The Instigator
Blazzered
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
usernamesareannoying
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,507 times Debate No: 71770
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (55)
Votes (0)

 

Blazzered

Con

This is a debate inspired by the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate.

1st round is mainly acceptance, however if my opponent wishes to have the opening statement first, feel free and we can go from there.

I will be taking the side saying no, creation is not a viable model.

I look forward to hear from my opponent and what he/she will have to say.
usernamesareannoying

Pro

Prologue

Thank you Blazzered!

Blazzered explained in the comments section that "People who argue creationism normally bring up the Christian God and it turns into a science vs Christianity debate, but if you wanna argue for a God overall, or argue for a specific God, feel free too."
So, I will accept this invitation to debate for an overall 'God'.

Definitions

God - "the greatest being that can be conceived"

Viable - "practicable; workable" (1)

"model of origins" - A sound concept to explain our "origins"; how we came to existence; how the universe came into existence etc.


Burden of Proof

I will have burden of proof to provide sufficient evidence to defend the resolution - to prove that *a God* is a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era.


Acceptance

I accept.


Arguments:


To fulfill my burden of proof, I must prove that an overall God is a viable model of our origins. I will do this by explaining how a God 'must' deductively exist:

P1: God exists
P2: If God created our universe, it is a viable concept of our origins
P3: If it is a viable concept of our origins, my BoP is fulfilled
C1: My burden of proof is fulfilled
P4: If my BoP is fulfilled, it means that I have defended the resolution
P5: If I have successfully defended the resolution, then I have won the debate
C2: I have won the debate

Defense of premise one:

Cosmological Argument from Contingency

P1: All physical entities has contingent existence.

P2: If the universe is defined as "all space-time, matter and energy", the universe has contingent existence.

P3: All contingent entities are the universe, so therefore the universe has contingent existence

P4: If the universe is contingent, there must be something that is non-contingent to prevent reductio ad infinitum

P5: The non-contingent being must be transcendental, because the being cannot create space-time, while existing in space and time.

P6: If all physical entities are contingent and the causer isn't contingent, the causer must be non-physical

C: Therefore, a being that is non-contingent, transcendent and non-physical must exist.


To refute this argument, you must identify a flaw, or logical fallacy in at least one of the premises; it will render the argument a non-sequitur.

Defense of premise one: This is a known posteriori - every physical entity has contingent existence.

Defense of premise two: "Universe" is literally another name for "all space-time, matter and energy", so this avoids the fallacy of composition. Just because you refer to it as the "universe" does not mean that it is composed of the latter, because it 'is' the latter.

Defense of premise three: all space-time, matter and energy are physical and exist contingently, if the universe is the latter then the universe exists contingently

Defense of premise four: It must be non-contingent to prevent reductio ad infinitum. There is a chain of contingent entities existing as we look back through time... However, this chain cannot last forever - Hilbert's hotel paradox deduces that an actual infinite cannot logically exist in our universe. Therefore, at one point, there would have to be a non-contingent entity to initiate the chain of contingent entities...

Defense of premise 5: This premise is a priori. If the universe is everything that was listed above, the being that created it, could not be a part of it. Therefore, the being must be transcendental.

Defense of premise 6: This is also a priori. If all contingent entities are physical, and we have deduced already that a non-contingent entity must exist, this being cannot be physical. Therefore it is non-physical.

Therefore, the conclusion logically follows from the premises - the argument is valid and sound.

This illustration should help for clarification:
<br />The uncaused cause in the diagram would be
The uncaused cause would be God and the causes would be everything else.


Argument that God is Omnipotent and Transcendent


Omnipotence:

P1: God is defined as the greatest being that can be conceived

P2: We can conceive a being that is attributed omnipotence, and a being that is not attributed omnipotence.

P3: If God is the greatest being that can be conceived, the concept that a God does not need omnipotence is nonsensical

P4: A God that has omnipotence is far greater than a God that doesn't

C: Therefore, God must have omnipotence

To refute this argument, you have to point out a flaw, or a logical fallacy in at least one of the proposed premises.


Defense of premise one: By the definition of "God", this is valid.

Defense of Premise two: We can indeed conceive a being that has unlimited power, and one that does not. This is fairly obvious.

Defense of Premise three: God is the greatest being that can be conceived, if a conceived God can either have omnipotence or not, the conclusion is (in this instance) dichotomous. The definition of "God" logically deduces that a God must have omnipotence because it is the greater option. A God that does not exist cannot exist in actuality, because it can not logically exist... To assert that something is greater than God is an absurdity, so therefore a God that does not have omnipotence is an absurdity.

Defense of premise four: this is self-evident

Transcendence:

Premise 1, in the Cosmological Argument cites a known posteriori that all observed physical entities have contingent existence. The argument also deduces that the entity to start the existence of everything else would have to be non-contingent. If all physical entities are contingent, and God is non-contingent, it would mean that God must be non-physical.


Modal Ontological Argument (Using system 5)



P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists necessarily.

P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists necessarily, then a maximally great being that exists necessarily exists in some possible world.

P3: If a maximally great being
that exists necessarily
exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists. (2)

Premise one is a priori, because God is defined as "The greatest being that can be conceived". And it is not logically incoherent to postulate that MGB exists necessarily.

I will have to briefly elaborate on an analogy to prove premise two valid... Let's say man created a supercomputer, which could successfully simulate every possible world, and it can simulate a world where a God exists necessarily. Therefore, God exists necessarily in some possible world.
As system 5 operates - "X is possibly necessary, it is necessary in at least one possible world; hence it is necessary in all possible worlds and thus is true in all possible worlds" (3)

Premise three is valid, because if something necessarily exists, it must exist in every possible world (by definition).

