The Instigator
SNP1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

God is a more likely explanation for the existence of the universe

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,313 times Debate No: 55160
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (2)

 

SNP1

Con

I am challenging Benshapiro because he seems to think that the existence of the universe implies that there is a god.

Benshapiro, being Pro, has the burden of proof to show that the universe came from a god.
I, being Con, have the burden of proof to show that it is more likely that the universe did not come from a god.

Rules:
1. Burden of proof is shared
2. Source all claims
3. Stay on topic
4. If one of these rules is broken, loss of conduct.
5. If rules were broken in all rounds by an individual, award no points.
6. Follow the following format for the debate
7. No "God of the Gaps" arguments

Format:
Round 1- accept
Rounds 2- Arguments
Round 3- Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 4- Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 5- Con: No new arguments, make final Rebuttals, make conclusion

Request to voters:
When giving points to one of us I would like an explanation for the points.
Conduct: What was poor conduct of the opponent?
Spelling & Grammar: What were the spelling and/or grammar mistakes?
Arguments: What makes the arguments better?
Sources: Why are the sources more reliable?

This will both make it so the votes can be seen to be fair or unfair votes and can also help both debaters improve for future debates.
Benshapiro

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
SNP1

Con

Now, one of the most common arguments made by theists is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The Kalam Cosmological argument goes like this (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...):

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Now, there are some problems with this argument and I will break it down.

"Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence."
Is this actually true?

Quantum physics will say that it is not true. Radioactive decay is an uncaused event.
"Quantum theory gives us many examples of events without causes."
"Take two uranium atoms and wait. After a while one will emit an alpha particle (two protons and two neutrons) the other will not"
As you can see, the alpha particle begins to exist ex materia, which is the decay of the uranium, but there is no cause for it.

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au...

So, the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument actually fails, causing the whole argument to collapse.

Stephen Hawking has even made an argument about the universe that, if put in the form of deductive reasoning, would look like this:

(1) Causes must precede their effects in time
(2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe)
(3) Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause

This shows that the universe must be uncaused. He extends it further by saying:

(4) Theism requires that God be the cause of the universe
(5) The universe cannot have a cause
(6) Therefore, theism is false

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

When we look at this it becomes clear that the universe cannot have a cause, but how then did it start? Can science explain the uncaused origin of the universe?

The answer is that a conclusion can be met, but it cannot be confirmed.

I will let Professor Lawrence Krauss explain in this video.

https://www.youtube.com...

As you can see, the universe could arise from a naturalistic explanation with two main components, maybe three: virtual particles popping in and out of space, quantum theory effecting gravity, and possibly a multiverse.

Empty space"s virtual particles popping in and out of existence is called Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations (usually referred to simply as Quantum Fluctuations).

"Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing" (this type of nothing being empty space).

***On a side note***

This also helps show the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be invalid as virtual particles are popping up ex nihilo, if we can consider empty space to be nothing, without cause.

If we cannot consider the beginning ex nihilo and if the first premise only deals with ex nihilo we see another problem. The only thing to appear ex nihilo would be the universe, causing the argument to fall apart by turning it into:

(1) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

Which makes it logically flawed.

***Back to this part of the argument***

http://universe-review.ca...

Spacetime popping into existence is called Primary State Diffusion. This states that spacetime is fluctuating on a quantum level.
"Space-time PSD is based on a stochastic di@256;erential structure and a @258;uctuating space-time metric. These are quantum @258;uctuations, but they are expressed in terms of non-di@256;erentiable relations between classical space-times. All other quantum @258;uctuations are consequences of these space-time @258;uctuations"

http://arxiv.org...

The multiverse is a theory that allows for more than one universe, a potential infinite amount of them. Some will say that it is just speculation, however there does exist a piece of evidence to support the existence of another universe.

These other universe"s gravity pulled on our universe during the Big Bang, causing the cosmic background radiation to be more focused instead of spread out and even a cold spot to appear in the cosmic background radiation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Now, when we look at this we see that it all starts just by having a fluctuation in spacetime, an uncaused fluctuation. This means that this naturalistic model of the universe actually fits with the deductive argument that the universe cannot have a cause. The universe comes into existence at the spacetime fluctuation.

When we take into consideration one of the variations of Murphy"s Law, If it can happen, it will happen, we see that the universe arising, uncaused, from naturalistic explanations is bound to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law

We also can take into consideration that there was a super complex computer simulation of the universe using the currently discovered laws and theories of the universe, and the result? The simulated universe was almost exactly like our own. There were a few differences, showing that we have more laws and theories of the universe to discover, but looking at how close we are shows that the naturalistic view is very well supported.

http://www.haaretz.com...

This concludes my opening round. It is now Pro"s turn to argue his view.
Benshapiro

Pro

Thank you SNP1 for challenging me to this highly controversial topic.


I will define some crucial definitions that haven't yet been defined before we proceed with this debate.


God: "Supreme Being"


The term "being" is equated with having a mind. I will argue that a mind is the more likely explanation for the existence of our universe rather than an unconscious or mindless non-being cause.


"Supreme" meaning that this mind is greater than any mind that exists within our current material universe.


Likely: "apparently qualified : suitable "
http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Therefore "more likely" means that in comparison to a competing explanation, one must explanation must be more apparently qualified or suitable than the other.


If any definitions are contested, please let me know but I don't believe this should be an issue.


As per rule format, this round is for arguments. In the previous round, you've argued your position against an intelligent design point-of-view so to be fair, I'll contrast my evidence against a naturalistic point-of-view this round and then specifically address your arguments in the following round.


The Debate topic is "God is a more likely explanation for the existence of the universe"


Notice that this topic ISN'T "a necessary cause" or "beginning of" the universe but rather it specifically states explanation for the existence of the universe so the necessary explanation must also be applied to cause and sustainer of the universe. Therefore, aspects of our universe that we currently observe are applicable to either theory.



Extended Kalam Cosmological Argument:

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) A cause cannot be the cause of its own existence without necessary preconditions.
(5) The Big Bang marked the beginning of space, time, and energy.
(6) from (5) the Big Bang must have a spaceless, timeless, immaterial cause.
(7) Everything in the physical universe requires space, time, or energy as a necessary precondition to begin to exist.
(8) The necessary preconditions allowing a cause in a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial environment can only be transcendent of all physical preconditions - an abstract concept or a mind.
(9) An abstract concept requires a mind to conceptualize it. Thus, an abstract concept is not the cause of the universe.
(10) A mind is the necessary cause of the universe.
------

This argument follows logically. Can anything create itself without the necessary preconditions required? Can a newspaper article be written without newspaper?


Did the Big Bang really create space, time, and energy?


Time: "Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...


Space: "Did space exist prior to the big bang? Most scientists would answer "No" to this question. The Big Bang marks the beginning of space and time as we know them, so there was no space before the Big Bang. I say "most scientists" rather than "all scientists" because the Big Bang itself is not completely understood, so it's possible that our understanding of this event will improve over time."
http://www.ucolick.org...


Matter and energy (matter = energy according to E=MC^2): "The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand."
http://www.one-mind-one-energy.com...


The Big Bang is the most supported mainstream scientific theory of how life began to exist


"Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang. In June, 1995, scientists were able to detect primordial helium, such as deuterium, in the far reaches of the universe. These findings are consistent with an important aspect of the Big Bang theory that a mixture of hydrogen and helium was created at the beginning of the universe.

