The Instigator
Exmortus
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

We were created by Aliens, not a divine being

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 725 times Debate No: 71976
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

Exmortus

Pro

We were created by an extra terrestrial life form, we did not evolve from a bacteria we are an experiment just like the neanderthals, the homo habilis and the homo gaster
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept.

The entire burden of proof is on PRO to prove that we were created by aliens. If we fails to do that, you vote CON by default.
Debate Round No. 1
Exmortus

Pro

They're are thousands of religions and cults on this planet. We create these groups in order to feel safe, but there are common things in all of them, DIVINE BEINGS, what is a divine being in the first place?

Divinity or godhead is the state of things that come from a supernatural power or deity.

Over time peoples common sense has changed the more answers we solve with science the less we conspire about them, we mostly take them as fact. The more technology we create the more realistic these future tech seem, so in essence we are immune to this divine affect until they show us something we could never imagine.

This is what happened to the ancients, their common sense was so different to ours, they didn't even know it would ever be possible to do these advance things in the first place. So when these aliens came to meet their creations they showed them great and amazing things, which the agents deciphered into wall paint and books.

Remember the story of Jesus healing the blind man with "saliva" on his hands? And you noticed he had to do it twice? I know he was using some sort of chemical mixture that could only be described by the Ancients as "Saliva".

There are many other stories in the bible that can be thought about like this, like the boy being possessed or Noah's ark.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO's entire argument is predicated on the notion that ancient civilizations devised rationalizations for their existence through the lens of a deity--in the process, he *completely* misses the point of the resolution, and attempts ot change the goalposts. He needs to prove--and has the burden of proof to do so--that we were created by an alien civilization. There is no dichotomy such that not having been created by a deity--and PRO can only establish a degree of probbility, but cannot refute this entirely, meanin that he cannot meet his burden, and thus you vote CON--means that we were created by an aliens. There are other scientific explanations, and as science progresses, as PRO even admits, these issues become clearer and clearer.

Much of this boils down to a discussion of burdens, which PRO clearly fundamentally misunderstands. The entire burden of proof is on him because he is affirming a positive statement. There are two independent claims he must be able to prove:

(1) We were created by aliens
(2) We were not created be a deity

He has not done anything at all to prove the first of these claims, and can only cast doubt on the second. I do not need to prove that we were not created by aliens or that we were created by a deity, but only to prevent PRO from fulfilling his burden of proof.

However, neither of these statements have any truth value, nor has PRO advanced a single argue to establish either of them.

Therefore, you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Exmortus

Pro

lol, ok.
The human anatomy is a complex but simple concept in its self, the way we are built is the perfect way to create anything, the reason i know we were created by extra terrestrials is because there is no other logical answer to "who created us?". Was it a divine being? no, that is IMPOSSIBLE, it goes against everything of logical sense, there is literally no other answer. we could have been created by extra terrestrials, hell! for all we know the planet we walk on could be the being who created us.

I have thrown the burden of proof on the con and he must disprove my claim that "there is no other logical answer to "who created us?"
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO states, "I have thrown the burden of proof on the con and he must disprove my claim that "there is no other logical answer to "who created us?"

This merits a loss of conduct points, because PRO is shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof NEVER falls on the negative to negate a claim, but on the person making a positive claim. The burden of proof establishes that which ought to be taken as true if not proven otherwise--for instance, because PRO has the BOP, if he were to fail to refute any of my arguments, and that argument, should it stand, prevented him from upholding his burden, you vote CON. That is *not* the case for anyone making a positive statement. Otherwise, we would assume asinine things, like, say, "the universe exists on the back" are true, but in reality, they completely lack truth value--i.e., they cannot be proven true or false. I don't have to prove anything false, but only to prevent PRO from proving them true. If PRO manages to uphold his burden, which only he maintains because he has to affirm a positive statement, you vote CON.

But he outright admits to committing a BOP fallacy [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...].

Further, PRO doesn't respond to my burden analysis of him needing to prove two independent claims, so I extend it.

PRO then says, " i know we were created by extra terrestrials is because there is no other logical answer to "who created us?". Was it a divine being? no, that is IMPOSSIBLE, it goes against everything of logical sense, there is literally no other answer. we could have been created by extra terrestrials, hell! for all we know the planet we walk on could be the being who created us."

First, PRO's burden is not to establish that we *could* have been created by extraterrestrials--read the resolution in the title of this debate: he needs to prove that we *were* created by extraterrestrials. If he doesn't do that, you vote CON.

