The Instigator
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
baus
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Via Intelligent Design, humans are incapable of arguing logically for a typical god

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 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,198 times Debate No: 55735
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

Zarroette

Pro

Via Intelligent Design, humans are incapable of arguing logically for a typical god

Definitions

Typical god: an infinitely-intelligent, creator god (I didn’t have room to write it in the resolution; I’m not trying to pull a fast one).

Intelligent Design: is an argument for the existence of god or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world".

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

Rules

4 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 10k max. word rounds.

First round is for acceptance only
Second and third rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fit
Final round is for counter-arguments and concluding (no new arguments)

Debaters in breach of these rules automatically lose 7 points to the other side.

baus

Con

Okay, I accept.

I hope I didn't just walk into a paradox trap.
Debate Round No. 1
Zarroette

Pro

I thank baus for his quick acceptance, and I wish him strength in argument.


I’m going to make simple arguments to begin.

Any justification for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god must have the following two components:

  1. 1. He is infinitely-intelligent
  2. 2. He is omnipotent

To say that such a god does not have any of these, or even to say that he only has one, is to suggest that this god is not a god, but rather some kind of restricted or limited

Something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed

Complexity, as a product of understanding, arises when something needs to be complex. For example, a television set is not complicated for any reason other than because it has to be. If that particular television set was not as complicated, then it would either work sub-optimally or not at all. There are certain components in a television set that need to be present, or else it won’t work. Hence, the television set is as complicated as it has to be – it does not make sense to say that something is so complex that it had to be designed.


Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding

Comparatively, a television set can be more complicated than it needs to be, but this would indicate a product that lacks understanding. If the television set were to have extra wires that did not impede nor benefit the system, then you could say that the designer of the television set did not fully understand what was required. The goal of intelligence is to strive for working simplicity (i.e. making working things that are as simple as possible), and making things unnecessarily complex does the exact opposite.


To say that the universe is ‘finely tuned’ is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent

If the universe is finely tuned, then it would imply that god doesn’t have any control over aspects of our reality, otherwise he wouldn’t have to tune in the first place. The fact that he can ‘play the universe out of tune’ suggests that he can create a flawed universe, of which he does not want (hence the tuning). This is not to mention how silly it is that god has to make up for his mistakes when he sets the rules in the first place. To say that the universe is finely tuned is to contradict the nature of the creator god.


It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time

In order for god to demonstrate infinite intelligence, he would have to limit himself to a test of some kind. When no limits are available and no goals are known, unintelligent actions are indistinguishable from intelligent ones. So, god must limit himself and set knowable goals in order to show that he is infinitely-intelligent (or else give us some kind of alternative way of measuring intelligence, of which he has yet to give us). However, in limiting himself to testing conditions, he, at the very least, hides his omnipotence – you cannot play a game of chess in order to show how smart you are, without first limiting yourself to the rules.


And thus, it can be written as so:

Demonstrations of omnipotence require the absence of limitations.

Demonstrations of intelligence require the presence of limitations.


Conclusion

Evidence for god, via complexity, indicates nothing. For humans, Intelligence (limited) and Omnipotence (unlimited) are mutually exclusive, and such a creator god could only ever appear contradictory in our eyes. Thus, via Intelligent Design, humans are incapable of logically for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god.

References

Arguments taken from the Youtube channel, 'TrenchantAtheist'. http://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=_nNy-xPbKas&list=PL47F8B6C872DB6AC1

baus

Con

I absolutely agree to the statement "something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed". I do not believe that the reasoning for intelligent design should be that it had to be designed but simply be that God designed it that complex by his omniscient decision, as opposed to that it somehow is so complex that is had to be designed. Intelligent design should not be reach by the necessity for it but rather by the reality of God's will having chosen to create the universe as it is, has been and will be.

I disagree that the universe being unnecessarily complex could show a lack of understanding in the creator. This would indicate that there is a way to measure reality's complexity and compare it against how complex reality must be via necessity alone. this is not possible and therefore no one can ever know how necessary it is for the universe to be as complex as it is at that moment in time unless they were omniscient, which no human being is.[http://www.philosophypages.com...] The reason that a television with excessive wiring indicates a lack of understanding in the producer is that, that wiring costs to corporation more to produce the television, and so if the wiring were taken out they could be making more profit by having less expenditure, leaving them with more disposable income. business need to make profit to prosper.[http://uk.ask.com...] God, however, is not serving any economy when creating the universe and cannot possibly get richer or poorer as he/she/it is omnipotent.

I am not sure where, in the R1 definition of 'intelligent design', it indicates that the theory of the universe needing fine tuning, or being finely tuned as a result of this need, is incorporated into it but I negate this contention of Pro on grounds of relevance to both the resolution and definition that they, themselves,w rote for intelligent design.

