The Instigator
Caploxion
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
temiller3
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Caploxion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,016 times Debate No: 43079
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

Caploxion

Pro

Any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical

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

4 rounds, 2 week voting period and 8k max. word rounds.

First round is for acceptance
Second and third rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fit
Final round if 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...
temiller3

Con

I accept the challenge.

I simply intend to show that arguing for an "infinitely-intelligent, creator god" is not only logical but is at the very least on par,logically speaking, to the alternative.
Debate Round No. 1
Caploxion

Pro

Any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical

I wish to thank temiller3 for accepting this debate, and I hope great discussion on the topic of religion will result.

I’m going to make a simple argument to begin with as there are numerous possible responses; to list my counter-responses to all of his possible responses would take too much room.

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'.

temiller3

Con

I thank Caplaxion for the challenge and although I am new to this particular forum my hope is I am still able to make this worth his efforts.

In response to complexity; the complexity of something is measured and understood by the individual. An artists painting may be to the audience a complex collection of details and colors. However to the artist it is nothing more than strategic strokes of the brush bringing a vision to life. To a forger the steps and understanding are the same, absent only of the original vision.
A biologist can dissect, study and to some extent understand life, however she cannot recreate it. She has the intellect to grasp its concepts and complexities but lacks the knowledge to duplicate it.

The intelligence of the engineer is displayed in the order and functionality of that which is engineered. I do not argue the point that something can be unnecessarily complex. However it must first be fully known to make that judgement. A television for example is fully understood, its purpose is clear and it can be determined to be unnecessarily complex or not.
In Genesis 1:28 (ESV) {And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."}we are given the original purpose of Gods creation. For five days,whether literal twenty four hour days or not, God formed and filled the various aspects of His creation on the sixth day He created man whom it was all created for. Afterwards giving the purpose and blessing found above, simply saying "I made this all for you enjoy it and care for it" Since man has flourished and survived through seasons and changes and the necessities for that survival, and the intellect to thrive and mature has and continues to stand the test of time, the argument could be made that the design is as complex as it needs to be, and although it may be an ongoing question it continues to be answered the same, so cannot be discounted.

I would claim that arguing for a intelligent designer is logical for multiple reasons, one of which it begins with what we know; everything physical must come from something, we do not get physical matter from nothing. This leaves us with two choices;

1. In the beginning and only in the beginning something actually began from nothing, giving us the first building block of all that follows. This option has its flaws. As stated above we know something cannot come from nothing, it cannot be repeated in order to be scientifically verified, so all information that is gathered and studied using that as its foundation is built on assumption and therefore only works if that assumption is correct. It leaves us with an unanswerable question "What caused it?" Because this particular nothing is not "there is nothing in the glass" or "the box is empty so there is nothing in it" we know scientifically speaking there is a vast amount of something on a molecular level where visually there appears to be nothing. However even that molecular level is in fact something, and therefore had to come from somewhere. The nothing before the beginning is nothing, not just darkness, not emptiness, but absolute nothing.

2. The second option is a designer god, this presents all the natural flaws of the first option. The difference however is, it answers the question of "What caused it?" granted this involves the supernatural, but that does not make it any less logical than the alternative, in fact I would argue it makes it more so, as you can build upon a non assumed foundation and carry on. The question, no matter how hard it is to grasp, is answered. Since we are still here after all this time, as well as vegetation, water, food, air etc. the intelligence of the design and therefore designer is evidenced. What has changed however is the amount of population currently using the resources, the addition of industry, and so on. This gives evidence to the all knowing, and all powerful nature of God, nothing has been able to interrupt the orderly function of the design and stop it.

To be logical something must simply follow an orderly process of reason. While I do believe in God I do not make these counterpoints, or future defenses of them, with the intent or expectation that they will change anyone's minds toward the existence of God. Rather my intent is to build the case that one must not surrender logic and reason to conclude that God exists.
Debate Round No. 2
Caploxion

Pro

My opponent responds to my complexity argument by arguing that complexity is difficult/can’t always be seen. This does not refute my argument. Something cannot be so complex that it had to be designed, regardless of how hard it is to see the complexity. However, he does not take this route in argument, so continue to argue this would be to straw-man his argument.

Yes, the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the engineer is displayed in the order and functionality of that which is engineered. However, as you say, if the complexity cannot be understood, then it cannot be said whether this was a creation of intelligence. Therefore, if God was trying to indicate his existence, by creating something so complex that it can’t be understood is counter-productive, and hence a product of lack of intelligence.

