The Instigator
Iamsmarter
Pro (for)
The Contender
Willows
Con (against)

Life and the Universe were Created

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  
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.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 491 times Debate No: 93323
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

Iamsmarter

Pro

I find it an inherent truth that life and the universe were created. Of course this is a cyclic argument and thus will not serve as the substance of my reasoning.

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.
Willows

Con

Life and the universe were not created since there is no viable evidence to support the notion. Yet there is overwhelming, compelling evidence to affirm that life and the universe were not created and merely follow the natural laws of chemistry and physics.
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.
Debate Round No. 1
Iamsmarter

Pro

My opponent has narrowed the focus of the argument to the origin of life, rather than of the Universe. I do not intend to contest the evolutionary history of life. I also do not intend to suggest any particular means by which the Universe was created, or suppose anything about what has happened since that creation, or even how long it has been since that creation (except that the amount of time has been finite).

Note:

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.
Willows

Con

My opponent has presented the argument that existence is an illusion yet illusions can only exist in comparison to reality. If an illusion is all there is, then it's not an illusion, it is reality.
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.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Willows 10 months ago
Willows
There are two parts to this debate. The first, regarding the creation of life has already been conceded by my opponent. The second, regarding the creation of the universe is also lost by my opponent since he has failed to link his supposition of pre-destination with creation. Pre-destination in this case is a supposition that can only be made in retrospect and since proof of creation has not been established, it becomes a redundant argument.
Posted by Iamsmarter 10 months ago
Iamsmarter
The leading theory on the origin of life is the spontaneous formation of small nucleic acids that could catalyze their self-replication, and evolved mechanisms of forming proteins that essentially are tools, which the nucleic acids can catalyze the formation of for the purpose of enhancing their self-replicatory capabilities; as well as the aquisition of membranous and increasingly complex vessels to contain and transmit these nucleic acids and proteins and protect them from exterior threats. This is a perfectly viable explanation. Life itself is trivial by comparison to the overarching topic of this debate.

I suppose it was misleading for me to say that life was created, because it steals from the core of the message. My message is that the entirety of the Universe was created (or at least initiated) by some exterior/primary event. From this, what follows is that perhaps life, which incarnate in humanity has actually come to "observe" itself, was predestined to form.

It is an interesting subject for discussion, to think that we humans, essentially just bits of interacting molecules within the Universe, have mental concepts of what the Universe that we are only a part of, actually consists of. It seems from this perspective that it would be physically impossible for any living thing to model the entire Universe in its mind without its brain being the size and complexity of the Universe.
Posted by Willows 10 months ago
Willows
I get your point Furyan5. My using the biblical argument is an example of a commonly held view of creation. If you read my round 2 submission you will find that I have focused on the lesser held (and lesser understood) philosophy and physics based arguments. My ultimate aim of course is to disprove the title proposition which does require a lot of quality research and I certainly appreciate your feedback.
Posted by Furyan5 10 months ago
Furyan5
I'm sensing some confusion. You are arguing against the biblical version of creation. Pro i believe is arguing that the universe and evolution were caused and are not just random events.
Posted by Willows 10 months ago
Willows
A myth is defined as a widely held but false idea. A theory is a set of principles upon which the practice of an activity is based. The theory of evolution and the beginnings of the first forms of life (as outlined in the first round of my debate) have been thoroughly researched through hard evidence and properly conducted experiments. To date this research nor any other viable evidence has been produced that show any signs of intervention by means of creation.
Most evidence in favour of creationism has been based on hearsay and myths yet not prove; for example, that the first male human being was made from clay the the first female human being was made from ribs extracted from the first male.
Posted by Furyan5 10 months ago
Furyan5
And yet it remains a theory. You said you have solid, irrefutable evidence that life wasn't created. The theory of evolution makes no claim to the origin of life. Only how we evolved from that life. Please show me proof of how the first living organism came into existence.
Posted by Willows 10 months ago
Willows
The theory of evolution is a theory that has been backed up by solid evidence. For example, fossils of extinct animals have been found dated hundreds of thousands of years showing similarities between extinct and living species. To date there has been no solid evidence found to support the theory of creation.
Posted by Furyan5 10 months ago
Furyan5
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.

Bold claim. I would be very interested in hearing this irrefutable evidence as the greatest minds in science can only offer theories as to how life came into existence. Apart from that, we have no example of life coming into existence except from a living organism. So where did the first living creature originate from?
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
infinitly divisible is infinete.. or not real
Posted by Iamsmarter 10 months ago
Iamsmarter
Further, if something is not infinitely divisible, which energy is not, then it must also be finite. Therefore, energy is finite. And since all matter is just a state of energy (e = mc^2), the Universe's total amount of matter is finite as well. If this is the case, it is my contention that any space beyond the bounds of matter or energy originating in the Universe, is in fact not part of reality. Archytas' Paradox of extending a stick at the edge of Universe would seem to dissolve with this conjecture.

Truthfully, time and distance are not objective bases for comparison within the Universe, as evidenced by Einstein's notion of the "subjectivity" of the speed of light.

Energy seems to spontaneously diffuse, as shown by entropic tendencies in thermodynamic interactions. Yet matter seems to spontaneously condense, as shown by the force of gravity. However, matter also spontaneously decays into its most basic components, emitting energy. Noting this, it seems all energy should eventually dissipate. What this implies is an hourglass for all the Universe's interactions, a set script in fact, for the finite destiny of the Universe inching toward a state of irreversible nothingness (since, as far as we know, energy can not be turned into matter, though the other direction is possible).

As soon as no matter is left for the energy to interact with, there is nothing left but electromagnetic waves and neutral subatomic particles, leaving nothing to interact. It is my final conjecture that a lack of interaction is also in fact a lack of existence of the Universe.

To summarize: The Universe must be finite in size and in time because it is finite in energy. The fact it is finite, and that all reactions that ever will occur are already destined to occur by the physical forces that control everything (including my own typing of this and your own reading of this), is to me conclusive proof that the Universe was at some point initiated by some ordered phenomenon, thus
This debate has 0 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.