The Instigator
abang90
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJosh
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Creationism vs. Atheism

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...
MrJosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,846 times Debate No: 67622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)

 

abang90

Pro

Philosophers across religions and across time have attempted to answer or prove the existence of a Creator.

Our own existence testifies to the necessity of a Creator since our world is not infinite and has an end; and, that which has an end effect must have a beginning as only something that never begins does not end... which in turns necessitates a beginning that precedes all beginnings and a Creator to set in motion our limited/finite world and existence.

Since our world is not infinite and has an end; and, that which has an end effect must have a beginning as only something that never begins does not end. Meaning to say, that which has an "end", either literally a termination point to existence (animals, humans, etc), or as "end effect"(rock, atom, molecule), or "quantifiable effect"(energy, radiation, etc), must have a "beginning cause" that brought about the "end effect". For if we are to argue that the world or end-effect is eternal/uncaused and has no cause or no beginning, then there would be no end point at which to observe or experience the world/effect; nor would there be any observable points off differentiation in existence. Which means since the whole of this world is in actuality finite and differentiable, the whole of the world has an origin, and since it is impossible to derive something from "absolutely nothing" the essential framework of our finite existence must exists through the enabling of something that is essentially eternal and unlimited (AKA G-d). Ultimately this must be true for otherwise there cannot be any basis for our own finite existence. And since, as we may observe, there is a real cause > effect / finite / composite relationship that manifests our universe that then there is no need for an origin point, as this chain of causes may go back ad infinitum. However, this would be an impossibility of infinite regress fallacy, which is essentially arguing for the derivation of something from nothing. In summation: it is not say that everything is caused, but that every end is caused. This leads to the clear conclusion that there must be some point where a chain of cause > effect ends, and since this chain cannot be derived from nothing, there must be something that is necessarily infinite as the source of that which is finite.
MrJosh

Con

I would like to thank PRO for setting up this debate; I had hoped to take part in a debate or two during my school break. I am going to start out by providing a few definitions, after which I will point a flaw in PRO’s argument, which may just be details regarding terminology. Finally, I will attempt to address PRO’s actual argument.

First, a Few Definitions

Creationism: the belief that all things were created by an intelligent creator [1].

Atheism: the lack of belief in any deities [2].

A Quick Issue

Most glaringly, I would like to point out that PRO has set up a false dichotomy between atheism and creationism. For one thing, there are some atheists who are also creationists [3]. Perhaps this is simply an issue to which PRO can bring clarity to with a bit more explanation.

The Main Argument

PRO’s argument seems to be that since the world is not infinite, that it will end, it follows that it must have had a beginning, and in order to avoid the problem of infinite regress, a God must have been the “source of that which is finite.” First of all, PRO is unclear regarding what he is claiming to have a beginning. He mentions the planet, rocks, atoms, animals, humans, and molecules. Now, the larger of these items mentioned can be broken down into atoms. We are all basically atoms floating around in various configurations, so I see no reason to address anything other than atoms.

It is well understood that the mass of an object is a measure of the energy it contains. This concept is known as mass-energy equivalence, and is represented by what is possibly the most recognizable equation in the world today: E=mc^2, which was developed by Albert Einstein in the early twentieth century [4]. Since matter and energy are basically interchangeable, none of the things PRO mentioned will every truly have an end; they will simply change forms. For instance, when I die, my body will not cease to exist, it will simply change forms. If my wishes are followed, I will be cremated, so some of my body will be released as energy, while the remaining ashes will be handled otherwise. Regardless, nothing was lost, it all just changed forms. So, if PRO’s argument is that everything ends, so it must have had a beginning, therefore, there must have been an ultimate beginning (God), PRO has already failed.

The Universe?

Now, it is possible, that PRO is actually talking about the universe; claiming that the beginning of the universe required a God to prevent the infinite regress of causes. This is like saying that God caused the Big Bang. However, this argument also fails unless PRO can demonstrate that our universe actually had a beginning. We are pretty sure about the beginning of the universe back to about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Before this, in the time known as the Planck Epoch, we know nothing [5]. Perhaps the stuff that made up the early universe always existed; perhaps it grew out of another universe, or a multiverse. We don’t know, so if PRO is going to claim that the universe had a beginning, he will have to provide some evidence.

