The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points

Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is the Best Explanation for the Beginning of the Universe

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 8 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,873 times Debate No: 33148
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (61)
Votes (8)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

For the sake of argument, I will conceed that the universe began to exist and had a cause.

Since the burden of proof is on Pro, Pro will make the first argument in this round (the first round is not for acceptance, but for my opponent to present an opening argument). My burden is to falsify, or at the very least, undermine my opponent.


In round 4, my opponent will simply put:

"No argument will be posted here as agreed"

This means, that we both give up a round (I'm giving up this round, and Pro is giving up round 4) to ensure that Pro gets the first say, and I get the last say due to the burden of proof.

Good luck!

Pennington

Pro

I would like to thank Rational_Thinker9119 for starting this debate. Rational and myself just finished a debate about the KCA being sound or not. Needless to say I mishandled my argument and he prevailed. Link here:

http://www.debate.org...

This is another debate and another day. I hope my opponent and I can keep you(the readers) entertained with mental gymnastics. We will specifically focus on Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo(now refered as DCEN) as the cause of the universe. In this debate I will offer three main contentions.

Burden of Proof:

The burden of proof is on Pro to make an convincing argument for DCEN. Pro must also undermine all or most evidence brought forth by Con. Con has the burden of showing DCEN as not being the best explanation for the universe. He must also offer another alternative to replace DCEN as the cause of the universe. One cannot determine if DCEN is the best explanation without other theories to judge against, otherwise DCEN will be the only choice.

Resolution: Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is the Best Explanation for the Beginning of the Universe

Defintions:

Ex Nihilo - Out of nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Big Bang(BB) - The prevailing cosmological model that describes the early universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Theistic hypothesis(TH) - The theory God created time and matter at the Big Bang and it formed the universe with fine-tuning, design, and law for morality.

http://home.messiah.edu...

Temporal - Lasting only for a time; not eternal; passing.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Infinite - Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

A priori - knowledge or justification is independent of experience.

A posteriori - knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Argument:

I hold that this argument will come down to philosophical explanation more than scientific evidence. There are a few speculations to the beginnings of the universe. I cannot guess which one my opponent has in mind so I will address the most prevailing theories.

1) The universe is an illusion- If we accept this conclusion then nothing really exist and these questions can never be answered. If someone is suffering from an illusion then someone must experience it. Therefore something must have created or is self existent.

2) The Universe is eternal- The eternal universe contradicts current scientific evidence as the 2nd law of thermal dynamics which shows everything is going from order to disorder. Mathematics show that the universe cannot be infinite or it would have died long ago.

3) Emergence from nothing- The theory we are judging. There must have been something foreign introduced, which means something did exist. There must have been something that was self existent.

C1) Theistic Hypothesis

The TH must meet a high bar to count as a good explanation. Here all I must show is that DCEN is the best explanation available.

We have reason to prefer natural explanations, and if no natural explanations are at hand, we would always be justified in seeking one.[1] We cannot make predictions about God's behavior further then a Holy book. Plantinga's transworld depravity thesis[2] holds that it's possible that it's not within God's power to actualize a world where the agents that God has created doesn't sin. This shows that even God also has conditions from His own nature. One of those conditions would be by creating, opposed to not creating. Another condition would be that God cannot be contained inside creation. The optimality condition[3] holds that God, being rational, would use the best way to achieve his goal or intention.

The Copernican principle[4] has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe. Therefore how can there be a opposing theory more reasonable than DCEN? The DCEN relates to spontaneous generation for everything in some time in the past. Science has claimed something has came from nothing in the form of vaccum fluctuations but this has no comparison to ex nihilo. Other theories of quantum origins hold that the universe was created out of nothing into being. These thoughts are philosophical in nature.

DCEN is consistent with natural principles and seems to be a obvious possibility. I maintain that God created space and time in which our material universe expanded from the BB. DCEN is merely a philosophical argument for the cause of our universe and with scientific evidence lacking to date, purposes the best explanation available.[5]

C2) Reasons to believe in Divine Creation

C2A - The Ontological Argument

http://plato.stanford.edu...

The Ontological argument purports to be an a priori proof of God's existence. Starting with premises that do not depend on experience for justification and it proceeds by logical means to a conclusion that God exists. This view is the best explanation for the reason God must exist. I contend if God exist then He is the best explanation for the universe ex nihilo.

C1B - The Teleological Argument

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. Intelligent design offers a consistent explanation for observed data from all life and can be considered A posteriori knowledge. This model is based off empirical testing and scientific reasoning. I contend that God created the universe ex nihilo and He designed it.

C1C - Unexplainable

Science ultimately cannot explain the beginning of the universe. Science can only explain what is in nature and even that is speculative. The only plausible theory which is rational and scientific is that the universe was created DCEH. If there was an explosion it would not put the universe in order but just the opposite without a designer.

