The Instigator
Candid_atheism
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
jakelittle135
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is it plausible for life to not have some kind of a Creator, beyond a reasonable doubt?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Candid_atheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 72499
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Candid_atheism

Con

Looking to debate an Atheist about the plausibility of there being a Creator to life beyond a reasonable doubt. Only using the principles of Deism to describe if there is a Creator or not.

DEFINITIONS:
Creator: A person or thing that creates or has created something.
Life: What we perceive as the universe around us, aside from the things that are synthetic.
Plausible: Seeming reasonable
Beyond a reasonable doubt: Evidence that is beyond the doubt of reason is the standard of evidence required to validate

Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com...,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Google searched everything else under 'Google definitions' for as follows: "Creator".

Warning: I like to use a lot of quotes and resources so if you are not fond of that do not accept this debate.

The objective is to sway the voters from a neutral stand point to one side or the other based on our philosophical arguments. The voter must have an Agnostic view coming into this or maybe even one that is Atheist, to keep it fair for the both the Pro and I. Please no biased judgements, thank you!
jakelittle135

Pro

Thanks for bringing this up. I'd just like to clarify: I am attempting to prove that the is NO ultimate creater?

Also: I'm personally an agnostic who leans towards the athiest side so I feel this is a perfect fit for me. I've been raised in an athiest family but my extended family is devotely Christian. Good luck. Since you didn't use your first statement, I won't use mine.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Candid_atheism

Con

Argument 1

I'll keep this Candid. There is absolutely no proof of spontaneous entropy through the process of Abiogensis created life or can.. It's an attempt to try an disprove a creator of course, but it fails. There are absolutely no real world examples of Abiogensis either and how this anomaly supposedly created us. If people do have evidence to the contrary they need to take their evidence in and collect a Nobel Prize!

In the words of Thomas Paine:
"In the first place, admitting matter to have properties, as we see it has, the question still remains, how came matter by those properties? To this they will answer, that matter possessed those properties eternally. This is not solution, but assertion; and to deny it is as impossible of proof as to assert it. It is then necessary to go further; and therefore I say - if there exist a circumstance that is not a property of matter, and without which the universe, or to speak in a limited degree, the solar system composed of planets and a sun, could not exist a moment, all the arguments of atheism, drawn from properties of matter, and applied to account for the universe, will be overthrown, and the existence of a superior cause, or that which man calls God, becomes discoverable, as is before said, by natural philosophy. I go now to show that such a circumstance exists, and what it is. The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion, the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing called perpetual motion would establish itself. It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited. The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter that is called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Everything which has hitherto been discovered, with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion. Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system, were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun. In one sense of the word, philosophy knows, and atheism says, that matter is in perpetual motion. But the motion here meant refers to the state of matter, and that only on the surface of the Earth. It is either decomposition, which is continually destroying the form of bodies of matter, or recomposition, which renews that matter in the same or another form, as the decomposition of animal or vegetable substances enters into the composition of other bodies. But the motion that upholds the solar system, is of an entirely different kind, and is not a property of matter. It operates also to an entirely different effect. It operates to perpetual preservation, and to prevent any change in the state of the system. Giving then to matter all the properties which philosophy knows it has, or all that atheism ascribes to it, and can prove, and even supposing matter to be eternal, it will not account for the system of the universe, or of the solar system, because it will not account for motion, and it is motion that preserves it. When, therefore, we discover a circumstance of such immense importance, that without it the universe could not exist, and for which neither matter, nor any nor all the properties can account, we are by necessity forced into the rational conformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD. As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, are regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature's God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them. God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."

Source: http://www.deism.com...
jakelittle135

Pro

Since my objective is not to DISPROVE an ultimate creator, I will simply provide the philosophical and logical reasoning that is necessary to present enough reasonable doubt against a creator in order to win this debate. Generally I like to keep it short.

For centuries, science has been constantly working to discover the truths of our world in their simplest forms. In it's earliest years of it's modern form, the vast majority of others held beliefs contrary to the few brilliant minds that were the very beginnings of the science we know today. Galileo, for example, was one scientist who challenged the beliefs of society and payed the toll. Others, like him, have refused to accept the widely believed conclusions and have sought after the truth. Even though the above stated conclusions made sense at the time, especially since all of the known scientific information pointed to that false "truth". Today, our society is faced by a similar split; one between Evolution and Creationism. And again, science has provided the solution, Evolution. Now, assuming that Pro is correct and there truly is no validity in Abiogenesis, it is completely unreasonable to simply assume that a divine creator is responsible for us, our families, and the universe. While science may not yet be able to prove where life originated (that is only assuming that Abiogenesis is truly invalid), it will soon enough. Science is a slow but rewarding process. When science moves and explains the mysteries of our world, the Theists and Deists of the world simply claim that it was wrong and say that the truth something else. Then, we science discovers the real answer to the next mystery put forward by the others, they simply claim that they were wrong again. To conclude, Theists and Deists live in a realm of mystery and magic.