In addition, the Hubble telescope, named after the father of Big Bang theory, has provided certain clues as to what elements were present following creation. Astronomers using Hubble have found the element boron in extremely ancient stars. They postulate that its presence could be either a remnant of energetic events at the birth of galaxies or it could indicate that boron is even older, dating back to the Big Bang itself. If the latter is true, scientists will be forced once again to modify their theory for the birth of the universe and events immediately afterward because, according to the present theory, such a heavy and complex atom could not have existed."
http://www.umich.edu...


Gravitational waves also support Einstein's theory of relativity, and his theory supported the universe having a beginning (which he disregarded at first due to his own point of view that the universe having a beginning is absurd.)

Thus far, the Big Bang "most likely" requires a cause that follows established scientific reasoning like the law of cause and effect where a cause precedes its effect. In addition, the Big Bang, which marks the beginning of space, time, and energy, cannot be the cause of its own existence due to the law of cause and effect in addition to required preconditions. Therefore, the effect of the Big Bang requires a transcendent cause beyond physical properties and the best candidate for that cause without preconditions is a mind.


Possible naturalistic explanations such as quantum fluctuations or vacuums require space in order to occur including the virtual particles that spontaneously pop into existence within a dimension of space (creating a negative gravitational exponent).

Thus far, I have argued that God is a necessary cause for the existence of the universe. Next, I will argue that God explains phenomena or sustained attributes of our universe better than naturalism.


Objective morality

(1) some morals are objective
(2) objective morals cannot exist if all morality is subjective
(3) naturalism requires that all morals are subjective given that objective purpose without objective purpose is contradictory.
(4) Given that some morals are objective, all morality is not subjective
(5) Therefore, God is a more likely cause for our existence than naturalism.

This follows a format of:

(a), (b), or (c) is true.
(a) requires that (Z) isn't true
(Z) appears to be true
Therefore, (b) or (c) are more likely.


(a) meaning naturalism, (b) meaning intelligent design, and (c) meaning all other. (Z) meaning objective morality. Given that (a) is unlikely given that (Z) appears to be true, (a) becomes more less likely than (b) or (c).
Many of my conclusions from other my arguments follow this type of reasoning.

Support for objective morality: There has never been any record in human existence regardless of religion, culture, nationality, etc., allowing rape or murder without sufficient cause. Therefore, empirical evidence shows that some morals appear to be objective rather than subjective. It is also intuitively true collectively that these actions are always morally wrong. Logically, one would not argue that morality is relative because people committing rape and murder are just as justified in committing their actions are moral as you are claiming they are unjust. It would not be objectively immoral for every human being to be systematically raped and murdered (extreme example but it follows logically if all morality is subjective.)


The origin of intelligence

(1) instructions specifying the nature of something's behavior requires specified-complex information.
(2) specified-complex information only originates from prior agents capable of producing specified-complexity.
(3) intelligence, defined as specified-complexity, is the by product of an intelligent mind.
(4) Therefore, the specified-complexity that nature exhibits occurs because it was created by an intelligent mind.
(5) The mind exists as a being. The mind which created all intelligence is the supreme being.
(6) Thus, a supreme being is the originator of all intelligence.


Specified-complexity are patterns that are both specified and complex. We wouldn't assume that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion. We know that it was written by intelligent beings because the elaborate translations that were found were specified and complex patterns for the purpose on conveying translation. Cells in our body mirror this same specified-complexity. Cells function using their micro-organelles to carry out purposes specific to larger bodily functions, none of which are arbitrary in purpose, complexity, or function.


Human beings have intrinsic worth

(1) human beings have value
(2) this value is either intrinsic or extrinsic
(3) no extrinsic criteria is needed to value a human being
(4) therefore human beings have intrinsic value


We would rescue a dying baby on the side of the road for no reason, donate to charity without retribution, and the controversy over abortion rests on whether a fetus is considered human without necessary extrinsic evaluation because humans are intrinsically valuable.

Intrinsic worth automatically follows (1) an objectively purposeful existence, and (2) support for objective morality given that morals determine actions of purpose.


These evidences support God being the more likely cause for our existence. I await my opponent's rebuttals in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
SNP1

Con

"Extended Kalam Cosmological Argument"

I believe I have shown in my previous round that this argument is flawed.

"Possible naturalistic explanations such as quantum fluctuations or vacuums require space in order to occur including the virtual particles that spontaneously pop into existence within a dimension of space (creating a negative gravitational exponent)."

Correct, but I already explained that with Primary State Diffusion, where spacetime itself fluctuates on the quantum level.

"Objective morality"

The flaw here is premise 1.

"some morals are objective"

There is nothing solid to support this.

"Support for objective morality: There has never been any record in human existence regardless of religion, culture, nationality, etc., allowing rape or murder without sufficient cause."

Laws are not morals. Ethics are not morals. We are talking about morality here.

"Support for objective morality: There has never been any record in human existence regardless of religion, culture, nationality, etc., allowing rape or murder without sufficient cause."

What about murderers and rapists? Are you saying that every single one of them finds murder immoral? That they all find rape immoral?

Joseph Stalin, "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."

http://www.brainyquote.com...

It really doesn"t seem like he found murder to be immoral. It seems he found it quite acceptable.

"A psychopath is fully in touch with reality and plans murders carefully. These are the people who know exactly what they are doing and want to inflict as much damage as possible. With no remorse, they are free to do as they please"

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

It also seems like these people do not find murder immoral.

How about rape? Do the rapists actually feel that rape is immoral?

Asian rape report actually shows that men do not think they are doing anything wrong. Most of the rapes were out of a sense of entitlement that the man had. Only 55.2% of the people interviewed said they felt guilt.

http://www.cnn.com...

This really shows that even rape being immoral is subjective.

"The origin of intelligence"

Where is your evidence for the first premise? This entire thing is so full of holes.

1. There is no evidence of the first premise.

"(1) instructions specifying the nature of something's behavior requires specified-complex information."

There is no evidence for this. You also try and relate it to natural events, however there is no evidence that natural events have "instructions". Does the formation of a snowflake have instructions or is it just how it acts?

"(2) specified-complex information only originates from prior agents capable of producing specified-complexity."

Which means that said agent would have to have "specified complex information", making it go on ad infinitum. There is also no evidence to say this is true.

If you are trying to bring up DNA here, this debate might interest you.
http://www.debate.org...

I should not have to point out all the flaws in this argument, so I will make one more comment.

"We wouldn't assume that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion."

We see scratches on stones all the time. Written language is just scratches and lines that we have given meaning to. Something like the Rosetta Stone is unlikely to form, but statistically possible. This is also a false analogy. Things started simple and became more complex over time. Today we would find a typewriter simple, but when it was created it was complex. Simple and complex are all subjective.

"Human beings have intrinsic worth"

There is a huge flaw in premise 3.

"(3) no extrinsic criteria is needed to value a human being"

If humans have intrinsic worth why did slavery exist? Why would there be genocides and murders? People do not see all human beings as valuable, they are valuable for different reasons for different people. It is extrinsic. One of the main components for the development of value, as well as morality, is empathy.

http://www.bc.edu...

"We would rescue a dying baby on the side of the road for no reason, donate to charity without retribution, and the controversy over abortion rests on whether a fetus is considered human without necessary extrinsic evaluation because humans are intrinsically valuable."

