The Instigator
MrButtons22
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

God Does Exist

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,017 times Debate No: 8963
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (12)

 

MrButtons22

Pro

My argument is not for a specific deity, but rather that a Deity did create the universe. What methods He/She/It used is irrelevant in this debate. The point is that the Cosmos was made by someone. I have no opening arguments, as to me nature itself should be evidence enough to show that Intelligence created it, but I will ask some questions in order to start this debate off:
1) How did the Big Bang (If you believe that that was how the universe started. I don't, but for the sake of the debate, we will argue from the assumption that it is true.) begin and create itself?
2) How were the laws established (inertia, gravity, etc.)?
Hopefully that will be sufficient to begin the debate. Thank you!
Danielle

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. I hope my opponent knows that an answer to this question is obviously not absolute at this moment, as there are currently many differing schools of thought. If that is understood, we can begin.

Since this is a 5 round debate, I will begin my first round with a similar introduction.

My opponent has supplied no definitions, so I will present our argument with the following:

Creation: to cause to come into existence

Deity: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Cosmos: An ordered, harmonious whole

And now to answer my opponents questions --

1) I could use my opponent's own assertive statement and say "What methods it used [to be; to create itself] is irrelevant in this debate." To make this debate fair, however (or a debate at all), I will supply a reason (much like my opponent will have to do now):

The Big Bang could have created itself, for instance, been a white hole from another dimension (that could have always been or created itself). Yet another reason could be that the universe had always been (if non-existence was unable to logically occur). My opponent is asking me "how" the big bang could have done this, but at this moment I couldn't know how for sure. However, because science is progressive, we might learn this answer in the future.

I'd like to ask my opponent: How did God create the universe? And who created God?

2) "What methods it used [to be; to create itself] is irrelevant in this debate." ; ) Kidding. Try: The laws could have always been; The laws could be the only logical existence for motion of energy.

Basically, my opponent's statement is unfalsifiable. Additionally, I have supplied other ways the universe could have happened, and thus supported my role as Con. It is Pro's burden of proof.

Prove that God exists and created the universe.
Debate Round No. 1
MrButtons22

Pro

Thank you for taking this debate.
Let me begin by amending some of your definitions:

Deity: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful (I would add to this definition, "who is responsible for the creation of the cosmos.)

Cosmos: An ordered, harmonious whole (I would define the cosmos as such: everything existing in the natural realm, including space and time itself.)

I hope that these two defintions are fine with you.

Now, concerning your arguments against a Deity:

You claim that you may use my statement "What methods He/She/It used is irrelevant in this debate" for your own argument (but, thankfully, state that you will not) in this debate. I would venture to say that you, arguing from a natural self-creation standpoint, cannot. The reason for this is simple. If a Deity created the cosmos (all matter, space, and time), this would mean that He (for brevity I will use this pronoun) would have existed outside of this natural realm. He would be, in effect, SUPERnatural. As a supernatural Being, He would be able to create, manipulate, and even fully destroy within this realm, as He is the Maker. For example, the creators of a virtual world (Star Wars: Old Republic, World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, etc.) are omnipotent (or at least nearly so) within that realm. Another force may be able to change it (a hacker, for example), but it would have to be an outside force; one that lives in the "real world". An avatar, fully within the "creation" could not fundamentally change this realm without the creators' permission/intent. So we can conclude that, if there is a Deity, He would have to live outside of the natural realm. This would allow Him to create the cosmos in various ways, even (or, especially) ones that are unimaginable to us.

You, arguing from the standpoint of nature creating itself, have the burden of proof on you, as you must explain how it can create itself. This is something that has never been observed in nature. While we see entities in nature affecting each other, and even things made by those in the cosmos, nothing has ever been made by "its own hands".

You mention that "The Big Bang could have created itself, for instance, been a white hole from another dimension (that could have always been or created itself)." This does not explain how that other dimension started, or how and where the energy for such an event was able to shift from one dimension to another, or where that energy even came to be. Matter "may" (and that is a slight chance) be eternally there, but how can you explain perpetual energy in the face of entropy?

As for your second point, please elaborate on your position.

As for my proof that a Deity created the cosmos, I already stated my proof (see the first major paragraph in this round). As for how this Deity came into existence, I would stipulate that a Deity who creates time, space, and matter is not constrained by His own creation. The problem of "who made God" is not unique in my position, as is evidenced in my arguments in the preceding paragraphs. In ANY theory of origins there will always be the question of "who created THAT then?" It is the classical man painting himself in a picture. He can always go back and paint himself painting a picture of himself painting a picture of himself painting a picture of himself...etc. The only difference is that I can state that this Deity created time, space and matter, so He must exist outside of them and is then not affected by them (especially time). He has always existed oustide of nature. This supernatural realm, one can only conclude, has its own laws.

