The Teleological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
| Started: | 5/6/2012 | Category: | Philosophy |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,610 times | Debate No: | 23424 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)
 Pro I would like to thank Illegal Combatant for his willingness to debate this with me. The Teleological Argument is one of several arguments used to make a cumulative case for the existence of God. The Cosmological Argument reasons from the existence of the cosmos to a Creator. The Ontological Argument reasons from possible worlds and a Maximally Great Being. The Moral Argument is that argument from a moral law to a Moral Law Giver. And the Teleological Argument argues from design to a Designer. [1] I will be defending the Teleological Argument in this debate. Like all the other arguments, the Teleological Argument has taken several different forms. The form I will be defending is as follows: 1) The universe resulted from either design or chance. 2) It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance. 3) Hence, it is highly probable that the universe was designed. [2] There is no doubt that the argument is valid. The conclusion naturally follows from its premises. What I will be defending here is the soundness of the argument. [1] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 714 [2] ibid., p. 718  Con I thank Keytarhero for creating this debate.
This is the first round and I won't be making any arguments as such, but rather clarify what this debate is about and establishing some terms. Teleological argument for the existence of God The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy explains a teleological argument for the existence of God as such...
The teleological argument of the existence of God should not be confused with intelligent design which doesn't make the claim that "God" did it as intelligentdesign.org explains...
We do need some definition of God, seeing this is the teleological argument for God debate. As such I propose a God as defined as...All powerful, all knowing, intelligent, wise, just, personal, supernatural. Intentional design vs Unintentional design You can't have an argument of this sort without using the word "design", but there is a problem here cause the word "design" is used ambiguously. An atheist evolutionist will talk about the "design" of a bat wing which can leave some people scratching their heads cause they think, well doesn't design require a designer ? That's because design can be used within two different contexts, design that is intentional and design that is unintentional. Intelligent design = the result of an intelligent cause/s, pre-planned, deliberate, intentional. Non intelligent design = the result of non intelligent cause/s, not pre-planned, not deliberate, not intentional, something done without a goal in mind. What Pro has to argue for is not just "design" in the general sense, but rather "intentional/intelligent/deliberate design", and that this intentional design is caused by God. I look forward to Pros opening argument. Sources [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.intelligentdesign.org... |
 |
|
Pro I again wish to thank Illegal Combatant for debating this with me. I agree with his definition of God, as that is the God I believe exists. As previously stated, the Teleological Argument I will be defending is as follows: P1 -- The universe resulted either from design or chance. P2 -- It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance. C -- Hence, it is highly probable that the universe was designed. [1] Premise 1 -- The universe resulted either from design or chance. This is self-explanatory and at present I see no need to justify it. If Con takes issue with it, I will address his concerns in the next round. Premise 2 -- It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance. Chance is a non-intelligent force. We see design in the universe all around us. There are many things which had to have occurred just perfectly in order for life to exist on this world. For example, if water had not been present, if our atmosphere produced methane instead of oxygen, if plant life was not here, and a host of other things. One cannot expect to get order from non-intelligence. One would expect to get chaos. The only plausible explanation for our existence is that the universe had a designer, God. The high improbability of a chance happening is due to the fact that there is not an eternity of in which to realize the ordered arrangement in which things now find themselves, as some would speculate (such as David Hume). There are only so many billions of geological years for things to take their present arrangement. S.C. Hackett has said, "I conclude that the notion of chance simply does not provide any rationally plausible explanation of the significant order in the universe, and that therefore the principle of purposively directed activity provides an overwhelmingly more reasonable explanation." [2] In fact, an arch-defender of Evolution, Julian Huxley, has estimated that at the known rate of helpful mutations over the known time scale, the odds against evolution happening by pure chance are 1 followed by 3 million zeros (fifteen hundred pages of zeros) to one. [3] The odds of the universe coming into existence and producing just the right combination of elements for human life, and then that human life evolving from more primitive forms of life is so immense, that to seriously believe in it requires much more faith than any miraculous account from the Bible. Seeing that the universe was designed is not so hard to believe. After all someone who is ignorant of art, after seeing the Mona Lisa, would still conclude that there was a painter. And someone who is ignorant of architecture, upon viewing the Eiffel Tower, would know there was a builder. If a painting requires a painter, and a building a builder, how much more would a complex and huge universe require a designer? William Paley has postulated a case in which we can clearly conclude there is a designer. Paraphrasing, he says in crossing a heath suppose you trip over a stone. You might question how the stone got there, but as far as you know nothing to the contrary, it could have been there forever. However, suppose you find a watch on the ground. You might question how the watch got there, you wouldn't think of the same reason as before, that the watch might have always been there. Why is it admissible in the first case but not