The Instigator
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PotBelliedGeek
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Intelligent design does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
PotBelliedGeek
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,189 times Debate No: 43433
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

theta_pinch

Pro

ONLY accept if you are an intelligent design advocate.








note; resolution suggested by "truthpursuit."
PotBelliedGeek

Con

I accept on the following:
My opponent's resolution is a statement of fact. "ID does not exist". In light of this, BOP is on my opponent who must reasonably prove the non-existance of ID.

My function in this debate is not to prove the existance of ID, but only to disprove my opponents assertions.
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Pro

Intelligent design claims that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.

It makes no claim as to who the designer is; but we can try to deduce that from thee "theory."

First off it says that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. What could that cause be; there are two possibilities: aliens or God.
We can discount the alien creator because to guide evolution or add completely new parts to the biology of animals they'd have to continually visit earth which hasn't happened. So the only option would be God.

Second it says that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause.
We can immediately discount aliens in this one since they couldn't have been around long enough or have enough control over nature to cause "certain features of our universe." The only thing with that much power is God.

So from the claims of Intelligent design we can deduce that the supposed designer is God. Now it's a simple matter of disproving God.

I have three proofs that God doesn't exist:

The Omnipotence Paradox


This is an example of the Omnipotence Paradox: "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it."If God can lift the rock then he's not omnipotent because he can't create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. If God can't lift the rock than he's not omnipotent because his strength is limited. So either way God is not omnipotent.

The Argument From Free Will

If God is omnipotent he is able to create a being with free will. God must also be omniscient in which case he must know what choice that creature with free will will make. This is a paradox because if God know what choice the creature will make, then that creature doesn't have free will; its choice is already determined. If God doesn't know what choice the creature will make, it does have free will, but then God isn't omniscient because there is something he doesn't know. So either way God does not have one of his defining attributes.

The Argument From Quantum Mechanics

This is an argument that I created. It goes like this: God is omniscient meaning that he is observing every particle in the universe. In the double slit experiment an electron was shot at two slits and passed through both because it was a wave and when it hit the detector it became a particle. This is called wave function; the double slit experiment showed that a particle is a wave until it is observed; when it becomes a particle its wave function has collapsed. Now if God is omniscient he MUST be observing every particle in the universe. However if this is true then the electrons in the double slit experiment wouldn't have a wave function since they would have been observed by God; but the electrons did have a wave function. Therefore God cannot be omniscient and therefore cannot exist as we presently define him.

These arguments disprove God because they show that his attributes cause paradoxes.

CONCLUSION
By disproving the designer I have disproved Intelligent Design.




Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.debate.org...



PotBelliedGeek

Con

1. "So from the claims of Intelligent design we can deduce that the supposed designer is God."

In these clauses, my opponent restricts the only possible deity involved in ID to the Abrahamic understanding of God. While this restriction is highly debatable, I choose not to contest this restriction, as I am a Muslim and personally ascribe to the aforementioned understanding.

2. "This is an example of the Omnipotence Paradox: "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it."If God can lift the rock then he's not omnipotent because he can't create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. If God can't lift the rock than he's not omnipotent because his strength is limited. So either way God is not omnipotent."

I will break down and simplify my opponents argument, then I will proceed with the rebuttal.

Argument:
God is capable of all things. He is all-powerful, un-contradicting, unstoppable.
God created a rock that is indestructible, all-powerful, immovable.
What happens when God tries to move the rock?

The question posed by my opponent is, therefore, the essence of the the question pondered by so many of us:
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

Answer/rebuttal:

An immovable object can only be defined as an unaccelerateable object. I will explain:
According to relativity, all objects are moving based on a separate frame of reference, including said immovable object. A mountain for example, is stationary and immovable from the reference frame of one standing on the ground. But were said individual to hop into a car and begin driving, the the mountain would become movable and indeed begin to move.

So the only way it is possible to define an immovable object becomes to do so as an unaccelerateable object, meaning one cannot make it move by directly pushing on it.

An unstoppable force must be defined as one who's velocity cannot be changed by external forces. I will explain:

The common understanding of force is energy. To say that energy is unstoppable is to say that the energy will continue regardless of external forces. Example:
A baseball is hit towards me. Let us say that the energy of the moving baseball is unstoppable. This means that when I catch the baseball, the energy will continue to move. This is by definition the Law of Thermodynamics. This is exactly what happens, and therefore all energy is an unstoppable force.