Wrapping Up

Again, I would like to thank PRO for setting up this debate; it looks like it will be enjoyable. I look forward to PRO’s comments in the next round.

Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.atheistcreationist.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Debate Round No. 1
abang90

Pro

Thank you CON for participating in this debate. I am very much looking forward to this interesting discussion.
Clarifying Definitions (Dictionary.com)[1]:
1. Creationism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no G-d.
3. Infinite: unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless:
The body of the argument (re-written and clarified)[2][3]:
The premises underlying the argument:

1.It is impossible for a thing to create itself.
2.Causes are limited in number, and since their number is limited there must be a first cause before any other.
3.Anything that is composite is created/had a beginning.

The demonstration is the following:

Premise number one:

Consider a thing that exists after having not existed. It faces one of two possibilities. A. Either something made it, or B. It made itself.

In considering possibility A: if something makes itself, it either made itself before it existed or after it existed. Both are an impossibility. For if we argue it made itself before it existed, well, before it existed it was absolutely nothing and from nothing can come neither action nor cessation of action. And, if we say it made itself after it existed, it did nothing for it already existed. Therefore it is impossible for a "thing" to be self-caused.

Premise number two:

I am not arguing that the world has an end as in a termination point, however and "end" as in it is manifest/observable/quantifiable.

Anything that has and end must have a beginning (i.e. the "end effect" of a cause must have a prior cause). As it is inconceivable that something (an "end") without any beginning could traverse infinity where its effect is observable to us in the present time. Or otherwise stated, it is inconceivable to argue that something which never begun would have any end manifested effect since that which never begins could not conceivably have an "end". Therefore, that which has an end quantifiable/observable effect must be the composite of prior causes that parameterize it so that it can be quantifiable/observable.

As a demonstration: You mentioned atoms. Since atoms have an "end" they must have a "beginning." As in the end of the atom is manifest or begins at the mergers of its subatomic particles. And since subatomic particles have an "end" quantifiable effect, they too must have a beginning, which is the merger of the quarks, leptons, bosons, etc. that compose those particles. And since these units have an "end-effect", they too must have a beginning radiation/energy etc. An since this chain of causes cannot go on ad-infinitum, as you cannot in actuality have an infinity of finites since in reality infinity is a description of a unity that does not begin or end, not the summation of finites as no sum of finites can in actuality yield infinity. Therefore, the series of causes that manifest an atom must come to an end at that which is uncaused.

This can be demonstrated in another manner: The "end-effect" of any organism"s existence is due to the merger of the "prior causes" that bring it about. For a human that means our parents, for cells that means prior cells, etc. Once again, it is impossible to argue that any of these entities are uncaused as if they indeed were, then they would have no "end" either "observable end" or/and actual "death-end." Once again it is impossible to state that there is an infinite regress of finite causes going back in time ad-infinitum as this would be proposing an infinity of countable/finite causes which in reality could not exists since there is no summation of finite causes that could ever equal "infinity causes".

Another demonstration: It is also obvious that anything that has a part has a whole, as the whole is but the sum of its parts. To think that the infinite has a part is inconceivable, as what can be defined as a part or separate of that which is truly infinite? A part is defined as one quantity separated from another, the smaller from the greater. Now, if we imagine a thing that is actually infinite and we take a part from it, what remains will certainly be less than what is was before. Now if the remainder is still infinite then one infinite is greater than another infinite which in actuality is an impossibility. If the remainder is finite, and we put back the part we took away, the whole will be finite. We had assumed at the start, however, that the whole was infinite, which is an impossible contradiction. It follows then, that it is impossible to take a part from that which is infinite and that whatever has a part is most certainly finite.

Now in the above examples we separated out a part of the causes that intersect to yield an atom, we also separated out causes that yield a living organism. Since this section of causes is a numbered/finite part of the causes that yield an end result, the whole of the series of causes is finite. And since the whole of this world is finite (finite atoms, finite/quantifiable number of people who have ever lived thus far, etc) its causes must also be limited in number. It follows then that this world has a first cause before which there is no other cause; and, for this reason, the series of causes necessarily comes to an end with the First Cause, which is the Infinite Singularity of the Universe (AKA G-d).

