The Instigator
NateTheFirst
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Is god real

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 5 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 38869
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

NateTheFirst

Pro

First round is for con accepting, or if he wants to state his point then that is just fine.
Magic8000

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
NateTheFirst

Pro

Hello. And thank you for accepting. DEFINITION of God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. It may not be the Christian God, or the Jewish God, but some kind of God that created us, our morals, and the rest of the universe as well. Now if the universe had been just a tiny bit different, (way less than even a percent different) then we would not be. Why was the universe constructed this way not not in another way? Well my explaination for this is God made the universe this way. Do you have a explaination for how this was created? How everything just happens to fall exactly into place? How it went from nothing, to everything we have today? I may not be able to prove my explaination, but are you even able to offer one? And I'd also like to tell you that I have no idea how exactly God came to be, I'm arguing that their is one.
Thank you.
Magic8000

Con

Thanks, I’m assuming BOP is on Pro.


Pro presents the fine tuning argument, well sort of. Pro states if the Universe was just a tad bit different, it wouldn’t exist. However, this is an ipse dixit A.K.A the bare assertion fallacy [http://fallacies.findthedata.org...]. Pro has not given a shred of evidence to support this claim, not a single source. He then asks, why was the Universe constructed this way, then concludes a God must have done it This is linked to the past statement, which hasn’t been proven. So, his entire argument, as of now, is completely unsourced and unproven.


Even assuming that his argument is complete; this argument assumes life can only exist in this carbon based form. Why assume this? Why can’t different types of life exist if the Universe was different?


Explanations


There can be other natural explanations for a fine tuned universe, if it exists. A multiverse can explain a fine tuned universe. Instead of thinking of the fine tuning argument as evidence of a creator, why not a multiverse? A fine tuned universe can also be explained by Hawking’s top-down cosmology. It says the Universe’s initial condition was a superposition of many possible conditions. It would be expected to see fine tuned constants [http://arxiv.org...].


Argument for Atheism


Richard Carrier states that the fine tuning argument supports atheism more than it does theism.


Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us. Likewise, a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size and enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. And that’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size and age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely and sparingly, and that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) and by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal to life (constituting stars and black holes on which no life can ever live). Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one.

Thus, we have exactly the universe we’d expect to have if there is no god. Whereas a god does not need vast trillions of star systems and billions of years to make life. He doesn’t need vast quantities of lethal space and deadly matter. Only a godless universe needs that. I make a more detailed survey of this kind of evidence in “Neither Life Nor the Universe Appear Intelligently ” [http://www.thebestschools.org...]


Conclusion


Pro’s entire case hasn’t been proven. He hasn’t linked to any supporting source, thus his entire case is a bare assertion fallacy. His argument has unproven hidden assumptions, has other explanations, and can be used to support the opposite claim.


Pro’s argument is refuted.

Debate Round No. 2
NateTheFirst

Pro

I'm having computer trouble, sorry.

Explanation for how exact it is: http://www.icr.org...

One of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.

Energy is not currently being created. The universe could not have created itself using natural processes because nature did not exist before the universe came into existence. Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observed today. Present measures of energy are immeasurably enormous, indicating a power source so great that "infinite" is the best word we have to describe it.

The logical conclusion is that our supernatural Creator with infinite power created the universe. There is no energy source capable to originate what we observe today.

From: http://www.icr.org...

Con, please explain what caused the multiverse to exist. So far you have just said that we could live in a multiverse, but not how it was created.

Thanks.
Magic8000

Con

Thanks Pro, I thought you were going to forfeit.

Fine Tuning

Pro gives us a source from the ICR claiming the earth is fine tuned for life. This doesn't support his original claim that the universe itself is fine tuned, only the earth. Claiming the earth is fine tuned suffers from another problem. We have quite a few planets in our universe. It's not too improbable that life will come to be on one.

NASA has a project to discover planets that could hold carbon based life. They have found planets earth sized planets that can hold water [http://www.nasa.gov...]. We must realize, this is a fairly new project and is only searching a small part of the universe! Imagine what we would find if we could examine every planet in the universe. Also keep in mind my rebuttals from the last round are still valid and uncontested, except for the multiverse, which he briefly touched on.

He asks, where did the multiverse come from? This presumes the multiverse had to be created. We have no knowledge of the laws in a multiverse, if it exists, there's no reason why the multiverse overall must've came from somewhere. Especially if this multiverse has an infinite amount of universes.