The claim that to "demonstrate" infinite intelligence, God would have to limit himself to a test is correct. What is erroneous is to assume that God needs to demonstrate his intelligence to possess it. While god may not limit himself to such a test, the fact of his omniscience does not suddenly fade to grey but, rather, is unfalsifiable. Falsifiability would mean that God was indeed, limited enough in power to have to prove to someone he was omniscient, thus negating his omnipotence, but he does not have to do this and thus he is still capable of being simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent. Where Pro does, indeed, have a point is that the very fact that he can't be tested, or falsified, demonstrates a limitation in God's possible actions. Here is where Pro's definition of omnipotence will, indeed, 'omnimagnificently' whack their argument out of consideration:

Pro, in round 1, states that having omnipotence is having universal power, authority and force. I put the 'and' instead of 'or' as this is actually what Pro meant otherwise their case is even easier to disprove. Nowhere, in this definition, does it indicate that to qualify as having universal power, authority and force, the omnipotent being must be capable of limiting its power.

Nonetheless, I shall even go as far as to prove that Pro's definition of God and the ability to be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient all can coincide as long as temporal limitations on his potency are permitted to be placed.

Possibility 1: To prove that God is omniscient, God can create an identical twin of himself and request it to relinquish its powers to him temporarily before testing it. Once the test is over, God is free to be the jackass he wishes to be and can terminate the twin's existence despite his promise of impermanence regarding the taking of power.

Flaws: Morally corrupt and also he may have made the 'twin' smarter than he really is via him being omnipotent but not omniscient.

Possibility 2: He temporarily places specific limitations on himself, each placed with a metaphorical time-bomb stamp that mean that for that period of time, he has those limitations but that they immediately return at the set time.

Flaws: God could possibly be killed during his sub-omnipotence and irreversibly be wiped form existence by someone like the devil. This is countered by the fact that if God were truly omniscient, he'd see it all coming. So yes, this test is actually flawless but I just fancied mentioning a potential flaw if God fancied a suicidal flunk of a test.

Additionally, the theory that god is incapable of relinquishing his power, due to some innate lust for it, would indicate that he lacks the ability to no longer want power. You mistake omnipotence for narcissistic personality disorder. God is able to not want power at all times and temporarily restrict himself with it, as he showed via Jesus. Ultimately, however, he can indeed be omniscient and omnipotent but to demonstrate his omniscience, which he doesn't need to do to be omnicient, he'd have to limit his omnipotence temporarily unless we trusted his 'twin'.
Debate Round No. 2
Zarroette

Pro

I thank baus for his speedy arguments.

General rebuttals, addressing main points

“I do not believe that the reasoning for intelligent design should be that it had to be designed but simply be that God designed it that complex by his omniscient decision”

Hypothetically, in his omniscient state, god has chosen a certain outcome over others, hence demonstrated his intelligence. However, in doing so, he had to limit himself to the most intelligent decision, hence in indicating that he is omniscient, we can only view that simultaneously with the fact that he has shown he is not omnipotent.

“Intelligent design should not be reach by the necessity for it but rather by the reality of God's will having chosen to create the universe as it is, has been and will be.”

Since God is supposedly choosing to create the universe as it is, rather than another way, then my opponent presumes that god has indicated his will through the design, essentially begging the question. At no stage does he show how the design of ‘creation’ was demonstrated through its existence, rather says that it is a “reality of God’s will having chosen to create the universe as it is”. My opponent needs to reach that conclusion; he cannot simply assume it.



“I disagree that the universe being unnecessarily complex could show a lack of understanding in the creator. This would indicate that there is a way to measure reality's complexity and compare it against how complex reality must be via necessity alone. this is not possible and therefore no one can ever know how necessary it is for the universe to be as complex as it is at that moment in time unless they were omniscient, which no human being is.”

In arguing that there is no way for humans to understand how complex that creation (everything God created) would have to be, in order to know that it was designed, my opponent unwittingly argues against the reason Intelligent Design offers for creation: God’s intelligently designed creation. In simpler terms, in saying that we can’t know God’s existence is God’s existence, he effectively argues that we can’t know the universe was created by God, hence he no longer has any argument for God, via Intelligent Design.


“The reason that a television with excessive wiring indicates a lack of understanding in the producer is that, that wiring costs to corporation more to produce the television, and so if the wiring were taken out they could be making more profit by having less expenditure, leaving them with more disposable income.”

If there is no obstacle-goal relationship in the supposed God’s creation of the universe (i.e. there was no reason to be efficient), then you cannot say that the universe is a product of infinite-intelligence. My opponent has again refuted the Intelligent Design argument by arguing that we can’t know if God is demonstrating His intelligence, hence the resolution stands affirmed, on this point.

“God, however, is not serving any economy when creating the universe and cannot possibly get richer or poorer as he/she/it is omnipotent.”

