The Instigator
andrew_294
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
creationtruth
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Why there is no god

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 101583
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

andrew_294

Pro

There is no "god" or sets of "gods". This is a man-made concept that has withstood the test of time. I am willing to debate with anyone and am looking for a challenger to prove to me that god exists.

The pre-disposition for many is that there must be a god because all of this wouldn't exist without one. This is where I leave an expert in the field Stephen Hawking to explain the self-designing universe, which in a nutshell, dictates that gravity created the universe. This can be thought of as the first cause.

The notion that we are intelligently designed is also false. ID( intelligent design) is a sophisticated word for the unintelligible belief in creationism, in that god created the heavens and Earth. This preposterous assumption can be dismissed by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species as well as several arguments throughout the books that Mr. Richard Dawkins has written through the years ( I will go into detail further if needed).

As with the other flaws that religion dangles in our faces, it has managed very well to avoid the problem of evil. Ask yourself this: how is it possible for evil to exist in a universe permeated by an all knowing, all powerful, always present overlord? It is quite impossible. The monotheistic god cannot exist within a universe filled with evil and imperfection, unless god himself was evil.

This is a very brief summary of my opening statement. I consider myself an atheist and am trying to find another intelligent person to debate me on this issue and to actually prove that god does in fact, exist.
creationtruth

Con

Greetings, I look forward to an informative and engaging exchange.

My opponent has made many unsubstantiated claims in his opening statement. I presume his argument is that the universe is "self-designed," Charles Darwin has negated the notion of creation, and that the existence of evil means that a good god cannot exist. I will address these issues in the following round. In this round I will be arguing for the existence of God from scientific evidence. I am a Christian creationist who believes the God's word and God's world do not in any way contradict one another but indeed are in perfect harmony.

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.
Image result for dna
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.
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)."
Gitt-universal-information

In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are cosyntactically 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. Note 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
andrew_294

Pro

This is going to be a great argument. Thank you for your enthusiasm and research.

While my opponent states that his argument is not of the god-of-the-gaps nature, it in fact is. Furthermore, the argument is in no way a proof of god's existence, it is merely a lesson in genetics which avoids explaining the random process of natural selection in which determines the genetic characteristics that have led to the development of sentient life.

I will make the claim that genetic information is formulated and generated by a random process that most certainly had a first cause, however, that cause was not of a "god" but of the force of gravity. Also, I will argue in favor of Darwinism as the determiner for genetic information.

The basis for genetic information and formation is contained within the universe itself. The process by which genetic information was derived and distributed in the big bang, in which all elements we know and recognize were created, and constantly change due to a random, non-discriminant force known as gravity, which can be seen within a black hole.

I will provide sources for Stephen Hawking's research at the end of the article, but in a nutshell, the abstract states that, due to the effects of quantum mechanics, that black holes create and emit particles as if they were a hot celestial body, much like a star. This thermal emission, in the form of the most basic building block particles, spreads from the point of origin, and caused the formation of the most basic forms of life found on Earth, prokaryotic bacteria, with no nucleus at first, but eventually developed a nucleus due to the process of evolution and natural selection and now are called eukaryotic cells, which led to the formation of rudimentary multicellular bacteria, and eventually into sentient life.

Moreover, the process by which my opponent argues is a perfect, intelligently designed process, is in fact not. Genetic mutations occur on a regular basis, particularly in germ-line mutation, in which the parents egg and sperm cells mutate while in the process of fertilization. Processes that normally function as "designed" are flawed and lead to chromosomal anomalies, at the most negative, and anomalies in the human body such as the blue eye(a genetic mutation). Therefore, I can make the claim that the perfect, designed, process of genetic coding is essentially flawed, and not perfect, which dismisses the claim that genetic coding is intelligently designed. If it were intelligently designed, it would be a perfect process and therefore all life would share extreme similarities, albeit one species of organism.

As far as the god-of-the-gaps argument is concerned, there are places within the scientific repertoire that have not (yet) been discovered. However, with the argument of natural selection, we can infer and greatly support the notion that the god-of-the-gaps argument is false. Evolution takes place every day, in the form of adaptation, which is a term I use for the short-term evolutionary process. Gradual adaptation amongst the most rudimentary organism have led to the existence of sentient life.

