The Instigator
Jellon
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

is it possible that the world was created by a super natural being?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,058 times Debate No: 60479
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

Jellon

Pro

Round one is a description and acceptance. As pro, I will provide evidence for the existence of a super natural being capable of creating the universe. Con must provide evidence that no such entity can possibly exist in our universe.
KhalifV

Con

I accept and shal be arguing that the idea of the supernatural deity/ creator is incoherent.

I wish to clarify that I can't provide evidence that something doesn't exist when the proposition is extrmely vague and doesn't exist, I will however negate pro's arguments and offer philoophical and logical arguments against a supernatural creator.

Back to pro, good luck :).
Debate Round No. 1
Jellon

Pro

Sorry, still no access to a PC and my phone only pays to the top of the text box...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
You stated for our other debate that you intend to prove the existence of a creator either implausible or impossible. The default position to take on a truth claim without evidence is agnosticism. Let's say for example, someone claims to have found a unicorn. You may have your doubts, but without investigation, you could neither confirm nor deny the claim. A claim that cannot be shown either wrong or unlikely must then be considered to be a possibly. Given the description of this debate, as pro, it is my burden to show that it is possible for a creator to exist that created the universe. I want to point out here that given the wording, it is not my burden to prove it is probable or likely that a creator exists. To win, con must prove it is impossible. As con pointed out in different words, it is almost always humanly impossible to prove a negative existence of anything the absolute.
By most mathematical models given the most realistically ideal circumstances for the first self replicating cell to be created poses what is known as a mathematical impossibility. In fact, PhD Dean H. Kenyon, author of Biochemical Predestination, converted from atheistic evolution to intelligent design for this very reason after writing the aforementioned book. It would not be challenging to find other examples, but a man whose work as an evolutionist still shapes the theory today, he stands out. This is admittedly a "god of the gaps" argument, and the weakest you will see me use here, but the inprobability is easily dealt with simply by accepting an intelligent agent guided to process to make it happen.
I don't know how to calculate the odds that a super natural creator was involved in creation, but I know the odds of atheistic origin of the first cell is astronomically low. It appears that a creator is a possible explanation for the origin of the first cell. Now I ask, what facts may be used as evidence to show it more likely happened purely by naturalistic causes instead of an intelligent designer, and does such evidence exist? The man who literally wrote the book on the naturalistic cause for the origin abandoned his hypothesis, and no one as of yet has shown him wrong.
The above argument shows there exists a coherent reason to believe in a creator which out standing evolutionists have converted over. I have shown this even though there is no formal burden on me to do so.
My burden, again, it's too show the possibility. The statement may be made that there exist at least one entity which exist outside of the scope of observable nature. This is a logical possibly until proven otherwise. Furthermore, let's state that these entity(s) are capable of intervening in the natural world. Logical possibility still holds. Now let us say that one such entity created the universe as we observe it. It then stands to reason that unless one of these three statements may be proven to be impossible, than a super natural creator is possible and I have met the formal burden of proof for this debate.
Knowing my opponent cannot disprove these, I believe I formally win. However, in future rebuttals I plan to provide much more convincing evidences for the existence of the super natural and for the existence of a supreme super natural being.
KhalifV

Con

I can't imagine a world in which a being creates the universe.
"The Universe is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents ofintergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Similar terms include thecosmos, the world, reality, and nature."

What does it mean to exist outside the cosmos? It's incoherent.

P1) Things that exist, exist in some period of time and space
P2) There was no time before or space before the universe
C1) Nothing existed before the universe(or synonymous terms)
C2) Nothing created the universe

P1: This seems fairly obvious, would one say that being X exists for zero or not any seconds.
If being X exists for zero seconds, then being X does not exist. It's like saying: John has some apples., How many apples does johnny have? zero. It does not make any sense.