Not only is my opponent assuming that efficiency is stringently a concept of economics, but he’s forfeiting a component of the Intelligent Design argument. In God not showing efficiency in His creation, he is showing that he is not intelligent enough to be more efficient. Alternatively, if my opponent argues that efficiency is not a goal that an omniscient being should strive for, then the creation of the universe lacks demonstration of infinite-intelligence. I refer readers back to what I said earlier:

‘Any justification for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god must have the following two components:

  1. 1. He is infinitely-intelligent
  2. 2. He is omnipotent’

This God has, by my opponent’s argument, failed to demonstrate his intelligence.

“I am not sure where, in the R1 … and definition that they, themselves,w rote for intelligent design.”

My opponent has elected not to argue ‘fine tuning’ (which is a common argument for Intelligent Design), in conjunction with intelligent design. Therefore, I will drop this contention.

“What is erroneous is to assume that God needs to demonstrate his intelligence to possess it… (the rest of the paragraph)”

The resolution does not pertain as to whether such a god exists, rather, it’s whether a person can argue logically for one.

“Here is where Pro's definition of omnipotence will, indeed, 'omnimagnificently' whack their argument out of consideration:”

“Pro, in round 1, states that having omnipotence is having universal power, authority and force. I put the 'and' instead of 'or' as this is actually what Pro meant otherwise their case is even easier to disprove.”

Stop playing arbitrary semantics, please.

“Nowhere, in this definition, does it indicate that to qualify as having universal power, authority and force, the omnipotent being must be capable of limiting its power.”

The resolution pertains to being able to demonstrate such powers, so that a human may logically argue for them. If God is limiting his powers, in the creation of the universe, wherein such creation of the universe is meant to indicate his nature and existence, then he has failed to show his omnipotence through creation, and the Intelligent Design argument is inherently flawed.


“Nonetheless, I shall even go as far as to prove that Pro's definition of God and the ability to be simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient all can coincide as long as temporal limitations on his potency are permitted to be placed… (including the “possibilities” that follow)”

The underlying flaws of each impending scenarios are as follows:

  1. 1. God is not demonstrating omnipotence and omniscience at the same time, hence he is failing to indicate his existence
  2. 2. He has yet to do any of these things, hence there is no supposed proof of his existence.
  3. 3. The resolution specifically calls for arguments from Intelligent Design, not arguments from creating a double, or placing a “metaphorical time-bomb” on Himself. Please, read the resolution.

Also, again, the resolution does not set-up a debate wherein we can see if God can exist. The debate is about whether God can be logically justified, by humans, via the Intelligent Design argument. As I have shown, my opponent digresses onto irrelevancies, in this section.

“Additionally, the theory that god is incapable of relinquishing his power, due to some innate lust for it, would indicate that he lacks the ability to no longer want power.”

This is a strawman of my arguments. I never argued that God had a “lust” for his omnipotence. I argued that, via Intelligent Design, it is inherently contradictory for God to demonstrate omnipotence and omniscience, to us humans. Hence, a logical argument cannot follow from the premise of Intelligent Design.

“God is able to not want power at all times and temporarily restrict himself with it, as he showed via Jesus.”

Not that this argument is at all relevant to the debate, but:

  1. 1. You’ve yet to prove that Jesus existed
  2. 2. You’ve yet to prove that Jesus was what you’re implying here (i.e. Son of God, messenger of God)

If my opponent wants to make a claim like this, then the BoP is on him to prove it.




The resolution is affirmed.

baus

Con

Please click play to enjoy the theme tune to this round of argumentation.

Why is that video relevant? Only God knows. ;)

I shall rebut via the following key:

PS: Pro Says
CR: Con Rebuts
ID: Intelligent Design

#1

PS: God had to limit himself to the most intelligent decision, hence in indicating that he is omniscient, we can only view that simultaneously with the fact that he has shown he is not omnipotent.

CR: I think we need to clarify something here. There is no 'most intelligent decision' or 'most intelligent design' this design is intelligent because the one creating it used its intellect to design it,not because it's the most intelligent design foreseeable. ID got its name from be opposed to the idea of an unintentional set of coincidences leading to our universe's creation. [http://www.crystalinks.com...] It is not the design that is intelligent, it is the creator. Pro's definition itself has no indication that ID necessitates this design itself as being intelligent, only the causative agent of it as intelligent. The term 'intelligent' in 'intelligent design' is merely used to highlight that the agent responsible for this universe existing is conscious, as opposed to an unconscious, unintelligent set of coincidences incapable of thought or willpower.

#2

PS: In saying that we can"t know God"s existence is God"s existence, Con effectively argues that we can"t know the universe was created by God, hence he no longer has any argument for God, via ID.