I am by no means an expert in the sciences. My expertise lies in the philosophical arguments. If I have made any errors, which I probably have, feel free, if you are reading this, to correct me in the comments section.

Sources
https://www.itp.uni-hannover.de...
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
creationtruth

Con

I will address my opponent's claims in this round and defend my argument as needed.

Pro states, "While my opponent states that his argument is not of the god-of-the-gaps nature, it in fact is." To this I simply ask, where is the "gap?"

Pro goes on to claim, ". . .it is merely a lesson in genetics which avoids explaining the random process of natural selection. . ." Unfortunately my opponent fails to understand the limitations of natural selection. He attributes the creative power to produce complex, sentient life to a mere culling process of nature which not only is unable to give rise to novel genes, but in fact eliminates genes from a gene pool. This "selection" process is dependent upon pre-existing genetic information and is entirely impotent in regards to formulating new, specified genetic code. Natural selection is not a creative force by any means.

To support the idea that random natural processes have given rise to living organisms, Pro cites Hawking stating, "due to the effects of quantum mechanics, that black holes create and emit particles. . .caused the formation of the most basic forms of life found on Earth." This unsubstantiated claim in no way tells us how this happened. It is like an "evolution-of-the-gaps" theory: black holes emit particles which are similar to what the early universe may have consisted of and these particles coalesced due to gravitational forces to create molecules which got together under the right conditions on a solar planet and formed the first living organism. This is equivalent to me saying God did the same thing using natural forces. Without evidence to support this claim, it cannot rebut my argument. At best this seems to be a "may-have-been-the-case" type of argument, whereas mine is an evidence-based "this-is-the-case" argument.

Pro argues, ". . .the perfect, designed, process of genetic coding is essentially flawed, and not perfect, which dismisses the claim that genetic coding is intelligently designed." First of all, an imperfect design does not negate the fact that it was designed, though I would argue that God is a perfect designer but has allowed His creation to be subject to man and thus, with the advent of sin, has been marred. Mutations which are deleterious in nature and lead ultimately to the death and corruption of living organisms have been introduced as the penalty of sin. While this is a biblical answer, your question is philosophical in nature.

Pro claims, "Gradual adaptation amongst the most rudimentary organism have led to the existence of sentient life." In what way has adaptation led to sentient life? Adaptation occurs when a physical trait or behavior due to inherited characteristics gives an organism the ability to survive in a given environment. What mechanism provides the means for the induction of novel genetic information which could lead to sentient life?

My opponent has thus far not supported his case and has certainly not refuted mine. On to Pro...


References

http://www.icr.org...
https://answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 2
andrew_294

Pro

I will do as my opponent did in the previous round and defend my argument.

My opponent asks the question "where is the gap?" In fact, there is a tremendous gap, approximately 4 billion years, that creationists in general seem to avoid at all costs. While most creationists will argue that the Earth is some 6,000 years old, I will provide scientific fact for which there is no biblical evidence to dispute the scientific claims.

First of all, let me address the elephant in the room. The arguments presented by my opponent are mostly faith based and what little scientific information is presented demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of the sciences. Also, my opponent uses incredible sources for his arguments, namely answersingenesis.org, with information solely supplied by a faith based culture and no that of the scientific community. I have simply stated what science says about the issues.

answersingenesis.org makes the claim that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old, and starts counting on the first day of creation, which is solely a faith based argument for the question of the age of the Earth. This is not based on scientific evidence and should be regarded as purely myth.

According to research written by G. Brent Dalrymple of the U.S. geological survey, states that the oldest rocks on Earth are 3.6 to 3.8 billion years old, based upon scientifically accurate radiometric (isotopic) dating. According to Dalrymple, "Radiometric dating is based on the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes that occur naturally in rocks and minerals". The following table in this link is used in determining the date of geological findings:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

The rest of the article I will provide in the sources section speaks for itself. Isotopic dating of rocks is tried, tested, and true. Whereas, on the contrary, biblical evidence is solely based on word-of-mouth, and nothing more.

My opponent also makes this statement: " I would argue that god is a perfect designer but has allowed his creation to be subject to man and thus, with the advent of sin, has been marred".