It is of little use to quote Bible verses in order to prove God’s logical existence, seeing as Bible has yet to be proven beyond doubt (hence why faith is required), but arguably, it does have evidence in favour of it. However, if the concept of the Biblical God can be disproven, then we need not argue the accuracy or validity of the Bible’s contents. Since I have provided framework which suggests that such a god is impossible, then that should be addressed, rather than arguing that ‘we don’t understand the mysteries of God’s creation,’ as that premise is unfounded. Again, if a god wanted to be known, then he/she shouldn’t have made the world complex beyond our comprehension, as we (humans) cannot determine much from it, hence it is a product of lack of intelligence which contradicts the nature of God.



“everything physical must come from something, we do not get physical matter from nothing. This leaves us with two choices;”

No, this is a false dichotomy. Considering that you argued that the world is complex beyond our imagination, and that “the intelligence of the engineer is displayed in the order and functionality of that which is engineered, it is possible that the universe could be explained another way that is beyond our comprehension. It could have potentially been created by a god, but a god that is omnipotent and a creator is, by nature, contradictory.

My logical process, which argues that such a god is contradictory, has not been addressed. Such a god is, by nature, contradictory. To argue in any sense involving the existence of such a god is illogical from the start, hence any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical.

I understand that my counter-argument is terse, yet I feel no need to waste words for the sake of aesthetics.

temiller3

Con

I will start by clarifying what was clearly misunderstood in regards to my counter of complexity. I was not arguing that the created order is so complex we can't grasp it, my argument was it is not complex at all, rather orderly. My point was complexity need not be in the equation. The example of the artist was to demonstrate that point. The example of the biologist demonstrated that although we lack the knowledge to recreate the created order, it can be studied and is in fact found to be orderly and with purpose.

Another point that was misunderstood, I was not using the Bible for proof of Gods existence with the quoted verse, its use was to answer the question on a purpose. I'll address its relevancy later.

Although the title suggested the same old argument in regard to logic, my opponents opening arguments seemed a "new approach", and I chose to change my initial direction and focus a little on those. I myself was mistaken however as the responses show the same out of order arguments that fill these discussions. What do I mean by out of order? For most of recorded time a god was credited with origins and in some cases continued interaction with humanity. In recent history alternative theories and ideas have been introduced some of which I admit flow quite systematically. Whenever these discussions present themselves the opponent of a god disregards everything that came before and changes the rules by placing the favor,bias and logic on the side of the alternatives. As if the argument in favor of a god came after the new and needs to refute the yet unproven theory in order to itself be logical. As I have stated multiple times I do not enter this with the dillusuion I will change atheists to believers or even the investigator to a conclusion, my only desire is to show it is not illogical to argue for an omnipotent, and omniscient God.

First we must build a foundation

We know everything has a cause and effect. Therefore any effect without a cause is contrary to or outside of natural law. This leaves us two options as I previously argued, although there may be many possibilities within those options, it is still two.

1. Everything we know of natural law is wrong and therefore everything built on it is flawed, since this allows for limitless options, any systematic sustainable theory would be logical until it can be universally disproved.

2. The other option is; everything we know of natural law is correct and was set in motion by a god. Considering something outside of natural law as we know it is the only answer that exists, whether we credit it to a god or some other unknown, this option must at least be explored therefore I would argue is in the very least built upon a logical foundation.

Once a god is part of the discussion all information we have available on a particular god automatically becomes relevant. It cannot be dismissed on the grounds of the elements that fall outside of natural law, as I have already argued every option begins outside of natural law. Following the subject matter of an "infinitely-intelligent creator god" one major option of gods that stands out is the God of the Bible. The information and historical accounts contained in the Bible provide examples of His omnipotence, and His intelligence.

One can argue, and my opponent has, that the Bible cannot be used as a legitimate source, but as I argue above, on the subject of whether or not arguing for an infinitely-intelligent creator god is logical, it is not only completely relevant but a major part of the argument itself. This one "tactic" ,if you will, whether purposeful or not is where the disconnect on the subject lies. The argument is logical based on the sum of its parts, when opponents of the subject divide it into two topics; God, and the Bible, it has no option but to become illogical you can no longer make a reasonable argument because the two coexist, the rules imposed are you cannot argue for God with the Bible for reasons A,B, and C, just as you cannot use God as an argument for the Bible. The authenticity of either are not what makes it logical or illogical, the fact that they are at this current time in history still intelligently debatable is the very thing that makes it logical.

I conclude if you begin at the beginning on a level playing field, which is an effect without a cause, whether you view it as fact or theory, the God of the Bible, an infinitely-intelligent creator God, provides a theory that is both systematic and sustainable , and therefore is presently both reasonable and logical.
Debate Round No. 3
Caploxion

Pro

I apologise for the misunderstanding and I will leave arguments involving complexity aside. However, to argue that the world/universe is orderly, therefore a god must exist, is an argument from final consequence. And so, an argument for the existence of god cannot be formulated from this assertion purely (so, saying that the world is orderly does little for a debate on God).