CR: We can know that the universe was created by God simply by the way that everything fits together in reality itself. Knowledge does not necessitate empirical evidence to back it up, this would indicate that the knowledge would have to be factual in nature. There is such a thing as axiomatic knowledge . In mathematics, without valuing such axioms, no one can ever make sense of 1+1=2 since the first 1 and second 1 might be non-identical. Only via the axiom of 1=1 can any of the rest of it be understood. Just as the scientific explanation of our origin holds sacred the axiom that Occam's razor be held true 100% of the time, ID holds sacred the axiom that God exists. It has no proof that God exists just as science has no proof the Occam's razor works (and, in actual fact many scientific theories based on it have later been proven wrong by more complex explanations than the original because the simpler one didn't incorporate enough into it). Axioms are required to think within frameworks. The only way to understand ID is via the axiom of God existing and the only way to understand science via the axiom of Occam's Razor, which leads one to the axiom of evidence being objectively valid, rather than only subjectively valid. In the context I was using it the verb 'to know' is defined as 'to be absolutely certain or sure about something' [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]. The resolution doesn't ask if God exists, it states that via ID, humans are incapable of arguing logically for a typical god.

#3

PS: The resolution pertains to being able to demonstrate such powers, so that a human may logically argue for them.

CR: No it does not. God needn't demonstrate powers to have them, thus to argue for them is a capability of any human, especially via ID. The resolution discusses the capability of humans to argue logically for God via ID, it doesn't discuss the validity of the arguments themselves.

#4

PS: The underlying flaws of each impending scenarios are as follows:
1. God is not demonstrating omnipotence and omniscience at the same time, hence he is failing to indicate his existence
2. He has yet to do any of these things, hence there is no supposed proof of his existence.
3. The resolution specifically calls for arguments from ID, not arguments from creating a double, or placing a "metaphorical time-bomb" on Himself. Please, read the resolution.

CR: I shall rebut each number respectively:
1. In the twin scenario he is demonstrating both at the same time. On top of this, God does not need to demonstrate both simultaneously, he can do them one by one. Furthermore, god doesn't need to demonstrate attributes in order to possess them.
2. God doesn't need to prove his existence to exist.
3. The resolution states that no human is capable of making an argument for God via ID. Capability to argue is inherent in the very idea of ID to begin with, since it necessitate God's existence as an axiom. The argument for God via ID is that the design indicates an intelligent designer. I am a human and I made this logical argument. Whether this argument is valid or not is irrelevant to my capability to make it. Many other humans have made such arguments and if you want I cant source evidence of this in the next round, even to the extent of videos. If you choose to deny that I am a human being, you have the Burden of Proof to prove what else I may be to have interacted with arguments in such a way, over the Internet, that only an beings have ever been known to be capable of. To both integrate the information you post and relay it in a way that's relevant to what I previously posted and, non top of that create new arguments from these interactions surpasses the capabilities of any robot and non-human animal in existence today.

#5

PS: The debate is about whether God can be logically justified, by humans, via the ID argument.

CR: It is not about whether God can be logically justified but whether humans are incapable of arguing logically for a God or not. Logic is defined as 'Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument'[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]. This means that formally arguing itself is inherently logical. The question is about he capability of humans to argue, not about the validity of their arguments. Logically was never defined in R" by Pro and thus is open to definition by Con.

#6

PS: In God not showing efficiency in His creation, he is showing that he is not intelligent enough to be more efficient.

CR: No, we can only conclude this after giving God a reason to feel the need to be more efficient and him then failing to do so. Until god has a reason to need to be more efficient he is capable of choosing not to perform at full efficiency.

#7

PS: If my opponent argues that efficiency is not a goal that an omniscient being should strive for, then the creation of the universe lacks demonstration of infinite-intelligence.

CR: God does not need to demonstrate his intelligence to possess it.

#8

PS: The resolution does not pertain as to whether such a god exists, rather, it"s whether a person can argue logically for one.

CR: It is whether a person is capable of arguing logically for one. The logic is in the fact that the matter, energy and other mystically forces presence in science, such as gravity and magnetism, do not remotely explain how the matter and energy originated, nor what made them move to begin with. In addition to this, the mystical forces do not justify the presence of consciousness within a human being and nerves to not explain the conversion of nerve-impulse to sentience. This gap in logic necessitated God, via the process of elimination. God would have to be omnipotent and omniscient to be both the source of all power in our universe and intelligent enough to have created its entirety (meaning if he created it all, he knows all there is to know about it and that if this is reality he consequently knows all there is to know about reality).

Jesus and the Bible are neither present the R1 definition of God nor indicated by 'a typical god' considering that the Christian god is a specialized one.

In conclusion, the argue for God, via ID is the the design required God to design it. The argument that it would be God as opposed to another is found in CR of #8.
Debate Round No. 3
Zarroette

Pro


#1

“CR: “There is no 'most intelligent decision' or 'most intelligent design' this design is intelligent because the one creating it used its intellect to design it,not because it's the most intelligent design foreseeable.”

