The Instigator
Logic-Bomb
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ProfesserZ
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does the universe need a creator?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 451 times Debate No: 90911
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Logic-Bomb

Con

Many times has it been argued that something cannot come from nothing. This common view is often held as a reason to believe in a divine creator. But is it really true? I shall argue that it is, in fact, untrue. The flaw in this argument isn't just about an infinite regress of creators. In fact, if my opponent does not wish to bring this up, I will gladly exclude it from any argument, as it isn't necessary. The structure of the argument itself is what I shall demonstrate is flawed. The notion that something cannot come from nothing means the universe requires a creator is both scientifically and philosophically inaccurate.

Round one will be for acceptance and definitions.
ProfesserZ

Pro

So in this debate I must disagree since the universe is not infinite and no matter what happens it cannot create it self now we all know that the big bang created the universe but what created that if we keep going and going we finally the reach the end the creator of all god.
Debate Round No. 1
Logic-Bomb

Con

As my opponent chose to define god using the infinite regress, I will have to address it first. I hope, however, that we can move passed this to discuss the actual philosophical implications about the origin without needing to dive deeper into this in the future rounds.

In his opening statement, ProfessorZ stated that the universe is not infinite. Yet he offered absolutely no justification for this. The Big Bang certainly does not state the universe must be finite. Even the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem that Dr. William Lane Craig loves to erroneously reference does not make this claim. As Dr. Sean Carroll pointed out, this theorem simply demonstrates a finite time for the universe as we know it. It requires a beginning point of space and time in classical physics. But this certainly does not lead to a finite beginning for all existence, especially at the quantum level. Dr. Carroll even brought Dr. Guth into it with him stating directly that his work does not determine this, stating he does not know if the universe had a beginning or not, and that he personally suspects it didn't. Dr. Guth believes that the evidence indicates the universe is, in fact, eternal. So the problem with this premise from ProfessorZ, is that it simply is not a valid assumption to accept. Moreover, it is problematic to discuss what "caused" the universe to "begin" before time. Time is the progression of moments between a cause and its effect. In other words, absent time, nothing can be caused. To ask the question of what caused time to exist, is nonsensical. The same applies to the question of what existed before time.

Furthermore, ProfessorZ asserts that the universe could not create itself. I have to ask him, why? Why could it not be that the universe created itself? His claim certainly seems logical, if we appeal to a false anthropomorphic assumption of creation. But there are many examples of things "creating" themselves in the physical universe, through entirely natural causes. A perfect example of this is seen in the gluon field. Atoms are made up of particles called electrons, protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons themselves are made up of even smaller particles called quarks. These quarks interact with the gluon field, and if the space between them becomes empty, it creates new particles. This process is the result of how empty space requires energy to create nothingness. So the evidence from quantum field theory does demonstrate the possibility for existence to "create" itself.

Ultimately, ProfessorZ's argument leads to an infinite regress. An issue I hope to focus the least attention on in this debate, as it does not satisfy a conclusion of this subject. If existence necessitates creation, and creation necessitates a conscious creator, then this creator necessarily must exist, thus require a creation, thus require a creator, and so on. If a creator exists, it violates this premises. This is a special pleading fallacy.

In other words, Existence necessitates creation, and creation necessitates a conscious creator, who ultimately violates this rule. Therefore, it can be said that not everything requires a creator to be created, nor a creation to exist. Occam's razor states that if there are multiple premises to satisfy a conclusion, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is generally true. If something necessarily must violate this infinite regress of creation events, then it logically follows from Occam's razor, that the simplest form of existence would be the most likely candidate as it requires the least assumptions, and that happens to be our existence, not a supreme creator.

So to summarize:

1. The assumption that the universe is infinite, although very likely, cannot be said to be known, and therefore an argument based on this is speculation, and thus not a reasonable argument. Discussing what happened before time is nonsensical. It does not necessarily follow that nothing existed in any form prior to time.
2. Matter does "create" itself in the universe. The evidence from quantum field theory demonstrates that over 95% of the mass of the universe actually comes from this empty space from which existent particles pop in and out of existence regularly. In short, absent a universe, a universe spontaneously forms.
3. An infinite regress is illogical. The assertion that existence requires a creator to exist requires a special pleading fallacy to accept, and still violates Occam's razor. The simplest explanation that satisfies this infinite regress is an absence of a creator.
ProfesserZ

Pro

ProfesserZ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Logic-Bomb

Con

As ProfessorZ was unable to respond in the last round, I will extend all my points and give him the opportunity to continue this debate fairly.
ProfesserZ

Pro

ProfesserZ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Logic-Bomb

Con

As no rebuttal has been offered, I extend my points.
ProfesserZ

Pro

ProfesserZ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Logic-Bomb

Con

Logic-Bomb forfeited this round.
ProfesserZ

Pro

ProfesserZ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Tepar 1 year ago
Tepar
ProfessorZ, sorry to say, but that's inaccurate. You won't reach the end at "the Creator of All Gods." This is because that begs the question, what made it? And what made the entity that made it? It keeps going.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
I would like to take it, but after our KCA debate .
Posted by its.chandler 1 year ago
its.chandler
okay so to clarify, u believe that there doesn't have to be a creator?
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
"this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."
By Austin Cline
No votes have been placed for this debate.