The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
The_Old_Man
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Fine-Tuning Argument Is Sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,779 times Debate No: 39924
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

The fine tuning argument says that the constants of nature are so fine-tuned that it shows God (the intelligent fine-tuner who tweaked the constants to make life in the universe possible) probably exists. My opponent's burden is to demonstrate that this is true. In the first round, Pro will make his first argument, but so we get the same amount of rounds, in the last round, Pro will simply put:

"No argument will be posted here as agreed."
The_Old_Man

Pro

The universe requires intelligence to comprehend. It is therefore of an intelligent design. God, as defined as the creating force of the universe then must exist. Arguments regarding who or what then must have created God are answerable by the simple realization that God is the creator of all and thus the creator of itself.

Proof.
1. The human being is the most intelligent creature we know and yet the infant human being has no understanding of the universe. It's instincts are only to survive, and yet humans, as well as all other species of biological life, survives.

Through survival the infant learns to process information given to it from its senses and to store this processed information inside its brain through a series of electro-chemical processes. This process, known as intelligence gathering, can not be seen nor easily understood yet its presence and effects can.

Only through these processes can one come to understand the universe therefore the universe must have been made using these same processes. For lack of a better word, we all the force that developed these processes God.

2. Everything in the universe, no matter how minute, exists and can be manipulated. Magnetism, the building block of the galaxy, can be demonstrated by simply placing two magnets next to each other and observing the positive or negative effects that one has on another. The effect itself can not be seen by the naked eye but the results of the effect are clear as one magnet will either move toward or away from the other.

Such is the effect of God on the universe. It can not be seen, can not truly be understood, but exists nevertheless.

3. All biological life is circular. It is born through a process of gathering pieces from the universe and organizing those pieces into what is needed to support sentience. It ages as the energy placed into it reaches a crescendo and eventually begins to dissipate. It creates offspring through whatever means that it can, passing the code of its creation on to the next creation. And it dies, returning all of its atomic makeup back to the universe that is God.

God then can be said to exist within all of us but no one of us can claim to be the sole sum of God.

4. Nature is self sustaining and also circular. Matter is gathered by magnetism, heated by friction, transformed based on the atomic differences in its makeup, and made into a variety of different kinds of materials all made up of varying degress of the same thing. These materials can then be used and/or transformed for a variety of different purposes before returning in their spent nature back to the universe.

The universe then, can be said to be comprised of everything, and everything, being everything and excluding nothing, part of everything differentiated only by the subtle manipulation of something, which in turn would still be a part of everything.

For lack of a better name, we call this thing God.

Summation - The existence of God is proven through nature and the requirements of understanding nature. The requirement to understand nature being intelligence, God is therefore of an intelligent design and in and of its self its own creation. The reason that there are different things in the universe, instead of all just one thing is because of an intelligent manipulation or "fine tuning" that exists. Were this not an intelligent design then, there would be no reason to ask the question "Why?"

God is the reason we ask the question "Why?" If God did not exist, there would be no reason to ask because we would already know. On the same token, once we gain the intelligence required to understand all of this, God still exists because God, as defined as everything and the answer to all reasons in the universe, is the only reasonable and logical answer.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Even if intelligence is required for comprehension; the universe being intelligently designed doesn't follow from this. That is a non-sequitur. Also, I'm sure how coherent the notion of God creating himself is. We will just assume that if God exists, he is factually necessary.

Proof

1. Pro claims that only through certain electro-chemical processes can one come to understand the universe. Even if this is true, there is no reason to assume the universe was made by use of these processes based on that fact. This assumes that comprehension of the universe is required for its origination. Pro has given no argument to support that notion.

2. Even if there are things we cannot see, that doesn't mean that God is one of them. Pro isn't making any valid arguments.

3. Pro argues that life dies, returning all of its atomic makeup back to the universe that is God. However, Pro hasn't shown that proven that to be true; it remains as a bare-assertion.

4. Why should we call this "everything" God? God has to be intelligent. Pro hasn't shown that an intelligent being exists independent of biology that fine-tuned the initial constants. This is what the debate is supposed to be about.

Conclusion

Pro hasn't proven that God exists. His arguments are based on logical fallacies such as bare-assertions and non-sequiturs. We could still ask "why?" about the universe even with no God. Pro hasn't shown why this cannot be the case. Also, this debate was not about a God defined as Pro defined him, but as a God defined as:

"[T]he intelligent fine-tuner who tweaked the constants to make life in the universe possible."

