The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Fatihah
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

God does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,697 times Debate No: 22248
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

God = Sentient creator of the universe

First round for acceptance.
Fatihah

Con

The topic of this debate, as stated, is whether or not God exists. Here, each debater will present evidence for the topic, where I myself will provide evidence that God does in fact exist, while my opponent will present his evidence that God does not.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

My opponent technically should have the full burden of proof in this debate because of the inferring of a positive (is, does, are, was, will ect.), but he refused to start the debate himself. I am taking the liberty of kicking off this hopefully, intellectually enlightening exchange.

I personally agree that the base assumption is X doesn't exist, until reasoning or evidence appears however there are still a few Atheistic arguments against the existence of God which I personally designs myself which I feel hold weight against the existence of a sentient creator of the cosmos who still exists.



Argument #1 in favor of God's non-existence:

This argument is important because a line must be drawn in order to avoid any special pleading. There are many cases where theists will claim that whatever exists "outside" of the universe must poses opposite qualities (Timelessness, spacelessness, non-physical) but neglect that it also applies to causes too.

I could just say whatever exists outside the universe is non-casual because causes exist inside the universe, like the theist claims a hypothetical "outside" the universe must be non-physical, because inside the universe is physical.

Now lets assume the opposite for the sake of discussion, and that it is logical to use inside of the universe as a guideline for what may be "outside", it may be logical to assume there was a cause of the universe, but it still doesn't look for a sentient being.

My first argument is as follows:

Prelude:

There are only two options:

Either it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe propertiesof a hypothetical “outside” the universe, or it is nonsensical.

Argument:


If it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical “outside” the universe:

Based on all available knowledge


P1:
If the universe was caused, it logically would be the most powerful, most complex, and probable cause.

P2: Non-sentient causes are more powerful and complex than sentient causes, and outnumber sentient causes by an extremely large margin. (there is more cause and effect going on in the universe in larger power that is non-sentient, than sentient causes here on earth).

P3:
When faced with the two options of a hypothetical non-sentient cause and a sentient cause of the universe,a non-sentient cause is most likely true because it is more probable, and involves more power and complexity.


If it is nonsensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical “outside” the universe:

P1: Causes occur within the universe

P2: It is nonsensical to believe a cause can exist outside the universe, because they occur within the universe

P3: The universe was uncaused


Conclusion:

The universe, had no sentient cause.

Argument #2 in favor of God's non-existence:

In this argument I will argue that the universe's beginning had an internal cause rather than external, and that assuming the internal cause is God (strictly for the sake of argument) is most likely non-existent by now if it was an internal cause.

Argument

P1: If the cause of the universe was necessary, it was internal, and if that cause is God, then God cannot exist as a timeless or spaceless being.

P2: If God is not timeless or spaceless, he is finite.

P3: Evidence within the universe tells us, that finite beings cannot live 13.7 billion years.

P4: The cause of the universe was internal.

P5: God does not exist today.

What evidence to do I have to back up my claim that the beginning of the universe had an internal cause if it needed one? Well we know the universe is expanding, not from being pulled out from the outside but from being pushed from the inside by dark energy. Since the beginning of the universe is described as the expansion from the singularity, and modern cosmology is telling us that the inflation is coming from the inside the universe, then if the universe requires a cause, it was most likely an internal one.

Here is an additional argument showing that if a cause is required for the expansion of the singularity, it was a virtual particle and not a sentient being.

Conclusion:

God does not exist today.

Argument #2 in favor of God's non-existence:

I'm going to argue that if the cause of the expansion of the singularity is required, it was not due to an internal sentient being, but an internal Quantum Fluctuation.

P1: If the expansion from the singularity required a cause, it requires an internal cause (which I already provided reasoning for)

P2: The internal cause was due to Quantum Fluctuations

P3: Quantum Fluctuations are non-sentient

P5: A sentient cause of the expansion of the singularity, did not, and does not exist.

Why must the expansion of the universe be due to Quantum Fluctuations? Well...

"According to the model of inflation the ones (Quantum Fluctuations) that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure." - Wikipedia [1]


Therefore, Quantum Fluctuations were responsible for the expansion and inflation of the known universe, and were the seeds of galaxy formations, and even sentient life on earth.

Conclusion:

A sentient cause of the expansion of the singularity, did not, and does not exist.