Given that an omniscient God knows everything, would you not assume that such a God would use the most intelligent design for His creation (i.e. the simplest)? If not, then how is his omniscient nature indicated by His creation?

“It is not the design that is intelligent, it is the creator. Pro's definition itself has no indication that ID necessitates this design itself as being intelligent, only the causative agent of it as intelligent…”

With the term ‘intelligent design’, it is assumed that the design indicates intelligence. The definition I provided was: [intelligent design] is an argument for the existence of god or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world". My opponent is unfairly playing semantics.



#2

CS: “We can know that the universe was created by God simply by the way that everything fits together in reality itself.

Simply having everything “fit together” is not a demonstration of omniscience. The most intelligent demonstration (since God is supposedly omniscient), is one that is the simplest. It is possible that everything could fit together, yet not be the simplest way of producing the desired result.

Having said this, because making things fit together is not necessarily a demonstration of omniscience, my opponent is still missing a component of Intelligent Design: demonstration of infinite-intelligence. Hence, the extensions made under the #2 point beg the question, because the premise is incorrectly assumed.



#3

“God needn't demonstrate powers to have them, thus to argue for them is a capability of any human, especially via ID.

In order for humans to logically argue for them, via Intelligent Design, they would need to be demonstrated. Again, my opponent struggles to make the relevant distinction between:

  1. 1. God having said powers
  2. 2. God demonstrating said powers

If God has not demonstrated said powers, then via Intelligent Design (not necessarily all arguments for God), it is logically impossible to argue for them, because the Intelligent Design argument requires simultaneous demonstration of them.

“The resolution discusses the capability of humans to argue logically for God via ID, it doesn't discuss the validity of the arguments themselves.

My opponent has plagiarised Envisage’s comment in the comment section of this debate, because he has not given credit reference for the work used (it’s not that he can’t use them, it’s that he didn’t give credit). My opponent should immediately lose conduct points, based on this.

To argue logically for God, your arguments would have to be valid. That’s why I used the word “pertains”, because the validity of argument is *related* to being logically.



#4

“1. In the twin scenario he is demonstrating both at the same time. On top of this, God does not need to demonstrate both simultaneously, he can do them one by one. Furthermore, god doesn't need to demonstrate attributes in order to possess them.”

Your twin scenario isn’t the Intelligent Design argument. We’re debating a specific way in proving the existence of God (i.e. Intelligent Design), NOT any way.

On top of this, my opponent fails to grasp the argument that is Intelligent Design. The whole point of the Intelligent Design argument is that in creating everything, God has demonstrated both omnipotence and omniscience at the same time.

Furthermore, God does need to demonstrate attributes, in order for the Intelligent Design argument to have its premises.


“2. God doesn't need to prove his existence to exist.”

He does for the Intelligent Design argument to be valid.


“3. Capability to argue is inherent in the very idea of ID to begin with, since it necessitate God's existence as an axiom.”

The resolution reads “arguing logically”, and does not just refer to capability to simply argue. Please read the resolution.

“The argument for God via ID is that the design indicates an intelligent designer. I am a human and I made this logical argument. Whether this argument is valid or not is irrelevant to my capability to make it.”

You would not be arguing logically to simply state the premise of your argument, and then stop.

“If you choose to deny that I am a human being, you have the Burden of Proof to prove what else I may be”

Wrong. You would have the BoP to first prove that you are a human being. Besides, whether or not you’re a human is irrelevant to this debate.



#5

“This means that formally arguing itself is inherently logical.”

In arguing for God, via Intelligent Design, you cannot do anything but argue illogically, as I have demonstrated numerous times. Again:

Demonstrations of omnipotence require the absence of limitations.

Demonstrations of intelligence require the presence of limitations.

The illogical part comes in arguing for the existence of such a God, via Intelligent Design. The argument for God, via Intelligent Design, is inherently contradictory, as I have demonstrated.



#6

“Until god has a reason to need to be more efficient he is capable of choosing not to perform at full efficiency.”

As efficiency is the way in which humans determine intelligence (i.e. making things as simple as possible), then my opponent leaves himself without an argument for the omniscience of God being demonstrated, via Intelligent Design.



#7

“God does not need to demonstrate his intelligence to possess it.”

In regards to the resolution of this debate (i.e. via Intelligent Design), God needs do that.


#8

“It is whether a person is capable of arguing logically for one.”

Which no one is capable of doing, as I’ve demonstrated. To even begin to argue for God, via Intelligent Design, is to assume that complex things are the result of omniscient beings. The Intelligent Design argument is inherently contradictory.

“…This gap in logic necessitated God, via the process of elimination.”

