The Instigator
JustinBieberFan123
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Matthew_Picchu
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

is it likely that a god created the universe or not?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
JustinBieberFan123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 70209
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

JustinBieberFan123

Pro

i thinks that it is verry possisble that a god was the cause of ouur universe existence.

If you want to accept this, say accept. And nothing else or else you will lose automatticcally

so you can only say accept. one word. and one word only. if you say anything else, even hi, you will still lose automatticcally.

good lucks to whoever acccepts. :)
Debate Round No. 1
JustinBieberFan123

Pro

The BoP is shared.

The format of this argument will be:
Round2: Arguments from Con
Round3: Arguments/rebuttals from Con and Pro.
Round4: Arguments/rebuttals from Con and Pro.
Round5: Closing statements/summary from Con and Pro.

Definitions:

God: "the one Supreme Being"(1)
Supreme: "greatest, utmost, or extreme"(2)
Universe: "All space-time, matter, and energy,"(3)




(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

I will grant Con the courtesy of arguing first.
Over to you, Con.

Matthew_Picchu

Con

I would like to thank Pro for instigating this debate, and wish him or her (I don't believe gender is specified on Pro's profile) the best during this debate.

Now, here I am going to illustrate two major points against the idea that an omnipotent deity is responsible for the creation of the observable Universe. The first is that a creator is not necessary for the universe to come into existence, from both a philosophical and an observed, scientific viewpoint. The second is that there is no observable evidence that exists to support the notion that a supreme god created the Universe.

My first point, again, is to demonstrate how the Universe could have been brought into being without the intervention of a deity and still be hospitable to intelligent life such as humankind. There are quite a few postulates regarding the origin on the Universe that dismiss the apparent need for a creator. The first I will discuss is the weak anthropic principle. The definition of the weak anthropic principle (WAP) as described by John Barrow and Frank Tipler in their paper, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," is:

"the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so." [2]

There is a very limiting set of parameters as to what properties the Universe must have in order for it to sustain intelligent life. If these parameters are not met, then no intelligent life develops to observe the Universe. If they are met, than intelligent life evolves and observes the Universe and finds itself wondering how the Universe has the perfect conditions to support life. [1] (the WAP also explains why we've evolved ten-ish billion years after the creation of the Universe, but that seems irrelevant for this debate)

The second postulate I will discuss is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory (MWI). The MWI is an interpretation of quantum theory that attempts to make more sense out of wave-function collapse-- the fact that a quantum event with multiple equally possible outcomes "chooses" one randomly. According to the MWI, all of these possible outcomes occur and create their own separate, equally "real" but non-interacting Universes. [3] During the first moments of the Big Bang, when the Universe was still unimaginably small, quantum systems would have a much more prominent effect. And so, if one considers the vast number of real universes that could arise from the the quantum systems in the Big Bang, then a Universe conducive to life does not appear to be all that rare or special.

This means that the Universe could have been created without any regard for wether or not intelligent life eventually develops and therefor diminishes the notion that an omnipotent creator had an active role in the creation of the Universe. But the question still remains; "What caused the Big Bang?" There are a few possible answers to this question. The one I will present is given by the open boundary model. This model states that the Universe is finite in size but has no boundary, rather like the spherical Earth, except one can move infinitely in three dimensions and through time instead of only two dimensions. This means that the Universe has no beginning or end, it would simply be. In this scenario, what need is there for a creator? [1]

My second point is that there is no empirical (that is, directly observable) evidence that supports the idea that an omnipotent God created the observable Universe. However, it is Pro's job, as the instigator in this debate, to provide points and evidence to try to prove that it is, in fact, likely that a Supreme Being had a role in the creation of the Universe. Pro, as the instigator, has the burden of proof in this debate. In the next round, Pro will present the evidence they've collected, which I will attempt to refute. I will also provide additional points as to why there is no need for a creator, should I see it necessary.

I would like to thank Pro again. I would also like to thank the audience for reading, voting, and commenting on this debate.

Sources:

[1] - Hawking, Stephen. "The Origin and Fate of the Universe." In The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, 159-160, 180-181, . Updated and Expanded ed. New York: Bantam Books, 1996.

[2] - "The Anthropic Principle." The Anthropic Principle. Accessed February 18, 2015. http://www.physics.sfsu.edu....

[3] - Vaidman, Lev. "Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." Stanford University. March 24, 2002. Accessed February 18, 2015. http://plato.stanford.edu....
Debate Round No. 2
JustinBieberFan123

Pro

I thank my opponent for appearing for round two.


I will begin with my opening argument


P = Premise

P1: All physical things have contingent existence

P2: The universe is contingent

P3: The universe depends on something that is non-contingent and external to the universe to exist

C: It is likely God exists, and created the universe


To elaborate on my first premise, every physical thing that exists, depends on something else for its existence. For example, human life is dependant on our sun etc. This premise is valid for it is induced as a posteriori.