And the fact that there are people that would not rescue the dying baby, that do not donate to charity without retribution, and that are arguing pro-choice shows that human life is extrinsic. Just like morals are subjective, how we value lives are as well.

___________________________________

I would like to point out that my opponent has violated the rules. He did not use evidence to support his 2nd, 3rd, or 4th argument. The only argument that he sourced was the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I showed to be faulty in my previous round.

___________________________________

In my previous round I showed how it is possible for the universe to exist naturally and showed a deductive argument for why a God cannot be the creator of the universe.

Let us now use Occam"s Razor on which is more likely, God (B) or naturalism (A).

A. We know there is at least one universe out there, and there is evidence of there being more than one.
B. We do not know if there is even a single God out there and there is no evidence of one existing.
A. We have a naturalistic explanation of how the universe could have started
B. We do not have any explanation of where a God would have come from that cannot be used to instead support a naturalistic explanation instead.

Occam"s Razor supports the one with the least assumptions, which is A, or a naturalistic explanation of the universe.

If we invoke a God there are too many assumptions, but if we look at it as a naturalistic universe there are a lot less assumptions.

We can also look at one of the points I made in my previous round.

"We also can take into consideration that there was a super complex computer simulation of the universe using the currently discovered laws and theories of the universe, and the result? The simulated universe was almost exactly like our own. There were a few differences, showing that we have more laws and theories of the universe to discover, but looking at how close we are shows that the naturalistic view is very well supported.

http://www.haaretz.com...;

When we look at our current understanding of the universe we see that our universe follows a naturalistic pattern. It appears that we do not need a God to exist for our universe to exist. We still have more to learn about the universe, but we see that our universe needs no God.

So, it is back to you Con.
Benshapiro

Pro

I'll paraphrase some of your arguments while staying true to your logic to preserve char. space.
-
CON: The extended Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed and I have shown why in the previous round.
-
My objection to this is that the "extended" Kalam Cosmological Argument I've put forth in the previous round is not = to the one you've critiqued in the first round.
-
The Kalam's first premise is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause."
-
This is true, but with very specific exception, it is possibly untrue. The reason why I had extended the Kalam Cosmological Argument was to address possible very specific exceptions, namely, that something can begin to exist without cause in the case of virtual particles except that space a necessary precondition for these virtual particles to exist.
-
Quantum mechanics is generally not very well understood and virtual particles possibly have a cause that science hasn't yet uncovered.
Richard Feynman, a pioneer in discovering mechanisms of quantum mechanics, is famously quoted as saying "I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics.”
-
CON:"Spacetime itself fluctuates on the quantum level [and addressed why space can be created for quantum fluctuations]"
-

Actually, this is not true. Your source explicitly states:

"Nondifferentiable fluctuations in space-time on a Planck scale introduce stochastic

terms into the equations for quantum states . . .primary state diffusion (PSD)."

http://arxiv.org...

PSD operates in space-time not outside of it. If you disagree please provide an explicit sourced explanation.
-
CON: "some morals are objective"

There is nothing solid to support this.
-
I have given logical. empiricial, and collectively intuitive evidence that some morals are objective rather than all subjective (R2). Given Occam's razor, the simplest theory that fits the evidence should be accepted. Given that the evidence best describes some morals as being objective, not all morality is subjective.
-

CON: "Laws are not morals. Ethics are not morals. We are talking about morality here."
-
Are laws not based on ethics? And are ethics directly related to morals? By differentiating these terms, you imply that they have no relation to each other when in fact they most certainly do.
-
CON: What about murderers and rapists? Are you saying that every single one of them finds murder immoral? That they all find rape immoral?
-
First, it is a baseless assertion to imply that all murders and rapist don't find rape or murder immoral. Humans have the capacity to defy things they deem to be immoral for the sake of pleasure. EX: cheating on a significant other.
-
Ted Bundy was one of the most prolific & evil serial killers in American history murdering random victims just for his own desires. This is what he had to say in his final interview:
-
"I can only liken it to (and I don’t want to overdramatize it) being possessed by something so awful and alien, and the next morning waking up and remembering what happened and realizing that in the eyes of the law, and certainly in the eyes of God, you’re responsible. To wake up in the morning and realize what I had done with a clear mind, with all my essential moral and ethical feelings intact, absolutely horrified me."

CON: "Joseph Stalin, "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."
-
Where does this quote indicate Stalin's sense of objective morality? Death solving problems (probably of responsibility) is not the same as saying it is not immoral to murder man to solve my problems.
-
CON: "[Psychopaths] are the people who know exactly what they are doing and want to inflict as much damage as possible. With no remorse, they are free to do as they please"
-
Their remorse is subjective to the observer. Whether they have remorse or not does not exclude a sense of objective morality. If I value my own desires higher than my sense of moral wrong, I will not have value regret above what I pursue highly.
-
CON: Only 55.2% of the people [that raped who were] interviewed said they felt guilt.

These statistics are actually damaging to your case. Why would a majority of people that engage in an objectively neutral moral act then feel that they behaved immorally? Do you accept the possibility that people who commit rape might try to justify their own actions by claiming that they aren't morally accountable?


CON: this really shows that even rape being immoral is subjective.

How on earth does this show that rape being immoral is subjective? The majority of these rapists conceded that they committed immoral acts! If all morality is subjective, then people engaging in immoral actions have no reason to see their actions as immoral.

Your conclusion rests on the impossibility of someone to disregard objective evidence. Objective evidence can be disregarded by somebody though! People have the capacity and incentive to disregard objectively immoral acts if found guilty. The question is whether our understanding of morality better fits an objective or subjective view of morality. The existence of objective morality is better supported and explained than all morality being subjective (R2). This conclusion is helped by Occam's razor.

CON: There is no evidence of the first premise.

"(1) instructions specifying the nature of something's behavior requires specified-complex information."
-
Of course there is! Out of how many possibilities does the complex structural and behavioral nature of iron, boron, helium, etc., have for behaving the way that they do? They behave in exponentially less possible ways than not. Is the nature of something specified and complex relative to all other possibilities? Of course. Iron doesn't randomly change the properties or nature of itself or behave in unpredicted ways. A vast majority of possible natures and structures of iron aren't actualized in this universe. The instructions (information specifying atomic structure and behavioral properties of iron) require specified-complex information. The only known cause of specified-complex information are agents capable of specified-complex information. Given that intelligence, defined as specified-complex information, has only shown to come from prior intelligence, then intelligence is required for this specified-complex information. If specified-complex information only results from intelligence, then the intelligence nature exhibits requires an intelligent causal agent.

CON: (2) specified-complex information only originates from prior agents capable of producing specified-complexity."
-
Which means that said agent would have to have "specified complex information", making it go on ad infinitum. There is also no evidence to say this is true.
-
It means that the origin all specified complex information must have existed from a causal agent existing eternally. Given that God exists outside of time in order to create time, there is no contradiction here.
-
CON: We see scratches on stones all the time. Written language is just scratches and lines that we have given meaning to. Something like the Rosetta Stone is unlikely to form, but statistically possible. . ."
-
Notice that my original assertion "We wouldn't assume . . ." and the reason why we wouldn't assume is because we observe that specified-complex information is the result of intelligent beings. Is specified-complexity created by vastly more improbable or impossible means more likely than something far more probable like an intelligent causal agent?