First off, why would god, knowing the intentions of mankind, let his creation be subject to "marring" and changing the intended purpose of this creation. My opponent will certainly bring in the argument of free will here, but let me make this statement, rather, question: If god knows everything that is going to happen and created us in the first place is it really free will or the illusion of free will?

And again, my opponent uses solely biblical evidence using the word "sin" to quantify his statement. "Sin" is not scientifically quantifiable at all, whereas the information I have provided is quantifiable and can be tested and refined using the scientific method.

My opponent also states that natural selection is "Unable to give rise to novel (new) genes, but in fact eliminates from a gene pool". Part of this statement is completely true. Natural selection eliminates unfavorable genes from a gene pool. That is certainly true! However, the notion that natural selection is unable to give rise to novel genes is false.
According to research done by Henrik Kaessmann, from the Center for Integrative Genomics at the University of Lausanne, novel genes also regularly arose from messenger RNAs of ancestral genes, protein-coding genes metamorphosed into new RNA genes, genomic parasites were co-opted as new genes, and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences). Essentially, prokaryotic bacteria, with the help of RNA, developed new genes that led to the formation of eukaryotic bacteria.

My opponent also makes the claim that "this selection process is dependent upon pre-existing genetic information and is entirely impotent in regards to formulating new, specified genetic code." This claim is dismissed in the above argument.

In conclusion, in the absence of pure scientific information, my opponent has made an attempt at a faith vs. fact argument. I am not an individual of faith, because faith is not quantifiable by any means, and never will be. Faith is, for lack of a better term, substance, which cannot be quantified or tested using the scientific method, therefore, cannot be a trusted source for scientific information. Back to you...

Sources

http://www.talkorigins.org...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
creationtruth

Con

Allow me to continue to address my opponent's claims and defend my argument.


Pro states, ". . .there is a tremendous gap, approximately 4 billion years, that creationists in general seem to avoid at all costs." How does this address my argument? My opponent said that my argument from genetic information is a "god-of-the-gaps" argument; what does the age of the Earth have to do with it? I would be glad to have a debate on this topic but this is not the issue at hand.

Pro claims, "The arguments presented by my opponent are mostly faith based and what little scientific information is presented demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of the sciences." To this I ask, what part of my argument was based on faith and not observable evidence? Also, what have I failed to understand in the presenting of my argument? To say this without showing which statements were incorrect and why sounds a bit like a bluff.

Pro complains, "Also, my opponent uses incredible sources for his arguments, namely answersingenesis.org, with information solely supplied by a faith based culture and no that of the scientific community." That my sources are from those who believe the Bible to be true does not mean that their science claims are inaccurate nor does their faith exclude them from being part of the "scientific community." This is a red herring and ad hominem. My opponent ought to address the science arguments not the faith of the arguer.


Pro states, "answersingenesis.org makes the claim that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old, and starts counting on the first day of creation, which is solely a faith based argument for the question of the age of the Earth." I am glad my opponent is familiar with the full extent and breadth of the arguments from creationists (insert sarcasm here). Answers in Genesis provides dozens of scientific articles and technical papers addressing the age of the Earth, so no, a "young" Earth is not a solely faith based position.

Pro claims, "Isotopic dating of rocks is tried, tested, and true." Apparently my opponent is totally unaware of the hundreds of inconsistencies of radioisotope dating results and the failure for these methods to even date rocks of known age such as newly hardened magma. While this has no bearing on the issue at hand, it should be made known that there are three major problems with attempting to rely on radioisotope measurements to provide any kind of accurate age for a given rock sample: one must assume a set ratio of primary isotopes, when the "clock" starts, a constant rate of decay must be assumed despite known mechanisms of decay interference, and most egregiously one must assume that no significant contamination has occurred over a span of millions or even billions of years.


Pro philosophically asks, ". . .why would god, knowing the intentions of mankind, let his creation be subject to "marring" and changing the intended purpose of this creation." While there are biblical answers to answer this question, I wonder how addressing this concern would impact the veracity of my argument. My opponent seemed to take issue with his anticipated "free will" answer, however I fail to see how foreknowledge necessitates predetermination. God certainly could have desired for man to be autonomous and fully capable of conscious, willful decisions while still maintaining a knowledge of the future. Regardless, any answer does not negate the fact that creation has been marred.

Pro argues, "'Sin' is not scientifically quantifiable at all, whereas the information I have provided is quantifiable and can be tested and refined using the scientific method." Firstly, I would greatly appreciate a quantifiable means of demonstrating how the universe created itself, how radioisotopic measurements yield a reliable age, and how natural selection and adaptation resulted in "molecules-to-man" evolution. If it fails my opponent to provide such a demonstration, then a recant is in order. Also, I agree that sin is not scientifically quantifiable as it is a moral construct which God has ordained and not a physical entity. I simply gave a theological answer to a philosophical question. Again this has no bearing on the issue at hand; my evidence from genetic information is quantifiable and can be tested using the scientific method.

Pro cites proposed evidence of the creation of genetic information via natural processes claiming, "According to research done by Henrik Kaessmann, from the Center for Integrative Genomics at the University of Lausanne, novel genes also regularly arose from messenger RNAs of ancestral genes, protein-coding genes metamorphosed into new RNA genes, genomic parasites were co-opted as new genes, and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences). Essentially, prokaryotic bacteria, with the help of RNA, developed new genes that led to the formation of eukaryotic bacteria." My opponent apparently believes that the cited paper provides evidence of novel gene formation of the type that would be found in the definition domain of universal information as explained in my argument. However this example fails to address my argument for two main reasons, the formation of these genes are reliant upon pre-existing information and are thus not novel, and their functionality is absent. Allow me to address the nature of their functionality first:

Throughout the paper I noticed that it is repeatedly stated that the functional outcome of these re-arranged genes is yet to be determined. Mutations are a real and ubiquitous occurrence in genomes, however rarely do these mutations ever confer a beneficial function, and even in such cases it there seems to be an extant driving message which triggers the mutation. "Creationists are making a strong case that genomes are not static and that the DNA sequence can change over time, but they are also stating that some of these changes are controlled by genetic algorithms built into the genomes themselves." Concerning mutations, most proposed "gain-of-function" changes are the result of deteriorated genes and thus are downhill in terms of novel information.

"Mutations can create new varieties of old genes, as can be seen in white-coated lab mice, tailless cats, and blue-eyed people. But damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken). Also, not all new traits are caused by mutation! Some come about by unscrambling pre-existing information, some from decompressing packed information, some from turning on and off certain genes. . .The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organism had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps, and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system. . .Saying a gene can be copied and then used to prototype a new function is not what evolution requires, for this cannot account for radically new functionality. Thus, gene duplication cannot answer the most fundamental questions about evolutionary history. Likewise, none of the common modes of mutation (random letter changes, inversions, deletions, etc.) have the ability to do what evolution requires."

The cited paper Pro gives fails to provide evidence of truly novel gene formation. Pre-existing genetic information exposed to carefully chosen segments of RNA, or DNA that is exposed to carefully chosen and artificially produced environmental parameters do not constitute examples of novel gene production of the type which falls within the definition domain of universal information. I can scramble a computer code, for example, make duplications of random segments, and delete random segments, yet I will fail to produce any novel universal information as the code will be unintelligible. This is the point, with universal information their is a sender, receiver and a process of making sense of the message. If the message makes no sense, it is useless.

I fail to see the evidence that is claimed in the paper and I ask Pro to demonstrate the quantifiable mechanisms behind even one proposed example of the formation of novel genetic information which is not constrained to the informatic confines of its genomic origin. How do we know these changes are not the result of pre-programmed algorithmic instructions? In what way do these changes confer functionality? And how does the proposed novel genetic information meet the standards of universal information.

Thus far Pro has yet to contend with my given scientific laws of information, and has failed to provide an example where universal information as seen in the genome of living organisms is generated via natural, statistical processes.

Pro claims, ". . .in the absence of pure scientific information, my opponent has made an attempt at a faith vs. fact argument." Again I ask, what part of my primary argument is faith-based? In what way is my argument unscientific? My opponent ought not allow these claims to remain bald assertions.