This debunks CONs argument that "Perhaps the stuff that made up the early universe always existed; perhaps it grew out of another universe, or a multiverse." Since this argument would be stating the logical fallacy of infinite regress where in actuality a finite series of causes is clearly manifest. The arguments above thusly demonstrate the universe must have begun, since if the universe never began then the "end" manifested point of existence would not in actuality be manifest (above arguments).

Premise number three:

Anything that is composite consists of more than one component. So too, the individual units that comprise the composite structure must precede the composite in nature. Therefore that which is composite is created.
Now, what is eternal has no cause; what has no cause has no beginning; what has no beginning has no end. What has a beginning is not eternal. What is not eternal has been brought into existence, for between that which is eternal and that which has been brought into existence there is nothing that can be said to be neither eternal nor brought into existence.
Therefore, anything that is composite is not eternal since it had a beginning, and therefore must have been brought into existence.

In Summary:

In summary, it can be understood from the above premises that our world "stands" upon a single absolutely infinite Creator or the non-composite Singularity of all the worlds. In observing the "end" of this world one must logically reach the conclusion of a "beginning" Creator who is the ultimate non-composite, and totally infinite singularity of the universe, both back in time and in structure.

[1] www.dictionary.com
[2] http://dafyomireview.com...
[3]Duties of the Heart, Rabbi Bachya ibn Paquda
MrJosh

Con

I would like to thank PRO for his comments this round. Specifically, I would like to thank PRO for clearing up his usage of the word “end.” This was a very odd usage, and after this clarification, it is clear to me that PRO is making a differently worded cosmological argument for the existence of a god. I will begin this round with a quick discussion of definitions before I jump right into the argument.

Definitions

First off, I would like to thank PRO for offering these. I wholeheartedly accept the offered definitions for “creationism,” and “infinite.” However, I do not accept PRO’s definition for “atheism.” I’m not sure that it will actually make a difference in this debate, but for purposes of clarity, atheism is not necessarily the claim that no gods exist. As I mentioned in the previous round, atheism is the lack of belief in gods [1][2][3][4][5]. While it is true that some atheists go the extra step of actually asserting that a particular god does not exist, this is a claim above and beyond atheism.

While on the topic of definitions, I feel I must address the use of the word “created,” especially since PRO is arguing for the existence of a “Creator.” Like the discussion above, this may or may not matter to the content of the debate. However, the use of the words “create,” and “creation” are generally used in the context of a creator. However, they need not be. The way PRO is using the word “created” in his discussion regarding his third premise is such that a composite may be created by natural processes. In fact, there is nothing in the definition of the word that necessitates intent [6].

PRO’s Cosmological Argument

Now, onto the actual argument. I would like to start by saying that I accept the first and third premises; therefore, I take issue with the second. First of all, PRO has claimed that “no sum of finites can in actuality yield infinity.” This may be a little petty, but what if you had an infinite number of finites? However, this is not my main objection to this premise.

My main objection is when PRO made the claims, “this chain of causes cannot go on ad-infinitum,” and, “the whole of this world is finite…its causes must also be limited in number.” To put PRO’s claim in the more common language of cosmological arguments, he is claiming that the universe had a beginning. I would like to revisit the point I made in the previous round that we do not know what happened before approximately 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang [7]. Our modern understanding of physics does not allow us to know anything about this period. Therefore, how can PRO claim to actually know that there is not an infinite chain of causes? While an infinite chain does seem absurd inductively, as PRO is actually making the positive claim that it is impossible, I would like him to provide evidence in support of his claim.

PRO’s Uncaused Causer

PRO has posited an uncaused creator. I would like PRO to provide evidence for the existence of said creator. Please note that simply describing conditions that seem to require such a creator is not sufficient, as it would be an Argument from Incredulity Fallacy to declare that such a creator MUST be the answer to a particular problem [8].

Final Point

PRO claims to have “debunked” an argument of mine. However, this is not the case. The “argument” he claims to have debunked was not an argument at all. I freely admit it was speculation. The point is that we do not know anything about the time that close to the Big Bang, so PRO will have to provide evidence if he is going to speak on the matter. I will not go into more depth, as I have already addressed this point in my rebuttal to PRO’s argument.

