The Instigator
lit.wakefield
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
coz300
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Existence Proves 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 4 votes the winner is...
lit.wakefield
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,020 times Debate No: 30402
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

lit.wakefield

Con


The topic of this debate will whether or not existence proves a creator, specifically a god. It is my understanding that my opponent means the Christian God, however, I ask my opponent to explain which specific god he/she feels it proves (or if he/she feels that it just proves that there is some god).

Now what I have defined as existence, my opponent has defined as "creation." See the quote below:

"Creation proves the Creator. It really is that simple. How could anything exist without having been made? An Atheist believes that 'Something came from nothing.' Isn't it more logical that 'Something came from Something."? Of course, that begs the question 'Where did the second Something come from?' At that point we have reached the limit of human understanding, because human logic knows that something must come from something else. The Creator is God, of course and a basic definition of God is that humans are not able to comprehend the nature God. But, we are capable of understanding that there must be a God, because here we are. The nature of God can be debated, but his existence cannot. The fool says to himself 'there is no God' Creation proves the existence of a Creator."

In the context of this debate, existence can be taken to mean nature and living things (trees, cells, animals). My opponent may use the term "creation," however, as I will explain in my first argument, I do not feel that this is an appropriate label. My opponent will have to demonstrate how the mere existence of these things proves the existence of a god (or creator). I will leave it up to my opponent to define "creator" in his/her opening argument (Round 1). However, semantic arguments are not to be considered valid in this debate.

As I am Con, I will give my opponent the first chance to argue. He/she can simply repeat this statement if they choose to, or elaborate on it and change it. So that we may each have an equal number of posts, I ask that my opponent not post an argument the final round.

If he/she does not accept, I will open up the argument for someone else.
coz300

Pro

Existence proves a creator is an accurate portrayal of my comment. I appreciate that my opponent has been accurate. My point of view is not complex. It is very simple. Creation proves a Creator. Existence proves a Creator works too.

But first I want to clear something up. My statement is not intended to necessarily prove the nature of the Creator, only that it/he/she exists. I have my beliefs but recognize that I cannot prove them. My very specific statement is that a Creator exists in some form. It can be debated whether the Creator's nature accurately portrayed by Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, New Age or other. My statement means that a Creator of some kind must exist.

I'm simply restating Aristotle's PRIME MOVER theory, which St. Thomas Aquinas also agreed with.

Creation proves a Creator exists, just as a Ford pick up truck proves Ford Motor Company exists. If Creation existed without a Creator, then that would mean that a Ford Truck could exist without a place that built trucks.

As an example, picture an empty field and poof a truck suddenly appears. Now picture a factory, the doors open and out comes a new truck. Which sentence makes the most sense?

Now picture the vacuum of outer space where there is nothing, not even a single atom. Poof! The Big Bang happens and the universe comes into existence. From not a speck exists to suddenly untold Quadrillions of Quadrillions of tons of solid material exists for no reason at all. Something comes from nothing.

Next picture the vacuum of outer space where there is nothing, not even a single atom, but there is a Being, a Creator, who's existence is in comprehensible to the human mind. (Which is the definition of God.) The Creator creates the entire universe. The Creator is the cause of Creation.

Summarized: When faced with two possibilities 1) Creation came from Nothing or 2) Creation came from Something. Number 2 is the most logical. For number 1 to be true would require a person to believe that nothing existed, and from that sprang everything that exists.

Creation proves that a Creator exists.
Debate Round No. 1
lit.wakefield

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate. Good luck to you. I look forward to the rest of our debate.

Clarification

My opponent has clarified that he is not arguing for any specific god or creator. He is only arguing that existence proves there must be some creator. He has defined this "Creator" as a "Being . . . who's[sic] existence is in comprehensible to the human mind" or as a "God." This can be taken to mean an anthropomorphic deity that had the intention of creating and that has certain characteristics in common with humans, such as thoughts (I would presume; feel free to be more specific).

I must ask though whether he means "incomprehensible" or "comprehensible" as that is rather important.

Introduction

I will now begin my opening argument with a general overview of the case that I will be making in this debate. My opponent is of the opinion that existence proves a creator. I, however, believe that my opponent's arguments are essentially propping up a false dichotomy, or, more accurately, what might even be labelled a false "monochotomy," if there was such a term. He has presented questions that arise from a contemplation of existence such as "how did existence come to be?" and then claimed that the only possible explanation for existence is a creator/deity. I hold the position that in order for him to successfully defend this contention, he must provide evidence as to why this is the only possible explanation and absolutely must be correct. He has not done this so far.