First Round (technically second round) exit comment:

I believe I have fulfilled my burden and presented solid arguments in favor of God's non-existence.

Source(s):

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



Fatihah

Con

It appears that my opponent assumes that making random statements with no support substantiates as proof. For example, you will notice that my opponent said the following:

"When faced with the two options of a hypothetical non-sentient cause and a sentient cause of the universe,a non-sentient cause is most likely true because it is more probable, and involves more power and complexity".

Here he makes a statement, but where's the proof? He provides absolutely none. You must first prove that a non-sentient cause is more powerful to even base a conclusion on such standards. Yet my opponent provides absolutely none, thus providing a baseless statement. But let us say, for the sake of argument, that such a statement is true. Then based on such logic, my opponent is saying that the proof that God does not exist is because non-sentinent causes are more powerful. Therefore, the universe could not come from God because God is not as powerful as a non-sentient cause. Yet my oponent again provides no evidence to support the statement. Furthermore, it implies that he would know how powerful God is to make a statement. But wait. I thought that God does not exist? Then how can you possibly know how powerful God is? His argument falls apart from all angles. He then says:

P2: "It is nonsensical to believe a cause can exist outside the universe....."

Okay. That's a start. So what proof do you have to support it. So he says

"because they occur within the universe"

That's it? That's the proof? All my opponent has done thus far is say statements with no proof at all. Simply saying so is not proof that it is so. There is absolutely no logic or rational provided. Surely, even if one agrees that there is no God, they can at least see that such logic does not hold as proof that there is no God.

Yet the inability of my opponent to provide sound logi does not automaticaly prove the existence of God. The proof of God's exisetence is in the following:

Intelligent creation cannot originate from unintelligence

What is the definition of unintelligence. Unintelligence is defined as the inability to learn and comprehend. In other words, no intelligence. Thus by definition, unintelligence cannot have originated intelligence because by definition, it is unintelligent. One cannot provide for something that it does not have itself. This is simple common sense. So the intelligence of any creation cannot possibly come from unintelligence because one with no intelligence has none to give. One cannot provide something that it does not posses themself. Can I provide you money when I do not have any? The obvious answer is no. This simple logic is enough to disprove any claim that the human species, which is intelligent, originated from unintelligence. No. We could only have come from intelligence, thus proving that we originated from intelligent design and the name of the intelligent designer is identified as God.

A pattern that repeats itself can only originate from intelligence.

Let us further prove the existence of God by proving that unintelligence cannot originate a repeated pattern. To do so, we first have to analyze something that is uninteligent. Let's take the body of a dead person. Now if I ask the dead person to draw me a checkerboard pattern, what will be the result? Nothing. Why? The dead person cannot learn or comprehend what it is being told. In other words, it is unintelligent. As a result of its unintelligence, it cannot create intelligence or use it to create a pattern. Let us look at a new born baby. A baby is an intelligent species. Yet if I ask a new born to draw a repeating pattern with a paint brush, what will be the result. The answer is obvious. Nothing. Here, an intelligent being cannot create a simple drawing. Why? Because as we know, the child lacks the ability to comprehend what they are being told as a new born, thus lacking intelligence and from their lack of intelligence, cannot create a repeating pattern. Thus we see from two tested subjects of unintelligence and even slight intelligence that a pattern that repeats itself cannot be created, thus proving that it can only originate from intelligent design. Therefore, the solar system, water cycle, and other natural phenomenoms within the universe that repeat had to originate from intelligent design, further proving that God is the originator of the universe.

Thus we see that when tested, as provided above, unintelligence fails to create something with intelligence or repeated patterns, thus proving that the universe and life itself originated from God, who is the intelligent designer.

Creation by Chance causes disorder

A pattern that repeats itself as well as organization can only originate from one making a decision. This is also easily proven. Again, we need a test subject. Let's use ourselves. If one wants to draw a human face in a picture, one would first have to decide on which stroke of the brush to use, decide where each feature of the face goes, it's size, dimensions, ,etc. Without doing so, it would not be possible to to draw the face. A decision is made first and the drawing is based on the decision and ideas. Now if one does not use their intelligence and make a decision or choice, then that means that a person is acting by chance. So what is the result of drawing a painting using no decision, judgment, or comprehension? Complete disorder. If I throw a bucket of paint on the wall, making no choice as to where the paint aligns on the paper, what are the chances that it will
draw a face? Exactly. None. Not only will there be no face, but it will be complete disorder from even looking like a face. In other words, without using intelligence disorder was created. Thus we see that unintelligence creates disorder, thus proving that the order of the stars,planets, and all that exist in the universe did not happen by chance or unintelligence, but intelligent design. Thus proving finally that God is the originator of all creation in the universe.


Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

My opponent has said that I have not provided any proof that non-sentient causes are more powerful than sentient ones based on all available knowledge. The question must be asked, is it really necessary? I believe it's self-evident but that would be quite a cop out of me to just leave it at that, so I will quickly provide evidence and reasoning for why the most powerful causes are sentient based on all available knowledge.

The most powerful causes are non-sentient

A black hole for example is more powerful than any sentience we know of, it doesn't matter what a sentient being does it will get sucked into a black hole, meaning the black hole is clearly more powerful. The non-sentient caused nuclear explosions on the sun are far more powerful than any nuclear explosions any sentient being we know of can create. No sentient being we know of has the power to form a galaxy, but quantum fluctuations [1] in the early universe and gravity are non-sentient and can form galaxies.


Also, the only sentience we know exists, exists on earth. This is one small planet in a random solar system, even if extra-terrestrial intelligence existed it couldn't compare to the vast number of powerful non-sentient causes.

So since there only two options (Either it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical “outside” the universe, or it is nonsensical), if it is sensical, then it's only logical that the universe had a non-sentient cause, because they are more frequent in number and are more powerful.

If it is nonsensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical “outside” the universe, then a cause is contradictory


"P2: It is nonsensical to believe a cause can exist outside the universe.....


Okay. That's a start. So what proof do you have to support it. So he says"


Since there are only two options, and one of them requires the use of within the universe as a guideline and this requires that the use of the universe a guidelines is not present, then it's illogical to claim the universe had a cause because causes exist within the universe.

The logical proof is the fact that there are only two options, either it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical “outside” the universe, or it is nonsensical. Since both of them do not support a sentient cause of the universe, then there logically is no sentient cause of the universe.

My opponent did not adequately refute my arguments:

"Yet the inability of my opponent to provide sound logic does not automatically prove the existence of God. The proof of God's existence is in the following:"


I did show that when faced with necessary options, regardless of which one picked, it does not support a sentient being. Since I gave support for my claims in this round they still stand.

The huge error in my opponent's response, is it only addressed 1 out of my 3 arguments against the existence of God. I had 3 arguments and he only attempted to refute 1 and that didn't even hold.

My opponent has clearly failed to tear down my arguments and jumped right into providing his own, well I refute his arguments as follows.

Intelligent creation cannot originate from unintelligence

"What is the definition of unintelligence. Unintelligence is defined as the inability to learn and comprehend. In other words, no intelligence. Thus by definition, unintelligence cannot have originated intelligence because by definition, it is unintelligent."

Something doesn't have to have the ability to learn and comprehend in order to change the form of something or rearrange something in a complex form. Gravity can rearrange matter to form a planet and gravity cannot learn or comprehend for example, my opponent must first prove why a "creation" is intelligent.

As far as intelligence originating from non-intelligence goes, why not? Saying that because "something that is not intelligent is something that is not intelligent, therefore, cannot originate something intelligent" is like saying "something that is not a plant is not a plant, therefore, cannot originate a plant". Of course a seed is not a plant, but a plant can come from it. Basically, just because something isn't X (like unintelligence isn't intelligent) doesn't mean X can't come from it. Threads and stuffing aren't cute, that doesn't mean that a cute teddy bear cannot come from it, so in retrospect, unintelligence is not intelligent, but that doesn't mean intelligence cannot come from it.

What my opponent calls logic, I call a massive logical fallacy.

A pattern that repeats itself can only originate from intelligence

This is the most outrages argument I have ever read, of course a pattern that repeats can originate from a non-intelligent cause.

Snow Flakes

"Snowflakes are conglomerations of frozen ice crystals which fall through the Earth's atmosphere. They begin as snow crystals which develop when microscopic supercooled cloud droplets freeze." [2]

Microscopic supercooled cloud prop lets freezing due to certain temperatures are not intelligent, and can create the intricate patterns we see in snow flakes that repeat.

Flowers

The contents in the ground are non-intelligent, yet they can cause the patterns we see in flowers (pedals, stems ect.) and repeat quite often. Thus, debunking once more the claim that only intelligence can originate patterns that repeat.

