The Instigator
Center_for_Rationality
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
andrewkletzien
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

A creator of the universe exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Center_for_Rationality
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,939 times Debate No: 28511
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (10)

 

Center_for_Rationality

Pro

Resolution:A creator of the universe exists
No semantics
No intentional fallacies
No ad hom
Dropped arguments are considered concessions
andrewkletzien

Con

Accepted.

Note: Burden of Proof lies on Pro.

Definitions:

1. Creator: a prime mover, an uncaused cause, etc. I will ask Pro to confirm that this is a debate on a simple "creator," in the same sense as:

Deism: Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

If Pro wishes to expand the subject material covered in this debate (by say going into the Christian "creator" (identical to the "creator" of Islam & Judsiam) or Hindu "creator," etc., I ask him or her to clarify. Just trying to get a good idea of the scope of the debate.

Thanks for initiating!
Debate Round No. 1
Center_for_Rationality

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate; I hope
we have a good discussion.

Creator of the universe: an mind that
created the universe

My first argument is going to be based on the
"Five Proofs" by Saint Thomas Aquinas that he summarized in his
"Summa Theologia". Thomas Aquinas was the first major Catholic
philosopher. The Catholic Church loved Saint Thomas Aquinas because it was the
first time they could argue with atheist on their own grounds.

1. The Unmoved Mover

Everything is in Motion (evident from our senses and
the Kinetic theory of matter)

Things are only moved by other thing, nothing moves
itself

Infinite regress of anything let alone movers is
impossible

Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from which all
other motion proceeds

Now this argument alone doesn't do anything that proves
God. This simply proves that there is something from which all motion precedes.
We know from science and causation that not only that everything is in motion
including seemingly stationary objects but also that everything needs to be set
in motion from other things. As Thomas Aquinas "But nothing can be moved
from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of
actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the
same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move
itself.". Infinite regress is impossible; I will show that infinity is
false notion by Hilbert’s Hotel. Imagine a hotel with an infinite amount of
rooms and with an infinite number of guests in each of those rooms. Now a new
person comes and wants to stay the night, the manager says no problem! I will
just ask the guest in room number 1 to move to room number 2, the guest in
number 2 move to room 3, the guest in room 3 move to number 4, and so on, and
then you can have room number 1. Now the hotel is again full, but what if
entire infinity tour bus filled people wants to stay at the hotel, he again say
no problem and has everyone go from the room they are in to the room double of their
own. Therefore opening up an infinite number of rooms. Now we can see that
infinity is incoherent concept that doesn't exist in reality AT LEAST not qualitatively.
When we are talking about God's infinity we are referring to an unlimited
amount rather than an actual amount as infinity. He is infinite in quality than
rather than in qualitatively. My opponent may say that this isn't a logically
valid argument but I would like my opponent to note it is inductive rather
deductive.

2. Kalam Cosmological Argument

My second argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument,
from which was first stated by Al-Ghazali. He wrote, "Every being which
begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins;
therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning." I will be defended the
contemporary argument by William Lane Craig.

William Lane Craig formulates the argument as follows:

1. Whatever
begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe
began to exist.

3. Therefore,
the universe has a cause.

Now in the previous argument, I told the reason why
premise 2 cannot be false because the concept of infinity is not qualitatively
true. But there are additional reasons to believe that the universe is not
eternal. Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in
Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an
eternal past. Another way we can show that infinite is incoherent is by doing
another analogy popular with William Lane Craig. Suppose I have an infinite
amount of coins and you take away all the odd ones. I would still have
infinity. So infinity minus infinity equals infinity, now what about if you
take away all coins about 3, now I have 3, so infinity minus infinity is equal
to 3. Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem states that any universe, which has, on
average, a rate of expansion greater 1 that system had to have a finite
beginning. Now with the first premise, out of nothing, nothing comes. The first
premise is arrived at by any form of reasoning and causation; we don't see
pizza's popping into existence. We don't not see earths popping into existence.
Why would universes be exclusively what comes out of nothing? Try to imagine
something coming out of nothing prior to the existence. As David Oderberg once
said the existence of nothing followed by something is ridiculous because the
words followed by cannot be understood since followed by is incoherent for a
time when there was no time. Truly my opponent has the burden of proof in
defeating premise one since it seems a properly basic belief.

3. The Teleological Argument

My next argument is the teleological argument in which
was originally proposed by Islamic writers but most popularly by William Paley.
Richard Swinburne is an avid defender of the teleological argument.

