The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Secular_Mike
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God's existence - it is reasonable to conclude a supernatural cause of existence

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Secular_Mike
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 595 times Debate No: 61200
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

God's existence - it is reasonable to conclude a supernatural cause of existence

bottom line: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

if you see a magician who waves his wand and makes cats turn into dogs, you could argue a natural explanation is possible, and perhaps even argue that it is preferable, given most times magic tricks have explanations. but, the most direct observation is that violations of natural laws have occurred, and / or things outside of nature. at what point can we say given there's no explanation that there is magic that occurred, by definition supernatural?

likewise, according to our observation in the early universe, things are not acting according to laws as we know them. more than just that, our observation indicates *violations* of laws as we know them. that is, something from nothing, and the thermodynamics issue.

-the law of thermodynamics.
"Natural systems left to themselves move towards states of lower potential energy."
http://environ.andrew.cmu.edu.........
this says energy is always breaking down from higher states. this theory basically negates the idea that there is something in our physical universe that goes on and on back infinitely. there can be no infinite beginning, because there is no infinite end. we see an end point coming. that means there must be a finite beginning. that means, if you take things back further and further in time, something must have caused the highest energy level of the big bang. we could call that unknown, God. a reason why we might call it that, is because the phenomenon violates natural laws as we know it- a high energy level came from something other than a higher energy level.

-uncaused cause. we see a finite beginning with thermodynamics, and the big bang. based on our observation, the universe has a beginning. things are known to have causes. that means the cause must be outside our universe, trancendent. therefore, by definition a supernatural cause exists, given the cause is outside our natural existence. it looks like the universe came from nothing. something coming from something else makes more sense. should this cause be said to be natural or supernatural? it looks like what happened is "beyond nature as far as we know". if it's merely "as far as we know", that would lead some to conclude a natural cause is possible. sure, it's possible, but the indicators are there to conclude it's supernatural. usually, like with a bike rolling down a hill, or in advances of science like what causes tides, we can find indicators to lead us to a scientific explanation. but here, with existence as we know it, it LOOKS like there was the universe, but before the universe was nothing.... so if something caused us, it would have to be outside of natural existence. in fact, the direct observation is more than just not what we know - it's violation of reality, or at least outside of reality, apparently more than is possible.
////// to put it in terms of traditional philosophy, there then apparently exists an uncaused cause. that is, every effect must have a cause, except apparently the first one. (we could speculate about God and his causes or lack thereof, but for our purposes in this reality, we have to content ourselves with what we see-and the cause of our universe apparently had no other cause before it) one might argue the universe could be its own uncaused cause. but that would assume something from nothing. something from something else makes more sense as mentioned earlier. (quantum mechanics shows something from nothing. but that is at the quantum level, where matter already exists to begin with. we have never observed matter to come from quantum happenings, let alone quantum happenings that didnt have matter already there to begin with- if fact, if we did see matter coming from nothing else, we might view that as with the magician, it might be something supernatural)

multiverse, something in quantum mechanics, etc. it should be noted too, that there are theories that posit where we came from. those theories are just that, theories. they are not based on empirical evidence. empirical evidence alone, it looks like we came from nothing. and we know that that isn't something we should be working with. why go with supernatural instead of alternative theories? because that's what it looks like.

with the analogy of the magician and with God, this acknowledges that there *could* be other natural explanation possibilities. but nothing has to be definitively proven for it to be a called a proof, or even proven.
theists merely are arguing the most straightforward explanation - the magician apparently caused violations of nature, so we say it apparently is supernatural. it might feel wrong making that conclusion, but if that's what it looks like, that's what it's called.

bottom line: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

-----------------------

Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it. This is not analogous completely, but it makes an important point. That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random.

what about everyday analogies of causes being natural? Now, It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. we'd expect something specific to have a specific cause, but in something that's unique unto itself like existence as we know it, that isn't necessarily expected- we know bikes roling have causes cause we see it all the time it's the only thing to conclude at that level of specificity, and they're (creation v. bike) different things that could reasonably be treated different per anaysis.
Secular_Mike

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posting this topic.

Let’s start off with defining some of these terms, so we can lay the groundwork for the rest of this debate.