To end with a quote: "An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can"t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question." - John McCarthy, Cognitive Scientist
Debate Round No. 2
Candid_atheism

Con

REBUTTAL:

Inspired by deism.com:
"Let us first examine nature as an ever changing and shifting painting. Science attempts to understand what the paint and canvass is composed of, the relationship of the individual paints, and the brushstrokes that are involved in the final product. But, what about the painter? If one admits that nature is similar to a painting, than it is not too far a leap to conclude that a painter exists, or at least existed at one time. Atheists like to resort to the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty) when dealing with Deists or even theists. The appeal here is to science as an authority which cannot be challenged. Unfortunately, this appeal is plagued by its own problems. First of all, science makes no claims about God one way or another, so it is not the scientists who are for the most part claiming God does not exist on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence, but the scientific layman asserting it. Second, science for all its great accomplishments is still in the infant stage, there is much about nature it simply does not know, even on this planet. So to conclude that a discipline, which has limitations here and now, somehow can conclude that something beyond its immediate ability to study is the final word, is logically speaking, a fallacy. Science itself is somewhat bias as well. It suffers from nearsightedness; what it cannot observe directly or indirectly, it ignores. Things like memory may have a basis in biology, but is it safe to conclude that only biology is at work here? No one has ever seen an emotion, or a memory; yet they exist. So it is not far-fetched to conclude that there is more to nature than what we observe in our own limited corner of it. Science has only touched the tip of the scientific iceberg -- as such, science cannot be used to dismiss the idea that a God may exist. If one cannot truly understand a grain of sand, then one cannot understand the beach. So where does the Deist stand? The Deist recognizes the limitations of belief; but still possesses the courage to believe. The belief in God in no more illogical than the belief in Extraterrestrial life forms. Nevertheless, despite the present lack of evidence for E.T. life forms, few scientists would outright dismiss them. If one accepts that E.T. life forms may exist, then one must conclude that such life forms could be far superior to us in knowledge and power -- if so, then God is in a sense, could be regarded as an E.T. life form as well. Or more accurately an Extradimensional life form. Such a being, or beings, cannot be dismissed as impossibilities. Atheists like to demand that the Deist, or theist, provide evidence for the existence of God. They continually resort to logical fallacies of their own, for example, a common one is the Petitio principii (begging the question) fallacy; it goes something like this: there is no God because we find no evidence of God in nature. But is this true? No. We presently do not know enough about nature to make such a conclusion, eventually, the possibility that there is a God could be proven. Atheists have no evidence that the universe is eternal or accidental; they are assuming that scientific speculation somehow equals scientific fact. Obviously there is a great gap between speculation and fact to the rational mind. We have the painting, but to dismiss that there is a painter is illogical, unless there is evidence that it is either an eternal painting or an accident. So far all science has offered is speculation based on drawing inferences from the available data [which is far from complete]; nevertheless, since the evidence is not complete, nor fully understood, sweeping generalizations by atheist on what exists and does not exist are groundless. Atheists will not defend their position that the universe is either eternal or accidental. We are still in the process of understanding the painting, so trying to define the painter is doomed to be a failure. All skeptics have to offer is scientific speculation on very limited data.
Source: http://www.deism.com...

CONCLUSION:
Unlike Abiogensis, Creationism has real world examples. Lets actually use the Watchmaker analogy for this. Which is a valid observation. If we observe a computer for example. Yes, a computer was created by something. A computer has complex algorithms and code much like the complex brain. Computers also have programs that can run in the background of a task manager. They can run in the background until you either kill it or manually operate it, much like our breathing, we can just not think about breathing and you'll still be breathing or you can think to breathe manually. And it's much like running programs on a computer. There must be a first cause to everything. What was the computers first cause? Well someone manufactured it. Just like with the earth, I'll ask Atheists what the first cause would be. What was the cause of the Bang? That cause is God! Having the stance of Atheism carries more faith then even a Theist. I am debating as a Deist, that believes this universe has a catalyst-like entity that is indifferent to this world, but has definitely created it. Deists believe there is something more; that is not unreasonable, it is very much human and rational. That "more" is God."
jakelittle135

Pro

Regardless of whether or not Abiogenesis has real world examples is irrelevant. I have already assumed the position of a person who accepts that Abiogeneis is not the origin of life. And yes, there has to be a cause to the start of the universe but it is completely illogical to jump to the conclusion that a god is the cause. You can rebut against Abiogenesis all you'd like. That doesn't change the FACT that it is irrational and rather ignorant of anyone to assume that just because there is a cause means that there is a god. Similar to society in Galileo's time: They knew that the sun appeared to move across the sky, this was fact. Their error was when they assumed that the Sun moved around the Earth when in fact, the Earth moves around the Sun. Just like they knew the sun appeared to move, we know that the universe's creation was caused by something. And again, we see that many, Theists and Deists alike, posses the flaw of assuming something is true without any proof. The people of Galileo's time made an uninformed leap just like the Deists and Theists of our time make the leap to assume that there is a god.

With the logical reasoning above, I have shown reasonable doubt to my opponents "proof" of a creator and therefore urge all to vote in my favor. My opponent has failed to demonstrate the overwhelming likelihood of any such god beyond any reasonable doubt while I have demonstrated reasonable doubt.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Combatofawombat 1 year ago
Combatofawombat
Candid_atheismjakelittle135Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a better argument then pro honestly.
Vote Placed by qwzx 1 year ago
qwzx
Candid_atheismjakelittle135Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Read my quote...
Vote Placed by WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 1 year ago
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Candid_atheismjakelittle135Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not disprove a Creator beyond a reasonable doubt. Con's argument was solid.
Vote Placed by AgnosticDeism 1 year ago
AgnosticDeism
Candid_atheismjakelittle135Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not disprove a Creator beyond a reasonable doubt!