My opponent makes the woeful argument that:

  1. 1. Because something is unexplained and there is currently no explanation
  2. 2. It must be God that did it

Is it not possible that there could be future scientific discoveries, for example, that would show it was not God who did it? Therefore, my opponent incorrectly assumes that God is the only logical explanation for such a phenomenon, when it is entirely possible an alternative, plausible explanation exists.

Besides, this argument isn’t exactly the Intelligent Design argument.

“God would have to be omnipotent and omniscient to be both the source of all power in our universe and intelligent enough to have created its entirety.”

Via Intelligent Design, God cannot be proven both omnipotent and omniscient. Not only that, but you’re assuming that it was a God that did it (begging the question), and then giving Him attributes.

“Jesus and the Bible are neither present the R1 definition of God nor indicated by 'a typical god' considering that the Christian god is a specialized one.”

My opponent has failed to provide evidence for the existence of Jesus. Hence, he has dropped his argument here.

Conclusion

Before anything else, I would like to say that I haven’t got anything against Christians, Muslims or any other religion that believes in a God. I think that overall, religion does more good than harm. I don’t think that God cannot exist, it’s just that the Intelligent Design argument is inherently flawed. I would be willing to look into other arguments for God.

My opponent constantly attempts to digress onto other arguments for God. Via Intelligent Design, an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot be argued for in a logical way.

Also, please take note of Con’s plagiarised content. Conduct like that undermines the integrity of this site.

Thank you for reading, and thank you, baus, for the debate ;)

baus

Con

baus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Do as you wish, I am free to vote. If you like you can always report my vote and I am ready to justify what I said. The fact that you stated: "BY INDICATING INTELLIGENCE, GOD SIMULTANEOUSLY, *VIA THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT*, INDICATES THAT HE IS NOT OMNIPOTENT, BECAUSE TO SHOW OMNISCIENCE MEANS THAT GOD MUST INDICATE LIMITATIONS TO US." This last line itself proves my point. Learn to take a loss in your stride and learn from it. I may have been wrong however it does not help that you start abusing like a child. Grow up first, and then talk to me in a decent manner. My argument stands, as does baus'. But you vote on my debates where my opponent has actually conceded and you give him the debate. I don't mind that greatly, but give a proper RFD.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
I calmed down and read this again, but I couldn't get through a sentence without having to stop:

"This argument, in my opinion, is infantile. The simple refutation could be that an artist makes a painting more complex because s/he wants to, or because it adds beauty."

You do not understand the Intelligent Design argument and how it supposedly proves god. You are conflating the Intelligent Design argument with some other one, hence why you continuously insert the Logical Positivism argument in your RFDs. I really don't have the patience to argue with you anymore. If you post anything on any of my future debates (vote or comment), I will immediately ask for a restraining order. You are driving me insane with your lack of understanding.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@Ajabtothefacehasmademestupid

"This claim then means that Z must show deductively that even if Intelligent Design is correct, to argue for a God is "illogical"."

NO IT F*CKING DOESN'T. INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN'T BE CORRECT, AND THAT'S WHY I'M ARGUING IT'S ILLOGICAL TO ARGUE FOR A *SPECIFIC GOD* (I.E. NOT ANY GOD, YOU ILLITERATE IDIOT ) VIA INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

"" simply be that God designed it that complex by his omniscient decision". So long as the BoP is on Z baus did not have to prove this statement, and Z's entire case goes flop."

MY F*CKING GOD DID YOU EVEN READ THE DEBATE???? BY INDICATING INTELLIGENCE, GOD SIMULTANEOUSLY, *VIA THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT*, INDICATES THAT HE IS NOT OMNIPOTENT, BECAUSE TO SHOW OMNISCIENCE MEANS THAT GOD MUST INDICATE LIMITATIONS TO US. YOU CANNOT GET THAT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, HENCE WHY YOU BABBLE ON WITH THIS BULLSH*T. YOU CONSISTENTLY GIVE BAUS ARGUMENTS THAT HE DIDN'T MAKE, AND BLAME ME FOR LOGICAL POSITIVISM WHEN THAT'S THE ARGUMENT ANY ARGUING FOR GOD, VIA INTELLIGENT DESIGN MAKES.

"By the way I gave the 2 marks because I though baus was 2 points better than Z, since Z insists I will remove that AND INSTEAD OF GIVING HIM THE 2 MARKS BECAUSE I THOUGHT HE WAS 2 MARKS BETTER, I WILL HAND HIM THE THREE FOR ARGUMENTATION."