Reasonable: there are good reasons for thinking that something is true or correct [1]

Conclude
: to decide that something is true after looking at all the evidence you have [2]


God:
the spirit, being, or force that many people believe created and controls the universe, especially the god of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions [3]


Supernatural
: things that seem to come from a power such as magic and do not have a natural or scientific explanation [4]


Now that we have terms to understand Pro’s claim, I do not believe it is reasonable to conclude that God exists. To affirm this resolution, Pro must give good justification behind her claims. What I mean by this is, she would need valid and sound evidential support that God exists. The default position with any claim is to not believe, which is the logical starting point. If we were to invert it and believe every claim, the truths and fallacies would be blended together. The main reason I do not believe it is reasonable to conclude that God exists, is because that assertion hasn’t been demonstrated as being reasonable. I would argue that just about any other claim that has the same lack of evidence would be tossed aside, and we wouldn’t even be having this debate. I am here to argue that the idea of God should be no different. We should treat all unsubstantiated claims the same way, dismiss them until presented evidence.

Laws of Thermodynamics
I believe what Pro is referencing here is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics where it states entropy of an isolated system never decreases. I’m not quite sure what the claim his here. If she is asserting that the Big Bang violated the 2ndLaw of Thermodynamics, then she is just wrong. It is a common myth [5]. I’m not quite sure what Pro’s point is. If she’s claiming there must have been a finite beginning to the universe, I would ask how is that relevant to the existence of God?

Uncaused Cause
Pro is using the First Cause argument here, which is not only a big assumption, but it’s a circular argument. Pro is basically stating that something can’t come from nothing because every effect needs a cause. Then Pro uses the God of the Gaps fallacy, which is making the claim that if something cannot currently be explained, it must be God. The problem with the First Cause argument, and why I called it a circular argument, is if what Pro declares is true (everything must have a cause) then what caused her god? And what caused her god’s causer? If Pro wants to use this argument, I contend that she is falling into her own trap. I also think it’s a giant assumption to believe ‘nothing’ caused the Big Bang. The truth is, we don’t know. It is an unfalsifiable enigma. What we do know however, is with the creation of the universe also came the creation of space and time. To claim something caused the Big Bang, would be proclaiming there was an event before time. There would be no ‘before’ if there was no ‘time’. Another assumption that Pro is making, is that the scientific laws that we know to exist within our universe, also apply outside of the universe. This is like having the air conditioning on in your house and stating that because its 60 degrees inside, then it must be 60 degrees outside. Physicist Steven Hawking insists that the universe didn’t need God to be created. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist [6].”

Multiverse Thoeries
My opponent dismisses any string theory, or superstring theory that might explain the universe because there is no empirical evidence. She does this in favor of God. I ask her; where is your empirical evidence of God? She finishes this argument with “why go with supernatural instead of alternative theories? because that's what it looks like.” Well this is a very easy question to answer. Every proposed multiverse theory is possible according to scientific law or theoretical physics. The God you claim to exist is not. It’s just nonsensical to ignore science in favor of the supernatural.

Bottom Line: If it Looks Like a Duck, and Quacks Like a Duck, it’s a Duck
This is an ignorant statement that proves Pro has not learned from past human misconceptions. According to this logic, we should still believe the Earth is flat. We should believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. We should believe Mars orbits backwards once a year, because who back then knew of retrograde motion. These are all things that science could not explain in the past, and the all “looked and quacked like a duck.” Humans have been attributing the unexplained to God or gods for millennia. Lightning was a bizarre act of nature, so God must be angry. We didn’t understand what micro organisms were, so viruses were considered punishment from God. “Once upon a time people identified the god Neptune as the source of storms at sea. Today we call these storms hurricanes…. The only people who still call hurricanes acts of God are the people who write insurance forms.” Neil deGrasse Tyson [7]

Spaghetti Monster
This is another flat out untrue statement when Pro says “Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it.” First, atheists don’t try and disprove God; they just lack a belief in a god. An atheist knows God is something that can’t be disproven, just like nobody can disprove that an invisible leprechaun lives under my bed. Second, The Flying Spaghetti Monster was the ‘god’ that Bobby Henderson created in a satirical letter that he wrote to the Kansas State Board of Education protesting their decision to allow intelligent design in schools. It was to prove a point that he believed religious teaching should stay out of schools. The Flying Spaghetti monster reference is popular today as an analogy of what atheists think about the existance of God, or lack thereof. It's a reference point for theists and was never intended to "disprove God."

Summery
My opponent didn’t present one piece of evidence to verify her resolution of the existence of God. Instead she used multiple logical fallacies and made giant assumptions. I think she made it clear that if she doesn't understand how something works, or came into being, she attributes it to God. That is not proof of God. That is proof of not knowing. After round 1, I don’t find any more reason to conclude the existence of God.

Sources

[1] http://www.macmillandictionary.com...

