Life and the Universe were Created
Debate Round Forfeited
Iamsmarter has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||3 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||307 times||Debate No:||93323|
Debate Rounds (3)
I will argue that existence is an illusion, merely a combination of sensory inputs and processing of those inputs. However, what is not deniable is the existence of something. I mean something in the most ambiguous sense possible. There is something either "out there" or "in here," i.e. outside of the Universe or within our mind. I say "our mind" despite the fact that individuals possess different knowledge because it is also my suspicion that we are pieces of a larger cosmic organism.
An argument from ignorance, as popularized by Niel DeGrasse Tyson, consists of an argument which declares some seemingly insurmountable level of complexity as simply not possibly understood, and somehow thus explained by some other phenomenon that cannot possibly be understood. This is not my intention.
My intention is to grapple with this concept, in the same way that we grapple with Zeno's Paradox of the Turtle and Achilles, in which an infinitely divisible unit of distance necessitates that any progressions in distance are impossible. Yet still objects appear to travel distances greater than zero so it must be the case that there is some unit of distance that is the smallest that can exist.
Effectively, the resolution of the Turle and Achilles Paradox (i.e. the evidence before our eyes that phenomena do in fact occur and time does in fact progress) necessitates that there are some quantum units in the Universe that are no longer divisible, meaning there is some number beyond which there are no more numbers (i.e. the highest number possible in the Universe, the same number by which any number can be divided to give 0). This number is usually designated as infinity, the summit of human imagination, the conception of a number that would not be reached even if counting were never ceased.
However, with the understanding of planck's constant, we now have learned that the quanta of energy that exist in the Universe are limited in how infinitesimal they can be.
This means that the Universe is made of "gridlines" so to speak, or pixels, or whatever analogy you wish to conceptualize this with. While seemingly incomprehensible, this is perfectly in line with the notion that the Universe was created. It was built to a certain level and then completed at that level. It is not infinite in its smallness. Rather, progressions are finite leaps contrived by some other ordered phenomenon, in the same sense that in a video game there is a smallest distance one can move in one "step."
These at first glance seem insufficient grounds to conclude that the Universe, in outward direction, is also finite, but in fact my intention is to show that the Universe MUST be finite in the outward direction as well, BECAUSE of its finitude in the inward direction.
My opponent has submitted a circular (therefore redundant) argument that existence is an illusion, yet not denying the existence of something and that something being ambiguous.
My argument for life not having been created is that we have abundant scientific, tangible and living evidence that proves beyond a doubt that all life has evolved from a process of evolution through natural selection.
It was Niel DeGrasse Tyson who explained in very simple language in "The Cosmos, A Spacetime Odyssey" that over a period of some hundreds millions of years, minerals and seawater interacted with sunlight to form a rich "soup" from which, among other things, amino acids formed and from them DNA, the building blocks of life. Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" goes on to explain that each stage of building DNA and the subsequent living cells is quite deliberate in that they follow the natural principals of physics and chemistry and not by the intention of a creator. The complexity comes about from the cumulative effect of each stage of building and rejecting.
Through a process of natural selection plant and animal life have evolved over millions of years. If not for the enormous number of fossils ( especially of early forms of human beings) being found to confirm evolution we have living proof before our eyes right now. From simple one celled amoebae to human beings we can confirm that species come and go and that species develop. The human body for example still has tonsils, an appendix and a gall bladder, all of which were once larger to accomodate different diets (adaptation). We have a slight curve in our spine and fossils of bones from our ancestors show more pronounced curvatures of the spine which indicates that our predecessors walked on all fours.
The universe itself comprises millions of spinning spherical objects all following the principals pf physics and chemistry in their behaviour. There is no evidence whatsoever that these laws have been deliberately tampered with in any way by a creator.
In fact if indeed there were a creator we would not have the life forms and universe that we have now, it would look entirely different. It would be ludicrous to suggest that billions upon billions of planets and stars were created for the sake of maintaining life on just one of them. Also, if a creator were to build life it would be logical and reasonable to assume that (He) would use better materials at his disposal to create humans rather than from protein, water and trace elements. It would also be logical and reasonable to assume that it would take maybe a few years to create the first prototype from ground up, not the billions of years that we know it took for human beings to develop through evolution by natural selection.
So, not only do we have no evidence to support the creation of life and the universe, we have solid, irrefutable evidence that contradicts such a claim.
My argument is further elaborated upon in the comments section, solidifying my reasoning as to why the Universe was necessarily created, and is finite in history and in future.
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases with time. It has been discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Two independent findings by the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Research Team in 1998 confirm this. Therefore it cannot be stated that the universe is finite thus dispelling the notion "that the universe was at some point initiated by some ordered phenomenon".
My opponent therefore has still failed to present a credible argument that life and the universe were created.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.