Pro did not even argue for that God existing. He completely ignored the fine-tuning argument (which this debate was supposed to be about).

Since Pro's whole case is lackluster and embarrassing. I think it is clear he hasn't even come close to showing God exists.
The_Old_Man

Pro

Christianity tells us that man was created in the image of God.

As in my example of God, man also creates man.

Man, through subtle manipulation of the universe, the use of raw materials, forces such as fire, magnetism and electricity, and biological ingredients such as petroleum and petroleum by products, creates a robot and imbues this robot with the rudimentary intelligence needed to perform a task.

This is also circular, like everything else in life. The robot, created in the image of man, creates other lesser items using the intelligence imbued into it by man.

Although the robot has intelligence, this intelligence is not sufficient enough to understand what a man or "person" actually is. Thus, it cannot understand its creator. The robot may have an arm like a man but even if it touches a man it does not understand what it is touching. The robot may have eyes like a man but even if it sees a man it may not fully understand what it is seeing.

This does not however mean that man does not exist.

Because we know that men build robots, the existence of the robot is proof that man exists. And even if there was a robot built that could build other robots, the initial robot would still have to be created by man? This is something that we know.

The tool that the robot builds, the car, or the wrench, or whatever the product, is also an intelligent item, it is a subtle manipulation of the universe, programmed by man into a robot to be able to create. It can be intelligent to an extent but just because this intelligence does not extend to the understanding of robotics does not mean that the robot that created the tool doesn't exist nor does the robots limited intelligence mean that the man that created it does not exist, nor does man's limited intelligence mean that God, the creator of all things, does not exist.

In short, just because you have never seen your parents is not proof that your parents do not exist. YOU are proof that your parents exist. Then so is the existence of man proof that God exists.

Robot created tools exist. We know this. These things prove the existence of robots.

Robots exists. These things prove the existence of man. Man, the subtle manipulator of the universe capable of making a robot exists, this proves the existence of God.

God exists until the intelligence of man can prove that it doesn't. Everything in nature points to this.

Mankind created the idea of "God" for lack of a better name for the creating force of the universe. The idea of God is the same as the concept of the limitation of our intelligence. This is why we ask why. God is both the question and the answer, the alpha and the omega, the creator and the destroyer.

All things exist within God and God exists within all things. Just because a robot, even a robot programmed to learn new things over time, lives in a world where robots build everything, including other robots, it is no proof that man doesn't or never existed. This is because, as men, we know this is an impossibility. But only because we know.

We do not know or understand God. This is why we question Gods existence. But our existence, and creation of the concept of a "God", and our lack of the intelligence required to disprove our own theory is proof alone of the existence of God, for lack of a better term. The cycles of nature and of life only further prove this theory because they are, in fact, intelligent in their operations.

Oranges make seeds. They also provide nourishment to animals, who in turn use this nourishment to live an produce more animals. Animals ingest seeds but instead of digesting them they pass them through waste (which is coincidentally good for growing seeds in) allowing the seed to grow into another orange. This is cyclic. This is an intelligent design.

Water from the ocean breaks down into a mist. The mist floats through the sky and falls on a mountain top. The water flows through rocks picking up minerals and leaving behind impurities. Animals consume the water to hydrate their bodies and create more animals. Animals then pass the water back into the earth or sea. This is cyclic. This is an intelligent design.

A man has a daughter who builds a son, who builds a daughter. Each new iteration takes on parts of the new while retaining parts of the old. DNA is passed through generations. We are all the same as we have always been, only subtle manipulations of different, basic, ingredients. This is cyclic. This is an intelligent design.

The cyclic nature of God is why we impart unto our belief of God that God is good. We believe that God is good because God created everything in a fashion so that, in some form, it continues. This is an intelligent design, and even more so an intelligent design with a purpose.

This explains everything. Why everything is the way that it is, why things work the way that they work, why we are the way that we are.

None of this can be understood without intelligence. Intelligence is the creator of the concept of God within our reason. The God of your understanding is the god of your understanding. Only through gaining better understanding can we gain a better God. This is why God exists, to make us understand. This is how God created itself. Through our existence, our intelligence, and the creation of the concept through said intelligence, we prove the creation.

