The Instigator
Amorae
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Someone created the universe?

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 5 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 57045
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Amorae

Pro

Is someone, not nessasarily a God(s) behind the existence of the universe, or not?
If your considering accepting the deabte please only decide to if you have any sense of morality.
This is my first debate so I'm not exactly sure how it works, so...
Raymond_Reddington

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Amorae

Pro

Thank you so much for accepting! Round 2 is for stating our points and round three will be for rebuttal..... (I got most of my points from C. S Lewis in his book, Mere Christianity, it's really worth reading)
To start, I know this may seem a little off topic, but I think that everyone has heard people arguing, right? For example, you might here to siblings arguing saying something like, "You promised!" The other sibling would respond with excuses as to why they didn't have to keep that promise. Notice that both siblings seem to have in mind some sort of unsaid idea of a right and wrong; that since one of them promised something they must do it. People seem to have standards for which they expect others to keep up to.
'It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they would not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show the other man is wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.' -C Lewis
People used to call this rule or law thing the law of nature. But now when we talk about law of nature we just mean things like gravitation or the laws of chemistry. Everyone is always subjected to the law of gravitation, if you throw a guy off a building he has no more choice of falling then a rock. He is subjected to obey biological laws which he cannot disobey any more then animals. So he cannot disobey any laws which he shares with something else. However, there is one law which he can disobey if chooses.
'This law was called the law of nature because people thought that everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to everyone. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right then though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair.' "C.S Lewis
You might say that there is no real moral law because it changes over time, but there are not enough differences to make a total difference. Think what a total difference in morality would mean: imagine a country where you would feel proud of lying to the person who was nicest to you, or where selfishness and cowardice were admired. Men have disagreed on how many wives you should have, but they have always agreed that you mustn"t simply have any woman that you liked.
'It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real right and wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.' ...'I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year or this month or more likely this very day we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money- the one you have almost forgotten-came when you were very hard-up. And what you promised to do for old so and so and have never done-well you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behavior to your wife or husband or sister or brother if I knew how irritating they could be I would not wonder at it-and who the dickens am I anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the law of nature very well and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it there starts in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one or more proof how deeply whether we like it or not we believe in the law of nature. The truth is, we believe in decency so much-we feel the rule of law pressing on us so-that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it and consequently we try to shift the responsibility."
So C.S Lewis has proven that a law of nature exists. And now to explain what this law has to do with the existence of something/someone behind the existence of the universe.
"Ever since men were able to think they have been wondering what this universe really is and how it came to be there. And, roughly, two views have been held."
This is where our debate comes from. You believe nothing/no one is behind our existence and I disagree.
"Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are inside the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? For his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it. The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts of a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that case we find there is. Or put it another way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe-no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave a certain way. And that is what we do find inside ourselves."
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Introduction

Before I start with my rebuttals I would like to examine the resolution. Pro is affirming "someone created the universe" as a fact and therefore has the full Burden of Proof. Pro must provide serious evidence to show that not that someone probably created the universe, but that someone definitely created the universe. My opponent has relied on the argument from morality, and the nature of this argument is that it only stands if someone (possibly god) is the source of this objective morality. If I can show that there are other possible sources of morality, and that it is not necessarily objective, the argument is negated.

Note* Pro states in the first round "Is someone, not necessarily a God(s) behind the existence of the universe, or not?" Any conceivable being or beings complicated and powerful enough to cause the existence of our universe, and institute a set of universal moral laws can be referred to as god(s). Therefore throughout my rebuttals I will solely refer to the creator(s) as god in order to keep things simple.


Rebuttals

My opponent"s argument is summed up as this:

  1. If morality is objective and absolute, god exists
  2. Morality is objective and absolute
  3. God exists

I will be contesting the first and second points of this argument. [3] To negate point three all I must do is show that either point 1 or 2 is invalid. Discrediting even one makes the conclusion unsupported.

Problems with Point 1

Point 1 requires an assumption that the only possible source of objective morality is god. In order for the argument to succeed, the first point must be proven and the possibility of objective morality being a human invention must be disproven. C.S. Lewis formulates a slight argument to support the first point

"We know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey" We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is" If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe-no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave a certain way. And that is what we do find inside ourselves."

