The Instigator
Moelogy
Pro (for)
The Contender
Saberen
Con (against)

Why Deism is the most logical stance to take with regards to explaining the natural world

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Saberen has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 179 times Debate No: 96884
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)

 

Moelogy

Pro

This is NOT a debate. This is a collaboration. Since Saberen and I are both Deist, I thought it would be interesting to have a collaboration where we prove my resolution. Please do not vote since this is not a debate. I would be extremely satisified with a tie. I repeat this is a collaboration. Saberen, it is up to you whether to accept this collaboration or not.
Saberen

Con

I will allow you to create your argument and I will do my best to corroborate your points.
Debate Round No. 1
Moelogy

Pro

Deism = belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. accepting the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

In this round, I will be making my case to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a creator God to this universe exists.

Point one : Kalam cosmological argument.

P: Everything that *begins* to exist has a cause
P2 : the universe began to exist
Conclusion: the universe has a cause

First premise:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Science :
- Universal law of cause and effect
- Law of causality: every effect has a cause
- Law of action and reaction
- Casual principle

The effect in the top four laws or principles would be the universe coming into existence which in tandem must have a cause.

Logic and Reason:

- Nothing can not cause or produce something / Ex nihilo nihil fit - Out of nothing, nothing comes so the effect which is the beginning of the universe can not magically appear out of nowhere and must be the result of an entity

-Something can not pop into existence from nothing.
- If something did come out of nowhere it is no short of magic or is the same as pulling bunnies out of magic hat.
- if things do come out of nothing, why dont we see that happening all time? Why won't a bike pop into existence out of nothing as we speak?
- Things do not come out of nowhere and they must need a cause to justify where they came from

Second premise:

The universe has a beginning

The universe is not eternal:

- Second law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases overtime. If the universe is eternal we would have maximum entropy and no usable energy by now. But we still have usable energy and entropy is not at its maximum so the universe is not eternal. Second law of thermodynamics restated means the universe is running out of usable energy overtime. IF the universe has been here forever , we would have run outof usable energy by now. We have not run out of usale energy yet so they universe has not been here forever and is not eternal.

- Should not all events expected to happen in the future have happened already in an eternal universe. For instance, Humans expecting the sun to become a red giant. If we are expecting the sun to become a red giant in the future, should not that event already have happened in the past if the universe is eternal.

- The universe is expanding and as estimated by the majority of the scientific community the universe has always been expanding in the past from a finite small beginnig. If the universe is eternal in the past, how did it expand eternally. Eternal expansion?? but if eternal expansion is true, should not we expect our universe to be much much bigger and more vast.

- a past-eternal universe implies an infinite succession of events in the past, but does that not cause infinite regression which is impossible.

The universe had a beggining :

-BGV singularity theorem states that any expanding universe that has been expanding throughout its history can not be eternal and must have an absolute beginning in the past when it came into existence which eben applies to the multiverse if such a thing exists. Moreover it states that inflating and deflating universes are too unstable to actually exist - arvind Borde, alan Guth and alexander Vilenkin

- Cosmic background radiation indicates that the universe came into existence by an explosion in the past when the universe came into existence which means the universe had a beginning in the past and is not ternal.

- redshift of galaxies indicates that the universe has been expanding in the past and started in a small singularity which was the beginning of the universe when it came into existence -Vesto Slipher, alexander friedmann and Georges La maitre

- "all the evidence we have says the universe has a beginning" - alexander Vilenkin

=================================================================================================

Conclusion : the universe has a cause and that cause is something similar to God.

Up to this point I have merely proved that the universe began to exist and that the universe must have a cause. I have not proven that cause to be god.

I will do that now.

So the universe began to exist in the past and is not eternal and of course the universe must have a cause and did not pop out of nowhere nor did it just magically appear. It must have a cause. Let us imagine that cause.

since the universe can not cause itself (because that would imply the universe existed before it did not exist which does not make sense), the cause of the universe has to be beyond the space-time universe and must exist outside of the space-time universe.

-That cause must be supernatural because it exists outside of the nature it created nature and therefore is not subject to it.
-That cause must be extremely powerful if not all-powerful to create such a vast and enormous universe.
-That cause must be extremely intelligent if not all-knowing to create such complex concepts in the universe like the neutron star and the black hole.
-That cause must be timeless and eternal since it exists outside the universe it created which contains time. If the cause is outside of the universe, it is outside of time and therefore not subject to time making it timeless and eternal and therefore uncaused if it is eternal
-That cause must be spaceless because it exists outside the universe which contains all the space and therefore not subject to space making the cause spaceless.
-That cause must be immaterial because it exists outside the material world and therefore not subjected to material.

Call me insane but that cause resembles God in so many ways

Point two : The arguement from contigenecy

P: Everything that exists has an explanation either being self-caused, neccessary or an external cause
P2: The universe exists
P3: Not self-caused nor neccessary
Conclusion : Universe has an external cause

Premise one : Everything that exists has an explanation either being self-caused, neccessary or an external cause

Science and philosphy:

- Law of conservation of energy
- Universal law of cause and effect
- Law of causality: every effect has a cause
- Law of action and reaction
- Casual principle
-Principle of sufficient reason

Safe to assume premise one is correct

Premise 2 : the universe exists

Safe to assume premise 2 is correct

Premise 3 : Not self-caused nor neccessary

The universe can not cause itself because that implies that the universe had to exist before it did not exist in order for it to create itself

The universe is not neccessary because only mathematical entities are neccessary while the universe itself is made up of contigent componenets like stars and planets that are definetly not neccessary and are definetly contignent because they could have easily not formed if gases were not at the right place therefore making them contingent. Since the universe is made up of contigent things like stars and planets that could not have happened if some gases were out of place, the universe itself becomes contingent ad unneccessarry. Moreover, IF the universe was neccessary, we could not imagine a different universe with different laws but we could imagine a different universe with different laws where gravity could not exist making this universe contingent and not neccessary in essence.

safe to assume premise 3 is correct

conclusion: the universe has an external cause

The external cause is outside or external to the nature of the universe so it must be supernatural or beyond nature
and must also contain the characteristics discussed in the conclusion of the kalam cosmological arguement

I would like con to elaborate on 2 other arguements. Like the arguement from fine-tuning of the universe and the arguement from morality
Saberen

Con

I have read your argument and i agree. i sadly do not have time to do much this round i will allow you to respond to common criticisms of deism.
Debate Round No. 2
Moelogy

Pro

Sorry I have had a busy schedule last week and this week was busy too. Hopefully, i will have time to work on this next week.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dquick 2 weeks ago
dquick
"Something can not pop into existence from nothing" and 'The universe has a beginning / The universe is not eternal'
These are both a contradiction within themselves. Firstly; if something cannot pop in to existence from nothing then this implies eternity as there must have been something all along.

Using this logic:
Even if our universe is not eternal, at some point something would have had to have started. The Creator/God cannot pop into existence 'magically' anymore than the universe can. The creator therefore must have a creator, and he a creator and he a creator.

So if the universe did indeed have a beginning, something else must have preceded this beginning.

Think about us living in a simulation, the creator of that simulation would also have to be in a universe? That creator would also have the same questions as we have, would she/he also not consider him/herself in a simulation therefore?

"If the universe has been here forever , we would have run out of usable energy by now."

What happens to certain stars when they die? They can create huge nebulae that give birth to new stars. Is it not therefore plausible that when a universe dies, it collapses/explodes just like a sun giving way to new creation?

Or is it not also plausible, that energy can come and go, much like a never ending river, in places it may be calm, others, chaotic?

My point being; If there was a beginning, what came before the beginning? If there is a creator, who created the creator?
Posted by ZenekPr0 2 weeks ago
ZenekPr0
Ok. I'll desist from responding for now. It does not mean I do not have objections to your answers:p
Posted by Moelogy 2 weeks ago
Moelogy
I will be willing to debate you on this in some weeks as i am busy in the upcoming weeks. so please hold your arguements till some weeks
Posted by Moelogy 2 weeks ago
Moelogy
"So you think that science tells us that:

"All existing reality came into being out of absolute nothing which lack any potentiality, mechanism or a like, to create anything"" Thats what the big bang says. all matter ad energy came from nothing then exploded.

"By your definition if something has capacity to create something than it can't be called nothing. But that's what probably caused big bang: "Something (we don't know what) with capacity to do it" By your definition it can't be nothing, well that's not my problem. " OBviously, if something has the capacity to create something then it definetly without doubt cant be nothing since nothing is absolute nothingness ad has no capacity to do anything.

