The Instigator
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Khaz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Science makes Atheism hard to believe

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 92066
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

brontoraptor

Pro

I'll be voting Pro in this debate and arguing that science makes Atheism hard to believe.

1st Round: Acceptance

All other rounds: Anything goes.
Khaz

Con

I'm down - impress me.
Debate Round No. 1
brontoraptor

Pro

Materialism is an atheistic philosophy that says that all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions, a finite sense of reality. It has gained ground because many people think that it’s supported by science. In their dreams...

"Reality is merely an illusion, allbeit a very persistant one."

-Albert Einstein

-

While exploring the mathematics of string theory, Theoretical Physicist James Gates and his researchers discovered something rather bizzare buried within the mathematical equations of super symmetry.

What they found was computer code. And it isn’t just random 1’s and 0’s. Strangely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software. Specifically? Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code.

theawakenment.com/theoretical-physicist-james-gates-finds-computer-code-in-string-theory-equation/#sthash.oNiHGmYy.dpbs



Here is a video of an interview with James Gates:


*

Egocentric Predicament-

A term coined by Ralph Barton Perry: The problem of not being able to view reality outside of our own perceptions. All worldly knowledge takes the form of mental representations that our mind examines in different ways. Direct contact with reality cannot be made outside of our own minds; therefore, we cannot be sure reality even exists.

Want a mild proof? Fold your tongue over with your teeth so that a part of it is upside down. Touch the upside down part of your tongue with your finger. Your brain will view the sensation as if you are touching the top of the tongue as you normally would be...

*

DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT & (principle of wave particle duality)-

The modern double slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.

Because it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the ability of the observer to predict experimental results, Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible.

The double slit experiment shows scientific proof that there is something NOT quite logical or scientific about this universe. The simple act of observation will completely change the outcome of an event.

When a camera observed the electrons, they acted as particles. However, when no equipment was used to observe the electrons, they acted as waves and particles simultaneously.

So what’s the reason for this? Does the electron somehow know that it is being watched? That was the only “logical” reason that scientists could come up with.


Double Slit Experiment Clip-


*

Infinite vs Finite Reality

If reality is finite, atheists must convince themselves of the fsirytale that an object can exist inside of nothing. Picture a basketball. Picture it hanging with nothing outside of it...

If reality is infinite and history is infinite, then everything that can exist does exist and infinitely. Tjere are infinite you's, me's, Earth's, infinite everything. There was not a first you, no first me, no first anything. You are one of an un-numbered, infinite amount of you's. This also includes the highest conceivable, highest possible being who mastered a of reality.

Reality 101

Neither model is real in a material reality. Something never exists inside of nothing, and no material thing is ever infinite. There is no materialistic way for our reality to exist...but, there is a nonmaterialistic way.

A video game CAN never end. Its world can never end. It can be endless. How? It isn't materialistic. It's all within the construct of a computer program. A program loop can keep repeating infinitely and reverting back to its beginning infinitely over and over...

It can also recycle back to its beginning infinitely while reproducing random realities infinitely. Some games are advertised as "Never play the same game twice." This is why.

How to program loop-


Is this a simulation? We can't even exist unless it is. Welcome to the matrix. You're in it...
Khaz

Con

Materialism is an atheistic philosophy that says that all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions, a finite sense of reality.

Well, that's not the philosophy I espouse. There are plenty of things I don't know or claim to know. I wouldn't ever make such an assertion.

"Reality is merely an illusion, allbeit a very persistant [sic] one."
-Albert Einstein

I doubt Einstein would have made such a spelling mistake as that.
Yes, it's irrelevant to the argument, but I still have over 7500 characters left. No reason not to.

While exploring the mathematics of string theory...

String theory is also not a well-established theory of reality. Even calling it a theory is a travesty of language - really it should be called string hypothesis, if even. It's debatable in the scientific community whether or not string theory makes any predictions or testable claims, which are two necessities of scientific theories.

Using string theory as established science that somehow contradicts atheism in any form is very premature.

The double slit experiment shows scientific proof that there is something NOT quite logical or scientific about this universe.

