The Instigator
megatronnus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
CivilianName295
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

does everything need a creator?

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: 3/11/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 363 times Debate No: 100820
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

megatronnus

Con

The very existence of God has come into place because we didn't and still don't know who created the universe. But it is time to question, does everything need a creator?
You may say yes because we have created many things such as the internet, laptop, site etc. But we have never created a planet, or made something out of nothing.
Is it really that hard to think that the universe has no creator?
CivilianName295

Pro

I will be arguing that contingent things have a cause and ultimately a creator behind them. I am not arguing that EVERYTHING needs a creator as if God is eternal then he doesn't need to be created. Also I think that (Con) needs to define what a "creator" is since there are many different means to that term. For example the universe could have been created by a metaphysical quantum void that is outside our universe this "thing" could be called the "creator". Now when it comes to things that are "created" all of matter is formed from pre-existing matter so the only things that can be said to have been "created" was at the Big Bang. So yes I think that all contingent things were created one way or another
Debate Round No. 1
megatronnus

Con

creator- a person/entity who makes something

We will simply be arguing whether or not everything needs a conscious, alive, capable-of-thinking creator.

For ex. the internet and this laptop were designed by some person. But is it necessary for everything to be designed by someone? The Earth, this universe, I argue, are the product of some system that isn't necessarily like the conventional God of today. There is no data that implies that the universe has been invented by some being. Like the same way it will hard to know whether a tree has grown by a seed that fell into soil by natural means or was put into the ground and taken care of by man, it is impossible to scientifically conclude that the universe has a creator.
Therefore, everything doesn't "need" a creator.

As for the Big Bang, I have never heard anyone refer to it as the creator. It is more commonly known as the start of creation, but it is not called the creator by itself. That's because it is not an entity, but a process.

I apologize for not explicitly defining creator in the start of the debate. Clearly everyone is confused as to what I mean.
CivilianName295

Pro

It is important to understand that a creator like a God can create things in different ways. I dont believe that God is a magic wizard that creates complex things without the creation of a process for how to make that complex thing. For example i think that God used evolution to create life on this planet (And possibility other planets as well).

Its also important to understand that processes depend on event causation this means that each process that makes things (Example evolution) has to have had a start. All natural processes also depend on some form of time even tho time is relative all time moves forward and these processes must have time in order to work. Before the big bang there was no time or space now you could postulate a multiverse however the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem prevents the multiverse from going on forever and even the multiverse has had to have a beginning. Now this doesn't prove that a conscious being created the universe however it does show that its the only logical explanation we have. Its the only theory that can explain all the data without adding any unnecessary assumptions.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

So even tho i think that a lot of things in nature are created by processes those processes has to be created by a conscious being so that we can avoid an infinite regress problem since event causation requires other event causation where as agent causation only requires the being to make a choice and it doesn't have to be predetermined by prior events.
Debate Round No. 2
megatronnus

Con

So your argument is that everything requires a process to be created and someone must have started the process.

You gave an example that God may have used evolution to create more species of life on our planet (there must be a starting organism for evolution) . Yet how does evolution necessarily require a certain God or person to design its system? What if it is a natural order that has existed forever in all life? Now the first organism. Why do we assume that it should have been specifically designed by someone? Couldn't this entity was a product of the Big Bang, and didn't require a creator but was a random thing.

Everything is created by a process, you say. Yet again you say we require a conscious mind. Why is that so? Did the process of erosion require any human to start it? Yes, we accelerated it, but it is a natural process that has continued from time immemorial.
The infinite regress problem is that if we assume every event needs a process, than how would have the first process started. Yet this is again like the problem that everything needs a creator. We assume everything needs a process because what we have know of creation has required a process. Yet again we have not created something out of nothing, and therefore we don't know whether or not everything requires a process.

Furthermore, despite wide acceptance the Big Bang model is still a theory. The forever universe model has virtually no supporters, yet scientifically it is also a theory. The theory that the universe wasn't created is scientifically just as plausible as the theory that states the universe is created. I don't know much about the Big Bang, but from what I learnt I physics I know that it tries to account for the expanding universe. But we don't know if the expansion of the universe was triggered by something or happened forever, and even if I consider that the universe was once an infinitely small pinpoint, that pinpoint could have easily existed forever or not required creation. The part about creating time depends upon gravity and the theory of relativity, and while both theories are not wrong, they are not hard core facts either.

Thus, I conclude that not everything in the universe requires a creator. Pro has argued that everything requires a process, but then that is just as scientifically correct as saying everything requires a creator. It can't be proved that everything "needs" a creator, and I end my side of the argument.
CivilianName295

Pro

Your first paragraph is misleading I think that all processes have a starting point and I do think that most processes are started by other processes (Ex: erosion emurged from another process) however all processes no madder how simple or complex are event causation meaning that they need events to happen in order to work. All event causations require time however agent causations doesn't require time since the process starts from a conscious beings choice to make something. And so in order to prevent infinite regress you need to start off with a conscious agent that starts the process of creation.

The Big Bang is a fact. They call it a theory since in science a "theory" is considered a fact. An eternal universe is a hypothesis but modern science strongly refutes all eternal universe models. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that refutes any eternal universe hypothesis. So an eternal universe doesn't work as an argument against a conscious agent starting the process to create our universe since eternal universe has been debunked by science.

The universe could have not been an infinite pinpoint forever before the Big Bang since entropy would prevent it from going on forever and besides no cosmologist thinks that the Big Bang was once an eternal pinpoint and even if it was it would still have to be emurgent due to the holographic principle in quantum gravity so it would still have to be contingent.

Those are some of the reasons why nature itself needs a conscious creator
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by CivilianName295 10 months ago
CivilianName295
In science a theory is always a fact. Gravity is a theory, Germs is a theory, Quantum mechanics is a theory. i think you need to look up the definition of a theory in scientific terms.
Posted by megatronnus 10 months ago
megatronnus
theory is not a fact, ever.
Posted by jakufek 10 months ago
jakufek
What do you mean by creator?
Posted by CivilianName295 10 months ago
CivilianName295
I think that you need to define "creator" if your saying that the universe was created by a quantum void or some metaphysical system then I could say that system is the creator of everything. You really need to define your terms
Posted by What50 10 months ago
What50
When you say creator do you mean supernatural being?
No votes have been placed for this debate.