"I'm glad you see how baseless your claim is." I am not confirming you, I just think it is an absurd belief because then the aliens become your gods. They become the creators of our universe. Having this belief is still having a cause to the universe and it is a form of polytheism.

"Therefore your claim based on the "existence" of singularity is even more baseless." are you denying the existence of the singularity because even if you are that does not affect our arguement. anyways, i think that thengularity is real. even if it is or is not it has no effect on our discussion.

"
I don't know where it came from, maybe magical energy of fairies? Sounds plausible to" You think energy faries created the uantum energy vacuum? although this is an attempt by you to escape the uestion when you are cornered, Fairies are still your god in some way because you believe they created cause of the universe. and no the energy fairies is not plausible, lol.
Posted by Moelogy 2 weeks ago
Moelogy
"You're the one who use KCA not me, we only observe material causes, therefore it's the only conclusion you can make. It's not my fault your only option is so absurd." but you claimed that there could be a material cause to the universe. The universe is all the material there is. The universe contains all the material there is. You can not claim there is material outside the universe, since the universe is all the material there is, claiming a material cause outside the universe is absurd.

"If by universe you mean absolutely everything not only our local univers then: We don't know. We don't even now what caused our big bang." Here is the thing I believe that cause very very similar to God created everything.

"In both cases you won't find a single theory which states that universe come from absolute nothingness understood as absence of everything including potentiality to create anything." That's why titling a book " a universe from NOTHING" is misleading

"And if you truly believe all time and all space there is was created during BB, If there was no time universe didn;t exist, then universe always existed and it would be ridiculous to say that something which always existed had have beginning." WHat?? I claim that there was a "time" in which the material universe did not exist and so there was a time in which material, space and time did not exist at all. I never claimed a past- eternal universe since it would go against the abundance of evidence for the big bang. IF the universe has a beginning, that beggining must be immaterial since the universe is all the material there is and the universe contains all the material there is so there can not be any material outside the universe.

"Fallacy of composition" contignency and other properties like visibility are 2 different things. IF every water molecule could have not existed. the ocean could have not existed either since the universe is just the collection of the water molecules.
Posted by Moelogy 2 weeks ago
Moelogy
"You have to find an object with all those characteristics" I told you it is God. I think God possesses all those characterisitics.

"in which sense universe is contingent? " we could imagine another possible word where the laws of physics were different and where there is no gravity for example making this universe where we live not neccessary as it is. it was possible that this universe had an even distribution of matter in its early past which would have made the formation of stars and etc not possible making the universe contingent in that it could have not existed.

"You can define god as you want but the moment you claim that its definition somehow proves its existence you're being ridiculous. " God is defined as the eternal creator of the universe thats not my defenition. God :God is the eternal neccessary being who created and preserves all things. not my defenition. it is the defenition given by theologians to define the idea of god.

" So now you claim god didn;t created time?" I said god is not affected by time. Please quote me properly.

"It's fallacy of equivocation." Bud, Where did i define it twice in the arguemnt. fallacy of euivocation means i gave it one meaning in the beginning of the arguement then a different meaing at the end of the arguement.
Posted by ZenekPr0 2 weeks ago
ZenekPr0
"You're the one who wants creation ex nihilo, not I." Interesting, if you claim the universe came from something else and not out of nothing, where did that something else come from? and your view contradicts the abundance of evidence for big bang cosmology,

So you think that science tells us that:

"All existing reality came into being out of absolute nothing which lack any potentiality, mechanism or a like, to create anything"?

You think that what science tells us?

By your definition if something has capacity to create something than it can't be called nothing. But that's what probably caused big bang: "Something (we don't know what) with capacity to do it" By your definition it can't be nothing, well that's not my problem. What created it? I don't know maybe that part is eternal. I suppose it's tempting to use god of tha gaps once again, but well, look below:

""I think multidimensional eternal aliens did it." Cool "

I'm glad you see how baseless your claim is.

"... It goes against big bang cosmology to claim it is the result of something and not ex nihilo since the singularity in the big bang is ex nihilo.

Lol, go and ask any cosmologist, whether universe came from something which by definition couldn't cause anything. That's kind of nothing you're talking about and there is no proof that such state of affairs ever existed. You don;t believe it either, after all your god alwys existed. Also you seem to be unaware that singularity at BB isn't final result. It only proves that Einstei's theory isn't complete. Therefore your claim based on the "existence" of singularity is even more baseless.

