The Instigator
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Lightningstar
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 1 vote the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 45802
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

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.

Let's do this.
Lightningstar

Con

I accept your challenge and look foreword to hearing your ideas.
Debate Round No. 1
Zarroette

Pro

I thank Lightningstar for accepting to debate this topic, and I wish him strength in argument.


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).

Lightningstar

Con

First I assert that rather than being just infinitely-intelligent or just omnipotent he's both to have one without the other is impossible.
I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning behind the statement something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed. Are you saying man is complex or that God is complex. I'll take a stab at it anyway if we say that God cannot exist because he is complex and you can't understand him is to say yourself does not exist because you are complex.
I do not claim that the universe is "fine tuned" in fact I refute that. The universe works the way God intended it. It didn't need to be "tuned" because it was the way God intended it to be from the beginning.
"It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time" when you say this you make God out to be a human. God is God and does not have human limitations in fact God established all limitations which means he can transcend these limitations if He desires.
I hope my statements left no confusion, but my argument comes down to this: You make God out to be a human with human attributes and strengths. Man was made in God's image not God in mans. Therefore your argument is void.
Debate Round No. 2
Zarroette

Pro

General responses

"I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning behind the statement something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed."


If I showed you a piece of paper, and on this piece of paper was colourful scribbling, would you say that this colourful scribbling was designed, that it had purpose? What exactly are the requirements to conclude that something was designed? I’ll tell you:

  1. Knowing the specific goal in the mind of the intelligence, so that it can be affirmed when met (hence demonstration of intelligence through the limitation of attempting to complete a goal)
  2. A demonstration of intelligence via an obstacle-goal relationship (i.e. attempting to complete that goal)

So, if I told you an adult scribbled on that paper, and the goal was to create an incoherent mess, you could then say that the goal had been met, right? This is how design works; via limiting oneself to a goal.

Complexity does not fit into this design process, unless it is required, right? You don’t set out to make things ridiculously complicated. They become complicated when you discover that nothing simpler would get the job done.


“I do not claim that the universe is "fine tuned" in fact I refute that. The universe works the way God intended it. It didn't need to be "tuned" because it was the way God intended it to be from the beginning.”


Very well, I will drop the counter-argument to the ‘finely tuned’ argument. However, if, as you said, “the universe works the way God intended it”, then you’re claiming that God was involved in an obstacle-goal relationship. You’re saying that God’s work can be proven to satisfy his goal. In such a circumstance, momentarily ignoring the problem that you’re attempting to tell us how an infinitely-intelligent god thinks, would that then not limit god to the obstacle-goal relationship, in an effort to show his intelligence? As I’ve argued, demonstration of intelligence requires a situation wherein a being limits his/herself to a testing scenario.

Back to the other problem: how are you to know what god thinks?


“"It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time" when you say this you make God out to be a human. God is God and does not have human limitations in fact God established all limitations which means he can transcend these limitations if He desires… You make God out to be a human with human attributes and strengths.


These traits are not at all human. Infinite-intelligence and omnipotence are not possessed by any human. It is not that god is limited, far from it, but that in order to demonstrate his infinite-intelligence, he would have to limit himself, hence forgoing his omnipotence.

In order to argue for intelligent design, you have to prove that god demonstrated his intelligence through his creation, which involves limiting himself to the testing conditions. But if he were to limit himself to the testing conditions, then you couldn’t say that he is omnipotent. This is the necessary paradox; intelligent design is inherently illogical.

Lightningstar

Con

Lightningstar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Zarroette

Pro


In the specific rounds, I have addressed my opponent’s rebuttals as best I can. Hopefully, these concepts should now appear sound:



- The universe cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed


- It is inherently contradictory to say that synonymously, God is both infinitely-intelligent and omnipotent, yet this is precisely what is required for an Intelligent Design argument


- To say that God is beyond our comprehension, is to leave out all two of the necessary components for an Intelligent Design argument: evidence that God is both infinitely-intelligent and omnipotent


- The ‘Finely tuned’ argument is nonsense


If my opponent decides to argue in the final round, so as to make up for the lost round, keep in mind that I have no way in which to respond to those arguments.



Thank you for reading =)


Lightningstar

Con

Lightningstar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Impressive win Zarroette.
Posted by Lightningstar 2 years ago
Lightningstar
Thank you I was looking at your other debates and I must say I'm impressed how well you handled yourself with the Satan is a good guy one. You do remarkably well supporting a God you don't believe in. I'd like to put our religious views aside and be your friend more or less you never can have too many of those. Either way I hope everything works out with your schooling.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Not a problem; attendance at a funeral is completely understandable.
Posted by Lightningstar 2 years ago
Lightningstar
I'm terrible sorry for not getting back to you I had to go to a funeral unexpectedly and forgot to reply. I hope you can forgive me.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
I wasn't going to, it's just that I had been away for a couple of days, and this is the last round. I knew that I would have about 4 hours in the morning to respond, and it still looks like I do =)
Posted by TheSilentHorseman 2 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
Don't forfeit a round. Just extend your arguments and wait for his next rebuttal. It'll look better on you in the votes.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
kbub, I'm claiming that there is no logical argument for such a god; since I'm the one making the claim, shouldn't I have the BoP?
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
I'm really not sure that it's possible for Pro to have the BoP...shouldn't it be Con's burden to provide a counter-example, or no one's BoP?
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
Sounds fun. Wish you were con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
ZarroetteLightningstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro gets conduct points for cons FF. Because con skipped rounds he never got the opportunity to refute pro's arguments. So arguments to pro.