For premise three to be valid, I must prove that God exists from necessity, which means that God must exist in every possible world.
I will do this by once again commenting on S5 modal logic... It states "X is necessarily, possibly, necessarily, possibly true, then X is possibly true". If 'X', is MGB, it isn't logically incoherent to postulate that X is necessarily possible in at least one possible world. Therefore, "X is possible true" - ∃a23;X (sorry if I get the symbols confused, or wrongly ordered; modal logic is tricky!)

Premise 4 is a logical deduction from premise three.
then God exists in all possible worlds. Our reality or 'actuality' is a possible world, ∃a23;X (therefore, God exists necessarily). Therefore, God exists in actuality.

Premise 5 is a priori. If something exists then it exists...

Therefore, the argument is valid.


Defense of premise two:

"P2: If God created our universe, it is a viable concept of our origins"
Since I have now deductively proven why a God must exist, and must have created the universe, premise two logically coherent. We are part of the universe, therefore, God created us. Therefore, the deductive concept that God created us is a viable (because it is sound) concept of our "origins" - beginning; creation etc.


Defense of premise three:


"P3: If it is a viable concept of our origins, my BoP is fulfilled"
Premise three is a priori, given that my BoP is to defend the resolution.


Defense of premise four:


"P4: If my BoP is fulfilled, it means that I have defended the resolution"
Again, this is pretty self-evident.


Defense of premise five:


"P5: If I have successfully defended the resolution, then I have won the debate"
Premise five is pretty axiomatic, given that's how debating works...

And since all of the premises are coherent, the conclusion logically follows from the premises - I win the debate.

The gist is, you have to invalidate my arguments to why God does not/cannot exist to rebut this.


I wish Con good luck in his round 2.

(1)
http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://www.angelfire.com...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Blazzered

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and giving some interesting arguments.
I have dealt with these kinds of arguments before, the ontological argument is quite easy to refute, the others will take some explaining and may get confusing, so for those who are viewing this, pay close attention.

My opponent made 3 main arguments.
(1) Cosmological argument
(2) God is Omnipotent and Transcendent
(3) Ontological argument

I will try to break these down as simple as possible.

(1) Cosmological argument
Yes, everything is contingent, subject to chance, this doesn't prove a deity however.
This is when the Big Bang theory can come in.
But of course there is the question....

(?) what started the Big Bang?
(A) Most scientists will tell you that we don't know yet, however some will say that then energy and matter that started the Big Bang, has always existed.

Now this is when a creationist can say that it is impossible because that energy and matter exists inside of time and not only this but they will go one step further and say that God created that energy and matter and that God has always been around because he exists outside of time.
Then when that is brought up that god doesn't need a designer because he exists outside of time, the next argument comes up.

(2) Argument that God is Omnipotent and Transcendent
Time: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
Omnipotent: (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
Transcendence: Existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level.

If there is a God, he does have a past.
(?) What is in his past?
(A) His creation of everything. The actions he has taken.
(?) What is his present?
(A) Whatever prayers he may be answering, or whatever he may be creating today, whatever actions he's taking today.
(?) What is his future?
(A) No one knows what the future has in store for us.

Now this shows that god does exist inside of time.
If he exists inside of time, he exists inside of space.
If he exists inside of time and space, then he exists inside of his own creation.
If he exists inside of his own creation, then he must be physical and logic must apply to him, which makes him non-transcendence and contingent.
If logic applies to him, he is not omnipotent.
If he is not omnipotent, then he is not god.

This would mean that a god does not exist.

(3) Ontological Argument

To sum this argument up, God is perfect, therefore he must exist.

To start you need to prove that whatever God or deity that created us is perfect
(?) How can god not be perfect?
(A) Well for all we know, there could actually be multiple gods. Just like Greek mythology, and anyone who knows Greek mythology knows that those gods were not perfect.

You also have to prove that there are other possible worlds

The only way to prove that any of these exist is through observation. Otherwise there is no proof of existence.

You see you could say the same for the perfect and maximally great Utopia. The idea of a perfect society, it may be possible but it has never been proven to exist.

Just because it's possible, doesn't make it true.

Conclusion
These arguments are assertions and do not provide any proof of any gods or deities existing.
Because of the lack of evidence for creationism, I must say that creationism is not a viable model of our origins.

My statements
Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Through science we are able to find answers for origins, observing our natural world.
We have been able to find many answers that has disproved creationism on many basis.
Creationism is what says that God created everything.

Creationism: The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

No where has evidence been found or observed of a divine.
We instead have found natural creation.

Creation of species we find through evolution.
Creation of stars, planets, etc. we have found out how are made.
No where does creationism take place.

(?) Now do we know the origins of life (abiogenesis)?
(A) No. We don't know.
(?) Does that mean creationism took place?
(A) No. It doesn't. Saying it did because we don't know would be a God of the Gaps argument. What I don't know means, is we have more to learn. So we continue to ask questions and look for answers.

Science has given us more logical and reasonable answers, than creationism can ever provide. With evidence, tests, observations, and so on.

This is why I believe creationism is not a viable model in our modern scientific era.

Sources:
Creation of planets and stars
(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://hubblesite.org...
(4) http://lcogt.net...
(5) http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Definitions of the following words I searched on Google.
* Contingent
* Omnipotent
* Time
* Transcendence
* Science
* Creationism

I look forward for my opponents rebuttal.
usernamesareannoying

Pro

Rebuttals :

Cosmological Argument


Con opines that my argument is fallacious, because of the "Big Bang"... However, this does not refute anything. The Big Bang and God are not mutally exclusive. I am under the pretense that Con believes that the Big Bang is the 'cause' of our universe's existence... However, this is completely false - the universe already existed. This illustration of the theory should help clear up any misconceptions:


As we can tell from this illustration the Big Bang actually relied on a 'universe'. Albeit it was pretty tiny compared to the universe today. But, it is still a universe; it is still space-time, matter and energy. That means the Big Bang occured/existed contingently. Therefore, Con has not adequetly explained how my argument is not sound - my argument remains standing. The Big Bang is a red herring in this debate, it does not refute the existence of a God and it does not refute the Cosmological Argument. But, really, the Big Bang only postulates that the universe rapidly expanded - "It states that the Universe was in a very high density state and then expanded" (1)



Argument that God is Omnipotent and Transcendent

In this argument, Con uses circular logic to why the argument is incoherent... He says:

"If there is a God, he does have a past."

