The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

Is there a creator?

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...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,553 times Debate No: 19633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Complex intelligence is only a bi-product of a complex brain, so a complex intelligence existing without a biological brain doesn't make much sense.
Expecting anyone to believe there is a complex intelligence that didn't come from a brain, is like expecting someone to believe you have a wooden chair that didn't come from a tree. I haven't seen any examples of any wood that didn't come from a tree, so it's not logical to assume that what the person is saying is true. There is no evidence that complex intelligence can operate without a brain, so to believe it is equally as foolish.

How did life start? Well, the early pre-biotic earth was filled with organic molecules (which are quite common in space), the building blocks of life. The pre-biotic environment contained many simple fatty acids, under a range of PH they spontaneously form stable vesicles. With naturally occurring simple fatty acids, we can have a vesicle that can spontaneously grow from consumption and divide. The pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of different types of nucleotides, all it took was one to polymerize, they can replicate themselves.
Continued: So, so far we have lipid vesicles that can grow and divide, and nucleotide polymers that can self replicate all on their own, but how does it become life? Well fatty acid vesicles are permeable to nucleotide monomers, but not polymers. Once polymerization occurs within the vesicle, the polymer gets trapped! In the ocean they will encounter convection currents. A vesicle with more polymer, through simple thermodynamics will steal lipids from a vesicle with less polymer, this is the origin of competition. A Vesicle that contains polymer can replicate, grow and divide faster therefore dominating the population. Self polymerizing molecules will kick off evolution, and we see things like complex sexual reproduction arise, basically where the fun begins ;)

God didn't create the universe. The conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and every effect has an equal and opposite effect. Most cosmologists agree that the total energy of the universe = 0. The negative (-) energy of gravity balances out the positive (+) energy of matter exactly. How can a creator create something that cannot be created and that = 0?

You can have an account with $0.00 in it, or you can deposit $5 into an account with a -$5.00 balance, either way at the end of the day your account will have $0.00. If energy has always, does, and will always = 0 then the idea of a "creator" makes no sense. The Big Bang was most likely simply just a transition of one form of total energy 0 to another form of total energy 0, driven by the quantum vacuum.
lannan13

Pro

The Big Bang would be inpossible to happen, why? well simply this. Something can't happen if nothing's there. Look @ Quantum Machanics: something just can't be there without mater. The other thing is look at all religons. They all say God did it. If you have a rock you won't get any water out of it by using you hands.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

The Big Bang is not only possible, it's exactly what happened so your claim was a logical fallacy and a complete denial of fact. Scientists know that the universe is expanding, meaning there must have been a point in time where all time, space, energy, matter ect. was condensed in an infinitesimally dense state, which is names the singularity. NASA space-probe observations of the oldest light in the cosmos are the most direct evidence yet that the universe expanded extremely quickly immediately after the big bang. The cosmic radio microwave background radiation is the finger print of The Big Bang, meaning it actually happened.

Your argument that something can't come from nothing makes no sense because if there was nothing, there would be a total energy equal to zero because there was nothing, but this universe is a total energy zero, so is it something? Actually, this universe is just a rearranged version of nothing, the negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter but it all equals 0.

For example if you throw a ball in the air, the kinetic energy (positive) is the force that pushes it higher in the air, while potential energy (negative) is due to the gravity trying to pull the ball down. The negative and positive energies add up to a sum of 0.

So, since science backs up The Big Bang theory and most cosmologists and physicists agree the universe = 0, then that mean there would be 0 total energy no matter what happened, meaning there doesn't need to be a creator to set it motion.

To restate my previous point in the first round, the conservation of energy is simple:
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

If matter is the positive action then the equal and opposite reaction would be gravity (or vice versa). This means that a creator is impossible, because total energy 0 cannot be created because no matter what there will always be total energy 0, and a creator of energy violates the conservation of energy (energy cannot be created).

Recap:
The Big Bang is not possible, but most likely what happened
A creator of energy is impossible, because it doesn't matter if the universe existed or not total energy would equal zero anyway, and the conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created, thus disproving a creator.
lannan13

Pro

1st my friend you are untopical. You are putting yourself in a double bind by saying bing bang didn't happen, but it did come on make you mind up. Second of all which is older and more advanced: Religon!!! The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." (Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system.) The universe was brought into existence by something other than itself.

All things that come into being have causes.

. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe (or past universes) were infinitely old. But, this would require an infinite amount of time to be traversed in order to arrive at the present. This cannot happen since an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed.
1. If the universe were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.
2. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
3. If it were infinitely old, then in order for us to exist here and now, an infinite amount of time would have had to have been traversed in order to get here now. But, an infinity cannot be traversed.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

You obviously make no sense, I provided examples of how the universe as we know it began 13.7 billion years ago in The Big Bang yet you are trying to make the claim that I said it was infinite and The Big Bang didn't happen? Reading clearly isn't one of your strong points, let me state my position again:
The Big Bang happened, but could not have been caused by a creator.
You seem to ignore the fact that the conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created, this means that there can be no creator of something that cannot be created. There is no way around that for you.
The Big Bang wasn't something from "nothing" it was a transition of one form of total energy 0 to another form. Since energy cannot be created and the universe = 0, this means that there could be no creator.
My logic is very simple, if something cannot be created, there could be no creator of it. The fact that the total energy of the universe would equal 0 whether or not there was a universe, just puts the icing on the cake.
A creator of energy (which is what the universe is made out of) is impossible.
lannan13

Pro

Energy can't be created that is what I'm sayin. But how can there be energy be there by itself, that shows how there had to be someone to nudge us along. 1st of all evolution is impossible, a fish just can't walk on to a beach Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism at 1/10340,000,000 @ http://www.earthage.org....
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
8. Pro made an incoherent argument about rocks and hands. This was not refuted, but it is not possible to refute something that makes no sense.
No advantage.