-

CON: People sometimes don't treat human beings with value. Therefore not all humans are intrinsically valuable. You did not support your previous (#) arguments with evidence.
-
The argument rests on whether objective or subjective morality is the more likely competing explanation. It's possible to disregard objective moral truths for individual desires so exceptions don't automatically conclude that all morals are subjective. I'll ask again, if humans have extrinsic worth, what is the necessary criteria to value a human being?
-
Logic is evidence. Do you disagree? I could point to any sourcelss claim that you've made... "Laws are not morals. Ethics are not morals. We are talking about morality here." And claim that you equally guilty of breaking the "source all claims rule." I'm hoping that this debate will be fruitful and won't devolve into an accusatory point-grab for conduct points.
-
CON: [Occam's razor supports naturalism . . .]
-
more like . . .
-
A: We know that one universe exists and there is no physical evidence that more than one exists.
B: We evidence of intelligence in our universe because nature mirrors the specified-complexity of our own intelligence
A: We do not have a sound naturalistic explanation of how the universe could have begun.
B: We know that something must exist eternally to be the thing from which everything comes to avoid an infinite regress in a temporal existence. The cause for our existence must be transcendent of time, space, matter and energy in order to create time, space, matter, and energy and because a physical cause cannot cause itself without physical preconditions.

Occam"s Razor supports the one with the least assumptions, which is B, or an intelligent design explanation of the universe.

"We also can take into consideration that there was a super complex computer simulation of the universe using the currently discovered laws and theories of the universe, and the result? The simulated universe was almost exactly like our own. There were a few differences, showing that we have more laws and theories of the universe to discover, but looking at how close we are shows that the naturalistic view is very well supported.

http://www.haaretz.com......;

This uses laws and phenomena that already exist that were created in the instance of the big bang. Something cannot have a causal effect if it doesn't yet exist.
-
Back to you, Con.
Debate Round No. 3
SNP1

Con

"CON: The extended Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed and I have shown why in the previous round..."

The first premise is equal in both the extended and the original, making my argument against the first premise equally valid.

"The Kalam's first premise is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause."
This is true, but with very specific exception, it is possibly untrue..."

You say that the virtual particles can exist without cause, then say that the space they happen in cannot. This is special pleading.

"Quantum mechanics is generally not very well understood...."

If you would have read the Primary State Diffusion paper I linked to you you would see that it says that if Primary State Diffusion is correct that all other quantum fluctuations are a result of spacetime fluctuating.

"Richard Feynman, a pioneer in discovering mechanisms of quantum mechanics..."

Is there a purpose to this quote?

"CON:"Spacetime itself fluctuates on the quantum level [and addressed why space can be created for quantum fluctuations]"..."

Your "..." between "quantum states" and "primary state diffusion" leaves out a lot of important information. If you read the paper you will see that Nondifferentiable fluctuations=/=primary state diffusion. Section 3 and 4 of the paper deal with the actual part I was bringing up, spacetime fluctuating in and out of existence on a quantum level.

"PSD operates in space-time not outside of it."

This shows that you did not even fully read the paper, it is a theory about spacetime. It does not operate in spacetime, nondifferentiable fluctuations (Example is the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation) do. I recommend you read the full paper before addressing the theory.

"CON: "some morals are objective"..."

You did not give any logical, empirical, or collectively intuitive evidence. You only brought up rape and murder, without any sources to back up your claims, and I showed them to be false.

"Given Occam's razor, the simplest theory that fits the evidence should be accepted..."

What evidence exists that best fits morals being objective?

"CON: "Laws are not morals. Ethics are not morals. We are talking about morality here."..."

They do relate to each other, but are not the same thing.
Laws are made based off of the ethics and knowledge of a society.
Ethics are the commonly agreed upon morals of a society.
Morals are subjective values of an individual.

"CON: What about murderers and rapists? Are you saying that every single one of them finds murder immoral? That they all find rape immoral?.."

Did I ever say all of them find it moral/immoral? I only said some.

"CON: "[Psychopaths] are the people who know exactly what they are doing and want to inflict as much damage as possible. With no remorse, they are free to do as they please"..."

Based off of the psychology and neurology mentioned in my source they almost certainly do not find it immoral to kill. You still have not provided a source to say they do.

"CON: Only 55.2% of the people [that raped who were] interviewed said they felt guilt...."

How does it damage my case? As you brought up, and as psychology does show, people can act against their own sense of morality. The fact that that can happen does not damage the fact that 44.8% did not feel guilty. It does nothing to damage the fact that the majority of the rapes were out of a sense of having the right to do it. You still have not brought up a single source to show your side of the arguments.

"CON: this really shows that even rape being immoral is subjective....."

Why not? People can act against their morality, that is a fact, but that does not mean everyone shares the same morality on certain points. The majority you mention is not that much of a majority, and it does not need to be. As long as there exists one person that does not find rape or murder to be immoral it is a case against your objective morality argument.

"Your conclusion rests on the impossibility of someone to disregard objective evidence...."

Never denied that this is possible, however there is also the (supported) possibility that people do not find those acts immoral.

"The question is whether our understanding of morality better fits an objective or subjective view of morality...."

There is something that you have not done yet, you have not applied Occam"s Razor in a debate format to even attempt to show the support you say it gives. You also have failed to provide a single source to argue for your objective morality.

"CON: There is no evidence of the first premise.
"(1) instructions specifying the nature of something's behavior requires specified-complex information."..."

Here you assume there are instructions, information specifying atomic structure and behavioral patterns. Where is your evidence that any of these instructions exist? You might say that without the instructions that the atomic structure and behavioral patterns would not be constant, but there is nothing to support this.

"Given that intelligence, defined as specified-complex information, has only shown to come from prior intelligence,"

So, are you saying that DNA (which I believe falls under your argument) would have to come from prior intelligence? I would recommend reading this debate then:
http://www.debate.org...
You have no supporting evidence for your first premise, only an assertion that it is true. Actually, you have no supporting evidence for any of the premises in this argument.

"then intelligence is required for this specified-complex information. If specified-complex information only results from intelligence, then the intelligence nature exhibits requires an intelligent causal agent."

You see, you recognize that nature exhibits "intelligence", but jump to the conclusion that it must come from an intelligent causal agent without providing evidence to support that jump.

"CON: (2) specified-complex information only originates from prior agents capable of producing specified-complexity."
Which means that said agent would have to have "specified complex information", making it go on ad infinitum. There is also no evidence to say this is true...."

That is A. special pleading for a God, and B. violating the deductive argument I made in my first round of debates that you never made a rebuttal for.

"CON: People sometimes don't treat human beings with value. Therefore not all humans are intrinsically valuable. You did not support your previous (#) arguments with evidence...."

And objective morality is shown to be false. Also, you ask for a "necessary" criteria to value a human being, but the existence of a NECESSARY criteria would make it no longer an extrinsic value. People can value others for any number of subjective reasons based on their own subjective morality.

"Logic is evidence. Do you disagree? I could point to any sourcelss claim that you've made..."

You want me to source the definition of every single word that I use?
I am bringing up the fact that you did not source your important claims because of the simple fact that you can make any baseless claim you want. I can say that Professor Teneth proved God does not exist without providing sources, so does that make it a good argument? Sources help validate arguments in order to allow the other side to properly critique the arguments.

"A: We know that one universe exists and there is no physical evidence that more than one exists."

Should I repost the evidence for the multiverse?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
You never attempted to refute this point.

