The Instigator
CanWeKnow
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Ameliamk1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Probable existence of a natural God

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...
CanWeKnow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 962 times Debate No: 34483
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

CanWeKnow

Pro

I'd like to start off by saying that this debate is not meant to be a political one. It is not meant to implicate obligations to morality, etc. It is only meant to debate the possibility of a God that exists in accordance with the known functionality of the universe. In no way does this existence imply validity of religion, morality, after life, or consciousness.

That being said, I would like to use the first round for acceptance of rules and definitions, second for opening statements and any immediate refutations, third for further elaboration, and fourth for summarization of each side's own argument in a concise and understandable format.

I will be debating Pro for the probable existence (likely existence) of a God entity that exists with acceptable violation of the known functionality of the universe.

Con will debate for the improbable (unlikely) OR impossible (0% likely) existence of a God entity that exists with acceptable violation of the known functionality of the universe.






        • I emphasize "with acceptable violation" because as we know, Science is not absolute, no theory or law is concrete, and there is room for some seemingly unnatural/unexplainable behavior. Often science contradicts itself, but this very contradiction is what makes improvements. These kinds of contradictions are the only ones that I want to make arrangement for.
        • "God" in reference to a conscious being with a physical body.
        • The "God" entity's exact physical properties will remain undefined for debate purposes.
        • "God" entity will for the most part, remain uncharacterized. In other words it will remain unknown if the entity is kind, jealous, angry, etc.
        • Ideally I would like Con to be an informed atheist with reasonable knowledge of Science and perhaps some knowledge of human behavior, but anyone who deems themselves proficient enough in logic & reasoning will be fine.
        • Of course good spelling & grammar is asked, but most imperative is the concise statement of argument (i.e. don't ramble).









Ameliamk1

Con

I am an informed atheist who will be arguing that the existence of a personal God is incredibly implausible, though never impossible.

Confirming: We are debating a physical entity, a personal God, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, who still watches over his creations today, and is responsible for the core processes of the universe.

I look forward to a fun and informative debate!

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
CanWeKnow

Pro

The only part that I would ask that we not debate is the omnibenevolence and personal nature of his character, I don't want to imply that BECAUSE he exists that he must definitely love you and me and everyone else. That's untrue and everybody knows that haha. I hope this doesn't damage your argument, but this is what I wanted to follow from the fourth point in my first round list of bulleted rules.


That being said I would like to thank Con for this chance to argue, as this subject lies a bit closely to anyone's heart who is like me who grew up in a religious home and has now become an agnostic or new atheist.


If we look at the arguments that popular New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have provided that disprove the existence of a God figure we will find that it really boils down to one core issue. If there were to be a God that existed in accordance with the currently known functions of the universe that it would be highly improbable and for the most part impossible. They claim to be fairly certain of this for a few reasons.
  • As humans we are extremely complex beings who came to be through evolution, to postulate a God's existence simply because we do not know what caused the first cause is would mean that an even more complex being would have had to been the prime mover and designer of the universe.
  • The idea of intelligent design is simply an illusion. Clearly there are many biological and cosmological functions that serve no divine purpose and in truth are not designed intelligent, that is to say they aren't designed well.
  • Any God who works through an institution that creates so much strife in the world or allows this pain and entropy to exist clearly is not who it's disciples claim it to be.
  • Any argument for God is a Godofthegaps argument, or rather arguing from ignorance. God is a lazy and improbable answer for a fundamental question.
Basically, God is an answer, it's just not a very smart one.





For the most part I concede most of these points, but I disagree in the most vital area. The point of my argument will be this, at this point in time it has become a greater than or equal to rational decision to believe in a God who lives within the boundaries of Science. For the most part these arguments have already been hashed out by atheists and theists, however I believe most theists fail to connect the dots because of their need to implicate such a complex God. This is where my story will come into play.