This does not suit the question, and is not the intended meaning. What is intended is an object that cannot be stopped from moving relative to a single frame of reference. In short, it velocity cannot be changed by pushing on it.

Thus:

An immovable object: An object who's velocity cannot be changed by pushing on it.
An unstoppable force: An object who's velocity cannot be changed by pushing on it.

With this understanding, there are numerous ways to circumvent this "paradox", the two most simple being an understanding of the unstoppable force as pure energy, or a simple change in reference[1].

I remind the voters that my role in this debate is simply to illustrate that my opponents arguments do not rule out the possibility of ID, not to prove my version. I have sufficiently done so for this point.

2. The Argument From Free Will

"If God is omnipotent he is able to create a being with free will. God must also be omniscient in which case he must know what choice that creature with free will will make. This is a paradox because if God know what choice the creature will make, then that creature doesn't have free will; its choice is already determined. If God doesn't know what choice the creature will make, it does have free will, but then God isn't omniscient because there is something he doesn't know. So either way God does not have one of his defining attributes."


My opponent argues here that if God knows what choices his creation will make, then we don't have free will, meaning God forced us into our choices. If we have free will then God does not know what we will do in the future.

This is a very simple argument to refute.

1. There is nothing within the concept of ID that mandates all creation have free will. In order for this argument to be valid, my opponent must prove that we do indeed have free will.

2. This can also be refuted by simply saying: Knowing what someone will do, is not forcing them to do it. Example: I know that person A will marry person B in the future. I did not remove there free will.


3. "This is an argument that I created. It goes like this: God is omniscient meaning that he is observing every particle in the universe. In the double slit experiment an electron was shot at two slits and passed through both because it was a wave and when it hit the detector it became a particle. This is called wave function; the double slit experiment showed that a particle is a wave until it is observed; when it becomes a particle its wave function has collapsed. Now if God is omniscient he MUST be observing every particle in the universe. However if this is true then the electrons in the double slit experiment wouldn't have a wave function since they would have been observed by God; but the electrons did have a wave function. Therefore God cannot be omniscient and therefore cannot exist as we presently define him."

Here my opponent makes two simple errors, one in his understanding of ID, and one in his understanding of physics.

1. Nowhere in the concept of ID does it state that God sees every particle and only particles. My opponents argument is only valid if he can prove that God seeing only particles is in fact a key component of the ID concept.

2. Even if my opponent were to prove the contention made in the previous point, his argument would remain faulty. My opponents misunderstanding of the double slit experiment led him to believe that that particles convert to waves and vise versa. This is incorrect, as the actual implications of the experiment indicate that particles tend to move and behave as waves, with some exceptions[2].

4."These arguments disprove God because they show that his attributes cause paradoxes.

CONCLUSION
By disproving the designer I have disproved Intelligent Design."

Here my opponent makes another simple error in logic. None of said attributes are neccesary to the concept of ID. in order for any of your arguments to be valid, my opponent must first illustrate that ID cannot exist without these attributes.

Sources:
1. Dr. Henry Reich
https://twitter.com...

2.University of Oregon
http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Pro

"My opponent argues here that if God knows what choices his creation will make, then we don't have free will, meaning God forced us into our choices. If we have free will then God does not know what we will do in the future.

This is a very simple argument to refute.

1. There is nothing within the concept of ID that mandates all creation have free will. In order for this argument to be valid, my opponent must prove that we do indeed have free will.

2. This can also be refuted by simply saying: Knowing what someone will do, is not forcing them to do it. Example: I know that person A will marry person B in the future. I did not remove there free will."

My opponent misunderstands the argument from free will. What it means is that if it's possible to know what choice that creature with free will will make; then it must be "destined" to happen. If "destiny" is true, then free will doesn't exist. So if God knows the choice that animal makes, "destiny" is real and that means that there is no free will. Basically without determinism; it's impossible to know what a creature will do; it's not a matter of forcing them to do it. Essentially you can't know something for sure if there's any chance that something else might happen.


"Here my opponent makes another simple error in logic. None of said attributes are necessary to the concept of ID. in order for any of your arguments to be valid, my opponent must first illustrate that ID cannot exist without these attributes."

So back to defining the creator. We've already established that the creator MUST be a being that exists outside of space-time since there is no way anything could have designed the universe unless it wasn't part of the universe. Another proof that the designer must be a transcendental God is because if it was part of this universe then according to intelligent design any "irreducibly complex" parts must have been designed and then you go into an infinite regression.

So one argument against the existence of the intelligent design God: Nothing can exist before the universe because the universe is all there is (except in the case of a multiverse which doesn't change the end result; because nothing can control an entire universe.)


CONCLUSION
I have both proven that ID cannot exist without a transcendental God and that a transcendental God is impossible.

PotBelliedGeek

Con

"My opponent misunderstands the argument from free will. What it means is that if it's possible to know what choice that creature with free will will make; then it must be "destined" to happen. If "destiny" is true, then free will doesn't exist. So if God knows the choice that animal makes, "destiny" is real and that means that there is no free will. Basically without determinism; it's impossible to know what a creature will do; it's not a matter of forcing them to do it. Essentially you can't know something for sure if there's any chance that something else might happen."

Here my opponent attempts to clarify his argument using arguably more complex language. I will clarify and summarise my opponents argument:

"If God has predestined the occurrences of the world, then free will does not exist."

One can then deduce using the principle of the "Understood Opposite" that if free will exists, then God has not predestined the occurrences of the universe.

I will point out four separate flaws with this argument.

1. This this is a textbook example of a Red Herring logical fallacy. A Red Herring Fallacy is when a debater attempts to turn the argument from topic A (on which his/her arguments may or may not be failing) to topic B (on which s/he may or may not stand a better chance at winning), while the two topics are not inherently related to one another.

In this particular case, my opponent is attempting to switch from the possibility of ID (topic A) to the existence of free will (Topic B), while the two are not inherently related to one another.

2. In order for my opponents argument to carry any weight, my opponent must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that free will does indeed exist. This is because my opponent has invoked the existence of free will as proof that God is not omniscient. As my opponent has not demonstrated the required condition in any way, this argument is rendered useless.

3. In this argument my opponent targets a very restricted view of God the Creator, that he is indeed omniscient. The religious spectrum that associates with the viewpoint is very diverse, and many religions do not believe in an omniscient God. The Calvinist Christians and Qadariyyah Muslims are two examples.

4. In this argument my opponent attempts to negate only one supposed attribute of God the Creator. There is no correlation between the ideas of predestination and design.

2. "So back to defining the creator. We've already established that the creator MUST be a being that exists outside of space-time since there is no way anything could have designed the universe unless it wasn't part of the universe. Another proof that the designer must be a transcendental God is because if it was part of this universe then according to intelligent design any "irreducibly complex" parts must have been designed and then you go into an infinite regression."

This argument simply goes to show that God is not part of his creation. I do not disagree. Second, my opponent admits here that since God exists outside of the universe, then the rules of our universe do not apply. Since this is the case, I will make an assertion here, despite the fact that my sole role in this debate is disproval.

Science, human intellect, and logic do not apply to God, as he exists outside of the universe and the aforementioned only apply to that which is within our universe.

Third, my opponents arguments in no way prove the attributes my opponent bases his argument upon. If my opponent wishes to use any of his original arguments, he must first prove that God has these attributes:

Omnipotence

Omniscience

Sees all particles in the universe and only particles

Even if my opponent were to prove the aforementioned, then I would still be able to disprove each of his arguments.


3. "So one argument against the existence of the intelligent design God: Nothing can exist before the universe because the universe is all there is (except in the case of a multiverse which doesn't change the end result; because nothing can control an entire universe.)"

Here my opponent makes an assertion that cannot be backed up. This statement is avoided by even the most staunch atheist scientists. We cannot know what is beyond the edges of the universe as it is unobservable, unpredictable, and quite frankly, unknowable. The idea that the universe is infinite is a minority opinion. The consensus is that the universe does indeed have edges, and is expanding[1].

CONCLUSION
I have both proven that ID cannot exist without a transcendental God and that a transcendental God is impossible.

None of my opponents arguments have even addressed either of these two contentions, and I have effectively refuted each of my opponents arguments.

Source:
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrology

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Pro

I concede that there is a minute possibility that ID does exist.
PotBelliedGeek

Con

My opponent has conceded this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
Deism not all deist are that god has abandoned human kind. In classical Deism this was not the case with most of them. Today in Modern Deism http://www.deism.com... There is a greater variety of beliefs. Deism is not Atheism I strongly contend this. Debate me on it if you would like.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
@truthpursuit

Your suggested "legit resolution" was terribly worded; especially in favor of ID.
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
http://www.debate.org...