1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to physical
necessity, chance, or design

2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance

3. Therefore it is due to design

This is a simple deductive argument whose form I get
from William Lane Craig. When laws of nature are expressed, there are certain
constants that are independent of the laws of nature. Furthermore, there are
only certain values of ranges in which it could be life-permitting, for example
the cosmological constant (also called dark energy) exactly makes up for the
lack of matter in the universe. As Dr. Hugh Jones said "One part in 10^37
is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The
following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in
dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In
comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover
one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from
here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America.
Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a
friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red
dime are one in 10^37. Now can it be due to necessity? No because they are
independent of the laws of nature. What about chance? Well, the fine-tuning of
universe has a combination a pattern and a sense of randomness, similar in a
way that a code for spies or something similarly sinister, therefore we can successfully
conclude that it is design. It seems infinitely more probable that a designer exists;
Paley's watch seems to suggest that God exists. The analogy helps to support
the assertion that it is not chance. We don't assume a watch on a beach is
simply made by chance. While it is not a perfect analogy nevertheless no
analogy is perfect and this still supports the second premise. Therefore the
fine tuning of the universe is due to design.

Conclusion

I thank for my opponent for taking the time to consider
my arguments and I hope we have a detailed discussion about the truth of a
creator. I will post sources in the comments. I have many and it will not fit in my case.
andrewkletzien

Con

The Unmoved Mover/Hilbert's Hotel
First, my opponent notes that Aquinas' cosmological is not valid in and of itself to prove god, yet provides the same argument numerous times derived from infinite regresses, but in different forms.

I will first note that my opponent has arbitrarily allowed himself the power to end the infinite regress, and he shall label that end "God." He gives absolutely no reasons why we are to believe that this "God" is not subject to the very same laws which Pro claims to be to his own benefit.

On Infinity
I will also note my opponent's seemingly confused sense of what "infinity" means. Hilbert's Hotel is a nice little thought experiment that has intrigued many, but it attempts to define practicality to that which is purely conceptual, infinity. You say that this hotel has an infinite number of guests and an infinite number of rooms. And there anyone who knows what the concept of infinity means sees the problem: infinity is not a number, so any thought experiments which assume it is or place any amount of comparison to a number is simply exploiting the degree to which many do not understand the basic applications of such a concept.

My opponent thinks that "infinity is a false notion." I believe anyone who has taken basic Calculus knows that infinity is an entirely useful and important concept, without which much in mathematics would be lacking. Attempts to disregard the infinite regress for the simple fact that many, including Pro, don't understand it's implications should be considered rhetorically deceptive. Pro has confused the concept once again when he says: "infinity is incoherent concept (sic) that doesn't exist in reality AT LEAST not qualitatively." You can see once again he is mistaken, for infinity, being a concept and not a numeral, does not exist quantitatively. It's supposed "incoherence" should be seen as Pro's understanding of it as incoherent, for it is a relatively understood and quite useful concept in terms of mathematics. A developed mathematician would truly gawk at the way in which the concept has been abused thus far. The inappropriate extrapolation from infinity to a number (any number, even if undefined) may show why it is so puzzling.

On Al-Ghazali, Kalam Cosmological, Craig
My opponent has once again said that "the concept of infinity is not qualitatively true." You will see once again his mistake, in two senses: infinity is not capable of being established quantitatively, and the statement of "not qualitatively true" is one that I find incoherent, at best, and at worst, misleading. If Pro is insisting on using this mathematical concept, he must show that he knows how to use it correctly: it is not something that is of a "quantitative or qualitative" nature. It is a mathematical concept, and I see your descriptors as being on par with someone saying "The limit is not qualitatively true" (and note a limit may very well be "infinity," for a limit as well is not a quantitative concept: http://www.mathsisfun.com...)

You will see once again in Pro's use of Craig's argument, that he has deceptively provided a hypothetical which is, frankly, absurd: "an infinite amount of coins." Infinity is not a quantitative concept, and any comparisons which assume it can be labeled as such should be distrusted.

On Creation Ex-nihilo
Here I will note the Higgs-Boson particle, a theoretical particle at this point in time but considered "just around the corner" by some of the top particle physicists.