Let's imagine ourselves one billion years into the future. Humanity has solved almost ALL of it's problems. There is no more hunger, violence, tyranny, malady, or suffering. Over the past billion years we as humans have evolved quite efficiently. Our bodies are much more resilient and we live to be over 200 years old naturally, however most of us have nanotechnology implanted at birth that makes us effectively immortal. In this world the technology is so advanced that if it were shown to a human of our time that it would be indistinguishable from magic or miracle. There is however one fall back of this universal happiness. As the human race sits at the top of the universe having accomplished all of their goals, achieved all of their dreams, cured all of their maladies, they begin to grow restless. As we know it's much harder to do nothing than it is to do something. If there is nothing that humans can possibly do more in order to improve their own well being and the well being of their environment than what else is there to possibly do? Humans have mastered the elements, the atoms, the particles, the Higgs Bosons and the future unknown particles that are yet to be found.

I can certainly tell you what I would do. I would play God. Without a doubt in my mind I can say that in a existence one billion years from now it is highly likely that all of humanity's problems will no longer exist. Yes, there are forms of entertainment yet unforeseeable that are to be had in this future, but nothing could possibly be more fulfilling than creating, watching, and enjoying the scramble of a baby race to come to maturity as it struggles with it's identity, it's maladies, and it's nature. Utilizing their expansive knowledge and abilities this futuristic human race gives birth to a new universe in a new dimension that is separate from their own. From knowledge of their own universe they create a Big Bang and seemingly create something out of nothing. They watch as the stars from, the planets coalesce, and the galaxies are born. Eventually a race not completely unlike our own, now ancient, forms on a planet with conditions not too unlike ours has come about through evolution. They examine their surroundings and slowly develop technology that cures their sufferings, that ends hunger, that ensures world peace, that ends crime. Over a billion years now they have gained power over their natural surroundings. The cycle begins again, and they play God by setting a new universe into motion in a new dimension.

Throughout that whole time though the previous God race has been watching. Very rarely interfering, sometimes playing cruel jokes like creating tragedy or placing seemingly divine scripture into society. They don't correct evolutionary mistakes because it's unnecessary. They do this to help their new race come to maturity, because improvement can't be had if there is nothing to improve upon. These rare interferences are done with such advanced technology that it is indistinguishable from magic by the baby race and they entertain the idea of Gods similar to the ones we have seen in the past and today. If multiple Gods this accounts for the wildly varying religions we have seen. This answers my own personal question of if not one religion why not all religions?

  • We know that it is very possible that there are separate dimensions. We do not know what the state of these dimensions are, that is to say we don't know how far or how little the universe has unfolded in each of these dimensions. If they are infinite it is not inconceivable that there is a race advanced enough to control the natural laws.
  • We also know that if you advanced technology enough it would be indistinguishable from magic for the uninformed user. Any one who was shown a microwave 1000 years ago would have claimed us to be sorcerers or magicians.
  • Human nature is to create and improve. Families create babies. Politicians create legislation, that is aimed at improving the quality of life but is often impeded by stupidity or corruptness. Scientists advance technology. Doctors improve health. Artists create beauty.
  • God creates man. or Advanced more intelligent man creates something similar to man.


I'm saying here that the human experience does not have to be unique in the fact that we are the first and the last intelligent race to exist. Rather than explaining our existence by stating that something came out of nothing, or that DNA just exists, or that particles just appeared and started moving, or that we don't really know but we do know it had a beginning, wouldn't it make the most rational sense to say that a God or God-like people set our universe into motion, watched as it unfolded, and just enjoyed doing it. There is no need to say that these Gods communicate with us and care about us and love us all. It's perhaps very conceivable that we are just a "play toy" to God and that it doesn't actually matter if we are happy. This answer isn't comforting, but it's not supposed to be. We don't need a personal god. God could have even made us by accident and not care about or know about our existence, but this does not change the validity of this option.


We don't have to find God by looking into the past. We can look into the future and see it in ourselves. We have the potential to be God. If it's possible that intelligence existed before us then why could it not have achieved what we might achieve?

For these reasons, God is an answer, and it is a smart one.

Ameliamk1

Con

I have to say, this is the first God debate I've been in for a long time that actually surprised me. Interesting concept.

However, the one problem is the same problem with the supernatural God theories: evidence.

While your progression of events makes logical sense (kinda, ill go into that later), there is much that you have to assume before you postulate such a far-fetched theory. Here is a brief list of things you have to know:

-There is more than one dimension
-There is other intelligent life in the universe
-These creatures are very much like humans
-They have the power to control the functions of the universe

These are the basic premises you have to pretty much be sure of before you even start to convincingly approach such an idea. While there are theories concerning all of them, none are at all well supported. Next, here are some basic questions you would have to answer about this theory.