Con's entire argument is dependent on this premise. Con seems to draw this premise out of thin air, without any defense of its validity. The very concept of transcendence, means outside space and time. To say that a God exists outside space and time, yet has a past, would imply that there is time; there isn't. Past, present and future are all tenses of time. As concluded in the Cosmological Argument, God exists outside space and time. For these reasons, Con's contentions are invalid.

Con is begging the question - he assumes that his premise is valid, without arguing its validity! He automatically assumes God has a past.

Con proceeds to commend that God would not be omnipotent because he would exist within space and time. This is a valid argument, but it is not sound. He hasn't refuted why God would have to exist within space-time in the first place.

For Con's exstensive use of circular logic and begging the question renders his rebuttal fallacious.


Modal Ontological Argument

"To sum this argument up, God is perfect, therefore he must exist."

Con has a misunderstanding of what the 'modal' ontological argument is. Fortunately, this can be rectified right now. ^Is partly the intentions of this argument. However, it relies on 'system 5' modal logic... Let's closely examine Con's rebuttal:

"To start you need to prove that whatever God or deity that created us is perfect"

This was done through the Cosmological Argument... It deduces that a being that is: non-physical, non-contingent, omnipotent must exist. The ontological argument stands, because the thought of a 'supreme being' is not logically incoherent... Attributes such as: omnipotence, omniscience etc. are not logically impossible. To suggest that a being can do everything that is logical to do, know everything that is possible to know etc. is not logically impossible. Therefore, the argument remains valid.

"To start you need to prove that whatever God or deity that created us is perfect"

By the definition of God, we can reasonably say that God would have to be perfect...

P1: God is defined as 'the greatest being that can be conceived'
P2: We can conceive a God that is perfect and a God that is not perfect
P3: A perfect God is obviously > than a God that is imperfect
C: Therefore, God must be perfect

Defense of premise one: This is obvious...

Defense of premise two: It is not logically unreasonable to say that you 'can' conceive a being that is perfect and imperfect

Defense of premise three: This is fairly obvious...

Therefore, the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Therefore, God must be perfect.

"(?) How can god not be perfect?
(A) Well for all we know, there could actually be multiple gods. Just like Greek mythology, and anyone who knows Greek mythology knows that those gods were not perfect."

By saying that there can be multiple Gods, would violate the definition of God... To say that there could be other more than one God or 'n>1' would be illogical. God is defined as 'the greatest being that is conceived', not 'the greatest or equally greatest being that is conceived'. There is no tangible evidence to prove the existence of all Greek Gods... This is a red herring. Even if more than one God could exist, it does not refute this particular God from being perfect.


"You also have to prove that there are other possible worlds"

This argument is not constructed on the theory of a 'multiverse'. This analogy should help: Let's say man created a supercomputer, which could successfully simulate every possible world, and it can simulate a world where a God exists. Therefore, God exists in some possible world. Let's say, in some possible world, Barrack Obama did not become the president of the US. This exists possibly, because such a world was possible. But this means that this did not happen in every possible world, because it did not happen in actuality (our world). But for something to exist necessarily would mean that it would have to exist in every possible world. The existence of Barrack Obama not becoming president cannot exist in every possible world, therefore is represented as:" x<>" (When x means Barrack Obama not becoming president) which means possibly true. For the sake of consistency, I will just note now that existence from necessity is represented as: "x[]", which means necessarily true.

"Just because it's possible, doesn't make it

I concur... However, if something exists necessarily, it means that it exists in actuality as well.

"You see you could say the same for the perfect and maximally great Utopia. The idea of a perfect society, it may be possible but it has never been proven to exist."

If we were to replace "MGB" with "MGU", the argument would fail, because the utopia does not have an 'intrinsic maximum'... So therefore, there would be nothing in the argument to prove that MGU could possibly necessarily exist... Therefore, the argument would be invalid and not sound.

"These arguments are assertions and do not provide any proof of any gods or deities existing."

I disagree... The Cosmological Argument is created from inductive premises which concludes with a deductive rendition... The Ontological Argument uses system 5 modal logic to deductively prove from inductive premises that a God must exist...

Con's Arguments

Con's arguments implies that science cannot exist if a God exists... However, this is completely false. Science and God are not mutually exclusive.

"Through science we are able to find answers for origins, observing our natural world."

Yet, through science, we cannot definitively verify our universe's cause. This does not prove that a God is a non-viable model for our origins. Through my arguments, it actually proposes an actual cause for the universe; science cannot, or I haven't heard of it yet (that is a possibility! I am limited to high school/some independent research of physics).

"We have been able to find many answers that has disproved creationism on many basis."

This does not mean the model is not viable.

"Creationism: The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

I refer Con to what he said earlier People who argue creationism normally bring up the Christian God and it turns into a science vs Christianity debate, but if you wanna argue for a God overall, or argue for a specific God, feel free too." I accepted the invitation to affirm that "a God overall" is a viable model. Therefore, Con's definition of "Creationism" is irrelevant.

"No where has evidence been found or observed of a divine.
We instead have found natural creation."

Despite this being a red herring, I would just like to note that evolution is only a theory, and it still needs a lot of 'proving' to do.