I would like to see a definite theory on how something can create itself.
Danielle

Con

Before I begin my rebuttal, I would like to remind Pro (and the readers) what is happening in this debate:

1) Pro has challenged me and made the assertion that God does exist. This is a knowledge claim; that is, a claim based on knowledge and not just beliefs. In other words, neither faith nor uncertainty (i.e. the "It's a mystery" card) can play a factor in proving his case. He has the burden of proof (as the instigator, and as Pro, the affirmative - the one making a claim) to prove using EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that God (a deity) does, in fact, exist. He has not done so.

2) A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers [1]. I offered a similar definition in R1. Pro wishes to expand this definition to include "the one who is responsible for the Cosmos." I'm going to have to respectfully decline this inclusion in the definition, as it limits the debate in terms of which deities we can and cannot talk about. This definition also begs the question ; my opponent must prove that a deity has created the universe in order to give a deity such a definitive trait. Additionally, the Buddhist Madhyamaka argue strongly against the existence of a universal creator or essential being (such as Brahman). Pantheism considers the universe itself to be a deity. Etc.

As you can see, there are various interpretations of deities although all deities fall into the realm of my presented definition. Since Pro said that he was not arguing for a specific deity, all examples of deities must be considered. If Pro wishes to argue specifically for a deity that created the universe, than he must specify which deity is up for discussion, i.e. the monotheistic Abrahamic God. Since he has not done so, any deity is up for discussion in this debate.

3) Pro has put forth no arguments for the existence of a deity and instead stated, "I have no opening arguments, as to me nature itself should be evidence enough to show that Intelligence created it." However just because there is intelligence behind nature does not prove in any way whatsoever that a deity is responsible.

To automatically dismiss alternative possibilities would be to succumb to Anthropocentrism, which is the belief that humans must be considered at the center of and/or above any other aspect of reality. In other words, there are dimensions of reality which humans do not experience, and these dimensions could have played a hand in the universe creating itself. Just because we don't understand how this could have happened (yet) doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened. Maybe we don't have any examples of this happening in nature because it only happened once at the beginning, or happens in different dimensions or planes all the time that we just can't see. Remember that my suggestions are mere theories the same way that Pro's suggestion of a deity being responsible is a mere theory. The difference is that Pro has the burden of PROOF (not superior suggestion).

4) Pro insists that if "He" created the cosmos, He would exist outside of a natural realm and in turn be supernatural. If God is infinite, i.e. 'extending indefinitely,' then God would not only be the Maker but actually MAKE UP the very realms that my opponent is talking about - the Cosmos and the Universe. In that case, my argument from R1 that the universe could have created itself stands. God would be the cosmos and the universe - which would affirm the resolution - however it does not fit into the parameters of the debate that my opponent has put forth.

Pro asserts that there is a specific Maker who designed these things. He must prove that a deity outside of the universe itself (God) exists and is responsible for creating said universe and cosmos. So far all my opponent has done is say that God must exist because the universe does. I don't see how he has linked one or the other. His argument:

"If a Deity created the cosmos (all matter, space, and time), this would mean that He (for brevity I will use this pronoun) would have existed outside of this natural realm. He would be, in effect, SUPERnatural. As a supernatural Being, He would be able to create, manipulate, and even fully destroy within this realm, as He is the Maker."

Note the very first key word of his explanation: IF. His entire argument rests on "if" God created the cosmos; however, there is no proof that God has, nor has Pro provided any empirical knowledge that suggests that this theory is correct. Again, simply because we don't have the answers yet does not mean that the answer is necessarily God.

5) Pro uses the analogy of video game users being able to manipulate the video game. What he fails to realize is that these video game users are in the same reality as the video game (using atoms, electricity, etc. that is in our reality to create this game), and therefore his analogy fails. We are not outside of the reality of the video game just like we are not outside of the reality of a play or movie; they are made in the same reality we are. Pro has yet to provide information on how something that is outside of reality can touch and or create reality.

6) My opponent states, " This does not explain how that other dimension started..." about my Big Bang explanation. He is using my Big Bang explanation to infer that I do not know where matter came from. All existence being created and the Big Bang's creation could be two completely different things. Again, matter could have always been in that other dimension.

7) When presented with the question of "If God created everything, what created God," my opponent dismisses the inquisition entirely yet that notes it is a logical one. For instance, he concludes his round by saying that he would like to see a definite theory on how something can create itself. When it comes to God, however, he says that knowing who/what created God is not important, because:

"I can state that this Deity created time, space and matter, so He must exist outside of them and is then not affected by them (especially time). He has always existed outside of nature. This supernatural realm, one can only conclude, has its own laws."