Cosmological Argument

Pro quotes the ICR giving a version of the cosmological argument. First, under the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics, vacuum fluctuations come into being with no cause at all.

“In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.” - [Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics]

“Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless space-time can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature.” - Victor Stenger [http://www.colorado.edu...].



Lastly, why does this cause have to be sentient? Here are various possible alternatives to a God

Non-sentient force

Why can't the cause be an immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless, uncaused, non-sentient force that randomly creates things? Since this force was eternally creating things, one day the inevitable happened, energy, space, and time was created in a powerful reaction destroying everything including this force to create the two. The rest is history.

Why should we think God caused the Universe instead of this force?

Ekpyrotic Universe

This model says


“...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension.” [http://wwwphy.princeton.edu...]


The cause could have been just a collision of two universes in a cyclic way.

Why accept God over the Ekpyrotic model?


Retro-Causality


This is the idea that the effect can happen before the cause. Such a thing is observed in quantum mechanics [http://arstechnica.com...] [http://arxiv.org...]. Why couldn’t this be the cause?


Why accept God over retro-causality?


Simultaneous causation


Pro states “The universe could not have created itself using natural processes because nature did not exist before the universe came into existence.”


However, think about this. What if the cause of the universe and nature was simultaneously caused? It is perhaps true that a natural cause can’t cause it in the way we usually view causality, but that is not the case if it was simultaneously caused.


Three states of the universe come into being at the same time, State A causes B, which causes state C, which causes state A; all at the same time. The cause and effect exist simultaneously, all having causal explanations.

Why accept God over simultaneous causation?

Special thanks to L.A. Mitchell for coming up with this.


Pro’s arguments are refuted.

Back to Pro.



Debate Round No. 3
NateTheFirst

Pro

NateTheFirst forfeited this round.
Magic8000

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
NateTheFirst

Pro

NateTheFirst forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NateTheFirst 2 years ago
NateTheFirst
But where did our morals come from.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Lol only
Posted by Magic8000 2 years ago
Magic8000
I've only been studying this stuff for about two years. When you read enough debates and books you do learn a lot.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Interesting. You seem very intelligent to know all this knowledge of the universe. It must have taken quite a while to get all of the knowledge...Wow
Posted by Magic8000 2 years ago
Magic8000
Yes. Kant gave the example of a ball resting on a sheet. The cause of the curve on the sheet is simultaneously caused by the ball. Experiments in quantum entanglement by Alain Aspect show that when the spin of one photon is affected, it instantaneously causes an entangled photon to take the opposite spin.

If a theist rejects the concept of simultaneous causation while accepting that God caused the beginning of the universe, their position is incoherent. They then have to accept that causes have to precede each other in time, but this means God cannot have caused the first state of time, because there would be no before. The theist must accept simultaneous causation in order to claim God created the universe.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Oh. I meant to say is their some sort of example for this?
Posted by Magic8000 2 years ago
Magic8000
The possible explanation was simultaneous causation. Particle A, B, and C come into existence at the same time. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A instantaneously. They all have causal explanations because they were all caused.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
"They all have causal explanations. All I have to do is show a possible explanation, that may not be the way it happened, but it's still possible."

That's what I was referring to. Could you please show a possible explanation?
Posted by Magic8000 2 years ago
Magic8000
1. A causal explanation is simply an explanation for where something came from.

2. I'm not sure what this one means. For the universe? Or for what a causal explanation means?
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
1. What does casual explanation mean

2. Could you please list one possible explanation for it
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
NateTheFirstMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits, but Con destroyed every single of one Pro's claims and would have won regardless.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
NateTheFirstMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
NateTheFirstMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The BoP was unobtainable anyway, and Pro concedes this in Round 1. I don't think there is any choice but to give Con sources, arguments and conduct (for the FF)
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
NateTheFirstMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Not a full forfeit, as Pro did post a few rounds at least, but the final two definitely warrant conduct. Arguments for Con pointing out Pro's ipse dixit, and the large number of unrebutted points from Con that served to demonstrate Pro had failed in his BoP. As to sources, Pro's only source was the ICR (a source which is generally unreliable and quite obviously biased), which he used for arguments that were ipse dixit and appeal to ignorance (though Pro never specifically noted that second fallacy), and wereimmediately rebutted, while Con had more, and more-reliable sources, such as NASA, to support his case, and went largely unrebutted, though a lot of that can be attributed to the forfeits.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
NateTheFirstMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.