"Creation of species we find through evolution. Creation of stars, planets, etc. we have found out how are made.
No where does creationism take place.
"


The Idea of a God, does not necessarily mean that evolution cannot exist; God and science are not mutually exclusive!

"Science has given us more logical and reasonable answers, than creationism can ever provide. With evidence, tests, observations, and so on."

Just because there is another viable model of our origins does not mean that any other model is automatically non-viable. The argument that I have proposed are completely constructed from logic...

Side Note:

My arguments remain valid; my burden of proof remains fulfilled; I win the argument.

I commend to Con that the Big Bang Theory, The Theory of Evolution etc. are all red herrings in this debate. For him to successfully refute the arguments, he must attack the veracity of the premises.

Good luck to Con in the next round. This has been an enjoyable debate so far!







(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Blazzered

Con

(1) Big Bang: "a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, abundance of the elements, and the laws of physics."
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
http://www.yourdictionary.com...

So to my opponent, are you saying that the universe existed before it was even created?
If so, that is pretty illogical.....
The Big Bang was the birth of our universe. The Big Bang is what created our universe. The Big Bang is what created space and time.

"The beginning of space, time, matter, energy, and of the expansion of the universe according to the Big Bang theory."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

This now goes back to what I was saying where creationists and scientists will argue over what created the Big Bang.
Some scientists will say that we don't know yet.
Some scientists will say that the energy and matter always existed.
A creationist will say that a God did it.

(2) I said what gods past was.
His creation of the universe is his past.
They prayers he has answered is in the past.
The actions he has taken is in his past.

Past: "The definition of past is former or is something that has already happened."
http://www.yourdictionary.com...

For him to have a past, would be to exist inside of space and time.

While we aren't trying to prove anything about the biblical God, I will use an example.
Let's say for example that the bible is true, and God did free the Hebrews from Egypt, and all those stories in the bible is true.
That would mean it is Gods history, it is his past.

Same would go for any God. God creating what was needed for the Big Bang, is the past, and we live in the present.

This would mean god exists inside of space and time, and all my points stand.

If god exists outside of time, then he has no history
If god has no history, then he simply isn't real.

Validity: "The quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency:"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

I gave the explanation on why God exists inside of time and space. If he exists, he does have a past. His past is his creation. His past are the actions he has done.
God has a present of what he is doing today, if he exists.
The future is unknown, whatever he will do.

Otherwise her has no history and therefore doesn't exist.
Existing outside of time and space is existing outside of existence
If you exist outside of existence then you don't exist at all

Existing outside of time and space only supports god as being imaginary where logic, being physical, and scientific evidence doesn't apply to him.

(3) I mentioned how if there is a God, he is not perfect due to existing inside of time and space, and therefore he is not God.
These arguments do not prove the existence of a God, they only make assertions.
The only way to prove that something exists is through observation. So arguments do not prove existence.
We cannot observe God, therefore we cannot prove that he exists.

You see if it is possible that a God exists, it still doesn't make it true.
It is possible that there could be a creature flying around space that eats planets.
It is possible that there could be a unicorn
It is possible that there could be a leprechaun
It is possible that there could be a Santa clause
But does that mean they all must exist? No.
Nor has any of them been proven to exist.

Since a god cannot be proven, and there is no scientific evidence to prove God. I say that creation is not a viable model for origins.

Creation has been disproven, it is continuing to be disproven as days go by.
A model that is not true is not a viable model.

"Yet, through science, we cannot definitively verify our universe's cause. This does not prove that a God is a non-viable model for our origins. Through my arguments, it actually proposes an actual cause for the universe; science cannot, or I haven't heard of it yet (that is a possibility! I am limited to high school/some independent research of physics)."

This is why we are continuing to discover and learn.
Yes we do not know all of the answers, but that doesn't mean a God did what we do not have an answer too. That'd be God of the Gaps.

God of the Gaps = "Science can't/hasn't explain(ed) our origins, therefore God"

The definition of creationism is saying that life, and the universe originate from a divine.
This has not been proven, and is often disproven, this again, is not viable.

Evolution is a theory and a fact.
We have fossil evidence and it is observed everyday by evolutionary scientists.

The theory of evolution deals with the mechanisms such as natural selection.

But evolution does take place everyday and it is happening constantly. That is a fact.

We know how new species emerge, we know how planets and stars are created.
Creationism says that a God/divine is responsible for the creation of these things but science has proven otherwise.

"The Idea of a God, does not necessarily mean that evolution cannot exist; God and science are not mutually exclusive!"
I am aware of this. That's why there's theistic evolution.

"Just because there is another viable model of our origins does not mean that any other model is automatically non-viable. The argument that I have proposed are completely constructed from logic..."
The scientific mode however is disproving the creationism model.
The scientific model has logic, reason, facts, and evidence to back it up.
Creationism only has assertions to back itself up. Assertions that fail to prove anything.

These are the reasons why I believe creationism is not a viable model of our origins.

Thank you. I look forward to what my opponent will have to say. This has been fun indeed.

Evolution is a fact and a theory
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nas.edu...
http://www.notjustatheory.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
usernamesareannoying

Pro

Prologue

Con, I assure you, the Big Bang, Evolution etc. are all red herrings in this debate!

The Big Bang Theory

Con continues to insist that the Big Bang is the cause of our universe... This is completely false. "it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today." (1)
Con completely ignored the illustration that I provided... We have never experience ex nihilo. What Con is affirming is that the Big Bang actually created space-time, matter and energy... Even though it relied on it to occur. To suggest that it created itself is fallacious.

This is still a red herring!

