The Instigator
JimShady
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
QueenDaisy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Existence of Creator- Yes or No, BoP on Pro

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 4/20/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 102084
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

JimShady

Pro

I've looked through your profile/voting log and it seems you are firmly atheist. Therefore I challenge you to a friendly debate: I must prove that a creator exists, and you must try to prove that a creator does not exist. BoP is only on me.

Round 1: will be for acceptance
Round 2: Arguments, no rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals, no new arguments.

Please accept, this will be a quick debate and fun too.
QueenDaisy

Con

Since we have agreed that the burden of proof is on Pro, I have accepted the debate. I wish my opponent the best of luck, and look forward to an interesting and fruitful discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
JimShady

Pro

First off this is not an easy task to prove a creator exists, and if it was then everybody would be an atheist. But I will try nonetheless.

There is creation, therefore there is a creator. Simple as that. I'm not necessarily pointing towards God (my beliefs are in the Christian God), but just a creator, maybe creators. I'll use the basic argument that Saint Thomas Aquinas used in his five proof s that a creator exists. There link for them is below in sources [1]. Check them all out if you want. I'll just be using the first argument. Taken directly from the website:

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1.Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2.Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3.Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4.Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5.Therefore nothing can move itself.
6.Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7.The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8.Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

I know I'm being lazy by taking someone's argument. Trust me, I got a lot more arguments, but for this debate I think using only this one will be sufficient. As the rules say, please state your argument for the opposite, and we can refute in Round 3. Thanks again to Con accepting this debate, I know it's short, but I accidentally put a lot of business on my hands and don't got that much time. But thanks for the debate.

Sources:
1. http://web.mnstate.edu...
QueenDaisy

Con

In order to keep with the rules outlines in R1, I will not provide any specific refutation to my opponent's R2 arguments. In order to do this, I have not yet read their R2 argument, and will not do so until it is time for me to plan my R3 argument.

Since we have agreed that the burden of proof is on Pro, my case will be primarily refutation. However, in order to make sure I have said plenty, I will provide explanations to why commonly used theistic arguments are incorrect. If any of these happen to be the arguments provided by Pro, this is by coincidence- I have not yet read their R2 argument.

Theistic arguments essentially fall into two categories: observing the physical world and trying to use this to justify the existence of a God, and arguments based on philosophy alone. I will call these "empirical" and "philosophical" arguments.

Empirical theistic arguments always neglect some aspect of the physical world. For instance, the well-known Kalam Cosmological argument (see source 1) attempts to apply conventional, macroscopic causality to systems which needn't obey it. For instance, in quantum mechanics, there is a phenomenon called "spontaneous pair production" where a matter and anti-matter pair of particles spontaneously emerge, without cause, and then destroy each other. This happens all the time within the universe, and it violates conventional, macroscopic causality.
Likewise, the fine-tuning argument (see source 3) neglects the fact that most of the physical constants are defined *in terms of one another*. For instance, Coulomb's constant (see source 4) is always equal to the reciprocal of the product of 4 with pi with the permittivity of free space (see source 5) regardless of the actual value of these numbers. This reduces the solution to the origin of inhabitable universes from a non-polynomial (NP) to a polynomial (P) problem (see source 6). Essentially, there's no longer any need to invoke a deity.

Philosophical theistic arguments are often entirely consistent, but they prove something which is not an intelligent creator. For instance, the Ontological argument (see source 7) is essentially as follows:
P1: God is the most powerful being.
P2: It is more powerful to exist than to not exist.
C: Therefore, God must exist.
[Sometimes the word "powerful" is replaced with "perfect", to the same effect].
The second premise feeds into the first, and basically results in the statement that "The most powerful being that exists must exist". This is obvious, but it doesn't prove the existence of an intelligent creator.

So, ask yourself, readers: has Pro overlooked something about the physical world? If so, I am currently studying for a physics degree, and will point out any oversights made by Pro in my R3 speech. Has Pro just provided a bunch of circular arguments, or proven something obvious (that the most powerful being which exists, exists) but not the existence of a creator? Given my experience with theistic arguments, it is likely that they have.

As the burden of proof is on Pro, my argument doesn't really require any positive claims to substantiate. However, I will point out that the origin of the universe has been convincingly explained by the Big Bang Theory (see source 8); there was a time when we had no explanation for the origin of the universe, and so "God" was the answer people jumped to. Now, we have the Big Bang Theory to explain that, and we have evidence that it needn't obey conventional, macroscopic causality (see the end of my 4th paragraph).
If you are convinced (and you should be) that the Big Bang Theory explains the universe without the need for a God, then you necessarily agree with my case. If, however, you are not convinced, then you can still agree with me if you are also not convinced by Pro- e.g. if you're not convinced that the universe was made by a creator, nor that it was made by the Big Bang- you're still on the side which concludes that a creator does not exist (or that there's no reason to think that one does). Hence, you agree with my stance, as Con.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to the R3 rebuttals, as I feel these will be the most interesting part of the debate.

Sources:
1) http://www.strongatheism.net...
2) https://physics.stackexchange.com...
3) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
4) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
5) https://en.wikipedia.org...
6) http://www.claymath.org...
7) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
8) http://www.space.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JimShady

Pro

By definition, A creator/God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If the creator is not one of these things, than the creator is not the creator. So, because the creator is omnipotent, or all powerful, he has the power to make spontaneous pair production seem like the means of creation to our feeble minds even if it isn't. He has infinite knowledge to know how to do so. He can violate conventional laws of science because he is all powerful.

