The Instigator
SpaceTemplar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ChickenBakuba
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is the universe designed?

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 1 vote the winner is...
ChickenBakuba
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 929 times Debate No: 77205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

SpaceTemplar

Con

I am on the side that the universe is not designed in anyway. We can see this by looking at all the things that want to kill us. There is diseases, carnivorous animals, birth defects that harm the body, cancer, and most importantly us. How could a universe that is designed have so many things that want to kill us? Also we can only live on about 20% of the earth correct me if I'm wrong. The Earth is 70% water and most of it we can't drink. How is the universe designed with all this wrong with it?
ChickenBakuba

Pro

"There is diseases...and most importantly us."

"How is the universe designed with all this wrong with it?"

I'll assume you meant "designed" as Creationism, "designed" as the world designed by an omnipotent God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions:

Wrong:

not correct or true; incorrect
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To an omnipotent God that created us literally from dust, technically he shouldn't love/care about us, especially as he is omnipotent, all-powerful, mighty, and strong. There are things that want to kill us? God can design the world in any way, and it isn't "wrong". Especially as he defined the word "wrong" itself. You have mentioned the word "wrong" this entire time. Nothing is wrong, if he does it. Only he can say he's wrong, but I doubt an omnipotent God, filled with wisdom will be wrong.

Your next argument will likely be on the existence on God, but as so to stray from topic, I'll attempt to argue properly based on the title.

You have mentioned several so called "wrong" things in your argument.

There are things that want to kill us?
We should be thankful that we have life in the first place.

There "is" diseases, carnivorous animals, birth defects that harm the body, cancer and most importantly us?

We have amazing cures.

We have marvellous tamed pets.

We should be thankful we can reproduce and populate, and create the societies and civilisations we have today.

We should be satisfied with the space we were allowed.

We should be satisfied with this glorious planet that God has created for us, we should be thankful, grateful beyond words for everything God has left us.

"God is the greatest thing that exists, ever has existed or ever will exist. Therefore, for us to glory anything else, would be sin, as there is nothing greater than God, there is no calling greater than praising God. This is true not only for us, but surprisingly also for God himself, he being the greatest , to glory in anything else would be idolatry. Therefore, if the greatest thing God can do is give himself glory, and no created thing does can be greater than God, the greatest thing we can do (our purpose, you might say) is to glory him."

This is taken from a book "Desiring God" by John Piper.

Our purpose is solely to worship God, and nothing more else. Worshipping God is the greatest thing we can do.

You have mentioned several problems that mankind/humans are currently dealing with, even I (admittedly) detest.

However, have you ever stopped, for a quick moment, in our busy life, to look at the beauty of the world that even God has provided us?

Have you noticed the beauty of a rainbow?

Have you watched the absolute wondrous, the allure and divine-like sunset?

Have you noticed the meticulous artistry of nature?

Have you noticed the amazing flowers?

Have you...?

(Have you noticed the awesome Ice Cream people make nowadays? (Sorry I'm a junk food addict =) ) )

These things I have noticed. I have noticed the awesome things that God has provided us with; God has not forsaken us. No, God loves, cares, and adores us. Oh hey wait I'm preaching now (which is a good thing, I suppose?)

God is a wondrous God. He is omnipotent, and we have no right to demand for more things, after all he has provided us with.

And God exists.

There have been no discover of extraterrestrial life so far, and there are many mysteries even we haven't discovered yet.
No sign of extraterrestrial life means that humans did not come from other planets and evolved.

Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Read all about 1.618/PHI, I think it's a good example of God designing our universe(s)?

Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Many archaic Mathematicians like Aristotle believed that God was a perfect architect that designed the universe using secret, hidden dimensions.

Another good example is Solomon's Temple.

Link:
http://www.uckg.co.nz...

There is one Church that is constructed with Solomon Temple's dimensions, the Church turned out to be magnificent and beautiful.

This, I believe, shows the existence of God, and how exactly the universe(s) is designed.