Wrapping Up

PRO has yet to provide any evidence for his claims. He claims that our world [universe] is not infinite, even after I have demonstrated that he could not possibly know this. He also claims that there is some sort of "creator," but so far has only argued that the universe looks like it requires one. He has not actually offered evidence for the "creator." I look forward to PRO’s comments in the final round.

Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[4] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[5] http://www.beliefnet.com...
[6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[7] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[8] http://rationalwiki.org...

Debate Round No. 2
abang90

Pro

Thank you CON for your comments in the last round.

You state in your argument that, "I would like to start by saying that I accept the first and third premises." Meaning to say that you accept:

A.A thing does not make itself[1].
B.That which is composite had/has a beginning[1].

Which essentially breaks down your argument by default into an argument for an infinite regress of causes for we have to admit that even if you claim "we do not know what happened before approximately 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang" well we know there was "something" in existence at that time, and since a thing doesn"t make itself, and because whatever was in existence at that time must have in some way been composite, it must have been preceded by some causes that brought it about.

Therefore, whether you engage premise 1 or premise 2 together or separate, we come to the conclusion that whatever existed at 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang is caused by something prior to it.

Now we have essentially distilled your argument to an infinite regress of non-eternal causes.

That"s problematic, however, by your own intuition and you even contradict yourself in stating the following: "This may be a little petty, but what if you had an infinite number of finites? However, this is not my main objection to this premise." You then state the following: "My main objection is when PRO made the claims, "this chain of causes cannot go on ad-infinitum,""

So is it, or is it not your main objection? You contradict yourself, because I am sure that by your own reasoning you must recognize the absurdity in arguing an infinite regress of causes! You even allude to it yourself: "While an infinite chain does seem absurd inductively, as PRO is actually making the positive claim that it is impossible, I would like him to provide evidence in support of his claim."

Based on your own comments, I take it CON is, albeit in a confused manner, arguing for an infinite series of causes going back forever. However, any well versed mathematician knows that no finite series can ever reach infinity. It is indeed true that theoretical infinity is used in mathematics to express certain concepts, such as a limit as it "approaches" infinity or the limit 1/x as x goes towards 0 (from positive side) is "infinity". However no finite number ever in actuality "approaches" infinity. The number 1 is no closer to infinity that the number 1,000,000,000,000.[2]

Otherwise stated, the countable causes that can be expressed in a series as: (end-effect) cause #1 < cause #2 < cause #3 < cause #4, thus begins a finite series that no matter how many causes back it goes will never in actuality reach infinity and it never in actuality even "approaches" infinity.

Meaning to say that if you are indeed arguing for an infinite regress of causes (which by implication you are) you would have to have an infinity of finite/non-eternal causes between the chasm of no beginning to the end manifested point of the universe that we experience, which is indeed an impossibility as no sum of finite cause-and-effects sequences would ever aggregate "infinite causes" which is what would be required for the universe to be manifest in the present time.

To quote yet another perspective from the commentaries on Duties of the Heart, by Rabbi Bachya ibn Paquda:[2]

Infinite regress of causes is sometimes invoked to negate the need for a first eternal cause. So instead of saying the universe is eternal or that it was created by something eternal, we can simply say that the universe existed and evolved from one form to another, in an infinite chain of non-eternal forms.

However this is logically incoherent.
If we think of causes and effects as links in a chain, then consider that every link in the chain depends on the previous link. Hence, the chain as a whole depends on something which does not even exist.

As an illustration, consider a chain hanging down from above almost touching the floor.
One asks, what is the chain fastened to on the other end?
Answer: The next link.
And what is that tied to?
Answer: The one after that.
And that one?
Answer: The next one, and so on...

I think it can be seen evidently that it doesn't matter whether there are a million or infinite links - there is nothing to hold up the chain. Without some tangible, real support the chain cannot hold even if it is infinitely long.

So too here, if you don't have something eternal, then a chain of non-eternal links will not help to explain the existence of something in the present, even if it is infinitely long.

Furthermore, the result of an infinite regress is indeterminable unless there is some eternal source.
As an illustration consider a square room with mirrored walls reflecting a picture of a human being in an infinite regress simulation. If there is no source, i.e. a real human being then the picture being reflected infinitely is indeterminable. Why should it be a human face, or a chicken, or whatever?

The only possible solution would be if there is no picture in the mirrors.