C3) DCEN is the simplest explanation

Simplicity is the state of being simple. It refers to something which is the easiest to understand, in contrast to something complicated.[6] Occam's razor is a principle used in logic and problem-solving.[7] It states that amoung competing hypothesis, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. I contend that this principle should be applied here.

All scientific processes make the explanation even more confounded. Physical states have qualities that only have certain exercising power. These states make the explanation more complicated than DCEH.

Summation

I have given a explanatory hypothesis from scientific and personnel conditions. I offered both initial conditions and personal explanation. I showed that other explanations are less simple than DCEH. DCEH has no need for a second power, it is not restrained by physical cause, it follows divine ex nihilo.

Thank You back to Con.

Resources:

[1]

http://ndpr.nd.edu...

[2]

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com...

[3]

http://www.phy.ornl.gov...

[4]

http://www.princeton.edu...

[5]

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

I am going to concede that the universe had a beginning in accordance with the debate structure. It will also be an accepted axiom that the universe had some sort of cause. It will not be an accepted axiom however, that the universe came from nothing. The universe could have began to exist, but come from something instead of nothing (without leading to an infinite regress).

Basically, I have some what of an alternative explanation for the hypothetical coming into being of the universe which involves the universe coming from something.

C1) Theistic Hypothesis

In this debate, Pro seems to just throw a bunch of names of principles and arguments in my general direction. He then goes on to say they hold, therefore his position is most likely correct (if only life were that easy). Naming principles and arguments only lets us know that these principles and arguments exist, not that their conclusions are true. Take this for example:

"Plantinga's transworld depravity thesis[2] holds that it's possible that it's not within God's power to actualize a world where the agents that God has created doesn't sin. This shows that...." - Pennington

In the above my opponent names a principle, claims it holds then draws a conclusion off it. Nobody is going to accept this section from Pro as valid argumentation, as all he is doing is naming things and claiming they hold without any support.

C2) Reasons to Believe in Divine Creation

This section seems to suffer the same problem with the structure as the last. He names two arguments, and assumes that means he has shown the conclusion of those arguments true. This fact alone makes this entire section from Pro invalid, as well as the last. However, for the sake of debate I will object to these arguments.

Argument for Atheism (Rebuttal to Modal Ontological Argument)

This Argument for Atheism below shows that the crucial premise of the Modal Ontological Argument (the strongest Ontological Argument) is false. This means that the conclusion that God exists, does not follow a priori.

P1: If God exists, he is a maximally great being

P2. If a maximally great being exists, humans do not exist

P3: Humans exist

C: God does not exist

Premise 1 and Premise 3 are evident enough, and the conclusion follows logically. This means, that all that is left is a defense of Premise 2 of my argument.

Argument for Atheism: The Defense of Premise 2

If a maximally great being exists, then the initial Big Bang conditions would have been fine-tuned so a greater species than humans evolved, and humans would not exist. If humans exist, then we are taking up a "choice spot" in a sense, which would have been filled by a greater species if said being existed.

Thus, if a maximally great being exists, then a greater species evolved and made it to "now" from the initial Big Bang conditions instead of humans (a less great species), due to the nature of the choices a maximally great being has to make; ones consistent with himself.

One could say that a maximally great being has free will, and can freely choose a lesser great species over a more great species to evolve after The Big Bang if he wishes. However, free will does not mean a maximally great being can contradict his essence. A maximally great being cannot create a perfectly spherical cube for example; that goes against his logical nature. In contrast, a maximally great being choosing a less great species over a more great species to evolve and make it to "now", would be a maximally great being choosing to contradict his own nature; which would be impossible if a maximally great being actually exists.

The Argument for Atheism above follows logically, and I defended the crucial premise sufficiently. This means that you cannot deny Atheism without denying that you exist. If a maximally great being exists, then any possible world with species must contain only species greater than ours if a maximally great being is to be consistent with himself. Our species exists. Therefore, it follows that God does not exist.

C1B - The Teleological Argument

When my opponent uses the Ontological Argument, he automatically accepts that the definition of a divine God is a maximally great being. Therefore, even if the Teleological Argument does show that the universe was fine-tuned for life, it would not mean that it was fine-tuned by a maximally great being. My Argument for Atheism bypasses the Teleological Argument. Also, when I explain my alternative to Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo, I will explain why a universe with our exact physical constant combinations is 1/1, making improbability arguments trivial.

C1C - Unexplainable

Even if science cannot explain the universe, this does not mean that Pro's explanation is the best simply because we cannot think of anything else. My opponent is basically arguing that it is false the Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is not the best explanation, because we cannot think of another option. This is an appeal to ignorance [3].