Planet formation

Planets are formed by gravity clumping matter together. Since gravity is non-intelligent, and planets seem to show off the repeated patterns of spherical shapes, then you are once more again, proven wrong.

Patterns that repeat clearly can come from non-intelligence, thus making my opponent's argument's baseless.

Creation by Chance causes disorder

My opponent assumes that either something can only be 100% random, or intelligent. We know this is not true, if you plant a tree, a sandwich isn't going to randomly come out simply because the seed is not intelligent.

Unless my opponent proves that non-randomness can only stem from intelligence (which I showed was false), then he has no grounds in this debate.

Re-Cap

My opponent only attempted at refuting 1 out of my 3 arguments, therefore my opponent has failed at adequately refuting me. I even refuted his refutation of my first argument, and clearly showed how his arguments for God were completely based on false assumptions.

God does not exist

At least as far as both of are arguments are concerned, God does not exist.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Fatihah

Con

There are still several illogical flaws in my opponents argument. Again, he is attempting to prove that God does not exist. In his attempt to do so, he states that non-sentient causes are more powerful then sentient causes, and based on this, such evidence proves that God does not exist. Yet such logic is clearly flawed. Just because the black hole is a powerful non-sentient cause does not rule out that such a did not originate from intelligence. Furthermore, his proof that non-sentient causes do not originate from intelligence is because.......wait for it......

"because they are more frequent in number and are more powerful".

This is clearly illogical. What my opponent is saying is that because one has more than the other, then one must be the creater of the other. According to such logic, since there are more chinese people in the world than Indians, then that would mean that the chinese created the Indians. Any reasonable person can see the flaw in such logic. Saying something is the originator of another because there is more of them is highly illogical, thus my opponent has failed to prove that God does not exist with such an argument. It is not impossible for one with intelligence to create many things that are unintelligent and non-sentient. There are more action figure toys than there are humans. Does that mean that the G.I.Joe with the kung-fu grip is responsible for your creation? My opponents argument fails, to say the least.

He then states....

"The huge error in my opponent's response, is it only addressed 1 out of my 3 arguments against the existence of God. I had 3 arguments and he only attempted to refute 1 and that didn't even hold".

For starters, the argument that something is the creater of another simply because it is more in existence has been utterly disproven as demonstrated above. Regarding my opponent's other arguments, they were not addresed simply because it would have lenghtened my original response even more, which I desired not to do, but will be addressed now.

My opponent states that the universe had an internal cause, therefore this proves that God does not exist. He bases his argument on the statement that because the universe is expanding and such expansion occurs from inflation from the inside, then such is proof that God does not exist. Again, his is flawed logic. Just because something expands from the inside is not proof that such expansion did not come about from an authority from the outside.

A cake expands from the inside when it is baked. Body fat and size expands from the inside when someone over eats. Yet in both these examples, the cause of such expansion originally came about from intelligence from the outside. For it was the use of intelligence to bake the cake to begin with and it was intelligence that made the decision to over eat. Thus the examples above completely refutes the argument of my opponent, as it demonstrates that expansion from inside can be caused based on intelligence and intelligence from the outside, as shown in the rise and expansion of a simple baked cake. Expansion from the inside does not negate that the cause originated from the outside. This would also disprove his third argument, which is also based on expansion from the inside with quantum physics. Again, my opponent fails to disprove the existence of God.

Then my opponent uses a complete strawman to refute the evidence that God does exist. In my evidence, I presented that the very definition of unintelligence proves that it cannot originate intelligence because unintelligence means "no intelligence". Therefore, an intelligent creation cannot derive its intelligence from unintelligence because unintelligence has no intelligence to give. You cannot give away something that you yourself don't have. This is simple common sense.

He says in response:

Saying that because "something that is not intelligent is something that is not intelligent, therefore, cannot originate something intelligent" is like saying "something that is not a plant is not a plant, therefore, cannot originate a plant".

Yet at no time have I ever stated "something that is not intelligent is something that is not intelligent, therefore, cannot originate something intelligent". Nor can my opponent quote and prove otherwise. Thus the fact that my opponent uses a weak strawman reflects the fact that my opponent has no logical rebuttal, thus failing again to disprove the existence of God. As shown above, I further expounded that unintelligence cannot create intelligence, not simply because it is not intelligent, as my opponent says, but that an intelligent creation cannot derive its intelligence from unintelligence because unintelligence has no intelligence to give. You cannot give away something that you yourself don't have. Thus my opponent's argument fails, as the very definition of unintelligence proves the fact that it cannot originate intelligence, thus proving that all intelligent creation originated from intelligent design, thus proving the existence of God.