So too here, unless there is "something" eternal, nothing would exist in the present. The infinite regress is just an attempt to push off the same problem indefinitely, never solving it.

You posed the challenge to provide reasoned support for the impossibility of an infinite chain, and the above is certainly sufficient for any reasoned mind to reach the conclusion that it is in actuality (not in theoretical math) not possible.

You then proceed to argue the following: "Please note that simply describing conditions that seem to require such a creator is not sufficient, as it would be an Argument from Incredulity Fallacy to declare that such a creator MUST be the answer to a particular problem."

The arguments posed above are not an Argument from Incredulity, but are based on the above truths of the three premises stated above. And, indeed those three premises converge to a single truth, which is that there must be a FIRST, ETERNAL, and NON-COMPOSITE beginning to all of creation. Just as singularity must precede plurality, so too a single eternal and non-composite entity must precede all of creation; these are sound well-reasoned proofs. They do no rely on the ignorance of the audience but lay down true premises that when taken to their limit must lead to the conclusion of One Infinite Creator.

To address one more point of yours, you state the following: "The point is that we do not know anything about the time that close to the Big Bang, so PRO will have to provide evidence if he is going to speak on the matter." No-body need know what "exactly" transpired that close to the Big Bang to ascertain the veracity of the arguments laid out above; we know there was "something" and it is impossible that this something was/is uncaused. Just as we know with 100% certainty CON must have had ancestors 2500 years ago. How do we know this? Because CON has an "end-effect" here today of his existence. Even though we have no records of CONs ancestors 2500 years ago, we don"t know who they were, where they lived, what they eat, who their immediate offspring were, and despite that lack of evidence of their existence, we know "something" must have existed or else CON would not be here. So too, we know "something" must have preceded the 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang or else whatever existed at that very moment couldn"t exist.

Your argument is ultimately one of the logical fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance (and flawed in that structure too)[4]: "The point is that we do not know anything about the time that close to the Big Bang." This is not true since we know there was some cause that must have proceeded "that time." And through this obvious point, and in combination with premise 1, 2, and 3, we must reach the conclusion that there is a Non-Composite, Infinite, Uncaused, "Causer."

End Points:

Premise 1 and Premise 3 have been accepted by both PRO and CON. Additionally, Premise 2 has been sufficiently demonstrated above, it is indeed an impossibility in reality to have an infinity of finites.

Funny enough CON states regarding an infinity of finites, "However, this is not my main objection to this premise." and then claims: "My main objection is when PRO made the claims, "this chain of causes cannot go on ad-infinitum." Which is a contradiction; is it, or is it not your objection? And if it is not your objection then you by default accept premise 2. If it is your objection, you reject premise 2 and claim an infinity of non-eternal causes (which is an infinity of finites!). Above I have demonstrated the veracity of premise 2 with sound theoretical and mathematical arguments which highlight the impossibility of such a reality. CON even alludes to the absurdity of this in his rebuttal by stating "While an infinite chain does seem absurd inductively"." The burden of proof now lies with CON, since you accepted premise 1 and 3, you now must prove that in actuality an infinity of finites is a possibility"

CON then argues I have constructed an Argument from Incredulity, however, this is not true either, as when the 3 fundamental premises are combined and examined to their logical extreme they yield the precise conclusion of a Non-Composite, Infinite, Uncaused, "Causer." It is not a guess, nor a leap in logic, nor does it rely on some statement of "well, what else could it be?" It is defined and pointed and eliminates all possibilities except for an entity that is truly unbounded, singular, and eternal. Call this entity G-d, First Cause, the One, or whatever label you wish to claim, but this singularity MUST EXIST.

I have not argued that it looks like the universe needs a Creator, but I am arguing the universe NEEDS one. And I have thusly provided concrete logical evidence for all of my claims. I now respectfully turn to CON for his closing arguments, and I sincerely thank him for participating in this debate.

(Sources in comment section, as I am out of room...)
MrJosh

Con

I would like to begin by thanking PRO for his comments this round. This debate is indeed proving to be as enjoyable as I had hoped. I will leave it up to the voters to decide if leaving sources in the comments counts as sourcing your arguments; there is a character limit for a reason. I will begin by discussing the burden of proof, carry on with a discussion of fallacies, and close with a quick summary.

Who Had a Burden?