P1.1 Things that exists and do things, exist in some physical form of space. Some things are immaterial like ideas or numbers, but these things don't act. An idea does not breathe or eat and so forth, an idea is just an effect of the mind, which is an effect of the brain. A number does not engae in activities either. Only physical objects participate in events or are active.
?
P2: Per the definition of universe, the universe is all of time and space. How was there time and space before time and space?
By law of identity, there can't be X before there is X, so before spacetime there is no spacetime.
P2.2: There was a begging to space and time. Big Bang/ Inflation is the best model for the early universe we have.
"In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation is the exponential expansion of space in the early universe."
Via BICEP2, Primordial gravitation waves have been detected, which is almost indisputable proof of inflation.
Inflation accounts for the:
1.Uniformity. The cosmic background radiation is quite uniform. Inflation adequately accounts for the uniformity. A uniform region expanded rapidly, evolving into our visible universe.
2. Mass density. Inflation predicts the omega should 1. The Planck satellite measures the omega as 1, which means our universe should be flat, which it is.
3.Small non-uniformity. The small non-uniformity in the universe is easily accounted for by quantum fluctuations, which have been observed in the CBR.

C1 and 2 follow because if everything that exists, exists in some space and time , and the universe began to exist, which is the beggining of space and time, then it follows that nothing existed or could have existed before space or time.
Nothing could have created the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://physicsworld.com...
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Jellon

Pro

I will first point out that in our other debate on evolution I included a disclaimer stating that I am an old earth creationist with a leaning towards progressive creationism. As one who accepts a several billion year old universe, I have no objections to the big bang theory whatsoever; in fact, I have tried to convince young earth creationists that the big bang actually happened. The big bang is neither evidence for the existence of a creator or the non-existence of one.

I will refute both your point 1 and point 2 in two ways: modern cosmology and philosophy.

1) Modern Secular Cosmology
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
There are many theories (yes, they are called theory, just like evolution is) taught in our colleges and universities that involve events and forces taking place before our universe existed which caused our universe to come into existence and thus triggering the big bang. If we let super-natural be any force outside the nature contained in our universe, the forces taught to have created our universe would be, by that definition, super-natural. They would, of course, be from another nature which has its own laws, but that is beside the point. They are forces outside our natural universe, and that's what matters. If forces that existed before the big bang are believed to have created the universe, then I see no reason why it is unreasonable to believe that the force behind the creation of the universe, including the big bang, was an intelligent force that existed before the beginning of our universe. The fact is, cosmology has only created models that suppose how our universe came to be. It really lacks enough evidence for there to be a consensus on any one of these theories.

2) Philosophy
Second, you have not proven that the big bang was the first event in our universe. You can believe that the matter/energy was the first thing to exist in the universe and it simply followed the laws of nature in creating the universe. You have no evidence of such. So then, it is entirely possible that instead of matter and energy, there existed an intelligent, all powerful force of nature which created the big bang. Gravity is a force that has neither a physical form nor intelligence. Why can there not be a force that does not a physical form, but does have intelligence? I don't know of any metaphysical evidence that proves the impossibility or improbability of such.

Based on these two cases, I maintain that both your points are invalidated (even by secular sources) and thus your conclusions are also invalid. I will also point out that none of your links support either of your original points. They do however support the big bang theory which we both agree on. :)

Now I will transition to making a positive case for a creator. Before you are quick to dismiss this argument, I will point out that it has been made by a panel of leading experts at a meeting of the United Nations. If it was so easily dismissed, it would not have made it that far. Because it is a controversial topic itself, I will provide both the pro and con side of the argument with links to both sides. I'll start with this link:
http://www.express.co.uk...

