The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Atheism is as illogical as theism in regards to the origin of everything

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 5 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,414 times Debate No: 28502
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

Atheism believes everything came from nothing.

Theism believes everything came from god, and that god came from nothing.

Atheism defies theism by saying it is foolish to believe in god because nothing created god but then it is equally foolish to believe in atheism because it says nothing created the universe.
phantom

Con

It appears I have two ways I can win this debate. I can show that atheism is more logical than theism in regards to the origin of everything or vice verse.

Pro has to show that they're just the same. If one is any bit more logical than the other, then he can't win the debate. The resolution includes the words "just as" which implies that they are equally illogical. This in itself poses an argument against pro because on balance of likelihood we can only reasonably assert one must be more logical than the other. By the law of excluded middle we can establish the true dichotomy that either God exists or God does not exist. Thus, either theism is true, or atheism is true. And which ever one is true, it necessarily follows, the origin of everything must logically correspond with it. This means one version must be logical, therefore not illogical.


I'll put it in a syllogism to make it easy.

P.1 Either God exists, or God does not exist. (Law of excluded middle)
P.2 Thus, either theism is correct, or atheism is correct.
P.3 In order for theism or atheism to be correct, it must logically correspond with reality.
P.4 The origin of everything must also logically correspond with reality.
P.5 Either theism or atheism logically corresponds with the origin of everything.
P.6 Either theism or atheism is not illogical.
C: Theism and atheism are not equally illogical in regards to the origin of everything.



Pro states that atheists believe everything came from nothing. Well he'll have to explain what he means by that. Is he talking about the philosophical understanding of nothingness or the scientific meaning? Furthermore, why must atheists believe everything came from this "nothing"? It does seem counter intuitive to say something could come from nothing. But atheists don't need to be stuck there because there are two explanations for why things exist. Everything exists either by the necessity of its own nature or by an external cause. If everything existed by an external cause, then we would have a problem, but that's not the case. One example of an abstract form of necessary existence would be the law of non-contradiction; something cannot be both equal to A and not equal to A. This exists in all possible worlds because it is impossible to conceive of a world without it. All, or most, abstract concepts of logic, we can establish as necessary but what is abstract is not physical/material. So now we have to wander why there is anything other than abstract existence. Well, we don't know. But we can still derive that the material world exists necessarily because if it did not, it would not exist. That's because if it weren't necessary it would be contingent. But if it were contingent there would be nothing to cause it. So we know it's necessary because we observe that it exists. This much we can gather and it gives us a clearly logical understanding of reality.



But let me concede momentarily my opponents two assertions about theism and atheism.

If these were indeed true, does it not seem the atheist view is a little less illogical? When we look at the second assertion, all it really boils down to is saying everything came from nothing too. It just adds God in as well as part of everything. So everything, according to the atheist, would be all the material things we see while everything, according to the theist, would be that, plus God. Occam's razor can be applied here. Doesn't it seem a stretch to say God came from nothing. I mean it's one thing to say matter came about ex-nihilo, but to say some omniscient, omnipotent, deity just popped out of nothing? Doesn't that raise an eyebrow or two? The atheistic view seems much more reasonable and less illogical. (Remember, I'm just assuming my opponents portrayal of the atheistic/theistic worldview momentarily in order to refute it)



Moreover, as science is continually filling gaps in our knowledge, more and more is God becoming obsolete. God used to be used to explain all the unknown parts of the natural world. It used to be for things such as rain, thunder and the sun. Now science gives a purely natural explanation for those. For a long time God seemed the only answer to the biological order of life. Then Darwin came along. Now we are finding more answers about cosmology and the physical nature of the universe that require no God.

Theoretical physics proves that this universe is not all there is. There is a multiverse which consists of many other universes.[1] Either one universe exists or multiple universes exist. There are wholly plausible arguments for the multiverse theory but not any for the single universe really. For example, the amount of dark matter can only be explained by the multiverse as Brian Greene explains, “The spectacular failure of attempts to explain the amount of dark energy has raised questions about this confidence, driving some physicists to pursue a radically different explanatory approach, one that suggests (once again) the possible existence of a multiverse.” [3] The amount of dark energy is not conceivable under the single universe theory, but with the multiverse, it is very much so. Now, before pro starts asking what caused the multiverse, it does not need to exist within space and time, meaning it does not necessarily need an external cause. According to Kaku, the multiverse is an 11-dimensional arena. You cannot go higher than 11. There are bubbles that float in this arena. The skin of the bubble represents a universe. "So we're like flies trapped on fly paper". Our universe is a three dimensional bubble but you can also get 4 and 5 dimensional bubbles. Bubbles expand and can sometimes bump into each other which would explain the big-bang.[2] Thus we have a theory of the big-bang that does not require a divine cause. The origin of our universe is clearly plausible without the need for God.