C3) DCEN is the Simplest Explanation

My opponent cites Occam's Razor here. However, the simpler explanation is only really better if all other aspects between two options are equal. If one option has far more explanatory power and is the most likely option based on all available information, it should not be rejected simply because another hypothesis is simpler.

Alternative Explanation to DCEN

One could easily conceive of the idea that something immaterial can exist independently of our material and natural world that is not a personal mind. There could be "higher" supernatural laws which have no necessitating link to sentience once so ever. With this noted, I bring you this hypothesis:

Timeless Immaterial Potential

Timeless Immaterial Potential would exist timelessly, causally prior to the production of the universe. It is immaterial, as the material world could not come from material. It is also potential, as it would itself be the necessary ingredient for the universe.

The definition of Timeless Immaterial Potential is as follows:


a) 'An inanimate mechanical necessary condition (lacking mechanical sufficient conditions), containing an inactivated "spontaneous transition" function with an inherit nature restricted to the actualization of symmetry breaking; from atemporal being to temporal being.'

By "mechanical" I do not mean materially mechanical. I mean that which adheres to some foreign supernatural law of super-nature which is not sentient. Also, the lacking of mechanical sufficient conditions is critical to the essence of Timeless Immaterial Potential, or else the universe would have to be eternal (Note William Lane Craig's "Origin of a Temporal Effect from a Timeless Cause" dilemma [4]). This Timeless Immaterial Potential would "turn into" the universe at T=0, leaving the universe as all that exists.





Keep in mind that the first frame is just illustrating a conceptual analysis. It would not actually be a white sphere in the middle of two grids, as material things which reflect light and entail location would not exist.

Why is TIP superior to DCEN?

(1) Less questions remain
(2) The universe came from something

God could have not created us, so we are still left with questions. If Timeless Immaterial Potential is true,
then our universe is a required function of such a cause.
Also, since a universe coming from something
without infinite regress, is more metaphysically feasible than something coming from nothing (even with
an efficient cause), then it is vastly superior.

Conclusion

. Pro failed to support his position.
. A divine creation cannot occur, because a
divine God cannot exist (Argument for Atheism).
. My explanation for the universe > DCEN.

As it stands, the resolution has been negated

Sources

[1] http://arxiv.org...
[2] Victor J. Stenger: The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, 2011
[3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
[4] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Pennington

Pro

Thank you Con. Let's note Con must show us a valid alternative to DCEH. I will keep Cons structure.



C1) Theistic Hypothesis


Con said I did not offer support here therefore he ignores it. I did show that when we do not have natural explanations, seeking unnatural or supernatural explanations are acceptable. I gave principles that explain we are not privilaged observers of the universe or God.

All these premises have a common pattern. The existence of the universe for so long as it has existed is something unknown by science. Science can explain the occurrence of one state in terms of a previous state. It can explain a state being in their positions by a previous state. But what science cannot explain is why there are any state of affairs at all.[1] Only does the Theistic Hypothesis given a accurate explanation.

C2) Reasons to Believe in Divine Creation

Argument for Atheism: The Defense of Premise 2



"If a maximally great being exists, then the initial Big Bang conditions would have been fine-tuned so a greater species than humans evolved"

Con must show that humans are not the greatest species that can evolve. Since this maximally great being supposedly created human beings to refeclt Himself then we have reason to believe human beings are the greatest species available unless Con shows otherwise.

Defense of the Cosmological argument

"If you were quite accustomed to finding such objects of various sizes around you most of the time, but had never seen an ordinary rock, then upon finding a large rock in the woods one day you would be just as puzzled and mystified. This illustrates the fact that something that is mysterious ceases to seem so simply by its accustomed presence. It is strange indeed, for example, that a world such as ours should exist; yet few men are very often struck by this strangeness, but simply take it for granted."http://mind.ucsd.edu...

The principle of sufficient reason[2] follows that there must be a reason for the existence of everything in the world and for the universe itself. All the principle requires is that there be some sort of reason for everything. Con concedes there is a cause.

C1B - The Teleological Argument


Con drops this contention other than saying, "it would not mean that it was fine-tuned by a maximally great being. My Argument for Atheism bypasses the Teleological Argument."

Even if the actual being who fine-tuned the universe is not the maximally great being, the being must ultimately come from and answer to the maximally great being. Therefore fine-tuning would be a result of the maximally great being. Are we to say the maximally great being does not know or does not approve of fine-tuning of the universe?



C1C - Unexplainable


"Even if science cannot explain the universe, this does not mean that Pro's explanation is the best simply because we cannot think of anything else."

This is a illogical statement. Of course my explanation is the best explanation if no other exist. Though maybe ignorant, no other explanation available leaves mine as the only one to accept. If no natural explanations are at hand, we would always be justified in seeking one.



C3) DCEN is the Simplest Explanation

"If one option has far more explanatory power and is the most likely option based on all available information, it should not be rejected simply because another hypothesis is simpler."

