The Instigator
Caploxion
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
fidelacchius
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Caploxion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 809 times Debate No: 43621
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

Caploxion

Pro

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

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.

5 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 8k max. word rounds.

First round is for acceptance
Second, third and fourth 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...
fidelacchius

Con

I accept your challenge. Prepare to be destroyed by the almighty's noodly appendage's.
Debate Round No. 1
Caploxion

Pro

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

I thank fidelacchius for accepting this debate, however Iwarn him to keep his almighty's noodly appendages in check, or else risk losing conduct points.


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.)

fidelacchius

Con

fidelacchius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Caploxion

Pro

Extend my arguments
fidelacchius

Con

I am sorry, over the weekend i was deep in prayer for extra meaty pasta and did not have time to log on. I thank you for your patience.

First I think I will disprove my opponents arguments.

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

"For example, a television set is not complicated for any other reason than because it has to be"
On this argument me and Pro are in agreement. That is why The Flying Spaghetti Monster made us so complex for a reason. Without our complexity we would not be able to function at such a high level. We would be little more than animals. We are as complex as needed. No more no less.

::::::::::::::Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding::::::::::::::
"If the television set were to have extra wires that did not impede nor benefit the system"
Again we agree, this is further proof of the FSM's genius. Humans are a perfect organism. One of the only ones in the universe. He even put in a Sin-detecting organ called the appendix. That will explode at his command if the person is living a non pasta lifestyle.

:::::::::::::To say that the universe is "finely tuned" is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent::::::::::
" The fact that he can "play the universe out of tune" suggests that he can create a flawed universe"

He could if he wanted but why would he? You say that the fact that he could make a flawed universe is proof that he does not exist. If a gardener creates an irrigation system and sets up a harvesting system to automatically take care of his plants. Does it make him less of a gardener because he could have NOT set up the system? He did and that is all that matters. You are trying to use circular reasoning to prove a point that does not exist.

::::::::::::::Something cannot be conscious without demonstrating intelligence:::::::::::::::
If FSM were a human living on earth I would agree with you. And due to personal experience when he came down from heaven and touched me with his noodly appendages I could see him demonstrating intelligence. But for those less blessed than me. He is an omniscient and omnipotent God. I don't think he spends his time (unlimited as it is) trying to impress humans. We are beneath him and need to prove our worthiness not him.

:::::::::::::::It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time::::::::::::::::
"you cannot play a game of chess in order to show how smart you are, without first limiting yourself to the rules."

Thank you for proving my above point. This is why he does not play human games of 'Proof' They are beneath him.

"Demonstrations of omnipotence require the absence of limitations"

I agree as provided above.

"Demonstrations of consciousness require demonstrations of intelligence"

He has demonstrated this for everyone by the creation of Existence.

"Demonstrations of intelligence require the presence of limitations"

Existence is limitless. There is no end to his creation therefore no limits.

"Intelligence (limited) and Omnipotence (unlimited) are mutually exclusive"

I agree that human intelligence and Omnipotence are. But Omniscient (god-like intelligence) and Omnipotence are not.

Conclusion
I applaud my opponent for taking on the burden of proof but i fear he has fallen far short of his goal. But never fear the FSM is all forgiving. That is why his son Jesus Christ died for pasta-related sins.

As a great Pastafarian brother once said on his cable network.

"Tides come in, the tides go out, you can't explain that"

Checkmate Atheist
Debate Round No. 3
Caploxion

Pro

Counter counter-arguments

I've left out the arguments that Con conceded, seeing as there is no point further arguing them.

:::::::::::::To say that the universe is "finely tuned" is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent::::::::::


" The fact that he can "play the universe out of tune" suggests that he can create a flawed universe"

“He could if he wanted but why would he?”

Tuning cannot, by definition, take place outside of an obstacle-goal relationship. Sure, this god could supposedly create a universe which doesn’t function correctly, but then this would be his goal; hence you can’t say that he has played the universe ‘out of tune’. To say that he could play the universe out of tune, is to say that this god doesn’t have control over some aspects of our reality.

“You say that the fact that he could make a flawed universe is proof that he does not exist. If a gardener creates an irrigation system and sets up a harvesting system to automatically take care of his plants. Does it make him less of a gardener because he could have NOT set up the system? He did and that is all that matters.”

The gardener analogy falls short because the gardener isn’t both omnipotent and infinitely-intelligent. Again, if god could play the universe ‘out of tune’, then that god wouldn’t be omnipotent as the universe has been created in a way that the god did not want. To say that he did and that’s all that matters, is to not address the clear issues that come with such a scenario.

::::::::::::::Something cannot be conscious without demonstrating intelligence:::::::::::::::

“…He is an omniscient and omnipotent God. I don't think he spends his time (unlimited as it is) trying to impress humans. We are beneath him and need to prove our worthiness not him.”

This is beside the point. If he can’t demonstrate consciousness via intelligence, then how can you make a rational argue for the existence of such a god? You can’t logically justify the existence of an infinitely-intelligent god when that god’s presence can’t be established in some way.