Like a robot built to learn that exists within the work of man, we exist within the work of God, but do not understand that work when we see it, hear it, touch it, feel it, or smell it. That does not mean however, that God does not exist. The instigator can only prove that he does not "believe" that God exists. He can never prove this as a fact however because he does not have the intelligence or information to do so. No one does.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Robot Analogy

This robot analogy has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution. The fine-tuning argument deals with the constants of nature, and whether or not they need an intelligent fine-tuner. This analogy from my opponent already assumes God exists regardless, and thus, begs the question. We were not created by any intelligent being (at least as far as we know), as humans evolved through natural processes which caused the extinction of over 99% of all the species on Earth[1]; we share a common ancestor with the great apes[2]. Human evolution has been proven by chromosome #2[3], the fossil record[4], vestiges[5], and that fact that speciation ("macroevolution") has actually been observed in laboratories[6][7]. Most scientists now believe that life sprang up in a process called Abiogenesis[8]. There doesn't seem to be any reason to include an intelligent designer in any of this, and the robot analogy by Pro does nothing to establish the resolution. Even if a robot needs an intelligent creator, that doesn't mean that man does; that is a non-sequitur.

Possible Double Standards

Additionally, Pro seems to be saying that intelligence requires other intelligence to make it. If this is the case then who designed God? If God doesn't need a designer (or "parents" in the analogy) then why do we? This just appears like special pleading, and it is not a good argument for God at all. So, the idea that robots prove God is the most outrageous argument I have ever heard in a long time. Scientists have a good idea of how humans came about, and none of it implies an intelligent designer. Just because we can replicate ourselves somewhat by using robots, doesn't mean that this is how we came to be. This is something my opponent has not established.

Pro also hasn't proven why we cannot ask "why?" about the universe and have an answer without God existing. This is just presupposed. We only need our intelligence to ask "why?", nobody else is required. The answer need not lie in God.


The Cycle of Life and Intelligence

My opponent hasn't shown that the cycle of life is intelligent in its operations. Pro just seems to be making things up as he goes along with no real substance behind his arguments. Why must something cyclic be designed? This is just a fallacy of presumption. There is no reason given by Pro to believe that if something is cyclic then it has to be designed. Even if intelligent design can set up something that is cyclic, that doesn't mean that if something is cyclic, then it has to be intelligent designed. This is a logical fallacy. It is similar to how "something that is eatable" can be used to describe a doughnut, that doesn't mean that if we know something is eatable that it has to be a doughnut.

Reality Couldn't Be Understood Without Intelligence

Pro claims:


"None of this can be understood without intelligence." - Pro

I 100% agree with Pro. Nothing he mentioned could be understood without intelligence, that doesn't mean an intelligence is responsible for any of it. This assumes that it being understood is necessary for it to exist. Of course, there is no reason given to believe such a thing. We understand things because of our brains, and we have our brains due to evolution. I already explained how evolution and the origin of life can be explained without reference to intelligence; which debunks his entire case.

Conclusion

This debate was a waste of time really. I wanted to discuss the fine-tuning argument (which specifically deals with the fine-tuning of the constants of nature). Pro loses the debate by default as he hasn't even stayed on topic once, and he has the burden of proof to establish the resolution true; I do not have to show that God does not exist.

His robot analogy fails, because even if there are types of intelligence that need other intelligence, that wouldn't mean all intelligence requires intelligence. If it does, then even God had to be designed! If we have to stop the regress somewhere, then stopping it at humans is the most efficient due to Occam's Razor.

Since Pro has not even stayed on topic, and hasn't even shown God exists in the first place; the resolution has not been established. He also has no sources either.

Sources

[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(human)
[4] http://www.enchantedlearning.com...
[5] http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu...
[6] de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation
[7] Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila",Nature 23:289-292
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...;

The_Old_Man

Pro

The instigator seeks to disprove my argument by asking for citation. Although I believe the things I have discussed here to be of a common knowledge I will provide such citation if for no other purpose than the sake of argument.

During my debate I have explained to you the make-up of the universe.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I have explained to you the cycles of nature.

http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu...

I have explained to you the circle of life.

http://www.fi.edu...

I have explained the processes of the brain.

http://engineering.mit.edu...

I have explained intelligence.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...

I have explained genetics.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

I have explained artificial intelligence.

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu...

I have explained robotics.

http://www.ri.cmu.edu...

I have explained seed dispersal.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have explained the cycle of water.

http://www.cotf.edu...

And I have explained how all of this affects ethics and thus morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have referenced Christianity.

http://biblehub.com...

http://biblehub.com...

I have referenced Hinduism

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And I have put all of these things together in order to explain to you the nature of God. For without being able to understand the nature of God, you would never be able to understand the fine-tuning that God is responsible for.

Finally, I will explain to you Philosophy.

Philosophy is defined as"

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

I believe that I have used, and demonstrated, my love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral-self discipline to investigate the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, and values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical thought, to form a system of thought based on or involving such inquiry that critically analyzes fundamental assumptions and beliefs.

Using disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology, but demonstrating the source of belief that fuels those arts, I have set forth a discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics and epistemology, involving a set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field, that field being the existence of God, a system of values that I live by.

But my task here was to prove that existence via the "fine tuning" of constants and so, in conclusion, I submit that randomness is defined as".

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

Life, nature, and the universe have very specific patterns that move with a very specific purpose. There is no distribution of probability, everything happens for the purpose of continuing existence, which can be proven by simply dissecting the nature of everything (the cycle of nature). This is not an event in which all outcomes are equally likely for not only does man exist, but so do birds, plants, and the sky, all serving their own purpose, all existing in harmony, all supporting the PURPOSE of one another, the PURPOSE of existence.

The fine-tuning, which I believe the instigator picked purposefully to con volute the argument, because by its very nature, without all the pieces given, it is argumentative, was a faux pas on the instigators part because, in this case, the fine tuning can completely be described.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have provided all the pieces needed in order to understand that life could not have just "Sprang up randomly" as the instigator implies. I have provided all the resources for anyone reading this debate, including the Instigator, to verify that what I have said is true. I have shown the relationship between God and nature, God and man, God and the universe, and man and the universe. And I have provided logical reasoning that supports that only through some level of intelligent design could the universe, as we know it, exist.

The instigator doesn't want to call a skunk a skunk, even though it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk, and is not discernible in any way, shape, or form from a skunk. The instigator questions why we should all the invisible nature of the universe God. The instigator uses the very materials of God, God's own work to seek to disprove God. But the only alternative that the instigator can give us is that the instigator has no idea where all of this purposeful matter "Sprang up" from. The instigator simply wants us to believe that it "Sprang up", with no beginning, with no end, with no designer, and with no creator.

I submit that everything in life and in nature goes against this theory. I submit that it simply would make no sense for there to never have been anything and then for there to suddenly be something. I submit that God has always been and the the universe, and everything within it is a part of God. I submit that the God of our understanding exists because it is the best name we can give to what we understand about God.

I submit that all things exist within God and God exists within all things. And that it is the fine-tuning of the constants as demonstrated by the willful purposeful concert that is nature continuously promoting existence that proves this to us. We, as observers of this demonstration, have only to acknowledge it or not. But even in our acknowledgment, or lack thereof, we do not disprove what is true, that God exists, for in order to do such a thing we would have to deny that we exist.

Purpose has destroyed any concept of randomness and thus placed all of this work within a design, said design not only being perfect, but of an intelligent nature. Our understanding then, of what intelligence is"

a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

"places the English language, and thus the instigator, at a distinct disadvantage to supply us with the correct words needed to disprove this theory.

To paraphrase Shakespeare then, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Instigator, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

My philosophy includes all things however, and until you can disprove that these things all represent a fine-tuning that not only proves the existence of a God, but which that God is responsible for, God exists!

And I thank you for listening. As agreed upon this will be my final argument.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Addressing Pro's Initial Claims

"I have explained to you the cycles of nature." - Pro

I never disagreed with the cycles of nature. This is a red herring.

"I have explained to you the circle of life." - Pro

I never disagreed that there is a circle of life. However, nothing about the circle of life implies that we were put here by an intelligence being.

"I have explained the processes of the brain." - Pro

The process of the brain has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

"I have explained intelligence." - Pro

Everyone knows what intelligence is. Pro has to prove that intelligence fine-tuned the initial constants at the Big Bang that gave rise to life.

"I have explained genetics." - Pro

Why does genetics imply God?

"I have explained artificial intelligence." - Pro

We all know what artificial intelligence is. I already explained why the robot analogy falls flat on its face.

"I have explained robotics." - Pro

I have explained why your robot analogy is logical invalid in my last entry.