1.Why would these "God" creatures want to keep themselves hidden?

2. What is the point of subjecting us to pain? To learn? If their so advanced they can control the universe, don't they pretty much know everything?

3. Define "another dimension".

4. How do they effect things on earth without us noticing? Remember, you have to keep within the bounds of known science.

Refutation:
1. "We know that it is very possible that there are separate dimensions. We do not know what the state of these dimensions are, that is to say we don't know how far or how little the universe has unfolded in each of these dimensions. If they are infinite it is not inconceivable that there is a race advanced enough to control the natural laws."

Once again, the lack of any scientific support renders this rather pointless. There is a theory that there are separate dimensions. In other words, there is a chance. We don't know how it works, where it might be, or even whether it exists. You stretch this way too far to make any coherent sense.

2. "We also know that if you advanced technology enough it would be indistinguishable from magic for the uninformed user. Any one who was shown a microwave 1000 years ago would have claimed us to be sorcerers or magicians."

This point is somewhat valid. However, in today's world, with very rational and cynical minds, there is little to nothing that we would take as magic. We have such an understanding of what is scientifically possible, and if this magical world is subject to the same rules, then nothing they could do would be taken as magic.

3. "Human nature is to create and improve. Families create babies. Politicians create legislation, that is aimed at improving the quality of life but is often impeded by stupidity or corruptness. Scientists advance technology. Doctors improve health. Artists create beauty."

That's a another debate entirely. I wold argue that human nature is to survive and reach the top of the social hierarchy. Also, I'm not really sure what this point is attempting to prove. If it is showing that we as a race advance, then that is valid, although you really didn't need to make it so complicated.

4. God creates man. or Advanced more intelligent man creates something similar to man.

Isn't that what we're debating?

Points Against:

1. While this theory is certainly different than the God practiced in most religions today, one question that still needs to be answered is: how were these things created? Were they just naturally created? Is there a long line of civilizations leading down to us, the first of which came about naturally? If so, isn't is just as likely we were created naturally? There is no reason to assume there is a race or races above us created naturally, when we could have been created naturally just as plausibly.

2. Mapping the exact capability and behavior of super-advanced creatures like us in the future is impossible. What makes you so sure we would run out of things to do? If there are multiple dimensions and possibly endless space within all of existence, why would we run out of things to do? And couldn't we just play video games and watch TV like we did now? Why would creating a planet for other creatures to control be any better? Thinking you can understand technology and behavior of future, far more advanced humans is ridiculous.

3. You assume evolution is capable of more than it is. Remember, evolution has to stick to scientific principles as well. It may not be possible to extend creatures like ourselves' lives to the 200 years you suggest. Our brains may not be able to expand in order to create such advanced technology as would be required to make and control an alien world.

In conclusion, you assume far too much, have no evidence besides some mostly unsupported theories, and fail to give any kind of detail besides a broad outline. This theory is just as unlikely as the God theories suggested by most religions.
Debate Round No. 2
CanWeKnow

Pro

I do think it is a stretch to make any of these assumptions, but does it make more sense to make these kind of assumptions than it does to make an atheistic assumption?

Which makes me ask the question, what is the atheistic assumption? From my understanding the point of atheism has to make is that we don't know but it's lazy to assume God. We can't explain why religion exists other than that we made it up to fool our future selves.

I mean what have we done in Science when we didn't know how things were happening? We didn't say it just happens because it's supernatural God doing the work. We proposed an idea that sometimes seemed ridiculous and worked from there. I'm not trying to say that my preposterous story is what will actually happen or what might have happened, but I am saying that this is a starting point for understanding our existence. I am trying to take God as scientifically as I possibly can here.

What I am trying to accomplish with this debate is figure out if it's possible, and if so to refine it.
:) I'm trying to make the unifying theory that will combine Science and Religion. It's the M-theory of reality.

So is it really the dumb answer to say "This kind of God is the best answer we have right now. We aren't 100% sure about it, and I'm sure that there are some elements that need to be reviewed, but this is the best answer to how WE came into existence at the moment."
OR
is it less intelligent to say "We don't know and we can't explain what caused the first cause, but there is no God."