"Creation"

The reason I swapped the word existence for creation is because "Creation proves a Creator" is a very poorly worded argument. It presupposes that there is a creator and essentially is a circular argument. There is a complete difference between cause and creation. The term creation implies that there is some intelligent being behind the result. In order for my opponent to support his assertions, he must prove that existence was, as he puts it "created," not simply caused. This is, of course, essentially synonymous with proving that there is a "Creator." So far, he has not done this. He has stated that there are two possibilities: "1) Creation came from Nothing or 2) Creation came from Something. Number 2 is the most logical." He asserts that this something must be a "Creator." This is, of course, a false dichotomy. My opponent has failed to successfully bridge the gap from showing that there must be a cause of existence (which he has not even proven, but only stated that it is more logical) to showing that the cause necessarily must be a god. Furthermore, he even seemingly admits that it is possible (even if unlikely) that existence came from nothing (which could be defined in many ways). This admittance alone is enough to shut down his argument, and could certainly be considered concession.

Rebuttal to False Analogy

My opponent has stated the following: "Creation proves a Creator exists, just as a Ford pick up truck proves Ford Motor Company exists. If Creation existed without a Creator, then that would mean that a Ford Truck could exist without a place that built trucks."

This is a false analogy because it is simply inaccurate to say that products of nature are equivalent to human creations. Nature is entirely different from that which is created by humans. The only reason that we have to believe that trucks come from factories or paintings from painters or books from writers is because all of our experiences support this conclusion. We see people painting paintings and authors writing books. We know this is how such things are caused. We know that trucks are made in factories.

However, we have no such experiences relating to plants or animals, cells or atoms (or any smaller units for that matter). It is therefore incorrect to draw a parallel between the two. Not to appeal to authority, but it should be noted that very few of the scientists and physicists who deal with the origin of the universe feel that a god is necessary to explain existence. God as an explanation is redundant, needlessly complex, and unsupported.

"As an example, picture an empty field and poof a truck suddenly appears. Now picture a factory, the doors open and out comes a new truck. Which sentence makes the most sense?"
I would point out that it is a stretch to call either a sentence. Neither is syntactically/grammatically sound. To be quite honest, the first might even make more sense as a sentence.

On the Matter of Nothing

It is confusing as to what my opponent means by nothing. If he means nothingness or "the absolute lack of absolutely anything" then I would point out that there is no evidence for the existence of that sort of nothing, and it seems that almost by definition it is impossible for such a nothing to exist.

As for vacuums, I would point out to my opponent something certainly can come from that sort of nothing. Virtual particles spontaneously pop in and out of existence in vacuums [1]. Furthermore, empty space contains energy and certainly cannot be considered to be "the absolute lack of anything." I feel that from what my opponent has said about the Big Bang, that he has a lack of understanding on the various sorts of nothing.

Anyway, I suggest that he clarify what he means by "nothing" lest either of us be accused of equivocation.

Alternate Explanations for the Universe

One does not even have to believe that the universe came from "nothing" uncaused to reject the viewpoint that a god is the only possible explanation.

Even if I grant my opponent his argument that there had to be some cause for the universe (which I will not), there are other equally plausible explanations apart from a god.

It must be asked, what/who created or caused the Creator? Proposing a god as a cause does nothing (I hate all these different definitions of nothing). It is simply proposing an unknown to explain another unknown. Any unknown can be proposed. A god is only one possibility. By proposing a god, existence is explained, but no progress has been made because now the god is left unexplained. Infinite regression is not desirable... Proposing that the god is eternal is just as useless. It is just as likely that the universe, in some form, has always existed. This cuts out an entire "step." If there had to be a first cause, a god is not even the most plausible explanation. A simpler first cause is more likely than a complex god. Many other explanations are thinkable that do not fit under the definition of "god." Why then is a god the only possible explanation? The only conclusion that can be made is that a god is not the only possible explanation.

Of course this is not an argument against the validity of my opponent's position, but if it was the case that a god is clearly the only explanation, would this viewpoint not be much more widespread and accepted?

Furthermore, my opponent clearly has no understanding of the Big Bang. Even if we had no explanation for existence other than a guess that everything was caused by a random explosion, this explanation would be no less plausible than a creator. They would both be unexplained unknowns. However, there is actually evidence for the big bang and the expansion of the universe, while there is no such evidence for a creator.

Conclusion

If my opponent is to fulfill his burden of proof and win this debate, he must show why any other conceivable explanation for existence cannot possibly be true.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
coz300

Pro

I apologize to my opponent for confusing him/her by committing a typographical error. The word I meant to use was ‘incomprehensible’, meaning ‘not understandable’ in the same way that the word ‘infinity’ or the ‘size of the universe’ is considered ‘incomprehensible’ by common people who do not insert the word ‘rather’ into to their writing.

If I were feeling snarky as my opponent did, then I would point out that he/she should clarify the meaning of the word ‘labelled’, and ‘monochotomy’, a word that does not exist for a reason. I will not dwell upon my opponent’s typographical errors and creative license if he/she will not dwell upon mine.
Now back to the main subject of debate: Existence proves a Creator
It really is a simple concept. If something exists then something must have made it. I think that science fiction has confused people. I think science fiction television shows, movies, and books portray the universe in a way that appears real to many people. They forget that the key word in ‘science fiction’ is fiction. This leads to long complicated arguments about things that are very simple.
If something exists then something made it.




I think that ‘Creation proves a Creator’ is a very poetic even elegant statement, and my opponents version is clunky. It looks like he/she has also violated his own debate rules and is engaged in an argument over semantic s. My opponent also should refrain from using the term ‘of course’, and instead give his reasons for his assertions.



My opponent makes statements without showing any logical progression of reasoning. He/she just makes unsupported statements. Using the terms ‘simply’ and ‘entirely’ are not substitutes for a reasoned argument. My opponent stated that I presupposed a creator by using the word creator, but then repeatedly presupposes his/her statements are common knowledge, which does not require support. I will help my opponent.
How is it inaccurate to say that products of nature are equivalent to human creation?
How is nature entirely different from that which is created by humans?


My opponent may not have experience with how plants and animals are created but most people are. How plants and animals are created is not a mystery to most people. I refer my opponent to the term ‘procreation’ for clarification.
My opponent again, makes a statement without supporting it. ‘Few scientists’ means some do. I will use my opponent’s technique of unsupported statements and say that the ones that ‘do’ are the really good ones. My opponent says ‘not to appeal to authority’, but then does which continues a familiar pattern.
Here is another unsupported statement that I will give my opponent an opportunity to clarify.
How is God as an explanation redundant?



My opponent has no counter to my analogy, and so impersonates a 5th grade English teacher. He/She can do so because his/her writing is perfect.
My opponent ignores the question because the answer is obvious to anyone who is mature and possesses commonsense, and because to answer the question would be to admit defeat in this debate.
I will help my opponent. Which of my so-called sentences makes the most sense to you?
So now, my opponent is going to debate the mean of the word ‘nothing’. My opponent continues to avoid the topic by engaging in debates over the meaning of common words.
It is impossible for a human being to understand how ‘the absolute lack of anything’ can exist, which is my point, that the only logical way for ‘nothingness’ to exist is if something illogical (to humans) does exist.

Who said anything about vacuums? Virtual particles, never heard of that, but if you say they pop in and out of vacuums, it must be true. I would ask my opponent to present his/her credentials that give him/her the authority to make such statements.
If empty space contained energy then it would not be empty, so that would not be the nothing I am referring to.
I did not remember making any statement about the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory has a common meaning. That all matter in the universe originated single point. Is my opponent unaware of the commonly known theory?
My opponent, rather than addressing the Big Bang theory as it pertains to this debate, engages in a fruitless self-discussion about the ‘various sorts of nothing’. He/She ignores discussing the Big Bang theory in the context of this debate then he/she would have to admit that even if the Big Bang theory is proven as the origin of the universe, that there would still be no logical explanation for where the Big Bang came from, which leads to the logical conclusion that something illogical exists.
The existence of Creator is by definition illogical, but the logical progression to prove he exists is not.
I noticed that my opponent ignored the fact that Aristotle agreed with my statement, more accurately I was agreeing with his. It’s called the Prime Mover theory. I await my opponents discussion of the meaning of the term ‘primary’ and the many different types of moving.





Opponent fails to state any equally plausible explanations.

My opponent is engaging in a debate about the nature of the creator, which I already acknowledged was provable. I would ask that my opponent stay on topic.

My opponent admits he/she is off topic. I could comment on the structure of this sentence but will not except to again say that using the terms ‘of course’ and ‘clearly’ is not a substitute for a reasoned argument.

In this paragraph my opponent engages in a redundant mocking of my knowledge of the Big Bang theory, while doing nothing to demonstrate his/her knowledge of the subject. This subject, which I will redundantly state, has a common meaning. My opponent should familiarize himself/herself with it.


