The existence of information is evidence for a Creator.
Debate Rounds (4)
Three rounds. Opening argument. Rebuttals. Closing argument. Seven point voting.
I will have the burden of proof, so my opponent will go first
Good luck to my opponent. I'm looking forward to this.
Pro's personally belief that information cannot be produced by the material universe at best only proves that either information cannot be produced, or is produced non-materially.
What has any of this got to do with God?
Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
1. Assume Pro's Belief
Even if we assume Pro's belief that the material cannot produce information, it doesn't follow the universe cannot since Pro hasn't shown that the universe is wholly material. Which given his undefined terms leaves open a plethora of options which do not require violating naturalism.
Even if we assume materialism is false, there still is dualism/idealism/solipsism, etc etc. which are not material based and do not mandate or even evidence God.
Where is Pro's evidence that information cannot be produced by material origins? Each time I pull the trigger on my camera, new digital information is created on the memory card based on it's physical interactions with nature. Thus - information is created just fine physically. I suspect Pro has some abstract weird definition of "information" he is adhering to - which he should define if he does.
How is God not material? Is it "not material" by definition? If he is "not material" by definition, then I posit a counter hypothesis called a "ChinaChuk" - which is a form of magic computer which is defined as being "not material". Thus - information is just as much evidence for this "ChinaChuk" as it is God. Obviously anyone could imagine a zillion random things which are "not material" and all would be equally evidenced by information. God just comes out of nowhere as an explanation - seems to be an argument from ignorance at it's core.
I am hungry now - Chinese sounds good.
But to answer one of your questions, when I mentioned information, I was referring to natural information, such as that contained in DNA. This is complex, specified information. It is a carrier of meaning. It is read and acted upon by the thousands of biological micromachines in the cell. This information could not have created itself through a naturalistic process. For example, scientists have recently created a synthetic lifeform. Sounds pretty amazing, right. But in order to accomplish this amazing feat, the scientists had to use existing life, not once. Not twice. But three times! Even with all of our knowledge and technology, we cannot create life without using life. This is proof that it could not happen by naturalistic processes.
Also Pro strawmans me, I said I am not at liberty to *provide arguments*. Since Pro has the burden here.
However, Pro has left all my arguments unaddressed.
Further he abandons his original argument, and now leans heavily on the unproven assertion that naturalism cannot generate information - ignoring that we already have processes that produce it (e.g. camera example). He also refuted himself when he says humans have created life, since this would be a generation of new information from materialistic processes, true that pre-existing information was present, but this alone refutes the notion that a non-material origin of information is required, since material origins of new information are already known.
Furthermore, even if naturalism is false, that doesn't prove God, since there are millions of atheistic ontologies which do not require naturalism to be true (such as what I gave last round).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
|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's arguments were not well supported and Pro failed to meet the Burden of Proof for his claim. Conduct to Pro because he could have explained his refusal to provide arguments in Round #1 rather than simply saying "Nah".
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.