the second? For this reason alone: when you inspect the watch, you perceive -- what you could not discover in the stone -- is that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose. [4] Paley shows the contrivances in nature are more incredible than those in a watch. He is careful to root his argument in observation. The reasoning is as follows: A watch shows that it was put together for an intelligent purpose (to keep time). It has a spring to give it motion. A series of wheels transmits this motion, made of brass so that they do not rust. The spring is made of resilient steel. The front cover is glass so that one can see through it. All this is evidence of intelligent design. Theologian Norman Geisler adds, "But the world shows a much greater evidence of design than a watch. It has an endless variety of means adapted to ends. The human eye alone would suffice to demonstrate intelligent design in nature." [5] By observing the universe around us, it seems much more plausible that the universe was designed and didn't arise by chance. Conclusion -- Hence, it is highly probable that the universe was designed. I believe the conclusion is supported well by the premises. I look forward to Con's rebuttal. [1] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 718 [2] Hackett, S.C., The Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim, p. 106. [3] Huxley, Julian, Evolution in Action, p. 46. [4] Paley, William, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, p. 3. [5] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 574. Con Correction: God Although I mentioned it in the comments, in case Pro didn't see it, I wanted benevolent as part of definition for God. Opening comments I thank Pro for their opening argument. In Pros argument they bring up certain facts, like the fact that humans make paintings and watches, and facts about had things being different life or at least life as we know it would not exist. Facts such as these are not in dispute, but rather its the reasoning that Pro and other advocates of intelligent/intentional design use in order to conclude in some sort of intelligent/intentional design that is in dispute. Now it should go without saying, but to prove intelligent/intentional design of humans or even the universe it can't merely be assumed as a prior that such things are intelligently/intentionally designed. An intelligent Designer of the universe and/or humans does not equal Theism Christopher Hitchens makes the point here in a debate with William Craig at Biola University...
As Wikipedia explains...
Pros first premise is A false dilemma Wikipedia explains a false dilema as such...
When Pro says "design" in this premise, they must mean intelligent/intentional design. As a general rule, if some one presents two options and it is anything other than (X or not X), then chances are there is a false dilemma in there. For example either I am in (Australia) or (not in Australia) is a true dilemma as opposed to either I am in Australia or in Africa is a false dilemma. The true dilemma isn't between intelligent/intentional design or chance its between intelligent/intentional design or non intelligent/intentional design. As such Pros first argument is logically invalid and can be rejected. An example of this type of argument that doesn't commit the false dilemma fallacy would be the following...... 1) Either the universe is the result of intelligent design or non intelligent design 2) The universe did not result from non intelligent design C) Therefore the universe is the result of intelligent design Improbable events happen all the time 1) Improbable event X is followed by improbable event Y which results in outcome Z C) Therefore outcome Z was intentional Its a Non sequitur, you can't claim that something was intentional based on low probability or a series of low probability events alone. All this done, with you and me in mind Pro likes to point out how if things had been different we would not be here. Its not the facts, its what conclusions that Pro is inferring that is the problem. 1) If X,Y,Z etc had not happened we would not be here C) Therefore we are the product of intent There is a danger of vanity here, well golly it must be that all of this happend with us in mind. It should be pointed out that things are not "perfect" for us, life as we know it can exist with a certain range of variables, and who knows about the range for life we don't know about or potential life we don't know about. But as a strict matter of logic again, its a non sequitur. Weak anthropic principle Kyle Kelly explains the (WAP) as such...
Consider the following argument....... 1) Paintings are intelligently designed by humans 2) Buildings are intelligently designed by humans 3) Watches are intelligently designed by humans C) Therefore the universe (or humans) was intelligently designed First appreciate what a complete non sequitur it is. Listing every human designed object ever made in no ways even remotely suggests that the universe or humans was intelligently designed yet alone by a God. Size Pro says...."If a painting requires a painter, and a building a builder, how much more would a complex and huge universe require a designer? According to this type of reasoning where big = intelligently designed and thus small = not intelligently designed, a tic tac which compared to a universe is much much smaller is not intelligently designed, but we know this to be false. Ergo size can't be used as an inference to detect intelligent/intentional design. Complexity Consider the following argument......... 1) A watch/building is complex and intelligently designed by humans 2) A human is complex C) Therefore a human is intelligently/intentionally designed Once again as a strict matter of logic it doesn't follow. Now consider the following argument..... 1) Complexity can only happen from intelligent/intentional cause/s 2) Humans are complex C) Therefore humans are the result of intelligent/intentional cause/s Now I agree that premise 2 is true, but what about premise 1 ? The problem with the watch/building etc + complexity argument is it assumes that the universe or life is put together in the same kind of way as a watch is, and of course we wouldn't accept the proposition that a watch is created absent an intelligent/intentional cause, but we know this as a posteriori, then the argument quite fallaciously says well we can conclude that a the universe or life can't exist absent an intelligent cause/s. Wikichariorts explains...
