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."
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.
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 
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.
Pro's round 2 argument was this.
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.
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.  As defined in my opening statement, supernatural is when something does not have a natural or scientific explanation. I provided scientific and natural explanations.
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 .
This is a List of the fallacies committed by Pro .
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.
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.
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
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.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|