Because to me, this is a scientific hypothesis that we can actually consider in comparison to Religious propositions of how things came about. The best part here is that in no way should accepting this have any implication on an atheistic or agnostic lifestyle. It's something that we can accept as non-believers in religion without changing our lifestyle or our philosophical world view.

O.K. That aside, why is this the best Scientific answer?

Let's start by addressing Con's questions.

1.Why would these "God" creatures want to keep themselves hidden?
In order to create the same kind of conditions which they themselves had endured. Also, for entertainment.

2. What is the point of subjecting us to pain? To learn? If their so advanced they can control the universe, don't they pretty much know everything?
Again, it's to create similar conditions that they endured. They themselves don't want to learn. They want us to learn. Have you ever watched "The Truman Show" a 1998 film by Peter Weir? If you try to understand the psyche of the "show's" director then you will understand the kind of mindset I am projecting onto these "God" creatures.(1)

3. Define "another dimension".
A universe in which there are 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. I guess I should have clarified by saying that we are part of a multiverse and we are but one universe in this multiverse. This is what I meant by "another dimension". I really should have said "parallel dimension".

4. How do they effect things on earth without us noticing? Remember, you have to keep within the bounds of known science.
It depends on what things they wish to effect. Say that a meteor crashed into Earth and killed half of the population and that God did it. How? Well maybe they catapulted it from the other side of the universe with extreme precision using rockets or whatever type of propulsion technology they have. Hurricanes? While we have a basic understanding of weather patterns we still have anomalies. That is to say there are things that happen outside of our understanding. It doesn't mean they happened through supernatural means. I am assuming here that most intervention happened in the past and little to no intervention happens now. Again, this is an assumption, but most radical science findings started this way.

The concise answer to number four is that they can because we don't understand all wordly functions and can't measure every factor that influences them. When there comes a time that we can they will presumably have stopped interfering. It's a convenient answer but it's the only one I can make.

In response to your refutations of my previous points:

1. Once again, the lack of any scientific support renders this rather pointless. There is a theory that there are separate dimensions. In other words, there is a chance. We don't know how it works, where it might be, or even whether it exists. You stretch this way too far to make any coherent sense.

I wouldn't say that parallel dimensions lacks scientific support. We have M-Theory, String Theory, and Quantum Theory that provide some support for parallel dimensions. We aren't sure if any of these theories are 100% correct but that doesn't mean we can't utilize them to make the next step. The whole of our science is built off of theories, if we just threw them away we wouldn't get anywhere.

2. This point is somewhat valid. However, in today's world, with very rational and cynical minds, there is little to nothing that we would take as magic. We have such an understanding of what is scientifically possible, and if this magical world is subject to the same rules, then nothing they could do would be taken as magic.

Not sure what YOUR point is haha. My point was aimed more at swaying the theistic reader. Essentially what I was trying to say is that magic and advanced technology are the same thing. Magic has no supernatural properties, it just seems that way.

3. That's a another debate entirely. I would argue that human nature is to survive and reach the top of the social hierarchy. Also, I'm not really sure what this point is attempting to prove. If it is showing that we as a race advance, then that is valid, although you really didn't need to make it so complicated.

Yes, I was just trying to prove the point that man kind likes to advance. I feel like there will always be scientific minds who want to take the next step. I am trying to ask once we reach the top what happens? I think creation happens. This is a stretch admittedly, but I think it is justified in one key way. Time. I never said that these events happen in a timely fashion. It's possible that we reach a peak and just plateau for a while before we figure out that we want to play God. Eventually though, we still end up playing God at some point.

4. Isn't that what we're debating?

What I should have said was,

With this view it would be correct in saying that "God creates man, or in other words, more advanced intelligent man creates something similar to man."

it was a basic summation of my argument. Just in case people forgot.

Response to Points Against:

1. This theory doesn't answer that question. It only answers how WE were created. EVERYTHING is assumed to be created naturally, and that we are descended from a long line of races before us. It could be said that it would mean micro, mezzo, and macro evolution of intelligence as a whole, but that's irrelevant. Like I said before, this is just another Scientific theory we can consider in order to advance ourselves. It doesn't answer what would now become a uber-fundamental question of life's origin in this larger sense.

There is no reason not to assume if it can help us advance in society and in science. This is why I referred to it as a unifying theory for religion and science.

The thing here is that you don't know any better than I do and if we can in fact make some plausible assumptions and use them to our advantage then why not make them? This is how Science works.

2. Refer to Q. 3 above.

3. What makes you so unsure of evolution's possibilities? If we as humans can create computers that exceed our longevity and brain power then it is natural. If you consider the merging of human body with robot body as a mutation then evolution goes on through electronic mutation.

It's not extremely likely, but it's more likely than saying no God exists at all. You can say M-Theory might be true or M-Theory isn't true. Which is the better choice?



1. http://www.imdb.com...

Ameliamk1

Con

I will start by answering your question, what is an atheistic assumption. The atheistic belief is that there is no God. If your looking for a scientific explanation, which often goes hand in hand with atheism, it is that the natural processes of the universe we know today are capable of, and almost certainly did, bring us into existence, rendering a theory of any sort of God beyond the natural workings of the universe null and void. Many scientists and atheists, including myself, refer to a God, but as a concept of the ways of the universe, not as an all-powerful entity.

You also claim in your introduction that scientific theories start as wild ideas that are only supported later. Perhaps this was the way it worked in past centuries, but now their is a strict system of experiment, retrial, and publishing. Now, to be fair, many theories on the dimensions rather than the processes of the universe go more or less unsupported, which takes some of the backing out of your already lacking theory.

A scientific theory is defined by dictionary.com as: "a theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable". Your theory is quite similar to a supernatural God because it cannot really be falsified. There will always be a way this master race could keep themselves hidden and control us, with some kind of technology, the same way a supernatural God could. Your theory, simply by definition, is already stretching the bounds of science.

I will move on to refutations and questions, but first there is one point I would like you to specifically respond to, so I will number it.

1. Let's consider likelihood. Your theory simply diverts the question from 'what created us', to 'what created our creators'. Your conclusion, as you said in the last paragraph, is that the natural processes we have a scientific understanding of today probably created our creators. So my questions is: why is the master race creating us, having been created naturally themselves, more likely a theory than us being created naturally, and them never existing, especially since their is no evidence for the former.

Question Response

1. "In order to create the same kind of conditions which they themselves had endured. Also, for entertainment."

I suppose. But how do you know the conditions they endured are similar to us, and how do you know that they're similar in psyche to humans?

2. "Again, it's to create similar conditions that they endured. They themselves don't want to learn. They want us to learn. Have you ever watched "The Truman Show" a 1998 film by Peter Weir? If you try to understand the psyche of the "show's" director then you will understand the kind of mindset I am projecting onto these "God" creatures.(1)"

I suppose. But again, your assuming other creatures in the universe would think like humans. And wouldn't their minds be too advanced to enjoy such menial entertainment, since apparently their bored of video games and TV?

3. "A universe in which there are 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. I guess I should have clarified by saying that we are part of a multiverse and we are but one universe in this multiverse. This is what I meant by "another dimension". I really should have said "parallel dimension"."

This theory of multiple universes is interesting, and I found a good article on it. (1) However, the one thing all of the theories lack is support. We simply do not know, because we cannot perceive outside a certain area. The very theories for which your unsupported theory goes off of are unsupported.

4. "It depends on what things they wish to effect. Say that a meteor crashed into Earth and killed half of the population and that God did it. How? Well maybe they catapulted it from the other side of the universe with extreme precision using rockets or whatever type of propulsion technology they have. Hurricanes? While we have a basic understanding of weather patterns we still have anomalies. That is to say there are things that happen outside of our understanding. It doesn't mean they happened through supernatural means. I am assuming here that most intervention happened in the past and little to no intervention happens now. Again, this is an assumption, but most radical science findings started this way."