I would agree. Con must show his explanation is simpler. I contend that philosophy and visual universe gives the likely option that the universe was created DCEH. I also contend that thought and vision are simpler than any material cause we can muster.



Alternative Explanation to DCEN


"

One could easily conceive of the idea that something immaterial can exist independently of our material and natural world that is not a personal mind."

I have never conceieved of such a notion.



Timeless Immaterial Potential


It is obvious that Cons argument here is unfounded so lets keep that in mind and address his premises.

Why is TIP superior to DCEN?

(1) Less questions remain


Many questions remain, with God few questions are needed. Questions always remain when dealing with physical cause. Your hypothesis is on the same level if not more questionable than mine.

(2) The universe came from something



God could have created us and you have not shown otherwise. My opponent also makes the assumption that my hypothesis requires something from nothing. God is not nothing. He is outside matter and time. My hypothesis contends that the universe did come from something and was caused to expand by the BB. Con contends that infinite regress is not possible with his hypothesis. Con leaves with a hypothesis identical to God except there involving no mind. This already seems improbable because it denies a intellilectual mind as we have. It makes us question were our consious came from. Until Con digs deeper we are left asking more question when we can just say, God.

In creation we can know ourselves only relative to what we experience with another. Without that other to which we can compare ourselves we will not know what we think and believe. It is the realization that our lives are interlinked that we truly embrace a conscious creator.

Back to Con.




SOURCES:

[1]

http://www.leaderu.com...

[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

"Let's note Con must show us a valid alternative to DCEH" - Pennington

I did, but I urge voters to knock Pro on conduct for this. The debate outline stated that the burden of proof was on the theistic side. If I provide another explanation, it is because I feel like it.

C1) Theistic Hypothesis

Pro claims that he showed that when we do not have natural explanations, seeking supernatural explanations are acceptable. This seems like a strange point to make, as my Timeless Immaterial Potential explanation is supernatural. Thus, obviously I concede a non-natural explanation to the natural world.

Another statement was made that my criticism of his opening argument fails, because he provided certain principles. This is another strange point to make, as I already conceded that my opponent provided principles. The problem was that he did not defend these principles as true.


C2) Reasons to Believe in Divine Creation

Argument for Atheism

Apparently, I have not defended the notion that it is possible for a greater species to evolve than us. However, this is extremely easy to do as God is defined as Omnipotent. We all can easily conceive of a species greater than us. If a maximally great being exists, he could conceive of an even greater species than the species we are conceiving of necessarily; and greater. Thus, it is impossible for us to be the greatest species because if we could conceive of greater; than so could God if he exists. To deny the intuition that leads us to that conclusion, would be to deny the same intuition the theist uses to say certain great making properties are objectively great in the first place. Thus, humans being the greatest species possible is metaphysically unreasonable. However, if a maximally great being exists then his person would be a reflection of his choices. Humans exist. Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist. I will explain in more detail using a syllogism here:

P1: If a Maximally Great Being fine-tuned the initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 that lead to the Human species existing at T=N (time=now), then what he also did was not fine-tune the initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 that lead to a more great species with free-will than the Human species, instead of the Human species existing at T=N.

* "If a person does action 'A' at time t, then what that person also did was not do any other actions they could have been doing, instead of action 'A' at time t. This is a mandatory truth."


P2: If a Maximally Great Being exists, he fine-tuned the initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 that lead to the Human species existing at T=N.


* "This argument is not really for Young Earth Creationists who reject the evidence of The Big Bang. I am going to assume that the other theists will agree with me on this."


P3: If a Maximally Great Being exists he is Omnipotent; thus, at the very least it would have been
*possible* for him to fine-tune the initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 to lead to a more great species with free-will than the Human species, instead of the Human species existing at T=N.

* "I defend this in the first paragraph of this section."


P4: If a Maximally Great Being exists, he would choose more great instead of less great *if possible*.


* "A Maximally Great Being choosing "less" great when it was possible for him to choose "more" great, would be like an Entirely Red House having one blue brick rather than a red brick in its place, when it was possible for it to have the red brick. These situations involve scenarios which contradict the notion of their very beings; and would not be the case as they have to be consistent with their natures. I would bet theists grant me this premise, as it would be absurd not to."


P5: A Maximally Great Being would not have fine-tuned the initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 that lead to the Human species existing at T=N.

* "The theist will not like the above, but it follows from the preceding premises."

P6: The initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 lead to the Human species existing at T=N.


* "This is self-evident. The theist cannot deny this without self-refutation."


C: A Maximally Great Being is not possible.


* "This follows from all the preceding premises."


Defense of the Cosmological argument

I already concede a cause of the universe for the sake of the debate. This section from Pro was a waste of time.