God and Time

Con suggests that God must of had a past, because He created the universe. Con, there can be no past, without time! I just provided an argument for why God transcends time, which you haven't refuted. You are using circular logic to suggest that he has a past, without any defense of its veracity. There can't be a past, present or future without time! This negates the 'God and Time' argument. The Cosmological Argument remains uncontested.


"If god exists outside of time, then he has no history
If god has no history, then he simply isn't real."

Numbers transcend time... They don't have a present, past or future. Do they not exist either? I don't know what this argument is, but existence is not defined on whether something has history or not. This assertion is drawn out of thin air. Until Con provides coherent evidence to why this is argument is valid, then it will just be ignored.


"I gave the explanation on why God exists inside of time and space. If he exists, he does have a past. His past is his creation. His past are the actions he has done."

The arguments remain invalid because you use circular logic to reach the conclusion. You must give a legitimate reason to why God must exist inside time. To do this, you must refute the Cosmological Arugment.


"God has a present of what he is doing today, if he exists.
The future is unknown, whatever he will do."

But how can there be a past, present or future outside of time? The proposition is untenable.


"Existing outside of time and space is existing outside of existence
"

I don't know how Con came to this conclusion. Numbers exist outside space and time, yet they exist.


Imperfect God


Con's argument that God is imperfect is dependent on his 'God and Time' argument to be sound... Since I have refuted that, on the basis that there are no tenses of time, without time, this argument is also refuted.


"These arguments do not prove the existence of a God, they only make assertions."


This is because the premises are constructed on a posteriori... It is still sound. The argument uses deductive reasoning which you haven't refuted yet.


"The only way to prove that something exists is through observation. So arguments do not prove existence."

Not necessarily. Even if this doesn't definitively prove God's 'definite' existence, it proves that he 'definitely' exists with the knowledge we currently have. Many theories are proposed and then refuted. We cannot systematically dismiss any plausible theory on the grounds that it 'could' be false.


Modal Ontological Argument

Con states, "You see if it is possible that a God exists, it still doesn't make it true." Which is fine - I concur. However, it must be true in actuality, if the premise reads "if it is possible that a God that exists necessarily exists" is true. I don't need to go further into depth with this because Con hasn't refuted the argument so far.

Con proceeds to say that "It is possible that there could be a creature flying around space that eats planets.
It is possible that there could be a unicorn
It is possible that there could be a leprechaun
It is possible that there could be a Santa clause
But does that mean they all must exist? No."

Actually, yes. They possibly exist (I won't use modal notation because it screws up the format), in some world. However, they do not exist in actuality. If something exists necessarily, it means that it must exist in every possible world - including actuality (our world). I have postulated that God exists necessarily in some possible world (you haven't refuted that premise, so it remains valid) and the rendition that God exists in actuality logically entails.

So, Santa Clause exists in some possible world, but not in actuality, because he does not exist necessarily.


Other Stuff...



"Since a god cannot be proven, and there is no scientific evidence to prove God. I say that creation is not a viable model for origins."

But, my arguments affirm that God does exist through deductive reasoning... Therefore, 'a God' is a viable model for origins.


"A model that is not true is not a viable model"

I concur...


"Yes we do not know all of the answers, but that doesn't mean a God did what we do not have an answer too. That'd be God of the Gaps"

No, it wouldn't be God of the gaps... If I said "we don't know how the universe came to exist, or why we exist. Therefore, God did it", would be God of the gaps... However, I deductively proved God's existence through the two arguments that were proposed... It's your burden to refute them.


"The definition of creationism is saying that life, and the universe originate from a divine.
This has not been proven, and is often disproven, this again, is not viable."

And I have provided a significant amount of evidence to why one must exist.


"Evolution is a theory and a fact."

Evolution is not fact... This is still irrelevant to the resolution.


"We know how new species emerge, we know how planets and stars are created.
Creationism says that a God/divine is responsible for the creation of these things but science has proven otherwise."

Just because we can explain how planets can form, does not mean God didn't do it. If God created the universe, he created a chain of reactions that would eventually lead to us, planets, stars etc. existing. Just because we know how it works, does not dismiss the idea of a God..


"The scientific mode however is disproving the creationism model."

No. No, it's not. It is a common misconception that science and a God cannot co-exist... This is entirely false. The only way for the scientific model to refute God's eexistence would be to scientifically prove how the universe began to exist, or how it has always existed etc.; since we cannot, the scientific model is non-viable.


"The scientific model has logic, reason, facts, and evidence to back it up."

That does not pertain to the resolution. We are arguing whether 'a God' is a viable model for an explanation of our origins or not. My arguments are completely structured out of logic. reason and facts.


"Evolution is a fact and a theory"

Evolution is not fact.


Conclusion

My arguments are yet to be refuted. Con opines that the 'God' model is non-viable, without any evidence. He commends that the arguments are just assertions; my arguments are completely founded on logic, facts etc.

The Big Bang Theory and Evolution are both red herrings in this debate! Anyway, back over to you, Con. And thanks for an interesting debate so far!




(1) http://www.space.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Blazzered

Con

(1) My opponent is ignoring the definition of the Big Bang.

Big Bang: "a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, abundance of the elements, and the laws of physics."
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
http://www.yourdictionary.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

So by definition, the Big Bang is the creation of the universe and time!

Let's take a look at what my opponent said in the comments.

"Blazzered, I just studied the Big Bang theory in the cosmological unit in my physics class...mi know what it entails... It does not postulate how the universe was created; it only theorises that the universe was once at a dense point, then rapidly expanded."
http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

Let's take a look at the source he posted.

"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment."

Even his own source says the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe!

But my opponent seems to have ignored that part. He keeps sticking to his illustration which does not match the definition of the Big Bang.

My opponent keeps saying that my Big Bang argument is a read herring. It's meant to get you distracted.
No, everyone I want you all to understand.
The Big Bang is the creation of our universe. That something coming from nothing is the first cause.