"B: We evidence of intelligence in our universe because nature mirrors the specified-complexity of our own intelligence"

A claim that was made without evidence.

"A: We do not have a sound naturalistic explanation of how the universe could have begun."

Except that one example is the explanation I initially posted.

"B: We know that something must exist eternally..."

Which is special pleading, unsupported by evidence, and disregards the deductive argument I initially made in my arguments.

"Occam"s Razor supports the one with the least assumptions, which is B, or an intelligent design explanation of the universe."

Except that there are MANY assumptions for B and very few for A, so a naturalistic explanation is supported by Occam"s Razor.

"This uses laws and phenomena that already exist that were created in the instance of the big bang. Something cannot have a causal effect if it doesn't yet exist."

And again, no evidence to support that they were created in the instance of the big bang.

My opponent has used minimal sources to back up his claims and had minimal evidence for his arguments. He has also some logical fallacies (example being the special pleading logical fallacy) and has ignored some of my arguments. He also said he would "paraphrase some of my arguments while staying true to my logic to preserve char. space." but then misrepresented me on quite a few of the paraphrases.
Benshapiro

Pro

Thanks con. Char limits are tough.

CON: The first premise [of the KCA] is equal in both the extended & original, making my argument against the first premise equally valid.
Your objection rests on the specific scenario of virtual particles possibly popping into existence without cause. This a weak refutation of the first premise because (1) Quantum mechanics are generally not well understood by pioneers of this field & (2) nothing we know ever pops into existence without a cause.

Given that you only dispute the first premise on these grounds, (1) you are arguing that quantum mechanics are understood to know that they're uncaused & (2) things in our universe do not require a cause to begin to exist.

Citing one specific example of a possibly uncaused event that experts in the field don't really understand & defies how we observe the world to behave is not a feasible refutation of the first premise.

Others experts have difficulty in understanding QM too...
"I am a Quantum Engineer, but on Sundays I Have Principles." - John Stewart Bell
&
"For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr

CON: You say that the virtual particles can exist without cause, then say that the space they happen in cannot. This is special pleading.
No, I said that they are possibly uncaused & does not warrant a feasible refutation of the first premise for reasons given above & my extended K. argument focused on necessary preconditions for things to begin to exist.

CON: Is there a purpose to [Richard Feyman's quote]?

Yes it lessens the credibility of pointing to QM for specific exceptions to nullify known aspects of the universe like everything that begins to exist requires a cause.



CON: Your "..." between "quantum states" and "primary state diffusion" leaves out a lot of important information...Nondifferentiable fluctuations=/=primary state diffusion. Section 3 and 4 of the paper deal with the actual part I was bringing up, spacetime fluctuating in and out of existence on a quantum level.

...


This shows that you did not even fully read the paper, it is a theory about spacetime. It does not operate in spacetime...
..

You've listed chapters of the paper without giving any specific quotation/reference to believe that it operates outside of space-time. The first sentence states "...fluctuations in space-time..." You've just moved on to the next argument by telling me to read the paper. It's your job to provide the evidence within the context of the debate. And you initially gave credit to PSD not nondifferentiable fluctuations in absence of pre-existing space.

The full text of the sourced quote didn't leave out any important info.

The omitted part in the previous round that you'd criticized me for was

" . . .resulting in a proposed new foundation for an existing alternative quantum theory . . ."

Just an introductory lead-in to defining PSD.

This is an attempt to dismiss my argument that quantum fluctuations occur in space-time, as was stated.


CON: "You did not give any logical, empirical, or collectively intuitive evidence [of objective morality and I have shown your examples to be false.]"


I did in R2. Which examples show them false?


CON: What evidence exists that best fits morals being objective?

See R2.

CON: "Did I ever say all of them [rapists and murders] find it [rape and murder] moral/immoral? I only said some.

Your conclusion was reached by following examples of some people who didn't admit rape and murder were immoral:

[rejecting objective moral] (Joseph Stalin)

...

[rejecting objective moral] (Asian Rape report)

...

"This really shows that even rape being immoral is subjective."


This study showed that the majority admitting moral fault did not have a subjective sense of morality and Stalin's quote wasn't relevant. This referenced study hurts your case & favors objective morality.



CON: (R4): [You haven't applied Occam's razor, explain the supporting evidence, or provide sources for objective morality]


Succinctly, Occam's Razor: " The simplest explanation is usually the right one. . .

http://science.howstuffworks.com...


Given my R2 support for objective morality, this is a simpler explanation for how people actually behave.

Objective morality derives from our own innate moral sense of being & experiences but here's a few sources arguing that objective morality exists too:

"[INTRO] I present an evolutionist approach to a rational, objective morality. . . [C] . . .morality could become objective. . . The many levels of morality, stretching up to the morality between societies, between states, would be integrated within the individual consciousness. "

http://www.percepp.com...


"[INTRO] My purpose in writing this is to argue for the existence of an objective morality based entirely on rational and scientific reasoning. . .[C p2] Moral laws are of the same nature as the laws of gravity and heat transfer."

http://ar.vegnews.org...

CON: [why do you assume that instructions specify constant atomic structure & behavioral patterns?


When an object's atomic structure is manipulated, its behavior changes. The specific actualized combo's of complex structures shows natural element specified-complexity. These instructions or natural forces are the basis for behaving in their actualized way.

CON: So, are you saying that DNA (which I believe falls under your argument) would have to come from prior intelligence? I would recommend reading this debate then.

Providing a link to one of your prior debates isn't an argument, it needs to be explained in this debate.

CON: "You have no supporting evidence for your first premise, only an assertion that it is true.

My argument centered on the truth of my assertion that intelligence (as defined) only comes from prior intelligence.

CON: "You see, you recognize that nature exhibits "intelligence", but jump to the conclusion that it must come from an intelligent causal agent without providing evidence to support that jump."

Since my assertion is true, wouldn't you also say that if intelligence is only the result of prior intelligence, intelligence must most likely be the result of intelligence? (Rosetta Stone example.)


"CON (R3): (2) [intelligence coming from prior intelligence shows an infinite regress + no evidence to support your claims

"CON (R4): That is A. special pleading for a God, and B. violating the deductive argument I made in my first round of debates that you never made a rebuttal for.

1) Not special pleading because God is premised as transcendent of physical constraints, so it isn't a double standard. 2) you didn't specifically address which deductive argument you are referring to, but maybe the "Well who created God?" infinite regress. In R3 I've explained why *something* must necessarily exist eternally.

CON: " And objective morality is shown to be false. Also, you ask for a "necessary" criteria to value a human being, but the existence of a NECESSARY criteria would make it no longer an extrinsic value. People can value others for any number of subjective reasons based on their own subjective morality.

Your conclusion assumed that human beings can't deny objective evidence. Objective morality is also helped by your argument against it.

Extrinsic Value: "Extrinsic value is also the portion of an item's worth that is assigned to it by external factors."
A valuation method is necessary if human beings are valuable. But is it intrinsic or extrinsic value? (See my R2 examples of why extrinsic criteria isn't necessary).
CON: "You want me to source the definition of every single word that I use? . . .you did not source your important claims. . . Sources help validate arguments"

(1) My arguments are logical, based on concepts of consciousness & 2) this was in reply to you saying that I broke the "source all claims rule" given in R1 but you're equally guilty of breaking it.


CON: "Should I repost the evidence for the multiverse?"


1) Multiverse or PSD? By using more possibilities you discredit your trust in one.

