The Instigator
Shakespeare
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Kinesis
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points

There is a creator from which we come

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,081 times Debate No: 10922
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (13)

 

Shakespeare

Pro

There is a creator from which we come.

This is a widely debated topic, but I find its truth to very quite obvious.

Whether we actually exist or we are just thoughts in the scheme of things we exist in some form, which would make our coming from a creator inevitable.

We are here; therefore, we are created; therefore, a creator has created us.
Kinesis

Con

Thanks to Shakespeare. This will be short and simple.

Pro's argument can be constructed as follows;

{1} We exist.
{2} If we exist, we must be created.
{3} If we are created, a creator must exist who created us.

{3} Is a non-sequitur [1], since things can be created through processes other than creators. For instance, snowflakes are created by water droplets and the atmosphere. [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Shakespeare

Pro

In one sentence you say "things can be created through processes other than creators." THAT STATEMENT is a non-sequitur.

In the very next sentence you try to back up your previous fallacy by saying "For instance, snowflakes are created by water droplets and the atmosphere."

Uh, thanks for proving my point??

Analogy Time: Ok, so there is a piece of pie. Blueberry, to be exact. Kinesis got the munchies, so instead of feeding on the souls of helpless Shakespearean debaters, he cuts a piece of the pie out of the pan and puts it on a plate. That piece of pie is not cake. That piece of pie is not cheese. That piece of blueberry pie is just a piece of what it came from: a blueberry pie.

Everything that exists come from a creator. Water droplets and atmosphere create snowflakes. Pie come from pie, created by all of the ingredients of pie. Unless you want the 'burden' of proving that something comes from nothing...There seems to be something between you and science. Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation a long time ago.

MY argument is completely logical. What; other than a creator, would something that is created come from?! We are the created, and must have a creator. I am not calling the creator God, or Allah, or El Shadai, or Paul, but whoever/whatever the being that created us is, is, and has created us.
Kinesis

Con

Ah, it seems this is my first debate where I am the victim of semantics. Nonetheless, don't count me out yet, for Pro has made a stronger claim than she should have in her last round. She is defending the position that;

'Everything that exists come from a creator'

In other words, that the principle of cause and effect (which is essentially what she is now upholding), holds for everything in the universe, and the universe itself.

Since she is Pro, the instigator and has the burden of proof, she must demonstrate that every single thing that exists has a cause/creator. This is not only an impossible burden of proof, but there is evidence against it as well. Physics has provided evidence for uncaused events, and philosophers have generally admitted that there is nothing unsound about such an idea- http://www.philosophos.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Shakespeare

Pro

"Nothing can exist without its cause."
Aristotle

Kinesis, you are the one with the burden of proof. You need to prove an uncaused event, because I have more evidence. There are many more examples of cause and effect, than not.

Your source referenced a very unspecific experiment, that claims that there is no hidden variable simply because they couldn't find one. CAUSE IS THE HIDDEN VARIABLE.

Nothing comes from nothing.
Kinesis

Con

"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." - Quentin Smith

Quentin Smith is a modern philosopher of time and cosmology. His opinion (while we're committing appeals to authority) is worth much more than the opinion of the brilliant but ancient Aristotle.

Pro is mistaken: she instigated this debate, she is Pro for this debate. The burden of proof lies entirely on her to prove that every single event has a cause. All I have to do is show that her claims are unsupported. Furthermore, there are examples of points where the evidence for causality is essentially useless, since core factors are changed. For instance, there is a great deal of evidence that things changing state require a cause (i.e. water changing to ice), but no evidence that things coming from nothing require a cause (i.e. the universe).

Furthermore, Pro criterion for proving that every event has a cause is flawed (apart from actually admitting that there are uncaused events in the sentence 'There are many more examples of cause and effect, than not'). Just because something holds most of the time does not mean it holds universally. Just because the we can see the sun come up almost every day at noon doesn't mean eclipses are impossible.

Pro is wrong about my source (although I admit it wasn't very good: I just wanted both a scientific and philosophical approach). It doesn't say that there are hidden variables unaccounted for, it specifically says that they are accounted for, and a cause still hasn't been found.

Here is a better source: Radioactive decay http://en.wikipedia.org...
and the movement of particles http://en.wikipedia.org...

Pro has failed to meet the burden of proof required to grant her claim, and there is evidence to the contrary. I assume, since she has taken this position, that what she meant by the resolution was that the universe and everything in it comes from a particular cause. I have shown this to be an untenable position. Thank you for reading the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
The meaning of "creator" was clear from the context of Pro's openning statement. The context implies the definition of "creator." The subject was an intelligent creator, not a process. Accordingly, the snowflake example was valid. There is more complexity in the snowflake than in the component liquid water, yet no intelligent creator was involved.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Ah, I missed the point about multiple creators. Yeah, that would have been a good argument. We don't come from a single creator, but many, many different creators.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
Generally, when neither side defines terms in Round 1, common definitions are assumed to be used.

Common definitions such as those found in a dictionary. You will find that the relevant definitions are either "one who creates" or "a person or thing who creates."

Either of those definitions world have worked, since water + atmosphere is neither 'one' nor '*a* thing' and the same argument could be applied to the universe.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Besides, trying to find ways of winning with the odds stacked against you is fun :)
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Yeah, but how was I supposed to do that? There was nothing in Pro's first round that limited him to an intelligent creator, and without any definitions in the first two rounds it was hardly like I could say 'here's the definition I think we should be debating, so you'll have to defend that instead'. It was HER debate.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
Voted Con on the burden of proof argument, but it would have been an easier vote if Con hadn't ceded the sematics debate which called water droplets & atmosphere a creator.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Common sense is unreliable, and it isn't a source :)
Posted by Shakespeare 7 years ago
Shakespeare
Source: common sense, real life
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
'this will be a great debate if pro and con can stay on topic'

Ha ha. Looks like this debate isn't going to be your cup of tea, then.
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
this will be a great debate if pro and con can stay on topic. if not, i'll gladly pass...
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Lafayette_Lion 7 years ago
Lafayette_Lion
ShakespeareKinesisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by HazelMystic 7 years ago
HazelMystic
ShakespeareKinesisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
ShakespeareKinesisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
ShakespeareKinesisTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mcc1789 7 years ago
mcc1789
ShakespeareKinesisTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Marader 7 years ago
Marader
ShakespeareKinesisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
ShakespeareKinesisTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by dankeyes11 7 years ago
dankeyes11
ShakespeareKinesisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
ShakespeareKinesisTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
ShakespeareKinesisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07