I would like to start out by saying that I have made no claim in this debate, nor have I accepted any burden of proof. PRO has expertly laid out the points that we agree on, so let me address the one where we part company. PRO has asserted that there can be no infinite regress. PRO has not demonstrated that this is so; it remains a bald assertion.

As I mentioned in the previous round, I admit that induction SEEMS to suggest that an infinite regress is absurd. However, induction can be wrong [1]. Induction is the practice of inferring a general conclusion from a smaller sample of evidence [2]. For instance, if I go through my lifetime seeing millions of white swans, and no black swans, I might use inductive reasoning to conclude that all swans are white; I would be incorrect [3]. Similarly, we go through our lives on this planet where inductive reasoning seems to suggest that infinite regress cannot be. Our reasoning might be wrong in similar fashion. I would like to restate that I am not arguing for an infinite regress, I am simply stating that PRO has not met the burden of proof for his claim that an infinite regress cannot be.

Fallacies

PRO denies that he committed and Argument from Incredulity Fallacy. I will demonstrate how he did. In the first round, PRO introduces his concept of a “Creator.” Then, in the second round, he defined creationism to include creation by an “Omnipotent Creator.” In both of those rounds, PRO makes it clear that he is arguing that this Creator is a “G-d.”

Now, if we accept all of the premises of PRO’s cosmological argument, we get to the point where there must be an uncaused cause. PRO is asserting that this cause is a God. Also, the use of capital beginnings to the words “God,” and “Creator” denote that we are using the terms as proper nouns. Therefore, even though PRO has not named the God for which he is arguing, he is clearly arguing for a deity with agency. Now, if we go back and accept the cosmological argument, we are left requiring an uncaused cause. Why does this need to be a God? Why can’t it be a natural phenomenon? Or more to my liking, why don’t we just say, “I don’t know?” PRO is using his cosmological argument to define into existence a hole, and then claiming, by fiat, that the only thing that can fit in that hole is a Creator God. That is the definition of an Argument from Incredulity [4].

PRO has also accused me of an Argument from Ignorance, which I admit puzzles me. I stated that we do not know anything before the Planck Epoch, a point which is supported by science (which I cited). However, PRO is claiming that this is a fallacy because we do know that there was a cause to the universe. Unfortunately for PRO, this cause is the very thing he is trying to prove, so in his accusation of my alleged Argument from Ignorance, he himself is committing the fallacy of Circular Reasoning [5].

Wrapping it Up

This has been a most interesting debate, for that I thank PRO. Unfortunately, PRO has failed to meet his burden of proof. His claim remains a bald assertion. He has also claimed that I engaged in fallacious reasoning, but I have demonstrated how this incorrect thought is the result of PRO’s own fallacy. Overall, PRO’s claim that a God is the uncaused cause of the universe, has not been demonstrated.

Sources:

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://wiki.lesswrong.com...
[3] http://www.birdlife.org...
[4] http://rationalwiki.org...
[5] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abang90 2 years ago
abang90
@gruntel

Yes I do indeed see the anti-theist label, seems that would imply a preconceived bias...

Thanks for your comments and support...
Posted by gruntel 2 years ago
gruntel
@abang90 dont waste your time.

mjosh states in his profile that he is an antitheist

your reasoning is sound
Posted by abang90 2 years ago
abang90
@MrJosh

I'll add the word balderdash to my vocabulary! Thank you.

I am sorry its not clear. If you have the time we can go through every single strand of logic one by one in the most minute detail and dissect it in its fullness. I'll be here when/if you wish to continue....

:)
Posted by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
I'm sorry, but what you are saying sounds like a lot of pseudoscientific balderdash. Also, I can only begin to list the fallacies, unsupported claims, and even at least on false claim.

Can you demonstrate that a finite, composite thing cannot have existed (perhaps as its separate composite parts) an infinite time ago? Yes, induction suggests otherwise, but we cannot make absolute claims from induction. You claim that cosmology suggests that the universe had a beginning, when it does not. Cosmology says, "we don't know." These are both points made during the debate.