In his rebuttal to refute the fact that a pattern that repeates itself can only originate from intelligence, he states that snowflakes, flowers, and planet formation, proves that unintelligence can originate a pattern that repeats itself. Again, his examples display a severe flaw in logic. For he states that Microscopic supercooled cloud prop is responsible for the formation of a snowflake pattern, the contents in the ground is responsible for flower patterns, and gravity is responsible for the formation of planet patterns. He then states that because these elements are non-intelligent, then this proves that a pattern that repeats itself can originate from unintelligence. False. For all three elements (gravity, the contents in the ground, and Microscopic supercooled cloud prop) are all creations themselves. Thus the are not the origin and they themselves have a beginning. The argument fails, for I clearly stated that a pattern that repeats itself cannot originate from unintelligence, while your example involves a creation causing another creation, thus excluding its origin. The example fails.

Furthermore, I presented examples of unintelligence being unable to originate a pattern that repeats itself, such as a new born baby and a dead body, both which clearly cannot originate a pattern that repeats itself because they both lack the ability to learn and comprehend, thus their unintelligence prevents them from doing so. My opponent could not refute this and didn't even address it, thus further debunking his argument. For these examples clearly show that unintelligence cannot originate intelligence. So in order for my opponent to refute my evidence, he would have to show that a dead body and a new born can in fact create a repeating pattern. Otherwise, the evidence holds as proof for my argument since you can't prove otherwsie, and as anyone can see , saying that a new born or a dead body can originate a repeating pattern is illogical. Thus the proof that God exist still stands, while we see my opponent's arguments failing at a fast rate.

Lastly, it was demonstrated that without intelligence, creation originating by chance causes disorder, as proven by the fact that if one throws a bucket of paint on the wall without using their intelligence to align the paint on the paper to create a human face, the result will be nothing but disorder and a big mess that looks nothing like a human face. Again, my opponent dodged the example and cannot prove that one can throw a bucket of paint on a wall and that by chance, it will form a human face.

In conclusion, the examples that I provided to support that God exist has not been disproven, as my opponent can not show from my examples evidence to the contrary, while his own argument was completely dismantled. Thus the fact that God does exist still stands
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Refuting My Opponent's Objections

Unfortunately, my opponent's breakdown of my arguments do not represent the points I was trying to get across. I never said that because non-sentient causes are more powerful and more frequent that it rules out a sentient cause, I said that if it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical “outside” the universe then the only logical option is to go with the non-sentient cause. My opponent forgets that my argument involves two options, he is taking each option like it's it's own argument and trying to refute it, meaning he is straw manning my stance.

"What my opponent is saying is that because one has more than the other, then one must be the creator of the other. According to such logic, since there are more Chinese people in the world than Indians, then that would mean that the Chinese created the Indians."

Not exactly...This comment shows a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty.

A real example would be if someone said "A leaf was blown, was it due to a non-sentient cause or sentient cause?". This is a real example, because we don't know the answer yet therefore it's all up to speculation. Since more leafs are blown due to wind than leaf blowers, and wind is more powerful than leaf blowers, then it's only logical to assume that if a random leaf was blown, it was most likely due to a non-sentient cause.

Since my opponent's example had nothing to do with what I was actually saying, it can be dismissed.

"Saying something is the originator of another because there is more of them is highly illogical"

Frequency was just one property of my argument, power and complexity were the other two. What's highly illogical is thinking sentience was the cause of the universe when sentience has shown to be the least frequent, least powerful, and least complex. If the universe requires a cause, it requires the most probable, most powerful, and complex cause.

"For starters, the argument that something is the creator of another simply because it is more in existence has been utterly disproven as demonstrated above"

Frequency was just one part of the argument, power and complexity were the other. This means, my opponent can't even engage in an intellectually enlightening debate because he is too caught up in straw man arguments. I was expecting much more from my opponent.

Regarding the internal cause


My opponent's argument basically boils down to something like: "a grenade explodes from the inside, but there was still someone there to make the grenade on the outside"

The problem is there is no evidence that the grenade (singularity) was created. The Big Bang simply states that our known universe came from the singularity, not that the singularity popped into existence.