Logical to us, because I seriously doubt you, as a theist, believe that human logic is the ultimate arbiter of what is truly "logical". All that the experiment establishes is that there is something fundamental about our universe that we don't understand, and may never. But I fail to see how this proves that God exists unless we resort to a god-of-the-gaps.

If reality is infinite and history is infinite, then everything that can exist does exist and infinitely. Tjere are infinite you's, me's, Earth's, infinite everything. There was not a first you, no first me, no first anything. You are one of an un-numbered, infinite amount of you's.

Whether or not this is an integral part of atheism (spoiler: it's not), I fail to see what's wrong with this. I don't particularly believe it, but what is the matter with it from a logical or philosophical perspective?



A lot of this post seems to just be preachy gibberish with little to no real relation to the topic at hand. Hopefully someone can confirm that I'm not crazy in the comments?
Debate Round No. 2
brontoraptor

Pro

-Whether you adhere to String Theory or not, the binary pattern still exists.

Con:

"String theory is also not a well-established theory of reality. Even calling it a theory is a travesty of language."

Well, this sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before?

Secular scientist and biologist, David Berlinski said that ,"Darwinian evolution is not even worth being called a theory."



Darwinism is a theory. Why? It's never been observed, it is not testable, measurable, or even provable. To believe in it is not evidence based, thus faith based. I go with the evidence.


*

The move of atheism was sparked by Darwinian Evolution. It was to make God unneccessary. If God was unneccessary, we didn't need a god.

82% of atheists believe in Darwinian Evolution where other groups average about 43%. So, Darwinian Evolution has become a key general component of Atheism. It's a core belief.


The finds used to claim the very rare "intermediaries" are fudged. I don't think that. I know that. It has become a money making machine. Find an intermediary $$$$...

(Change of kind? Nope-)


*

Intermediary Finds-Reality 101

"Whales from hyenas, Walking Whales, and such....oh my"


*

"Faith is the great cop out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

-Richard Dawkins

It looks like we agree on some of this. I'm yet to see any evidence that gives me faith in atheism. None. I've seen evidence of intelligent design. So which should I put my faith in? The evidence or the lack of evidence?

*

"What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world they live in."

-Richard Dawkins

So...I love science. I understand a lot of things and on a deep level. Has Mr. Dawkins become satisfied with not understanding the world he lives in? According to my research and the research of others, his version of evolution is dogmatic, faith based, and delusional, a denial of evidence, a denial of reality.

*

Con:

"What is the matter with it from a logical or philosophical perspective?"

You believe in magic, get God by Darwinian means by infinity as its highest possible and conceivable being, or you get God by unknown means/self existance. Either way, philosophically, you get a god.

*

Con:

"Well, that's not the philosophy I espouse. There are plenty of things I don't know or claim to know. I wouldn't ever make such an assertion."

What philosophy do you espouse?

*

Richard Dawkins in an interview with Ben Stein-

"And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

*

Fred Hoyle, the "Father of Nucleosynthesis"

Because of the origin and probability of the elements and reality ever coming to be, Hoyle stated his findings had shaken his atheism.

Khaz

Con

Whether you adhere to String Theory or not, the binary pattern still exists.

Yeah, but it matters if that binary pattern actually applies to reality.

Secular scientist and biologist, David Berlinski

Appeals to authority are bad enough, but they're worse when the person you're appealing to doesn't even have authority in the field you say they do. He's not a scientist, he's a philosopher by education.

Darwinism is a theory. Why?

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge"
(https://en.wikipedia.org...)

The move of atheism was sparked by Darwinian Evolution. It was to make God unneccessary. If God was unneccessary, we didn't need a god.

[citation needed]

You do realize that not everyone has to have an explanation for everything, right? People can be atheists and just not know or claim to know all the answers. Or any of the answers, really. Not everyone is in the same mindset where every question has to have a positive answer. It's not a matter of whether God is necessary or not because one can simply admit ignorance and move on with life.

82% of atheists believe in Darwinian Evolution where other groups average about 43%. So, Darwinian Evolution has become a key general component of Atheism. It's a core belief.