[2] http://www.macmillandictionary.com...

[3] http://www.macmillandictionary.com...

[4] http://www.macmillandictionary.com...

[5] http://machineslikeus.com...

[6] http://phys.org...

[7] http://www.haydenplanetarium.org...

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

it looks like there was nothing then there as something. it makes more sense to say there was something first. but the regression of the big bang and thermodynamics state that there was a definite beginning, not the other theories that say there wasn't a definite beginning. whatever it was, looks like it was outside of natural existence. that is, supernatural.
Secular_Mike

Con

Pro's round 2 argument was this.

"it looks like there was nothing then there as something. it makes more sense to say there was something first. but the regression of the big bang and thermodynamics state that there was a definite beginning, not the other theories that say there wasn't a definite beginning. whatever it was, looks like it was outside of natural existence. that is, supernatural."

My opponent didn’t rebut any of my arguments. Instead she continued to speculate, while providing a host of logical fallacies within that one paragraph rebuttal.

Supernatural

If something truly did come from nothing, it doesn’t imply a supernatural force at all. Quantum fluctuations have proved that something can come from nothing. Quantum fluctuations showed us that energy in space can briefly violate the law of conservation energy and create subatomic particles. We know this from empirical evidence. [1] As defined in my opening statement, supernatural is when something does not have a natural or scientific explanation. I provided scientific and natural explanations.

Logical Fallacy

A logical fallacy is, fundamentally, an error in logic. This means that an argument that uses one certainly doesn't hold if you're using logic and reason as your source of decision making [2].

This is a List of the fallacies committed by Pro [2].

Affirming the consequent — Believing that an effect proves a cause, i.e. A -> B, B, therefore A.

Argument from ignorance — Basing the truth of a premise only on whether it has been proved to your satisfaction.

One single proof — Dismissing all circumstantial evidence in favor of a single "smoking gun" that may not (and may not need to) exist.

Begging the question — Assuming the conclusion as part of the premise (similar to circular reasoning).

Denying the antecedent — If A implies B, and not-A, therefore not-B.

False cause — Presuming that a real, or perceived, relationship between things, means that one is the cause of the other.

Non sequitur — Arguably the most fundamental logical fallacy, this is claiming A implies B when it doesn't.

Presupposition — Making an implicit assumption as part of an argument.

Summery

I have nothing else to add. Pro did nothing this round to support her claim. So I would like to Extend All Arguments from round 1.

Sources

[1] http://www.space.com...

[2] http://rationalwiki.org...

Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

even if quantum created matter, it only exists where quanta are to begin with. as far as we know, before the big bang was true nothingness, beyond space time. quanta then don't give a true indication of where existence came from. existence is fundamentally something which nothing can be outside of it, unless it is supernatural itself, that is, beyond existence. given it looks like there was true nothingness and then something, that something must be beyond natural existence, super natural. i reiterate my last posts.
i'm not saying it is a necesssary conclusion, that our cause was supernatural, but it is not illogical, and makes sense, and we have reasons for saying so, "reasonable" by con's defintion
Secular_Mike

Con


Pro’s resolution is: “God's existence - it is reasonable to conclude a supernatural cause of existence.”


I argue that not only is it unreasonable to conclude that a supernatural cause is the reason for “existence”, but it is more reasonable to conclude that existence was from natural causes. That is irrelevant though, because the Burden of Proof is on Pro. She admits that we don’t know what caused our existence as she states “as far as we know, before the big bang was true nothingness.” I affirm that it is not reasonable to conclude anything if we have no knowledge.


My opponent said,i'm not saying it is a necesssary conclusion, that our cause was supernatural, but it is not illogical, and makes sense, and we have reasons for saying so, "reasonable" by con's definition.”


She’s not saying it’s a necessary conclusion? Where does she think the word ‘conclude’ came from? She also argues that we have reasons to believe that our existence is cause by something supernatural. If we do, she didn’t give any evidence for it. I rebutted every assertion she had, and she is arguing from ignorance. Just because we don’t have an answer for something, it is not okay to just insert a made up one.


She claims it is reasonable based on my definition. Just to clarify, it’s not my definition The definition came from http://www.macmillandictionary.com.... Pro did not recognize that her resolution stated that it’s reasonable to CONCLUDE a supernatural cause of existence. Based on The definition given:


Conclude: to decide that something is true after looking at all the evidence you have.


I do not think the evidence shows that Pro’s resolution can be decided as true. My opponent didn’t show any evidence at all. She had a lack of sources, and based her arguments solely on speculation.