Second, he claims that it is impossible for us to have been created by a divine being. Why? Because it "goes against everything of logical sense." This is a ludicrous assertion, because God by definition defies and transcends logic--in fact, he is the author of logic. Further, the entire idea of God lacks truth value, so you cannot possibly seek to refute or to affirm it. My burden is not to affirm it, but to prevent PRO from negating it--since he cannot negate it, you can, once more, vote CON.

Third, even if it weren't a deity who created it, he falsely sets up the notion that it must've been aliens--an argument which does not logically follow, as there are a number of possibilities outside the real of our understanding which could've caused it. For instance, Dr. Michio Kaku provides a case that the universe could have been created from nothing [http://www.sciencedump.com...]. Further, there is widespread scientific consensus for evolution, further invalidating PRO's claims--if he wants to win this debate, he has to disprove these claims. Otherwise, other plausible alternatives are on the table, and he instantly loses.


Conclusion

PRO makes a number of logical fallacies in his remarks, most notably arguing that the burden of proof is on me to disprove a positive claim, rather than for him to prove it to be true--the entirety of the burden lies with him. Then, he claims that there is "no logical" reason to believe in a deity, though it lacks truth value. Then he assets, if not a deity, then it must be aliens--which also ignores other plausible alternatives. Finally, he tries to pass a "could" statement off as an as an affirmation of this resolution, when in order to win, he needs to prove that we were created by aliens *beyond a reasonable doubt.* If he fails to prove that--and thus far he hasn't done anything to actually prove it or attempt to prove it--you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
Exmortus

Pro

alright I'm done. You must be a computer because you know all of the rules and you are extremely boring to debate with, i don't care about the rules, i wanted opinions.

long life to you my friend
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept what I can only assume is a concession by PRO.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
Exmortus

Pro

Exmortus forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
Ok
Posted by nbd 1 year ago
nbd
If you wanted opinions why are you debating facts?
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
If I was able to vote, I would vote for Con. But alas, I am banned from voting.
Posted by Exmortus 1 year ago
Exmortus
ok
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
Just because things seem weird to "you" doesn't mean that is "divine intervention" because there is no evidence to prove it accet unfalsifiable claims. And there's no point discussing unfalsifiable claims, but obviously th claim of this debate is pretty clearly refuted by "real evidence".
Posted by Exmortus 1 year ago
Exmortus
we are far more advanced then anything else on this earth, we are TOO advanced, sharks have been alive for billions of years yet they are still very similar to their ancestors, neanderthals are some of our closest relatives yet they are retards compared to us, btw prometheus was disappointing as hell, please don't mention it again
Posted by Miner1 1 year ago
Miner1
How do we know that aliens are not deity? Never spoke with the kind you would be referring to. We try so hard to discount a deity that has communicated to so many and hold fast to aliens that you would think in the natural would seek us out. Also you would think we would find concrete evidence of them by now, after all even "Horton hears a Who."
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
we have actually created synthetic life ourselves. We made a virus from unloving material couple of years ago. And depending on how you define life, we may of just played "god" and made life ourselves in the form of a virus. It is amazing.
Posted by Lukas8 1 year ago
Lukas8
I would deny both. Neither God or "aliens" created us. We've evolved from previous species. If we we're created by blah blah then there would be no older fossils. Plus simple archeology and biology tells you that there are no human bones fossils from 30000000 y ago. What evidence is there that we've been crated by intelligent life forms or an imaginary friend 'God'.
However its quite common to explain how life started to use the exoplanet ejecta theory. That says that some bacterias from other planets survived on comets and evolved on the planet they've landed. Check ALH84003, its strange, but allows the theory. But even this makes more mystery,because we would like to know from what planet, under what conditions (what chemistry and geology) this proto-species come from. Its actually strange,isnt it? But we're just a bounch of chemicals and energy, like almost everything*. So how the life started would be really the most amazing thing to know.
How can chemicals unite under special conditions and reproduce and evolve to yet higher levels of complexity is one of the biggest mysteries.
But it wasnt God or Aliens, definetly...
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
yea this is a stupid topic. It's the same as trying to say god made us. doesnt matter whether you claim aliens made us or god made us or which is more difine, there's no evidence for either. It's silly.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
ExmortusResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Concession from Pro in R4. I also found that Con had actually utilized sources whereas Pro did not. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
ExmortusResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Concession.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
ExmortusResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession