The Instigator
creationtruth
Pro (for)
The Contender
BrettBoelkens
Con (against)

God Exists

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
BrettBoelkens has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 462 times Debate No: 104676
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

creationtruth

Pro

God exists or does not.

This is an evidence based argument; the burden of proof is on me (Pro). Con must demonstrate why my arguments are invalid and fail to constitute as evidence for God, and may provide counter evidence of his own apart from mine.

I use the word "proof" loosely, as a solely mathematical sense of the word is inapplicable to such a resolution. True proofs exist only in pure mathematics. Rather, this debate concerns evidence-based arguments following a line of logical, inductive reasoning.

Evidence which can be shown to unequivocally demonstrate the existence of God and which is consistent with the hypothesis of His being is what I aim for in this debate. If I fail to do this or fail to answer my opponent's pertinent objections, I will not meet my burden and thus loose the debate.

Definitions

God: The spiritual, transcendent, sentient and supremely powerful and wise being who created all things within our known universe.

Exist: To have a substantive basis in objectively intelligible reality.


Rules for The Debate

No logical fallacies.

No appeals to probability.

Only science-based arguments.


Round 1: Acceptance*

Round 2: Opening Arguments (Con May Provide Rebuttals)

Round 3: Rebuttals/Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments)

Round 4: Final Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments or Rebuttals)


*Please read and comment if you have any questions. Acceptance of this debate entails concession that both parties are held accountable to the rules, definitions and structure of this debate.
BrettBoelkens

Con

I accept this debate, and I thank creationtruth for the opportunity to debate this. I await his opening arguments, and hope for a productive debate.

The affirmative has said that he holds the burden of proof. If he fails to support his claims, or sufficiently answer my own objections, he has said that he would lose. I expect him to keep hold on this throughout the debate.

Before we initiate the debate, I have a couple points I want to clear up. First off, appeals to probability are required for an inductive argument to work, since they don't deal with absolute certainties. I do find it strange that you only consider inductive arguments since that eliminates some of the best arguments like the Kalam and the telelogical argument. Second off, to make sure we have our definitions straight, you define God as an omnipotent being who is wise, correct? Are you considering omnibenevolence?
Debate Round No. 1
creationtruth

Pro

Preface

Con begins by contended with my "no appeals to probability" clause in relation to "inductive reasoning." While I understand his concern, he should have clarified this with me before accepting the debate as I recommended. He also asks if I define God as omnipotent or omni-benevolent. I do not define God in terms of "omni" as certain objections may be easily raised against such a position. For me it is sufficient to say He is the most powerful being in the universe given that He is the very one who created and sustains it. For the purpose of this debate I would refrain from any reference toward His character, such as benevolence, as this is irrelevant to the proposition of His existence as Creator God. It is also inarguable as morality would be defined by Him as the standard by which He judges. Again, if this was such a concern for Con, he ought to have messaged me in the comment section beforehand. Thus definitions and the structure of this debate will remain as is.


Introduction

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to a fruitful and engaging exchange. I will be arguing for the existence of a Creator God based on quantum mechanics and genetic bioinformatics. My aim is to provide a succinct and understandable argument from each of these fields of science to which I will expand and defend as necessary.


Argument from Quantum Mechanics

Atoms are the simplest building block of all that exists within the universe. Within these tiny atoms are three basic particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. While electrons are an elementary particle which cannot be broken down further, protons and neutrons are two composite subatomic particles made up of quarks. These fundamental particles have various charges which account for their mathematically defined interactions with one another.

Quarks are elementary particles which exhibit all four fundamental forces mediated by four separate particles: gluons which carry the strong force, bosons which carry the weak force, photons which carry the electromagnetic force, and gravitons (only theoretical) which carries the gravitational force. Of the three known mediating particles, gluons, bosons and photons, all exhibit interactions with the quarks based on the properties of their flavor, namely, mass, spin, color charge and electric charge.