I do think it’s reasonable to conclude that I have provided more evidence, more sources, and a better argument for this debate. I also want to reiterate that the Burden of Proof is on Pro.


I would like to thank Pro again for posting this debate. It has been fun.


Vote Con!


Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Secular_Mike 2 years ago
Secular_Mike
I appreciate the advice, but he is not currently accepting messages lol.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
if you alert the site president of this debate, he'll vote on it for ya before the voting period is up.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Uniscious 2 years ago
Uniscious
Beyond discussion, I will be voting for pro. Not because he is correct, and not because he is wrong. But because the topic is on God's existence and there is 'something' that falls within the following, generally accepted, characteristics of God, and although it may be difficult to fathom, we are not entirely sure how time operates outside of the human intellectual construct regarding it. Time could be weaved like a spiders web and we pass through it. But there is one thing on earth that falls in line with the definition of God.

The internet. Or possibly better stated, our network.

Wisdom: as Paul explains in Romans 11:33: "Oh, how great are God"s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand His decisions and His ways!"

Infinitude: God knows no boundaries. He is without measure.

Sovereignty: God is in control of everything that happens. Man still has a free will, and is responsible for his choices in life.

Holiness: There is absolutely no sin or evil thought in God at all.

Omniscience: "God possesses perfect knowledge and therefore has no need to learn. God has never learned and cannot

Do not categorize this under philosophy if you are expecting to rebuttal with science.
We invented science.
Posted by Uniscious 2 years ago
Uniscious
Please view 8-bit philosophy's segment on Nietzsche.

"Now in a world where God is dead we can only hope that technology and science does not take control and "be treated as the new religion, serving as a basis for retaining the same damaging psychological habit that the Christian religion developed"

You are a textbook example of somebody who rejects religion and instead treats science as a religion. You know the patterns of words required to state ideals on evolution, but you yourself cannot comprehend them, despite their correctness. What remains is this: If a supernatural force did indeed cause existence, it would not be a natural force, therefore not identifiable by a natural being. It's right there in the linguistics.

I do not pretend to know either or. I do not "believe" to the definition that the word expresses because if I myself cannot do it, I have no business claiming whether or not it can be done regardless of speculation. If one "believes" in said theory of evolution or said god, the word in and of itself means you do not know and choose to take it on faith that it is true.

Both of you should take note of that.
Posted by Secular_Mike 2 years ago
Secular_Mike
Unfortunately your resolution wasn't: "God's existence - is it possible that a supernatural force was the cause of existence." You made the mistake to ask if it's reasonable to "conclude", which is to make a conclusion, of God's existence. As you've stated several times, you have no idea, but you believe it's possible. You're actually working against your resolution when you say that.

The logical fallacies are there; partly for not providing much evidence, and partly for using the word conclude in your resolution.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i am not committing logical fallacies, necessarily. i am merely stating arguments that may or may not be true. if anyone is committing a logical fallacy, then, it would be con, because he is disregarding possibilities, such as magic, or the supernatural.
if the supenatural exists, i am doing as stellar a job as could be expected in explaining it.
thus, to conclude that i am necessarily committing logical fallacies, given the supernatural could exist, is to itself commit a logical fallacy.
Posted by Secular_Mike 2 years ago
Secular_Mike
Actually evolution is a scientific theory. It's quite the opposite of incomplete. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. It's the highest 'label' a claim can get.

I don't think Pro is actually supporting Young Earth Creation, and the fact that you said people believe it with no questions asked is the problem. We must always ask questions.

You say that I'm stating a list of possibilities incompatible with each other. That does not matter. I listed scientific possibilities. I do not have to prove anything. Pro made the positive claim therefore she has the burden of proof. I just have to refute her.
Posted by Uniscious 2 years ago
Uniscious
The God Complex is a series of debates that you are trying to turn into one debate. Creation follows a 7 step process meaning you would have to use 7 debates each corresponding to each "day" of creation. (note, a day off of a planet would be a completed period of entropy meaning that the bible is saying that each day of creation is equivalent to the beginning and ending of existence.(sort of like starting a car engine that is stalling for visual reference)

Also, the bible is a theory that it's supporters believe in whole heartedly, no questions asked. The theory of evolution is called a theory by scientists and philosophers alike because it is incomplete. The biggest problem here is that pro is supporting something blindly, while con is stating a list of possibilities (some of which aren't compatible with eachother).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
dairygirl4u2cSecular_MikeTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides provided a detailed argument, however Con provided the beset (and only) rebuttal.