Secondly, even if that is true, where did the quantum vacuum energy come from?. Moreover, interesting you claim quantum fluctuations is not ex nihilo since the book that proposes a singularity from uantum vacuum fluctuations is called " a universe from nothing".

I don't know where it came from, maybe magical energy of fairies? Sounds plausible to
Posted by ZenekPr0 3 weeks ago
ZenekPr0
"How can you claim that there is a material cause outside of all the material there is. Claiming there is a material cause outside the universe is the exact same thing as claiming there is a material outside of all the material there is. The universe is all the space, time ad material there is by defenition so you can not claim material exists outside the universe as that goes against its defenition"

You're the one who use KCA not me, we only observe material causes, therefore it's the only conclusion you can make. It's not my fault your only option is so absurd.

Also you seem to be conflating things:

If by unvierse you mean our 4 dimensional block which we can trace back to big bang then:

-No one claim it was created out of absolute, total nothing, that would be ridiculous

If by universe you mean absolutely everything not only our local univers then:

-We don't know. We don't even now what caused our big bang.

In both cases you won't find a single theory which states that universe come from absolute nothingness understood as absence of everything including potentiality to create anything.

And if you truly believe all time and all space there is was created during BB, and you should know that's rather extravagant belief, then you disprove your god once again. If there was no time universe didn;t exist, then universe always existed and it would be ridiculous to say that something which always existed had have beginning.

Fallacy of composition:

Ocean is not a separate entity. It's just collection of water molecules. Ocean is just a name we give to big collection of water molecules . If every element of collection is invisible to naked eye it means the entire collection is invisible too. Therefore ocean is invisible as well.

That's basically how you responded. You basically confirmed my accusation.
Posted by ZenekPr0 3 weeks ago
ZenekPr0
"By defenition god is neccessary."

So what? You still have to find object with possess this plus all other properties.

Also in which sense universe is contingent? Because you can imagine no universe at all? You can't, you know why? Because I just defined being X as possessing all properties of our universe plus necessary existence. And you know what's best? We at least have one example of such thing existing. Whereas there is no shred of evidence for god.

You can define god as you want but the moment you claim that its definition somehow proves its existence you're being ridiculous. The only way out is to define god as something already existing, but that's ridiculous too.

For example if we find out that String theory is theory of eveyrthing what are you going to claim next? Strings are god? Or that it's still contingent because you can imagine world without it? It may surprise you but world doesn't care about your imagination and your linguistic efforts.

Timelesness

"Something that is timeless does not change as the years go past " So now you claim god didn;t created time? For past to make any sese time must exist. You can't have "past" without time. Therefore god is subject to time. The fact time doesn;t affect its properties or power is irrelevant.

Fallacy of equovocation

I wish you read my comments...

I just told you what's wrong. It's fallacy of equivocation.

Here is how KCA shold look like:

P1. Everything that begins to exists has material cause
P2. Universe begins to exists
C. Universe has material cause

No god needed. What you do is that:

P1. Everything that begins to exists has material cause
P. Universe begins to exists
C. Therefore Universe has immaterial cause.

Epic non sequitur.

We only observe amterial causes, but you need immaterial, so you just used on word "cause". I can't imagine better example of fallacy of equivocation.
Posted by Moelogy 3 weeks ago
Moelogy
"You're the one who wants creation ex nihilo, not I." Interesting, if you claim the universe came from something else and not out of nothing, where did that something else come from? and your view contradicts the abundance of evidence for big bang cosmology,

"So you're smarter than many many scientists who work on such models" I am not.

"We don't know therefore goddidit" I am claiming there is a cause to this universe and that cause resembles god in so many ways.

"I think multidimensional eternal aliens did it." Cool

"quantum nucleation event" is just different diction to the model where quantum vacuum fluctuations create the infinitely dense singularity. It is no different than Krauss' model. It goes against big bang cosmology to claim it is the result of something and not ex nihilo since the singularity in the big bang is ex nihilo. Secondly, even if that is true, where did the quantum vacuum energy come from?. Moreover, interesting you claim quantum fluctuations is not ex nihilo since the book that proposes a singularity from uantum vacuum fluctuations is called " a universe from nothing".
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.