The Instigator
Vinnie_Cross_Briet
Pro (for)
The Contender
Logiq
Con (against)

Is it obvious that a creator exist?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Logiq has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 100299
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Vinnie_Cross_Briet

Pro

Intro

Definition creator: creator, meaning an intelligent mind that thinks and creates, an actual personal entity. Anyone is free to accept this debate, regardless of you being new or a veteran. I will start with two out of several arguments I have for the existence of a creator, will elaborate a bit on them but will also try keep it as short as possible.

Whether God exists or not, is not really a scientific question. You´re not going to prove his existence through science nor will you disprove it. Instead, it is a philosophical question. Though, you can use things such as science and history to support your own arguments, or to tackle your opponent´s arguments. But philosophical reasoning, using the rational and intelligent minds we have that can critically think to draw reasonable and logical conclusions, has to be the basis in terms of coming to a conclusion about God.

Btw: I am a Christian, but I want to debate about "a creator" and not Yahweh/Yahushua.

The cosmological argument: what is the best explanation for the origens of the universe, intelligence or non-intelligence?

Christian scientists (etc) have always maintained that the universe had a beginning. A point where time, space and matter came into existance, contrary to it being an eternal universe. After all, the bible says, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Secular scientists have long maintained that the universe was eternal, yet nowadays, for a long while, scientists from any background, or worldview, now basically all (no doubt there’s the exception) agree that this universe does have a point back in time where it came into existance and thus is not eternal. The secular scientists call this the big bang instead of God.

Regardless, the fact that the universe had a beginning is extremely significant. Because, if the universe would be eternal, then there is no point of thinking about a cause that caused the universe to be. However,

1. Everything that begins to exists has a cause
2. This universe began to exist
3. Therefore, this universe has a cause.

Now we can think about this cause, to see if we can find out what this cause could possibly be.

Now then, in terms of the cosmological argument, we will examine our universe to see what seems to be a reasonable cause. After all, the components of the universe could certainly tell us things about the cause.

First observation concerning the universe: Everything hangs upon mathematical patterns and formulas.

Second observation: The universe and our world are finely tuned for life.

Now, let us reason with one another.

Is it more reasonable, to assume that the universe hangs upon extreme complex mathematical patterns and formulas, and that the universe is so finely tuned for life as it is, as result of an intelligent mind or non-intelligence?

I submit to you that it is absurd to say such extreme complex math, and fine tuning of the universe, comes from the unintelligent or non-intelligent such as merely a big bang. There would be a huge logical disconnection there.

The design argument: is complex design absolute proof of a designer (creation of creator, etc)?

First we shall have to establish whether there is a clear design in the universe or not. I shall present a few examples to demonstrate that, indeed, there is a clear design in the universe. Let us once again reason with eachother.

- Example 1: Consider the appletree.
Don’t merely gaze at it. There’s all sorts of things happening inside the appletree, and around it, and it has its function too. The tree requires organic minerals to grow and to remain healthy. It has its roots dug deep in the ground, and by means of photosynthesis, the appletree absorbs the strong energy of the sun in order to absorb the inorganic minerals from the ground and convert them into organic minerals which the appletree now can utilize to grow and remain healthy. Thusly, also apples appear, which now can be eaten by humans who also require the organic minerals which are now found in the apple. To me, clearly this is a process, a system, a design. And then we haven’t even spoken yet on what happens inside the tree at microscopic or molecular level. All sorts of things happen in systematic and orderly ways, a design.

- Example 2: The human body.
Again, think about what all the cells and molecules etc do. But on a more overt level, consider the organs that work within you. Your brains, or you eye with all of its functions and how it is hardwired into your brain with thousands and thousands of wires. The lens, etc. It is clearly designed.

You put the aforementioned apple into your mouth, you chew it, swallow; it falls down your throat into your stomach, then your digistive track/ colons. All clearly in a system or design. We also have the nervousSYSTEM, clearly design.

Consider some of those crazy well-made robots of nowadays, how absolutely inferior they are to the human body, yet it takes an incredible amount of intelligence, manpower, time and money to create it. I would never convince you that such a thing came to be without an intelligent mind. You’d scoff, and call me a fool if I were serious. However, just a single single celled organism in our body is tons more complex than said robot. We call it irreducibly complex. What follows logically, is that to assume that the human body came to be without an intelligent mind is, reasonably speaking, an absurd concept. Again, there would be a huge logical disconnection there.

- Example 3: DNA.
Wow. Just wow. This one nails the coffin. I shall not expand on this too much, because wow. To assume DNA comes to be out of nothing, for no reason what so ever, out of the blue, purely by chance, by natural means and natural laws, without intelligence, is an absurd idea in the light of what we’ve spoken of so far. I would greatly press on your heart, that if you think DNA came about by such means, that you should consider asking yourself the question whether you have been intellectually honest with yourself in studying this matter. The human DNA contains so much ordered information, a written language, actual instructions, that if you’d stretch it all out, you’d reach the moon (and then back to earth again, I believe. But atleast all the way tot he moon!). This is all densily packed into that which we call DNA. What is more reasonable, to assume this comes from an incredible intelligent mind or the non-intelligent? Seems clear to me.

Now, I didn’t mean to go on regarding the design argument after these three examples, but finally I’d also like to point out the greater dependence that everything has with eachother, or symbiosis, which makes it all seem even more like a complex clockwork design. Remove a component and things won’t work as well anymore as it used to, if at all. This also suits nicely with argument one. The symbiosis points out that it all came to existance at once, for else things wouldn’t work or begin to work to begin with. Missing a vital function shuts the entire system down, both nowadays and when you think origens.

Now then,

Is design absolute proof of a designer?

This sounds like a rhetoric question to me. The only possible answer to this question could be yes. Let us keep reasoning here. You will never find a painting in case there has never been a painter before in existance. Likewise, if you do happen to stumble upon a painting, you can bet your billion dollar bank account without breaking a sweat that there either is or has been a painter in existance.

No building without a builder. You see a building? There is or has been a builder. Even if you’ve never seen the builder, or have never seen a building being built, or never had the knowledge of the concept of a builder. It is a matter of truth which cannot change regardless of the scope of your knowledge.

No robot without a robot engineer. No human without a “human maker”. No universe without a “universe maker”.

So then,

1. Complex design is absoluut proof of a designer
2. This universe and all of its components show complex and even irreducibly complex design
3. Therefore, this universe either has or had a designer.

Naturally the secular person then goes on to propose that if such is the case, then who designed God? But obviously, if God has created time, space and matter, then what logically follows is that he’s a timeless, spaceless and immaterial being who lives in the dimension beyond ours, the supernatural, the dimension of eternity. So God is eternal, meaning he has always been, he is and he shall always be. He never began to exist and therefore there is no cause to his existance. (This is in fact the reasoning the secular scientist tried to put on the universe itself prior to everyone being in agreement that the universe certainly cannot be eternal.) Otherwise you’d end up in an endless spiral of paradox, which simply gives us intelectual headaches, despite the infinite, eternal, immaterial and uncaused nature of God also sometimes being hard to grasp for us finite beings. But it is what it is. We're talkin about God after all. But think of it like this: a painter is very alien to the painting, as is a game designer towards his digital game world he created. Of complete different nature.

Is it not obvious that there is a creator of everyone and all things?

Logiq

Con

Thank you for posting an interesting debate.

My first point is that your philosophies contradict one another. If you accept the theological idea of a God, as you state: "a timeless, spaceless and immaterial being who is" eternal, meaning he has always been, he is and he shall always be. He never began to exist and therefore there is no cause to his existence"" then you accept that His book, created by Him has no mistakes. Yet, the same scientific theories you claim to be in agreement with contradict the Bible. The scientific age of the Universe is cerca. 13.8 billion years; the biblical age of the Universe is cerca. 5700 years. They can"t both be right. This certainly means your argument is false as it is based on mixing the two schools of thought which, at most, only one can be true.