My opponent tries to enter a debate in which there is a dichotomy between religion and “alternatives”. Again, I am arguing that this debate need not take place (especially in this debate, considering the title) because the concept of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is fundamentally flawed. I need not try to explain the origins of the universe, as my opponent insists that I do, because we are not arguing the topic. Until the concept of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is passed as possible, it makes absolutely no sense to argue whether one exists.

It is not of relevance to this particular debate whether everything, under natural law, has a cause and effect; I am not arguing that a god cannot have created the universe. Instead, I am arguing that an infinitely-intelligent, creator god cannot logically exist, as the components required for such a god are contradictory. In other words, I am arguing against the existence of a specific type of god, not in the broader sense that my opponent continues to argue.

As to the illegitimacy of The Bible, the Bible cannot be used, within itself, to prove the existence of God (as my opponent recognises). Perhaps, if we were talking about a different type of god, historical documents and whatnot could prove the Bible’s legitimacy, and therefore make an argument for that god. The Bible is still debated, as my opponent suggest, due to its compelling nature and whatnot, however, again, the nature of infinitely-intelligent, creator god is inherently contradictory, and thus it would be illogical to even consider the existence of one. Therefore, we need not even discuss The Bible.

Conclusion

All my opponent’s arguments involve assuming that an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is possible, whilst I make a clear argument against the possibility of such a god. Sure, they are well-written, arguments as to the possibility of a god, it’s just that they don’t address the serious problem of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god being contradictory in nature.

I thank temiller3 for the debate, and I hope that reading this has not been a waste of time for you.

temiller3

Con

temiller3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Caploxion 3 years ago
Caploxion
@Wylted

To abandon your identity, to disregard what you trust most to be true, for any gain is to lose far too much; it would be illogical in that sense.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Now that the debate is over I will post this.

It could be logical to argue for an infinitely-intelligent creator god.

Even if the argument is completely illogical it's self. The act of arguing might not be. Let me give an example of how making an illogical argument might be the logical action.

I'm in a parole hearing and I know most of the parole board is fundamentalist Christians, I could argue for an infinitely intelligent creator and likely increase my chances of getting paroled.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Hilarious timeworn. Proving evolution wrong doesn't prove god to be true. Also, even if your arguments do prove god to be real they do not prove the biblical god to be real.
Posted by Timeworn 3 years ago
Timeworn
I just blow in your face the very existence of God, but you are blind,
Posted by Caploxion 3 years ago
Caploxion
Trust a theist to not read someone else's comment, and continue on with his enlightened insight. Your comments are a waste of time, Timeworn.
Posted by Timeworn 3 years ago
Timeworn
So after reading this, do you think DNA is a simple thing or is DNA an example of knowledge far be young that of human?
Posted by Timeworn 3 years ago
Timeworn
What does the evidence reveal? If evo- lution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events. If the Bible is true, then DNA should provide strong evidence that it is the product of an orderly, intelli- gent mind.
Posted by Timeworn 3 years ago
Timeworn
What do many scientists claim? Many biologists and other scientists feel that DNA and its coded instructions came about through undirected chance events that took place over the course of mil- lions of years. They say that there is no evidence of design in the structure of this molecule nor in the information that it carries and transmits nor in the way that it functions.

What does the Bible say? The Bible sug- gests that the formation of our different body parts"and even the timing of their formation"involves a figurative book that originates with God. Notice how King David was inspired to describe mat-
ters, saying of God: "Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them.""Psalm 139:16.
Posted by Timeworn 3 years ago
Timeworn
Darwin himself was fascinated by the way traits are passed along from one generation to the next, but he knew little about the laws of genetics and even less about the mechanisms within the cell that govern heredity. Now, however, biologists have spent decades studying human genetics and
the detailed instructions that are embedded in the amazing mole- cule called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Of course, the big ques- tion is, Where did these instructions come from?
Posted by Timeworn 3 years ago
Timeworn
If the theory of evolution is true, it should offer a plausible explanation of how the first "simple" cell formed by chance. On the other hand, if life was created, there should be evidence of ingenious design even in the smallest of creatures. Why not take a tour of a prokaryotic cell? As you do so, ask your- self whether such a cell could arise by chance.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Caploxiontemiller3Tied
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 points for conduct due to the forfeit. Neither person deserves sources points. I'm baffled by Con's arguments. Con's job was to prove an infinitely intelligent creator god is logical. Instead of proving this point he tried to prove that the existence of god was logical. I'm not sure that con understood what he was supposed to be debating.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Caploxiontemiller3Tied
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 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: Pro made better arguments, as they addressed the question at hand, while Con did not rebut any of Pros arguments. The arguments used by Con were not bad, but they were not relevant to the debate question. Con forfeited the last round and as such Pro gets conduct points. Con had better grammar and so grammar points go to Con. Sources points are tied, as no sources were cited by either (The youtube source was vague Pro).