Pro ends with the statement, "Faith is, for lack of a better term, substance, which cannot be quantified or tested using the scientific method, therefore, cannot be a trusted source for scientific information." In essence Pro is claiming that anything unquantifiable by means of the scientific method cannot be trusted. I wonder though in what way Pro is able to utilize the scientific method to prove his statement?

On to Pro...


References

http://www.icr.org...
http://creation.com...
Debate Round No. 3
andrew_294

Pro

In this round, I will address the scientific nature of my argument, such as the claims of the self-designing universe and natural selection. I apologize for any ad hominem remarks I have made. They were not intentional and denotes a flaw in my argument.

In this present age of the sciences, we can find many scientific facts and tested theoretical approaches on the subject of the creation of the universe. I will cite information from Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist as well as a renowned cosmologist which formerly held a chair at Cambridge. Mr. Hawking says that he does not believe in a personal God. I agree with him on this statement. And it seems Mr. Hawking has clearly wondered into the realm of metaphysics concerning issues of the creation of the universe. Mr. Hawking is an advocate of my following statement : gravity is the means by which the universe created itself from nothing. Here, we do venture into the realm of the metaphysical because there is very little proof, if any, to make this tremendous claim.

However, I will examine well-known scientific facts that we can tangibly argue. Let's take into account the size of the Milky Way galaxy, our home at the moment. We are but an atom, rather, smaller than an atom in terms of a universal scale. Our observable galaxy contains billions of stars. Our galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years across (it would take, traveling at the speed of light, which is roughly 186,00 miles per second, to travel across the galaxy from one end to another). Now take into consideration that billions of other galaxies exist, some smaller, and some much larger. Now lets take into account the size of the universe. It is constantly expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light, due to the effects of what created the universe in the first place (quantum gravity). At this rate, the universe is expanding faster than we can ever possibly traverse it.

Creationists say that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old (and yes I am aware of the breadth of the creationist argument, I've been in church my whole life), and I would disagree with this based on radiometric dating. However, creationists also believe that the universe was also created at the moment the Earth was created. This would also make the universe 6,000 years old, which is scientifically impossible. If that were the case, we would not yet see the light of distant stars that are close enough due to the speed of light being only 186,000 miles per second. It would have taken billions of years for light from our closest neighboring galaxy (Andromeda) to reach our home planet of Earth. This is scientific fact, based on the theory of general relativity. It seems that apologists have not yet addressed the full breadth of the scientific argument, which is a fallacy in it's own right.

As for the argument of natural selection, we must look further back into the history of the Earth, notably the Pre-Cambrian era. It is scientific fact that we are made of elements that coalesced into molecules, which in turned formed larger compounds to give rise to the building blocks of life ( i.e. DNA and RNA). Novel genes have not spontaneously popped into existence. It has taken billions of years for the right mix of elemental compounds, to first form the necessities of life (water) and for the sun to grow and expand to the right distance from Earth in order to form the most basic forms of life (prokaryotic bacteria). And thus, with the rise of the prokaryotes, comes the original novel genetic makeup, which in turn took millions of years to undergo the process of natural selection to form desirable traits in order to survive.

I have not addressed the metaphysical arguments in this portion of the debate because metaphysics transcends the laws of science. The human mind cannot possibly address these issues. The brain approximately can store and retain information up to 2.5 petabytes (a petabyte is 1,000 terabytes). It is impossible for our brains to comprehend metaphysical aspects of the creation of the universe. As to Mr. Hawking's statement that he doesn't believe in a personal God. I do not either, but if we were to quantify the concept of god, I would put my money on the laws of gravity as being the first cause, and we have given a name to the first cause, and that is God. Yes, I do believe in "God", however, not in the religious sense. God permeates everything in the universe. And the concept of God is most certainly the "first" cause.

On to you and thank you for this debate whoever you are. I appreciate your enthusiasm and I look forward to many more debates with you on other subjects. Perhaps out of this a friendship can form. Hopefully one that will lead to further self-discovery as well as discovery of the unknowable.

Thank you and now on to you...
creationtruth

Con

I thank my opponent for his participation in this debate and his civility. Often, debates of this nature can turn in to shouting matches where primary issues are overlooked and logical fallacies abound. In this round I will finish addressing Pro's claims, defend my argument, and make my final remarks.