Your suggestion that there is a "proper order" is absurd. I reject it unless you support it with evidence. Yes, whatever way the universe unfolded led us to where we are, but there is no reason to think that it was "supposed" to unfold this way. You also solve the problem of infinite regress by simple fiat with your claim that there is (or was) some sort of "Primal Type." Your whole argument seems like one big deepity, and I no longer have the time nor the energy for it.
Posted by abang90 2 years ago
abang90
Part B:

So too, that which is composite is defined so by "type" and "difference." As an example, human beings are a "type" of living creature, but it is "different" by its capacity to hold intelligent and dynamic conversation. Humans share the "type" of living but are "different" by speech. The idea of composite is simply the manifestation of a "higher type" and a border separating a "difference." When a "type" and "difference" is manifest, then we know that the "difference" is composite of "itself/difference "and its "type;" the "type" being the higher order manifestation. Now since all that exists in this world is finite, and indeed there is literally an "edge" to the universe, we know that this edge certainly defines a "difference" to what is "outside" this edge. Therefore there must be a "type" in which the universe is set. Now, this regress essentially continues until you reach the Primal type (an infinite regress is indeterminable). Now, the series must regress as long as there is "type" and "difference", and one must either argue eternal regress, or finite regress. An eternal regress is logically incoherent, and the regress must be finite. Therefore, the regress ends at a non-composite and infinite unity. This Unity is the "Primal Type," is the framework for all existence, and encompasses all existence, it is The Simple Unity.

Really enjoying this conversation, thanks to all those participating :)
Posted by abang90 2 years ago
abang90
@MrJosh

Part A:
Thanks for the response.

So essentially the question is why an object can"t, say for example a rock, exist going eternally back? Yes?

Something that has an "end" and is claimed to be eternal (something by definition without beginning or end) would have to pass through "eternity" to get to its present state of being observable (an impossibility since a "thing" cannot traverse "something" without limits (aka eternity)). So something that has no "beginning" wouldn"t have an "end" observation point. Therefore, you cannot explain the existence of something that is finite in the present by saying that it is eternal in the past.

To say for example, that a rock could exist eternally back, would be saying that by nature of it being labeled eternal, that the entity never begun, yet, lo! It is now all-of-a-sudden bounded and observable at its "end." This is logically incoherent"

Additionally it is understood, that even outside of time, a composite structure must at least "in nature" be preceded by the components that merge to make it and since a composite is finite, and not eternal , it therefore began, and since it began it must have come together in the "proper order."

Additionally, we know from cosmology (and especially from those who support evolution) that indeed the universe began and proceeded to evolve from a simpler state into a more complex form: atoms > molecules > cells > plants > animals > humans etc" This also confirms the premise of that which is composite has a beginning.
Posted by benni4 2 years ago
benni4
@abang90 well said. makes sense to me.
Posted by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
I think I'm still struggling with the terminology. Do you speak of composite only in the temporal sense? If not, why can't something that is made up of parts have always existed made up of the subordinate parts? f so, you are basically setting up a tautology. You are also claiming that there is an "eternal," which has not been demonstrated. Your argument seems to be internally consistent, but I see no reason to think it actually applies to reality.
Posted by abang90 2 years ago
abang90
@MrJosh

That which is finite has and end. That which is composite is made up of parts. That which is the merger of its parts causes "it" to have definition and delineation and therefore that which is finite is composite. As that which is truly infinite has no end nor beginning and that which is totally and completely non-composite is "one" and "infinite" and therefore not observable/definable/differentiable.

Therefore, anything that is composite was preceded by the framework (causes) which define its existence. Therefore it was/is created or popped into existence at some point.

As an example, a blade of grass is preceded by fertile soil (nutrients), and soil is preceded by the minerals that compose it, and the minerals are preceded by molecules, and molecules are preceded by atoms, and atoms preceded by subatomic particles, subatomic particles preceded by energy, energy is preceded by space, and space (also finite/composite/definable/observable/bounded) is preceded by the Eternal. The blade of grass is, in effect, a composite of all its prior causes; and additionally, therefore, the highest cause, which is the Eternal. And the Eternal, which the highest dimension, encapsulates all in pure and simple unity.

I believe this demonstrates the concept.

Thoughts?
Posted by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
Can you demonstrate either of those premises?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
abang90MrJoshTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
abang90MrJoshTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not meet there BoP. Pro did not use reliable sources for there math based arguments. Con could have done better by pointing out that Pro states, "It is impossible for a thing to create itself," and then claims God created it self.