The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Materialist
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: 4/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 755 times Debate No: 32841
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
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 is not 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!
Materialist

Pro

Thank you for offering this topic as a subject for debate.

Both in the proposal and in the explanation of the proposal the term "the universe" is used. I take this to mean not just any casual selection of one of the infinite number of possible universes there are to chose from, but, instead, the one universe that humans are sensibly aware of that is the subject of this debate, and will use that definition in the arguments that follow.

As I see it, the proposition has three parts. First there is a cause of the universe. Second that the cause of the universe is a being, and third that the being that is the cause of the universe, of necessity, has to be a sentient/personal being.

We both mutually agree to assume there is a cause of this, our universe, and I will show that when this is assumed, and the model is that of one universe, and that universe being the one we humans are sensibly aware of, then it follows since the universe only exists in our awareness of it, and since this awareness is a characteristic of our personhood and an attribute of consciousness, then the "cause" of the universe can be none other than our personal conscious awareness of it, making humans the sentient/personal beings that caused the universe.

I look forward to the discussion that follows.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Materialist

Pro

This is my first debate and I really don't know what tactical move I should make after considering the forfeit by Con for this round.

Since I am undecided as to what to do with my part of this round, I will do nothing, except to say I'm looking forward to Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I apologize for the last round, don't let this indicate to you that I forfeit the debate. I will get into my opponent's arguments here:

"We both mutually agree to assume there is a cause of this, our universe, and I will show that when this is assumed, and the model is that of one universe, and that universe being the one we humans are sensibly aware of, then it follows since the universe only exists in our awareness of it." - Pro

This is a bare assertion. My opponent has not supported the claim that the universe only exists in our awareness of it. There is much evidence to suggest that the universe existed a long time before any humans did. The key evidence of The Big Bang Theory for instance centers around the Red Shift of the galaxies [1], and the Cosmic Microwave Background [2], which suggests the universe is much older than us.

", and since this awareness is a characteristic of our personhood and an attribute of consciousness, then the "cause" of the universe can be none other than our personal conscious awareness of it, making humans the sentient/personal beings that caused the universe." -
Pro

This is a silly argument. My opponent has given no reason to think that the universe didn't exist when humans weren't around. We have found fossils of "non-person" animal bones traced back before the first known person [3]. This is strong evidence that the universe existed before any sentient humans. This means, sentient humans couldn't be the cause.


Sources

[1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Materialist

Pro

Rather than a 'bare assertion', my argument that the universe only exists in our awareness of it is a self-evident truth, that is, it is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.

However, if proof is required, then I suggest Con demonstrate a universe that exists which we are not aware of, or for that matter, any 'thing' that exists that humans are not aware of. This Con cannot do; because to do so would be to concede 'awareness' is the cause of the existence .

The 'awareness' of a thing proves it exists; the unawareness proves it does not exist.

This self-evident truth is something Con inadvertently proves the validity of by stating "
The key evidence of The Big Bang Theory for instance centers around the Red Shift of the galaxies [1], and the Cosmic Microwave Background [2], which suggests the universe is much older than us" which is the same as saying 'I (a personal, sentient human being) am aware of some evidence .

The 'evidence' itself is a thing that exists because Con is consciously aware of it. The universe, likewise, is a thing that exists in the conscious awareness and if Con were not aware of it, it would not exist.

I build on this self-evident truth to conclude that only a sentient personal being could be the cause of the universe because it is our conscious that gives our senses reality and since there is no evidence that any other being has a conscious awareness of the universe then by the process of elimination and by reason I argue the beings who are aware of the universe must be the beings who caused that universe to exist.

Con says This is a silly argument. My opponent has given no reason to think that the universe didn't exist when humans weren't around.

Is it 'silly' to think the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that planets are in a circular orbit, or that light travels through ether, or that ether doesn't exist but a cosmological constant does?

What is 'silly' is to treat evidences that exist only because we are aware of them as if our awareness plays no part in their existence. Con brings up the past, citing evidences that matter from the past proves the universe existed before humans existed, but there is no 'evidence' that the past even existed, because our awareness of the evidence only exists in the present. The past is simply an accumulation or collection of previous present conscious awareness.

In this round, I answered Con's "bare assertion" argument by proving the argument from which all else follows is a self-evident truth. I answered Con's proofs from science by pointing out the only reason they exist is because of our awareness of them. I answered Con's evidence of matter in existance before humans were in existence by explaining that there is no "past" in the consciousness, only present. I answered Con's "silly" argument by other arguments deemed silly now, but in the previous present consciousness they were deemed reasonable and rational.

I look forward to the next round of the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"Rather than a 'bare assertion', my argument that the universe only exists in our awareness of it is a self-evident truth, that is, it is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof."

False. It is self-evident that the universe existed much longer before we did due to all the evidence we have gatherd within nature. Your argument is horrible.

"Rather than a 'bare assertion', my argument that the universe only exists in our awareness of it is a self-evident truth, that is, it is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof."

It's not a self-evident truth. It's a bare assertion, and a logical fallacy.

"However, if proof is required, then I suggest Con demonstrate a universe that exists which we are not aware of, or for that matter, any 'thing' that exists that humans are not aware of. This Con cannot do; because to do so would be to concede 'awareness' is the cause of the existence ."

Switching the burden of proof. We know the external univers exists prima facie. The burden is not on me to show that you are not a brain in a vat (or whatever nonsense you are spewing), the burden is on you.

"This self-evident truth is something Con inadvertently proves the validity of by stating"

Yes. This doesn't mean you can claim anything is self-evident, and therefore you do not have to argue for it. Lets try your logic: "The cause of the universe, must be a sentient/ personal being" is false. Why? It's a self-evident truth.

Because the negation of the resolution is self-evident, then vote Con....This is is where your logic gets you.

"which is the same as saying 'I (a personal, sentient human being) am aware of some evidence ."

Yes. But a person being aware of evidence, does not mean that the evidence would not exist if the person didn't experience it. This is a non-sequitur.

"I build on this self-evident truth"

This is why the rest of your argument fails, its not self-evident. If I extend my arm out and touch something beyond me, it is self-evident that there is something beyond me. Your intuition is all out of wack I believe.


"to conclude that only a sentient personal being could be the cause of the universe because it is our conscious that gives our senses reality"

This just means that we experience an external reality that already exists.


"and since there is no evidence that any other being has a conscious awareness of the universe then by the process of elimination and by reason I argue the beings who are aware of the universe must be the beings who caused that universe to exist."

But your argument is based on a false premise. Therefore, the resolution hasn't been affirmed. If we can say things are self-evident without proof, then the negation of the resolution is self-evident. Vote Con.

"My opponent has given no reason to think that the universe didn't exist when humans weren't around."

I urge voters to deduct conduct points for Pro, as I provided evidence of The Big Bang to prove that humans were not around and he even quoted me. He is being intellectually dishonest.

Pro did not meet his burden of proof, and has the most outagrous argument I have ever heard. You can say something is self-evident, so you do not have to prove it. I wish all debates could be that easy!




Materialist

Pro

"No argument will be posted here, as agreed"
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Sorry I missed the round, I don't concede the debate though. I'll be back with a response.
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
I guess us hope to debate William Lane Craig's around here.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"It would help by saying likely instead of must."

William Lane Craig argues it must be personal. I guess your position isn't as strong as his.
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
Way to many stipulations against Pro to accept this debate. It would help by saying likely instead of must.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Yes I did. Thank you, I just changed it.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
You may have accidentally inverted pro and con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.