I enjoyed seeing your syllogism, here it is again:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. This universe began to exist
3. Therefore, this universe has a cause.

For your argument to be logical we must accept the notion then that beginning to exist comes prior to existing and that the initial stage of beginning has a cause.

This is a simple cause and effect argument, see in reverse order:
3) Existence 2) beginning to exist 1) Cause

As you have proposed this argument, I will ask you a simple question:
Does God exist? Because following the argument you propose, if God exists, he once began to exist, and if he once began to exist it had a cause
3) God's existence 2) God's beginning to exist 1) God's cause for existence

Based on your syllogism, if you argue that God exists, you necessarily must argue that God had a beginning to exist and God had a cause. If you deny this argument, you are arguing for God"s non-existence.

If you respond that logic does not apply to God, then I question why you bothered to open this debate and why you bothered to argue using logic when you are unwilling to apply that same logic to God.

I and others may agree that you make a false dichotomy. You argue that there is either an eternal universe or a Creator and if the Universe is not eternal we must therefore have a Creator. For as long as we have limited knowledge, your argument will always remain speculation. What is certain, however, is that as we learn more about the Universe, new theories will emerge and this almost certainly proves your dichotomy false.

You make a lot of points about intelligent design and the strongest case you make is about DNA. Therefore, I will respond to that.

If you accept scientific thought, you accept the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, which in itself contradicts the Bible and the theory of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God. From the simple to the complex: you can"t simply look at our DNA or a complex organism developed over millions of years and in an environment that has existed for billions of years and say aha! we must have been designed by a God. You are not taking into account the fact that DNA has not always existed. In the early universe there were only stars and from stars " planets, from planets " simple bacteria, and from simple bacteria " more complex forms of life. Our DNA did not just happen, it developed over the course of history and it continues to develop to this day.

My final case is in response to the debate topic: "Is it obvious that a creator exist[s]?

My answer is: no, or we wouldn't be having this debate.

What is obvious though, is that casting away biblical ideologies and then mixing those that remain with scientific thought doesn't prove a Biblical God exists.

Your need to play hopscotch with biblical and scientific facts and figures does show, however, that if your all-powerful and all-knowing creator does exist, He is certainly incapable of producing an accurate autobiography.
Debate Round No. 1
Vinnie_Cross_Briet

Pro

And thank you fort he compliment, accepting my first debate and for being my first opponent in debate.

First of all,

I’d like to point out that I explicitly said that I am, in this debate, not here to discuss Yahweh / Yahushua the god from the bible (or any specific god for that matter). I’m here to debate for the existance of a(!) creator.

So, any book, be it the bible or the qur’an, has nothing to do with the arguments/ reasoning I am presenting. You may think that the biblical God is a big no, but who says that the creator is the biblical God (eventhough I believe it is, but as I said that is not for this debate). It's a logical fallacy.

To clarify this logical fallacy: Often times, the same logical fallacy is used with the problem of evil. Some people experience death, disease, war and all sorts of other evil in the world and therefore conclude that there simply cannot be a God. However, the fact that evil exists is no valid argument against the existance of a God. After all, this might be an evil God.

So, even if the bible is completely false, which I do not agree with but again it’s not the debate; this does not put any scratch on the cosmological argument or the argument for design. They have nothing to do with eachother.

Secondly,

The case I’m making is exactly that existence comes prior to beginning to exist. Namely: God, an eternal being in an eternal dimension, beyond our dimension of time. So, as eternal means: never began to exist and shall never cease existing, but rather has always been, is and shall always be, it logically follows that there’s never been a cause to this eternal creator/dimension, which is beyond our dimension/universe.

The syllogism of 1. Everything that beings to exist has a cause. 2. This universe began to exist. 3. Therefore this universe has a cause only applies to our universe, and not to God itself/the dimension of God itself, which are both eternal (see, they never began to exist).