This is a non-sequitur. Even if that logic could be considered sound, only 80% of a group believing in something could hardly make a case for it being a core belief. I can understand a few outliers not believing in an important aspect of a belief system, but 1 in 5? Let's not get ridiculous. The only thing that constitutes an atheist is a lack of belief in gods.
That's it. Nothing else, no matter how common among atheists, is a "core" part of atheism.

Change of kind? Nope

Define "kinds" please.


"What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world they live in."

-Richard Dawkins
...

"Faith is the great cop out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

-Richard Dawkins


Thanks for quoting Dawkins, I guess? I don't really care what he has to say because he's not my religious leader. I disagree that accepting ignorance is a bad thing, at least in most cases.


According to my research and the research of others, his version of evolution is dogmatic, faith based, and delusional, a denial of evidence, a denial of reality.


Whether or not I accept your claim at face value (I don't), I still don't care. I'm not Dawkins. Perhaps we should try sticking to the topic at hand? Just a thought.


You believe in magic, get God by Darwinian means by infinity as its highest possible and conceivable being, or you get God by unknown means/self existance. Either way, philosophically, you get a god.

Infinity is an abstract concept, not a god. I'd appreciate if we didn't play the semantics game. Although, I guess it's my fault for not establishing a strong definition of "god" right off the bat.

What philosophy do you espouse?

I told you, and I have it in my bio thing or whatever. Agnosticism. I don't know whether God exists.

*

Then you quote Dawkins again, and I'm not even going to bother to quote you here, because again, it has no bearing on the topic at hand.

Because of the origin and probability of the elements and reality ever coming to be, Hoyle stated his findings had shaken his atheism.

There's no way he could have known the probability of the origin of the elements or "reality". And if you also include life in that, there's no way anyone could know that either because we don't know how large the universe is.
Debate Round No. 3
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

"Yeah, but it matters if that binary pattern actually applies to reality."

It does apply to reality. The construct of reality is what String Theory is based on. The construct of binary code is a fact within the equations used to describe the universe. A fact has been applied to String Theory. The equations used to describe the universe stand seperate from String Theory. It's like saying Evolution is not a fact because Darwinian theory is a theory. Darwinian theory is still theoretical. There are basic constructs within Evolution theory that are not theoretical. They stand as facts by themselves, such as variation within species. If Darwinism is false, that does not make variation within species false.



*

Con:

"He's not a scientist..."

False:

Berlinski was a researcher in molecular biology at Columbia University, and was a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France.



*

Con:

"Nothing else, no matter how common among atheists, is a "core" part of atheism."

It is to most atheists as I've already cited. This statement is like saying the Sermon on the Mount is not a core part of Christianity or the Shahada is not a core part of Islam because not ALL espouse to it. Technically true, but not honest intellectually for the concept in general.

*

Con:

"Define "kinds" please.

Change in kind:

"For a dog to show attributes outside of the construct of K-9. For a dog to begat characteristics that are not doglike."

Example:

A dog begats a puppy with fins, a fluked tail, gills, a feline like meow, a chirp, wings, hide, a beak, hooves, a bill, sonar, photosynthesis, ability to change color in seconds, talons, tentacles, 8 legs, etc and its offspring begats this same change to its offspring, then to the next offspring, etc. examplifying a change in kind.

*

Con:

"I disagree that accepting ignorance is a bad thing, at least in most cases."

Con is fine with ignorance.

*

Con:

"Infinity is an abstract concept, not a god."

Infinity = "all possible things available to Darwinism" by definition and mathematical law, if Darwinism exists. If it does not exist, that would give atheism no explanation for life and lean us heavily towards intelligent design from outside of the construct of our reality.

*

Con:

"I don't know whether God exists."

*

Con:

"we don't know how large the universe is."

It doesn't matter. The universe/reality is still one of 2 things: finite or infinite. If reality is finite we are asked to believe in magical thinking which states that a basketball can exist inside of nothing. If reality is infinite, a god exists by default within the mathematical construct of infinity, whether by Darwinian means or another means.

*

Con uses this statement to give power to Darwinian Theory:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge."

(Ironically, Darwinism fails the scientific method: cannot be observed, tested, measured...)

Then Con does not use the same application to String Theory.

Con:

"String theory is also not a well-established theory of reality. Even calling it a theory is a travesty of language."

(Citation needed)

*

MORE POINTS:

The Fermi Paradox, based off of the Drake Equation states that by probability alone, just our small piece of the galaxy should be teaming with intelligent life if Darwinism is true. Where is everyone?



Hmmm...looks like it's just us...
Khaz

Con

It does apply to reality.
Dr. Gates (the guy you cited) himself only went so far as to say,

"If you believe in that description, I can show you the presence of those codes,"

"If" is a word that prefaces a conditional statement in this case.

It was in the video you sent me around the two-minute mark.

Berlinski was a researcher in molecular biology at Columbia University, and was a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France.

What I meant was that he has no degrees in science (hence "philosopher by education"), but I admit that it was my fault for not articulating that better.

Darwinian theory is still theoretical.

I don't think you read the definition of theory that I gave.

It is to most atheists as I've already cited.

It doesn't matter if most atheists believe it. That doesn't make it a core part of atheism. What you're doing is just like saying that since most atheists believe in germ theory, germ theory is a core belief of atheism. It's not true. There's exactly one aspect of a person within the purview of atheism, and that's whether or not they believe in a god.

This statement is like saying the Sermon on the Mount is not a core part of Christianity

I was under the impression that a Christian was a person who believed in all the teachings of Christ, at least. I could be wrong, but I'm confident that the percentage of Christians that adhere to that Sermon on the Mount is much higher than 80%. Probably higher than 95%. At any rate, the difference is that the Sermon on the Mount directly addresses a subject within the purview of the term "Christian," (namely philosophical beliefs about Jesus), whereas evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God.

or the Shahada is not a core part of Islam because not ALL espouse to it
You realize that the Shahada is the statement, "There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God," right? If you don't believe that, you're not a Muslim. Full stop. In fact, according to this website (http://www.islamreligion.com...), that's the only thing you have to do to convert to Islam:

"These Arabic words mean, 'There is no true god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God.' Once a person says the Testimony of Faith with conviction and understanding its meaning, then he/she has become a Muslim."

Bad example.


Change in kind: "For a dog to show attributes outside of the construct of K-9. For a dog to begat characteristics that are not doglike."


That's not a definition that is of any use. How do you define "doglike"? Traits found only in dogs? So for a dog to, say, have a yellow nose, would be a change in kind? What level in the hierarchy of classification do we use to define this? Would a lion changing to have non-leonine characteristics be a change in kind, or would it have to have non-feline characteristics? Or would we have to climb all the way to non carnivore-ine (I tried) characteristics?

I could say that a frog changing to have non froglike characteristics would be a change in kind, but you could say, "No, it needs to have non-amphibious characteristics," and nobody would have any way to objectively verify because you gave a vague and almost useless definition.

Also I'm not entirely sure what "the construct of K-9," is. I assume you meant "canine," because K-9 is the name for a police unit, but even "canine" doesn't help. There's the family Canidae, the sub-family Caninae, and the genus Canis that could all be what you're referring to. All around, that's just a bad definition.

Con is fine with ignorance.

In many cases where the answer cannot be known for certain, admitting ignorance is the mature option when compared to believing what you want to or just believing whatever happens to be the first answer you hear. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm not sure what it has to do with the debate.

Infinity = "all possible things available to Darwinism"

Not sure where you're getting this definition from.

If it does not exist, that would give atheism no explanation for life and lean us heavily towards intelligent design from outside of the construct of our reality.

Or, as I've said this whole time, one can admit that he or she does not know, then either try to figure it out or move on with life. I don't understand why you keep insinuating (more like explicitly saying, if I'm being honest) that people
have to have explanations for everything in their belief system somewhere. In a case where the answer is unattainable or not readily attainable, sometimes that's the best and only intellectually honest option. It's not an answer, but simply withholding judgment.

(Ironically, Darwinism fails the scientific method: cannot be observed, tested, measured...)