9. The Grammar Attack:
Pro ranted against Con's grammar. It's true that Con would have done better to say, "The Big Bang is not only possible," rather than, "The Big Bang is not possible," but Con's meaning was apparent even so, and Pro is in no position to be pointing fingers for lack of lucidity.
No advantage.

10. Statistical Cheating:
Pro waited until the final round, until Con could not respond, to introduce a statistical argument against evolution. This is cheating, arguably worth a conduct point. It will be ignored.
No advantage.
11. Slick Cosmological:
Pro used part of Matt Slick's cosmological argument without attribution. He left off the end, however, the part that makes the unsupported claim that there was therefore a creator. Is Con supposed to refute an argument that Con forgot to make?
No advantage.
12. Pro conceded that energy cannot be created. Advantage: Con. But, Pro says, we still needed a nudge. Instead of a supernatural creator, we might have had a supernatural nudger. A glance at the title of the debate would have made this easy to refute, but Con did not refute it.
Advantage: Pro.

Since the parties generally elected to talk past each other rather than refute each other's arguments, we have to weigh those arguments, see which are more worthy, more persuasive.
Con's first argument (no brain means no mind means no creator) is a real argument. Pro has nothing to match it. Con's others are less impressive, but Pro can't match them either.
Con is the victor.
Both sides suffered from lack of lucidity, but Con was at least able to get his points across.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
1. No brain, no intelligence.
Con argued that we couldn't have had an intelligent creator without a physical brain. There were no physical brains before the universe. Therefore, there was no intelligent creator available to do the creating.
This argument went unrefuted.
Advantage: Con.

2. Natural Explanations:
Con argued that we have some notion of how abiogenesis and evolution could have happened without creators, so we don't need creators to explain them.
This argument went unrefuted.
Advantage: Con.

3. Thermodynamics:
Con said that thermodynamics says energy cannot be created. Therefore, it wasn't created. Therefore, in the absence of a creation, there was no creator.
This argument went unrefuted.
Advantage: Con.

4. Net Energy:
Con argued that the net energy of the universe is zero. So, given that the universe equals zero, there is no problem with something coming from nothing. If the universe came from nothing, that was nothing coming from nothing.
This argument went unrefuted.
Advantage: Con.

Pro endorsed or ignored all of Con's arguments, so they all stand unrefuted at the end of the debate.

5. Seniority:
Pro argued that religion is right, and science is wrong, because religion is older than science.
This argument went unrefuted.
Advantage: Pro.

6. Argument from Majority Vote of Dubious Authority:
Pro argued that religions are right about gods existing, because they all agree that gods exist.
This argument went unrefuted.
Advantage: Pro.

7. Nothing comes from nothing, so there can't have been a big bang. This is a curious choice since Pro relies on the Slick Cosmological argument, which is big-bang-independent. Nonetheless, Con slam-dunked this one, refuting it twice, once with layman's logic and once with the weight of scientific authority.
No advantage.

===continued===
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
He didn't address how energy could be created when the conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created..I'm not what infinite regression has to do with the fact that energy cannot be created, meaning no creator.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
Interesting debate.
Con seemed to ignore Pro's point of Sudden generation of the universe.

Though I realize Pro was very unclear in his original rebuttal.

Con did not offer any valuable arguments for his side and Pro's rebuttal of infinite regression addressed any of Con's forward statements.

Clarity point to Con and arguments to Pro.

For Pro I would work with Microsoft Word for grammar aid.
Posted by Booska 5 years ago
Booska
At least he doesn't look like a doochbag, like Con does.
Posted by Lucory 5 years ago
Lucory
Do you notice that the pro has mis-represented himself? By attempting to use quantum mechanics to describe the "creator" he has put himself in a double bind. through this process he has stated that nothing can just be meaning something had to have created his "creator".
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
Rational_Thinker9119lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Pro's argument misconstrued theories and was honestly, unintelligent.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Rational_Thinker9119lannan13Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's responses in every round changed. He went from arguing from religious claims to arguing against something from nothing to arguing against the concept of evolution itself. Con's arguments however were better constructed. His non-theistic explanation for the beginning of life was not even challenged by Pro until the last round and even then he only argued from implausibility, not impossibility.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Rational_Thinker9119lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
Rational_Thinker9119lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't meet the BoP. Pro's arguments/contentions seemed to be fueld by emotion. Also, Pro responded in a fashion that demonstrated their inabillity to spell words. "@" should be "at," in a formal debate of truth.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
Rational_Thinker9119lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.