While this might be difficult for finite beings, living in a finite world, to grasp their brains around, it makes total sense because now we do not end up in a paradox.

See, otherwise you’d be in paradox. Who created God? Who created the creator of God? Who created the creator that created the creator of God? And so on and so forth, it is never ending paradox-spiral and such is ludicrous. So the obvious explanation is that in the end, you’ll end up at a dimension of eternity, or a God who is eternal, thus never began to exist, because such would be uncaused. Call it the uncaused-first cause of everything that exists.

This uncaused thing (God/creator) then caused (created) our universe, which is fair, as our universe had a beginning and therefore it simply has a cause, as per the syllogism. Unless you can convince yourself that things can begin to exist without cause? That’d be a logical disconnection in my eyes. Things just do not pop into existance without a cause (and the first cause never popped into existance cause it is eternal).

So, this doesn’t mean that the laws of logic do not apply to God. Rather, it’s just that the laws of nature of our universe do not apply to God. As I said, he created time, space and matter and is therefore timeless, spaceless and immaterial. He created our laws of nature. I find the parable of a game designer and his digital game spot on. The game designer isn’t made of the same things as the digital creatures in the game, but is instead of flesh and blood in a completely different dimension. A being who is confined to space, time and matter could never create space, time and matter, so the creator has to be outside of all of that, of completely different nature. Or a painter who isn’t stuck in the painting and made out of paint. In that fashion, the creator of our universe is not stuck in time and space or made out of material. Us living beings cannot create living beings either (having children as per intercourse isn’t the same definition as the definition of creating we are talking about here). The most we can do is create highly advanced A.I. / robots. They can be extremely intelligent but will never possess life and free will. We simply can’t produce such things.

I think that is a truly logical reasoning.

Thirdly,

I do not think the universe is eternal but indeed that the creator is eternal, in order to make perfect sense of things.

I do not argue that because there is an eternal creator or universe that we therefore must have a creator. That’s absolutely not my argument at all.

Again, my argument is that because, as per all the scientific evidence from scientists both religious and secular, this universe had a beginning, then there must’ve been a cause.

Then, when we examine the universe, which this cause caused to exist, we see that it hangs upon complex mathematical formulas and complex design. It is then obvious that this comes from an intelligent mind, unless you wish to argue that complex mathematical formulas and complex design comes from the unintelligent. I find such a notion ludicrous. “Nothingness” or a stone or energy or wind or what ever non-intelligent thing you’re thinking of that in your idea might have caused our universe to be simply do not bring about such design, and isn’t able to come up with such complex math. Such requires a mind! Intelligence. Is that not reasonable / logic?

Now, if this cause of the universe is timeless/eternal (thus by default uncaused), spaceless and immaterial, plus the cause of such complex math and design, which can only can come to be by an intelligent mind, then what else do you call this cause if not God?

Theories may emerge all the time but that doesn’t change the fact that everything which begins to exist has a cause and that complex design demands a designer. These are no theories, after all, but is logical reasoning. A matter of truth, if you will. It doesn’t matter what theory emerges. We need truth and facts.

Fourthly,

I do accept science. I love science. I believe science and philosophy are married to eachother.

I also do not accept darwinian evolution. I haven’t stumbled upon a single piece of emperical data for darwinian aka macro evolution and thus I believe it requires so much faith that I simply cannot believe it. For example, you say that DNA is a thing which developed from a simple state to a complex state over the course of billions of years but the fact of the matter is, that this is merely theory and has never truly been proven. Without any emperical data, to believe that the irreducibly complex nature of DNA came about by non-intelligence, rather than to accept the logical reasoning of design demands a designer, requires a boatload of faith to me. Irrelevant to this debate, I find it funny to notify you about a long lecture by Ph.D Frank Turek called "I don't have enough faith to be an atheïst" because that illustrate my feelings towards believing DNA came about by non-intelligence rather than an intelligent mind.

But even if darwinian evolution would be true, that still doesn’t scratch the cosmological argument and design argument. These arguments deal with origens and darwinian evolution simply does not. Evolution, if true, would then still be a design set in motion by a designer. Therefore, for the next round, I’d like to ask of you to not defend darwinian evolution but take another closer look at the cosmological argument and argument for design I’ve layed out in round 1. Just as the bible has no attachment to the arguments I've presented, neither does the evolution theory.

You keep speaking of the bible but it simply has no attachments to the cosmological argument and argument for design.

You make truthclaims about the origens of the world that have neither emperical data or logical reasoning behind them.

I admitted in my first round that there’s no emperical data for the existance of a god/creator. Yet, there's also no emperical data to disprove such. Instead, it is a philosophical question. You can use science to strengthen your reasoning/arguments that comes from philosophy but it doesn’t disprove or prove anything in this regard. The logical reasoning simply seems to support a creator/designer.

Finally,

as I pointed out in the comment section: Because we are having this debate, it does not logically follow that it isn’t obvious that creator exists. Often times people are missing the obvious, which results in debate. This is classic to real life experience.

Now I’ve finished writing my second round, I am slightly convinced that you’re not completely understanding my reasoning and I have I’ve clarified that now. Again, I believe you’re sticking too much in science here and forgetting philosophy. I apologize if I am wrong on that but that’s how it feels. I look forward to your next reply!

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vinnie_Cross_Briet 1 year ago
Vinnie_Cross_Briet
Hello Con aka Logiq,

Are you still there? I am ware that you've still got a day's time but I expected a faster reply.

Not that I want you to hurry up, I'm merely curious about your situation.

Greets
Posted by Vinnie_Cross_Briet 1 year ago
Vinnie_Cross_Briet
Naturally, I also will in case my current debate partner Logiq brings it forth.
Posted by Vinnie_Cross_Briet 1 year ago
Vinnie_Cross_Briet
And I will if you challenge me to a debate. I promise.
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
For points like my number 1, it IS your duty to demonstrate why your axiom is preferable. If you fail to do so, then your conclusion is not "obvious".
Posted by Vinnie_Cross_Briet 1 year ago
Vinnie_Cross_Briet
A shame I cannot edit my comment, or can I?

Regardless, btw Drcereal: I do not agree with the points you are making so far ;)
Posted by Vinnie_Cross_Briet 1 year ago
Vinnie_Cross_Briet
Good day DrCereal,

Instead of me taking on your points in the comment section, I shall firstly await what Logiq's response will be, and want to suggest to you to start a new debate directed at me. I shall accept your challenge and would in fact be more than happy to debate you about anything. I'd be truly exited to :)
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
Amendment to my original comment:

In point 4:
Instead of "most complex things are designed, therefore all complex things are designed", I most likely meant "designed things are complex, therefore all complex things are designed" which is indeed an affirmation of the consequent. If I didn't I mean this, I meant that the original reasoning is a proof by induction which can be disproven with a counter-example. (You simply need to provide one.)

I'm sorry for all of the confusion, I had little space to type my points in, and sorry for any more confusion, I'm currently up at 11 p.m. which is pretty late to be typing things about philosophy and logic.
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
Well if Pro compares the universe to a building with a builder, then pro assumes that the universe has a creator (which is analogous to the builder). If he were using this analogy to prove that the universe is a creation (I find this unlikely, I was just mentioning it as a possibility since he did mention it.), then he would be proving his conclusion with an analogy that assumes his conclusion is true. This is circular reasoning.

I hope this might have cleared things up. It's a little difficult to explain. :P
Posted by Logiq 1 year ago
Logiq
Hello DrCereal,

Thanks for your advice, I will bring in any points that I can after looking further into them.

Would you clarify what you mean in point 5:
"5. If Pro uses the analogy "No building without a builder" to suggest the universe was created, then he assumes the universe was created to claim the universe was created."

Thanks.
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
or that Pro would respond to them. Good luck!*

Sorry, my comment got cut off so I had to rewrite it.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.