C1B - The Teleological Argument

"Even if the actual being who fine-tuned the universe is not the maximally great being, the being must ultimately come from and answer to the maximally great being." - Pennington

This assumes there is a maximally great being. My Argument from Atheism shows there is no maximally great being. Therefore, the above is trivial.

C1C - Unexplainable

"This is a illogical statement. Of course my explanation is the best explanation if no other exist" - Pennington

This is an illogical statement from Pro as others exist; such as Timeless Immaterial Potential.

C3) DCEN is the Simplest Explanation

Pro concedes my point here.

Alternative Explanation to DCEN

"I have never conceieved of such a notion." - Pennington

I did not assert that Pro did actually conceive of such a notion. I only implied that no reason has been given as to why a sentient supernatural mind is more conceivable than a non-sentient supernatural function of some kind we are unaware of.

Timeless Immaterial Potential

"It is obvious that Cons argument here is unfounded so lets keep that in mind and address his premises." - Pennington

It is not too obvious how this is so obvious. I really hope my opponent has something interesting to bring to the table.

(1) Less questions remain

"Questions always remain when dealing with physical cause. Your hypothesis is on the same level if not more questionable than mine." - Pennington

My cause is not physical, it is non-physical and supernatural. It is clear Pennington did not even read my hypothesis. Since God could have not created us if he pleased, we are still left with questions about why we exist. With Timeless Immaterial Potential, our existence is mandetory. The inherit spontaneous transition function would require the becoming of symmetry breaking (atemporal to temporal).

(2) The Universe Came from Something

"God could have created us and you have not shown otherwise." - Pennington

The resolution does not rest on whether God could have or not, this must be the best explanaton. Regardless, I showed why a maximally great being cannot exist. Since the Divine cannot exist without God, then Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is a horrible explanation.

"My opponent also makes the assumption that my hypothesis requires something from nothing" - Pennington

This is embarrassing for Pro. "Ex nihilo" means "out of nothing". If Pennington does not think the universe came from nothing, then my opponent concedes that Creatio Ex Nihilo is not a good explantation.

"God is not nothing." - Pennington

This just means that if your hypothesis is true, then the universe must have came into being by God. This does not mean the universe came from God. You are confusing Creatio Ex Nihilo with Creatio Ex Deo [1]. How can my opponent win the debate when he does not even know which view he is defending?

"This already seems improbable because it denies a intellilectual mind as we have." - Pennginton

Having a mind now, does not mean minds had to exist when the universe was caused. It is much more likley that the cause is something we do not experience. We experience time; the cause must be timeless. We experience physical; the cause must be non-physical. We experience space; the cause must be spaceless. Why break this pattern for personality? We experience personality, so it is more likely non-personal if we go with the same pattern we see with regarding to other conclusions pertaining to the cause.

Conclusion
. Pro failed to support his position.
. A divine creation cannot occur, because a divine God cannot exist (Argument for Atheism).
. TIP >
DCEN.
The resolution has been negated. 
Pennington

Pro

Thank you Con. Con ask for conduct points to be deducted but I was not claiming he did not give us a alternate theory, I was speaking in a future tense, I had not gotten to it yet. I do approve of Cons theory and think it shows my theory as the best explanation and I will explain why.

Con conceded the universe had a beginning and accepted that the universe had some sort of a cause. The universe began to exist, but came from something instead of nothing. We both agree there is no infinite regress but I hold there is temporal regress.

Temporal regress- Temporal finitism is the idea that time is finite. I contend that time and regress are finite.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

C1) Theistic Hypothesis

This Hypothesis as sourced is a long existing hypothesis supported by the principles I posted. I did not make up this hypothesis if that is what my opponent thinks. If Con does not address this it stands. Con also ignores the principle that when one cannot explain the world with natural means then one has right to explain it philosophically.

Plantinga's transworld depravity thesis-
Within this system, as long as one person makes a wrong decision the problem of evil will exist and the depravity caused will alienate that person from God’s original plan and lead to a multiplication of wrong actions. This is a exentsion argument on moral values.

The optimality condition- This condition is a generalization of convexity, or positive curvature, to higher dimensions. This condition plays into why we have a lower positive influence in our dimensions and tries to explain why we have less optimal value or lower-performance.

The Copernican principle- This principle says that the earth is nottimal position to know the origin of the universe because we are limited. This helps me because Con is limited to human knowledge and I give that knowledge to God knowing I cannot know.

C2) Reasons to Believe in Divine Creation

Argument for Atheism

My opponent does a lot of philosophical work in this section but ignores possibilities as God may have created greater beings and because they are greater they are not contained in our physical world but beyond it. Pro also ignores reasoning why humans are here to begin with, which will involve theistic teachings. Humans rule the earth because of intellect and Con has not shown we are not the greatest possible species for the conditions the earth was created for. Con ignores that for perfection to exist there must also exist imperfection otherwise perfection has no comparison. There can be no opposites unless both propositions are available. In perfect love there must exist free-will and choice to be imperfect. This leads into my main point this round, mental thought.

