The Instigator
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Internationalist
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

There are no valid arguments for creationism

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 3 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 840 times Debate No: 43094
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

theta_pinch

Pro

There are no valid arguments for creationism. Con goes first.
Internationalist

Con

I accept the position of con. I will show there are valid arguments for creationism.

Terms:
Valid argument - a deductive argument whereby the assumed truth of the premises guarantees the necessary truth of the conclusion.
Creationism - the belief that all life was created by an omnipotent being.

The position that there is NO valid argument capable for creationism is false because what follows is a perfectly valid deductive argument for creationism.

p1- God exists
p2- God is an omnipotent being.
p3- an omnipotent being is capable of the claims of creationism.
sc1/p4- God is capable of creation
p5- the Torah and Bible are true
p6- the Torah and Bible claim God is responsible for creation
therefore...
c2- God is responsible for creation
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Pro

Con has given one argument for creationism. I will now show the flaws in it.
"p1-God exists"
This statement is an assumption that is impossible to prove. The core premise of this argument is based on God existing; there is a pretty good chance God doesn't exist; since it isn't certain God exists the whole argument is invalid.
"p2-God is omnipotent"
Relies on the assumption that God exists which is fundamentally unprovable and certainly not certain; hence this premise is also invalid.
"p3-an omnipotent being is capable of creation"
One of the only two true premises.
"sc1/p4- God is capable of creation"
Only if God exists which as stated above is far from certain.
"p5- the Torah and Bible are true"
An unwarranted assumption.
"p6- the Torah and Bible claim God is responsible for creation"
The second true premise.
"c2- God is responsible for creation"
Based on unwarranted and fundamentally unscientific assumptions.

CONCLUSION
Only two premises are valid and neither can prove creationism without four other invalid assumptions. Conclusion: this argument is inherently flawed and invalid.
Internationalist

Con

You have mistaken my valid argument for a sound argument. For my argument to be valid the conclusion only has to make sense from the assumed truth of all premises. If all of my premises are assumed to be true my conclusion is inherently true. My conclusion makes sense when we assume the premises are true, therefore it is a valid argument, which is what you asked for.
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Pro

So it turns out I got my terminology wrong; luckily I have an argument that will rectify my mistake: the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics there is an enormous number of universes and that every possible outcome of a cause will occur in some other universe. So that means that there is also a universe where "valid argument"means the same thing as sound argument does in this universe. Since the universe that this debates frame of reference is in was never specified; I will now specify that universe: whichever one has a valid argument meaning the same thing as a sound argument in this universe. With the frame of reference specified, it is now safe to say that my argument is valid and sound.
Internationalist

Con

If you wanna go down this route then in another universe there is an omnipotent being responsible for the creation of life.
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Pro

"If you wanna go down this route then in another universe there is an omnipotent being responsible for the creation of life."
This argument is faulty for the reason that it has to be physically possible. An omnipotent being causes the omnipotence paradox and thus cannot be a possibility. Therefore their isn't another universe where an omnipotent being was responsible for the creation of life because it is an impossibility.
Internationalist

Con

How can you be certain that the laws of physics and logic are not subject to a universe? You will have to show evidence that thr laws of our universe are applicable to other universes. Besides, you're assuming the multiverse theory to be true. This is arguably an as unfounded assumption as the existence of God and the likelihood of creationism.
Debate Round No. 4
theta_pinch

Pro

"How can you be certain that the laws of physics and logic are not subject to a universe? You will have to show evidence that the laws of our universe are applicable to other universes." They are subject to the universe; however in the universe reference frame this debate takes place in must have the same physics and logic. This is because it was spawned from our universe; the laws of physics and logic of ours can't be changed so any universe spawned from ours must have the same logic and physics.

"Besides, you're assuming the multiverse theory to be true. This is arguably an as unfounded assumption as the existence of God and the likelihood of creationism."
you are correct that I am assuming the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it's not as unfounded as the existence of God or creationism. The reason for that is that it was based of quantum mechanics; a theory that has been confirmed many times. It also solves several problems in quantum mechanics including most quantum paradoxes, Schrödinger cat, the EPR paradox, and the observer problem. Since it is able to solve these problems, is derived from quantum mechanics, and can be falsified once we have equations for quantum gravity and the theory of everything; it is much more likely than the existence of God or the likelihood of creationism.

