The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The cause of the universe was a sentient/ personal being

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 1 vote the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,074 times Debate No: 32875
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

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 was 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!
Anti-atheist

Pro

This cause must have a will, because it wouldn’t be able to create the universe without one. What this means is that it must have a will so the power to create could be acted on. It made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices) and how can an impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect?
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"This cause must have a will, because it wouldn’t be able to create the universe without one."

This is a bare-assertion. My opponent has given no reason why the universe wouldn't exist without a will.

"What this means is that it must have a will so the power to create could be acted on."

The power to create could be acted upon, by some non-sentient mechanical function. Once more, no reason has been provided as to why a "will" is required for this,

"It made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices) and how can an impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect?"

There is no reason to assume the universe came from nothing, or that a choice was made. These, are once more, just bare-assertions produced by Pro. Also, an impersonal cause can give rise to a temporal effect, if the impersonal cause was just a set of necessary conditions, with an inherit mechanical function to allow a universe to begin to exist spontaneously. As long as there is no state-state/ sufficient causation, then this gets rid of the problem raised by Pro.

It's clear Pro did not meet his burden of proof, and I undermined all of this claims. Vote Con,
Anti-atheist

Pro

"This is a bare-assertion. My opponent has given no reason why the universe wouldn't exist without a will."

I gave reasons why. Like Hitler. He choose to kill the jews after they attacked Germany. Theres two causes. Personal and natural. The jews could be killed naturally by physical laws or by a will. Hitler had a will to do so. Since no natural laws were in place before the universe it had to be a personal cause.

"The power to create could be acted upon, by some non-sentient mechanical function. Once more, no reason has been provided as to why a "will" is required for this, "

Natural cause would suppose natural laws.

"There is no reason to assume the universe came from nothing, or that a choice was made. These, are once more, just bare-assertions produced by Pro. Also, an impersonal cause can give rise to a temporal effect, if the impersonal cause was just a set of necessary conditions, with an inherit mechanical function to allow a universe to begin to exist spontaneously. As long as there is no state-state/ sufficient causation, then this gets rid of the problem raised by Pro. "

I did give reason. A impersonal cause would just sit there and never act.

Vote pro con failed
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rebutting Pro

"There's two causes. Personal and natural."


Pro has not defended this as a true-dichotomy, ans assumes the two are even different. Also his dichotomy it is in no way self-evident, as it may only pertain to our spatio-temporal universe.

"The jews could be killed naturally by physical laws or by a will. Hitler had a will to do so. Since no natural laws were in place before the universe it had to be a personal cause."

This assumes your argument founded on a true dichotomy, which you have not supported.

"I did give reason. A impersonal cause would just sit there and never act."

I debunked your reason. All one needs to do is posit an impersonal, mechanically operating necessary condition (lacking any determining sufficient conditioning), containing a transition function with an inherit nature restricted to the actualization of symmetry breaking; from atemporal to temporal. This means that there is no merit for the claim that an impersonal cause would just sit there and never act.

Conclusion

Pro failed to meet his burden of proof with regards to his first argument, as he has not shown it a true dichotomy. His second argument fails, because one an easily posit an option which coherently bypasses the supposed requirement for personal causation.

Vote Con.
Anti-atheist

Pro

It is a true dichtomy. What else can there be? You gotta give a third. You did not
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"It is a true dichtomy."

Bare-assertion fallacy [1]. You made a claim and just assumed its truth without justification.

"What else can there be? You gotta give a third."

Switching the burden of proof fallacy [2]. Your argument rests on the assumption that it is founded on a true dichotomy, thus you cannot support it by expecting me to prove you wrong.

The whole last round was fallacious. Vote Con.

[1] http://fallacies.findthedata.org...
[2] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...;
Anti-atheist

Pro

Space left blank as agreed.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by specracer 4 years ago
specracer
Please elaborate on what you mean by a Sentient/Personal being. Will the argument be that the universe just came into existence without the help of "God" or will it be that God is a personal God? The key emphasis here is the word personal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Vulpes_Inculta 4 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
Rational_Thinker9119Anti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Overtly, Pro is just using this as a platform to further his Nazi persona.