These intrinsic properties built into nature define the extent of their interaction with the particles which mediate the fundamental forces inherent in the nature of our physical universe. Since this interaction is based on a mathematical language, without which, all atoms would be impossible, the very existence of atoms suggests unequivocally that God exists.


Argument from Genetic Bioinformatics

DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information. In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are cosyntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code.

Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator. Note that this argument is not based upon the inability for naturalistic/statistical processes alone to account for the formation of genetic information, but rather my case is built upon what we do know about genetic code and function. Therefore this is not a god-of-the-gaps argument, as the claim is based on observation. Note also that this is not an argument from complexity but from specified universal information. To refute my case is actually quite a simple task; one must only need demonstrate a single case where universal information, of the type seen in genetic code, is derived entirely from purely material sources.


Conclusion

I look forward to Con's response. I will provide references as necessary in the following rounds. Both my arguments are dependent on demonstrating the necessity of a sentient intelligence as the creative force behind all atomic structures and all life. Con must demonstrate why the linguistic information found in the mathematical properties which hold atoms together and in the genetic code which defines all life are either arbitrary or the product of some known, quantifiable natural phenomena. While I did not go into great detail as to how the linguistic properties are known as I do not want to get bogged down in technical explanations if my opponent if unwilling to properly address my claims, I will provide greater explanation as necessary in subsequent rounds.

On to Con. . .



This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fzbw9br 2 months ago
fzbw9br
Posted by BrettBoelkens 2 weeks ago

First off, gun control. I don't really know what we should do about the current gun control situation. I'm American, so I'll put in in terms of the US. There is such a surplus of guns, and an excessive amount of lobbying, that there is little to no hope of ever getting rid of all the guns in the US. I don't exactly like the situation where we have so many firearms that we could have a gun per person. It isn't needed, and I see no real benefit that outways the cons. Essentially, I don't see the benefit, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Brett: your premise is false, simply because you assume you NEED to do "Something" about Gun Control Situation.

first, what is the situation, and second why would THAT situation be any concern?

I ask this because guns themselves are NOT a problem. You can load one up, cock it, and set it on a table. Come back 50 years and it will still be sitting there, loaded, cocked, and dusty, harming no one or thing.

the problem is not the gun, but the attitude of Americans toward life and others.

THAT is what you should work towards.
Look to other nations to see that it is NOT guns, or gun control that keeps deaths down. Mexico has VERY restrictive gun control. Look how that is working for them.
Then look to Switzerland. They have loose gun control, and far fewer deaths.
Then look to Israel, with almost NO gun control. they is little domestic gun violence.
Then look to Japan, with their very restrictive gun control, but knives are everywhere, yet they have few murders of any sort. Ask yourself why! could it be CULTURE? Honour?
Posted by fzbw9br 2 months ago
fzbw9br
I count, therefore I am

PRO wrote: "These intrinsic properties built into nature define the extent of their interaction with the particles which mediate the fundamental forces inherent in the nature of our physical universe. Since this interaction is based on a mathematical language, without which, all atoms would be impossible, the very existence of atoms suggests unequivocally that God exists."

because math, therefore God?
my feet stink, therefore God?

your defining one due to the other makes no sense. Since math, therefore atoms.... equals God

Wow!
Posted by tfroitz1 2 months ago
tfroitz1
Now seemingly you think that mathematics is a property of nature. In this thought lies a problem. If nature had such a property, mathematics as we see it today couldn't work. Mathematicians don't go out into the world searching for a new part or solution in mathematics. They have certain accession such as logic which underlay all their work. This logic is ingrained into humans due to us being exposed to the universe, which works according to logical rules. Mathematics takes those rules, which can be derived from the universe around us and asserts them to be true. What now happens is the interpretation of those rules, which results in mathematics. Now the reason mathematics describes our physical world is that mathematics is based on logic which is in turn based on observation of the natural world. To say that it is surprising how well mathematics works applied to the natural world is comparable to say, that it is surprising, that the color our eyes are adjusted to best is green and this so happens to be the primary color of our surrounding, while it is perfectly obvious that it worked the other way around.
Therefore the mathematics properties of reality are due to mathematics being derived from it in the first place. This makes your argument concerning quantum mechanics rather obviously false.

Secondly you seemingly still don't accept that information can be created with out sentience, but this is pretty much clearly true, concerning the examples I brought.

I hope to have made it clear but if you want we can debate it too.
Posted by creationtruth 2 months ago
creationtruth
tfroitz1- You fail to grasp or even begin to understand the arguments. The answer is not in the "what" but in the "function." Humans build upon mathematics because they are an intrinsic, linguistic property of nature intelligible by sentient creatures such as ourselves. Isaac Newton understood the God behind his Principia Mathematica through the function of mathematic properties, not simply by virtue of their curious existence. Likewise the linguistic nature of genomics reveals a Mind behind the grand orchestrations of cellular activity. If you care to debate this, I can send you the challenge.
Posted by tfroitz1 2 months ago
tfroitz1
Both arguments by pro demonstrate in no way the existence of a god.

The appeal to quantum mechanics, saying that, because the intrinsic properties of particles are described by mathematical terms, implies not in the slightest a god. Considering that mathematics is just a language to describe logical properties and the universe being the logical basis on which humans build logic and mathematics, it is not at all surprising, that we use it to describe our natural world.

The second point, that information needs a sentient being to create it, is also wrong. Our whole universe is non random information and doesn't need a sentient being to be build (our laws of nature build information without sentience all the time).
An example which is maybe better to grasp, is a meteorite hitting a planet. The crater resulting from it has information which allows us to determine what the properties of meteorite were and no one would say that it needed sentience to build the information.

Therefore neither of the points is valid or implies a god even if it were.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 2 months ago
BrettBoelkens
Sorry, my computer couldn't get on WiFi. There was no way I was typing a constructive from my phone. It works now though if you wanna go again
Posted by creationtruth 2 months ago
creationtruth
What happened?
Posted by BrettBoelkens 2 months ago
BrettBoelkens
My position on gun control and abortion, Let'sdebate24, are rather complicated, and they can't be simply explained in categorical terms like pro-choice or pro-life, to take the abortion example. I'm fine debating either one of those subjects if you so wish.

First off, gun control. I don't really know what we should do about the current gun control situation. I'm American, so I'll put in in terms of the US. There is such a surplus of guns, and an excessive amount of lobbying, that there is little to no hope of ever getting rid of all the guns in the US. I don't exactly like the situation where we have so many firearms that we could have a gun per person. It isn't needed, and I see no real benefit that outways the cons. Essentially, I don't see the benefit, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Second off, abortion. Philosophical speaking, I am pro-life, while legally speaking I am pro-choice. In other terms, I wouldn't support someone having an abortion, but I'm fine if they are allowed to have one. Personally, aborting a fetus inevitably entails, in the last stages, stopping a heart, breaking bones, and rupturing organs. Personally, I can't bear the thought of doing that. But other people view it differently, and I can't force my view on others. The issue isn't as important as if we started murdering everyone since at that point we couldn't have a society.

However, I'm fine with embryonic stem cell research, since at that point blastocysts have less development then flies. Medical advances in that field have the potential to cure mental illnesses and disease.
Posted by Letsdebate24 2 months ago
Letsdebate24
Question for con. What are your positions regarding abortion and gun rights?
Posted by RichardCypher 2 months ago
RichardCypher
This guy must be joking! How retard are you? The context is "god". A NOUN representing a sentient being. Your example is based on a conditional state & irrelevant to the context--since the context is rooted in the existence of an ENTITY--not a conditional state. Therefore my analysis is restricted to a "sentient being".
Get off the drugs.
Stay sober.
Looking both ways before crossing the street.
Because you clearly need a guiding hand to point out the obvious!
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.