Again, note that he can STATE that this deity created time and space; however, just because he can state it doesn't mean that he has proven it or that it is true. Additionally, he hasn't argued against the notion that something like "time" wasn't created and instead just IS. For instance, one theory of time suggests that time is merely a bending of space (Einstein's theory of relativity). We can also take into account Time Theory B (Einstein again) which suggests that everything is happening at the same time, therefore bringing the cosmos into a non-linear existence. It just is, and logically it could never not exist.

8) Finally Pro avoids answering to any type of logic or reason by asserting that God exists outside of the natural realm and thus different laws apply to God. This is similar to how the Church insisted that the moon stayed in the sky (and didn't fall to Earth via gravity) because it obeyed heavenly laws that were beyond the reach of earthly laws. It wasn't until Isaac Newton extended the laws of gravity to the moon by implying that it was a mere satellite of the earth (heresy, indeed!) that we gained new insight that finally united science and the heavens. Science is progressive and surely similar revelations are to occur in the future.

In conclusion, Pro is asserting that something exists, but does not know what that something is, where that something is from, nor the laws that govern or apply to that something. Let me ask you this: If no knowledge is presented or even KNOWN about that something, then how can you make a knowledge claim asserting that this something exists?

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... -- For the expanded definition of a Deity
Debate Round No. 2
MrButtons22

Pro

Thank you for your response.

There are many problems with Con's various arguments and rebuttals, and I will do my best to correct them, as well as respond to her questions. The numbers correspond to her points:

1) "Neither faith nor certainty (i.e. the ‘It's a mystery' card) can play a factor in proving his case." My opponent wants me, apparently, to have an answer for everything concerning a deity. Obviously I do not, and never even claimed to have such knowledge. Please reread the opening argument. Con will find that I asked two definite questions (note that I asked "How did" rather than "How could", and "How were" rather than "How could", meaning that I am asking for DEFINITE answers. I will remind Con that she accepted the opening argument, and thus must answer these two questions, which she has not.) to which she, as Con, must provide definite answers. I, as the Instigator, am asking how the cosmos could have begun without a Deity. Con repeatedly attempts to shift the burden of proof on me. I will prove my case, and I hope that she will attempt to do the same, rather than skirt responsibility. Also, note the double standard: I cannot speculate (or, use the "mystery card"); Con can, and has throughout every single defense of her atheistic beliefs.

2) As for refusing my addendum to her definition of a deity; why stop there? If Con were to take the words "supremely good" out of her original definition, she could include Hades, Zeus, and other such gods that would not be considered "supremely good"…or even "supremely... powerful" for that matter, since they were not omnipotent. The vast majority of deities spanning the various religions, especially modern ones, are thought of as responsible for the creation of the cosmos. The Buddhist religion is an exception to the rule; one of the few. I find this to be a poor argument with semantics, which is usually done when one cannot defend their position with logic, facts, or even probable theories.

3) I will come to this at the end of this argument.

4) I never did state that this Deity is "infinite", especially per her definition. I do not understand how Con can conclude with such assurance that an "infinite" Creator MUST be a part of His creation. Con's logic in this point is severely flawed. Also, when I used the word "if" in my statement quoted by you, I was not resting my argument on that word. This is once again flawed. My argument was this, "If X is true, then Y is true as well." Con missed the point of this argument. The reason for it was to show how it would be impossible for a creator to have originated in the thing that is being created, nothing more or less.

5) Few analogies are perfect. I will let the voters decide if my analogy is sufficient. I find no problem with it, as it serves its purpose of showing a creator and his/her relation to the creation.

6) Con quote: "He is using my Big Bang explanation to infer that I do not know where matter came from." This is what I said: "Matter ‘may' (and that is a slight chance) be eternally there, but how can you explain perpetual energy in the face of entropy?" The question is aimed at energy, not matter, and still stands.

7) I am not sure what Con is arguing here. What I am saying is that both sides have the problem of what made the first thing that is made. The only difference is that I believe that this Deity created time as well, making Him unaffected by it. Con believes that time has "always" existed, which begs the question of what started these chain of events to make life, and what started that beginning "spark", and what started that, etc. If time had a beginning, this problem is easier to tackle (albeit still difficult to comprehend). This Deity creates time within this natural dimension, and the history of the cosmos begins.

8) It is only natural to assume that an entirely different dimension has different laws. I ask Con, do the different dimensions you theorize on have the same laws as ours, or different ones?

Finally, here is my proof that a Deity exists. I would like to see Con make something living out of a jar of dirt. Con may even use the jar itself, rather than just the dirt. In fact, Con may have the mind of every single scientist, lab, unlimited funds, anything Con wants (Naturally, I have no authority to offer this). There is one catch, however: Con may only do the following with the jar of dirt: drop it (on whatever she wants), break it (in any way she can), explode it (with any type of explosive she can think of), and/or leave it alone to be affected by the elements. Naturally, no life will come from it, no matter how many times, in how many different ways it is done. Any scientist, any logical person would say the same. Why? Because INTELLIGENCE has to guide the creation of life. I would not expect a Honda Civic to make itself, nor would I expect the same for a personal computer, skyscraper, or jet. Everything complex has intelligence guiding it. This is what nature teaches us. You are ignoring the laws of nature when you state that the cosmos created itself by accident; not the "superstitions" of humanity. Much of humanity claims that a deity exists, and for good reason: much of humanity can see that nature is far too complex to have been the result of an "accident". A Deity outside of nature, one that could be called "supremely good or powerful", would have had to create it.

I ask again for two definite answers to my very pointed questions in my opening argument, as I have answered every question you have asked (as far as I can tell). Also, I asked for a "definite theory on how something created itself" in my last argument and am still waiting for one.
Danielle

Con

I'd like to thank Pro for his considerate response, though his last round contained more fallacious arguments than I have ever encountered during the 110 debates I've been involved in on this website, and throughout my year and a half tenure here on DDO. That being said, let's get right down to his points:

1) First, Pro opens with, "My opponent wants me, apparently, to have an answer for everything concerning a deity." For clarification, I do not expect him to have all the answers; however, I *do* expect him to argue effectively how or why a deity (God) exists. That is what the resolution calls for and the entire purpose of this debate! Just because I agree to the definition of a deity doesn't mean that deities exist. Santa Clause can be defined but that doesn't mean that he is real. As Pro, the instigator, my opponent has the BURDEN OF PROOF in affirming the resolution. He writes, "I, as the Instigator, am asking how the cosmos could have begun without a Deity. Con repeatedly attempts to shift the burden of proof on me." Unfortunately for my opponent, he cannot make demands about MY so-called burden of proof. My only burden in this debate to negate the resolution at hand.

When discussing the Cosmos, my opponent can only use this contention as it pertains to his own argument. In other words, he can use the creation of the universe to advance his own agenda, but he cannot shift the burden of proof on me (fallacy #1) to answer something about the Cosmos when that has nothing to do with the resolution. This is called a red herring fallacy (#2), which occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument. In fact the only reason I responded to my opponent's argument regarding the Cosmos was to attack one of his premises with a counter-response. He is trying to distract the readers by creating false imperatives for the Con. I asked that Pro provide me with ANY type of empirical evidence that he can to sustain his KNOWLEDGE CLAIM (the resolution), and he has not. Note: The Base Rate fallacy (#3) - using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.

2) My opponent is upset that I have not accepted "the creator of the Cosmos" as an acceptable part of the definition of a deity. Here he commits the Bare Assertion fallacy (fallacy #4), which means that he claims the premise of an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true. In other words, why should I accept "creator of the Cosmos" as part of the definition of a deity when Pro has not proven that a deity has created the Cosmos?! He says, "The vast majority of deities spanning the various religions, especially modern ones, are thought of as responsible for the creation of the cosmos. The Buddhist religion is an exception to the rule; one of the few. I find this to be a poor argument with semantics, which is usually done when one cannot defend their position with logic, facts, or even probable theories." In addition to the utter hypocrisy (his lack of providing logical facts via empirical data), he also commits fallacy number five: Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the Gallery) which is where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true.

3) Note that my opponent did not respond to my argument regarding Anthropocentrism at ALL.

4) I do not understand how Con can conclude with such assurance that an "infinite" Creator MUST be a part of His creation. Note: Pantheism. Plus, don't monotheists believe that God is a part of everything (including nature) as well? I'd also like to point out the most OBVIOUS fallacy (the very first one you learn about in ANY logic class), where Pro claims, "If X is true, then Y is true as well." I don't care if I lose conduct points for this - that is the WORST argument I've ever heard. It reeks of the modus tollens fallacy (number six) which by very DEFINITION OF FALLACY reads "If X is true then Y is true as well," which was my opponent's exact argument. Also, Pro said, "The reason was to show how it would be impossible for a creator to have originated in the thing that is being created." Note that I never agreed that a deity (or God - the deity in discussion for this debate) was a creator, so this entire point is irrelevant. Another fallacy, but at this point, I can't keep up with naming and numbering them all.

5) My opponent's analogy was SEVERELY flawed and I ripped it apart. He said it serves as something showing a creator in relevance to the creation, but again, ignored my entire point regarding realities and matter, so again this is completely irrelevant and I ask that the readers disregard it.

6) Uh, entropy is when you leave matter isolated and it starts going chaotic. It does not prove that matter is not eternal. All it does is discuss how matter behaves when it is isolated... so what exactly are you trying to say? And why are you bringing quantum physics into this argument if you know nothing about it, Pro?

