The Instigator
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
MolecularBird06
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 733 times Debate No: 45794
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Zarroette

Pro

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

4 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 10k max. word rounds.

First round is for acceptance
Second and third rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fit
Final round is for counter-arguments and concluding (no new arguments)

I will accept burden of proof; I intend to demonstrate that not only theists argue illogically for intelligent design, but that they can do nothing but.

Be prepared...
MolecularBird06

Con

I don't believe in a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, who had unlimited power, I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Zarroette

Pro

I thank MolecularBird06 for accepting this debate, and I look forward to seeing how he responds to this, despite his lack of belief in such a god.


Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

I’m going to make simple arguments to begin.

Any justification for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god must have the following two components:

  1. He is infinitely-intelligent
  2. He is omnipotent

To say that god does not have any of these, or even to say that he only has one, is to suggest that god is not a god, but rather some kind of restricted or limited entity.

Something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed.

Complexity, as a product of understanding, arises when something needs to be complex. For example, a television set is not complicated for any other reason than because it has to be. If that particular television set was not as complicated, then it would either work sub-optimally or not at all. Hence, the television set is as complicated as it has to be – it does not make sense to say that something is so complex that it had to be designed.

Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding

Comparatively, a television set can be more complicated than it needs to be, but this would indicate a product that lacks understanding. If the television set were to have extra wires that did not impede nor benefit the system, then you could say that the designer of the television set did not fully understand what was required. The goal of intelligence is to strive for simplicity, and making things unnecessarily complex does the exact opposite.

To say that the universe is ‘finely tuned’ is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent

If the universe is finely tuned, then it would imply that god doesn’t have any control over aspects of our reality, otherwise he wouldn’t have to tune in the first place. The fact that he can ‘play the universe out of tune’ suggests that he can create a flawed universe, of which he does not want (hence the tuning). This is not to mention how silly it is that god has to make up for his mistakes when he sets the rules in the first place. To say that the universe is finely tuned is to contradict the nature of the creator god.

Something cannot be conscious without demonstrating intelligence

I think this is fairly self-evident, but I will address any objections should my opponent make them.

It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time

In order for god to demonstrate infinite intelligence, he would have to limit himself to a test of some kind. When no limits are available and no goals are known, unintelligent actions are indistinguishable from intelligent ones. So, god must limit himself and set knowable goals in order to show that he is infinitely-intelligent (or else give us some kind of alternative way of measuring intelligence, of which he has yet to give us). However, in limiting himself to testing conditions, he, at the very least, hides his omnipotence – you cannot play a game of chess in order to show how smart you are, without first limiting yourself to the rules.

And thus, it can be written as so:

Demonstrations of omnipotence require the absence of limitations

Demonstrations of consciousness require demonstrations of intelligence

Demonstrations of intelligence require the presence of limitations

Conclusion

Evidence for god, via complexity, indicates nothing. Intelligence (limited) and Omnipotence (unlimited) are mutually exclusive, and such a creator god could only ever appear be contradictory in nature. Thus, any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical.

References

Arguments taken from the Youtube channel, 'TrenchantAtheist'. http://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=_nNy-xPbKas&list=PL47F8B6C872DB6AC1

(Take the two (dot)s out)

(For all those that are ready to give me a jump for giving this as a reference, this is a reference, not a source. The difference is that I am not referring to this as researched evidence, rather I am referring to this because I have used the arguments from here, and thus I am giving credit where credit is due).

MolecularBird06

Con

I would like to point out, if god was so smart, why did he give humans a choice on whether to be evil or not. Why did he give us the power to kill each other in masses, if he was so smart, why isn't he stopping global warming, if he can change all of this why doesn't he do it? What concrete evidence do you even have that a god exists? For everything that had happened in this universe we have a logical explanation, gods were invented to explain things that humans couldn't years ago. All in all, i don't believe that there is an all powerful god.
Debate Round No. 2
Zarroette

Pro

Well, it appears that my opponent, for whatever reason, has decided to argue in favour of my position.

Extend both my opponent's and my own arguments.
MolecularBird06

Con

Oh sorry, I thought you saying saying that there is a god.
Debate Round No. 3
Zarroette

Pro

That's okay, just hope that the voters are merciful.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Invalid_Argument 3 years ago
Invalid_Argument
I agree lightning. That confused me.
Posted by Lightningstar 3 years ago
Lightningstar
I think you are on the wrong side if you don't believe MolecularBird06. Your opponent is saying there is no God and so are you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jdtroughton 3 years ago
jdtroughton
ZarroetteMolecularBird06Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: As I read through the only actual points made in this debate, they didn't hold up in my mind. If we found a tv (or some foreign equivalent) on Mars, a functional, electronic, mechanical device, we would be hard pressed to conlcude that it could be anything BUT designed and created, and that by virtue of its complexity, though also due to it's artificiality. The solar system is complex, but need not necessarily be designed; I think it seems to "fit" with nature, where manufactured technological goods do not. So, while a god is not relevant, that point seemed limiting. The the testing of intelligence requires a limitation is specious to me. That omniscience and omnipotence can't be tested in unison doesn't devalue testing one after the other. And finely tuned doesn't mean musically. Or mechanically really. It's a metaphor, that I think Zaroette misinterprets. Regardless, it would take an omnipotent, omniscience being (and nothing less) to get me to side against Pro in thi
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
ZarroetteMolecularBird06Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to pro, con conceded.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
ZarroetteMolecularBird06Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'd be merciful, but it was only round three that Con realized his/her mistake. Concession.