Pardon my Grammar, Spelling, and English - I didn't check - and this is my 4th time debating, so go easy. :P
Debate Round No. 1
SpaceTemplar

Con

Now I understand that "wrong" is absolutely subjective in the way that I am using it. I would disagree that a all loving God described in the bible would like to watch us suffer. Also with a rainbow we understand how and why that happens, a flower we understand how and why it looks like that. It doesn't make sense for a all knowing all powerful God to create an infinite universe with one planet habitable or one life form. That's not very intelligently designed as most creationism suggests. If 99.99% of the universe is uninhabitable does that not surely show this universe was not designed? We can also look at how things around us are not designed. Bacteria we see it evolve randomly. We also know by evolution that we evolved by natural selection which is random. See most thing on earth we can explain why it happens with an explanation none result in U.S. Saying this is gods creation we can read the bible to try and understand it. If you honestly think the world is designed then how do you know this? With out saying the bible and going into circular reasoning. What is natural that you can compare to what is designed to where you know the universe is designed? What leads you to the conclusion the universe is designed?
ChickenBakuba

Pro

The only way to reason with Atheists is Science and Logic, I guess? (Forgive me if you're not an Atheist)

In your first argument, you state that the Universe is not designed (by God himself) as there are many bad stuff.

When I said Rainbows, Flowers and all those other stuff, I was telling you that there are good stuff in this world, and that this world isn't entirely filled with hate and sh1t. Not about how the flower freaking grows and how a rainbow appears. -_- (By the way I got the rainbow idea from the Debate called (Existence = Reality + Experience =) ).

You stated that an all loving God described in the bible would not like to watch us suffer. A certain - *certain* - person has wrote in the argument that God gave us free will. (And you, shut up, yes, you the guy in the comments section) This is indeed correct; God does not want us to suffer; and he created a perfect, flawless, amazing, beautiful world. And I'm not exaggerating when I say "flawless". Unfortunately we abused this right of free will, rejected him, blasphemed, and walked away from him. In a result, we caused "moral evil" and "natural evil".

Moral Evil: You can guess, us being evil out of free will.

Natural Evil: Natural Disasters, Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Tornadoes and other tragedies.

Link:
https://www.biblegateway.com...

God loves us. We caused ourselves to suffer; we can only blame ourselves.

Life Form:
any living thing.

There are many universes. (I think)
And fyi, you don't know that the "all powerful God" created an infinite universe with only one planet habitable. Also, if life form means any living thing, I should think that there are many life forms in the universe that are on Earth.

"If"?
I don't think there's a point of stating that sentence as it starts with an "if"; unless you want to plant ideas in the reader's head.

Unfortunately I don't really think that 99,99% of the universe is "unihabitable"; the universe is expanding, continuously, naturally, by Dark Matter/Dark Energy. Who knows when other habitable planets will pop up? The universe will continuously expand, grow...unless you claim you're a freaking fortune teller/seer then I don't think you can deny it. (aka I hope you can't deny it)

You claimed that having an infinite universe with one planet habitable or with "one life form" isn't very intelligently as Creationism suggests.

We don't have one life form in this universe, nor do we only have one planet habitable, that is only assumed.

And it wasn't very intelligently designed because of us, as I stated, screwed up and messed up the perfect idyllic world he created for us. And we are mere mortal beings, we are not able to comprehend the thinking of a God. To do so would be...Hubris? Hmm...

Link:
http://science.nasa.gov...

"We can also look at how things around us are not designed"

Please, there are many freaking things around us that are "designed", until Science miraculously solves the mysteries. I gave a few examples in the first round, not my problem if you don't look through my argument.

Bacteria evolve randomly. We also know that by evolution we evolved by natural selection which is random? (Sorry I'm hardly able to comprehend this sentence, I'm 12...now let me go research)

I shall refute the 2nd statement in your 7th line first.

2. Mankind did not evolve from apes.

Link:
https://www.google.com.sg...

1. Just because Bacteria so called "evolves randomly" means the universe isn't designed? Nah, I think there's a serious problem here. And I don't really think that Bacteria evolves randomly. (Forgive me if I'm wrong)

Link:
http://www.the-scientist.com...-/

If I honestly think the world is designed then how do I know this? Without saying the bible and going into circular reasoning?