Furthermore Stephen Hawking theorizes that the big-bang was an inevitable occurrence because of gravity. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can & will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper & set the universe going."[4] General relativity can be combined with quantum theory to explain the origin of the universe. The two theories combined “predicted that small fluctuations would develop & lead to the formation of galaxies, stars, and all the other structure in the universe. This is confirmed by observations of small non uniformities in the cosmic microwave background, with exactly the predicted properties.”[5]


So I have given two plausible natural explanations of the universe. Now what of the seemingly fine-tuning of the universe? Well the multiverse, which I've already made an argument for, has one answer to it. Think of the vastness of our own universe. Now think of the fact that there is a whole multiverse. The size of the multiverse entails vast potential so that very fitted conditions for life would be not only probable but quite inevitable. We could say the positioning of all the planets & such had a small chance to be fitted just right but when you consider the multiverse, it's inevitable that conditions would exist somewhere that would be just right for life to exist.

To put my argument in perspective, imagine a googolplex universe. In a googolplex universe, the potential for the certain arrangements of matter & molecules would be so incredibly large that in all probability, if you were to travel through it, you would most likely come across an exact replica of yourself![6] It is completely conceivable to believe that via chance, a fitted condition for life would arise.

So in conclusion, wherever knowledge is found, God is being pushed out as a possible answer and atheism is more logical than theism in regards to the origin of everything.

http://goo.gl...




Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

The logic atheism uses is that because theists believe god is a creator that had no creator and existed forever they are false.

The logic theists use is that everything being never created is as stupid, so god must exist in some form.

Both just use reverse logic of the other but in the end are as illogical as each other in how they go about reasoning.

Atheism = "They didn't do the crime because there is no proof they did."

Theism = "They did the crime because there is no proof they didn't."

Theists do claim more, with less use of Ockham's razor BUT in the end could be just as right or wrong as one another (since it's 50/50). Theists and atheists are using very illogical means of finding the answer and even if one is logical the other is just as bad.
phantom

Con

Note, my opponent has dropped much of what I argued for, including contentions that directly refute the resolution. By default, pro loses the vote.

Pro's contentions

My opponent starts out with a bold assertion. He basically generalizes that atheists say since theists believe God had no creator and existed forever, they are wrong. This is a very broad generalization. I have to say, nothing in the viewpoint of atheism necessitates this tenant. In fact, I myself as an atheists view the objection as a fairly weak one. I wouldn't ever entertain it in a debate. That's because most often, the theistic God doesn't need a creator because he is viewed as ontologically necessary.

Pro says theists/atheists just use reverse logic on the other but I think the viewers can clearly note his portrayal of the arguments for both side aren't anything like reverse logic. But it doesn't matter since he just strawmans atheism anyway.

His analogy also fails to be analogous with the two positions. Theists, at least the reasonable ones, don't say God exists because there's no proof he doesn't. They say God exists because there is proof that he does. In the last round, I made a series of explanations that demonstrated the universe was purely functional without the need for God. My opponent hasn't provided any proof there is a God. Thus I think atheists are justified in believing there is no God.

Pros dropped points

My opponent has dropped a whole lot of my arguments. My first argument was a direct refutation of the resolution. If true, it would should that it's logically necessary the resolution is false. My opponent should try hard to refute it but he has entirely dropped it for some reason.

Pro has also dropped the evidence for the multiverse and Hawkings theory. I used these two theories to provide substantial evidence for existence that does not require God. I even said that without God, the conditions for life would still almost inevitably arise. My opponent has dropped both the theories and the arguments.

Pro also did not respond to my reasoning about everything existing necessarily.


As it stands, pro has dropped almost all my case while not provided any solid foundation in defense of the resolution whatsoever.


Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

You win the debate, I get laid. I win at life.
phantom

Con

Winners get laid bro. You have it wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

F*ck this I concede.
phantom

Con

Vote for kfc.
Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Pro

Vote for burger king.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
RationalMadmanphantomTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by emj32 3 years ago
emj32
RationalMadmanphantomTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RIP RationalMadman
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
RationalMadmanphantomTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Ratinalmadman should win this debate, He rebuttaled Phantom correctly with his argument for a vote for Burger King instead Of KFC, Also Phantoms dislike for Burger King is subjectve.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
RationalMadmanphantomTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 3 years ago
andrewkletzien
RationalMadmanphantomTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. But lost arguments as soon as he inserted "god" between nothingness and creation and asserted that this somehow solves his problem.