Thus far it seems that Pro is unable to answer my argument and questions, or has at the least deemed it unnecessary. It is clear that my opponent has not presented any positive evidence to suggest that God does not exist nor has he addressed the evidence given by me to the contrary. The scientific laws of information given in my main argument remain unchallenged and thus my argument stands:

"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."

Here we find Pro going on again about the wild fantasies of professor Hawking, "Mr. Hawking is an advocate of my following statement : gravity is the means by which the universe created itself from nothing. Here, we do venture into the realm of the metaphysical because there is very little proof, if any, to make this tremendous claim." It appears that Pro does not stand behind the scientific credulity of the statement: "gravity created the universe," since he has relinquished it to the, "realm of the metaphysical."

Pro decides to continue addressing the issue of the age of the Earth in a seeming attempt to discredit the creationist position as a whole when he says, "It would have taken billions of years for light from our closest neighboring galaxy (Andromeda) to reach our home planet of Earth. This is scientific fact, based on the theory of general relativity. It seems that apologists have not yet addressed the full breadth of the scientific argument, which is a fallacy in it's own right." Despite not having any relevance to the issue at hand, namely, the question of whether or not God exists, in all fairness I will address this apparent misunderstanding of the creationist understanding of starlight, time and gravity. By claim made by my opponent assumes a specific mode of creation, that is, that all the the celestial bodies were created in their current galactic coordinates. Pro himself pointed out that the universe is expanding and I'm sure believes that the universe was once very "small." Likewise it is certainly possible that galaxies, stars, planets, etc. were created in relatively close proximity with Earth and then moved away from a central point to allow the light from these heavenly entities to be seen despite their currently being many light years away. This allows man to appreciate both the beauty of God's creation and the vast grandeur of His power and might. There are a couple of creation astrophysicists who have been working on such models as well, by the way, utilize both astronomical data and Einstein's theory of general and special relativity.

Incredulously I find my opponent claiming, "It is scientific fact that we are made of elements that coalesced into molecules, which in turned formed larger compounds to give rise to the building blocks of life ( i.e. DNA and RNA)." So if it truly be a fact that basic elements transmutated over time into the most complex organic molecules, why is it such a difficult thing to provide step-by-step mechanisms, which can be tested by means of the scientific method, demonstrating how it is such an astounding event has occurred? Methinks thou dost protest too much! Could it be that the claim of "atoms-to-Adam" as scientific fact is rather many pegs down on the meter of scientific veracity, indeed stuck on the first peg, the chalk board of speculative hypothesis. It seem the failing point of my opponent to provide any evidence which is quantifiable or testable.

Despite having conceded that the creation of the universe by means of gravitational forces is a metaphysical position, Pro concludes, ". . .if we were to quantify the concept of god, I would put my money on the laws of gravity as being the first cause, and we have given a name to the first cause, and that is God. Yes, I do believe in 'God,' however, not in the religious sense. God permeates everything in the universe. And the concept of God is most certainly the 'first' cause." Amazingly Pro's god is the force of gravity and attributes to it the creative power of the universe without having a shred of scientific fact to quantify and validate his claim. Sounds like blind faith to me, a thing which my my brand of philosophy abhors as blind faith is believing that which is not known and that which is not known cannot be logical understand as true.

In conclusion I have upheld my argument for the existence of a sentient God who is supremely intelligent. My opponent's god of natural processes has failed the test of verifiable evidence. Many bald assertions and "just so" stories have been presented by my opponent lacking any scientific support. The one relative attempt at substantiating his case using proposed evidence of the natural formation of novel genetic code was shown to be lacking any real conclusive evidence and my rebuttal remained unanswered and thus nullifies Pro's only given evidence.

I thank my opponent once again for an interesting debate which will certainly be informative to prospective readers.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this debate.

Shalom

Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Slothrop 9 months ago
Slothrop
Nothing is being communicated in transcription and translation, unless you think that any other chemical reaction involves communication. Do hydrogen and oxygen in water communicate?
Posted by creationtruth 9 months ago
creationtruth
Slothrop - There is no question that chemical interactions take place in genomic processes, and no one is arguing that DNA is intelligent. However, the processes of transcription and translation demonstrate a level of communication which, following the laws of information, reveals an intelligent mind as the progenitor of said processes.