7) Pro says he doesn't know what I was talking about with my last point, so let me refresh his memory. He said that he would like to see a definite theory on how something could create itself (in order to accept my contention that the universe could have always been or created itself, etc.) In addition to committing the false dichotomy fallacy and the negative proof fallacy, he completely ignored my arguments regarding Time Theory B, relativity, etc. Both of these explanations are scientific theories supported by Einstein WITH empirical data (at least relativity), so they must be considered superior than Pro's. He merely asks more questions instead of refuting the possibilities I put forth. That leaves us with MORE fallacies (plurium interrogationum, fallacy of the single cause, and a little appeal to ignorance as well...).

8) Pro writes, "It is only natural to assume that an entirely different dimension has different laws." So... he agrees with my premise that something from another dimension has different laws, and therefore the natural laws that apply to us in THIS dimension (which may prevent us from having more detailed knowledge of an explanation at this time) may be different in dimensions that can scientifically answer Pro's questions. In other words, he completely buys into my argument and you should too.

Finally Pro concludes talking about creating life... and something about a jar of dirt. This is a TERRIBLE analogy. Obviously humanity doesn't have the knowledge on how to randomly create life at this point, so it does not take a genius to realize that Pro is putting forth another fallacious argument with his near impossible challenge. He also states that "Intelligence has to guide the creation of life." The counter to this is simple: Evolution. Scientific examples in nature explain evolution; there is no evidence that a deity is responsible. Pro also concludes with, "Much of humanity claims that a deity exists, and for good reason" ... another obvious appeal to majority fallacy; just because a lot of people believe it doesn't make it true. A lot of people once believed that the earth was flat - and guess what - it isn't.

Note the example of a straw man here: "Life relies on intelligent design. But it would be impossible for you to create life at random, so evolution can't be true." -- That's not an exact quote, but essentially what Pro is saying. Huge straw man fallacy here. Pro is distorting a viewpoint in such a way that the distortion is easily refuted.

Character limit... So, in conclusion, don't talk to me about logic, Pro, when you clearly don't understand it. Don't bring physics into the argument when you don't understand that either. Don't make knowledge claims without empirical evidence. Don't shift the burden of proof or straw man my points. Good luck in R4.
Debate Round No. 3
MrButtons22

Pro

Thank you (I guess) for your response. I would like to state that in all of my many years of debating this topic, and similar ones, I have always noticed that my opponents get angrier when they cannot answer my questions. "…don't talk to me about logic, Pro, when you clearly don't understand it." I at least understand more about logic than Con knows about how the universe came into being by itself, apparently. Yet, here she is, talking about it (or, at least saying that she will talk about it).

I, once again, found many problems with Con's arguments and points in this past round, especially concerning what I stated. The largest problem is that she still did not answer my two questions from my opening argument. "My only burden in this debate [is] to negate the resolution at hand." No, it is not. Con's burden is to answer my two pointed questions; questions that were asked before she accepted my debate. Her job is to ANSWER them. At this point she has briefly touched one and all but ignored the other. But, enough of that for now; I will presently address my "logical fallacies".

"Fallacy" #1: "Shifting the Burden." It is Con's job to show how the cosmos began by chance/accident, and how the laws came into being, why they are there, etc… It is my job to prove that a Deity exists, or did exist. If she cannot answer the questions, I suggest that she forfeit the debate.

"Fallacy" #2: "Red Herring." I find it strange that asking how the cosmos was made without a Deity is a red herring argument when I, once again, pointedly ASKED that as one of the two main questions in my opening argument; the opening argument that Con read before accepting this debate.

"Fallacy" #3: "Base Rate." What empirical statistics show that the probability of the "cosmos being purposefully made" is small? I would love to see that, but until then, here are some statistics on abiogenesis, which atheists are required to believe in: the probability of randomly assembling a cell from randomly made RNA in 1.11 billion years is 10 to the 79th power. That is 10 with 79 "zeroes" behind it. http://www.iscid.org... If you would like to see the article on it. This is beyond the point of statistical possibility. Whatever the probability is of a Deity creating the cosmos, I would assume it is more likely than randomly formed RNA making itself into a living cell.

"Fallacy" #4: "Bare Assertion." Con asks, "why should I accept ‘creator of the Cosmos' as part of the definition of a deity when Pro has not proven that a deity has created the Cosmos?!" What Con is saying is that I need to prove that a Deity created the cosmos in order for us to agree on the definition of a Deity…so that we can debate on whether or not a Deity DID create the cosmos?

"Fallacy" #5: "Argumentum ad Populum." I never did state that the existence of a Deity is proven by popular opinion. Please show me where I stated that, or something even close to that. What I am saying is that the majority's DEFINITION of a Deity should be used; nothing more, nothing less.