To elaborate on my second premise, it is logically reasonable to attribute the universe to having a contingent existence, for all of its' contents has contingent existence. Analogy: If a planet is blue, and exists completely composed from blue elements, compounds etc. It would be logical to induce that planet as a "blue planet".

To elaborate on my third premise, if everything that we have observed is contingent, it means that it depends on something else to exist. Since every physical entity has contingent existence, a physical entity could not of initiated the existence of everything else, for that would have to be dependent on another thing to exist. Therefore, the entity to initiate the chain of contingent entities, would have to be non-physical, and external to the universe. This being would have to be God. By this definition, this deity would have to be transcendental.

Conclusion: Therefore, God is likely to exist, because from our current observations of the universe, everything has contingent existence - the entity that has to initiate it would have to be God, for the being would have to be outside space, therefore, transcendental.


This argument inductively proves that God must exist, because everything in our universe has contingent existence. Therefore, a non-contingent being must have caused the initial chain of contingent entities.


Rebuttals:

"My first point, again, is to demonstrate how the Universe could have been brought into being without the intervention of a deity and still be hospitable to intelligent life such as humankind. "
Just for clarification, intelligent life is an irrelevant aspect for this debate.

"the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."
I don't see how this disproves that a God can exist. Sorry if I am misinterpreting... Although, from my understanding from this statement, it proves that intelligent life can be formed, and the universe would have to be > a specific age for it to happen.

"There is a very limiting set of parameters as to what properties the Universe must have in order for it to sustain intelligent life. If these parameters are not met, then no intelligent life develops to observe the Universe."
I concur. However, this does not prove that a deity is not likely to exist.

" If they are met, than intelligent life evolves and observes the Universe and finds itself wondering how the Universe has the perfect conditions to support life."
I concur. However, this does not prove that a deity is not likely to exist.

"(the WAP also explains why we've evolved ten-ish billion years after the creation of the Universe, but that seems irrelevant for this debate)"
Hmmm. Maybe I should have read this sooner...

"The second postulate I will discuss is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory (MWI).
I am just going to put this out there... I have a very limited understanding of physics, so I apologize in advance if I misinterpret your contentions.

"According to the MWI, all of these possible outcomes occur and create their own separate, equally "real" but non-interacting Universes."

"During the first moments of the Big Bang,"
Con assumes that the Big Bang is fact. However, it is only a theory.

"when the Universe was still unimaginably small"
The Big Bang has contingent existence which is dependent on all of space to be contained at a single point (1).

"quantum systems would have a much more prominent effect."
Con's evidence that he is bringing forward relies on the Big Bang to definitely be factual. Nonetheless, this does not prove that God is not likely to exist. The Big Bang occurred contingently - relied on a certain amount of space. If Con wants to continue to argue the Big Bang's cause, he would have to prove that the space that the Big Bang was dependent on, was not created by God. However, that is impossible; no-one knows. Therefore, the entire premise is moot.

"And so, if one considers the vast number of real universes that could arise from the the quantum systems in the Big Bang, then a Universe conducive to life does not appear to be all that rare or special."
I am under the impression that Con is thinking about the 'observable universe'. However, the definition that I provided earlier defines it as "all space-time, matter and energy".

"This means that the Universe could have been created without any regard for wether or not intelligent life eventually develops and therefor diminishes the notion that an omnipotent creator had an active role in the creation of the Universe."
Con has not provided sufficient evidence to why the space that the Big Bang is dependent on, was not created by God. Con only assumes that it is not. Therefore, Con commits an 'argument from silence logical fallacy' - assumes that the space that the Big Bang relied on, was not created by a God.


"This model states that the Universe is finite in size but has no boundary, rather like the spherical Earth, except one can move infinitely in three dimensions and through time instead of only two dimensions. This means that the Universe has no beginning or end, it would simply be. In this scenario, what need is there for a creator? "
I will try and dissect this. "The univsere is finite in size" - can only be a certain size - cannot exceed a certain size. "But has no boundary" - but can keep expanding - can expand forever - can keep growing larger. Isn't this a logical paradox? One statement commends that it cannot exceed a certain size, yet the other commends that it can expand forever. "This means that the Universe has no beginning or end". I don't understand how two premises that contradicted eachother, concludes that the universe has no beginning. Nevertheless, Con has missed a step... Con's premise relies on that the universe would have to be expanding, yet provided no evidence to why it would expand. There is not enough evidence to conclude that the Big Bang definitely happened; there are other scientific theories that refute the chances of it actually happening. It is unreasonable to assume that the Big Bang definitely happened when it is only a theory, and there is no inductive, nor deductive evidence to logically justify where the space that the Big Bang relied on to exist was not put there by a God.

"My second point is that there is no empirical (that is, directly observable) evidence that supports the idea that an omnipotent God created the observable Universe."
I do not need to deductively prove the God's existence. I need to inductively prove that God is likely to exist. As the resolution reads: "is it likely that a god created the universe or not?"

"Pro, as the instigator, has the burden of proof in this debate."
The BoP is shared... let's say that I only posted an argument, and you refute it successfully. That does not prove that God is not likely to exist; it just shows that I have not proven that God is likely to exist.



Con seems to construct his argument like so:

P1: The Big Bang definitely happened
P2: MWI could be possible
C: God is likely to not exist

The problems with it:

1. If the Big Bang did actually occur, it has contingent existence, which would rely on something else to exist. So to say that something that is contingent, caused all matter, space-time, and energy to come to existence is sophistry. Also, if it relied on space to come to existence, how could it cause space to exist?
2. Since both are only theories, this does not prove that God is likely not to exist... There are possible ways for MWI to be incorrect... "The MWI is wrong if there is a physical process of collapse of the wave function of the Universe to a single-world quantum state." (2)
3. I still don't see how if MWI was definitely true, it would justify how the space that the Big Bang was contingent on got there.
4. "The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics holds that there are many worlds which exist in parallel at the same space and time as our own. The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory and thus from all physics. " I still don't see how this proves that God is not likely to exist (2)
5. I have provided an inductive argument to why God 'must' exist. Whereas, Con tries to deductively disprove God's existence with science, which is impossible.

I have induced that the Big Bang is irrelevant to this topic... Since MWI relies on the Big Bang theory to happen, that is also negated... For now...


(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://plato.stanford.edu...


I apologize in advance if I cannot reply, I am going on a snowboarding holiday tomorrow for nine days.

Anyway, over to you, Con.






Matthew_Picchu

Con

Matthew_Picchu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JustinBieberFan123

Pro

Con told me in advance that he might not be able to reply.

So I will refrain from arguing.

Con has to prove that the Big Bang definitely happened for his premises to be valid.
Matthew_Picchu

Con

Matthew_Picchu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JustinBieberFan123

Pro

Ok. Well this was a pretty fun debate. Unfortunately Con hasn't been able to respond. Perhaps we could do this another time?

Well, maybe Con can make it for his closing statements...
Matthew_Picchu

Con

Matthew_Picchu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by JustinBieberFan123 1 year ago
JustinBieberFan123
No problem Con. Nonetheless, my point was that you could have either messaged me, or posted a comment in the comment section. Don't worry if you can't reply. I have a flight to Austria tomorrow, so don't be surprised if I miss a round or two.
Posted by Matthew_Picchu 1 year ago
Matthew_Picchu
By the way, I'm going to be away from home for the next few days. I should be able to post on time, but if I miss a round don't assume that I'm out of the running yet.
Posted by Matthew_Picchu 1 year ago
Matthew_Picchu
Pro, you say that I could've asked for you to clarify definitions, but you clearly stated that you would only accept the debate if I posted only the word "accept" in the first round. I may have misinterpreted what you meant, but it seemed pretty clear to me. However, this isn't really a problem, as the definitions are fair.
Posted by JustinBieberFan123 1 year ago
JustinBieberFan123
No problem.
Posted by Lewis_P 1 year ago
Lewis_P
I agree your definitions are fine :)
I was just pointing out the potential for you to have forced Con's hand in this debate. I didn't mean to suggest that that was what you had done. I meant it more as feedback for future debates. I'm sure this one will be interesting.
Posted by JustinBieberFan123 1 year ago
JustinBieberFan123
I concur to an extent. However, that would imply that my definitions are unreasonable. I am allowing Con to argue first, because the last argument I did, I was the only one to provide an argument.

The definitions are more than acceptable. I didn't appeal to the ambiguity of the words and I haven't abused the meaning of them.

There was nothing that forced Con to join the argument. He could have asked that I define things in the first round. Nonetheless, he jumped in blindly. But as I mentioned earlier, this does not rig the debate at all.
Posted by Lewis_P 1 year ago
Lewis_P
Shouldn't the terminology be revealed before Con accepted the debate?
Con may end up being forced to argue for a position that he does not hold because he accepted prior to knowing which definitions Pro was going to use. Pro could have easily rigged this debate in his favour by defining God solely as the cause of the universe after Con accepted. Best practice should surely be to at least expose the definitions of the debate prior to acceptance.
Posted by ArcherEON 1 year ago
ArcherEON
Hehehe, funny.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
JustinBieberFan123Matthew_PicchuTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
JustinBieberFan123Matthew_PicchuTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff