The Instigator
MysticEgg
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Timosity
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God in nature (intelligent design)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
MysticEgg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 783 times Debate No: 39716
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

MysticEgg

Con

Welcome, everyone!

Motion: God exists in nature

First, allow me to clarify the motion. By "God exists in nature" I mean the following: "Through observation and reason, we can conclude the existence of a god as the best explanation for certain - if not all - aspects in nature." This means no ontological arguments, people! I've been observing (haha...) them recently in the forums and don't wish to debate them now. What do I mean by God? I simply mean an intelligent designer that is unknown to us. (So, Pro could argue for aliens, I suppose).

I, as Con, will be arguing against the existence of God in nature. However, the burden of proof will lie on Pro here; proving God impossible and/or non-existent is not a burden I carry.

Pro's burden of proof is: To show that God is the best explanation for certain - if not all - aspects in nature.
Con's burden is: To undermine and/or refute Con's argument(s).

The rules are as follows:

1) Pro must give the opening case in round one. In round four, Pro must put, and only put, "No round posted here as agreed."
2) A forfeit of a round is a forfeit of conduct; a forfeit of a round is only a forfeit of conduct.
3) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters conceded the debate.
4) Sources are considered accurate unless they are proven otherwise.

That's all for now! If anyone has any question, please post a comment! Good luck to all! Allez!



Timosity

Pro

The first law of thermodynamics addresses the conservation of energy that exists in a closed system. This basic law of physics supports the existence of God in nature. How did energy begin to exist without violating this law? There are three possible causes for the origin of energy: 1) from nothing, 2) from something natural, and/or 3) from something supernatural. There are no experiences or justifications that something comes from nothing. Since new energy is not naturally created then energy cannot come from something natural. Logical reasoning leaves us with the only viable response which is that energy originated from the supernatural. Since the natural origin of energy cannot occur, the supernatural origin of energy remains the only viable explanation.
Debate Round No. 1
MysticEgg

Con

Thanks to Pro for accepting this debate today; I wish him the best of luck!

The answer to Pro's question I will address now. First, something may actually be able to come from nothing. It is interesting to think about. Prof. Krauss has given interesting explanations of how something can come from nothing. For example, consider quantum particles which pop in and out of existence from nothing all the time[1]. They're called virtual particles[1]. So, it seems as though the law is violated, which gives us a valid explanation. If you're interested, here's an article on the subject[2].

While I enjoy long posts, this one will have to be short, it seems. Pro only brought up one point, which I have refuted. Therefore, I can say no more for this round. So, I wish Pro good luck for his other arguments! Back to Pro!

Source(s):

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.thenational.ae...
Timosity

Pro

Timosity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MysticEgg

Con

Oh well. Good luck and please return!
Timosity

Pro

Timosity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MysticEgg

Con

Oh well. I was good debating with you, anyway. I'll thank my opponent, the audience, the voters, and be on my way. See you around, guys!

J
Timosity

Pro

Timosity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sherlock.holmes221B 3 years ago
sherlock.holmes221B
The idea of life springing from nothing is illogical.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
On your first comment: OK, but how and why do we know one over the other?

Second: No, I don't study law. :)
Posted by ss11311086 3 years ago
ss11311086
as a side note thought, I like your usage of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. seems like you study law? cuz "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a phrase frequently used in criminal offenses. even for civil cases, things don't need to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", so why should I?
Posted by ss11311086 3 years ago
ss11311086
I don't have to prove my statement's certainty, neither can I. What more important is the likelihood of this statement being correct vs it's likehood being wrong. Nowadays at least, it is the consensus of the science community that it is much safer to claim that science will never be able to explain and prove everything, than to claim that science will explain and prove everything.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that science will never prove certain things...but how can you say that with certainty?
Posted by ss11311086 3 years ago
ss11311086
look up planck length and quantum fluctuation and find out why the science community has more than enough reason to believe that even they have explanation for these 2 things, they will very likely have no proof for their explanation.

if you don't like the word theory which i put into quotation marks, then let's use 'explanation'.

"I would say that God is not the only viable theory, because .... it's not scientific." pretty self-fulfilling. you assumed here that a theory must be scientific in order to be a theory or an explanation, if you like. while what I'm trying to say this, some issues in our universe (e.g. the two I mentioned above) will never be able to be fully explained and proven by science, therefore, till they are proven (which will never happen), something other than science would be the only viable explanation.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
If you were saying the same thing 2000 years ago about earthquakes, rainbows, volcanoes etc..., would that be a valid argument for God? If not, why is this different?

I would say that God is not the only viable theory, because (a) it's not a theory and (b) it's not scientific.
Posted by ss11311086 3 years ago
ss11311086
and because some issues/problems are foreseeable to be never be able to be explained by science and anything else, it is rather safe to claim that God will remain forever the only viable 'theory' to many issues. How safe is this claim? To me, much safer than the claim that science will solve everything some time in the future.
Posted by ss11311086 3 years ago
ss11311086
not saying that 'I don't know, therefore god', but 'I don't know, therefore god is the only viable 'theory', if you like, that I have currently'. cheers
Posted by ss11311086 3 years ago
ss11311086
yes, you could say it's a gap. but try to argue against it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
MysticEggTimosityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the Forfeit. Pro only presented one (albeit poor) argument in his opening round, which Con addressed adequately. Pro never came back with any additional arguments, nor to defend his original.