I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] http://hitchensdebates.blogspot.com.au... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.infidels.org... [5] http://wiki.ironchariots.org... |
 |
|
Pro I wish to thank Illegal Combatant for again debating this with me. Con does not call into dispute the facts behind my second premise, so it seems that my second premise has been affirmed. It is highly improbable that the universe resulted from chance. So it seems what is really in dispute is my first premise. Premise 1 -- The universe resulted either from design or chance. The late Christopher Hitchens Now, what Hitchens said in the debate is true on the surface. But the thing to keep in mind is that the Teleological Argument is but one in a series of arguments meant to make a cumulative case for the existence of God. The Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, and the Ontological Argument are also used in conjunction with this argument to make the case for God's existence. The Telelogical Argument is not concerned with whether or not God cares about His creation, just that the universe was designed by a Designer. The only attribute that we could possibly discover from this argument is that He is an intelligent Designer. If you want to prove exactly which God is the one that exists (for example the Christian God), then that is a topic for another debate altogether. It is not within the scope of this argument to establish which God actually exists. Anthropomorphism I don't think "anthropomorphism" is a relevant topic to bring up in this debate. For if there is a Designer who designed our universe, He naturally existed before the universe and humans were created. Therefore we are not assigning human characteristics to God. Instead, He infused us with characteristics that mirror, or at least come close to, His own. False Dilemma Con claims that this is a false dilemma, but simply asserting that something is a logical fallacy does not make it so. Notice that Con did not present a third alternative. Simply presenting only two alternatives does not make it a false dilemma. Unless Con can present a third alternative, it is evidence that premise one is not actually a false dilemma. If, in fact, the universe was not designed by an Intelligent Designer, then that just leaves chance to direct the process and create order from the chaos of the Big Bang into the universe that we see today. I really don't see a third alternative. Improbable Events I would like to point out that my arugment is not a non-sequitur. Remember, premise two is that it is highly improbable that the universe resulted from chance. The conclusion is therefore, it is highly probable that the universe was designed. Not that it's 100% certain that it was designed, just that it's highly probable that it was designed, due to the fact that it is highly improbable the universe resulted from chance. As such, my argument is completely valid because the conclusion logically follows from the two premises. It is not a non sequitur at all. The purpose of design This is not vanity. Philosophers have been debating and wondering about why we're here for thousands of years. One of the most fundamental questions of philosophy is why is there something instead of nothing. This universe might have been created especially for us. Claiming it is vanity is not a serious objection to this argument. How does Con know the universe wasn't made just for us. It seems to be, considering all the numerous things that have to be in place in order for us to thrive here. Weak Anthropic Principle Kelly's Weak Anthropic Principle is circular reasoning. It begs the question. It essentially says we are here because the universe is compatible for our existence. We know the universe is compatible for our existence because we are here. This doesn't answer why the universe is compatible for our existence. It does not prove the universe was not designed. Design Con's argument does not reflect my statement. It should read more like this: 1) Paintings, buildings, and watches require an intelligent designer. 2) The universe is infinitely more complex than paintings, buildings, or watches. 3) Therefore, the universe must have been intelligently designed. Con's argument is only a non sequitur because it is a strawman argument. Size I'm afraid I don't understand Con's reasoning here. I never said big means intelligently designed and small means not intelligently designed. I am saying that smaller, simpler things (like paintings, buildings, and watches) require an intelligent designer, so larger, more complex things require an intelligent designer. It's possible I'm misunderstanding Con's argument, so I would ask that he clarify next round. Complexity Again, Con is attacking a strawman. A more accurate argument would be thus: 1) A watch/building requires an intelligent designer. 2) A human is more complex than a watch or building. 3) Therefore, humans require an intelligent designer. Contrary to Wikichariots, this argument is not making a God of the gaps. In fact, this argument is a very reasonable argument for God's existence. If smaller, less complex things require an intelligent designer, then it logically follows that larger, more complex things require an intelligent designer. There is nothing fallacious about that reasoning. Con states that the knowledge of paintings, buildings, or watches being intelligently designed is gained a posteriori, but the same is true of the universe. We know from experience that smaller, less complex things require an intelligent designer so it logically follows, again, that larger and more complex things require an intelligent designer. I believe the argument stands as both valid and sound. I look forward to Con's response. Con I thank Pro for their reply.
An intelligent Designer of the universe and/or humans does not equal Theism Pro moves the goal posts Pro has decided they will not try to justify the existence of "God" based on intelligent design. Pro has said things like..."The only plausible explanation for our existence is that the universe had a designer, God." Considering Pro decided to use the warn out obnoxious cliche of "it takes more faith to believe.....", I think Pro should be held to the claims they have made. Pros first premise "P1) The universe resulted either from design or chance." Pro seems to think that some one can present a false dilemma and if no one presents a third alternative that proves them right. This is the I am right until proven wrong fallacy. Consider the following... 1) Either I am in Australia or Africa If no one presents another alternative, does that prove me correct ? of course not. As I said, unless the proposition is (X) or (not X), chances are there is a false dilemma. But I am willing to withdraw my objection here until they respond. If by chance Pro means something absent intelligent/intentional design, then sure no problem, cause that was what I said in the previous round (intelligent design vs non intelligent design). If Pro means something different then we probably have a problem here. So Pro I am asking you to define and explain what you mean by "chance" as stated premise 1 & 2 of your argument. Anthropomorphism Pro is utterly dismissive here, Pro remarks about how people "see" intelligent design. Yes and people see faces in the clouds, but are they real faces or are they just seeing them ? People see intelligent design in say humans, but is it real or is it just in their head ?, that's the question now, and since humans have a tendency to give non human things human attributes I beg to differ with Pro, anthropomorphism is relevant. Improbable events happen all the time You will recall I showed how improbability doesn't prove intent. That's all I wanted to establish here. All this done, with you and me in mind You will recall that I showed you can't prove intent based on the fact that if x,y,z had not happened then we would not be here. Christopher Hitchens elaborates on this point...
Pro changes what the WAP is saying. It doesn't we are here BECAUSE the universe is compatible with our existence, it makes the point that any observer that is dependent on X,Y,Z can only exist where X,Y,Z is the case.
As Kyle says..."The WAP is significant in that it makes the improbability of any one universe (i.e. our own) irrelevant. We should expect that our universe has features compatible with our existence, since, after all, we exist." Nick Bostrom explains...
How does Pro account for this observation selection effect in there probability argument ? they don't.
Paintings, Buildings, Watches and the Universe Size + complexity Pro says..."I am saying that smaller, simpler things (like paintings, buildings, and watches) require an intelligent designer, so larger, more complex things require an intelligent designer" Pro is trying once again to take a set of complex things that require intelligent design (man made objects) and then say well this proves more complex things that are not man made require intelligent design too. Fallacious reasoning. Complexity and size can't be used to infer intelligent design, cause simple, small things like tic tacs according to this type of reasoning mean we should infer that tic tacs are not intelligently designed, but we know this to be false. Pros new argument 1) Paintings, buildings, and watches require an intelligent designer. 2) The universe is infinitely more complex than paintings, buildings, or watches. 3) Therefore, the universe must have been intelligently designed. Infinitely complex? I'll grant alot more complex. As I said before, you can list all the man made objects you want as Pro does in premise 1, but this doesn't get you to therefore the universe is intelligently designed. This kind of reasoning also back fires consider the following.... 1) A universe requires an intelligent designer (Granted for reducto) 2) A sheet of paper is infinitely less complex than the universe C) Therefore a sheet of paper is not intelligently designed Now perhaps Pro or some one else will claim, hey just because the universe is intelligently designed doesn't mean a sheet of paper isn't designed, you can't base intelligent design on levels of complexity and size.........exactly. As I said before this type of argument assumes that a universe or humans are put together the same way as watches and thus concludes if the watch needs an intelligent designer then so does the universe or humans. This is never proven, it's assumed as a priori. Does this datum suggest that God created our world ? Sam Harris explains...
That's it for me for round 3. Sources [1] http://hitchensdebates.blogspot.com.au... [2] http://www.anthropic-principle.com... [3] www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9GZOrxypTc (note: you might have to add "http://" to see the video. I did this to stop the video being shown in my post, this isn't a video debate.) |
 |
|
Pro I wish to thank Con for taking the time to debate this with me. I would just like to state that Con's assertion that I have moved the goal posts is bizarre and unwarranted. It was evident in my argument from the beginning that the arguments rests on the fact of a Designer being more probable than not. Premise 1 -- The Universe Resulted From Either Chance Or Design Con claims this is a false analogy, but his claims are a baseless assertion. If this were truly a false dilemma, Con would be able to provide a third alternative. For example, his statement "I am either in Africa or Australia is obviously a false dilemma. He could be in Europe. Or he could be in South America. There are other places he could be. But if Con cannot provide a third alternative, he cannot dismiss this as a false alternative. I am arguing that the universe was designed by a Designer who designed the entire universe. If there isn't a Designer, then the universe is the result of chance (in other words, a non-intelligent force that somehow created a universe that appears to have been designed). Anthropomorphism If there is a Designer of the universe, He logically came before that which He created. Therefore, we are not assigning human attributes to this Designer, quite the opposite. Our attributes were given to us by this Designer. If a Designer, in fact, designed us, it is entirely reasonable to suppose He used Himself as a template. Improbable Events Happen All The Time I proved in the last round that the argument is not a non sequitur. As Con had nothing further to add, I will add nothing further in response. All This Done, With You And Me In Mind Again, there is no arrogance in supposing that this entire universe was designed for us. All it takes is simple observation. After all, this universe was fine tuned for our existence and here we are. I have already shown why it is more probable that we have been designed. It is, in fact, a mathematical impossibility for this entire universe to have resulted from chance and to be the way it is today (as I showed in my opening argument). Weak Anthropic Principle I have not changed what the WAP says, I pointed out a flaw in the principle. It is circular reasoning. It is not simply a matter of "beating the odds." The odds against it are so astronomical that it couldn't have happened by chance. Agnostic astronomer, Robert Jastrow, noted the universe is amazingly preadapted to the eventual appearance of humanity. [1] For if there were even the slightly variation at the moment of the big bang, making conditions different, even