Also, every cake baker and grenade maker had a creator themselves, so if my opponent's examples are valid, then who created the creator? To avoid infinite regress, not inferring a creator when a theory works without it is the only logical option.

Intelligence coming from non-intelligence

"I presented that the very definition of unintelligence proves that it cannot originate intelligence because unintelligence means no intelligence."

Unintelligent = Non-intelligent

All non-intelligence is, is anything without intelligence. So all non-plant would mean is anything that's not a plant. We know that plants can come from things that are not plants (seeds), therefore, why can't intelligence originate from something that is non intelligent? It seems my opponent is creating standards for reality which don't exist.

"You cannot give away something that you yourself don't have. This is simple common sense."

All the atoms in your brain that make the mechanisms possible for intelligence to be experienced, existed long before Natural Selection took it's course and brains started forming in organisms. Nature had all the ingredients for intelligence to be formed before intelligence existed. Therefore, the above comment can be dismissed.

"Yet at no time have I ever stated "something that is not intelligent is something that is not intelligent, therefore, cannot originate something intelligent". Nor can my opponent quote and prove otherwise."

Not in those exact words, but pretty close. My opponent said:

"Thus by definition, unintelligence cannot have originated intelligence because by definition, it is unintelligent. "

The stance above is obvsioulsy makes no sense, because something that is unX can originate x (like I showed with my plant example).

According to my opponent's logic, the ingredients for apple juice could not come from a tree because a tree is non-apple juice.

Of course my opponent's logic is flawed to the max. Therefore, we can dismiss his "X can't come from nonX" argument right off the bat.

Non-intelligence and patterns that repeat

"For all three elements (gravity, the contents in the ground, and Microscopic supercooled cloud prop) are all creations themselves"

Of course the huge problem with this line of thinking is the assertion of a sentient creation. How do we know that things can be non-intelligently created instead of jumping to sentient creations? Well, gravity can "create" a planet all by itself. So lets say that I granted that these elements needed for flowers and snow flakes were created, my opponent still never argued for sentient creation.

Since I showed that the "X cannot come from non-X" argument from my opponent was not logical, then my opponent's refutations can be dismissed.

Creation by chance causes disorder

"Lastly, it was demonstrated that without intelligence, creation originating by chance causes disorder"

100% chance? Sure. However, my opponent is assuming there are only two options:

1) 100% random chance

2) Intelligence

The problem is we know that Natural Selection [1] is a mechanism which is non-random and shows 0 signs of intelligence. Gravity isn't intelligent, but it's not completely random either (it clumps matter together, it doesn't do random things that are unexpected).

My opponent's assumptions that there can only be 100% chance or intelligence are flawed.

Additional Argument Against God


P1: Intelligence is a bi-product of a functioning brain
P2: Brains did not exist until after the universe was created
P3: Intelligence could not be responsible for the universe's inception

If I poke someone's biological eye out, they won't be able to see. If I rip someone's ear drum out, they won't be able to hear, but I'm supposed to believe that if I ripped someone's brain out, they could still think? I don't think so.

My opponent seems to think that you can view a movie without some kind of physical projector. Without a physical projector, there are no images. Without a physical brain, there is no thought.

Now I could be wrong, however all evidence of the universe shows that intelligence is a tool for survival and is based on the brain which is a storage device for extra information.

To think that intelligence can exist without a brain will require extra-ordinary evidence. So at this time, it's safe to say that an intelligent creator of matter cannot exist (like a square circle cannot exist). Because intelligence is dependent on matter's existence...Once more, I could be wrong, but until the evidence contradicting this common sense stance arises, an intelligent creator of matter does/ did not exist.

Conclusion


My opponent's rebuttals to my argument didn't really hold much weight and the arguments he presented regarding intelligence were absolutely wild and outrages. X comes from non-X all the time, my opponent didn't even give one good reason why intelligence couldn't originate from non intelligence. My opponent also assumes that all creation is sentient, which I disproved.

In the context of this debate at least, God does not exist.

Sources

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

Con

Once again, my opponent fails to produce any sound logic that God does not exist. In his attempt to do so, he tries to refute the clear evidence of God's existence, but fails utterly in doing so and shies away from his own original argument, hoping you the reader doesn't catch it. He begins and states:

"I never said that because non-sentient causes are more powerful and more frequent that it rules out a sentient cause, I said that if it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical "outside" the universe then the only logical option is to go with the non-sentient cause."

