The Instigator
Negerfant
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
creationtruth
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is no evidence for god, god does not exist. (And by extension, religion is a lie.)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 993 times Debate No: 75468
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Negerfant

Pro

God does not exist as there is no concrete evidence for his existence. And by extension, religion is a lie. My argument is quite simple.

Let me quickly promulgate a few things:
  • The Bible (Or any other holy book) is not proof.
  • Art (Religios paintings, written works, etc.) is not proof.
  • Claims are not proof.
creationtruth

Con

A reasonable prediction of the creation model would be that evidence exists within organisms which testify to their being originally created by an intelligent agent as opposed to unguided natural processes. If it can be shown that the blueprint for all organic life, namely genomes, must have been created by an intelligent agent, any naturalistic model would be inplausable.


It must be understood that we are dealing with historical science which by nature requires us to compare evidence to hypothetical models about the past when we weren't there. Since we cannot observe, test, or repeat past events, the normal operational scientific method cannot ultimately be used to justify any one position, rather, in a forensic science manner, we can only look at current, observable evidence and determine logically which model, if any, it best supports. While we can never ultimately prove any historical event in a purely mathematical sense, we can certainly invalidate a particular model. With the following evidence I shall support the creation model while simultaneously invalidating any naturalistic hypothesis of abiogenesis.


Argument from Genetic Information


The cells of all organic life forms contain information in the form of genetic code. The chain of genetic code known as DNA harbors the amino acids which themselves contain no semantic meaning, but when placed in a linguistic sequence, can be readily utilized in forming every phenotype known to biology.


The living cell demonstrates a system of communication, particularly between DNA and proteins. DNA codes for proteins which go on to form every part of a creature, including the very DNA from which it was coded. DNA is a macro-molecule in the shape of a double-helix with a sugar-phosphate backbone.



The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences, or even the way 1's and 0's appear in a certain order to form binary computer code.



DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.
DNA is a double helix formed by base pairs attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone.


An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell.


DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information.


"To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information. . . an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as 'universal information' (UI). "


In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are syntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code.


In the creation.com reference I provided, one will notice Dr. Werner Gitt's four scientific laws of information (SLI). I will assume for the moment that Con agrees with the first two laws, if not he can explain why. The contention certainly arises with the 3rd and 4th laws.


SLI-1
A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity.


SLI-2
Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity.


SLI-3
Universal information cannot be created by statistical processes.


SLI-4
Universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender.


In order to refute SLI-3, one would need to demonstrate even one example of statistical processes producing UI which meets the criteria of the five levels of information. The primary reason such an example is infeasible is that statistical processes can never produce information containing semantic meaning, let alone pragmatic, purposeful code.


SLI-4 is substantiated by Gitt's SLI-4a-d:


SLI-4a
Every code is based upon a mutual agreement between sender and receiver.


SLI-4b
There is no new universal information without an intelligent sender.


SLI-4c
Every information transmission chain can be traced back to an intelligent sender.


SLI-4d
Attributing meaning to a set of symbols is an intellectual process requiring intelligence.

Conclusion

Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator. Note that this argument is not based upon the inability for naturalistic/statistical processes alone to account for the formation of genetic information, but rather my case is built upon what we do know about genetic code and function. Therefore this is not a god-of-the-gaps argument, as the claim is based on observation. Not also that this is not an argument from complexity but from specified universal information. To refute my case is actually quite a simple task; one must only need demonstrate a single case where universal information, of the type seen in genetic code, is derived entirely from purely material sources.


References

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov......

http://creation.com......

Debate Round No. 1
Negerfant

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, Con.

I have to say I enjoyed Con's rather large copy-pasta explanation of DNA. [1]

It all seems well and good, but that ends at:
"Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it".

That is simply incorrect and a fallacy. As learned from “On the Origin of Species”, order happens. Without an intelligence controlling it, but though the fundamental logic known as natural selection.

I notice Con listed the entirety of creation.com as a source without specifying an article. I was eventually able to find the page I assume Con was sourcing from, and found a lack of evidence supporting Dr. Werner Gitt's SLI-4. Thereby, through what I can find, SLI-4 is only a thesis at best. Refuted.

Your go, Con...

Sources:
  1. List of copied uses:
    1. http://www.debate.org...
    2. http://www.debate.org...
    3. http://www.debate.org...
creationtruth

Con

Pro says, "I have to say I enjoyed Con's rather large copy-pasta explanation of DNA."

Indeed my argument was copy and pasted from my own previous debate, but this in no way negates its validity and is certainly not a case of plagiarism.

Pro says, "That is simply incorrect and a fallacy. As learned from 'On the Origin of Species', order happens. Without an intelligence controlling it, but though the fundamental logic known as natural selection."

Merely asserting that Darwin's antiquated book demonstrates biological order via natural selection does not negate my argument. In order to refute my case, Pro must demonstrate an example of the creation of universal information, as seen in the genome of living organisms, from naturalistic processes. Pro says "order happens" through natural selection. While this is not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of natural selection, order itself is vague, potentially arbitrary in its quantification, and unhelpful regarding my argument. Order can be seen in the structure of atoms, rocks, etc., but true universal information which is seen in the genome is beyond mere order: genomes contain specified digital code which, by all observations to date, not to mention by all logical estimation, only comes from an intelligent mind.

Pro says, " I was eventually able to find the page I assume Con was sourcing from, and found a lack of evidence supporting Dr. Werner Gitt's SLI-4. Thereby, through what I can find, SLI-4 is only a thesis at best."

I am sorry about that, I will provide the correct article source below. For Pro to claim a lack of evidence supporting Gitt's SLI-4 without explaining his reasoning is unhelpful. Pro claims that SLI-4 is only a thesis, as though this refutes its validity. Evolution by means of genetic mutations guided by natural selection is also only a thesis, or hypothesis, which by Pro's logic would negate its validity as well. Pro has not addressed my case whatsoever, and certainly has not refuted my claims.

I have explained why genetic information meets the criteria of universal information: "In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are syntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code." Pro has not refuted this.

The SLIs are very easy to refute; all one must do is demonstrate a single observed example where universal information is created by natural, statistical processes. Pro has not done this. Therefore my case stands.
On to Pro...


http://creation.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Negerfant

Pro

Con says, "... but this in no way negates its validity..." Whilst I never claimed such a thing.

Let me clarify something on con's point about my understanding of natural selection:
Gross simplification does not equal "fundamental misunderstanding".

On to the main issue at hand here, the SLIs.

Please note the "... at best." part of my argument. If we imagine a hierarchy of fact, that goes from claim to law of nature. "Thesis" would be very close to claim. "... a thesis at best." would mean it is nothing more than "a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved."[1]. These claims he has put forth have, as I see you have misunderstood, "a lack of evidence". He has put fourth these claims without specifying how they came about, only asking for them to be proven wrong. They are augments from ignorance. Which as I have already tried to explain, is a logical fallacy. It being a thesis at best does not refute its validity, but it being unsupported by proof does. The big bang theory is not invalid as it is supported by proof. In addition, the main proof against it, such as proof of how information can be created by means of natural selection and mutation (among others) are thrown out the window by Gitt saying it is impossible - it is against the laws of nature! Meaning the correctness of the SLIs is dependent upon the correctness of the SLIs. Circular reasoning. Which, again, is a logical fallacy. Because of it not being disprovable through its fallacious nature, it is against the very fundamentals of a science. It is not falsifiable because we live in a universe of information-based systems, and his claim is that all universal information is created by an intelligent "sender" aka. god.

So the burden of proof remains on Con.

Another one of the errors in his argument is that all information with which a computer scientist has professional experience, has been created by humans. So he extrapolates from one sort of information (created by humans) to another sort (biological information, not created by humans). Needless to say, this is not a very sound way to reason.

Thank you for the debate. It has been a good one.
On to Con's finishing words...

Sources:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
http://creation.com...
creationtruth

Con

Pro claims lack of evidence, yet I have demonstrated how the function and processes of the genome exemplify universal information. My opponent has not refuted my claims with any supported arguments or evidence. My case stands uncontested.

Pro's claim of informatic extrapolation is erroneous as the definition domain for universal information is not contingent upon the location of the system in question but upon the function and processes observed within the system. Genetic information meets the criteria for UI.

Thanks for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Negerfant 2 years ago
Negerfant
In response to tejretics.
I am not trying to cite plagiarism. Even if I was, the points would still be equally valid even if they were plagiarism.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
The copied sources were copied from Con's *own* writing, thus you can't cite plagiarism.
Posted by MyUncensoredOpinion 2 years ago
MyUncensoredOpinion
The major issue with this debate is validity of sources, by claiming that every source your opponent uses or could use is invalid you've merely resigned yourself to debating the validity of the sources not the topic itself. If say "on the origin of species" was determined to be an invalid source for being almost 200 years old, which is far older than when most scientific texts are determined to contain invalid information, then pro's argument would be just as invalid as pro claims con's argument is.
Posted by Negerfant 2 years ago
Negerfant
In response to blackkid.
A lack of evidence isn't evidence. True. It just means believing it is illogical.

The definition of religion:
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
God:
1.
the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Yes, by definition, they do.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
1. "A lack of evidence isn't evidence".

2. Not all religions have deities.

You're fortunate someone is willing to not just use those two really simple sentences to lay you to rest.
Posted by evanallred123 2 years ago
evanallred123
Why does anyone even bother with religious debates? All it will turn into is the atheist calling for evidence, and the theist not being able to provide any. This is especially apparent based on Pro disclaiming pretty much all sources of religion. I am a theist and know that the existence of God is not something that can be proven by science at this point in time. It seems a waste of time to debate something that neither side is able to prove, because when you think about it, atheists can't prove that God isn't real. And let's be honest, nobody is going to be convinced by any of these debates. A theist does not need to have everyone agree with him in order for what he believes to be true, and neither does an atheist. If someone does accept this debate, nobody will be converted to either theism or atheism, and everyone will leave angrier than they came. Religious debates are completely pointless.
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
Would Pro need to prove both claims as true or just one in order to win this debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.