(?) what caused that?
(A) we don't know. Does that mean a God? No. It means we have more to learn.

My opponent says an uncause must make a cause which would make all the other causes that create causes etc.
That is an illogical argument. Everything has a cause.
But of course, logic doesn't apply to God.

It is indeed a God of the Gaps argument.
Science can't explain it, therefore God.
We don't know, therefore God.

My opponent says that he is proving God with logic, but this is untrue for the argument is against logic saying an uncause is what caused everything.
Again, everything has a cause.

But for the sake of argument, let's say okay there are a few things that don't have a cause.
I can somewhat see.
Why must we say God was always around?
Why not the matter, energy, and time has always existed?
Time in infinite, energy and matter cycle, so wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that time, matter, and energy have always existed instead of a deity that logic doesn't apply too always existing that has no scientific evidence to prove?

Again, the only way to prove something exists is through observation. Not arguments.

"Not necessarily. Even if this doesn't definitively prove God's 'definite' existence, it proves that he 'definitely' exists with the knowledge we currently have. Many theories are proposed and then refuted. We cannot systematically dismiss any plausible theory on the grounds that it 'could' be false."

Creationist theories are mainly arguments and ideas that have no evidence to back it up. Scientific theories have evidence and observation to back it up.

(2) Numbers transcend time.....I like that answer to my rebuttal. I really do.
However, does a number have power? Does it have control? Can a number do anything? Can it create anything like a God can?
No. It cannot.
This goes back to supporting how God is just imaginary.
God transcends time, he isn't physical, logic does not apply to him.
Now I know you my opponent can't say "so are numbers imaginary", no. Numbers do have logic, math. Math logic.
God however is claimed to have no logic. He can defy logic and do absolutely anything. That supports him as being imaginary.
Logic doesn't come from illogic.

(3) I mentioned how many mythical creatures and made up monsters could possible exist. My opponent says...
"Actually, yes. They possibly exist (I won't use modal notation because it screws up the format), in some world. However, they do not exist in actuality. If something exists necessarily, it means that it must exist in every possible world - including actuality (our world)."
So to my opponent I ask, what makes you think that they do not exist necessarily?
What makes you think God is necessary in the first place?

Evolution is a theory and a fact, I gave 4 sources giving details on how so. But my opponent ignored that.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.notjustatheory.com...
http://www.nas.edu...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Now my opponent says that my evolution argument is a red herring as well.
Let me explain why it's not.
Creationism: The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation.
The definition of creationism is saying life and the universe originate from a Divine.
Evolution gives us the origins of species, the Big Bang gives us the origins of the universe, abiogenesis, which we are still looking for, gives us the origins of life.
Evolution tells us how homo-sapians came to be through evolution, evolution tells us where he species we have today, originated from.

Evolution is a fact, again we have the fossil record and it is observed everyday by evolutionary scientists.
The theory of evolution, deals with the mechanisms of evolution such as natural selection.

Saying evolution is a fact is denying the evidence and the observations we make everyday.
Now since this is the last round, I will say this...
We can observe micro-evolution, which is evolution that happens in a short period of time.
We cannot observe macro-evolution, which is evolution that happens over a long period of time.
However we have fossil evidence back up evolution. Evolution is a process that happens over millions of years, that makes it a little bit difficult to observe.

"Just because we can explain how planets can form, does not mean God didn't do it. If God created the universe, he created a chain of reactions that would eventually lead to us, planets, stars etc. existing. Just because we know how it works, does not dismiss the idea of a God.."
What I was saying is we know how they form and created, as in we know how they originated. We know where species originate from, and we know where planets and stars originate from.

"It is a common misconception that science and a God cannot co-exist... This is entirely false. The only way for the scientific model to refute God's existence would be to scientifically prove how the universe began to exist, or how it has always existed etc.; since we cannot, the scientific model is non-viable."

Here my opponent is saying that because science can't explain the creation of the universe, the scientific model is not viable.
This is why I have brought up the Big Bang.
My opponent says that the Big Bang doesn't deal with the creation of the universe, it deals with the explanation of the universe, however by definition, plus the three sources I have given and even the source my opponent gave, the Big Bang is the birth and creation of our universe!

Conclusion
I have explained how the Big Bang and evolution are not red herrings, I have explained how my opponents arguments are not logical, and I have given much reason to why the creation model is not viable.
My opponent has ignored definitions and sources I have given to prove my points.
The creation model is not logical, it uses illogic to support logic, saying an illogical deity is what created our logic and that time didn't exist until a god created it, and a god is uncaused.
However we could also say that perhaps instead that all the matter, energy, and time itself is the uncaused that created the causes.
There is no real evidence that backs up the creation model except illogical arguments that contradict themselves, however the scientific model is full of evidence and scientific theories that gives logical answers, reasons, facts, and has evidence to back it all up.
I thank my opponent for this debate, it has been very fun!
I wish my opponent luck in future debates, and maybe we can debate again in the future.
Thank you to my opponent and thank you to those who view this debate and I hope everyone has enjoyed and learned.
usernamesareannoying

Pro

Prologue

I wish Blazzered good luck in the voting period. And I thank him for an interesting argument.

The Big Bang Theory

Ok, I don't need to do this, but for decency I will. Con, I will now explain what the Big Bang Theory actually entails...

"At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today." (1) The theory postulates that the singularity expanded. Scientist do not have any scientific evidence (from my knowledge at least... Even if there is, the Big Bang Theory doesn't theorize it) for how that singularity got there. Scientists have examined the cosmic microwave background and believe that it's evidence for the inflation:
2013 map of background radiation left from the Big Bang

Look here: "Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across"(2)
There was a universe before the big bang. When people say that it created the universe, they are generally meaning that it is what caused the universe to be what it is today - through rapid inflation. Science cannot definitively prove the cause of our universe! Con has had this misconception of the big bang right from the beginning. The Big Bang Theory does not postulate that our universe came to existence ex nihilo, it just states that it was at a dense point, then expanded. I cannot stress this enough...