We notice above that he clearly states

"I never said that because non-sentient causes are more powerful and more frequent that it rules out a sentient cause,.."

Now watch ladies and gentlemen, as I quote his exact words

" if it is sensical, then it's only logical that the universe had a non-sentient cause, because they are more frequent in number and are more powerful".

Is this debate not over? I mean, really? My opponent has been completely caught out. As we can easily see, my opponent attempted to run from his own argument, as he himself saw the flaw in it by denying his own argument. This is an utter failure and flaw in a debate. Denying your own argument is self recognition and evidence from my opponent himself that his argument does not hold up. As such, it holds as a complete flaw in logic and reasoning and the proof that God does not exist is an utter failure.


As demonstrated, my opponent claimed that something can be considered the originator of something simply because it is more frequent in number, yet such reasoning is highly illogical, thus my opponent has failed to prove that God does not exist with such an argument. According to such logic, since there are more Chinese people in the world than Indians, then that would mean that the Chinese created the Indians. Any reasonable person can see the flaw in such logic. It is not impossible for one with intelligence to create many things that are unintelligent and non-sentient. There are more action figure toys than there are humans. Does that mean that the G.I.Joe with the kung-fu grip is responsible for your creation? So not only does my opponent's argument fail, but as we just witnessed, my opponent
ran away and denied his own argument which is enough to show that his arguments failed, as he himself didn't feel confident enough to run with it after I presented my rebuttal.


So in an effort to redeem his argument, he continues and states:

"My opponent's argument basically boils down to something like: "a grenade explodes from the inside, but there was still someone there to make the grenade on the outside

The problem is there is no evidence that the grenade (singularity) was created. The Big Bang simply states that our known universe came from the singularity, not that the singularity popped into existence.

Also, every cake baker and grenade maker had a creator themselves, so if my opponent's examples are valid, then who created the creator? To avoid infinite regress, not inferring a creator when a theory works without it is the only logical option."

He states that there is no evidence that the singularity was created and that to state that something or someone created the singularity is illogical because the Big Bang is logical enough to prove how the universe came about. Yet the problem is that the Big Bang is not logical in proving the creation of the universe because it states that the singularity has no intelligence, and as proven, unintelligence cannot originate a repeated pattern. How do we know this? By simply testing an unintelligent subject or a subject that lacks intelligence and as demonstrated, neither a dead body, or a new born can create a repeating pattern due to its inability to learn and comprehend. In other words, their inability to do so is due to a lack of intelligence, or no intelligence. So since a lack of intelligence and no intelligence cannot create a repeating pattern in the tested subjects, then it can be concluded that the singularity did not originate the repeating patterns in the universe because it has no intelligence as well. Since it has no intelligence, this means that these patterns were also not created by chance. For as demonstrated, chance cannot originate a repeating pattern or order, but rather, can only be responsible for disorder. Again, how do we know this? As demonstrated, if one throws a bucket of paint on the wall in an attempt to draw a human face without using intelligence, decision making and judgment to align the paint, the result will not be a human face, but a complete mess and disorder from even looking like a human face.

As demonstrated from three test subjects, the act of chance and unintelligence cannot originate a repeating pattern or order, but rather, it can only create disorder, thus proving that the order and patterns in the universe did not originate from the singularity because the singularity has no intelligence. My opponent has not contested this to show that a new born or a dead body can create a repeating pattern or that a human face painting can be created by chance. Thus his inability to do so in my examples support the fact that intelligence originated the intelligence and patterns in all creation within the universe, thus proving that the universe originated from an intelligent designer, whom we call God. My opponent's arguments have all failed thus far. We continue.

He then states:

"We know that plants can come from things that are not plants (seeds), therefore, why can't intelligence originate from something that is non intelligent? It seems my opponent is creating standards for reality which don't exist."

This analogy fails. By acknowledging that a plant comes from a seed, you are admitting that the plant came from something. Yet in the case of unintelligence originating intelligence, the very definition of unintelligence is "No Intelligence". This means that intelligence comes from "nothing", not something, as in the case of an apple. Another failed argument. Furthermore, the elements of the seed is in the apple, while unintelligence cannot be within intelligence. Debunking my opponent again.


Now here is where it gets interesting. Let me quote my opponent on this one:


I said: "Lastly, it was demonstrated that without intelligence, creation originating by chance causes disorder"

My opponent replies with:

"100% chance? Sure."