"I have explained seed dispersal." - Pro

Seed dispersal? What does this have to do with anything? Pro is just rambling.

"I have explained the cycle of water." - Pro

We all know about the cycle of water. The point is that none of this does anything to prove that an intelligent being fine-tuned the universe.

"And I have explained how all of this affects ethics and thus morality." - Pro

I have rebutted your claims. Also, none of the sources mentioned actually supports Pro's position.

"I have referenced Christianity"

Cool, Pro has referenced Christianity. What does this have to do with the fine-tuning argument specifically? Nothing. That is the problem


"I have referenced Hinduism" - Pro

This has nothing to do with fine-tuning.

Pro has simply just listed random things and tries to conclude God based on a non-sequitur. None of the things Pro mentions implies an intelligent creator of the universe or humans in any way. The cycles in nature are due to nature itself; no God needed. Intelligence and the brain are here due to abiogenesis and evolution; no God needed. None of the things Pro mentioned require God in the slightest.

Philosophy

Pro speaks in an unjustified condescending tone when he says "let me explain to you philosophy". However, judging by his arguments, he is the last one to talk down to anybody in such a manor. He then rambles on about how God is the discipline by which he approaches philosophy. What does this have to do with anything? Pro has the burden of proof to show that the constants of nature were fine-tuned by an intelligent creator. Pro has done virtually nothing to even begin to attempt to establish this resolution at this point in his round. It seems Pro thinks he can win the debate off of countless red-herring's; that is not going to fly.

Fine-Tuning

Pro commits a straw-man argument by implying that I am arguing that randomness can produce the order we see. Just because there is not an intelligent designer, that doesn't mean everything is random. The patterns we see in nature, are due to nature and the laws within it. This is not completely random, but no intelligence is designed either. Snowflakes have patterns and look beautiful, but they are created not completely randomly but by chemical reactions in clouds. Once more, no intelligence needed. Just because something is not intelligently designed, that does not mean it is completely random either. That would be a false-dichotomy.

Fine-Tuning

Pro has not shown that life cannot spontaneously generate. If it did, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a completely random process in the first place. As some of the top scientists in the world point out:

“Be it on Earth or some other world, life had to begin via processes known as abiogenesis Obviously, there must have been an evolutionary progression beginning with simple chemical compounds to proto-life, then to DNA-equipped life capable of replicating itself. As detailed in this text, those prebiological evolutionary steps may have taken place in submarine alkaline hydrothermal vents and required various chemical interactions and divisions involving amino acids, polyphosphate-peptide synergy, the creating of biosynthetic pathways and the emergence of sparse metabolic network, and the assembly of pre-genetic information by primordial cells, with some championing compartmentalizaton, others, vesicles, and all this leading to an RNA world in which viruses and retroviruses played an important part. The origin of life and evolution of prokaryotes was not a matter of chance, but deterministic, probable and necessary and that these bioenergetic principles are likely to apply throughout the universe …" - Michaell Russell (Editor), Nick Lane, Edward N. Trifonov, Pabulo H. Rampelotto, Stephen Freeland, John F. Allen, Eugenio Simoncini, Christof B. Mast , Andrew J. Pratt, Anne Volbeda


So life springing up wouldn't be random, but deterministic. Pro claims he has provided sources to support his position, but he posted 0 sources that support his position. All the sources he posted in his last round were just random links to things that don't actually help my opponent out with the resolution. My opponent also claims he showed the relationship between God and man. Of course, he did not. I showed why all of his arguments failed. We are simply left with no reason from Pro as to why anybody should believe the universe is intelligently designed. Even if it isn't intelligently designed, that doesn't mean it has to be completely random either. This was the error in my opponent's reasoning that led him to his erroneous conclusion.

Pro then commits the fallacy of begging the question when he states:

"The instigator uses the very materials of God, God's own work to seek to disprove God." - Pro

This assumes that the universe is materials of God; which is the resolution Pro has to establish in the first place. This circular reasoning is invalid. He then says that I want him to believe that the universe just "sprang up". There is nothing wrong with that assumption, and it is taken very seriously by scientists. Alexander Vilenkin's model describes a universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a sufficient cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It is plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without an initial cause, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress implied by the model, and no initial cause is needed:


"As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin

Again, no God needed. Pro then talks about purpose, but doesn't explain why it has to have purpose:

“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless” - Steven Weinberg

Pro then says I must disprove God. That is a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof. Pro has the burden of proof.