to a small degree, no life of any kind would exist. In order for life to be present today an incredibly restrictive set of demands mut have been present in the early universe -- and they were. Even Stephen Hawking has described how the value of many fundamental nuers in nature's laws "seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" and how "the initial configuration of the universe" appears to have been "very carefully chosen." [2] Due to the mathematical impossibility of chance creating the universe finely tuned for our survival, and the fact that literally hundreds of things had to be just right (and any one of which could have gone wrong and we would not be here today), it is more probable there is a Designer than not. Paintings, Buildings, Watches, and the Universe Size + Complexity Con's argument here simply doesn't follow. My argument is that since we know that paintings, buildings, and watches require a designer, then bigger and more complex things would require a designer. This logically follows. Con's argument about the tic tac does not. A tic tac obviously has a designer (how does Con think they show up in those little plastic containers at the store?). Tic tacs are small and simple, so they are designed. My argument is that we can infer that larger and more complex things require a designer is smaller and simpler things do. I should also point out that my arguments in this section are not new. Con was attacking a strawman of my actual argument, so I gave him my actual arguments. These arguments have not changed from my opening argument. Yes, Con can get away with nitpicking my argument. Okay, granted the universe is not "infinitely" more complex than man made objects. I was using "infinitely" in a more general sense since the universe is massively huge, whereas watches and buildings are but a mere speck in this great, big universe. The problem with Con's argument about paper is that the conclusion is obviously false. We know that paper has an intelligent designer. It doesn't just pop into existence out of nowhere. Humans create paper. Additionally, his argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. You cannot assume that since the universe is massive and complex, that something small and simple like a piece of paper was not intelligently designed. This is not a priori reasoning but a posteriori. We know the universe had a beginning. It was either designed or arose from chance. We know from experience that things don't just pop into existence out of nothing. I have shown through evidence and reason why it is reasonable that it is more likely that universe was designed than not. Did God create the world? This is acually irrelevant to the debate. The Teleological Argument is only concerned with the design in the universe points to a Designer. The Teleological Argument makes no claim as to who this Designer is, or to which God or gods is (are) the correct one(s). It is part of a series of arguments that make a cumulative case for God's existence. In order to prove which God is the designer of the universe, it requires a different argument. As such, this is simply a red herring. I look forward to our final round. [1] Jastrow, Robert, "A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview With Robert Jastrow," CT, 6 August 1982. [2] As cited by F. Heeren, Show me God, p. 67. Con I thank Pro for their reply. An intelligent Designer of the universe and/or humans does not equal Theism Pro moved the goal posts Pro doesn't have to prove the Christian God but he doesn't totally get off the hook here, I again refer to Pros own words..."The only plausible explanation for our existence is that the universe had a designer, God." Pros first premise "P1) The universe resulted either from design or chance." Pro rebukes me for my objection here. I did say last round I withdraw the objection, consider my objection here withdrawn. Randomness is not the same as Chance/a non-intelligent force I'd like to point out that people not confuse "chance/a non intelligent force with "randomness" as the same thing. An object falling to the ground is not random as the outcome is affected by other externalities but it's not intelligent design either. Unsupported assertions Pro says..." It is, in fact, a mathematical impossibility for this entire universe to have resulted from chance and to be the way it is today" & "Our attributes were given to us by this Designer." PROVE IT. Anthropomorphism Nothing to add. All this done, with you and me in mind As far as logic goes I just wanted to establish here that you you can't prove intent just because if x,y,z had not happened then we would not exist. Improbable events happen all the time The immense improbability of something doesn't prove intent. That's my main logical point here. Pro doesn't tell us the probability of "intelligent design" Pro doesn't tell or know the probability of the universe or humans being "intelligently" designed thus he can't say if this or non intelligent design is more or less probable. Lack of Background information for universes Peter Slezak explains...
Pro butchers the WAP again. At no point has he explained in detail how the WAP commits a logical fallacy he just says it does. Of course maybe his own butchered version does, but the real WAP doesn't. It should be noted that when Hawking talks about "appearance" he is being quite literal, its just that an "appearance". As Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow explain...