(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

There is some speculation that the particle was discovered in July of this year, and although it is not 100% confirmed, all tests have proven consistent with the theory at hand. I will quote here:

In the Standard Model, the Higgs particle is a boson with no spin, electric charge, or color charge. It is also very unstable,decaying into other particles almost immediately. The Higgs particle is a quantum excitation of one component of the four component Higgs field, a scalar field with two neutral and two electrically charged components, forming a complexdoublet of the weak isospin SU(2) symmetry, and with U(1) weak hypercharge of +½ (or +1 depending on convention). The field has a "Mexican hat" shaped potential and takes on a nonzero strength everywhere (including otherwise empty space) which breaks the weak isospin symmetry in its vacuum state. When this happens, three of the four Higgs field components are "absorbed" by the originally massless SU(2) and U(1) gauge bosons (this is the "Higgs mechanism") to become the longitudinal components of the now-massive W and Z bosons. The fourth electrically neutral component separately couples to other particles known as fermions (via Yukawa couplings), causing these to acquire mass as well. The fourth component's quantum excitations manifest as the Higgs boson.

Arguments which claim a necessary and self-evident creator more often than not rely on things that we don't know, or that are very difficult for us to understand. You will see this with infinity and the concepts constant misuse and abuse, and you will see it in the overwhleming assumption of the impossibility of massive creation ex-nihilo, which ultimately become exploited to the benefit of "God." I think it is quite apparent that the Higgs-Boson is appropriately nick-named the "God particle," for it is quite apparent that further confirmations of this particle will prove even more damaging to the theist (and the deist) than even the Copernican Revolution.

(De Revolutionibus: http://www.geo.utexas.edu...(On%20the%20Revolutions),_%201.pdf)

On BOP
You will note that much of my opponent's argument relies on the simple insistence that an infinite regress cannot possibly exist (largely stemming from incorrect assumptions and applications of the concept of infinity). You must note that this "creator" has been exempt from this regress, and Pro's insistence that Presmise 1 puts the Burden of Proof on me is absolutely incorrect. The Burden of Proof does not depend at all on how "basic" you believe any belief to be, nor does it depend on how widespread that belief is. It is quite clearly, as anyone who truly understands the BOP will see, on my opponent, for it is a positive, affirmative statement. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

The Teleological
"Fine" tuning is evident, and conceded. But its applications are not. My opponent gives absolutely no reason to believe that these constants, these "universals," are independent of the laws of nature, unless the definition of the oftentimes vague word "nature" is to be misconstrewed. There is quite an ample voice within the scientific community that it appears as though these constants were entirely necessary, although various theories on why this is the case are still in the process. My opponent also gives no reason to believe that it was not simply chance: for the unlikelihood of a certain set of characteristics cannot possibly be used to equate it to impossibility. In the dime analogy, it is just as probable that the red dime will be chosen as opposed to any other individual dime (1/10^37). In short, the conclusion of design (which also rests the BOP on Pro) is quite premature to say the least. If modern physics has taught us anything, it is that the naively assumed "order" and "harmony" of the world as posited by the ancients could not have been further from the truth. Chaos would be a more appropriate word.

In terms of the "watchmaker," evolution does plenty if not an overabundance in putting that argument to shame.

I will provide some texts which show how the dominance of deism/theism (which was stolen from the Stoics) was dealt a blow that it has yet to recover from:

Copernicus: On the Revolutions in the Heavenly Bodies (1543)
Newton: Principia Mathematica (1687)
Descartes: Principles of Philosophy (1644)
Galileo: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632)

Debate Round No. 2
Center_for_Rationality

Pro

I would thank my opponent for a good debate, and move
on to a defense of my case.

Infinity?

My opponent neither refutes nor denies any of the
infinity incoherence arguments I have put forward. He simply asserts that I am
wrong for extrapolating infinity to a number. If he wants to attack me in this
way he has to coherently define infinity without appealing to numbers. Infinity
is impossible in the sense that it cannot exist as a number and that was the
point being made. The universe cannot be eternal because this necessitates the existence
of an infinite number of past events. I showed that an actual infinite number of
past events are incoherent. I will quote Contradiction:

"Kohai argues against Hilbert's Hotel-esque
paradoxes by stating that "finite numbers cannot be expected to behave as
infinite numbers." But this is a gross misunderstanding of the argument!
Such paradoxes do not begin with a finite number and then proceed to reason
that there is something problematic. Indeed, they stipulate that actual
infinites are possible in reality and then proceed to show that inverse
operations of mathematics cannot apply, as they will lead to contradictions. As
such, actual infinite cannot exist in reality. This type of argument is known
as a reductio ad absurdum. So far from critiquing the argument, Kohai doesn't
even understand it....quantitative conceptions of infinity. The arguments
against the existence of actually infinite sets only show that there cannot
exist an actually infinite number of things. That is, the term
"infinite" here is understood quantitatively." I would submit
the same is true for my opponent. The paradox does not reason from something
that is not a number to something that is. It uses infinity as a concept and
runs with it to its logical conclusion. My opponent says "no no it’s not qualitative
nor quantitative it’s a concept", but this begs the question in that a
concept which entails what? A concept which entails an unending amount of
something as a number or else it wouldn't be used in Calculus. My opponent
shows a gross misunderstanding of infinity as a concept in application, in
other words he sees that infinity is not reality but fails to understand what
the definition of concept he is proposing entails. Furthermore he criticizes me
for claiming an infinite number coins thought experiment, but HE ACCEPTS IT! My
opponent seems to conceded infinity cannot exist quantitative.

Premise One of KCA

Properly basic beliefs are similar to axioms, they
require virtually no proof. Assume my opponent is correct and that any positive
or affirmative belief is reliant on proof, then doesn't everyone have to prove their
own existence. It is a positive claim. The claim that mathematics is true is
incredibly hard to prove similarly the proof that my opponent exists or anyone
else for that matter seems very hard to prove as well. Even Descartes had
trouble with proving that he himself existed! Positive truth claims are not
always and in all cases the ones requiring the burden of proof. Premise one is
a properly basic belief, but I also gave reasons to think it is true (mainly
science, the thing he places much weight on). Premise one is unscaved.

Teleological Argument

My opponent talks about "nature" is vague and
misconstrued, all I am saying is for these constants the laws of nature(the
universe) are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. It is
true that it is just as likely but surely this is irrelevant, because the
analogy is to show the probability between not having life and having life is
EXTREMELY DIFFERENT let me explain it this way, while it may be just as likely
to get this universe instead of some other alternative universe it is not on
the other hand equally likely to have another universe that is life supporting,
so for example it is .9999999 * 10^37 out of 10^37 to have universe not
supporting life, EXTREMELY LIKELY compared to infinitesimal amount for the life
supporting one. My opponent’s objection is false and the teleological argument
stands. Explain how the grandeur of universe is explained away by a biological
natural mechanism which doesn't relate to natural laws whatsoever. The analogy
is not relating human bodies or animals to the design but the design to the
universe.

First Mover Argument: Concession?

It seems my opponent in his rush to get an argument
done has overlooked or not considered (since he responded to it impart via
Hilbert's Hotel) the first mover argument. My opponent seems to concede the
validity if the premise regarding infinite regress is true. He makes a snide
comment regarding so. But other than that he seems to concede the validity of
the other two premises and the conclusion. I would thank my opponent for that
it makes my job slightly easier.

Comprehensive Analysis of the Conclusions of these arguments

My opponent really rises one single solitary objection
to my case, the rest are minor and don't really hold any validity. The infinity
objection is not compelling and is a simple misconception about the nature of
infinity and its place in mathematical operations. We can run a comprehensive
analysis of the conclusions drawn from these arguments. First the first mover
argument which suggests all motion is dependent on a first causer of motion but
that implies that mover is outside the universe because he would have to not be
bound to such laws. When we consider the KCA, we know that this cause must be
personal for how else could a temporal effect from a timeless cause. We know
that this must be extremely powerful in order to create a universe. From the
fine tuning of the universe we can conclude that the creator must have had
rational choice or else why bother and create a universe in the first place?

My opponent's case

My opponent seems almost to be advocate for Scientism,
by which I mean he only affirms science to be true (read the comments if you
doubt such a thing). My opponent seems to commit the fallacy of arguing from
authority many times over in his case. He never cites specifics but speaks in generalities.
My opponent makes various claims without a shred of evidence to support his
claims for example:

"A developed mathematician would truly gawk at the
way in which the concept has been abused thus far.” Do you claim to be a
developed mathematician making such a judgment call or are you make an
assertion with no evidence to back up your claim.

"I believe anyone who has taken basic Calculus
knows that infinity is an entirely useful and important concept, without which
much in mathematics would be lacking" In what way? I am studying and have
studied Calculus. You are giving specifics merely speaking in generalities.

"Here I will note the Higgs-Boson particle, a
theoretical particle at this point in time but considered "just around the
corner" by some of the top particle physicists.” Here my opponent speaks
of an unconfirmed particle that just being introduced to the scientific
community. Furthermore, he never speaks in generalities. How is your
speculative claim about it damaging the worldview of the theist valuable? Are
you a particle physicist? Or do you have reputable quote from one suggesting
that it is currently damaging will in the future the Christian worldview?

Conduct

My opponent is condescending and pretentious in his
whole case despite being shown evidence to the contrary he refuses to accept
the logic of Hilbert's Hotel or refute it; he simply says thought experiments
are impractical. Truly my opponent places too much weight on empirical
evidence. He simply asserts the dominance of empirical evidence without a shred
of evidence to support that. (Read comments)

Conclusion

My opponent has not defeated my case, my first mover
argument is virtually unscaved, my infinity thought experiments are unchallenged,
the first premise of the KCA is shown true, therefore the KCA is true, the
teleological argument is almost conceded to, and clearly the resolution is
affirmed. I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate. I urge a Pro vote.

andrewkletzien

Con

1. Infinity
The semantics that the debate over infinity have become (as it often does) shows just how volatile this argument is. It is incoherent, and in no way, shape, or form can be properly extrapolated to prove an intelligent "creator" of the universe. As noted previously, it is not possible to move from the observable laws of the cosmos to proof of a divine being. There is no possible way, and it has never even been tried. The progressions made in the sciences (via the scientific method as explicated so elegantly by Kant in Critique of Pure Reason) cannot lead one to a belief in a deity, conceptually or practically. The incredibly large majority of atheists in the American Academy of Sciences seems to show that those who devote their lives to these fields see no way in which the concepts they study can be used to defend a belief in a god. And there is good reason for this:

2. Falsifiability
You will see the arguments proposed by Pro are categorically unfalsifiable. The falsifiability of an argument does not depend on whether or not it has been disproved (or "falsified") at this point in time, but whether or not it is even conceptually possible to disprove. The deist "creator" falls quite easily into the "unfalsifiable" category. A good thought experiment deals with the Higgs-Boson: we may very well prove that we can physically and naturally create something from nothing (ex-nihilo), but alas it will be claimed that this is the way in which this creator makes math. It was the same with evolution: when the facts seemed to disprove the theist/deist theory of the origin of our species, it was said to fit with the unoverthrowable, unfalsifiable theory that they already had: evolution was simply the mode that God used. You will see with this logic that anyone could walk up to you and say that there is an invisible unicorn standing next to you that you can't touch, hear, see, smell, or feel. You would be quite justified in asking "Why would I believe that?" By Pro's logic, it would make an acceptable and convincing argument for the other individual to say "Because you can't prove me wrong." Now this, I propose, is true reductio ad absurdum, at its worst.

3. Burden of Proof
Pro seems to think that basic functions of our universe are "difficult" to prove. Mathematics is hardly difficult to prove. In fact, the entire field is based on learning proofs, applying their conclusions, and extrapolating through combination with other basic and proved concepts. You will note that Pro has the ultimate BOP in this debate, and that is quite clear. You will note that it is quite a large step, with no logical intermediate moves between "infinity can't exist in the time-dependent universe" to "everything must have been created by an intelligent creator!" No intermediates, simply assumptions based on his or her (and our species as a whole) failure to grasp that which has not been entirely and conclusively explained. You will note that this is the logic that got us religions telling us how old the world was, what the earth's relationship was to the sun, how our species originated. Alas, answers were made up because of our inability to cope with the uncertainty -- and this argumentation has not ended, as seen here. It is truly a sign from the "stamp of our lowly origins," as Darwin put it. Simply put, I believe the Higgs-Boson and the general trend of religious claims being taken down over and over and over again (with resistance that ultimately failed) would point us to a view of taking the uncertainty of it all over extrapolating to this creator from the basic laws of science, which cannot possibly point to a creator. There is a reason why it is called "faith" and not "knowledge," for faith in this deity is exactly that: willingness to assume what you have been asked to prove with your accordance in the Burden of Proof. \

4. The Teleological
Pro gives no reason why has he assumed that these constants are independent of the laws of nature, much less that the necessity/chance explanations can be so irresponsibly thrown out. His insistence on "the grandeur of the universe" is separate from the natural mechanisms and natural laws which operate in this universe. In the Einsteinian sense, it is the fact that these constants are nature, they are the things which construct the natural universe, and it is for this reason that this universe is indeed something to be considered numinous. The universe inspires awe, as anyone who has really seen the Hubble telescope's pictures knows. This is best explicated by Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? In short, the "design" is the universe, the natural laws are what our universe are comprised of. And they never fault, never change, and that is the truly numinous, nothing more and nothing less. Teleology is not the sole property of the deist or the theist.