My proof is a logical progression of thought to an illogical explanation. It is not possible to understand how a Creator can exist, but it is logical that one must exist because here we are. How can physical matter come into existence where no matter existed?
Something coming from an ‘absolute lack of anything’ is not logically possible; therefore, the explanation must be illogical.
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

If my opponent cannot or will not answer the question I have posed above or present credentials, which give gravitas to the unsupported statements I pointed out, then I will assume he/she is unable to.
I also would like to ask my opponent to refrain from engaging in snarky condescending remarks, which are common on the internet. I direct my opponent to http://en.wikipedia.org... to help him/her in improving his/her performance.
My opponent left a Wikipedia about Quantum fluctuation. I challenge him in one sentence to show that he/she knows what it means, and then in another sentence explain how it refutes the existence of a creator. Leaving this link is just another in a pattern of unsupported statements he/she continues to inject into this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
lit.wakefield

Con

First off, I would like to apologize to my opponent if he felt that I was in any way mocking him. It was not my intention to offend him.

Overview

My main point is that my opponent has not addressed any of the alternate explanations I proposed or the other conceiveable explanations and has failed to show why the only possible cause of existence is an incomprehensible, illogical god.

Rebuttal

I would point out that I am limited in the length of my response and that these terms are fairly unimportant and, I thought, fairly clear in context. My point was that my opponent is excluding equally possible explanations. This is, as I stated, essentially a false dichotomy aka an either-or-fallacy ("a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option"[1]). This is the nature of the entirety of my opponent's argument. The only difference, as I explained, is that only one possibility has been presented (either a creator or a creator).

All the words that I have asked for clarification on are important to the debate.

As I previously pointed out, it is completely different to say that "If something exists then something made it" than it is to say that that something must be a god.

"I think that ‘Creation proves a Creator’ is a very poetic even[sic] elegant statement, and my opponents[sic] version is clunky." The subjective elegance of a statement is not a testament to its validity. My point was that "Creation proves a Creator" can be a circular argument because it the word creation, implies (if not by definition states) that a creator created it. This is why definition is so important. If by created, my opponent means caused, it is confusing to use the term created, due to its implications. Creation essentially presupposes that he is correct.

"It looks like he/she has also violated his own debate rules and is engaged in an argument over semantic s[sic]." I meant the following[2]: "Semantics occurs if one uses a word that has multiple meanings, and the opponent twists the meaning around so that the definition favors him or her . . ." My point was that my opponent was not to be allowed to twist the meaning of god in a dishonest way (he has not). The point was not that I cannot ask what my opponent means by the words he uses.

"My opponent makes statements without showing any logical progression of reasoning. He/she just makes unsupported statements . . ." I found this to be highly hypocritcal. Consider a few of his unsupported arguments: 1. That what he defines as nothing exists or once existed 2. That a god is the only explanation for existence 3. That nature is equivalent to man-made items (with regards to his analogy) 4. That there is no logical explanation for the Big Bang (an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy: we don't have a logical explanation/ don't know if if there is one, therefore there is not one) 5. Matter cannot come from nonmatter (untrue; energy can be converted to matter for example [3])

Even though I already explained both of the statements he asserts I asserted without explanation, I will reelaborate. Nature is not made by man. There is no thought or being behind it. Trucks are not natural and do not procreate. My opponent has either misunderstood my argument or deliberately presented a straw man in order to avoid it. I never said that it was a mystery how new organisms come to exist. My point was that a god fashioning new trees or animals is not observed. If my opponent actually feels that nature and products of industry are somehow the same, the burden of proof is on him to show this.

My point about scientists was something I just thought should be noted. It was not an argument which is exactly why I said "not to appeal to authority."

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow on why god is redundant[4]: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." A god as an explanation is not necessary and therefore redundant. Also, in any circumstance, proposing an unknown to explain an unknown that can simply stand by itself is redundant.

To say I have no counter to his analogy is blatantly false. Refer to the two paragraphs preceding the one my opponent is referring to (which I intended to be a comical close to the section; I know that my grammar is far from perfect). I already explained why it is a false analogy to compare a truck to something like a tree or other more simple things. I am not debating the meaning of nothing. I was simply asking what my opponent meant by nothing.

"The only logical way for ‘nothingness’ to exist is if something illogical (to humans) does exist." If my opponent wants to argue that nothingness proves the existence of "something illogical," he'll first have to prove that nothingness exists (I've already pointed out the contradictory nature of this).

My opponent mentioned "the vacuum of outer space" and claimed that it is illogical that something can come from nothing, so I mentioned virtual particles (Of course they come from a different kind of nothing than the one my opponent talks of). It is a well known and well-documented phenomina that I provided a source for.

My opponent certainly did mention the Big Bang in his opening statement ("Poof! The Big Bang happens. . ."). What the actual theory states is not of great importance to the debate. If my opponent would like to research it on his own, he may feel free to. I already gave other possible explanations for the origin of existence besides a creator.