2) (a) we only have evidence for one Big Bang producing cosmic background radiation so we can't know its expected uniformity (b) cosmic background radiation is caused by other known cosmic phenomena.

(CON R4): [intelligence in our universe mirrors our own is] A claim that was made without evidence
In R2 I said:
"Cells in our body mirror this same specified-complexity. Cells function using their micro-organelles to carry out purposes specific to larger bodily functions, none of which are arbitrary in purpose, complexity, or function."

Bill Gates is quoted as saying:

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

http://www.goodreads.com...


CON (R4): Except that one [sound] example is the [naturalistic] explanation I initially posted.

The PSD that must exist within space-time as a necessary precondition of creating it?

CON: Which is special pleading, unsupported by evidence, and disregards the deductive argument I initially made in my arguments [something existing eternally].
Rebutted above & explained in previous rounds.
CON: a naturalistic explanation is supported by Occam"s Razor [ intelligent design requires too many assumptions].
I disagree. Objective morals better fit the data, intrinsic human worth doesn't require any necessary extrinsic criteria, God doesn't require contradictory necessary physical preconditions in order to exist, and intelligence only comes from intelligence.
.
CON: no evidence to support that they [natural laws] were created in the instance of the big bang
Gravity is relative to physical phenomena according to Einstein's theory of relativity.
My opponent accuses me of misrepresenting him but cites no examples.
Thank you and I look forward to your conclusion.
Debate Round No. 4
SNP1

Con

I regret that I will not have as much time as I thought I would to finish this debate as a family issue has come up. I will just have to make do with the following. I am sorry that I am not able to address round 5 as I would like. I hope that my rough draft will do.

"Your objection rests on the specific scenario of virtual particles possibly popping into existence without cause. This a weak refutation of the first premise because...."

This ignored what I brought up about radioactive decay in my first debating round.

"Citing one specific example of a possibly uncaused event that experts in the field don't really understand & defies how we observe the world to behave is not a feasible refutation of the first premise."

How we, animals that evolved to survive the plains of Africa, understand the universe with our own "common sense" can be wrong, especially when we look at the macro and micro worlds.
"Quantum theory is bizarre. In order to try and understand it we need to forget everything we know about cause and effect, reality, certainty, and much else besides. This is a different world, it has its own rules, rules of probability that make no sense in our everyday world. Richard Feynman, the greatest physicist of his generation, said of quantum theory"
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk...
It is not saying that it cannot be understood, it is saying that in order to understand Quantum Mechanics we cannot use the normal logic of our universe. The Micro/Quantum Universe runs off of seemingly different rules.

"Yes it lessens the credibility of pointing to QM for specific exceptions to nullify known aspects of the universe like everything that begins to exist requires a cause."

This shows a misunderstanding of any of those quotes. QM just has different rules than we do, but that does not mean that the discoveries are less credible. In a naturalistic view, the universe started out on a quantum level. That means that we have to address its own start with QM rules.

You also have failed to address the following argument:
(1) Causes must precede their effects in time
(2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe)
(3) Therefore, the universe cannot have a cause
(4) Theism requires that God be the cause of the universe
(5) The universe cannot have a cause
(6) Therefore, theism is false

"You've listed chapters of the paper without giving any specific quotation/reference to believe that it operates outside of space-time. The first sentence states "...fluctuations in space-time..." You've just moved on to the next argument by telling me to read the paper. It's your job to provide the evidence within the context of the debate."

I did QUOTE what the paper said in my initial arguments, showing exactly what I am claiming. I also am still giving credit to PSD, I just pointed out that your quote was a misrepresentation. Your quote was about nondifferential fluctuations, not PSD, yet you attributed it to PSD.

"The omitted part in the previous round that you'd criticized me for was"

Which shows that what was being talked about was the nondifferential fluctuations, not PSD. It shows that PSD is a theory that helps explain the nondifferential fluctuations.

"This is an attempt to dismiss my argument that quantum fluctuations occur in space-time, as was stated."

No, it is an attempt to have people see what the paper really says. The fluctuations OF spacetime that are part of PSD do NOT happen in spacetime, other quantum fluctuations do and are explained by PSD.

"CON: "You did not give any logical, empirical, or collectively intuitive evidence [of objective morality and I have shown your examples to be false.]""

Let me put your arguments into deductive reasoning with your logic.
(1) Some morals are objective.
(2) Some people act immoral.
(3) Some people do not seem to find the objective moral wrongs to be immoral.
(4) Those in premise 2 still recognize it is immoral.
(5) Those in premise 3 are lying, the morals are objective.
(6) Some morals are objective.
(7) Premise 1 is supported because the conclusion (6) is reached.

Let me show the proper deductive reasoning.
(1) People act with different moral standards.
(2) There does not exist a single moral that every person agrees if it is right or wrong.
(3) Morals are not objective.

"This referenced study hurts your case & favors objective morality."

How does it? If even a single person does not find a "moral wrong" to be a moral wrong it shows objective morality to be false. It does not matter what the majority says when you are trying to deal with absolutes. It is like saying all vegetables are green. A lot are, but not all are. You are arguing that because there are a lot of green vegetables that all vegetables are green, but that ignores all the other vegetables out there.

"Objective morality derives from our own innate moral sense of being & experiences but here's a few sources arguing that objective morality exists too:"

It seems that you have destroyed your whole argument. The link you provided says that objective morality can exist from an evolutionary standpoint. This means that even if I concede this point, which I do not, that it does not do anything to help validate a God existing as objective morals can arise from natural selection (without a god).

"When an object's atomic structure is manipulated, its behavior changes. The specific actualized combo's of complex structures shows natural element specified-complexity. These instructions or natural forces are the basis for behaving in their actualized way."

All this argument is is a huge argument of special pleading. Your argument is that "specified-complexity" can only come from intelligence. You are also arguing that if any mechanical process appears to bring rise to "specified-complexity" that it means that the mechanical process must have been designed. The biggest problem is that you are jumping to the conclusion that there are "instructions" and that these "instructions" must come from a designer, and you provide no evidence for this. You just assert that it is true and make an argument based off of it. Specification is an a priori description of a system.
"you can argue that a system isdesigned if it exhibits two properties: (1) It is informationally complex - that is, it's structure embodies a significant amount of information; and (2) it matches an independent description of a system that performs a specific task - and that independent description must be made, independent of observations of the system in question."
http://goodmath.blogspot.com...
What does this mean? Every system is specified. If every system falls under this "specified-complexity" that means that you would be saying that everything is either intelligent or was designed by something/someone intelligent (though you have no evidence of the need for a designer). It means that you are making an assertion without evidence, and making it so the asserted evidence fits the conclusion. The entire argument is bunk.

"Your conclusion assumed that human beings can't deny objective evidence. Objective morality is also helped by your argumentagainst it."

I never said people cannot deny their own morality (I do not say objective morality since there is no evidence for it existing), but that does not mean morality is objective. I have pointed out the flaw in your reasoning above.

"A valuation method is necessary if human beings are valuable. But is it intrinsic or extrinsic value? (See my R2 examples of why extrinsic criteria isn't necessary)."

There does need to be a valuation method for there to be value, but there does not need to be a necessary valuation method. People can value others for their own reasons, meaning that there is a valuation method, but not a necessary valuation method.

"My arguments are logical, based on concepts of consciousness"

Most of your arguments presented have special pleading.