Observation selection effects cause bias in data There is a very important logical point here that also effect any probability argument and its pretty hard to explain but I will try my best. Think of all the things that had to go right for Pro to exist with us today. Not only the things he has mentioned but then add to that all the world events and his own family tree, if just one thing had gone wrong he would not be with us today, what are the odds !!! they are astronomical !!! It was pre-planned...I think we have heard this one before. At this point hopefully, the readers if not Pro would appreciate, yeah I get that the odds are beyond comprehension but your arguing from a position where had not those events happened you wouldn't be here to ponder the astronomical odds of your own existence. How has Pro accounted for these preconditions which create a bias in his data and his probability argument ? He hasn't, its a faulty gambler overcoming the odds type reasoning, what are the odds eh ? the outcome was pre-planned. Paintings, Buildings, Watches and the Universe I showed Pros bad logic, Pros throws up some distractions like size, a mere speck... I won't be chasing these around. Once again I showed you can't infer intelligent design on size + complexity as it results in false outcomes. But just in case there is any doubt consider Pros argument with the following hidden assumption brought out into view... 1) A watch/building requires an intelligent designer. 1b) Anything more complex than a watch/building requires an intelligent designer 2) A human is more complex than a watch or building. 3) Therefore, humans require an intelligent designer. What justification do we have for 1b) Anything more complex than a watch/building requires an intelligent designer ? Pro merely assumes that because SOME things of a certain complexity require intelligent design (man made products such as watches/buildings) that means ALL things (even Non man made things) of the same or more complexity must be intelligently designed, the argument is an Association fallacy..."An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association." [3] Pros "Premise 2 -- It is highly improbable that it resulted from chance." Contrary to Pros triumphant declaration that their premise 2 had being affirmed, I was quite clear from the start I was arguing against their reasoning. Consider the following points I have being making... 1) Improbable events happen all the time and don't prove intentionality 2) The fact that x,y,z had not happened we would not be here doesn't prove intentionality 3) You can't prove intelligent design based on size + complexity 4) Refuting randomness doesn't rule out chance/non intelligent force as they are not the same thing 5) Pro assumes that all things of a certain level of complexity need a designer this is never proven As such I submit on strict logic grounds premise 2 can't be justified. But what about on probability grounds ? Consider again the points above combined with the following.... 1) Insufficient background information on how universes come into being 2) Pro doesn't account for the bias effect cause by necessary pre-conditions for the observer which leads to faulty gambler type reasoning. 3) Pro doesn't know the probability of intelligent design so can't know whether its more or less probable 4) Anthropomorphism 5) The assumption this was all done with us in mind As such I submit to you that Pro doesn't have any sufficient warrant to justify premise 2. Does this datum suggest that God created our world ? That's it for me for round 4. Sources [1] www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqqESXhZAqE (note: you might have to add "http://" to see the video. I did this to stop the video being shown in my post, this isn't a video debate.) |
 |
|
Pro I thank Con again for this debate. I would just like to reiterate that I have not moved the goal posts. I was arguing right from the get-go for the existence of God. It's even right there in the resolution. Premise 1 I apologize if it seemed like I was rebuking. Con mentioned he withdrew his objection insofar as I explained my position further. I was just being thorough, I meant no disrespect. Randomness I was not arguing against randomness. Atheism asserts that the universe resulted from chance, not from randomness (as far as I know). Con has not given any reason to suppose that my argument is incorrect. Chance is an undirected, unintelligent force. If there is no intelligent force behind the design in the universe, it is illogical to propose that chance would be responsible for all the order we see. Unsupported Assertions? Con asks me to prove my argument. In fact, I quoted an atheistic scientist, Julian Huxley, in round two which speaks to that effect. I even quoted Stephen Hawking to show that the universe appears to have been designed (although he rejects that there is, actually, a Designer). But if Con would like some more evidence, Fred Hoyle, a former atheist, when the possible combinations are taken into account, the chances that the first living cell could emerge without a Creator are about 1/10^40,000 [1]. The aforementioned Julian Huxley once calculated that the odds for the evolutoin of the horse were 1 in 1000^1,000,000. He admitted that no one would ever bet on anything so improbable. [2] Now, many evolutions say "given enough time, anything is possible," but this doesn't seem like a very scientific statement to me. However, has there been enough time? Suppose the entire universe were made of amino acids (which is far from the truth). There would be 10^77 molecules to work with. If we linked all these amino acids together at random at a rate of one per second for the widely accepted age of the universe (about 14.7 billion years), then the chances o fthat simple life form appearing shrink to 1/10^14.999,999,905. That's one in ten to the fifteen billionth power. Twenty billion years is just not long enough even if the universe were packed with the building blocks to produce life. [3] To counter this, an evolutionist might say, "but it only had to happen once. Being dealt a perfect bridge hand is a highly unlikely event too, but it has happened." This is true. It is possible, but is it probable? David Hume said, a wise man always proportions his belief to the evidence. All of the evidence says that the universe is too small and too young to permit the random assembly of life, even in a simple form. Following Hume's maxim, how can a wise man believe that life came about spontaneously and by chance when the evidence says that it is virtually impossible? On the other hand, what are the chances that Moses' record of creation just happened to put the events of creation in the right order? Suppose there are eight successive events (creation of the universe, light, water, atmosphere, seas and land, sea life, land animals, and man) which could have been put into any order. This is a simple permutation (8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1=40,320). Then the odds for Moses recording these events in the right order was only 