The universe answers whether 'God' exists
Debate Rounds (3)
It is quite clear that I cannot prove that God does not exist. That is a double negative, and cannot be proven about any entity that the imagination could conjure up. The case I will be making is simply this: Although we cannot prove the non-existence of God, there has been no proof shown thus far that a God does exist. I do not deny the possibility of a higher being, I simply ask for more evidence than has been provided.
Let's take a look at some of my opponent's arguments. He stated that "God is the principle of symmetry and cohesion, which is what holds the universe together." First of all, this statement was not backed up by any examples. It also begins with a fallacious assumption that there is a God, without showing any evidence to explain this God. Also, if God is the principle of symmetry and cohesion, then why are there so many imperfect forces in nature? Of course some symmetry can be found in the natural world around us, but what about children born disfigured or mentally handicapped? If god creates in "perfect orientation" as my opponent suggests, does that mean these crippling disadvantages are perfect? A much more likely explanation for imperfections in nature is provided by the theory of evolution, which states that genetic mutations will occur in certain species from time to time and that some of these mutations will eventually lead to adaptations that are beneficial to the organism. Another example of imperfection can be found in our universe. In the book "The Five Ages of the Universe" Fred Adams and Gregory Laughlin tell us that in the distant future, all matter that we know will be engulfed by black holes. These black holes will become some of the only celestial objects in the sky, and there will be absolutely no chance of life in the cosmos. If our universe was designed by a perfect creator, why would this be its final outcome? The world around us does have some natural occurrences that appear to humans to be "perfect". But we must remember, our definition of perfect comes from our own perception of the world.
My opponent has clearly put some deep thought into this topic, and I would like to commend him for that. However, it appears that the majority of his arguments begin with the assumption of a creator. If we are to have a true debate about the origins of the universe, we cannot make any assumptions that will impede our progress to finding the truth. I await my opponent's response.
The "evidence" is as follows. That which is immaterial is abstract, and abstraction is a mental process that "abstracts" or educes general relationships from observations. So philosophically, saying that space is immaterial and therefore abstract amounts to saying that it is mental"...that it is composed of mind rather than matter. By definition, there is nothing outside of reality that is real enough to contain reality. So reality is self-contained. A self-contained medium must provide that which is necessary to its own existence. So, if energy is necessary for the existence of reality, reality must find that energy within itself since we know that matter consists of energy [from Einstein"s e=mc2]. In other words, the universe, using its own energy, made its own matter. You may be asking how it does that. And the answer is: by configuring itself in such a way that the matter it made would be recognized as such by other matter.
Now let"s answer my opponent"s question: "Why are there so many imperfect forces in nature...What about children born disfigure or mentally handicapped?" God is the principle of symmetry, and symmetry is defined as two mirror images. Therefore since symmetry exists, its mirror image, asymmetry must also exist.
To entertain my opponent"s statement that "all matter will be engulfed by black holes", let"s pretend that precognition [predicting the future] doesn"t violate all the laws of our universe. Mathematically, if this were to happen, white holes would exist on the other side of these black holes"as mirror images of each other"because for every reaction, there"s an equal and opposite reaction. *black hole : white whole :: symmetry : asymmetry*
But unfortunately, as Michio Kaku explains in his book, "Physics of the Impossible", precognition is one of only two things that violate the laws of our universe [the other is self-perpetuating motion]. I support my opponent"s statement, ""our definition of perfect comes from our own perception". However, more importantly, perception is reality.
This is my opponent's view of God, and he is perfectly entitled to hold that view. Although I personally don't believe in a creator, God is a word that means different things to different people and my goal here is not to insult those beliefs. However, the argument created here by my opponent is presented in such a way that it cannot be disputed. By defining God as "the principle of symmetry" this means my opponent can now point to any example of symmetry throughout the universe and say that it is proof of a creator. In fact, his definition of God didn't finish there.
"Since symmetry exists, it's mirror image, asymmetry must also exist."
The definition of symmetry has now evolved to include asymmetry as well. This means symmetry is being defined by my opponent as ANYTHING that could exist, because there is only symmetry and asymmetry in the universe. This also means my opponent is asserting that God is defined as the principle of symmetry, which also includes asymmetry.
If God is symmetry and asymmetry, that means literally everything in our universe is evidence of God, according to my opponent. We must remember that this definition of God was supplied by my opponent, just like countless other people have supplied their own definitions over time. The problem with this argument is the fact that, once again, it begins with the assumption that there is a Creator. This creator, which has already been assumed to exist, is then given a definition without ever being actually proven.
Now, if my opponent wants to argue that God is the principle of symmetry, I do not have a problem with that. If that is what God means to him, there is nothing wrong with that. But my issue here is that my opponent uses his "symmetry argument" as evidence for a creator of the universe. This argument can't be proven or disproven, yet it is accepted by many as solid science. I could just as easily assert that God is love. Or possibly that God is harmony and balance. All of these statements cannot be proven or disproven, because they are all definitions of a force that is neither proven nor disproven.
I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting debate; I enjoyed the discussion. My final message would be this: I think it is important for us as human beings to doubt assertions that are made without concrete evidence. I do not believe we should reject any idea or concept of God, but I believe it is best not to form opinions about things that can't be tested. I do not know whether God exists or not. Until we have a testable, scientific way to prove it, I will not put my faith into the unknown.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: All pro did in his debate was say that the universe is the mind of god and then babble on about some meaningless nonsense about how cool it is if that were actually true, instead of actually offer evidence in any way at all suggests that the universe is the mind of god. That being said, pro feel tremendously short of fulfilling his BoP, arguments to the con
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.