Here, my opponent agrees with me. Again, is this debate not over? But he wants to justify his statement, so he says:

"100% random chance".

This type of argument is rather desperate to say the least. A random chance? This makes no sense. The word random and chance are synonymous terms. http://freethesaurus.net...

So stating that chance cannot originate a repeating pattern but random chance can is illogical when the terms mean the same thing. That's like saying "The man is not fast, he's quick". Flawed logic. My opponent's arguments continue to fail.

Lastly, my opponent says that intelligence is the bi-product of the brain. So unless one has a brain, then they cannot be intelligent. Again, this type of logic fails, for as already demonstrated, unintelligence cannot originate intelligence. Therefore, the intelligence of the brain originates from intelligence and as his own analogy says regarding a seed (which is not an apple) creating an apple, such is the same in the creation of the brain where as a brain is not required to originate a brain. It is rather the ingredients that are needed, which in this case is intelligence. So my opponent's own analogy backfires to actually prove intelligent design, and when we consider that he ran from his original argument, had his own arguments dismantled, and ended by agreeing with part of my argument, not only is it clear who won the debate, but it is also rather clear and evident that God does in fact exist. Thank you and God Bless.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Reasonslap 1 year ago
Reasonslap
Says the person who believes in fairy tales.
Posted by Fatihah 4 years ago
Fatihah
The_Fool_on_the_hill : "Fatihah not a rational opponent lol. He sounds kinda like Inferno under cover."

Says the person who couldn't produce a sound argument to save his life.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
God exists. The absolute scientific proof of the existence of God is:
The Fool: Nothing in Science is abolute. lol .. .
There are two things in the universe: energy; and, information, which is the conformation of energy. In 1John1:5 it says, "God is light".
The Fool: people say manythings. Light is not the only form of energy.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
How did con stick to the roots exactly?
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
well i would vote but because im new and have 3 debates in voting period(at least i think) i cant vote. but i was pro before and con after. In my opinion con went to the roots of why things are.It seems pro tried to go to roots but went into the branches while trying to refute. Because con in my opinion sticked to the roots and had made more logical sense to me i would have voted con(hopefully i can cast my vote soon.....lol)
Posted by Lahunken 4 years ago
Lahunken
God exists. The absolute scientific proof of the existence of God is: There are two things in the universe: energy; and, information, which is the conformation of energy. In 1John1:5 it says, "God is light". Light is energy, therefore, energy is God. Capacitance causes consciousness. Gods eternal creating causes His eternal consciousness. If we were energy we would never sleep. We are information, a closed circuit of the one substance in the one substance, and, we may undifferentiate into confluent circuits, thereby losing consciousness. We may totally undifferentiate into nothingness. That which leads toward that is pleasure. The one force of the universe is pushing all to undifferentiate into nothingness. Everything is running down, or wound up by that which is running down. Creation is a consequence of theophysiology. There are an infinitude of dimensions. The infinitesimal point nothingness, . , is rastered by time into timespace, U, which exerts its oneness in one direction, /, that stirs closed circuitry, O, which all going the same way, vO^XvO^, clashes, X, a "big bang", which forces confluency, =, to undifferentiate into nonexistence. This is the mechnism of creation. The rest is the force to undifferentiate into nothingness. Too much capacitance is unpleasant, to say the least. God doesn't like it and we don't like it. But, mankind cried for immortality so that God incarnated as Jesus Christ to give immortality to those who followed His directions. With the ultimate closed circuitry of the one substance, "what goes around comes around".
Posted by vakeelss 4 years ago
vakeelss
Call anything any faith with a name.. It is still to call. Purpose is to be self assured of a guardianship.
There always is "is". Existence is beyond intellectual pursuit. God is omnipotent in animals .in insects..in us..in table and in anything in universe. God has dictated or sent with us no book. Existence is now.. ". "NO" is a joke.. There is everything thay exists.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Fatihah not a rational opponent lol. He sounds kinda like Inferno under cover.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
Rational_Thinker9119FatihahTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: con convinced me....but pro had some intresting points as well
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Rational_Thinker9119FatihahTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: No argument was successful, but Fatihah had the BoP, so Rational wins.
Vote Placed by mee2kool4u369 4 years ago
mee2kool4u369
Rational_Thinker9119FatihahTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: -