My opponent seems to have presented this argument:
P1: The Big Bang must have an explanation
P2: There is no logical explanation for the Big Bang
C: There is an illogical explanation

Note has he provided no support for either premise (particularly P2) or defined logical. He also has not show why this "illogical thing" must be a "creator." Furthermore, if he is supporting an illogical explanation then why does he have a problem with everything coming from absolutely nothing or any other illogical explanation?

Aristotle's position on the issue is irrelevant. This is another example of my opponent doing exactly what he accused me of (making an argumenum ad verecundiam).

"Opponent fails to state any equally plausible explanations." I gave plausible explanations that, with Occam's razor in mind, are even more plausible explanations, such as the cause of the universe being something very simple. This is not engaging in a debate about "the nature of the creator" because none of the explanations that I proposed fit under my opponent's definition of creator. My opponent has simply asserted that they are not plausible without addressing any of them.

I never meant to mock my opponent's misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. There is no need for me to "demonstrate my knowledge on the subject." Yes, it does have a “common meaning” that my opponent has missed (as is demonstrated by his talk of quadrillions of tons of solid material suddenly popping into existence.) Also I would ask the reader to note that my opponent has plagiarised Wikipedia ("Deductive reasoning links..."; no citation).

Remember that a drop counts as concession.

It was the source for my statement about virtual particles... Furthermore, I do not need to refute the existence of a creator. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove one.

Conclusion

My opponent has failed to fulfill his burden of proof and has ignored my core argument entirely.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My opponent's evidence is non-existent.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://debate.org...
[3] http://www.nobelprize.org...
[4] The Grand Design

coz300

Pro

My opponents statements from the previous round are italiczed.

”I am not debating the meaning of nothing. I was simply asking what my opponent meant by nothing.


"The only logical way for ‘nothingness’ to exist is if something illogical (to humans) does exist." If my opponent wants to argue that nothingness proves the existence of "something illogical," he'll first have to prove that nothingness exists (I've already pointed out the contradictory nature of this).

My opponent mentioned "the vacuum of outer space" and claimed that it is illogical that something can come from nothing, so I mentioned virtual particles (Of course they come from a different kind of nothing than the one my opponent talks of). It is a well known and well-documented phenomina that I provided a source for.”


My opponent continues his argument with himself about the meaning of the word nothing, even as he says that he is not engaged in a debate about the meaning of the word nothing, and even after I adopted his term ‘absolute lack of anything’ as my own for the purposes of clarifying a trivial and distracting issue.





“My opponent seems to have presented this argument:
P1: The Big Bang must have an explanation
P2: There is no logical explanation for the Big Bang
C: There is an illogical explanation”

My opponent has confused himself, which tends to happen when a person has endless debates about the meaning of the word ‘nothing’.
My argument is clearly stated that ‘Creation proves a Creator’, nothing more nothing less. It is accurately represented by the title of this debate, ‘Existence proves a Creator’.

The premise is that ‘nothing did exist’ except for God, and then God said ‘Let there be light…’ and everything went from there. (Wait for his internal debate about the many meanings of the word everything in round 4)



Aristotle's position on the issue is irrelevant. This is another example of my opponent doing exactly what he accused me of (making an argumenum ad verecundiam).

Aristotle’s position is irrelevant? Again, no logical reasoning why Aristotle is irrelevant, just an unqualified statement by an unqualified person. He says it so it must be true. My opponent references Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow to support his convoluted 100 % theoretical position on about ‘gravity creating something from nothing’, but cannot respect Aristotle’s opinion on a very simple easily provable statement that there must be a Prime Mover.

I can easily refute Hawkings. Where did the law of gravity come from?

No matter how far back to the origin of the universe you go, even if all that existed was energy, and then the question would be, where did the energy come from? That’s where you find the Creator. The last question is an unanswerable one. Where did the Creator come from?




I never meant to mock my opponent's misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. There is no need for me to "demonstrate my knowledge on the subject." Yes, it does have a “common meaning” that my opponent has missed (as is demonstrated by his talk of quadrillions of tons of solid material suddenly popping into existence.) Also I would ask the reader to note that my opponent has plagiarised Wikipedia ("Deductive reasoning links..."; no citation).

I accept my opponents apology for is mocking tone, and rude statements in the previous rounds.

Here again my opponent adopts the tactics of a pseudo-intellectual, common among self-professed Satanists. Big words, serve as substitute for an actual coherent logical thought, and petty accusations substitute for a counter-argument.