1 in 40,320. Further, it has been calculated that there are 191 prophecies in the Old Testament abou tthe Messiah. These include where he would be born (Micah 5:2), how he would die (Isaiah 53), when he would die (Daniel 9), that he would rise from the dead (Psalm 16). The odds that fortey-eight of these prophecies were fulfilled in one man is about 1/10^157. That is a 1 with 157 zeros after it. If a gambler had managed to guess forty-eight horses right without a single mistake, it would be reasonable to suspect that he had inside information. Likewise, it is highly probable that the Old Testament prophets had some help to know so much about events that happened hundreds of years after their deaths. It is cetainly the reasonable thing to believe. Again, remember that this argument is based on probability, not on certitude. Anthropomorphism Con has nothing to add here, so I have nothing to respond to. I extend my point. All this done, with you and me in mind. You may not be able to prove intent, but this argument is based on probability. I have established the existence of God is more probable than the non-existence of God. Improbable Events Happen All the Time While the immense probability may not prove intent, it does prove that it is less likely to occur than an event that is more likely to occur. The Probability of Intelligent Design In this round I have given the probability of Intelligent Design (see above). I have also firmly established that it is much more probable than chance. Lack of Background Information for Universes The immense improbability of the universe resulting from chance proves that even having a "lack of background information," it is reasonable to suppose that the universe had a designer. We see this from experience: smaller, less complex things need a designer. As such, so do larger, more complex things. Humans assign value to words. This is why if we see "I love Kylie" written in the clouds, we can assume a human did it. This actually proves my point. The wind didn't blow it that way, it was intelligently designed in the sky. Weak Anthropic Principle I explained how the Weak Anthropic Principle begs the question in round three. Feel free to go back and re-read it. You can't just look at nature and suppose things are the way they are because they "must have" turned out that way, otherwise we wouldn't be here. I'll re-iterate: This is circular reasoning. We are here because nature produces order. We know nature produces order because we are here. This begs the question. How do you know there isn't an intelligent designer that designed the universe to produce your specific form of life? You don't, and you can't prove nature did it alone with that argument. It could very well have screwed up and you not be there. There's no reason nature "had" to produce the necessary conditions for our life to exist. Observation Selection Effects Cause Bias in Data While it may be true that there were certain factors that allowed for my being here, this is quite different than saying the human race arose from chance. For example, I am here because my parents engaged in the sexual union which results in the creation of a new, unique human individual organism. Sexual organs, sperm and eggs were all designed to produce a new human being. However, the fact this happens doesn't explain how the human race could have resulted through chance, which had to have just the right combination of elements in order for humanity to first arise. Paintings, Buildings, Watches, and the Universe Con has not shown why you can't infer intelligent design based on size and complexity, which is highlight by his inability to respond to my arguments. As such, I extend my arguments. I have already shown justification for 1b. If smaller, less complex things require an intelligent designer, then why don't larger, more complex things? Con can only say, "just because we can't prove it, we should just accept it because it's better than believing in an intelligent designer." But I have already shown why belief in an intelligent designer is more reasonable. I am low on characters, but I have shown ample reasons to justify premise 2 as well. I have shown that it is highly more probable to believe in an intelligent designer than in mere chance alone. [1] Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space. [2] Huxley, Julian, Evolution in Action, pp. 45-46. [3] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 360. Con Going into the last round I will try to summarize some of my main points I have been making to negate Pros argument. Unsupported assertions by Pro "If there is no intelligent force behind the design in the universe, it is illogical to propose that chance would be responsible for all the order we see." Why is it illogical ? cause Pro says so ? Pro may not like it, but that's a far cry from being "illogical". Pro says..."I have established the existence of God is more probable than the non-existence of God." If by established you mean your own unsupported assertion then sure. Pro says..."The immense improbability of the universe resulting from chance proves that even having a "lack of background information," it is reasonable to suppose that the universe had a designer." If by reasonable you mean arguing from ignorance then sure. Drawing conclusions based on ignorance, take that science !!! Not to mention the WAP and observer selection bias points I have been making. Pro fabricates quotations Pro says... "Con can only say, "just because we can't prove it, we should just accept it because it's better than believing in an intelligent designer." Pro just makes crap up and then put it in quotes as if I said it. Am I surprised ? no, cause if he is willing to mis-quote Stephen Hawking he isn't going to have any problem putting me in unsaid quotes. Disgraceful conduct by Pro. I guess this is what happens when you bring out a hidden unproven assumption in pros argument, he doesn't take to kindly to that. Pro says..."I have already shown justification for 1b. If smaller, less complex things require an intelligent designer, then why don't larger, more complex things?" No you haven't justified "1b) Anything more complex than a watch/building requires an intelligent designer". In order to justify 1b, you use your argument which already assumes this assumption...circular reasoning. Is purpose of your question to shift the burden ? I hope you don't think that when some one shows a hidden unsupported premise in your argument that your right until proven wrong . You can't justify 1b) thus your argument doesn't follow with logical necessity. Pro attacks evolution/Non random does not equal intelligent design Pro sets himself an easy target by saying well the evolutionist could say this the evolutionist could say that. Trouble is the outcome of evolution is anything but random, natural selection plays it part in not making all combinations equally probably, this is not pure randomness. Just like the universe argument, Pro wants to dump on randomness then once he is done refuting it say, well then, intelligent design it is. It sets