Now, concerning Anthropocentrism: I am arguing that a Deity, existing in a higher reality, created the cosmos. How, exactly, am I arguing FOR Anthropocentrism?

Concerning my "X and Y" argument: I am going to show a series of arguments similarly made. Please show me where/how they are illogical:

I built my house a year ago (X). Therefore, I did not live in that house two years ago (Y).

I just built this car yesterday (X). Therefore, I did not buy it used last week (Y).

I gave birth to Lisa (X). Therefore, I am older than she (Y).

Someone created the cosmos (X). Therefore, that Someone did not originate from it (Y).

In each argument, we know that IF X is true, then Y must be as well (Note the word "if". I am saying that Y is true ONLY IF X is true). There is no logical fallacy here. Please show how the SUBSTANCE of my "X and Y" argument is illogical.

I do not understand Con's vicious hatred for my "Virtual World" analogy. If I were able to conjure up a true "alternate realm", then I gladly would. However, I cannot. Con states, "What he fails to realize is that these video game users are in the same reality as the video game (using atoms, electricity, etc. that is in our reality to create this game), and therefore his analogy fails". How does this show that, "My opponent's analogy was SEVERELY flawed and I ripped it apart."? Because the virtual "world" is still in our reality? That is why it is called an ANALOGY. If I could show you an alternate reality, then I would be giving you an EXAMPLE. So, by your logic, all analogies are illogical? Please give another reason for it being an illogical analogy.

Concerning entropy: Entropy is NOT, "when you leave matter isolated and it starts going chaotic". Here is a definition of entropy for you: http://dictionary.reference.com.... Note that it says, "a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process."(Non-working energy is not exactly "chaos", I might add) In other words, without an outside force, energy wears down. So, I at least understand a little about quantum physics. Does Con?

Concerning Con's whole "Einstein's time theory": Please elaborate on it, so I may respond. And I am still waiting for a definite theory on how something can create itself. A long paragraph or two spent on it would be good, not 3 sentences merely stating the names of the theories.

As for point #8, I do not understand Con's logic on it. We agree that different dimensions have different laws, yes. But, I state once again, I can give an answer for my theory; Con cannot. Please, once again, give a definite theory.

And now, my best evidence for a Deity can be found in Con's last argument: "Obviously humanity doesn't have the knowledge on how to randomly create life at this point, so it does not take a genius to realize that Pro is putting forth another fallacious argument with his near impossible challenge." How can Con say this statement when she believes that life randomly happened? Why are random events able to make something that is so complex that we cannot do it ourselves? Even given every bit of intelligence, every machine, every dollar; we cannot recreate life. We are not even close. Why?

I have given empirical evidence on the existence of a Deity, using probability statistics. I ask that Con answer my original questions first, then answer the others as well. Thank you.
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MrButtons22

Pro

Nothing more to add.
Danielle

Con

[Introduction]

I'd like to thank my opponent for a more comprehensive R4 argument, and apologize for missing the last round (as most DDO members know that I was in the process of moving cross-country).

[Shifting the Burden]

It is not my job to show how the cosmos began. Pro can use the cosmos as an argument in his favor about the existence of God, and in turn I must argue against his contention. He asked how the cosmos could have began and created itself, and I responded with several arguments including the Big Bang possibly evolving from a white hole; the universe simply have always being (if non-existence is unable to logically occur - especially in the sense that the laws could have always been to be the only logical existence for motion of energy); laws from other dimensions that we have no absolute knowledge of having to do with the creation of the universe in this dimension (it has been proven scientifically that other dimensions exist, so this is not far-fetched); etc.

These are all scientific possibilities of how the cosmos could have come to be, though I have no proof that any of them are true. Similarly, Pro's cop-out of naming God as the cause (simply because we are thus far ignorant, the way people in old times were ignorant about certain things until science caught up to their ideas) is unproven. So what we have here are varying theories, both of which lack empirical data (I'd argue that mine are probably more logical). Thus the voters *at best* should award this contention as a TIE; the cosmos neither prove or disprove the existence of God.

[Red Herring]

I've explained that just because Pro introduced the creation of the cosmos as an argument for his assertion that a deity exists doesn't mean that I have to debate solely about the cosmos. So far I have established that his contention regarding the creation of the universe is insufficient in proving anything. Pro has not proved that there is scientific evidence against any of my theories.

[Base Rate]

My opponent has cited how abiogenesis is highly unlikely. He provided a ridiculous misguided calculation to start off with; the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random (which explains why his calculations are already incorrect). Additionally, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler - not even a protobacteria or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont and Woese calls a progenote) - but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms. The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group, or the self replicating hexanucleotide, or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself. In other words, abiogenesis is actually supported by a LOT of scientific evidence; the so-called statistics against it are entirely false [1].

[Bare Assertion]

I asked why I should accept that "creator of the Cosmos" be included in the definition of a deity when Pro has not even proven that this is so. Pro wrote, "What Con is saying is that I need to prove that a Deity created the cosmos in order for us to agree on the definition of a Deity…so that we can debate on whether or not a Deity DID create the cosmos?" Well, yes! If you're trying to PROVE that a deity created the cosmos, why the hell would I agree to a definition that states a deity DID create the cosmos?! I'm trying to argue that a deity DIDN'T!

[Argumentum ad Populum]

Pro writes, "I never did state that the existence of a Deity is proven by popular opinion. Please show me where I stated that, or something even close to that." Well, okay, how about this:

"Much of humanity claims that a deity exists, and for good reason: much of humanity can see that nature is far too complex to have been the result of an "accident."

In other words, Pro said that most people believe a deity exists (and we should accept this popular opinion) because most people believe that a deity created the cosmos. So, um. Honestly, between this argument and the last (bare assertion fallacy), my opponent's arguments seem - and I'm sorry if this is not PC - utterly retarded.

[Additional Arguments / Fallacies]

* Pro continues to confuse me when he claims, "I am arguing that a Deity, existing in a higher reality, created the cosmos. How, exactly, am I arguing FOR Anthropocentrism?" I never said that he was arguing for Anthropocentrism. I said that he didn't respond to MY argument regarding Anthropocentrism. He was supposed to argue against it (which he didn't).

* Concerning the modus tollens content, I may have poorly argued against his logic claim (due to time limits) so let me try to make it more simple: Pro says "Someone created the cosmos" as his X statement, and then says "Therefore someone did not originate from it" as his Y statement. The main problem in terms of this debate is that X hasn't even been proven true, and you need true arguments to provide a true conclusion. Regarding the actual logic formula, Pro has it all wrong. The modus tollens logic implies If P then Q (or if X then Y). So X would have to be:

1. If someone created the cosmos, someone did not originate from it.
2. No one originated from the cosmos.
.: Therefore, someone created the cosmos.

This is a simple logic formula which can be elaborated on here [2]. The point is that Pro's entire formula (let alone premises) is/are wrong. This is a misuse of logic indeed.

* I've explained that Pro's virtual reality analogy does not work for the purpose of his argument, therefore it is insufficient and should be excluded. Pro attempts another red herring when he writes, "So, by your logic, all analogies are illogical? Please give another reason for it being an illogical analogy." The only reason I must provide of why it doesn't work, I already have: Because video game users/creators are in the same reality as the video game (subject to the same laws of nature), whereas my point was that the cause for the universe creation may have been from another reality where they are subject to different laws of nature.

* Regarding entropy, what I said was, "It does not prove that matter is not eternal. All it does is discuss how matter behaves when it is isolated... so what exactly are you trying to say?" Pro did not respond. Instead, he provided a dictionary definition of entropy, which includes the notion of a doctrine of inevitable decline and degeneration, and tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature. Neither of these things (nor any part of the definition) prove Pro's point either way. I never argued that energy wouldn't wear down at some point.

[Conclusion]

Note that Pro's "probability statistics" and logic in general are entirely false/flawed. His consistent use of fallacious arguments in this debate have been innumerable (though I've pointed out at least a dozen). His factual evidence is biased and unsupported (see: argument on ambiogenesis) and his insistence on shifting the burden via red herring arguments about the cosmos is annoying, at best. The bottom line is that this debate is about the existence of God and whether or not Pro has affirmed the existence of a deity. I have already responded to his questions about the universe, and provided scientific data confirming the probability of ambiogenesis verses creation. I have thus successfully negated the resolution by providing a cohesive counter to every one of Pro's meager points.

[Sources]

[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I read this months ago but forgot to vote. Conduct to Pro, arguments and sources to Con.
Posted by Nu-cleur021 8 years ago
Nu-cleur021
Long debates hurt my eyes.-MTandGP
Posted by MrButtons22 8 years ago
MrButtons22
Why do you say he is fake?
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
abromwell is obviously a fake account.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
"Pro uses the analogy of video game users being able to manipulate the video game."

I thought of that before, but I got to understand that it is a weak argument toward God's existence. However despite that, for the reasons Lwerd used, physics show that matter disappears at certian sizes, matter will disappear from existence of our universe at the size of 10 to the power of -33 and light at the 10 to the power of -43. Indicating that our universe is a pixilated vitual reality. Similiar to a T.V. There is no reason, with the power, energy, technology and knowledge humans could create a universe like this one. Considering that if we're able to. Matter is just waves detected by our consciousness. It is true that whatever may exist has a rate of conscious, if it does not have a conscious it does not exist.