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

"you cannot play a game of chess in order to show how smart you are, without first limiting yourself to the rules."

“Thank you for proving my above point. This is why he does not play human games of 'Proof' They are beneath him.”

It is not about 'playing human games,' am I not arguing logically?-; it’s about demonstrating infinite-intelligence and omnipotence at the same time. My point is that you cannot demonstrate intelligence without limiting yourself to a situation that would demonstrate intelligence. It’s, unfortunately, the only way to prove your intelligence: limiting yourself to a set of rules. You can’t stare at a rock and decide whether it is intelligent or not. You can, however, argue a chess-player’s intelligence based on the moves he/she makes.




"Demonstrations of consciousness require demonstrations of intelligence"

“He has demonstrated this for everyone by the creation of Existence.”

He can’t by what I’ve argued; that’s the whole point of this debate! By the creation of "Existence", he would proving that he were limited by subjecting himself to the task, yet he’s also supposed to be unlimited (omnipotent).


"Demonstrations of intelligence require the presence of limitations"

“Existence is limitless. There is no end to his creation therefore no limits.”

What? We’re talking about the nature of his intelligence, not the length of his creation.


"Intelligence (limited) and Omnipotence (unlimited) are mutually exclusive"

“But Omniscient (god-like intelligence) and Omnipotence are not.”

“God-like intelligence” still involves intelligence, and to have a god demonstrate his infinite-intelligence and omnipotence via the creation of everything, is contradictory as he would be demonstrating limitation and absence of limitation at the same time.
fidelacchius

Con

fidelacchius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Caploxion

Pro

I think that I have addressed my opponent's counter-arguments and adequately outlined my arguments within the debate; I feel that a conclusion would only lead me to unnecessarily repeating what I have said.

I wish to thank fidelacchius for the debate, and you for reading it.
fidelacchius

Con

Since this is the last round and i have already missed too many other rounds >_< I will keep this simple.

The Pro took the burden of proof. I have seen no proof, and have only seen circular reasoning and straw-man arguments.

That being said I thank the Pro for the debate even though I missed half of it. I do feel like we could have got more angry though :/
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
I do love a good Pastafarian argument now and again :)
Posted by fidelacchius 2 years ago
fidelacchius
I'm voting Pro because the Con missed too many rounds :P
Posted by Caploxion 2 years ago
Caploxion
"First of all, I think you're taking to close of a literal interpretation, as if the universe is like a guitar string that becomes out of tune. Which is not the point of the saying and also has some faulty assumptions.
I think the point of "finely tuned" is to just to mean "precise"."

Well, if theists just meant only "precise" when they say 'tune', then fine, I wouldn't mention because I'd only be playing a silly semantics game otherwise. But, the verb to 'tune' implies far more than what "precise" implies. To 'tune' is to imply things like "a creator who is constantly tweaking and adjusting the universe to sustain life, or to imply that chaos would erupt if he didn't". This isn't my issue, however, as it's the theists making this argument.
Posted by Caploxion 2 years ago
Caploxion
""Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding" Are you saying that there are things in the universe that are unnecessarily complex and therefore any designer must have limited intelligence?"

It's basically responding to the main line Intelligent Design argumentation; it looks at bit weird when it's by itself (without the context of conversation). I'm implying that if god wanted to demonstrate his infinite-intelligence, he would make it as simple as possible, rather than as extremely complex (as some theists argue).

"Also, this goes back to what another poster said about not being able to comprehend the entirety of what we're even talking about."

Ah, this is where the paradox becomes obvious. You see, if we didn't know the god that created the universe, then how can we then say the universe is a product of a god? We wouldn't know his motives, therefore we couldn't affirm that what has been created is what he/she/it wanted. Therefore, we couldn't tell if this was *Intelligent* Design, seeing as we don't know what the goal was in the obstacle-goal relationship. Basically, in order to make the Intelligent Design argument, you need to say that an infinitely-intelligent, omnipotent god exists.
Posted by Caploxion 2 years ago
Caploxion
Hi Derezzed,

"I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that a measure of complexity can suggest design."
"But if I find those dozen piles forming a straight line with each pile containing a certain color leaf and the piles arranged left to right in order of lightest shade to darkest shade then I would suspect that it was done intentionally."

Sure, but that's not what I'm arguing against. The argument made by theist for is that 'the universe is so complex that it HAD to be designed'. That's the standard Intelligent Design argument. I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that a god may have created everything.

"I don't think that admitting there is a relationship between complexity and demonstrated purpose is ceding to an argument for intelligent design."