Did I not give examples in my previous argument?

I honestly don't think that you have read through my previous argument. There is evidence... (I think, hope, and pray)

Now, Con, scroll up and READ.

This leads me to the conclusion that the universe is designed. I did not build my argument without a foundation, even I am not that stupid.

I thank you for this Debate, it has been fun. This is my 4th Debate but my 2nd actual challenge (first challenge ended up with me getting rekt) and I expect the same outcome for my first challenge. "I will grieve and I will weep, but I shall never regret." Once again, I sincerely thank my opponent.

Oh wait what when I tried to fking submit they said Profanity isn't allowed in my argument. How the fk am I using Profanity? Oh wait realised I've to censor "sh1t".

Vote me C:
Debate Round No. 2
SpaceTemplar

Con

First of we are apes we evolved from a common ancestor. Now bacteria does evolve randomly by natural selection which is random as far as we know it. Now what I mean is you have to have something undersigned to compare something designed to it. Example: a rock that looks like a wing, and we compare this to a plane wing. We know the rock isn't designed because it has none of the evidence to support it, when we look at a plane wing even thought they both have the same shape, all the evidence and information point to the wing being designed and the rock just occurring naturally. Also in the known universe there I one planet that supports life, this is Earth. Of course, there can be another planet that supports life, but that isn't going to change the percentage much. God if he did design this universe did not do good. Your argument about Adam and eve which is what I am guessing you mean by we used our free will wrongly . You cant support that so no reason bring that to the table. Science and logic are the only way to reason. Science is how we understand the world, and logic is how we understand if it makes sense or is even possible. A circle triangle is illogical. Without logic and science what is there to help us understand things? You say flawless but how is children getting cancer flawless design? Sure there is good in this world but the bad out weighs the good by a lot. Also for a designed world it is really random and chaotic. Nothing you've stated points to a designed universe. Just because you don't think 99.99% of the universe is uninhabitable doesn't mean its not true, facts don't change because you want them too.
ChickenBakuba

Pro

Firstly, I would like to thank you for this Debate. This is almost a free win for me.

Secondly, you are doing a poor job of rebutting my statements. You spew out a controversy and array of arguments, statements in an attempt to refute my statements, of which none are referenced (Links), which is why they are all bare assertions, probably made up by you, which is why it's almost a free win for me.

"Now bacteria does evolve randomly by natural selection which is random as far as we know it."

Are you kidding me, give me a damned Link. I've provided actual evidence while your claims/statements have no backup.

Now, for your second explanation, I've no idea wtf you're talking about, tbh.

Now what you mean is that I have to have something undersigned to compare something designed to it. Your example is somewhat good, but that does not change the fact that you haven't rebutted my other statements, which means you have agreed with them?

Now, time for me to refute your statement. I noticed you have ignored my points but nvm.

The rock just occurring naturally, whilst the Plane is designed by humans?

Please. Allow me to provide my own example; I feel you have basically agreed with me.

Suppose - *SUPPOSE* - the measure of nature (plant segments), the human body, music, and even human perception are all related to a certain Ratio/Number? (Just saying)

Because there's no backup explanation/evidence, it's not designed. Yeah. This is totally sooooo not designed. Don't make me laugh.

"Also in the known universe there I one planet that supports life, this is Earth. Of course, there can be another planet that supports life, but that isn't going to change the percentage much."

I'm starting to puke.

In our "known universe" we have only explored 4% of it. The rest of the 96% is totally unexplored, and still it grows, every day, every minute, every second. No sh1t, sherlock, of course it's gonna change the percentage.

"Your argument about Adam and eve which is what I am guessing you mean by we used our free will wrongly . You can't support that so no reason bring that to the table."

I'm gonna vomit blood.

You have just proved my point.

"If 99.99% of the universe is uninhabitable does that not surely show this universe was not designed?"

Don't bring that into the table next time if you can't back it up.

Con, you are digging your own grave. Btw,

"I would disagree that a all loving God described in the bible would like to watch us suffer."

The context of this statement clearly is based on the Christian Religion of our God. Thus, I had to answer the statement literally in his own context that the statement was on. You clearly questioned the Bible, I answered with the Bible too.

Unfortunately for you I CAN support it. Please.

"Science and logic are the only way to reason."

Nah. Science has bowed down to Religion. Before you attempt to rebut this I suggest you read my argument in Round 1, instead of arguing blindly and contradicting yourself.

Science is how we understand this world, and logic is how we understand if it makes sense or is even possible.

I have not only built my foundation of this argument on Religion itself, but I have also built Science and Logic as my foundation.

Science is how we understand this world. That was why I answered with Science in my first argument.

Logic is how we understand if it makes sense or is even possible.

I would not be arguing if my argument did not make sense. Logic postulated the existence of God, and questioned Science, which is why Religion exists in the first place.

A circle triangle is illogical?

With Religion it is possible. A burning bush, yet not entirely burned. Water turned into Wine. A fig tree withering by the touch of a hand. Armageddon/Ragnarok happening.

Without Logic and Science, what is there to help us understand things?

I beg to differ, allow me to reiterate, Religion.

Religion created Science and Logic itself.

"Sure there is nothing good in this world but the bad out weighs the good by a lot."

Nah, totally off. Try again, Con. I believe that the Good and Bad in this world is balanced. For every Good thing that happens, another Bad thing happens, and vice versa.

Now, this brings me back to the point that we destroyed the perfect, flawless, creation that God created. Creationism dictates that God created a perfect, flawless world. But we destroyed it clearly, as mentioned above in this argument.

"Also for a designed world it is really random and chaotic."

Random and chaotic. We are not able to comprehend the thinking of a God, as I had mentioned in my 2nd argument. To think that we are able to have the wisdom, divinity and power of a God to literally comprehend what a God thinks is Hubris. To us humans, to YOU, it is "random and chaotic". However, to God and others it isn't. We think "random and chaotic" defined as "death, havoc, nuclear wars, and diseases". To God, these things are not "random and chaotic". Moreover, we brought this upon ourselves. You also say that children getting cancer isn't flawless, which is my point. That is exactly on the point, and you nailed this one for me. That is not flawless, but "random and chaotic" as defined by us, as we caused this.

"Nothing you've stated points to a designed universe."

Utter bullsh1t.

I have stated much more than "99.99% of the universe is not uninhabitable". Go check, you obviously loath Christians so much, you read only half of my arguments. Either than or you're pure stupid and you want to avoid my statements and evidence.

"facts don't change because you want them too."

I would like to compliment your Grammar, Spelling, Punctuation and others. They have been very *GOOD*. That I have to comment on, I have wanted to comment on that a long time ago.

Facts are not exactly facts. I shall now prove that.

Fact:
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Facts are merely something we created, something as a foundation for Science and Logic.

However, Facts do not apply to Religion, just like how Logic, Science, and Facts do not apply to an omnipotent God that created the vast universe(s).

There are no "facts" in Religion. Facts are created by Logic which is created by Religion. An omnipotent God that has created vast universe(s) obviously is not affected/bound by the Laws of Physics/Gravity/Science/Logic etc that we mortal/finite beings have "proved".

Facts even contradict each other.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. A current fact.

Energy can be created or destroyed. A current theory. (Entropy, I think. Who would've thought I would benefit in knowledge from watching a certain episode in an anime...)

Most facts derive from theories. Theories become Facts when people prove it right/think it's right. This means that Facts are created literally by the human thinking and the way humans perceive things. A God is not human.

Link:
https://www.google.com.sg...

Sorry, I think I've strayed off topic.

