The Instigator
dr_mcdavid
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Is creation a valid model in today's scientific era ?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/28/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 53520
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

dr_mcdavid

Con

Hello everybody. I am a follower of theory of evolution and this debate topic is to see which side's arguments are more affective.
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

Thanks for the interesting debate topic Con. For my argument I will argue that creationism is valid. I will dismiss young earth creationism and argue for old earth creationism by a deistic (impersonal) god (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Valid- fair or reasonable (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
According to Merriam Webster.
Opening statement
Because we have not yet discovered what came before the big bang it would be unreasonable to assume that it was not caused or created by a god. It is reasonable to consider creationism as a possibility, but foolish to dismiss it.
This alone makes it valid.
Even more evidence.
The cosmological argument (http://en.wikipedia.org...) formulated by Aristotle argues that the existence of a god is not only a valid theory but also probable.
The basic argument is this:
  1. "Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
  2. A causal loop cannot exist.
  3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
  4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist."

This first cause could very well be a god.

Therefore, a deistic god creating the original components of the big bang billions of years ago is a valid model in today's scientific era.

Back to Con! Good Luck!

Debate Round No. 1
dr_mcdavid

Con

Good argument Pro.
Since you talked about inpersonal God, I want to tell you that I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic, I mean I personally don't believe in any God, but I still think that there are chances of creationism to appear true. The argument i want to say is that we don't know what happened before Big Bang and why did it happen, but we have few evidences to accept that theory, also scientists claim that time itselfe started after the Big Bang inflated. The argument you said about "we don't know whether it has to be cause..." I want to say that that argument would be also valid if universe and everything would have a meaning and purpose. Like Big Bang was a job go god's hand, this everything would have a meaning, but meaning is something that we humans try to find or to creat.
Thank you
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

Thanks for the argument Con. First of all I want to point out that you said "I still believe there are chances of creationism to appear true". I think that's acknowledging that it's a valid model. Sure we can't find much evidence for it yet, and it does require more study but this does not invalidate the possibility. I'm not sure what your last argument about meaning meant but if you rephrase it next round I'll do my best to refute it! Back to you!
Debate Round No. 2
dr_mcdavid

Con

Thank you Pro
First of all i want to interpret what I said about creationism appear true. Even if we study universe and try to find out where did we come from, we still don't dismiss any hypothesis.
The thing about meaning I said is than nothing ever has a meaning, our lives, our universe, all these are meaningless, if all these had a meaning we would question ourselves about God, why would God creat a universe and life without a meaning and purpose. It just doesn't make a sense.
The problem is not about evidences either.
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

Con said "we still don't dismiss any hypothesis".
This is basically a concession that Creationism is a valid model. It cannot be dismissed even if it requires more study.

The rest of your argument does not actually provide evidence that creationism is not a valid model.

Debate Round No. 3
dr_mcdavid

Con

This is basically a concession that Creationism is a valid model. It cannot be dismissed even if it requires more study.
The rest of your argument does not actually provide evidence that creationism is not a valid model.

First of all i want to make clear that even if scientist say that Big Bang created everything, that doesn't mean that they know for 100%. They follow evidences and study those until they get sure. Secondly God was "created" by ancient people to explain mysteries. Those people used to think that sun itself was god until scientists started to discover those, secondly toss same ancient people used to believe that if they burry their newborn children under new buildings, that would prevent imaginary creations from smashing down their buildings by doing tsunami or earthquake. And that the sort of people who created god to explain how sun appears and disappears every day. Even nowadays there are mysteries such as "where did consciousness come from". And creationists always remind us about god who gave us that consciousness. They gonna remind us about that god until scientists come up with a good evidence and explanation for that. I am pretty sure that no creationist would say "god makes earth orbit around the sun" because they gonna get a bunch of people laughing at them, and one day many mysteries would also be explained by science and step by step Dismiss God.
Thank you
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

Basically scientists don't need to be one hundred percent sure for it to be a valid model. The examples of gods you used are irrelevant as I am arguing in favor of a deistic god. You have failed to provide evidence that it is not a valid example . You have only succeeded in arguing against theistic gods which I never argued for.
Debate Round No. 4
dr_mcdavid

Con

In 2 previous rounds i already said that it's not about evidences but probably you misunderstood me, that's my fault. So let me explain what I actually meant. When I said "it's not about evidences that there is or there isn't god, that meant that you neither can bring evidences that there isn't a Chinese teapot orbiting around the Venus and singing romantic songs. But it seems a bit non-logical, isn't it ??
My main argument was "why would god creat all this if nothing has a meaning at all ?"
The thing you have been doing most of the time is claiming that we don't have evidences (want to remind that we don't have evidences that disprove Chinese teapot around the Venus either)
So where are YOUR evidences than.
As I said before the god (doesn't matter deist or theist) was originally created by ancient people few thousand years ago to explain stuff like "why are there earthquakes"- would you still think that god is the reason of earthquakes ?? I am sure you won't because nobody will take serious after that, but we have thousands of mysteries today, like you said " what happened before Big Bang" and every time you hear that question instead of accepting that you don't know, you say god did it probably to avoid thinking or learning.
So where are your evidences than ??
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

I assure you con I have not misunderstood you. I have provided a valid first cause argument that you have failed to refute. Not only that but you have been arguing against a theistic god instead of a deistic one. You have failed to provide any evidence that supports your viewpoint. In conclusion it is perfectly valid to have a model where the components for the Big Bang were created by a deistic god. You have not refuted that.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 3 years ago
Truth_seeker
dr_mcdavidRaymond_Reddington
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave sources con did not refute.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
dr_mcdavidRaymond_Reddington
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I'm finding it difficult to determine where, if anywhere, in Con's argument, there is a response specifically with regards to old earth creationism and it's validity. I simply never see Con hit Pro's arguments, nor does he address how it's invalid rather than how it's disparaged. That's not enough to win this debate.
Vote Placed by Cobo 3 years ago
Cobo
dr_mcdavidRaymond_Reddington
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This would have been an easier debate to judge on provided that the pro and con gave me more to work with. Seriously, so many possible arguments and such and you guys both gave some lack luster rounds. I will give it to pro, because pro defined the rounds and followed that model. Con tried to make this debate about him with the "I am" statements. Con's first rebuttal did not mention anything the pro really talked about, even though the pro did not mention that.