5. First Mover
My opponent seems to have missed my first line in the last round. His arguments regarding Hilbert, the first mover, the uncaused cause, they are all the same argument. They all deal with the infinite regress and Pro's assumption that this cannot be possible, which he inexplicably uses as "proof" for a creator, although no logical intermediate steps are given. Surely it can be seen that he has made quite a leap here, quite possibly passing by plenty of better and more comprehensive explanations than the one which happens to coincide with, once again, "the stamp of our lowly origins." Pro mustn't be so hasty in assuming concessions or even arbitrarily granting yourself immune from your burden of proof. As pointed out, he fails to give reason why this deity should be allowed to be exempt from the regression, fails to give reason why the assumed incoherence of a regression would leave us with only the "creator" option left. The monomania in his argumentation is stark and quite clear.

6. Assumptions of Scientism
I think it's quite interesting how prone Pro is to labeling his opponent with things like "Scientism" when he clearly does not have enough information to make such a conclusion. This is a debate with much involved: it relies on empirical, scientific data, mathematical concepts, specie origination, and alas philosophical investigation. While Pro is clearly quite versed in the philosophical, I fear his haste in these labels shows, once again, a monomania of sorts. The number of straw men is astounding to me, and it mustn't be missed by the readers. My opponent has failed to meet his BOP, has assumed what he is required to prove, and in these failures attempts to exploit the misappropriated connotations of his assumptions. My charge of rhetorical trickery stands.

7. On the H-B
The Higgs Boson shows, quite elegantly, that creation ex-nihilo is hardly a concept that is unthinkable. The particle found is in complete accordance with the theory, and I think the very fact that such a theory is so widespread, and receives such coverage, shows that your argument that creation ex-nihilo is something that can only be done by an intelligent creator is on quite shaky ground. You seem to be in the same position as those who were most startled by the discovery of evolution, which quite elegantly showed that the assumptions via misunderstandings of the previous generations were also on quite shaky ground, and of the worst kinds of cognitive exploitation.

8. On Conduct
I find your charges of condescension and pretention (the latter hardly being improper in my opinion) are all to reminiscent of those who were in your exact position when the new theories of the universe (Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Kant, etc.) posed a threat to the common worldview of the time. It was all too common to hear the same charges against those philosophers and scientists, whose assumed arrogance were clearly a result of the threat they posed to the believers.


Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
It's amazing how close the debate was!
Posted by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
I actually want to thank the voters for pointing out that comments that use argumentation is bad conduct. I never realized that -- but it totally makes sense. Good to know!
Posted by Aned 4 years ago
Aned
You cannot prove anything without factual evidence. Repeating what someone else said before does not prove anything.
Posted by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
In reading my second round, I just want to point out what I don't think I made clear: infinity is clearly not quantitative (despite Pro's insistence on using it as such in various thought experiments), but Pro gives no reason to believe it cannot possibly exist qualitatively. I personally find establishing the term "qualitative or quantitative" is unhelpful and quite misleading, but I thought I would clarify. Infinity may not "exist" in a philosophical sense, but this question is not solely philosophical: it has science and math intrinsically connected, and the validity of the concept of infinity is hardly arguable to someone who is versed in calculus.
Posted by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
I ran out of room, but Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" (http://www2.hn.psu.edu...) is a difficult but quite necessary piece to understanding just how much my opponent has undertaken, and what he is up against scientifically. What blew the believers out of the water was not the discoveries of science, not the philosophies formed, but the METHOD of science (the importance of which is explicated in Kant, above), which provided a problem for believers because there was no possible way to move from the laws of the observable universe (be it chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, geometry) to proof of a creator. It has not even been tried by any credible scientist.
Posted by Center_for_Rationality 4 years ago
Center_for_Rationality
A generic creator of universe will be used :)
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by AshleysTrueLove 4 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
Center_for_RationalityandrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB on InVinoVertitas, morgan, and Jayhrn. TO INVINO: You can't insert personal opinion into arguments voting, simply dismissing a argument because you think its invalid without Con addressing it is not a valid way to vote(Kalam and first). Jarhyn conduct has nothing to do with whether someone puts BOP on someone else. To morgan simply stating one used theories and one didn't isn't a valid way to vote. When did theories=untruths? Now on my analysis of the debate Pro fufilled his BOP, while Con talked about infinity, in which he ended up agreeing implictly that Infinity cannot exist in the real world. SO CONDUCT: CVB to Jarhyn Arguments: CVB to Invino Sources: I am only giving this to Pro because of morgan otherwise Andrew should have got this. S/G: Andrew and Center seemed to be equal on this I do not see all the mistakes people are talking about.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
Center_for_RationalityandrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: con extended arguments in comments(conduct). (would be acceptable if stipulated in rules however.) Spelling errors on both sides. (tie) Pro did not meet BOP for a creator. (argument.) con was more thorough in his sources. (sources)
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Center_for_RationalityandrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: To be honest, I didn't consider the First Mover argument or KCA, because a mover or "first cause" do not imply a "creator," whose existence is contended in this debate, according to the resolution. The idea of "design" (if we hypothetically accept the notion of a "first cause"/"first mover") does, however, imply the existence of a creator, so I will only put that topic into consideration. Pro provides probabilities without sources and makes baseless claims; therefore, the burden of proof was not met, despite Con's poor refutation. Conduct to Con for Pro's cheap attempts at getting conduct points by calling Con "pretentious" and such. And sources to Con for providing relevant, reliable sources.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Center_for_RationalityandrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Some is better than none. Spelling: PRO had typos, although his case was still readable. Conduct: It seems as though Con used the comments for more argumentation. Arguments: Con seemed to dance around pros points. CON gives a theoretical mathematical equation for infinity, however Logic > Numbers. Pro was able to convince me that it is highly unlikely infinity could exist in the real world. Cons only point, that was convincing at all was god needed a first mover, essentially conceding all things need a mover (giving some ground to pro, in that sense). However, Pro (as stated) disproved cons logic and held that infinity could not exist, and that god was an exception. Overall, although neither side gave an exceedingly convincing case, Pro's logic was much more convincing then Con's, especially on the infinity point where Con had his most convincing points.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
Center_for_RationalityandrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: PRO attempting to dump P1 BOP of KCA on CON, and PRO failed to provide why a cause implies a creator; there are many supernatural causes which might exist that require no intelligence. Argument: CON failed to provide BOP on KCA, or offer refutation on CON's primary point against the Teleological argument. Sources: CON used sources which supported his claim
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Center_for_RationalityandrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con doesn't refute pro's arguments at all. He babbles on about infinity claiming it can exist in mathematics. However claiming an infinite can exist in math is different from showing it exists in the real world. Con goes on about the higgs without citing anything that actually says it has anything to do whatsoever with creation ex nihlo without god. Conduct to pro as Con used comments to extend space. Con mostly rambles however he did make a valid point that pro didn't touch upon. That's the assumption that god is excluded from an infinite regress while something else can't. Con didn't push this enough, so I can award no points to him.
Vote Placed by PhantomJedi759 4 years ago
PhantomJedi759
Center_for_RationalityandrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not directly answer all of Pro's arguments, and wasted space with comments and irrelevant information. However, Pro had poor usage of English.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
Center_for_RationalityandrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did use comments to lengthen his arguments and didn't acknowledge some of pro's arguments. However, pro uses only theories to support his argument. Pro had some typoes. Con had many sources, and pro had none.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Center_for_RationalityandrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con used the comments to lengthen his arguments. S/G to Con because Pro had a lot of typos. Arguments to Pro because Con failed to refute all of Pro's arguments. Pro only needed one of his arguments to succeed in order to establish his BoP. Con appeared to agree that actual infinities cannot be instantiated in real life, so the only real objection he had to the first mover argument was that God was arbitrarily being excluded from needing to be moved. But Pro gave an argument for why the first creator was an exception. It's because the series cannot regress infinitely. It follow necessarily that there has to be a first mover that is unmoved. Much of what Con said in this debate was just irrelevant, and it was riddled with mere assertions. One point Con made that Pro never dealt with was the possibility that the constants of nature are necessary. Since Pro never addressed that, his teleological argument did not succeed.
Vote Placed by Bordenkircher 4 years ago
Bordenkircher
Center_for_RationalityandrewkletzienTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that con failed to provide enough reasoning to his position for one to consider is truth. Pro made a well-established position for his belief.