Conclusion

Pro had no relevant sources, and just posted random thing. All of his arguments are logically invalid, and I refuted every one. Since Pro failed to meet the BoP; vote Con


Sources

[1]
http://www.amazon.com...
[2] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)
[3]
http://www.goodreads.com...

PS. Remember Pro, you cannot argue again in your next round as per the rules.

The_Old_Man

Pro

"No argument will be posted here as agreed."
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
@Pro: The comments are usually for side discussions, but some people write lengthy RFDs causing them to need to use the comment section to store them (better formatting options, so it's not a bad idea). The important thing about the comment section is to avoid continuing the argument in it, as much as you may request clarifications on votes or even pieces of your opponents argument.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"I believe that it is the simple fact that the average mind is too lazy to read and understand all of those things that were linked that leads people like Con to believe in the easiest answers. "

Ad Homimen fallacy. We all understand, this is how we know you are wrong.

"This is why I used the argument of randomness to close my debate."

I debunked your argument about randomness in my last round.

"You see, I don't believe there is any such thing as randomness. I believe randomness is just a word we give to problems that are so long to solve and so big to comprehend that we would just rather not. I.e. randomness is yet another word that we use to describe God."

If you don't believe in randomness, then you don't believe in Quantum Mechanics.

"Heck, we can barely solve Pi."

Yet you think you can solve God's existence?
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
RFD: Pro had no business accepting this debate, as he didn't seem familiar enough with the fine tuning argument to ever quite make it. Instead he rambled about one non sequitur after another, giving bad example after bad example, none of which relate to the topic that Con had established as the resolution. Rather than drift through a broad range of seemingly unrelated topics and trying to link them together in order to share his own grand vision of God, Pro might have fared much better if he actually debated the topic of fine tuning!

Sources go to Con because he used those sources in a way which was relevant to his case, rather than just putting links in about unrelated topics (robotics? Seed dispersal??) just for the sake of having links.

I would suggest that RT be more restrictive on the acceptance criteria for his debates to avoid rookies botching what could otherwise be interesting debates. I would advise Pro to get more practice before taking on someone with RT's experience, and to do a little bit of research to understand what academics who have devoted their life's work to these topics have noticed and pointed out.
Posted by The_Old_Man 3 years ago
The_Old_Man
Woops! Didn't realize that the comments were part of the voting.

I am new here so please excuse. Will not be addressing everyone that votes.
Posted by The_Old_Man 3 years ago
The_Old_Man
I believe that it is the simple fact that the average mind is too lazy to read and understand all of those things that were linked that leads people like Con to believe in the easiest answers. This is why I used the argument of randomness to close my debate.

You see, I don't believe there is any such thing as randomness. I believe randomness is just a word we give to problems that are so long to solve and so big to comprehend that we would just rather not. I.e. randomness is yet another word that we use to describe God.

Heck, we can barely solve Pi.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
This debate was an unconscionable waste of Con's time.

The Fine Tuning argument is a specific argument. I might have forgiven this as merely Pro's ignorance, but not only is it readily available on the most casual of web searches, but Con also explained it in R1--and noted that it wasn't being addressed throughout. Conduct to Con for this.

Sources because Pro did not really use any--he merely posted some in his final round of argumentation after Con pointed out he hadn't used any. They weren't posted to support a point, they were merely *there*. Con actually presented a case and used reliable sources to support it.

As to arguments:

Pro argued for the concept of God in general, without ever referencing "fine tuning"--in the first place, Con *shouldn't have had to have this conversation, since wasn't the scope of the debate* (but I've awarded conduct over this already); in the second place, Con rebutted all of Pro's points. Not only did Pro never support the actual resolution, which was his obligation and which, in his utter failure to do so, lost him arguments points regardless, but he failed to defend what he <em>did<em> choose to debate adequately, either.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 3 years ago
IslamAhmadiyya
What Pro said makes sense.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Sorry for any typos in the last round, this site is acting glitchy.
Posted by The_Old_Man 3 years ago
The_Old_Man
Just want to say to all watching not to give up on me before round 3. It's a big topic and so it takes a big debate.
Posted by The_Old_Man 3 years ago
The_Old_Man
Is it proper to post in here during the debate or should I save certain comments for after?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
Rational_Thinker9119The_Old_ManTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Rational_Thinker9119The_Old_ManTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.