Again, do you have any evidence of this? Lets take the meteor example. I assume you included this sample because you thought it was something we could not explain. However, we do have quite a capacity to trace asteroids back to their sources. (2) What I'm saying here is you are using this theory to explain what you think we don't know. You didn't say volcanoes are caused by this God race. Why not? Because you know we understand them. If you formulated this theory 500 years ago, you would include volcanoes as an example, because we didn't understand them then. This theory is just as much a "God of the Gaps" as any theological God. You concede it yourself by saying "The concise answer to number four is that they can because we don't understand all wordly functions and can't measure every factor that influences them."

Refutations:

1. "I wouldn't say that parallel dimensions lacks scientific support. We have M-Theory, String Theory, and Quantum Theory that provide some support for parallel dimensions. We aren't sure if any of these theories are 100% correct but that doesn't mean we can't utilize them to make the next step. The whole of our science is built off of theories, if we just threw them away we wouldn't get anywhere."

True, you can use those ideas to advance your case. However, you are stretching them to the point of breaking. The number of unlikely theories you use makes your case scientifically invalid. First, you assume there are multiple universes. Second, you assume there is a master race there, far older and more advanced then ours. Third, you assume it is possible to bridge between universes. Fourth, you assume they work similar to us in psyche. Fifth, you assume they had the means to create us. Sixth, you assume they created us and have kept hidden while still interfering in the world.

2. Lets drop this point, its a bit useless. Feel free though to continue it.

3. Also a bit pointless, but your right, humans will continue to advance in the foreseeable future, assuming we don't kill ourselves off.

Response to Points Against:

1. I'm running out of characters, so I will no longer copy and paste your points. I made the point toward the beginning of this, which is that your theory explains how we were created, but not how they were, and if they were created naturally, as you suggest they were, then it is no more likely that your theory is true rather than us having been created, and the other race not existing. As for not knowing any better, your right we do not know the answer to many of these great questions, but we understand the processes by which we had to come about, so postulating a theory just as unlikely, when we already know the process, is a waste of time.

2. The question you referred to did not really answer my previous point. My point was that we know humans advance, but to pretend to be able to map the not just physical, but psychological path of an entire other race is rather silly.

3. Your right, I am unsure of evolution's capabilities, which is my point. You assume that evolution can continue to always take us to new levels. Evolution also has to stay within the bounds of science, and we do not know whether it is capable of making us or another race super-beings.

Your theory is impossible to disprove, which is why this debate continues, but its existence is not on all fours with its non-existence. The burden of proof is on you, and I have not seen any convincing evidence, theoretical or physical, to suggest your theory is at all valid.

(1). http://www.space.com...

(2). http://www.redorbit.com...
Debate Round No. 3
CanWeKnow

Pro

That's the beauty of the theory though. This very realistically merges the supernatural and intangible reality of religion with the cold hard empirical views of science. It's a step in the right direction for humanity if we can use it to end religious conflict and bring science to the forefront of the public.

In talking with many somewhat rational religious believers they tell me that it always comes down to one thing: faith. If we can shift that faith into this unifying theory that is dynamic in it's form then we now have a loose form of religion that is no longer controlled by clergy or the papacy, it is controlled by the scientific community.

I also see where this part of my argument is very dangerous, but this theory is an appeal to emotional appeasement. All religious believers will argue that faith is not a science it's a feeling. It's a feeling that you get. It's God. Now the problem there is that they "feel" a dogmatic and controlling God that tells them how to eat, sleep, and breathe. I think it would be correct in saying that at some point or another we have all felt as if we were subject to some kind of higher power. We have all felt that sense of "God" and that curiousity to know more about the God that created us. I suppose I am making the natrualistic fallacy here, but it's natural to want to know and feel God. How can it therefore be worse of a choice to operate under this vague, deistic, and dynamic God? Are you really willing to say that your instinct is flat out wrong? Theism requires supression of the mind, but Atheism requires supression of emotion. I want to combine the two as if emotion was some kind of tangible evidence. I realize very clearly that what I am saying here is complete non-sense to any with an empirical evidence based mindset.


For this theory to sit on all fours it requires one to assume emotion, feeling, or intuiton as evidence that works in tandem with current scientific views. Logically, concsciously, rationally, it would make no sense to, but that's because intuiton is an unconscious process. Are we going to keep on denying that we are subconscious creatures?