Yes, I think you're right. It's just that it's not as concrete as some theists propose.
Posted by Derezzed 2 years ago
Derezzed
I'm trying to understand your third point, but I think you've misinterpreted or misunderstood the meaning of "finely tuned". I haven't even heard that before, so I am just going off of your explanation. First of all, I think you're taking to close of a literal interpretation, as if the universe is like a guitar string that becomes out of tune. Which is not the point of the saying and also has some faulty assumptions.
I think the point of "finely tuned" is to just to mean "precise". That the universe, or earth, was created "precisely" for human life, in terms of appropriate climate, atmosphere, positioning to the sun, etc. To say the universe is finely tuned, is to say that it was created perfectly in the barest of margins to allow for human life. It is not to say that there is a creator who is constantly tweaking and adjusting the universe to sustain life, or to imply that chaos would erupt if he didn't.

You're also using tuning in the context of instruments, instruments that can go out of tune. Something that is "finely tuned" doesn't necessarily go out of tune over time like a musical instrument. And therefore doesn't require the constant tuning you mentioned that is needed to keep the universe from being flawed.

In fact there is nothing that suggests he can create a "flawed" universe that is out of tune. I think it might help you if you look at a tuning analogy that isn't instrumental or musical. For example, I could say the universe is like a finely tuned engine. I can create an engine and fine tune it to perform a certain way over a certain RPM range to achieve my desired output. In that sense the creator does has direct power over every aspect of the engine, and has SET or tuned it exactly as he sees fit. There does not need to be an "out of tune" scenario that requires some recalibration due to lack of control. That is an assumption you have created to allow for your argument.
Posted by Derezzed 2 years ago
Derezzed
And also you haven't made the point of your second argument clear.
"Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding" Are you saying that there are things in the universe that are unnecessarily complex and therefore any designer must have limited intelligence?
If so, what things are you referring to? This point in your debate is not very well grounded in your main argument or connected to your other points. It seems like an incomplete thought, I just wanted to see where you were going with it.

Also, this goes back to what another poster said about not being able to comprehend the entirety of what we're even talking about. I.e. How would you know that something is unnecessary? Yes, there is a lack of understanding, but it may not be on the part of the designer. If you did open up your television set,I doubt you would understand why half of the wires are necessary; you would need total knowledge of how TVs work or someone who did. So if the universe were our television set, unless you are also an all intelligent designer and creator, how can you say something is unnecessary? and why is simplicity the end goal of any design?
Posted by Derezzed 2 years ago
Derezzed
Im not sure I follow some of Pro's arguments.

As far as complexity and design, I disagree. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that a measure of complexity can suggest design.
For example if I come across a dozen small piles of leaves in the yard it's very possible that the wind simply blew the leaves around and they happen to collect in certain spots.
But if I find those dozen piles forming a straight line with each pile containing a certain color leaf and the piles arranged left to right in order of lightest shade to darkest shade then I would suspect that it was done intentionally.
The complexity of the system, as measured by the level of arrangement and the relationship between each ascending pile, hints at some purpose or intended placement. The probability of the wind creating that system is much lower than the first scenario I described. So it's reasonable to say in some systems the level of complexity , or measurement in the arrangements of interacting parts and their precision, can suggest design.

I don't even mean to argue this for a theist's point of view. Complexity, in some fields, is defined using "design" and "purpose" in order to make clear that it is not random. I don't think that admitting there is a relationship between complexity and demonstrated purpose is ceding to an argument for intelligent design.
Posted by Caploxion 2 years ago
Caploxion
@Poiesis Yes, your resolution would be clearer.

When theists specify their god to be an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, I have an argument that proves their specific god to be inherently contradictory.
Posted by Poiesis 2 years ago
Poiesis
Yeah, I figured that's what you meant. But it wasn't clear, it was inferred. A clearer resolution would have been: Any attempt at arguing for [the existence of] an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical. But that would bring problems of its own.

That's why I didn't join the actual debate when I had the chance. I can't debate what someone means, I can only debate what they say. I left my original comment to explain that as it stood, the debate was impossible to win. I thought that it would be helpful. I hope that I'm not coming off like a jerk. :)

Honestly, I don't think that the existence debate is possible to win (for pro or con) either.

A good debate requires solid, factual information. If we were living on some alien planet in another galaxy, we could debate the existence of ducks all day and never prover whether they existed or not. We couldn't describe their characteristics, and we couldn't debate their judgments. That's because they would be outside the range of our perceptions or understanding. Likewise, I could argue the existence of Zorks (whatever the hell they are lol) from here on earth and I may be right, but I'd have no way of knowing that or proving it.

By the way, I'm not religious, and I'm not an atheist. I guess you could call me agnostic, but I'm not fond of labels. I argue with myself more than I do with strangers. :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 years ago
KingDebater
CaploxionfidelacchiusTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
CaploxionfidelacchiusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
CaploxionfidelacchiusTied
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: I think it's needless to say. Con forfeited two rounds, giving conduct to Pro. Pro's argumentation was relatively solid, while Con seemed to be arguing on tangents, often missing the point of Pro's arguments. Con asserts several times that Pro has engaged in fallacy debate, but never explains where the fallacies lie and why we should care.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
CaploxionfidelacchiusTied
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: Too many forfeited rounds from Con