It can be tested because evolutionary theory makes predictions about the past that can be tested. For example, it predicts a generally ordered fossil record, that organisms accumulate many, many mutations over the course of generations, and that those animals most well-suited to thrive in an environment will survive at a higher rate and pass on their advantageous traits to offspring. Depending on what you mean by observed, it can arguably also be observed. The evidence can, such as fossils, and the underlying processes behind natural selection have been readily observed (which I know you can't deny). All that follows is the inference that these processes take place whenever there is life and a scarcity of resources.

It can be tested and falsified. For example, if you were to find a violation in the nested hierarchies of the phylogenetic tree, whether in traits or in something like endogenous retroviruses, it would be largely falsified. If you could find a fossil of a tetrapod in pre-Cambrian rocks, many aspects would be falsified. If you could demonstrate that animals occasionally give birth to drastically genetically different animals to themselves, the very premise of evolution would be disproven.


"String theory is also not a well-established theory of reality. Even calling it a theory is a travesty of language."

(Citation needed)

"String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth."
-(https://www.edge.org...)

"If these partners [a concept having to do with supersymmetry, a concept in string "theory"] continue to elude detection, then we may never know whether they exist. Proponents could always claim that the particles' masses are higher than the energies probed."
-(http://www.nature.com...)

There's controversy within the community of theoretical physicists about whether anything string theory predicts can even be detected or measured in our reality.

The Fermi Paradox, based off of the Drake Equation states that by probability alone, just our small piece of the galaxy should be teaming [sic] with intelligent life if Darwinism is true.

I have never heard the claim that the Fermi Paradox dictates that our galaxy should be teeming with life at all, let alone intelligent life. The conditions required for life to form could be very rare in the universe (an idea I'd have thought a creationist like yourself would agree with), meaning that life forms only rarely and far between.

It could be that, over the vastness of the universe, only a couple billion or million planets have ever achieved life at all. Of those, few were likely to have sustained life long enough to allow it to reach our level of intelligence and be detectable. If you want more possible solutions to the Fermi Paradox, check here: (https://en.wikipedia.org...).

Your assertion that it can't be answered is lightyears beyond premature. Have you any proof that no life exists anywhere else?
Debate Round No. 4
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:

"predicts a generally ordered fossil record."

And the fossil record is not ordered.

What fossils they do find are dealt with in the manner below.

"Whale Evolution"


Con:

"those animals most well-suited to thrive in an environment will survive at a higher rate and pass on their advantageous traits to offspring."

Survival of the fittest proves variation of a particular species. If the only way to get the seed is a long beak, of course the long beaked birds are all that survives. But...you still have the same creature. The long beak is simply a part of the many variations available to that bird. But the bird does not begat anything outside of the programmed construct of its kind. Sure, my offspring could be taller than me, but they are still 100% human. That's just a trait available to human kind.

*

Evolutionary palaeontologist Stephen Gould in his book called "The Panda’s Thumb" reflecting on Darwin’s pain noted: “the fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy.”


“We need more fossils” Dawkins in his book entitled "The Greatest Show on Earth." In turning his back on the fossil record Dawkins tried to push the term “comparative evidence”.

“Comparative evidence has always, as I suggested at the beginning of this chapter, told even more compelling than fossil evidence.”

No matter what the “comparative evidence” is in real life, Dawkins did not say what it is. He ditched the fossil record as essential evidence for Darwinian Evolution.

“We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact.”

So an undefined philosophy is a fact? I don't think so.


Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain fossils not in agreement with Darwinian Theory; "overthrusts," to be discussed shortly, are used to explain much larger numbers of such fossils.




*

"If you don't believe that, you're not a Muslim."

Says who? The universal religion czar? If someone declares themselves a Muslim, but doesn't recite the Shahada, Con has authority to declare them not a Muslim? Where does this authority come from? Allah?

*

Infinity = "all possible things available to Darwinism"

Con:

"Not sure where you're getting this definition from."

There are infinite sets of different sizes. For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the infinite set of real numbers is uncountable.

If X = {a, b, c} and Y = {apples, oranges, peaches}, then | X | = | Y | because { (a, apples), (b, oranges), (c, peaches)} is a bijection between the sets X and Y. The cardinality of each of X and Y is 3.

If X = infinity and Y = darwinian evolution, and X and Y exist in relative space together, infinity + darwinian evolution = all possibilities given to darwinian evolution, and infinitely. Infinity = the 100% chance that the highest possible being by darwinian means must exist and infinitely.


*

Con:

"controversy within the community of theoretical physicists about whether anything string theory predicts can even be detected or measured in our reality."

It is irrelevant. The equations used to describe the universe are simply mathematics. These mathematical facts are used in the construct of String Theory. It's like saying 2+2 = 4 is wrong because it was used in an unproveable theory.

*

Con:

"I have never heard the claim that the Fermi Paradox dictates that our galaxy should be teeming with life at all, let alone intelligent life."

-Drake states that given the uncertainties, the original meeting concluded that N = L, and there were probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.


*

Con:

"Have you any proof that no life exists anywhere else?"

This is a disproving of a negative. Do I have proof that fairies, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters do not exist? Of course not. The burden of proof is on Con on that one. Show us the aliens.
Khaz

Con

And the fossil record is not ordered.

It is, actually. I would ask you to produce some examples of out-of-place fossils that violate the established order (order, not timescale, as we cannot be certain that the exact timescale is correct, but you will still not find drastically out-of-order fossils with no possible explanation), but as this is the final round, I'll try to bring my points to a close.

Survival of the fittest proves variation of a ...a trait available to human kind.

Yes, but changes in size aren't the only changes that evolution says can happen over time.

"Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain fossils not in agreement with Darwinian Theory; "overthrusts," to be discussed shortly, are used to explain much larger numbers of such fossils.

Specific examples of these would be needed to address this point. In general, I guess what I can say is that the Earth doesn't care for our efforts to classify or discover the truth. Occasionally, geological processes are going to throw a wrench or two in the works, but it's rarely difficult to see what happened in such cases.

Says who? The universal religion czar? If someone declares themselves a Muslim, but doesn't recite the Shahada, Con has authority to declare them not a Muslim? Where does this authority come from? Allah?

No, the definition of a Muslim. If you're a Muslim, you believe in the
Shahada. I never said one has to recite the Shahada, but all the sources I have read say that doing so with true conviction makes one a Muslim.


If X = {a, b, c} and Y = {apples, oranges, peaches}, then | X | = | Y | because { (a, apples), (b, oranges), (c, peaches)} is a bijection between the sets X and Y. The cardinality of each of X and Y is 3.


Cardinality is a simple enough concept to not have to directly copy+paste an explanation. (http://gutenberg.us...), (http://www.liquisearch.com...)

If X = infinity and Y = darwinian evolution, and X and Y exist in relative space together, infinity + darwinian evolution = all possibilities given to darwinian evolution, and infinitely.

Honestly, I am fairly certain that you're making no sense here. I'll try anyway. An infinite universe wouldn't mean that infinity "exists," because it's just an abstract concept describing the universe.

Infinity = the 100% chance that the highest possible being by darwinian means must exist and infinitely.

Do you mean that an infinite universe dictates that the "highest possible being" (which isn't a concept that exists in evolution, by the way) exists in an infinite quantity in the universe? Firstly, how do you know evolution can create immortal, ethereal beings by its processes?

It is irrelevant. The equations used to describe the universe are simply mathematics. These mathematical facts are used in the construct of String Theory. It's like saying 2+2 = 4 is wrong because it was used in an unproveable theory.

Again, I have to take you back to your own source, who only said that he can show you these codes if you accept his model of the universe.

Drake states that given the uncertainties, the original meeting concluded that N = L, and there were probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.

And the numbers from the original meeting were very favorable for life, and we do not know if they are accurate. The whole Drake Equation is conjecture, and any numbers plugged in can only be guesses based on a sample size of a few planets. If you have known values for the various parameters, feel free to tell scientists. Until you do, any argument made solely on the basis of the Drake Equation or the Fermi Paradox is going to be laughably weak.

Since all you've provided is a conjecture-based argument, I'll provide some conjectural responses.

