The Instigator
Valladarex
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
JorgeLucas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Deism

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 3 votes the winner is...
Valladarex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,709 times Debate No: 35133
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Valladarex

Pro

Greetings! I will be taking the position that Deism is more reasonable than any religion or irreligion. My opponent will contest my Deistic beliefs and support his own. He or she can be either religious or non-religious.

Deism will be defined as this: The belief in an inpersonal creator of the universe.

The debate will be 5 rounds, with an 8000 character limit. The standard DDO rules apply.

I only wish for someone who has done more than a few debates to accept the challenge. If you can't currently accept, then comment and I'll change it so you can. The reason I want a more experienced debater is because I'm tired of debating people that get off DDO mid-debate and don't return.

I look forward to a great debate!
JorgeLucas

Con

I accept this debate. I will argue from an atheist perspective, that a creator of the universe does not exist. I would also like to propose a few more definitions:

Universe: everything that exists

Creator of the universe: The entity that originally created everything that exists
Debate Round No. 1
Valladarex

Pro

Opening Statements

I accept your definitions, so long as what you mean by everything is everything observable.

Since you will be arguing from the atheist perspective, I will focus on arguments that show that a creator of the universe existed.

The burden of proof will be on me to show that a Deistic god likely exists. The burden of proof will be on Con to show that it is more reasonable to remain secular than to believe in a Deistic God.

Arguments

First Cause

Today, there is evidence that this universe began about 13.8 billion years ago.(1) I expect that my opponent would agree on this. Since this universe began to exist, there was something that caused it to exist. This cause would be considered the creator of the universe, or the god of Deism.

So is there any other way the universe could have started without the need of a creator? I will be talking about different ideas that people have asserted are alternatives to God.

Eternal Universe

If the universe always existed, then there would be no need for a creator. So, is there any evidence that points toward the universe always existing? The Big Crunch theory is one idea that would have allowed for this to happen.

The Big Crunch theory states that gravity will cause the universe to reverse its direction and begin to collapse under its own weight.(2) If this were to be true, it would make sense that the universe has been in an eternal cycle of expansion and compression. However, there is evidence that shows this probably isn't the case.

The problem with this idea is that we know that the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion. This means that instead of gravity slowing down the expansion, there is some form of energy, called dark energy, that is pushing the universe apart faster than gravity can pull it together.(3) Although we don't know for certain whether or not the universe will continue to accelerate apart, today it would be the most reasonable thing to believe in, given the evidence.

So instead of having an eternal universe, it is probable that we have a universe that began to exist, and will end in a big freeze, where all matter and energy will eventually dissipate and everything ceases to exist.(4)

Multiverse

Another theory that may allow for there to be no god is the Multiverse theory. This is the idea that there are multiple or an infinite amount of universes, yet we are only able to observe our own.(5) In the event that this is true, then there wouldn't be a need for an intelligent designer. This would not disprove Deism though.

Deism is actually compatible with the Multiverse theory. This is because the creator of the universe doesn't have to be a thinking entity. It only has to be an impersonal creator. So, if some type of physical force or reaction started this universe, and maybe even other universes, then that physical force/reaction would be the god of Deism.

To be clear, Deism doesn't define god in detail, outside of being an impersonal creator of the universe. This is because we simply don't know enough about God to make other claims about its properties.

Ex Nihilo Creation

A universe that comes from nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is an old idea that has been under scientific research for decades. A common example that many people use in defense of a ex nihilo creation is virtual particles. Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of "nothing" (vacuum fields conceptually analogous to lines of force between magnetic poles) for extremely short periods of time and then disappear again. Such particles permeate space, mediate particle decay, and mediate the exchange of the fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong, and—in accord with quantum theory—gravititational forces).(6)

Although it may seem like this helps show that the universe might have came out of nothing, there is a fundamental difference between virtual particles and the universe itself.

In order for the virtual particles to be created out of "nothing", there must be universal laws that allow for these things to occur. We know that the deterministic laws that govern the universe break down as time gets closer to the Big Bang.(7) This means that virtual particles would not have been able to exist before the big bang, unless there were still laws or properties of existence that existed before the big bang.

If there were laws or properties of existence before the big bang, then these may allow for a universe to come out of "nothing". But does this really mean nothing? Laws and properties can very well be considered things. These laws and properties would be the something that allowed the universe to exist.

If a law/property allowed the universe to come out of "nothing", then this law/property is what Deists would consider the creator of the universe, or god. Without this transcendent law/property, the universe would have never of existed.

Conclusion

The ideas I have talked about - an impersonal creator, an eternal universe, a multiverse, and a universe from nothing, are all candidates in our search for the truth about where the universe came from. The eternal universe idea seems to have failed, as we found out that universe is accelerating apart. The multiverse is a possible idea that still demands a creator of this universe. A universe from nothing is actually not possible, depending on how you define nothing. It is evident that the universe came from something, and that something would be the impersonal god of Deism.

Deism has given a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe. It would make more sense for a Deistic god to exist than for one not to exist. It is therefore a more reasonable belief than Atheism.

I await Con's response.

Sources

1. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

2. http://www.windows2universe.org...

3. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

4. http://www.universetoday.com...

5. http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu...'s%20mutliverse.html

6. http://science.jrank.org...

7. http://www.hawking.org.uk...

JorgeLucas

Con

i'm going on vacation. take a win.
Debate Round No. 2
Valladarex

Pro

I wish you thought about this before you accepted.. The very reason i made it unacceptable to some people was so I could have a full debate.
JorgeLucas

Con

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I completely forgot when I was accepting. If you check my other debates you'll see that this has never happened. I suppose i can throw in one argument just so this isn't completely awful.

The universe cannot have a creator. If the universe is everything that exists, then there could be nothing that created it, for it would have to exist outside the universe. To exist outside of existence is to not exist.
Debate Round No. 3
Valladarex

Pro

As i said earlier, i accepted you definition as long as what you meant by everything was everything observable.

For example, here is the Merriam Webster definition of universe: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated: cosmos. (1)

Going by this definition, it then makes perfect sense that something unobservable could have started our observable universe. It also makes sense that things could exist outside of before of our universe, as they may simply be unobservable to us.

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.

1. http://i.word.com...
JorgeLucas

Con

JorgeLucas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Valladarex

Pro

I'm just going to try this again with someone else.
JorgeLucas

Con

JorgeLucas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
and is first round for acceptance or opening arguments?
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
I'm thinking about taking this, however, who has the BOP? Pro or Con? Also, four rounds would also be better, 5 just gets tiresome.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
ValladarexJorgeLucasTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
ValladarexJorgeLucasTied
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: That's a shame. I'm a personal fan of JorgeLucas as a debater. FF.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
ValladarexJorgeLucasTied
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