I am getting close to Geo's territory. However what Geo believes in does contain much truth. The lack of justification of his religion is a weakness. There is a hell and a heaven, some people will go to either place. As Yeshua said.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Hey - I'm in the process of moving cross-country and as such had to forfeit a round, unfortunately. I apologize to my opponent. Good luck in the final round.
Posted by abromwell 8 years ago
abromwell
This is why scientific ignorance should preclude a debate venturing into cosmology. Your "Wiki-pinion" is scientifically misinformed.

1) "How did the big band create itself" is a question of why, despite the fact that you used the word "how". This statement clearly indicates a misunderstanding of the idea of a singularity.

2) I literally laughed when I read this. Perhaps Dictionary.com has an entry for antimatter? Or perhaps you should read about the cosmological principle of negative (potential) energy. I recommend Sciama or Penrose. Even Hawking's A Brief History of Time touches on this issue. I will say it again, and will remain the popular scientific conception, impervious to any amount of internet scavenging on your part: There is a net total of zero mass/energy in the known universe.

3) Here, I will apologize for misrepresenting your point. There is a great deal of scientific debate on the matter of the nature of the "infinitude" of the universe, and I will leave that debate aside. However, you seem to have an overly simplistic understanding of entropy, and I would encourage you to read more before you try and use the concept to support your argument. Entropy does NOT simply convert kinetic energy to potential energy. If I reorder a system, I may increase its potential energy while reducing its entropy. The universe is actually, as we speak, increasing its net kinetic energy! Now remember, the net energy will always be zero. Entropy is the tendency of energy to degrade (not disappear) over time.
Posted by MrButtons22 8 years ago
MrButtons22
I would rather not get into a debate on the comments sections, but here we go...

1) "Natural phenomena can always be adequately explained in terms of "How?"; insisting on "Why?" is not a scientific endeavor." If you will notice, both of my questions asked "how", NOT "why". Your point?
2) "There is a net total of zero mass in the known universe (including energy)." the physics definition of mass: "the quantity of matter as determined from its weight or from Newton's second law of motion." [http://dictionary.reference.com...] So, unless you're a Scientologist, I have no idea what you are talking about.
3) I never did say that energy is destroyed by entropy. Kinetic energy, in the face of entropy, becomes potential energy. I know, by the 1st law of thermodynamics, that energy/matter cannot be destroyed. She is arguing that the universe had no beginning; not me. I say that time and space are finite; she is saying that time, at least, is not.
Posted by abromwell 8 years ago
abromwell
Here is what I am referring to :

"1) How did the Big Bang (If you believe that that was how the universe started. I don't, but for the sake of the debate, we will argue from the assumption that it is true.) begin and create itself?
2) How were the laws established (inertia, gravity, etc.)?"
-->A scientific model is accepted because it accurately predicts occurrences in the observable universe. Laws are anthropomorphic explanations for natural phenomena. The notion of creation is only valid because humans insist on attributing purpose. Natural phenomena can always be adequately explained in terms of "How?"; insisting on "Why?" is not a scientific endeavor.

"I would like to see a definite theory on how something can create itself."
-->There is a net total of zero mass in the known universe (including energy). We live in a universe whose sum is nothing. Your perception of the big bang relies on misguided assumptions of space and time.

"Matter 'may' (and that is a slight chance) be eternally there, but how can you explain perpetual energy in the face of entropy?"
-->False on two counts. Entropy does not destroy energy. This is a gross misrepresentation. Perpetual implies a universe governed by absolute time. I must simplify for the sake of brevity, but this notion is generally held to be false. Time and it's associated space are a finite, dynamic quantities.
Posted by MrButtons22 8 years ago
MrButtons22
abromwell, what are you talking about? What cosmological theories, exactly? I am not referring to any "cosmological theories" at all. And where am I "non-sensical" exactly? Saying that I am does not make it so.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
MrButtons22DanielleTied
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: xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Vote Placed by maninorange 6 years ago
maninorange
MrButtons22DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Indeed, as predicted, Danielle lost conduct points. However, I agree with her contention that she did not have the burden of proof, and, as she successfully dismantled MrButtons' positive claims, her arguments were necessarily more convincing.
Vote Placed by generousgeorge 7 years ago
generousgeorge
MrButtons22DanielleTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 7 years ago
Pyromaniac
MrButtons22DanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
MrButtons22DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
MrButtons22DanielleTied
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:15 
Vote Placed by beamer1 7 years ago
beamer1
MrButtons22DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by alwaz4dam 7 years ago
alwaz4dam
MrButtons22DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
MrButtons22DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 8 years ago
tmhustler
MrButtons22DanielleTied
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