(https://www.youtube.com...)
(https://www.youtube.com...)


This is a disproving of a negative. Do I have proof that fairies, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters do not exist? Of course not. The burden of proof is on Con on that one. Show us the aliens.

I'm aware of this obviously, and I've never claimed that aliens exist. Just like god, I am agnostic toward the idea of aliens and await the evidence. You, however, made it pretty clear that you were confident that life didn't exist elsewhere in the universe.

"Hmmm...looks like it's just us..."

Saying the Fermi Paradox suggests anything meaningful is, as I said, a weak argument, yet you still seem to be using it as a reason for implying that there aren't aliens anywhere in the universe. It may be the case that it looks like it's just us, but on the scale of the universe, looking like it's just us is what we'd expect in many cases whether or not we're truly alone.

*

I'd just like to note, since this is closing statements, that Pro never provided a workable definition of "kind," or showed a definition of atheism that includes evolution as a core belief.

I thank Pro for the civil debate.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dtien400// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Both Pro and Con were fairly civil and had fairly good spelling and grammar, so those categories are tied. Con narrowly wins sources because Pro had the tendency to take his sources out of context, making his use of them unreliable. Con wins arguments because Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof and had worse arguments. Many of Pro's theories were debunked by Con. Pro also committed the appeal to authority fallacy and had some strange, faulty ideas about evolution - the "kinds" argument, Darwinism was meant to disprove God, evolution is at the core of atheism - all irrelevant and illogical. The biggest reason why Pro lost the arguments was because he didn't fulfill the burden of proof - he never properly connected much of his theories with the existence of God, and the ones he did were simply God-of-the-Gaps fallacies or illogical. Any of Pro's few arguments that actually had to do with God/god/god(s) were too vague and lacking a clear explanation of why science disproved evolution.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are sufficiently explained (a voter can choose to award these points based on analysis of how a side's failings left achieving their BoP out of reach), but sources are not. The voter has to do more than just state that one side took some sources out of context " it must be clear what effect this had on the overall quality of sources, and it must be clear that the other side had reliable sources to counter those.
********************************************************** **************
Posted by CaptainScarlet 8 months ago
CaptainScarlet
Pro is going for a 'woo-woo' interpretation of QM and arguing for some form of Idealism over Realism as his argument for why atheism is harder to believe.

Materialism does not equal Atheism. For example I am an atheist and do not self identify as a materialist (although I am sympathetic towards materialism I cannot affirm it).

Idealism asserts the primacy of consciousness is true, which is just false. In order to be conscious at all we must be conscious of something outside of our minds, namely objective reality (primacy of existence).

QM does not equal the observer effect and the Copenhagen interpretation. It is true that experiments on the Leggatt, Leggatt-Garg and Bells inequalities suggest the underlying world is not as 'Real' as the coarser Realist perspective found in 'hard' materialism. However, it does not rule in spooky physics or rule out (amongst others) Bohmian Mechanics, Many Worlds or QFT as the best explanations. All of which are explicitly Realist and not Idealist.

But even if true, how does any of this make a god more likely and atheism less likely?
Posted by Ockham 8 months ago
Ockham
The resolution is a hair's breadth away from claiming that there is scientific proof of God's existence, which would be a very hard point to argue for.
Posted by corporealbeing 8 months ago
corporealbeing
Atheism doesn't exist! I DON'T BELIEVE IN PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD!
Posted by missmedic 8 months ago
missmedic
Did we drink all the water?
Posted by CaptainScarlet 8 months ago
CaptainScarlet
Sigh...really. The success of natural science without invoking a god in any of the equations would lead is to suppose the opposite. I guess we are going to be treated to
1) the big bang being caused, therefore god;
2) the complexity of DNA, therefore god; and if we are really lucky
3) the bacterial flagellum, therefore god
...over to Pro
Posted by canis 8 months ago
canis
No one believes in atheism..So remove "atheism" and see what is left.....
Posted by Ragnar 8 months ago
Ragnar
Definitions? Mostly curious if you're trying to use a militant atheist definition, or one closer to agnosticism.
No votes have been placed for this debate.