But, even if Con was correct, it doesn't refute God's existence at all. This is why I have been telling him it is a red herring. If the Big Bang did theorise the universe's birth (out of nothing), it would propose how God created the universe.

So, the Big Bang does not refute God's existence. Con took his thoughts of the Big Bang Theory from a dictionary, even though there is no empirical evidence to support his assertion.

"But my opponent seems to have ignored that part. He keeps sticking to his illustration which does not match the definition of the Big Bang."

That was a valid diagram of the Big Bang! You are trying to discredit scientific proof with a dictionary reference.


"My opponent keeps saying that my Big Bang argument is a read herring. It's meant to get you distracted.
No, everyone I want you all to understand.
The Big Bang is the creation of our universe. That something coming from nothing is the first cause."

We have never experienced ex nihilio. First of all, Con just assumes that the Big Bang is correct - it is only a theory and a couple other theories disprove the Big Bang. Secondly, this doesn't refute anything. The Big Bang does not entail ex nihilio - there is no scientific evidence for that.

"(?) what caused that?
(A) we don't know. Does that mean a God? No. It means we have more to learn."

Con is implying that this is a God of The Gaps argument; it's not. This does not refute the Cosmological Argument... It does not refute God's existence and it's most certainly a red herring.

God and Time/Cosmological Argument

"My opponent says an uncause must make a cause which would make all the other causes that create causes etc.
That is an illogical argument. Everything has a cause.
But of course, logic doesn't apply to God."

Something that is transcendent cannot be 'caused' because that would necessitate a finite amount of time. Whereas, something that happens in the universe must be caused. That's what the argument entails. Nothing in the argument implies that God is illogical. You just suggested something that is not God created the universe out of nothing. I proposed the Cosmological Argument, which you haven't tried to refute throughout the entirety of the debate. In fact, all of my arguments remain standing.


"It is indeed a God of the Gaps argument.
Science can't explain it, therefore God.
We don't know, therefore God."

This would be the case if I said "we don't know what created the universe, therefore God did it"; I didn't. I posted a well known argument that has deductive reasoning. Con just says that it's God of the Gaps. He ignores literally all of the premises and just assumes that it is wrong.

"My opponent says that he is proving God with logic, but this is untrue for the argument is against logic saying an uncause is what caused everything.
Again, everything has a cause."

No. Really, no. Let's refer back to the premise I stated in round one: "If the universe is contingent, there must be something that is non-contingent to prevent reductio ad infinitum"

and the defense of this premise: "It must be non-contingent to prevent reductio ad infinitum. There is a chain of contingent entities existing as we look back through time... However, this chain cannot last forever - Hilbert's hotel paradox deduces that an actual infinite cannot logically exist in our universe. Therefore, at one point, there would have to be a non-contingent entity to initiate the chain of contingent entities..."

Con completely forgot about that though. In fact, this argument isn't illogical at all. Well, it could be, but Con hasn't proposed a valid reason to why it is. But I digress. Con, for something to be created, it would require time; and time exists within the universe. Everything that is not the universe, must be non-physical, timeless etc., there is nothing illogical about that.

"Why must we say God was always around?
Why not the matter, energy, and time has always existed?"

Because God exists in a timeless place! He transcends time. God doesn't need a cause, because if he was to be caused, it would require a finite amount of time... But... There isn't any. So He wasn't caused - he is non-contingent.

"Time in infinite, energy and matter cycle, so wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that time, matter, and energy have always existed instead of a deity that logic doesn't apply too always existing that has no scientific evidence to prove?"

Con completely neglects the premise that advocates the Hilbert's Hotel paradox, and reductio ad infinitum. No-one said logic doesn't apply to God. In fact, it does apply to God. None of your contentions have made my argument, nor God illogical.


Modal Ontological Argument

"Again, the only way to prove something exists is through observation. Not arguments."

This is flat out false. Con has been saying this throughout the whole argument. We did not "observe" the Big Bang, yet Con seems to make an exception for that.


"Creationist theories are mainly arguments and ideas that have no evidence to back it up. Scientific theories have evidence and observation to back it up."

Ok. But mine are constructed upon logic! Modal logic! It could be wrong, but you haven't challenged it in any way, shape or form. This has evidence!

"(2) Numbers transcend time.....I like that answer to my rebuttal. I really do.
However, does a number have power? Does it have control? Can a number do anything? Can it create anything like a God can?
No. It cannot."

So, if something transcends time, but has power, it automatically cannot exist? Why? You have stated no coherent reason why this convention cannot logically exist.

"This goes back to supporting how God is just imaginary.
God transcends time, he isn't physical, logic does not apply to him."

No-one ever said God is illogical. Yes, He transcends time. Yes, he isn't physical. But how do those properties entail non-existence? This goes straight back to the numbers argument. They aren't physical, but they are transcendent and they exist.

"Now I know you my opponent can't say "so are numbers imaginary", no. Numbers do have logic, math. Math logic."

God also has logic! You have stated no argument to prove that God is illogical.

"God however is claimed to have no logic. He can defy logic and do absolutely anything. That supports him as being imaginary.
Logic doesn't come from illogic."

Claimed by who? There is no evidence for this.

"So to my opponent I ask, what makes you think that they do not exist necessarily?
What makes you think God is necessary in the first place?"

They do not exist necessarily, because they have no logical property that entails they must exist in every single possible world. However, God is necessary because a God that is has necessary existence is obviously greater than one that isn't. It logically follows from the definition.

"Evolution is a theory and a fact, I gave 4 sources giving details on how so. But my opponent ignored that."

Evolution is not fact! There are two forms of evolution, micro and macro. I will concede that micro-evolution has a significant amount of evidence for it. However, macro-evolution has a lot of 'proving' to do. But, I do believe that both occur... I am not disproving the theory at all.

"Evolution gives us the origins of species, the Big Bang gives us the origins of the universe, abiogenesis, which we are still looking for, gives us the origins of life."

Here's another misconception. Con is suggesting that macro-evolution postulates that life created ex nihilio. That the first ever species 'spontaneously popped out of no where', due to macro-evolution. However, macro-evolution only entails changes in species, it would actually require a species for it to do so. This is still a red herring! If God created the entire universe, then He created us as well... That logically follows, since we are a part of the universe.

"Evolution tells us how homo-sapians came to be through evolution, evolution tells us where he species we have today, originated from."

Indeed. This still doesn't refute the idea of a God.


Conclusion

Con hasn't refuted any of my arguments for the existence of God. The only propositions he mentions are red herrings that don't refute the existence of God. I have proven through deductive reasoning that God must exist, and since God didn't refute it, we must presume it is correct. Therefore, 'a God' is a viable model for our origins. I fulfilled my BoP.




(1) http://www.space.com...
(2) http://science.nationalgeographic.com...
Debate Round No. 4
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
hmm what happened to my three points lol?
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Hm, perhaps we should save this for another debate aha. I could rebuttal your comment but I don't want to start a debate in the comments aha. Cheers! :)
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Thanks for the kind words Con. Yeah, if you ever want to debate again, just pm me or something :)

However, I seem to disagree when this assertion: "Micro and macro evolution only deal with periods of time."

If we were to observe this "Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation." [evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01]

This is macroevolution: "Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal"

and this is microevolution: "Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor."

Therefore, time doesn't necessarily pertain to the distinction. Anyway, good luck to you in the voting period. Indeed, this was an interesting debate.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
Well this was a fun debate! Perhaps we can do a part 2 sometime? Hehehehehehehe

I do want to point this out however,
"Now since this is the last round, I will say this...
We can observe micro-evolution, which is evolution that happens in a short period of time.
We cannot observe macro-evolution, which is evolution that happens over a long period of time.
However we have fossil evidence back up evolution. Evolution is a process that happens over millions of years, that makes it a little bit difficult to observe."

Micro and macro evolution are not two different types of evolution. Evolution has only one definition.
Micro and macro evolution only deal with periods of time.
It is impossible to observe macro evolution because macro evolution is evolution that takes place over a long period of time, like thousands to millions of years! That's why we use fossil evidence.
Micro evolution is what we can observe because it is evolution over a short period of time.

Many creationists, not saying you, think that macro evolution means something like a bird giving birth to an ostrich and an ostrich giving birth to an alligator, when it's very obvious how that's illogical and not evolution.

Again, macro evolution is evolution over a long period of time, and micro evolution is evolution over a short period of time.
They're not different types of evolution, they just deal with length of time.

Anything else I will save for either a private message or a part 2 to this debate if you'd be up for it in the future.
Good luck to you! This was very fun! :)
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
Notice how dense people will be and won't listen to reason because they are either too scared to face reality, have existential angst, or just reaaallllly stupid. You don't have to be low in intelligence to be stupid by the way. What you do with stupid people though, from what I have read no joke (wiki how), is you set your standards and expectations really low. That way if they say something stupid, you wont be surprised or disappointed. BUT! If they turn out to say something smart and reasonable, they exceed your lowered expectations and you can give them positive reinforcement. No joke. Do it people. It will benefit society XD lol I'm joking but at the same time I'm not hahahaha
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
"In this point of origin, all the mass in the universe was compressed into a single point of infinite density...smaller than a single atom."

Notice it says "universe". It was just tiny.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Con! The Big Bang is not ex nihilio! Lol I just studied this in physics! It says in the source, the beginning, as in, when it was at a singularity! I can not stress this enough. This is why atheists cannot argue scientifically for the cause of the universe!!! Jeez.

All the Big Bang theorises, is that all space was contained at a very small, dense point, then expanded. That's it. It is a common misconception that people believe that the theory entails that the Big Bang created matter, energy space and time.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Blazzered, I just studied the Big Bang theory in the cosmological unit in my physics class...mi know what it entails... It does not postulate how the universe was created; it only theorises that the universe was once at a dense point, then rapidly expanded.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
In theistic evolution, theists believe that God guided evolution. I don't believe that however.

Also what would make you think that animals don't have souls? As a former Christian, I was raised and taught to believe that all animals had souls. As an agnostic theist, I believe that either we all have souls or none of us have souls.
Correct me if I am wrong if religions teach that only humans have souls....

Also theists will argue that humans lived amongst the dinosaurs. I do not believe we did, just saying some do believe that.

Not all theists believe in Hell.
I believe that either we all go to a place like heaven when we die, or we just rot in the ground.
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
Actually, if evolution and God co-existed, that would be pretty illogical. That means for a majority of the time the earth was made which was 4.1 billion years, God was just dicking around making random animals such as the dinosaurs, and causing them to go extinct. Then, at .1% of %1 of the earth's existence, God randomly decides that "homo sapiens" should have souls and go to heaven or hell, while the rest of the other species won't have souls and they just disappear forever. Kind of retarded if that was God. Like really retarded. God waited 4.1 billion years waiting on an animals species to give souls to. And yes we are animals. We are literally described as the species "homo sapiens". It's either God made us all at once, God isn't real and didn't make us, or God is retarded and waited 4.1 billion years to give one species of animals souls and screwed around with dinosaurs.
No votes have been placed for this debate.