YEAH GREAT. SO YOU'RE GIVING HIM EXTRA POINTS BECAUSE YOUR FEELINGS GOT HURT BECAUSE I CORRECTLY TOLD YOU OFF. WELL EXPECT THEM TO GET HURT IN THE FUTURE, BUDDY -- A LOT.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
RFD (2)
This argument, in my opinion, is infantile. The simple refutation could be that an artist makes a painting more complex because s/he wants to, or because it adds beauty. For Z to apply this analogy to Creation she must show that the Universe necessarily had to be complex, this she does not do. She does not show why it could not have been like a piece of art, especially if God did create man like Intelligent Design states then God could have done so out of choice. Since Z was making the positive claim, she had the onus. The next argument that comes from Z is that if there is complexity then there is impotence. This is interesting because she sticks to her television argument which cannot be made an analogy with Creation. While a television set is created by a human mind, the Universe according to Intelligent Design is made by God, He could have done so. This was the biggest problem in Z's argument, and as baus rightly pointed out: " simply be that God designed it that complex by his omniscient decision". So long as the BoP is on Z baus did not have to prove this statement, and Z's entire case goes flop. The last argument that Z makes is besides the point here. Z is the one who states that for God to demonstrate infinite intelligence he would have to limit himself with a test. Z IS THE ONE WHO BRINGS UP LOGICAL POSITIVISM AND THEN CANNOT HANDLE IT. Sorry but I got made, I was screamed at. You see this secretly hides the fact that Z believes that if something cannot be demonstrated then it is meaningless, this I have already refuted. By the way I gave the 2 marks because I though baus was 2 points better than Z, since Z insists I will remove that AND INSTEAD OF GIVING HIM THE 2 MARKS BECAUSE I THOUGHT HE WAS 2 MARKS BETTER, I WILL HAND HIM THE THREE FOR ARGUMENTATION. I will freely vote on the debates I want to, if Z still insists I will once more clarify this RFD.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
RFD (1)
I am going to re-write my RFD because I think Z did not quite get it the first time round, either that or she simply likes being an obnoxious person. In any case Z is free to vote on my debates, so long as she can provide her reasons for doing so. If she simply votes without reason I will simply report her. Simple.
The resolution is: "Via Intelligent Design, humans are incapable for arguing logically for a typical god". This then means, following the Latin rule: "Onus probandi incumbet ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" that the onus rests upon Z. It also means Z is making a positive claim. This claim then means that Z must show deductively that even if Intelligent Design is correct, to argue for a God is "illogical". Lets start with the first round, over here Z gives her definitions for God and Intelligent Design. I believed earlier that she had not mentioned omnipotent but she had, and for that I instantly retracted my statements. In any case I did not even take that point or the fact that she did not give any sources into major consideration. While I would have appreciated it, I no way gave the debate on that. I think definitions should be cited because often the definitions we come up with are vague, to avoid this and to give a setting. However I repeat as these definitions were fine for b, they were fine for me. Now the arguments: Z starts by stating that God must possess two qualities; that he is "infinitely intelligent" or omniscient, and that he is "omnipotent". Z then rightly points out that to say that any of these is colliding is to say God is not God, as per the definition. Thence comes the defense of the first premise, if you will. It states that "something cannot be so complex that it had to be designed". The argument states that complexity arises out of necessity not choice, and so if this world and its phenomenon had to be complex, then it had to be necessarily complex. Z gives the analogy with a television set.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@Ajab

You're damn right you need to apologise.

Source point calculations doesn't factor-in definitions, you idiot. As long as both debaters agree with the definitions, then that's all there is to definitions. I'm starting to think that the 7 point either way system is better, so people like you, who don't understand the purpose of certain aspects in debating, don't screw me over because of their poor understanding.

THEISTS USE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ('GOD'S CREATION') TO ARGUE FOR GOD WITH THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT BECAUSE GOD CAN'T BE PROVEN VIA LOGICAL POSITIVISM, HE CAN'T EXIST. IT'S THE STANDARD IN WHICH THEISTS, VIA THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT, USE TO 'PROVE' GOD'S EXISTENCE. HOW CAN YOU NOT GET THIS SIMPLE POINT? YOU LITERALLY TOOK ARGUMENTS AWAY FROM ME BECAUSE I ADDRESSED THE ARGUMENT, WHICH HAS ELEMENTS OF LOGICAL POSITIVISM (I.E. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE). CLEARLY, TO ANYONE WHO ISN'T A RELIGIOUS WACKO LIKE YOU, I'M NOT ARGUING VIA LOGICAL POSITIVISM.

