The Instigator
Jake2daBone
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
TheOrator
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The argument from design

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
TheOrator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 835 times Debate No: 24041
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Jake2daBone

Pro

Philosopher Robin Collins has identified three features of the universe that point strongly to the existence of God:

(i) The so-called fine-tuning of laws, constants, and initial conditions of the universe for complex life of comparable intelligence to ourselves.

(ii) The extraordinary beauty and elegance of the laws and mathematical structure of the universe.

(iii) The intelligibility and discoverability of the basic structure of nature.

There is no reason why we would expect any of these things to exist in a universe that arose naturally, but we DO expect them under theism.

The most common objection to this kind of argument is that multiple universes might exist, each one with different constants, and so it should not surprise us that at least one of these universes supports life. However, the only multiverse hypothesis that enjoys any sort of scientific support is inflationary cosmology, which (we have every reason to believe) creates the same constants that make the universe just right to support life. If that is not the case, or if some other "universe generator" exists, then its own existence, and the fact that it just "happens" to produce such a rich diversity of universes, would itself need explaining. In addition, multiple universes, even if they account for fine-tuning, do not account for the beauty and intelligibility of the universe.

The argument from design, then, provides compelling evidence for a creator.

Source: http://www.infidels.org...
TheOrator

Con

As this is a one round debate, I'm going to assume that this is supposed to be two speeches rather than an actual debate. As such, I'll just post my negating speech:

One of the arguments regarding the seemlessly eternal theism-v-atheism topic is that of the design of the universe. This argument was proposed by "philosophical" theists claiming that because the universe is elegent, complex, and so utterly beautiful someone had to create them. Although some may consider this a philisophical or even intelligent theory, my summary of it can be described as "Math is hard, there's no way people made this."

The main reason this theory fails is because it is used as a reason to assert a god exists. This is the same argument as "we exist, therefor somebody made us argument", but it is simply extended to "everything exists, therefor somebody made everything", and the same arguments apply against it. Simply because humans cannot comprehend some things in the universe, and just because humans happened to realize how things are structured when observing both the smallest and largest entities in the universe, does not mean that a magical creator who we have no proof of the fact that something created it in the first place, other than the fact that a human is not capable of creating it. Thus, one must first prove that there is an all-powerful deity powerful enough to create an entire universe before you can assert that a universe was created by one.

Another reason why this theory fails is because it focuses around mathematics. Mathematics, like time, had no existence before Humans arrived. Just like the sun would always rise and always fall, you could have groups of objects in one area, and occasionally that group would be mixed with another of group of the same object. This occurred, however there was no math, just like the sun rising and falling was not because time passed, it simply happened and Humans used it to measure time. Like time, eventually humans showed and noticed that group of apples rolled into a group of more apples, and devised a system where he could find out how many apples he now had in one group instead of individually counting them all. The same goes for triginometry. Triginometry did not always exist, but when people realised they needed a more efficient way lob something through the air from one point to another (like the catapault) they developed a system to make this more efficient rather than simply "eye-balling" it. this system of mathematics, which started with sentience and is still evolving today, is simply how we rationalize numerical events in the universe around us. Because math is just a method created by humans and not by nature, this theory also falls. Of course I could assert that the only reason we actually have math is because Homotheus handed my XGreat Grandaddy a burning stick, but I think we can all conclude that this simply isn't true.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
No idea why I typed Homotheus (I think it was because the comedy program I had on TV used the word "homo" and I jsut typed what I heard again), but I meant "Prometheus"*
Posted by dirkson 4 years ago
dirkson
Another short argument.

Consider lurking to see how people around here prefer their arguments. The general consensus is 3-4 rounds, with varying word counts. One round doesn't allow you to combat the other person's rebuttals at all!

If you make a multi-round argument based around the Cosmological argument, I'd consider a debate with ya' : )

Cheers,
-Dirk
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by WARHEADMITCH 4 years ago
WARHEADMITCH
Jake2daBoneTheOratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: With Con from the start and even with the one round only Con managed to make a good impression. Pro actually had his source in the lower half of his speech which gave him reliable sources. Great debate all round.
Vote Placed by FlameofPrometheus 4 years ago
FlameofPrometheus
Jake2daBoneTheOratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Simple con made better arguements. He used pure logic which wa senough for em to give him the round. Pros "idea" seemed to assumptive and to illogical (Not because of the belief in god but the belief in natural art, ppl have diffrent perceptions of the universe. )
Vote Placed by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
Jake2daBoneTheOratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I like Con's speech better.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Jake2daBoneTheOratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Fail.