Defense of the Cosmological argument

Conceded. This argument is part of theistic hypothesis.

C1B - The Teleological Argument

Con assumes he shows a maximally great being does not exist but his theory has holes and if it does then he has conceded this point. This argument is part of theistic hypothesis.

C1C - Unexplainable

Conceded that both theories are possible.

C3) DCEN is the Simplest Explanation

I concede both myself and Con have a valid theory to date. What we are left with is which theory offers the best explanation from the evidence available both scientific and philosophical.

Timeless Immaterial Potential

"Ex nihilo" means "out of nothing"

Notice the resolution says, Divine Ex Nihilo. This means that nothing came from a divine source which is something. This means there was a divine source and time, space, and matter came from that source when it had previously only been the divine source in existence. Con cannot object with his own resolution.

"You are confusing Creatio Ex Nihilo with Creatio Ex Deo"

No, I am arguing DCEN. I concede con has provided a reasonable theory but one point is lacking substance, intelligence.

Teleological Add-on

I quote my opponent:
"I mean that which adheres to some foreign supernatural law of super-nature which is not sentient."
"If Timeless Immaterial Potential is true, then our universe is a required function of such a cause."

Con has produced a theory exactly like Divine Creatio but his theory has no brain, no mind, no intelligence. His theory supposedly gave us genetic moral values and duties or we simply have lack for them all together. His theory gives no explanation for intelligence and separate value from natural animal instinct. This is why my opponent's argument fails. He claims there is no need for sentient intelligence but we have that intelligence, he thinks it came about on its own. This is highly improbable considering the amount species that have been on this planet and none have had the superior intellect we posses. So, I give you the premise of the mind.

The mind

Ok, we both have have shown there exists an uncaused, immaterial, spaceless, infinitely powerful cause of the universe. I contend this cause has a mind. Con just offers us the same old data which we can see and by the teleological argument shows the appearance of design and intelligence in our creation. Saying the cause of the universe is impersonal is to offer no explanation at all and like pointing to robotic entities. Considering the evident appearance of intelligent order, taking Cons hypothesis is like saying the fossils of dinosaurs do not lead to dinosaurs having lived on earth. It is like saying the Sphinx in Egypt naturally formed from sand and had no human aide.

Even science has projected the idea that our universe is like a giant brain. According to a study published in Nature's Scientific Reports, the universe may be growing in the same way as a giant brain. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

In many philosophies, the conscious mind is considered to be a separate entity, existing in a parallel realm not described by physical law.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

As shown in this debate only two things fit this description: Timeless Immaterial Potential(with no thought) or an unembodied mind. Timeless Immaterial Potential cannot cause definition, it does not have any care or relations for creation. Human kind is acquainted with the idea of embodied minds as Gods. If humans are composed of mind and body, then the mind is distinct from the body. There may be minds that are never conjoined to bodies. I have given multiple premises for why the universe was created and probably is personal.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org......

Moral values

This argument is part of the theistic hypothesis. There must also be a perfection or goodness value. We rank things as more or less good or valuable. We use this ranking to determine what is right and wrong there must be a standard to make such a standard possible, for a ranked hierarchy there exist the highest standard. Such a standard or thought is a characterization of God. There is a difference between morals independent of people’s opinion and morals dependent on people’s opinions. God is essentially the natural moral standard determining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect in turn his moral nature. Therefore, they are not arbitrary. http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com...

Where do our senses come from? Thinking our moral experience as an experience of our five senses helps to show the objectivity of morality. Everyone shares the five senses experience, just as everyone shares the moral experience. http://reformedseth.blogspot.com...

Summation

I explained my theory and have given it to reasonable cause why people believe in DCEH as opposed to human knowledge. Con wants us to ignore DCEN explanation for our universe. I don’t know of any competing explanation better than the hypothesis of a personal Divine Creator. Cons theory lacks human substance. TY Con and the readers. Vote Pro.



Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I am going to try to not waste time this round, and get right to the point.

C1) Theistic Hypothesis


All I need is one argument showing God does not exist to win the debate. Therefore if I succeed, then this section has no bearing on the resolution.


C2) Reasons to Believe in Divine Creation


Argument for Atheism


"My opponent does a lot of philosophical work in this section but ignores possibilities as God may have created greater beings and because they are greater they are not contained in our physical world but beyond it." - Pennington


The above is a red-herring. There could be other universes with more great species but, that would not change the fact that humans exist. If a maximally great being exists, then every possible world where there is species contains only species which are greater than humans. Keep in mind the below:


*If a person does action 'A' at time t, then what that person also did was not do any other actions they could have been doing, instead of action 'A' at time t


This means that God would never create humans, he would have chosen a more great species every time if he is to stay consistent with his nature. If humans exist, then this means he choose less great over more great at least once in his life; which would negate the original idea that we were discussing a maximally great being. Therefore, if a maximally great being exists humans would exist in no physical reality. This makes my opponent's response trivial, because even if there are other realities with greater species that would not change the fact that we still exist. Humans should not even exist in any possible world if there is a maximally great being, because we symbolize a choice this being supposedly made choosing less great over more great. This conflicts with maximally greatness. Therefore, my Argument from Atheism still stands in light of the above objection.


"Pro also ignores reasoning why humans are here to begin with, which will involve theistic teachings." - Pennington


It does not matter what theistic teachings are; the only thing that matters is what would stay consistent with God's maximally great nature or not. Human beings existing (less great) if a maximally great being does makes no sense. He would have the greatest possible species existing in every possible world, as a maximally great being must make choices consistent with his nature. Less great over more great is not a choice consistent with a maximally great being.


"Humans rule the earth because of intellect and Con has not shown we are not the greatest possible species for the conditions the earth was created for." - Pennington


Yes I have, and Pro is being intellectually dishonest for saying such a thing. If we can conceive of a greater species than us for our environment, then if God exists; he could conceive of an even greater species than us. Take Steven Spielberg and his movie Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind [1] for example, the movie contains a much more powerful and benevolent species (powerful and benevolent are great making properties). If we can conceive of it, then God could conceive of an even greater species. A species like that, or greater, would exist in every possible world instead of us where there is species existing if there really is a being who makes choices consistent with maximal greatness.


"Con ignores that for perfection to exist there must also exist imperfection otherwise perfection has no comparison." - Pennington


Then this means that if God is the most perfect being, there should be a less great species than ourselves instead of us in every possible cause to have a larger margin between his creations and him. The fact that we exist here, instead of some lesser species, still disproves God if your theory above is correct. My argument could work in reverse as well given the objection above. Also, my opponent made a contradictory statement. Saying that imperfection existing is required for perfection is like saying a perfectly spherical cube existing is required for logic. The notion of such a claim is an absurdity and outrageous.


"There can be no opposites unless both propositions are available. In perfect love there must exist free-will and choice to be imperfect." - Pennington


This contradicts Theism. If God exists, he cannot choose to be imperfect....However, he still has free will. This means that it is possible for free will to exist without making the choice to be imperfect.

Because my opponent misrepresented my argument and had lack luster responses; my argument still stands. The resolution is negated off of this alone.

"Con assumes he shows a maximally great being does not exist but his theory has holes and if it does then he has conceded this point. This argument is part of theistic hypothesis." - Pennington


All the holes have been filled. The only holes how are the ones involving the responses to my arguments.


"Notice the resolution says, Divine Ex Nihilo." - Pennington


Exactly. Pro has to argue that the universe came from nothing to win this debate.


"This means that nothing came from a divine source which is something." - Pennington


Pro is confusing Creatio Ex Nihilo with Creatio Ex Deo. He is defending the wrong position, this is rather odd. The universe comes from nothing if Creatio Ex Nihilo is true, and the universe comes from God if Creatio Ex Deo is true [2].


"This means there was a divine source and time, space, and matter came from that source when it had previously only been the divine source in existence. Con cannot object with his own resolution." - Pennington

There is no reason to believe the universe came from a divine source, over Timeless Immaterial Potential. Also Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is impossible as that would require God. My Argument from Atheism shows there is no God.


"I concede con has provided a reasonable theory but one point is lacking substance, intelligence." - Pennington


My cause requires no minds, therefore it does not need a mind (this should be self-evident)


"Con has produced a theory exactly like Divine Creatio but his theory has no brain, no mind, no intelligence. His theory supposedly gave us genetic moral values and duties or we simply have lack for them all together. His theory gives no explanation for intelligence and separate value from natural animal instinct." - Pennington

Evolution of the brain explains that [3]. All that is needed is Natural Selection [4]; no mind. Why does the brain exist? Under my hypothesis the developing brain would be a required function of such a universe.


The mind


I have already negated the resolution. so this section is trivial.


Moral values


The only standard there needs to be for morality is the one we set for ourselves. There is no good reason to invoke anything external.

Conclusion

When Pro uses the Ontological Argument, he accepts "maximally great being" as the definition of God. I showed that a maximally great being cannot exist. Since this is true; the Divine cannot exist. The resolution has been negated off of this alone.

Also Pro assumes a mind is a better explanation, but everything is a required function with regards to my cause. This means, that the only required is the required function which is no mind. Since God could have not created the universe; this leaves questions as to why us specifically exist. With my hypothesis, the universe is a required function of such a cause. Also, the universe would not come from nothing in any sense. The universe would have to come from nothing for my opponents argument to work (which is extremely counter intuitive). For those two reasons, my explanation is much superior. The resolution has been discarded to never land.

Sources

[1] http://www.imdb.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://thebrain.mcgill.ca...
[4] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Pennington

Pro

"No argument will be posted here as agreed"
Debate Round No. 4
61 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
"I did show that when we do not have natural explanations, seeking unnatural or supernatural explanations are acceptable." this is illogical, that is simply giving up on figuring out the natural reason, if we do not know something it is not logical to jump to supernatural. That is the argument from ignorance fallacy, you seem to have a real problem understanding that Pennington... Going from i don't know -> god did it is illogical by definition.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"This is not dishonest to misrepresent my position when you clearly knew we were talking about man or created beings in worlds and not God?"

You said maximally great beings lol
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
"Also if we are maximally great beings then God cannot be."

This is not dishonest to misrepresent my position when you clearly knew we were talking about man or created beings in worlds and not God?
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
BTW I respect Drafter vote. Just not the other nonsense.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
What is more childish....Lying, or calling someone out for it? Think about it.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Keep telling yourself that kid. Grow up. You did not prove nothing."

Another lie. Everything you said I did not defend I have PARAGRAPHS on. The evidence proves you wrong...
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
Keep telling yourself that kid. Grow up. You did not prove nothing.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Again childish behavior. Calling someone a liar off opinions is absurd in the highest order."

You are a liar, I just call it like I see it. You keep saying I did not defend things I defended many times. This is intellectually dishonest. You should think about what you say next time.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"You still did not show or prove that humans are not the greatest being possible."

You are a liar and a cheat and you should be ashamed of yourself. I proved this several times.

"Apparently, I have not defended the notion that it is possible for a greater species to evolve than us. However, this is extremely easy to do as God is defined as Omnipotent. We all can easily conceive of a species greater than us. If a maximally great being exists, he could conceive of an even greater species than the species we are conceiving of necessarily; and greater. Thus, it is impossible for us to be the greatest species because if we could conceive of greater; than so could God if he exists. To deny the intuition that leads us to that conclusion, would be to deny the same intuition the theist uses to say certain great making properties are objectively great in the first place. Thus, humans being the greatest species possible is metaphysically unreasonable. However, if a maximally great being exists then his person would be a reflection of his choices."

Also if we are maximally great beings then God cannot be.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
Again childish behavior. Calling someone a liar off opinions is absurd in the highest order.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Rational_Thinker9119PenningtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I am sorry I did not have time to read through this debate and give a vote, I would have really enjoyed this debate, I will retract my vote which I awarded pennington a conduct vote to equal out the score......I assumed it was a bias vote by drafterman, but obviously Rational-thinker see's drafetrmans vote as fair, so I will let it stand.....Sorry Pennington.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Rational_Thinker9119PenningtonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Simply put: The arguments are too large for my puny brain.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
Rational_Thinker9119PenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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's arguments were in support of proving the existence of a creator which, itself, does not imply DCEN. Furthermore, Pro's rebuttals consistent mainly of ignoring Con's arguments, such as claiming Con did not support his "Humans wouldn't exist" Premise when he clearly spent several paragraphs doing just that.
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
Rational_Thinker9119PenningtonTied
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 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: Pro did a better job on his convincing argument. Even though I did agree with Pro before the debate. When I read the debate I was open minded. But still Pro was able to convince me to still be on his side. Both Pro and Con had a good argument. They both had good conduct. I would give the advice to Con to make a more convincing argument. Yet Con did have good sources, but when I read the sources it came up to both were equal in the sources. Good Job to both debaters. :D
Vote Placed by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
Rational_Thinker9119PenningtonTied
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 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: Both held themselves well in conduct and grammar. Use of sources was tied. I agree with medic when he says that Pro was better able to show that his explanation was more in line with order, intelligence and morality. All in all, I believe Pro was better able to explain things, and was more convincing.
Vote Placed by SarcasticIndeed 4 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
Rational_Thinker9119PenningtonTied
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 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: Good debate, I had fun reading it. In the end, Pro hasn't adequately refuted Con's Argument for Atheism and then made unsupported claims (How could a non-personal cause cause intelligence), and assumed an objective moral standard. Thus, arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Rational_Thinker9119PenningtonTied
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: Endless RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
Rational_Thinker9119PenningtonTied
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 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: This one was close until the third round where Pro showed his explanation to be the best, as per the resolution. Pro was able to dispense with Con's contention that humans aren't the beings that God would have chosen to create, overcoming the argument for atheism. Pro also showed that his explanation best describes order, intelligence, and morality, which Con's explanation has no answer for. Good debate.