Conclusion
In the reference frame of another universe whose reference frame this debate is taking place in; it has been proved that there are no valid arguments for creationism.
Internationalist

Con

If we're using quantum mechanics than the omnipotence paradox goes right out the window. The omnipotence paradox is that an omnipotent being cannot create a mountain so heavy they cannot move it and then be able to move it. These are opposing actions where one must mean the other is not true. However since you have introduced quantum mechanics into the argument then the omnipotence paradox disappears. Schr"dinger's cat (a criticism but also an example of quantum mechanics) shows that two opposing actions are possible ( the cat being both alive and dead).
Now since in a universe with quantum mechanics the omnipotence paradox is gone, it becomes possible for one to exist physically. That means it's also a possibility that they are responsible for creation. With the multiverse theory where every possible outcome can be found then somewhere there is an omnipotent being that physically is not a paradox and is responsible for the creation of life.

However the assumption of quantum mechanics truthfulness, it is still only theory it is not a scientific law and the majority of this debate was the rambling a of two people with too much time on their hands.

According to the terms of the debate (providing a valid argument for creationism) I proved pro wrong in the first round. I provided a valid deductive argument for creationism. However I know that what I provided was not pro's intention in this debate which I'm assuming he wanted to take place relying on empirical evidence and not technicalities.

To be fair I wouldn't have taken up the side of con if the argument terms were more thoroughly articulated.

I doubt this debate will get a lot of attention but wish pro the best of luck with results.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
Which is why I brought in the multiverse hypothesis to change the definition of valid argument.
Posted by Internationalist 3 years ago
Internationalist
@ Sagey alright I admit I didn't use the terminology correctly. My point I feel was still apparent in that the multiverse is not a certainty and pro was treating it as such.

To everybody: I know what I will sound like but I feel many aren't reading much of the debate or don't understand the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. I'm well aware many of the points in my argument are very large assumptions but the logic itself is good. It is a valid argument (which us what pro asked for) just not a sound one.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
@ Con: " it is still only theory it is not a scientific law"
Sorry M8, Theories never become Laws.
Theories contain rules, facts and what we call Laws or a better term would be Relationships.
The Laws you associate with Theories are the relationships between objects/facts and forces within a Theory.
A theory is an explanation of Phenomenon or Facts.
Some theories are incomplete, such as the Theory of Gravity, where nobody is certain what causes Gravity.
We only know that large masses, such as the Earth, attract other masses towards the center of the mass.
The forces of attraction and the acceleration of objects under the influence of these forces or the deducted/inducted, relationships between the forces and the masses, makes the Laws.
One Theory may contain many laws.
The Theory of Evolution has thousands of laws associated with it.
It also has thousands of established facts within it.
The theory is an explanation of why a set of components, phenomenon and forces are related!
Laws/Rules are the operational characteristics of a Theory or the way components and forces within a theory relate to each other.
Quantum Mechanics has many well established rules/laws, though there are many unknowns as yet and undiscovered, yet philosophized concepts that have yet to be proven enough to become laws.
I think the latter part is what you mean by your statement.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
theta_pinchInternationalistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro because Con went wrong in the very first round, basing his conclusions off of 2 unproven premises (God exists and the Bible is true).
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
theta_pinchInternationalistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con asserted deductive assumptions as arguments, lost me there. Con lost conduct point for becoming argumentative when Pro pointed out that the arguments were only assumption based and not evidence based. Deductive reasoning based on assumptions are never VALID arguments. Both flew off into the Quantum mechanics cesspool and lost me there, though Con got a strike against convincing me when Con demonstrated incorrect knowledge of the scientific terms Rules and Theories. Theories contain Rules and Facts, Theories do not become rules.
Vote Placed by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
theta_pinchInternationalistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: no sources cited, I would have tied both until PRO wnt into the idea of a "many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics" he started his own rabbit run