Dingerpants, vote 4 me. =)
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: Alpha3141// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con just said "I don't think God made the universe well". I really didn't see a good argument from Con's side. Also, he clearly doesn't understand that natural selection doesn't add DNA to organisms. His belief in evolution doesn't prove anything. So by default, I vote for Pro even before I even had to read his side of the argument

[*Reason for non-removal*] Though the voter appears to have missed some of the arguments given by Con and not even evaluated Pro's arguments, the lack of an established burden of proof in this debate allows him to determine which debater carries the central burden. If that debater fails in his task, then he can reasonably award the debate to the other side. While it's not clear that the voter took the burdens of the debaters to heart in making this decision, and while it's not clear that they assessed all of the arguments made by Con to ensure that they hadn't met those burdens, it does explain how he viewed certain arguments through a logical lens, and as such, is barely sufficient.
******************************************************************************
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Martley// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: I vote Pro. Pro presented a well informed and sourced debate. Con's position was highly opinionated and offered exactly ZERO sources. You can't win a debate by making claims and arguments without sourced material to back them up. Furthermore, Con's rebuttals were merely calling into question Pro's arguments with no effectively argued coutner-points and no source material and no proof. Poorly executed debate by Con. I award all points to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation for S&G, Conduct. (2) Lack of specifics on Arguments. You need to explain what arguments Pro won and why, and explain how they affected the debate as a whole. (3) Lack of specifics on Sources. To award sources, you should explain how they impacted the debate, which arguments they undermined and how that tied into your evaluation of the debate as a whole. Sources points aren't isolated points to be awarded based purely on quantity.
===========================================================================
Posted by Donderpants 2 years ago
Donderpants
And yeah, you do deserve this win.
Posted by Donderpants 2 years ago
Donderpants
I already did enough debates. Just the mobile phone part causing an issue. But I just found my phone again, so I'll check what my phone number is and then finally be able to vote!
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
Woot best thing to do after a Debate is to get someone to vote for you

I deserved the win anyway
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
-_-

And I was placing my hopes on you to win

I didn't know ur online too tho
I'm trying to get the stupid "confirm your identity" thing to work too, which is why I'm participating in Debates

I hate the mobile number part but it'll have to do
Posted by Donderpants 2 years ago
Donderpants
I agree. If I can get the stupid "confirm your identity" thing to work, I'll vote for you ChickenBakuba.

Also, reading some of his arguments, they prove you right more than they prove you wrong. "Also for a designed world it is really random and chaotic." If it weren't designed, then surely it would be more chaotic. As it is, it follows a pattern called science.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
I think I win, I think SpaceTempler rlly hates Christians and worships Atheists.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
Thanks, Debates are almost all the same, research and argue :P

You need a topic which you can understand tho

Once again, thanks
Posted by Donderpants 2 years ago
Donderpants
@ChickenBakuba
Fair enough. You clearly deserve to win this. Certainly after round 2, where you view it scientifically as well. Covering all your bases.

I actually find Wikipedia is underrated though. So nah, I actually think it's good.

Yes, I can see that pointing out some good things about the universe is good for your argument. But if you don't want this to move into a debate over the existence of God, "Your next argument will likely be on the existence on God, but as so to stray from topic, I'll attempt to argue properly based on the title." your next argument needs to not be about God. Not a big deal, but those small things can matter if you're up against a proper opponent (also, being 13, I respect a 12 year old being able to write such a detailed argument.)

"The greatest thing we can do, it is our "sole" purpose - "sole" as in the most we can do in this context, as worshipping him is the greatest thing we can ever do in our lifetime"
Sorry, still sounds extremist to me. I like to think that I can contribute to society more in the things I'm good at (R.E. is not a strong point.) So I'm not terribly fond of people saying that everything else is relatively worthless.

I didn't actually know this was in the religious category. In that case, feel free to give as many biblical references as you please. Sorry for bothering you over that.

Yes, I've seen this guy in another one, he's totally against God. That's the sole reason he's debating this. Good luck, you're clearly the better debater, I'd vote for you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Alpha3141 2 years ago
Alpha3141
SpaceTemplarChickenBakubaTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just said "I don't think God made the universe well". I really didn't see a good argument from Con's side. Also, he clearly doesn't understand that natural selection doesn't add DNA to organisms. His belief in evolution doesn't prove anything. So by default, I vote for Pro even before I even had to read his side of the argument