The Instigator
thedmob4722
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

There is a higher power in the universe.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 708 times Debate No: 56416
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

thedmob4722

Pro

By higher power, I'm saying that I believe there is some sort of deity that is beyond our current realm of reality. I'm not claiming that it's the Christian/Abrahamic God, but just a higher power, a deity.

1st Round is if you have any questions or comments you want to make before the debate starts, and then the next 3 rounds are just debating the topic.
Debate Round No. 1
thedmob4722

Pro

I would first like to point out that I do believe in evolution. It's provided a lot of information to the evolution of species and the like. However, I don't think it should stop there.

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how there could NOT be a higher power in the universe. I read up on space and galaxies and the billions and billions of galaxies in our universe and I always think, not why, but HOW? How did those billions of galaxies get there? How did we develop into such complex beings? How did us humans become so intelligent that we created the internet and the vast doors that that opened. I simply cannot see how any of these things can be possible without the intervention of a higher power.
Mikal

Con

Possibility - The fact or state of being possible.

Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

For something to be possible it must have the chance to be true without contradicting empirical facts. The fact that a higher power exists is possible but not proven. There is no empirical evidence to show that it does . Most people can only logically assume that a higher power does not exist. This does not mean that it is true or not true, but it does means that there is a high probability that a higher power may not exist. So we can acknowledge that a higher power could exist, because there is no way to show that a higher power existing is contradicting proven facts or empirical evidence.

Therefore a higher power existing is a possibility but not proven. My adversary must show some type of empirical evidence that shows that a higher power does exist.

The issue with this is that he has to provide empirical evidence and facts to show that a Higher power exists or he does not uphold his BOP, but this is impossible to do because there is no empirical evidence for a Higher being. Thus he cannot affirm his BOP

A failure to uphold his BOP warns a vote for con

C1) Lack of Need for a higher power

Modern science shows us how we are here and why we are here. It shows us that something can come from nothing and that there is no need for a creator. We can see something from nothing because of quantum fluctuations and how we evolved into humans. There is no need for a creator because science has explained everything.
Debate Round No. 2
thedmob4722

Pro

You do make very good points, and it's hard for me to keep debating my opinion lol. However, I would like to argue with you on the last paragraph you said in your claim:

Modern science shows us how we are here and why we are here. It shows us that something can come from nothing and that there is no need for a creator. We can see something from nothing because of quantum fluctuations and how we evolved into humans. There is no need for a creator because science has explained everything.

First of all I disagree completely with the very first sentence. "Modern science shows us how we are here and why we are here." Could you explain to me how modern science shows us how we are here? I haven't found anything in modern science that tells us how we got here. There's so many questions I have that science can't explain. Where did the very first living organism come from? I have this feeling you're going to tell me abiogenesis, which I believe is complete nonsense. You cannot create life from inanimate substances.

Also modern science does not show us why we are here. In fact it does the complete opposite. Nothing at all has been able to tell us why we are here. Why is anything here? Why is there life? Why am I alive right now?

The point I am trying to make is that there are too many things that actually CAN'T be explained by science to say that there is no higher power whatsoever. I would still like you to answer me the questions of why and how are there billions upon billions of galaxies in our universe, and where did the very first living organism come from.
Mikal

Con

I am going to take this as a concession due to faltering from the BOP. Due to my adversary saying he cannot argue the resolution vote con

Since we have that out the way let's just discuss as you wished

Everything is a domino effect from the big bang, we know the big bang exists by the CMBR that is in the sky. This was discovered by penzias and wilson and won them a nobel prize. The CMBR. Essentially everything arose from the big bang. Literally science has the concept and scope as to how and why we are here. Sure there are gaps in it thus far, but that does not mean you need a creator to fill in those gaps. Science has always and will always be able to fill in the gaps. What we are missing now we will know years from now and this is the continual process of science and understanding. Everything including matter and energy arose from the big bang, and anything prior to that is unobservable
Debate Round No. 3
thedmob4722

Pro

I would first like to point out that con refused to answer my two questions which were a), how/why are there billions upon billions of galaxies in our universe, and b), how did the first living organism arrive on earth.

I disagree with you again. Science will ultimately NOT prove/explain everything. That is the point I am trying to make. Science has not proved why I have a consciousness and why I'm able to be aware of my awareness and dogs and cats aren't. Science has not proved the two questions you refuse to answer. Science has not answered many many questions.

And the big bang THEORY is not proven. It is, at it is clearly said in its own title, a theory. Not a proven fact.
Mikal

Con

(a) They are thousands of galaxies in a universe

(b) The big bang is a fact

Again this is evident by the CMBR, which is the cosmic background radiation or afterglow of the big bang. [1]

My adversary has failed to uphold their is a BOP and show a creator or higher power exists in the universe

[1] http://www.astro.ucla.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MailboxVegetable 2 years ago
MailboxVegetable
Explaining the vast complexity of the universe by postulating an infinitely more complex consciousness is a self defeating strategy. The same arguments for how the universe got here can be used to ask how a God got here. Personally, I find it much more likely that the energy and matter in the observable universe fluctuated into existence rather than an infintely complex, omniscient, and omnipotent consciousness creating itself or fluctuating into existence.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
thedmob4722MikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not uphold the BOP instigated by Pro, as anybody making a positive statement (something exists) automatically assigns themselves BOP. Pro's initial argument is an Argument From Ignorance fallacy or making assertions out of lack of knowledge, such as A exists because I cannot understand how X happens without an A is an argument from ignorance. An intelligent approach is if you cannot understand how A happens without an X, then do more research, and don't make an assertion that X must exist just because of a lack of understanding (ignorance). That would be like Newton stating that Gravity doesn't exist since the Moon isn't falling. Yet Newton did not fall into such a fallacy, instead he researched and discovered that the Moon is falling, thus gravity exists. Assertions require Evidence, big assertions require big evidence.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
thedmob4722MikalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: BOP not upheld.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
thedmob4722MikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro would do well to learn what an argument from ignorance is. He failed to support his BoP, and so Con wins the day. Everything else seemed equal enough. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
thedmob4722MikalTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's attempt to fulfill the BoP was an opening argument from incredulity, and then a series of arguments from ignorance. Con had a very easy debate.
Vote Placed by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
thedmob4722MikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: As duly pointed out by Con, Pro did not fulfill the BoP. Pro speculated about the possibility and probability of a higher power, but did not prove that there IS a higher power, as his resolution declares.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
thedmob4722MikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not fulfill the BoP. Trying to find gaps in the Big Bang or abiogenesis is not an argument for the existence of a higher power. Con was the only one to use a source.