The AGTC letters of DNA are meaningless with regards to language, when taken alone, but when taken as genetic sequences which can be expressed as proteins which in turn are able to function within the greater whole of an organic cell, these letters can rightly be said to be linguistic in nature and to contain intelligently generated information.
Posted by Slothrop 9 months ago
Slothrop
AGTC is only metaphorically letters. What is actually happening is chemicals interacting with other chemicals. Letters have to "convey an intelligible message," the chemicals that interact with DNA are not intelligent, they cannot evaluate whether something is intelligible. There is not message being sent, unless you think that hydrogen is sending a message to oxygen that it wants to bond with it inside a water molecule. But if you accept that, then nothing wouldn't be a message.
Posted by creationtruth 9 months ago
creationtruth
Slothrop - What is the function of letters? They convey an intelligible message from a sender intended to be interpreted by a receiver. AGTC can rightly be defined as genetic code or letters.
Posted by Slothrop 9 months ago
Slothrop
There are no letters in DNA; the letters stand for chemicals, and the chemicals that do what chemicals do - they react (or not) with other chemicals.

"DNA does not store information, but biochemical potential subjected to the laws of chemistry and physics." (from https://www.youtube.com...)
Posted by epicemmy9 9 months ago
epicemmy9
For those who do believe in a god, please provide evidence for your beliefs. Provide proof that women did not evolve into human beings, but were rather created after god took a guy's rib and magically made a piece of bone into a human being. I've always been intrigued by this theory about the creation of women, so if someone can give scientific evidence explaining the process of turning a bone into a human, that would be greatly appreciated.
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
To say "gods do not exist" is a statement of knowledge, and the simple intellectual honesty answer is "we do not know". You do not use or need knowledge, proof or evidence for gods.
The only thing needed for gods to exist is belief and an imagination. The only place we know a supernatural realm to exist is in the imagination of the human mind, the same place that creates gods.
Posted by andrew_294 9 months ago
andrew_294
God or the gods do not exist based on the assumption and ignorant claim that he exists because he exists in the minds of others. I can say that I have a million dollars in my bank account because it exists to me, however when I try to spend a million dollars on something, I don't actually have the funds to spend. It has been said and I will say it again: ignorance is bliss.
Posted by WhyAbhorReality 9 months ago
WhyAbhorReality
God exists, end of story. All of them, every God that has ever been imagined. Superman exists. It may not be an object that has a physical manifestation, but as an idea in the collective consciousness it has existed since the first people came up with it. As for superman we can know when the idea was first put into print and into the public imagination, we can look at the creators reading choices and life influences on their concept and we can study the impact of it on culture and other peoples imaginations throughout history.
The same can be done with God, although the subject is far more complex and far less appreciated. When the first intelligent cave men began creating art and symbols of nature on walls and carvings , they began what Monotheistic religions call the 'word', or 'logos'. Human history mainly focuses on how cultures improved through tool making evolution, and alpha male dominance, although the main sign of intelligence in animals is empathy. I believe humans natural tribalism evolved from coping with the death of loved ones and celebrating the life and birth of their children& elders. Ravens can be seen holding funerals for their dead and ravens are considered one of the most intelligent of all the birds.
Passing along tales of natural disasters such as floods, meteor impacts, giant predators and natural superstition eventually was formed into writing. In the largest early civilizations these were first corrupted allowing one class of humans (the alpha male of the monkeys and his mates) to adopt law systems that made them divine through the teachings of their elders (the Gods), the surplus food from the new agricultural revolution allowing everyone else to be the slaves. Astronomy also plays a significant role and witnessing of space phenomena, such as meteor showers, comets, solar eclipses, the moon and sun in general were all attributed to myths and legends.
The argument that God exists to me is winnable, although my view may be different..
Posted by PowerPikachu21 9 months ago
PowerPikachu21
God can't be proved. It's impossible. He's supposed to be infinitely complex and stuff, so if he can comprehend him, he's "no longer God". At least I heard that once. If God does exist, he's not doing anything, so I don't see why you'd consider him worthy of worship.
No votes have been placed for this debate.