Translated into something understandable- Men find themselves under universal laws that they did not put in place (laws of nature like gravity, morality). These laws are universal and objective. We would expect a god, if one existed, to demonstrate its existence through these laws; therefore, if we see these laws their source is god.

  1. God would show us his existence by creating objective morality
  2. Objective morality exists
  3. God is the source of objective morality

This is affirming the consequent and is demonstrated like this

If A then B

B

Therefore A [2]

It has not been shown that a god is the only possible cause of objective morality, just that if a god existed he may institute objective morality. It could be that morality is simply a brute fact and cannot be explained by a god or otherwise [6]. There is not enough evidence to support the idea that god is the origin of morality.

Problems with Point 2

Point 2 is the most widely contested point, and must be proven for Pro to fulfill his Burden of Proof. C.S. Lewis basically argues that "People seem to have standards for which they expect others to keep up to." Lewis makes the faulty assumption that if there is such a thing as right and wrong morality must be objective. There are many reasons to believe that morality is subjective rather than objective. Subjective morality does a fine job of explaining this "rule of fair play". Subjective morality does not assert that there is no such thing as morals, or that everyone"s moral code is different. It states that "moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others." [1] A good example of moral relativism is the development of the religious views of slavery. The New and Old Testament both contain instructions for slaveholders and slaves and never declare that anything is wrong with the practice. This viewpoint was held for years. Today society condemns slaveholding as an immoral practice [5]. If we lived in a slaveholding time we would recognize that this "Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it" recognized slaveholding as a just practice. It is not that these standards don"t exist; they change over time and adapt according to the culture and environment. It is absurd to believe these standards are completely are universal and always have been. Actually "In 1947, on the occasion of the United Nations debate about universal human rights, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement declaring that moral values are relative to cultures and that there is no way of showing that the values of one culture are better than those of another." [4] The problem with many of Lewis" examples (such as the Nazi example), is that the opponent believed that they were in the right. During WW2, Nazi"s operated under the belief that they had the moral high ground. These examples actually work against Pro"s arguments since they imply a relative morality. Lewis tries to explain away anybody with differing opinions on morality "They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to everyone." This argument does not stand when we realize that differing morality is not rare. The fact that entire cultures and nations, in the past and the present, have held radically different views on morality negates this entire argument. "People's opinions about morality differ. Some people believe that abortion is immoral. Others believe that abortion is a morally legitimate choice. Some people believe that no war can ever be just. Others believe that at least some wars are just. Some people believe that we must never lie. Others believe that sometimes lies are morally justified. Some people believe that it is immoral to eat animals. Others believe that there is nothing wrong with eating animals." [7] We can witness moral relativism just by looking at controversial issues today.

A Better Explanation

The best explanation of morality that we have today is from evolution. In animal societies we can witness a less extreme version of morality being practiced. Animals practice a restrained version of morality that can most benefit their group. This is observed in ant colonies. Female sterile ant workers are willing to serve the queen in order to benefit the survival of the group as a whole. Primates have been observed enacting "attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group." [8][9] Morality is easily explainable through evolution.

Conclusion

I think it"s important to point out that Pro has not attempted in any way to show that "someone created the universe". Pro has spent all of the second round attempting to prove the existence of the "someone" without ever providing evidence that this "someone" actually created the universe. The Burden of Proof is not fulfilled. I have also provided a viable explanation for morality.

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...

[5] http://rationalwiki.org...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu...

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[9] http://plato.stanford.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
Amorae

Pro

Amorae forfeited this round.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

That's disappointing. I was looking forward to an interesting debate. To clarify, Pro has the full burden of proof to demonstrate that a creator exists. The burden is unfulfilled. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Amorae 2 years ago
Amorae
not that easy, actually. You have to prove why and how. Also, I'm not so sre that I owuld have made this debate if I didn't think it was possible to prove the existence of some power behind the universe's existence.
Posted by taken123 2 years ago
taken123
dude you cant know for sure if "some1" invented the universe easy win for con
Posted by Amorae 2 years ago
Amorae
Thanks Ragnar :)
and Nicoszon I'll explain more in the debate :)
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
You may benefit from this: https://docs.google.com...
Posted by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
What does morality, assuming you're referring to a sense of right and wrong, have to do with who created the universe?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
AmoraeRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
AmoraeRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
AmoraeRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff and BoP.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
AmoraeRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
AmoraeRaymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF