The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MyBait
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The cause of the universe, must be a sentient/ personal being

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 794 times Debate No: 32604
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

For the sake of this debate, we will assume that the universe did, in fact, have a cause. The burden of proof will be on my opponent to show why the cause must be a sentient/ personal being.
Since the burden of proof is on Pro, Pro will make the first argument in this round (the first round isnot for acceptance, but for my opponent to present an opening argument).

In round 4, my opponent will simply put:

"No argument will be posted here, as agreed"

This means, that we both give up a round (I'm giving up this round, and Pro is giving up round 4) to ensure that Pro gets the first say, and I get the last say due to the burden of proof.

Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic forfiet.

Good luck!
MyBait

Pro

This debate would indeed go on for 3 rounds, this round being the first by the Proposition side supporting that the cause of the universe must be a sentient being.

Clarifications:
1. Assuming an origin of this universe and our known world.
2. The onus of side proposition would not be to prove that a sentient being exists, but that if there was a reason for the origin of the universe, the most logical would be the existence of one.
3. A burden of proof also exists side Opposition, being that they have to show us why another explanation for the origin of the universe is superior to creationism and not just point out flaws with creationism.

Sentient Being: Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent being.

Points:
1. The Impossibility of Existence
2. The Complexity of the Universe

1. The Impossibility of Existence
In the presence of a void, before the existence of laws, matter, energy or anything known to theologians at this present time, all human explanations for the origin of existence falls apart.

i) Nothing Cannot Create Something.
The things we see around us are mostly finite. Matter is finite, energy is finite, essentially, this universe is finite. If side opposition were to make the assertion that nothing can create something, and things just spawn out of nothing, then there is indeed no need to have this debate. We see that the origin of the universe must have a reason. Side Proposition (myself) would be showing you why the most plausible reason would be the existence of a sentient being having a hand in creation while side Opposition (opponent) would be showing you why another explanation is better.

ii) The Constraints of our Universe
The truth is, before the universe existed, the laws of the universe did not exist either. Whatever we know, be it laws, presence, existence did not exist. This means all logic falls apart. This is also the reason why scientists cannot PROVE any of their theories on the origin of the universe as tracing it backwards does not work anymore as sooner or later, you meet the problem of having to explain how matter came from no matter.

Scientists winged their way out using explanations such as the big bang, where something, spawned from nothing. Scientists explained that first, asserting that a singularity existed from nothing, and explained how that singularity then went on to form the universe USING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. We see that this is only one explanation and scientists and theologians have since come up with many other such explanations, each with similar faults, each failing at the same points. The Impossibility of Existence.

iii) A Sentient Being Explains All
We have to acknowledge that all the constraints scientists face would not face a sentient, immaterial, omniscient being. Time, conservation of energy, all the laws of physics and this universe are only constrained to this universe. This means that if a sentient being existed, all such problems would be solved. Existence of the universe would be by his direction and design.

Therefore we see that there may be "flaws" with side Propositions case, but if we admit that nothing cannot create something, something must have created something. And that thing that created the universe must be omniscient, and omnipotent to exist outside of the laws of this universe. The best explanation to avoid the impossibility of existence of this universe, is a sentient being.

2. The Complexity of the Universe
Many things hint that the universe, and life on this planet is by design. The fact that we are debating this right now is a sign of that.

i) Life on Earth
For existence on earth (ours for example) many factors must have been set. The laws of physics and the universe must be as they are right now. Shifting anything would cause life on Earth to be impossible.
Size: The planet is the correct size to work with the laws of gravity (also must be corresponding) to hold our atmosphere together at a level that can sustain life. Any smaller, there would be too little gravity which then makes Earth like Mercury, no life, constantly lashed by asteroids from space. Any larger, free Hydrogen would be trapped in the atmosphere. Earth is the only known planet that is even equipped to hold life.
Water: The Earth has a system to redistribute clean water to the rest of the planet. Also, does have free flowing water on the surface unlike most other planets with trapped water or no such distribution system.

ii) Reproduction
a) No Creation means that life formed through evolution. First, there is no proper explanation how life ORIGINATED. Scientists created simple proteins using a cocktail of chemicals and electricity but those are just the building blocks of life, no one has created life from the non living before. Second, if that could happen, how is it that beings can form branches such that sexual reproduction is possible. Would that not hint that two strands of evolution is present? This again is impossible. Creation explains how there are two, perfectly compatible beings that copulate for reproduction. Evolution can explain asexual reproduction at best.

b) Evolutionists have yet to prove horizontal evolution. They can show vertical evolution: natural selection, where, for example fish copulate with other fish that eventually propagates the camouflage pattern in these fishes that allows them to best live in their habitat. However have not been able to show us a fish turning into a mammal or a mammal to a bird. Big dogs mate with bigger dogs to get bigger dogs. We get it. But dogs don't turn into other things.

Therefore we see that existence of this universe is so complex that saying it happened by chance is too much. Even if you say it did happen by chance, it is impossible to explain the development of life on Earth. Therefore, as all scientific explanations fall apart, the MOST PLAUSIBLE explanation would be guidance from a sentient being.

(Sorry, was rushing to complete as have work due tomorrow. Would do a better job the next few rounds.)
Cheers
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Clarification

The resolution is with regards to why a sentient/ personal being must be a cause of the universe, not just simply the most likely or logical explanation (either way, I will show why he won't be able to meet that burden either). Also, he claims that I have a burden of proof to provide an alternative theory to his. This is false. I stated clearly in my first round that the burden of proof was on my opponent, this means that my only burden is to undermine his claims. It seems Pro is trying to add new rules after the debate has already been accepted, and I urge voters to keep this in mind when voting pertaining to conduct.

1. The Impossibility Of Existence

i) Nothing Cannot Create Something


This section from Pro is utterly useless, because I already stated for the sake of argument that we would assume a cause of the universe. Basically, quarrels about Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit are extremely unnecessary, because this debate is already under the context that the universe was caused. My opponent must show why it was caused by a sentient/ personal being, and I must rebut his claims (not provide an alternative theory like he wrongfully asserts).

ii) The Constraints Of Our Universe

"The truth is, before the universe existed, the laws of the universe did not exist either."


If you read the above, my opponent seems to make a bold assertion that has no sufficient backing. Many Physicists, such as Alexander Vilenkin, believe the Laws of Physics did exist prior to The Big Bang:

"The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe."

- Alexander Vilenkin [1]

Now, this doesn't mean Alexander Vilenkin is correct. However, it does seem to indicate that there is nothing in science which requires the lack of the laws of physics prior to The Big Bang. Even if the laws of physics didn't exist prior to The Big Bang, this doesn't mean a sentient/ personal being is responsible.

My opponent then goes on to say:

"Whatever we know, be it laws, presence, existence did not exist. This means all logic falls apart."

This is an odd position to take for Pro, because we know sentience/ personality. Thus, if nothing we know of could have been the case prior to The Big Bang, then this is self-refuting as far as the resolution is concerned. Also, if all logic falls apart prior to The Big Bang, then any logical argument he can give to show why a sentient/ personal being must have been the best explanation prior to The Big Bang becomes moot (logic wouldn't apply prior to The Big Bang according to Pro's claims). My opponent hasn't even supported his claims that the laws of logic and physics do not hold pre-Big Bang.

It seems Pro is delving into embarrassingly self-refuting arguments here.

"We see that this is only one explanation and scientists and theologians have since come up with many other such explanations, each with similar faults, each failing at the same points. The Impossibility of Existence."

This is a non-sequitur. Even if all scientific explanations fail (which my opponent did not show was the case), this would not mean that existence was impossible. If the laws of logic didn't exist prior to The Big Bang like Pro claims, then how could any logical laws that would make existence impossible, apply? Once more, it seems were just seeing Pro engage in odd self-refuting argumentation.


iii) A Sentient Being Explains All

This section is riddled with problems. Earlier on, Pro claims that anything we know in this universe would not apply pre-Big Bang, but we know sentience/ personality. In this section however, he claims that sentience/ personality is the best explanation. It's clear that my opponent's arguments here are in direct conflict with each other. Pro also claims that
what created the universe must be omniscient, and omnipotent to exist outside of the laws of this universe. This of course, has not been supported.

There is no reason to believe this is a true-dichotomy:

a) The Laws of Physics must of caused the Universe
or
b) An Omnipotent, Omniscient. and Omnipresent being must have caused the universe

Until my opponent rules out the option of a non-physical, non-sentient cause of the universe, then there is no good reason to take my opponent's argument seriously here (especially with all the internal contradictions within his arguments that I outlined).

2. The Complexity Of The Universe

i) Life On Earth

"For existence on earth (ours for example) many factors must have been set. The laws of physics and the universe must be as they are right now. Shifting anything would cause life on Earth to be impossible."

I do not think there is anyway to conclude that because so many other combinations of constants are conceivable, that therefore, we can conclude them as actual possibilities.


Imagine you are in a room and you see a number generator. There is enough room for 3 digits, and it says 456. Since there is enough for 3 digits, this means that there was 999 other conceivable numbers (if we include 000) that "could have" been appearing on that number generator. However, the number generator in reality, only can only spew out 6 different digit combinations:

685, 456, 780, 068, 583, 390

This means, we thought the odds, out of all the numbers that "could have" been, were 1 in 1000, when in reality, it was 1 in 6 because we were not in a position to know the nature of such a thing. Who is to say this is not the case for the apparent fine-tuning?

For all we know, there were actually only a few ways the universe could have turned out. Just imagining different conceivable constants, doesn't seem too compelling.

ii) Reproduction

In this section, Pro says that evolution and abiogenesis are too unlikely to happen by pure chance. Unfortunately for my opponent, evolution doesn't happen by pure chance, it's guided by a process called Natural Selection (which isn't based on pure chance at all).


"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers." - Wikipedia [2]

This makes the probability argument from my opponent rather weak. Also, sexual reproduction is easily explained by evolution. Many theories have been brought forward to explain sexual reproduction. These theories have actually been experimentally verified as well. This includes resistance to deleterious mutation load and more frequent adaptation in an ever changing environment. Also, there are many intermediate stages, it's not as black and white as "sexual" or "asexual" reproduction [3]. The beautiful thing is, even if my opponent is right, this still does not demonstrate a sentient/ personal cause of the universe. He writes:

"Therefore we see that existence of this universe is so complex that saying it happened by chance is too much. Even if you say it did happen by chance, it is impossible to explain the development of life on Earth. Therefore, as all scientific explanations fall apart, the MOST PLAUSIBLE explanation would be guidance from a sentient being."

This of course, is a non-sequitur. Even if all natural explanations fail, it doesn't follow from that that a sentient/ personal being is most likely responsible. Pro hasn't ruled out a non-sentient, supernatural mechanism so complex that we couldn't understand. What makes that idea, less likely than a sentient/ personal being? Until my opponent answers this, his case is weak at best.


Conclusion

Most of my opponent's arguments were self-refuting, and his arguments contain many logical fallacies. The burden of proof has not been met by Pro. He provided no sources, and has engaged in misconduct by trying to place a burden on me to provide another explanation to his, when my burden is only to refute his claims. Therefore, it's clear he does not have the upper hand in this debate. Please vote Con.


Sources

[1] Many Worlds in One (2006), Page 181
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...

MyBait

Pro

MyBait forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

MyBait forfeited it seems.

MyBait

Pro

MyBait forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
MyBait

Pro

MyBait forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Jobbo56 3 years ago
Jobbo56
The reason: For teh lulz
Posted by van77maxon 3 years ago
van77maxon
I agree. LOL!

Futile - incapable of producing any result; ineffective; useless; not successful.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
lol @ all of this
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 3 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: As in for You only? As in nobody else can know?? Or As private, as in I don't want anybody to know?? OR I would not like other to know?

What is the predicate of personalness?
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 3 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: No seriously what a PERSONAL Being.?
No votes have been placed for this debate.