For anyone interested in discussing ethics.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
The reason why Deism is identical to Atheism in practical reality, is:
1: Origin of the Universe is no consequence, whether a Deity did it or it occurred by natural forces makes no difference to anybody, apart from those who want to argue the point, which wouldn't change either way.
2: In both Deism and Atheism, there is no reason to worship a Deity, because:
(a) Deists believe God has abandoned humans, so there is no reason to worship it, because
it will never be involved in earthly affairs and events, so prayer has no use.
(b) Atheists also believe that there is no reason to worship nor pray to a Deity, because there is
no sign of the existence of one.
So both Atheism and Deism agree that there is no sign of a Deity existing at the present, nor in the
future, to a Deist, the Deity has disappeared for good.

So the meaning of life and living a good life is identical for Atheists and Deists.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
@ PotBelliedGeek, I've no problem with the god did it concept of Deism, which is essentially what you have stated. Deists believed God started the Universe and Evolution, but left us to our own devices and went off doing other things in the universe, never to return.
Which is so close to Atheism, because the only difference is the Origins concepts are different, the rest is identical.
Evolution still becomes the answer to how humans began, in both Theistic Evolution and Deistic concepts.
We have no issues.
Because nobody can ever pinpoint what actually originated the universe, so a difference of opinion there doesn't matter at all.
It is not worth arguing about, really!
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
Thank you for your input sagey. I would like to point out two things. One, I am a theistic evolutionist. In short, I believe god desined evolution, and created the world accordingly. Second, this is a debate between myself and theta, and it is unfair that you should assist him in this debate, as I would have two opponents.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
For ID to be accepted as the answer to the Life On Earth riddle which Evolution adequately explains at present.
The Designer/God would have to appear to every scientist and scientific decision maker on planet Earth and explain why and when it designed it all.

Then it would have to leave a lot of completely verifiable, tangible evidence for it's appearance and of it's deeds, so Scientists would not consider it just a mass hallucination caused by interference with the mind from something like a freak wave pattern in space affecting the temporal lobes (which can give visions of God) or a massive Sunspot radiation affect.
The Creator/God would have to appear the same to everybody, regardless of faith, unlike NDEs and other Hallucinations where the God they see in their temporal lobe hallucinations resembles the particular god of their faith, which is evidence that NDE's are indeed Hallucinations.
Truly they should be called Near Death Hallucinations, because they are not actually Experiences in the real sense.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Both sides seem to have drifted away from Intelligent design argument, though I like Con's URLs. Some interesting fun stuff on minutephysics.

The thing I find that always stuffs up ID in arguments with scientists is Genetics.
Genetics supports Evolution far more than it supports ID, though that is just a hint, you will have to do some research to see what I mean.

Though whether ID exists or not, as far as Science and Knowledge goes it doesn't matter.
It will never be considered as a challenge to Evolution, EVER!

For 2 main Reasons:

1: Science applies Occam's Razor, or The Simplest and Most Probable Solution is always the Right One.

2: Intelligent Design is Supernatural/Superstition based and Superstition based Solutions are always complex and The Least Probable Solutions.

So if Evolution is defeated, it will be the next Most Probable Explanation which will take it's place.
ID would be at the very end of an almost infinite list of Solutions.
In other words, ID will never get chosen to replace Evolution, regardless of what happens.

It's so basic, yet, ID advocates cannot understand this simple concept of Science.
Which demonstrates how deluded, naive and poorly educated in philosophy ID advocates are.
Take Francis Collins for instance, from apparent good scientist to extreme loon in one statement in support for ID. Now he is not considered by his peers as a good scientific thinker, because he has gotten the philosophies all Wrong.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Good to see, because that makes it more interesting.
:-D~
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
theta_pinchPotBelliedGeekTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure Con's concession that ID is possible is really a concession of the debate since a person could consistently grant the mere possibility of ID and still believe it doesn't exist. However, since Pro dropped all the arguments, it's at least a forfeit, in which case Con wins anyway. But I think Con also won on the arguments. Pro's argument was basically: (1) If ID is true, then God exists. (2) God does not exist. (3) Therefore, ID is not true. HIs arguments against God were all arguments against omnipotence, but there's nothing about ID that requires an omnipotent God. Besides, Con refuted all three of Pro's arguments against omnipotence. Pro claimed that Con didn't understand his argument from free will, but I think it was Pro who didn't understand Con's refutation. I'm not sure what to think of Con's solution to the stone paradox, but since Pro gave up defending it, I have to give arguments to Con anyway. Sources to Con for using good credible academic sources.