up a false dilemma, randomness or intelligent design, the true dilemma for the universe or humans is intelligent design or non intelligent design. Refuting pure randomness does not equal therefore intelligent design. Pro presents new argument in round 5 Moses/Messiah & The Bible Seriously ? Am I supposed to now argue in the last round against the proposition of divine revelation as contained in the bible or any other document ? I don't think so. Chance is not the same thing as randomness Pro says..."All of the evidence says that the universe is too small and too young to permit the random assembly of life, even in a simple form." That's nice, what about non randomness ? After all chance is not the same as randomness. No logical necessity shown that the universe/humans must be intelligently designed. Pro tried to invoke complexity and size and argument from analogy such as using watches to prove the complexity of the universe/humans means it must require intelligent design. After all this Pro retorts..."Con has not shown why you can't infer intelligent design based on size and complexity, which is highlight by his inability to respond to my arguments" WOW, the scary thing is in Pros mind I bet he truly believes that, but do you ? Pro doesn't know the probability of an intelligent design Pro can dump on randomness or non intelligent design all day long, but he never tells us the probability of intelligent design of say a horse, until then he can't say if something is more or less probable than the other. False gambling type arguments Pro tries to use a false gambler type argument of beating the odds and our existence and/or the universe is beating the odds and as such we should infer that this was a set up (intended to be like this) just like the gambler and his amazing beating of the odds. But what I showed is that this doesn't work due to the WAP and necessary pre-conditions of human observation and lack of background information and low probability in of its self doesn't prove intent. Pro doesn't deal with these issues at all, he just butchers the WAP then repeats the astronomical low odds of it all and proclaims repeatedly it was probably intelligently designed. I even showed this type of faulty gambling type reasoning when its come to necessary pre-conditions of the observer such as Pro himself. I merely repeat what I said in the last round... "think of all the things that had to go right for Pro to exist with us today. Not only the things he has mentioned but then add to that all the world events and his own family tree, if just one thing had gone wrong he would not be with us today, what are the odds !!! they are astronomical !!! It was pre-planned...I think we have heard this one before. At this point hopefully, the readers if not Pro would appreciate, yeah I get that the odds are beyond comprehension but your arguing from a position where had not those events happened you wouldn't be here to ponder the astronomical odds of your own existence has Pro accounted for these preconditions which create a bias in his data and his probability argument ? He hasn't, its a faulty gambler overcoming the odds type reasoning, what are the odds eh ? the outcome was pre-planned." No good reason to justify that the universe /humans are or more probably intelligently designed I submit without any kind of logical necessity proved or proper probability argument here its just Pro preying on peoples incredulity, it's just easier to believe that the universe/human life is the product of intelligent design. I don't contest that its "easier" to just believe its intelligent design, I don't contest that its easier to just say "God did it" and be done with it. I submit that Pros can't justify that intelligent design is more probable than non intelligent design as its incredulity masked as probability. And last but not least, you will recall that I bought up the point that 99.9% of species on earth have become extinct and the last thing you would infer from this fact is that an omniscient and omnipotent and perfectly benevolent God has designed our world. Too anyone who manages to read through this entire debate I thank them for it, you deserve a pat on the back. Oh and vote for Con. |
 |
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 1 year ago
| KeytarHero | Illegalcombatant | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded in round 3. The resolution states that the TA is a sound argument for God's existence. Con defined God as just, personal, wise, etc. Pro agrees, only to later admit that the TA can prove nothing of the nature of the designer, only that a designer exists. The fact that the TA is part of a "cumulative case" is an admission that the argument itself is not one for God, as it is defined here, at all. Had the resolution read "designer," Pro would take arguments. Con's grammar was poorer.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 1 year ago
| KeytarHero | Illegalcombatant | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's whole case was based on a false dichotomy (why couldn't non-100 random and non-intelligent intricate and complex force organize the cosmos?). Since he had the burden, and he failed to show why P1 a false dichotomy, and Pro pointed out that it was a false dichotomy, it was a pretty easy win for Con.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 1 year ago
| KeytarHero | Illegalcombatant | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: The conditions of the planet argument fails - there are trillions of planets, each with varying conditions. Mere complexity isn't enough to infer a designer (a natural rock is more complicated than a brick, for example). Pro didn't defend against the vanity objection adequately - the universe could just as easily be 'fine-tuned' for the existence of black holes or paper as humans. Pro's reformulation of his paintings, buildings, universe argument was also logically invalid.
That's YOUR resolution, and I defined God as..."All powerful, all knowing, intelligent, wise, just, personal, supernatural." & benevolent.
Here is what you said in round 2..." The only plausible explanation for our existence is that the universe had a designer, God."
Here is what you said in round 3..."If you want to prove exactly which God is the one that exists (for example the Christian God), then that is a topic for another debate altogether. It is not within the scope of this argument to establish which God actually exists."
Here is what you said in round 4..."The Teleological Argument is only concerned with the design in the universe points to a Designer."
Here is what you said in round 5..."I was arguing right from the get-go for the existence of God. It's even right there in the resolution."
So who exactly was a cop out-again ? Not you right ?
KeytarHero, you'd be Pro on the above resolution and I'd be Con. You down?
I look forward to your analysis on which votes are valid or not. And if anyone has a problem with your analysis, I shall inform them that they can't "logically dis-agree" with what you have said.
Does it work both ways here ?