NOT TO MENTION THAT BAUS NEVER MADE THESE ARGUMENTS, SO YOU'RE GIVING HIM EXTRA ARGUMENTS, BASED ON YOUR OWN STUPID FAITH. YOU ARE A GARBAGE VOTER. DO NOT VOTE ON MY DEBATES AGAIN, OR ELSE I WILL 'STRATEGICALLY' VOTE ON YOURS.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Okay firstly no need to scream. Secondly I retract my statement so far as the definition not including omnipotence is included. It clearly is. I apologize.
Sources for definitions should be provided, it gives a good setting, even if your definitions were unchallenged, they could have been, baus however did not challenge so I gave no points for that.
Insofar as logical positivism is concerned it is the theory that states that that which cannot be empirically tested cannot be accepted as meaningful (philosophically meaningful means rational, coming from the point that all real is rational, so if something is meaningless it cannot exist the very thing you were insinuating). The theory of logical positivism self refutes itself for its incompleteness is guaranteed by its own a posteriori claims.
Remember the resolution was a claim made by you, such that God is illogical to argue for from Intelligent Design, this places the BoP largely on you. In any case to see that from a logical perspective if there is a God He must be omnipotent see Theodicy by Leibniz. If God was not omnipotent then He would be empirical, rather He transcends the confines of space therefore omnipresent, of number therefore omnipotent, of time therefore omniscient. If you would like I can clarify and re-write my entire RFD analysing each argument.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
"The first problem came when Z should have added "omnipotent" to the definition of God in the first round, this she did not do."

Wrong, it was there. The resolution reads for a 'god', and I defined god as omnipotent in the first round.

"She also did not give any proper source for the definition."

I don't need one. As long as my opponent accepts the definitions, nothing else needs to be given.

"The theory that everything that has meaning must be tested cannot itself be tested."

It's the standard for proof THEISTS USE, silly. If god can't show that he's both omnipotent and omniscient, then he has yet to be proven. Remember that I'm not the one trying to prove god via ID. If you can't use that, then you no longer are showing the two required elements to prove an omniscient and omnipotent god exists.

"baus showed that God could have done it for other purposes, in essence since we do not know God or Him properly this statement showed a major loophole in Z's argument"

Lol, if you don't know god, then you don't know that he's omnipotent and omniscient! Again, in proving that we can't know god, WE CAN'T KNOW GOD (I.E. WE CAN'T KNOW THAT HE'S OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT). IT DIDN'T "COST ME THE DEBATE". YOU DIDN'T GET THE SIMPLE CONCEPT THAT WINS ME THE DEBATE.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
RFD (2)
baus made a very big mistake by accepting her first premise, if he had not and tackled that and questioned that then Z's resolution would not have had any play, he should never have accepted it. But he moves on to slightly contradict himself and argues that God could have simply willed it. If Z had played the Occams Razor card and had cited that she would have gotten more credence, insteads baus' statements stand because it shows a successful loop in Z's argumentation. He also successfully argues that we only find it complex because evolution has let us imagine another place which was less complex, and fundamentally humans cannot compare such elements. The latter part of his argument was extremely flawed and more than a little speculative. The rest of the debate was just a he said/she said thing and no major was added. In any case if the general debate quality had to be guessed it would be a 6/10.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
RFD (1)
I am going to go for a round by round analysis, this may be rather long. All right to start I think it is neccessary to reiterate the topic: "Via Intelligent Design, humans are incapable of arguing logically for a typical god". Assuming the BoP is shared it was Z's duty to show that Intelligent Design, even if valid, does not indicate a supreme being. This is rather ironic because ID seeks to basically establish a God, and has its roots in Christianity. In any case lets start. The first problem came when Z should have added "omnipotent" to the definition of God in the first round, this she did not do. She also did not give any proper source for the definition. In any case lets get back to the first argument presented by Z. Z argued that complexity is the result of necessity not choice and insofar as the world is complex it means that God is bound to this complexity. This way Z went on to argue that God would no longer remain omnipotent and this would be a problem. Her last argument in the first round was distanced from the resolution and seemed like an argument against God more than against ID showing God. Her argument was centered mostly on Logical Positivism which states that if something seeks to have meaning or be rational then it must in essence be tested. This argument is greatly flawed as a quick search in Google will tell you. The theory that everything that has meaning must be tested cannot itself be tested. It is self refuting, another ambiguity is that who is the tester? Also God's action or one attribute might be tested but not God, Himself. In any case it was incumbent on Z to show that why God would only build a complex design due to necessity, while her argument works for ordinary humans, baus showed that God could have done it for other purposes, in essence since we do not know God or Him properly this statement showed a major loophole in Z's argument, a loophole which cost her the debate had baus given a slightly better argument.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
ZarroettebausTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
ZarroettebausTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a fascinating read. Both sides put in good effort. Although the subject is complicated and I'm not confident that I fully grasp all applicable details, I am leaning more towards Pro's side. From our limited, human perspective, it is impossible to recognize infinite intelligence. Con conceded as much. Arguments and congratulations to Pro. As for Con's alleged plagiarism, I did not find sufficient evidence for this. There was no verbatim copying, and there is no proof that the similarity to Envisage's comment wasn't coincidence. If I am missing something, please message me. I will not penalize Con's conduct for the FF, as it was due to him being banned, not negligence.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ZarroettebausTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. Con gets sources as he was the only one to use them and used them effectively.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
ZarroettebausTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Baus got himself banned from this site, conduct in his opponent's favor.