He transcends physical constants because he is all powerful. The philosophical argument you bring up is flawed I will concede that, that's why I didn't choose it.

Pro may overlook something in the physical world because God is fully capable of doing so because he is all powerful. Anything you bring up, any point you offer can be easily defeated because the creator is omnipotent and omniscient. We can't understand it, it's too above us.
QueenDaisy

Con

"There is creation, therefore there is a creator. Simple as that. I'm not necessarily pointing towards God (my beliefs are in the Christian God), but just a creator, maybe creators."

Calling it "creation" assumes the existence of a creator. This is a "begging the question" fallacy (see source 9).

As for the "argument from motion", as expected, it overlooks aspects of the physical world:

Premise 3 "Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion" is flawed:
There are plenty of examples of motion being produced from a system without some external moving force- supernovae (see source 10), for instance, are immense explosions caused by a star collapsing in on itself; no external motion needed- just gravity and nuclear potential energy.

5: plenty of things move themselves- CF: supernovae.

6: As before, not true- this is dependent on 3 and 5.

8 is very much dependent on 3, 5, and 6, and these have been refuted.

Pro later says in R3: "Pro may overlook something in the physical world because God is fully capable of doing so because he is all powerful.". This would apply if I were using the laws of nature to argue that God cannot exist- God could violate these laws if he were to exist. However, it is not a response to pointing out the flaws in Pro's argument based on motion- that God could violate these laws is irrelevant; the argument Pro has produced is still not sufficient to use the laws of nature to justify the existence of God.

So, to summarise:
1) As expected, Pro's case is based on the laws of physics, but he neglects crucial information and the argument falls apart as it is based on false premises.
2) Arguments based purely on philosophy are similarly flawed, and Pro even agrees about this.
3) The Big Bang convincingly explains the origin of the universe without the need to invoke a deity.
4) Therefore, it is unlikely that an intelligent creator exists, and it is certainly the case that Pro hasn't provided us with a convincing reason to think one does.

Hence, I urge you to side with my case: there is no reason to think an intelligent creator exists.

Sources:
[9]: http://www.nizkor.org...
[10]: https://www.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
I knew that vote was goin' to be reported from the moment I saw it.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: princearchitect// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments), 2 points to Con (Soruces). Reasons for voting decision: The very fact that Con didn't even read Pro's round 2 argument renders her complete round two argument meaningless, therefore Pro easily wins that round. Con's Big Bang Theory argument has been easily refuted by the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states energy can't be created or destroyed, and Con failed to provide any evidence as to where did all the energy that caused the Big Bang come from? And the very fact that no human being was alive that actually witnessed the Big Bang happen cannot with a good conscience say with absolute certainty that that's exactly how it happen. Nowhere in Con's source #10 it states evidence that supernovas have the ability to cause its own motion so Con's round 3 #5 argument fails not validated by its own source. Con did provide better sources so Con get that in my vote.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific points made by both sides in the debate. Merely assessing Con"s arguments is not sufficient. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter just restates the decision without comparing sources between the two debaters, and doesn"t clarify why he thinks Con had better sources.
************************************************************************
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
If I were to vote, I'd definitely give points to Daisy for grammar, more convincing arguments and more reliable sources.

Firstly, grammar: Throughout the debate, Jim talked in an informal fashion. His arguments were disorganized, he used incomplete sentences, and made some small grammar mistakes.

Secondly, convincing arguments: The Burden of Proof was placed entirely on Jim. However, Jim's argument simply focuses on the baseless idea that something was created, therefore there had to be a creator. He fails to provide evidence, instead using the excuse that "He can violate conventional laws of science because he is all powerful," and ". Anything you bring up, any point you offer can be easily defeated because the creator is omnipotent and omniscient." Instead of giving up, Daisy made an excellent argument. She argues that, because there is no scientific evidence, there is no evidence of God's existence. Also, she successfully refuted Jim's arguments to the point where he virtually conceded and could not make any response defending his arguments.

Finally, reliable sources: Jim failed to use any resources to support his argument, making it much less reliable and credible. However, Daisy made a great effort to support many of her points with reliable sources. She clearly gets points for reliable sources.
Posted by QueenDaisy 1 year ago
QueenDaisy
Very well. In that case, I will accept.
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
Fair enough, that's a good point. I'll switch the BoP to only me. However I'd be happy if you could at least TRY to prove your side of the debate.
Posted by QueenDaisy 1 year ago
QueenDaisy
I'm arguing that one needn't prove a negative claim. If I claim to have a pet unicorn, it's my job to prove I have it- not your job to prove I don't. Likewise, if you claim to have a pet hamster, the onus is on you to demonstrate this- not on me to demonstrate that you do not.

The burden of proof is always on whoever is making a positive claim, and the existence of God is a positive claim. I will accept no debate which places the onus on me to prove that God does not exist, just as I would not accept a debate which requires me to prove you do not have a pet unicorn, or a pet hamster.
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
So you are acknowledging the fact that it's impossible to prove your point?
Posted by QueenDaisy 1 year ago
QueenDaisy
You have phrased the debate in a way I find unacceptable- currently, you assert that the burden of proof is on both parties. I will accept your challenge if you agree to change it such that we either acknowledge that the burden of proof is on you, or we make no axiomatic declaration as to what the burden of proof is, and instead must argue this as part of our debate. Those are the only terms on which I will accept this debate, but I also promise that I will accept if you agree to them.
No votes have been placed for this debate.