My conclusion

1) My opponent failed to respond to a single one of my challenges to explain his unsupported statements.
2) My opponent has failed to present credentials that give him the authority to make very technical statements as I mentioned above.
3) My opponent has failed to respond to my challenge to prove that he understands what ‘Quantum fluctuation’ is, or how it refutes the existence of a Creator. He used the ‘link’ as an argument for his side of the debate; it is the equivalent of tossing someone a magazine during a live debate and saying ‘Read the article on page 22, that’s what I think too.’ This is just another example of my opponent making unsupported statements.
4) My opponent has surrendered this debate by not engaging in it.
5) My opponent has surrendered this debate because he is unable to present a clear concise opinion in his own words, of any kind.


I challenge my opponent to try again to present his opposing opinion in 500 words or less. Let them be his own words, supported by his own thoughts and opinions. If you can’t explain it in your own words then it is not your own thought.

Simple claims require simple evidence. Something cannot come from nothing, therefore Creation proves a Creator exists.

P.S. I ask that he please not continue his ramblings about the meaning of the word nothing, as I accepted his term as stated above.
Debate Round No. 3
lit.wakefield

Con

First note that in R1 I specified that my opponent should not argue the final round in order to give us both an equal number of rounds. Anything more than a "vote for pro" statement should be considered to be violation of this. Also note that my opponent has dropped more of my arguments, including my argument about nature not being equivalent to that which is man made.

Summary
My opponent once again accused me of that which he is guilty of. He again failed to address my central point that a creator is not the only possible explanation for existence. He provided no rebuttals to the other possible explanations I presented or other conceivable explanations that do not fall under my opponent's definition of “creator.”

Rebuttals and Final Satement

On Nothingness
I have not once debated the meaning of the word "nothing." I acknowledged my opponent's definition of nothing as the "absolute lack of anything.” It is not at all a trivial word. Discussion would have been impossible without a clear definition.

My point was that my opponent simply asserted in this debate that once there was an "absolute lack of anything" without providing evidence for this. He simply assumed that something did not always exist and could not have always existed (besides a creator). Making a distinction is different from saying "No, that's not what nothing is." I never did the latter. I was debating whether "nothing" exists (which as I said, seems a rather contradictory claim) and pointing out that it is a false dichotomy to claim that either one must believe that there is a god or one must believe that something came from “the absolute lack of anything.”

Missed My Point
My point was that my opponent provided no evidence for his assertion that "there must be an illogical explanation for existence."
He stated the following: "The premise is that ‘nothing did exist’ except for God..." If this is his premise, it does nothing for him. He provided no evidence for his assertion/premise that nothing existed or that a god did.

Aristotle
It's different to argue for a position taken from someone else than it is to argue that a position is correct because someone held it. Notice I never said my position is right because Stephen Hawking said it is. My opponent asked me to address the fact that Aristotle agreed with him. That is an argument from authority. My logical reason for dismissing the argument is that it is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with my opponent. As I previously pointed out, I could just as easily point out how many scientists do not believe in a god. As I previously stated, it should be noted that those who deal with the origin of the universe do not feel that a god is necessary as an explanation, but this does not constitute a proper argument against one (which is of course why I presented others).

Note that my opponent did not even explain the “PRIME MOVER theory.” He expected me to argue against a position that he did not even present.

My opponent gave no reason why this “prime mover” must be a god. One can simply argue that the universe has always existed, in some form. Maybe it would be incorrect to call it “the universe,” but it is special pleading to assert that only a god could have not needed a cause. I would point out the hypocrisy in claiming that there must be an explanation and then proposing a god without an explanation as one.

Redundancy
"I can easily refute Hawkings[sic]. Where did the law of gravity come from?"
I would like to thank my opponent for displaying my point perfectly. My opponent completely misunderstood my point on the matter of redundancy once again and pointed out the own flaw in his argument.

It is special pleading to suggest that one must ask the question "Where did gravity come from?" but not "Where did the Creator come from?" To propose an unexplained god to explain gravity is redundant. It is utterly pointless musing. A god has no predictive capability or special explanatory power. He accepted that "Where did the Creator come from?" is unanswerable but failed to show why the question “Where did gravity come from?” need be answered.

My opponent claimed that it need be asked where energy came from but it need not be asked where this “creator” came from. That is a baseless, unwarranted assertion and a fallacy (special pleading).

Why must one go back a step and say something created gravity? Why not stop with that which we know exists? There is no reason to take a step back. One might as well propose an infinite regression of god creating god creating god or propose an arbitrary number of gods and claim that the first one is special and need not be explained. If something always existed or was uncaused, there is no reason why it absolutely must have been a god/creator as defined by my opponent. It is redundant to propose an unknown to explain an unknown in this manner.