It's true that this theory set's its footholds on weak evidence. I won't deny that. But it sets out to explain something that we haven't been able to explain yet. What are the reasons that religion was created? Purely to control the minds of it's followers for years to come? Solely to inspire irrational behavior and promote false moral values? Why would any human do this? Do you mean to tell me that every religious higher up in today's world, the Roman, Greek, and Aztec world ALL purposely decieve in order to have power? Their life's work would have revolved around spinning such elaborate tales all for what? To fool pretty witty at the end of the day having known they fooled the world? I think if anything that's a tall tale to believe in. My theory proposed that it could be any number of "Gods" fooling around with humanity because they want US to learn and advance. It could be possible that they wish to entertain themselves as they watch our religious squabbles. We are their entertainment child. They want drama, they want struggle, but the still want a happy end.

What I am asking for people to consider is basically this: At the end of the day, ALL evidence considered, it's more probable to say that this Deistic type of God exists, rather than No God at all.
Ameliamk1

Con

Your first summary point was that your theory bridges the supernatural with science. The only problem with this is you are using science to fulfill certain parts of your theory that does not exist. We do not even know if it is possible to cross between universes, or get past what is between. We don't even have a strong case that there are multiple universes, much less intelligent life on one of them. Your theory takes the concepts of science and stretches them to the point of complete incoherence.

Although you first say your theory does not require faith, you then say "For this theory to sit on all fours it requires one to assume emotion, feeling, or intuiton as evidence that works in tandem with current scientific views". How do you put emotions inside a living thing? That is not something you can do scientifically. Also, all emotions serve an evolutionary advantage, such as sadness, which makes other take pity in us, shame, which shows others we are sorry, and jealousy, which inspires us to beat our competitors and reach the top.

For all your talk of your theory combining science and bridging faith and science, how honestly likely do you think your theory is? It is slightly better than the theological God, as it does sorta use science, but you theory is truly a "God of the Gaps" and I would put its likelihood at about 1.5%, half a percent higher than that of the religious Gods.

Thank you for a very interesting debate, Sir.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CanWeKnow 3 years ago
CanWeKnow
Like I said in the exposition, this wasn't necessarily a debate that I had my heart set on winning. I realized it was very possible that I couldn't make a good case, and I am fine with that. This was more of an intellectual process for me. This doesn't change how I feel about God either. For the most part I am still an Atheist. That's what being intelligent is all about, carefully considering ALL of the options and then deciding from there. It's not consideration if you don't actually think about it. You have to put yourself into everyone else's shoes because you don't know what kind of valuables you might find in their pockets.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 3 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Nice try, but no cigar. I quote: "debate the possibility of a God that exists in accordance with the known functionality of the universe" --there is nothing in what is known that allows us to do something like create another (alternate) universe, and yet you presume that some alternate universe might exist, and have functionality equivalent to what we know, AND allow beings existing there to do something like set off the Big Bang for OUR universe. The logic doesn't hold.

And so, I dare say you are mulitplying assumptions unnecessarily, in violation of Occam's Razor.
Posted by CanWeKnow 3 years ago
CanWeKnow
The point I made that solves this problem though is that they didnt have to exist in OUR universe. They can easily have lived in a parallel dimension.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 3 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Considering that one of the major, primary claims about God is that God Created the Universe (even if God did nothing more than set off the Big Bang), it becomes logically impossible for God, as an actual entity, to exist in a manner that depends on the Universe existing first. Which seems to me to throw a rather large monkey wrench into the major premise of this Debate.

On the other hand, there is Clarke's Law (one of them), which states that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Taken to the extreme, a sufficiently advanced technology might even be called "supernatural". It is known that the Aztecs thought some gods had come to visit, when Cortez arrived --what would they think of people carrying today's technologies?

However, the preceding leads to a kind of dilemma. As a technologically sophisticated culture, what would it take for one of its well-educated members to declare that someone from an even-more-advanced culture had godly and not merely technically enhanced powers? Our modern "base level" of knowledge tends to immunize us from seeing others the way the Aztecs saw Cortez!

Which in turn implies it could be very difficult for any entity that is part of this physical universe to set self up as a believable God over us. And so again does a premise of this Debate seem to have a major problem.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
CanWeKnowAmeliamk1Tied
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: I just felt that Pro convinced me in this argument. You both had good conduct.