cogent argument in favor of a creator. None has been forthcoming. I have waited for some form of valid argumentation. None has been forthcoming. Aside from a list of unsupported claims, assertions, and misstatements, Pro has used a great many words to say a whole lot of nothing. No evidence has been presented, and we haven't even seen a clear definition of what "TRUTH" actually might be. Unfortunately, this entire debate has amounted to a great deal of posturing on the part of my opponent, and nothing of any real relevance or substance. My opponent has made several condescending statements to others, in the comments section, belittling the views and conclusions of others. Within the debate, itself, he admits to being uneducated. While there is, indeed, a difference between education and intellect, I have seen evidence of NEITHER, in this debate, forthcoming from the Pro position. Once again, I must state that the measure proposing that "TRUTH" created the universe has never even reached the stage of hypothesis. The assertion that there is a creator, from my opponent, amounts to "I can't see any other alternative, can you?" This, as though his inability to conceive of an alternative automatically constitutes the validation of an as yet unsubstantiated creation or creator, to the exclusion of any other possibility. I am actually quite sorry that I agreed to this waste of time and bandwidth, given that the "debate" has produced a lot of words, and nothing else.
In closing I will state, directly to Pro:
Your "TRUTH" has been effectively falsified.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's later arguments were riddled with ad hominem remarks, for instance, his side remark regarding atheists with his custom terms: "...Are you a A. Nus or a A. Hole?". Conduct to Con. *Con had more misspellings that I had originally thought ("carberettor", "implausable", "existance" , "preconcieved") which became more frequent in the later rounds. S/G to Con. Pro's arguments were unsupported and his assertions never made it beyond that status. The few "factual" claims that were put forth by Pro (for instance, those claims related to the BBT) were soundly rebutted by Con. The resolution was not held true. Arguments to Con. No sources were used.
Vote Placed by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for all the insults endured. Spelling and grammar were terrible on Pro's side. No sources were used. The debate was completely one-sided. Pro's side read like a series assertions and speculations embedded in semi-coherent rants. Con effectively rebuts each of Pro's assertions and also dismantles some of the underlying premises foundational to Pro's espoused views. Pro failed to make a single coherent argument for their position, and Con effectively corrects Pro on many points and provides valid arguments against what could have been arguments on Pro's side.
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.