Big Bang
My opponent seemed to have been desperate to go off on any tangent in this debate instead of actually fulfilling his burden of proof. This is a debate not a lecture. I don't need to explain the Big Bang theory because it's irrelevant to my contentions. All I was pointing out is that according to the theory, solid material did not suddenly pop into existence, and particles/material did not come until later (after the first expansion of the universe) [1].
Let it be noted that I am a self-professed non-theistic Satanist and do not appreciate this unsupported and irrelevant attack on Satanists.
"Big words, serve as substitute[sic] for an actual coherent logical thought, and petty accusations substitute for a counter-argument."
I've already shown the irony and hypocrisy of this statement.

Read What I Wrote
1. I responded to all of them. If my opponent had specified which he felt I did not explain, I would have attempted to again. Note that I responded to his challenge on the matter of nature/existence being equivalent to products of industry, and he, in response, dropped the argument.
2. See 3
3. A source clearly cited for 2. I fail to understand how my opponent read my argument and did not understand this. The reader should of course note that as I have already explained, the page about Quantum fluctuation was my source that gave me "the authority to make very technical statements," as my opponent puts it, with regards to virtual particles.
4. I would say this of my opponent. He failed to explain why the only possible explanation of existence is a Creator and did not address my main contention.
5. My arguments have been entirely in my own words (besides the quotations). My quotation of Hawking was ancillary. My opponent, on the other hand, not only plagiarized Wikipedia, but also asserted that I must address “Aristotle's PRIME MOVER theory” when he did not even explain it as argued by Aristotle.

My opponent then attempted to get me to limit my response to even fewer words than his R3 statement. This seems to me to be a desperate tactic. I would point out to my opponent that he does not dictate the response length and has no right to impose his standards on this debate.

Alternate Explanations
I was hoping that my opponent would have a problem with other conceivable explanations, however he did not address this argument at all. This is concession. I conclude that I have won.

Conclusion
My opponent provided no evidence that something had to come from nothing. Even if it is agreed upon that existence/nature came from something, a “creator” is not proven. Saying that a “creator” could always exist but something other than a “creator” could not have always existed is special pleading. My opponent addressed none of the alternate explanations and failed to meet his burden of proof to show that an incomprehensible god/being is the only possible explanation for existence. He dropped all of my main arguments.

Also, I apologize for previously misspelling "plagiarized," "argumentum," and "phenomena."

Thank You.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
coz300

Pro

Sorry, it does not work that way. A debate has 4 rounds, I will submit a 4th round statement.

I have repeatedly asked my opponent to support his statements with reasoning. He has not.

I asked him to present his credentials for making statements which require high levels of knowledge, instead he gives me wikipedia links, and says 'there, argue with this article, which I do not understand myself'. He has no personal knowledge or credentials to base his statements on.

I asked him over and over to support his reasoning on specific statements he made. He has not.

Finally, in a desperate attempt to find out exactly what his own knowledge and opinion is on this subject is. I asked him to be brief and to use his own words. As you can see from his last rambling statement he failed the challenge. Note also that he continues his fascination with the word nothing. I think he must be related to Bill Clinton. I may challenge him to a debate about the meaning of the word 'is'.

Every statement ends by him declaring victory if I fail to do something. He wasted more time during this debate correcting my grammar, and prancing around as a pseudo intellectual than he did debating the topic. I repeatedly explained and supported my position in several ways in order to help him better understand my point of view, but I can't find anywhere in four rounds of debate where he explained is position to me.

When boiled down this debate consisted of me stating my position, and my opponent saying 'no, it's not'.
My general statement: 'Creation proves a Creator' exists.
My opponent's typical response: 'no, it doesn't', 'read this article', 'you spelled that wrong', or some type of mocking and/or arrogant statement of my dumbness

Brevity is the soul of wit, and my opponent proves the true by demonstrating the opposite.

My opponent lost this debate from the outset because he was unable to understand the simple logic of a truism. It is not debatable to know that 'Something cannot come from nothing.' It is a fact.

1)Matter cannot be destroyed or created it can only change forms...
2)An object at rest stays at rest until a force acts upon it...

For the purpose of this debate this addition to the to these two physical laws should be added ...except for God

The Creator obviously can create matter, and can give it a show to get it all moving. But where there is no matter, it cannot be created, and it sure can't get moving if it's not there.

It is very telling that argument against the existence of God the Creator requires the building of Universities and the 'educating' of millions of students twisting themselves into pretzels of logic, inventing hair brained concepts like the multiple types of 'nothingness', arrogance to close minds, fancy words to close eyes. But all that is required to prove that God exists is simple logical statements.

Something cannot come from Nothing
Existence proves the Creator
Creation proves a Creator

Here is some additional information for those of you with open minds and open hearts. This information is for those who seek the truth.
https://www.youtube.com...
www.6000years.org

Preview: Physical evidence exists for the parting of Red Sea, the remain chariots under the sea, a demon topped bell found inside a lump of coal in W.Virginia, and Noah's Ark was discovered a long time ago and Turkey built a National Park around it.

I thank my opponent, and pray for him. If you read his profile, you'll see he self-describes himself as a Satanist, which explains his incoherent statements, his pseudo-intellectual arrogance, and his willful ignorance. It is a sad fact at tare's exist.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
religious question: Where will I spend eternity? I better bow my head and clasp my hands in prayer :)

Big Kids question: How will I live a noble life that leaves a legacy? I better use my head and put my hands to work :)

The science of today, was Not known to Charles Darwin, Isaac "christian superhero" Newton, Albert Einstein. Todays scientists are smarter than those guys. Science has superseded and surpassed religion, far beyond your comprehension in 2013. Mankind is highly intelligent a man is dumb :)

The self is your purpose, the faith you have is in yourself, the life you create is in your hands. Instead, millions clasp those hands in prayer to be good, when you should put those hands to work because you want to be good, you want to leave a legacy, you want to inspire others, Not because you get a reward for obeying.

Good boy you worship sky daddy, here is your scooby snack,that has far less virtue than being a good boy simply because you want too, for no other reason that you are grateful to be alive :)

If you want evidence we came from a primordial soup, look inside the condom when youre done :)
Posted by BigSky 3 years ago
BigSky
This was kind of a sad defense of creation... if con ever wants another debate on the issue I would happily comply.
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
I mention this because you did not follow--"So that we may each have an equal number of posts, I ask that my opponent not post an argument the final round."
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
FYI to the Contender -- What the Instigator posts in round one are the rules / terms of the debate. If you do not accept them, you can ask them in comments and/or messages to modify them. If you do accept the debate, then you are held to those terms.
Posted by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
lit.wakefield
I was honestly hoping for a better debate...
Posted by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
lit.wakefield
I honestly wasn't trying to mock you. I was just pointing out that your explanation of the Big Bang is inaccurate. The Big Bang marks the beginning of the expansion of the universe. Particles and solid material did not come until later. At least that is what the theory states. I would have explained more in my argument, but I already had to cut out a few thousand words.
Posted by BillyTheKids 4 years ago
BillyTheKids
lit.wakefield I love that profile pic of yours <3
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
I saw Pro's comment in the opinion section and asked for a debate. When I was a fundamentalist, I actually found this argument to be fairly convincing, so I thought I'd revisit it from the opposing side. I don't, however, think that it is quite the same as the watchmaker argument as my opponent is talking about the beginning of the universe, not the complexity of life (the latter is actually what I was hoping he would talk about). We'll see how it goes.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
I would expect a Con win, the watchmaker argument is easily debunked, yet I don't understand that for the purposes of this debate, why is Con the instigator?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by EvanK 3 years ago
EvanK
lit.wakefieldcoz300Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to the rule violation of Pro, conduct goes to con. Con also had better spelling and grammar. None of Pro's arguments were convincing, and con was able to refute them rather easily.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
lit.wakefieldcoz300Tied
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: Conduct to con: pro used an ad-hominem attack by saying con is an satanist and is therefore ignorant. Arguments to con because pro has not met his burden of proof.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
lit.wakefieldcoz300Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: "Sorry, it does not work that way. A debate has 4 rounds, I will submit a 4th round statement." - Pro ignored the debate terms which does not allow him to post in round four. I disregard his round four and award Con conduct for this breach of rules/etiquette. Arguments: Pro's basic argument was, "When faced with two possibilities 1) Creation came from Nothing or 2) Creation came from Something. Number 2 is the most logical." While this sounds sensible enough, Con challenged that Pro has not proven--absolutely or even probabilitstically--that there was once "nothing". He also provided a source to substantiate energy-matter equivalence and thus the possibly of matter appearing where there is no matter. Pro did not meet the standard of the gauntlet thrown in round one--"My opponent will have to demonstrate how the mere existence of these things proves the existence of a god (or creator)". Sources: I award sources to Con primarily for his round 3 lead w/ many good sources.
Vote Placed by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
lit.wakefieldcoz300Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: How do I submit a hospital bill for reimbursement? I fell asleep reading Pro's old and tired arguments, and the lameness triggered spontaneous narcolepsy. Therefore due to my head injury from nonsense, I will vote accordingly :)