"1) Multiverse or PSD? By using more possibilities you discredit your trust in one."

How are they exclusive? There can both exist a multiverse and have a PSD based universe.

"2) (a) we only have evidence for one Big Bang producing cosmic background radiation so we can't know its expected uniformity (b) cosmic background radiation is caused by other known cosmic phenomena."

Source?
"Scientists had predicted that it should be evenly distributed"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

"The PSD that must exist within space-time as a necessary precondition of creating it?"

Except that PSD does not have to exist within spacetime, that was you misrepresenting the paper.

"intelligence only comes from intelligence"

Where is your evidence for this?

My opponent has made many assertions without evidence, without even sourcing them. Having either of those two things would make his points have any value, but he failed to bring anything forth except his claims.

My opponent also decided to misrepresent my arguments and ignore the others. My naturalistic explanation has only been refuted by misrepresentation of what the parts are by my opponent. My opponent"s arguments included a lot of special pleading and circular logic. The deductive argument against a cause of the universe went untouched by my opponent. My argument of PSD has been completely misrepresented by my opponent. My opponent insists that all people that claim not to find one of his "objective morals" is a liar because of objective morality, circular reasoning.

I urge you to look at the arguments, look at all the logical fallacies used by my opponent, and then look at the arguments made by both of us. My arguments backed up with evidence and sources, my opponents arguments based off of assertions.

Vote Con.
Benshapiro

Pro

I wish you the best on your family issue.

Con: [radioactive decay is = a beginning uncaused existence like virtual particles]

This is not an analogous argument. Radioactive decay is random but =/= having an uncaused existence.

"Radioactive decay occurs in unstable atomic nuclei..."
con: [According to Richard Feynman, quantum theory denies logic & can't be applied to common sense approaches to the origins of our universe. QM having different rules =/= less credible. The universe had a quantum level beginning so address it with QM rules]

I'm not saying QM isn't applicable, but that Richard Feynman's own quote of "I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics” lessens the credibility of pointing to virtual particles as a specific exception of "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Virtual particles may not have a cause, but isn't a feasible rebuttal & necessary preconditions, such as space, are still required!

con: [you haven't responded to my R1 argument by Stephen Hawking]


This argument shows a misunderstanding of the concept of God. God is premised as being transcendent of physical restraints. This is a better logical argument:

"(1) Causes must precede their effects in time
(2) There is no time prior to the beginning of time (the origin of the universe)
(3) Time began.
(4) Therefore, the universe must have a cause transcendent of time
(5) Theism requires that God, transcendent of time, must be the cause of the universe
(6) The universe has a cause transcendent of time.
(7) Therefore, theism is logical.

The only illogical option is to assume physical phenomena is responsible for the creation of time without any of the necessary preconditions in order to create it!

con: "I did QUOTE what the paper said in my initial arguments, showing exactly what I am claiming. I also am still giving credit to PSD, I just pointed out that your quote was a misrepresentation. Your quote was about nondifferential fluctuations, not PSD, yet you attributed it to PSD."

Please check my opponent's source. Tell me if nondifferential fluctuations, as the basis for PSD, occur in space-time or not.
-
Con: "[The omitted section] Which shows that what was being talked about was the nondifferential fluctuations, not PSD"

Not true. The first sentence began with "Nondifferentiable equations..." and the entire omitted part was:
". . .resulting in a proposed new foundation for an existing alternative quantum theory. . ."
Again, I ask the voters to check for themselves if the omitted piece regards crucial info such as "nondifferentiable fluctuations" as my opponent is claiming. I've also rebutted this in R4. Initially I omitted part of this quote in R3 in order to save char. space.

con: "The fluctuations OF spacetime that are part of PSD do NOT happen in spacetime, other quantum fluctuations do and are explained by PSD."

My opponent has had every opportunity last round to reference any quotation of the paper supporting this assertion especially since I specifically criticized him on this in R4. He has failed to do so.

con:
"(1) People act with different moral standards.
(2) There does not exist a single moral that every person agrees if it is right or wrong.
(3) Morals are not objective."

Again, this conclusion assumes that people cannot deny objective evidence. Also, YOU are making the assertion that ALL morals are subjective. Therefore, if ONE instance of objective morality is more likely than not, objective morality is the better assumption and NOT ALL morals are subjective. Given that more than half of the rapists admitted moral fault (which you've never rebutted), this supports an objective morality point-of-view because they'd have no reason whatsoever to admit this if all morality is subjective. On the other hand, if rape is objectively wrong, the incentive to not admit moral fault is to claim that they aren't responsible and possibly receive a lesser sentence or reduce their own guilt for committing such actions.
con: How does [this study show] it [that all morality being subjective is false]? If even a single person does not find a "moral wrong" to be a moral wrong it shows objective morality to be false.
Again, your conclusion banks on the resolution that objective evidence cannot be ignored despite having an incentive to ignore it. Even one instance of an objective moral shows that not all morality is subjective. Given that the majority of rapists admitted moral fault, how on earth would this study logically support that all morality is subjective?
CON: "It seems that you have destroyed your whole argument. The link you provided says that objective morality can exist from an evolutionary standpoint. [even if I concede this point, it hurts your case.]"
To the contrary, the reason I had referenced these studies from a (naturalistic) standpoint, is to point out that all morality being subjective is inconceivable even to many proponents of naturalism. All morality being subjective is not intuitive, logical, or empirically supported according to my R2 arguments & it makes logical sense to provide an argument for a developed objective sense of morality. Objectives don't exist in an objectiveless existence. Morality is purpose-driven. If no objective purpose exists, simply, no objective morality can logically exist either.
CON: "All this argument is [specified-complexity] is a huge argument of special pleading [without evidence]"
You've not rebutted the example of specified-complexity exhibited by cells in R4. You can't say I've made an argument without evidence. Intelligence (specified-complexity) is not an argument of special pleading. The evidence that specified-complexity only comes from a prior intelligent causal agent has been advanced by my Rosetta Stone example in numerous rounds. Would we ever assume that something exhibiting qualities of intelligence was more likely not created by prior intelligence? No.
CON: "I never said people cannot deny their own morality (I do not say objective morality since there is no evidence for it existing), but that does not mean morality is objective. I have pointed out the flaw in your reasoning above."
I dispute this on the grounds that (1) objective morality is more likely given the evidence put forth in R2, and (2) you've failed to recognize that *one* instance of an objective moral destroys your assumption that all morality is subjective.

CON: "There does need to be a valuation method for there to be value, but there does not need to be a necessary valuation method. People can value others for their own reasons, meaning that there is a valuation method, but not a necessary valuation method."
This isn't what you've said in the previous round. In R4 you'd said that no extrinsic criteria valuation method is necessary for human beings because necessary valuation is contrary to extrinsic value criteria. After reading my rebuttal, I'm assuming that you've recalled a valuation must occur given that human beings are valuable and reconstructed your argument. People can value others for their own reasons but this DOES NOT rebut my point that humans treat each other as having intrinsic value. Extrinsic value can be added to an intrinsically valuable object but this does not mean that value had not previously existed intrinsically. My opponent never rebuts my R2 examples.


"Most of your arguments presented have special pleading.
My opponent makes this assertion without reference & previous allegations of special pleading have been rebutted.
[How are they exclusive? There can both exist a multiverse and have a PSD based universe.]
The hypothesized method of causation is entirely different. PSD is a universe created via quantum phenomena, and a multiverse is the creation of the universe via the collision of a previously existing universe.

Source? [Evidence of one big bang producing cosmic background radiation so we can't know its expected uniformity & cosmic background radiation is caused by other known cosmic phenomena]
We only know of one universe, so I'm assuming the source you've requested is for cosmic background radiation

"Radiation in space takes the form of subatomic particles from the sun as well as from sources in the Milky Way galaxy and beyond."

http://www.space.com...

"Scientists had predicted that it should be evenly distributed"

There are other possible established reasons for uneven distribution. Spacial fluctuations of radiation can occur through intergalactic gas.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu...

"Except that PSD does not have to exist within spacetime, that was you misrepresenting the paper."

Again, no specific quote or reference is given to believe otherwise when the paper explicitly states "...in space-time..." & despite having the opportunity to rebut.

Where is your evidence for this [intelligence only coming from intelligence]?

Everything in our observable universe. From making predictions about archaeological finds like the Rosetta stone to cellular organisms transferring information to new cells.

"My opponent also decided to misrepresent my arguments and ignore the others."

You've never cited any misrepresentation of your arguments despite my request in R4 for you to do so. I've also rebutted all contentions you've put forth. I'd like to point out that my opponent never rebutted his disagreement with "logic is evidence. Do you disagree?" contention I've put forth in R3 in response to sourcing of my logical arguments. He also drops his contention with the "source all claims rule" ended in R4.

I urge the voters to closely examine the arguments and explore the sources put forth in this debate. My opponent continuously made unsupported conclusions from his sources or assertions that've already rebutted in previous rounds.

Examine the evidence put forth & see which is more likely. Shared BoP.

Vote pro.

Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
I am sorry I haven't voted on this debate, but I didn't do it for 2 reasons.

1. I gave SNP1 some advice during the debate, and it seemed rather dishonest for me to vote on it at well

2. The debate was very close anyway, there were so many independent arguments thrown around that it's mostly a subjective opinion on who came out on top.

My opinion is benshapiro threw a large number of irrelevant arguments into the debate, up for example I do not see how the origin of intelligence or objective morality, even if valid and sound arguments, have anything to do with the origin of the universe (which is the resolution) whatsoever.

But in the other hand Con did not say this, and the intelligence argument was one of Pro's stronger arguments, so either I penalized Pro as a voter for giving irrelevant stuff, or oenalize con for not pointing it out... I am not sure what I should have done.

Anyway, good debate both. I recommend keeping debates like this more concise with fewer but better supported arguments. Gish gallop style debates are a bit annoying.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Snp1, yes, let me take a 2nd look.
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
Wylted, can you be specific on what part of my round 2 i should improve on for if I do this debate again? I thought I covered my BoP in that round quite well, but if you think there is something I can improve on I would appreciate your advice.
Posted by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
Nah it's cool it doesn't matter anyways
Posted by lifemeansevolutionisgood 3 years ago
lifemeansevolutionisgood
"1) as a new user, you wouldn't parody a user you've never had a discussion with ("lifemeansgodisgood" in the comments section)"

This would only be true if I joined this website right after finding it. This entire point falls apart if I have been looking at this site for a while before joining it.

"2) you wouldn't write about a 10 page RFD on a single debate as a new user on one debate topic"

I take things seriously. I would do the same on any debate I came across. I just happened to look at this one because I happen to know SNP1 in real life. I never joined this site because I decided to focus on my classes, but now that classes are done with I joined and looked at any debates that he, Owlz8, or demonlord343 were in that interested me. As a note, you might call it biased as it would be voting for a friend, but I try to be as unbiased as I possibly can.

"3) the other side (pro) wouldn't be completely misrepresented and not have his side taken into account at all even if you 100% disagreed with him."

Can you point out where the misrepresentation happened? If I did misrepresent you, I apologize, but I simply decided to look at what was written with my prior knowledge taken into account (which I probably should not do, sue me) and commented based off of that.

"I'm not even questioning whether it's you because I know it is, but it's not a big deal. This kind of stuff happens all the time on this website and isn't accounted for. Usually the person creating the second account gets voting rights and votes in the debate so at least that didn't happen. Feel free to justify it though I'll see what you have to say about it."

I have nothing to justify. I will be open about it, I am friends with Con in real life and I commented about how I would vote on his debate, sue me. At least I am trying to be unbiased with what I said, and at least I am not actually voting.
Posted by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
Yes

1) as a new user, you wouldn't parody a user you've never had a discussion with ("lifemeansgodisgood" in the comments section)

2) you wouldn't write about a 10 page RFD on a single debate as a new user on one debate topic

3) the other side (pro) wouldn't be completely misrepresented and not have his side taken into account at all even if you 100% disagreed with him.

I'm not even questioning whether it's you because I know it is, but it's not a big deal. This kind of stuff happens all the time on this website and isn't accounted for. Usually the person creating the second account gets voting rights and votes in the debate so at least that didn't happen. Feel free to justify it though I'll see what you have to say about it.
Posted by lifemeansevolutionisgood 3 years ago
lifemeansevolutionisgood
"So if you could vote for yourself that'd be your RFD. Cool."
Are you assuming that I am SNP1? If so, why? If not, what does this comment mean?
Posted by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
So if you could vote for yourself that'd be your RFD. Cool.
Posted by lifemeansevolutionisgood 3 years ago
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Well, I cannot actually vote yet, but I still want to say how I would vote and why.

Con started out with a strong argument, using deductive reasoning to show the universe is uncaused. He also brought forth an interesting naturalistic method for the universe coming into existence and even pointed out that not all events (specifically in Quantum Mechanics) have a cause. This would destroy the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He also brought up an interesting point where the universe, under just the natural laws and theories we know today, would actually end up almost exactly like the one we have. This destroys the Teleological Cosmological Argument.
Posted by lifemeansevolutionisgood 3 years ago
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Pro started off, ignoring Con's round, with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument did nothing to refute Con's initial argument against it. Pro then went into arguing that objective morality equals God, but fails to show that any moral actually is objectively true, only that certain ethics have been the same over time. Ethics and morals are not the same thing, even if they do relate to each other. Pro then tried to argue specified-complexity without defining specified or complex. He also failed to bring forth any evidence or sources to back up that his argument is even true. Pro then brought up intrinsic value of humans without providing evidence for such value that cannot be explained with extrinsic value.

In the next round Con points out that Pro ignored his initial arguments about the KCA. He also points out that Pro never supported his objective morality argument and brought up research to help show that morality is subjective. He then brings up that Pro failed to support his Specified-Complexity argument with either evidence or sources. He also follows up with showing that the arguments for an intristic value can be turned over to show that humans do not have an intristic value. He finally uses Occam's Razor to show that a naturalistic explanation is more likely than God.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 3 years ago
Ajab
SNP1BenshapiroTied
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: I am with Wylted, both sides did not provide their side of the story that well but refuted the other's claims excellently, for me it is most likely an absolute tie! I think there is room for improvement, and some physical ideas were mixed up. I saw SNP1 make some minor mistakes but that's besides the point. I will re-read this debate if I have time and write down each argument and then perhaps my vote will change.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
SNP1BenshapiroTied
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: After reevaluating this argument, I'm going to leave it a tie. Pro's arguments weren't offered rebuttals, but he also made the mistake if allowing them to be forgotten. I'm going to ask a few other voters to vote and give their opinion of this, while I withdraw my vote.