Come with an open mind as I present to you evidence that consciousness is not entirely created by the physical brain. The evidence comes for scientific research on states of consciousness, the strongest evidence coming from what are classified as out of body experiences. My personal favorite is "Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences In The Blind" by Kenneth Ring a professor of psychology at the University of Connecticut. According to this book, even patients who were blind at birth were able to recount to their physician what they saw in the room immediately following their resuscitation, which is corroborated by the physicians themselves. Unless multiple conspiracies are a foot, this is strong evidence that people who were blind from birth were able to see while their body was in the process of dying, a phenomena which has no scientific explanation.
http://www.near-death.com...
http://kenring.org...
Ken Ring founded the Journal of Near Death Experiences which is now part of the International Association of Near Death Studies which was founded in 1978.
http://iands.org...
The IANDS has established standards by which to document near death experiences including a questionnaire over 100 questions long! If this had happened a few times, we could call them case studies, but by now there are literally thousands of NDE stories collected from all over the world!

The Nour Foundation studies states of consciousness and is responsible for putting the aforementioned panel before the United Nations. Their panel met before the United Nations several times in a single meeting. So, there are several different videos of their panel before the United Nations, each very long. Each video provides a large amount of convincing data that people have actually had experiences outside their own body while on the verge of death. Here are two of the meetings of this panel before the United Nations, both posted by the Nour Foundation:
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
One of the common (common is used loosely here) experiences of an NDE is meeting a being of light and love. This experience is common across race, religion, and social status. In fact, there are Buddhists who have never been taught a belief in singular divine being who have had that experience.

Is is from the counter arguments to near death experiences that we know that not all of these experiences truly take place outside the body. Susan Blackmore is one of the most outstanding critics.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk... (her website)
http://www.skeptiko.com... (an interview with her on the subject)
The problem is, critics such as Susan Blackmore only address the "core experience" of an NDE (seeing the being of light, the feeling of extreme peace, etc). They have not ever addressed the events surrounding death that cannot be explained by science, such as the study of the blind in Mindsight. It was actually Susan Blackmore who inspired Ken Ring to write Mindsight.
http://www.skepticforum.com...
So in summary, the counter argument to near death studies is that all experiences other than the claimed super-natural events can be reproduced by drugs and other means. They simply claim that the super-natural events are all lairs.
Most near death experiences are non-religious. So the debate between a Christian who favors near death experiences and a skeptic of them is a rare event:
https://www.youtube.com...

Because so many of those favoring near death experiences are not religious, it has been proposed that this is actually a natural phenomenon that is part of the yet to be discovered aspects of string theory. In any case, there is strong evidence that there is more out there that cannot be explained by our current understanding of physics, and there isn't a skeptic with a counter argument to the large number of evidence based near death experiences.
KhalifV

Con

"Modern Secular Cosmology":
I love how pro calls it "Secular" as if it's some big conspiracy to turn everyone atheist.

Pro says: " There are many theories (yes, they are called theory, just like evolution is) taught in our colleges and universities that involve events and forces taking place before our universe existed which caused our universe to come into existence and thus triggering the big bang. "

I'm perfectly aware of alternate models, I'm an avid reader of the scientific journals of physics and cosmology, however you can't just say there are alternate models, you must state these, and defend them.

Pro says: "I see no reason why it is unreasonable to believe that the force behind the creation of the universe, including the big bang, was an intelligent force that existed before the beginning of our universe."

In my round one I showed why there could not be anything berfore the universe, due to space and time coming to existence with the univese, and saying something exists in no space and no time is incoherent.

Philosophy:

Pro says:
"Second, you have not proven that the big bang was the first event in our universe. You can believe that the matter/energy was the first thing to exist in the universe and it simply followed the laws of nature in creating the universe. You have no evidence of such. So then, it is entirely possible that instead of matter and energy, there existed an intelligent, all powerful force of nature which created the big bang."

Well if space and time came into being with the big bang, I don't see how there could be something before.
BoP is on pro to show that something happened before the big bang.
How does a force of nature exist without matter and energy? Matter and energy compose nature.
Furthermore, how does an intelligent and powerful force exist without matter and energy?

Why nothing could have caused the universe:

The reason why we can say things have a cause is because they began in time. If there's no time before the universe, then the notion of a cause is incoherent. It's like saying X>Y. When did X>Y? Never.
Well that makes no sense.

NDE'S:
I don't even have to address this, because this is not even an argument for god's existence.
Furthermore this is a blatant god of the gaps argument.

" God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence."

Pro says:
" In any case, there is strong evidence that there is more out there that cannot be explained by our current understanding of physics,"

So therefor god?
Just because we may not have a natural explanation, or because you don't accept the natural explanation, does not mean there is not one and furthermore does not point to a god.

Why Consciousness Is A Brain Function: The brain is responsible for all of the functions that are associated with consciousness. As for as we know, objects without brains, don't have the capacity to do any of the aforementioned qualities. Furthermore, the mere fact that a physical event that effects the brain can render you unconscious, is compelling evidence that consciousness is essentially physical and related to the brain. Individuals who suffer brain damage, have profoundly altered minds, if the mind was seperate from the brain, one would expect the mind to be unaffected by events that affect the physical brain.

Conclusion:
1. To say something exists outside of space and time is nonsense.
2. To say something caused something in the absense of time is nonsense.
3. NDE'S are not proof of the supernatural, they are merely proof that we don't currently have a natural explanation.
Furthermore this is not evidence for a god and it is a red herring, that does not address the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
Jellon

Pro

Con, I believe you have made several logical errors. First of all, let me copy/paste the topic of this argument for you, "is it possible that the world was created by a super natural being?" By saying,
"Just because we may not have a natural explanation, or because you don't accept the natural explanation, does not mean there is not one and furthermore does not point to a god."
You suggest that I am supposed to prove the existence of god. There is a clear distinction between proving the existence of god and proving the possibility of the existence of god.
We could restructure this debate with the topic, "God does not exist" with you being pro and me being con and end up with the same debate. Clearly, you are making the claim to know a truth, while I am saying that your claim to truth isn't close to proven.

You made a few other logical errors. I specifically asked how you know the Big Bang was the first event that occurred in the timeline of our universe (as opposed to the timeline of other universes). You reasserted your claim that it couldn't have happened any other way without giving any evidence as to why. I understand you may have problems comprehending the concept of god, so let's redefine god to be an all powerful being with a self-sufficient physical body. Can you logically prove that such a god could not have proceeded the big bang and be the cause of it? Please stop ASSUMING the big bang was the first event in the universe and provide EVIDENCE for your belief.

You also made a logical error by agreeing that it is possible for forces external to our universe to create it while denying the possibility for anything to exist before our universe. You continue to assert that if there's no time before the universe then nothing can exist before the universe, but the idea that there were events external to our universe that caused our universe to come into existence implies that there was time before our universe existed, even though that time was external to the time relative to our universe. You requested evidence for such theories. Clearly I don't have enough space to provide the evidence for them. I'd first have to make sure you and the readers understand string theory and its basis. The links I provided contain the evidence which you requested, and I'm not going to repost the links.

To say that NDE is "god of the gaps" would offend the atheists who research them. NDE research provides strong evidence that the mind is not the only source of consciousness. I'm not implying that the mind does not have the largest influence over consciousness either. Obviously we can change personality, memories, and other things by influencing the physical brain.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_mind)
I would not be surprised if you have limited knowledge of NDE research and did not take the time to look at the arguments for it. Obviously if there was not strong evidence for it, it wouldn't be brought before the United Nations. That would be a waist of time and screened out before the meeting took place. No, we have multiple accounts corroborated by physicians of resuscitated individuals who are able to give information they would not otherwise be able to know, even if in a normal state of consciousness, immediately upon being woken up. In some cases, the patient was able to tell the physician what his wife was cooking him for dinner. People born blind have been able to describe the physical appearance of those who worked on them. People who have had blood drained from their brain have been able to recall jokes being told by the physicians as they performed this cutting-edge procedure. The list is truly extensive, and so is the list of physicians who have changed their mind about the topic based on the testimony of their patients. You may say there is an undetermined rational explanation for how this may be possible, but one possible answer is that consciousness is not completely produced by the physical brain. If this possibility is true, then it is also possible that this other source of consciousness comes from outside the realm of the natural world (although in string theory, maybe it is the natural world... who knows?). I'm stating it is possible for this other source of consciousness to be super natural acting in the natural realm. If there is a super natural realm influencing the natural realm, then it is possible that there exists a super natural being that influenced the natural realm by creating it. Thus, is the statement made by the topic of this argument, meaning I have proved my point. Again, I'm not trying to prove the existence of god (that's practically impossible), I'm trying to prove the possibility of god.
So for your last rebuttal, please logically disprove at least one of the following points:
1) Documented cases of out of body experiences by NDE researchers cannot come from a super-natural source
2) Super natural sources cannot influence the natural world
3) Consciousness from super natural sources does not imply that super natural being may exist
4) The existence of super natural beings does not imply that a god might exist
5) The existence of a god does not imply that god might have created the world

You might also want to readdress my earlier arguments about events that preceded the creation of the universe that comes from modern cosmology. If events preceded the creation of our universe, why is it not possible that the cause for the creation of our universe was a god, rather than some unintelligent source?
KhalifV

Con

Pro has mostly been vague, has not substantiated his arguments and has advanced red herrings not pertainent to the resolution.

"We could restructure this debate with the topic, "God does not exist" with you being pro and me being con and end up with the same debate. Clearly, you are making the claim to know a truth, while I am saying that your claim to truth isn't close to proven."

NO. That's why positions and the resolution are vital. The BoP would be differen't if the alternate resolution was the case.
You are making a truth claim and I must refute the arguments for your claim.

Now pro has made two profound logcial errors, which are:
1. Shifting the BoP
2. Argument from ignorance.

The BoP is on him to show that something supernatural could have created the universe. The BoP is not on me to show that something supernatural could not have.
X has been shown possible, is not the same claim as x has been shown impossible.
That being said pro has not upheld the BoP. He must show X is possible.

Pro says: "Can you logically prove that such a god could not have proceeded the big bang and be the cause of it? Please stop ASSUMING the big bang was the first event in the universe and provide EVIDENCE for your belief"

Once again, I DON'T HAVE THE BOP.
If you think there were events prior to the big bang, you must substantiate that belief with evidence, it is not my job to preemptively refute it.

However I did this in round 2:
"P1: This seems fairly obvious, would one say that being X exists for zero or not any seconds.
If being X exists for zero seconds, then being X does not exist. It's like saying: John has some apples., How many apples does johnny have? zero. It does not make any sense.

P1.1 Things that exists and do things, exist in some physical form of space. Some things are immaterial like ideas or numbers, but these things don't act. An idea does not breathe or eat and so forth, an idea is just an effect of the mind, which is an effect of the brain. A number does not engae in activities either. Only physical objects participate in events or are active."
There are no atemporal causes:
"The reason why we can say things have a cause is because they began in time. If there's no time before the universe, then the notion of a cause is incoherent. It's like saying X>Y. When did X>Y? Never.
Well that makes no sense."

Pro says:
"You also made a logical error by agreeing that it is possible for forces external to our universe to create it while denying the possibility for anything to exist before our universe. You continue to assert that if there's no time before the universe then nothing can exist before the universe, but the idea that there were events external to our universe that caused our universe to come into existence implies that there was time before our universe existed, even though that time was external to the time relative to our universe. You requested evidence for such theories. Clearly I don't have enough space to provide the evidence for them. I'd first have to make sure you and the readers understand string theory and its basis. The links I provided contain the evidence which you requested, and I'm not going to repost the links."

No, I never agreed to that. I said there are alternate theories. It does not follow that those theories are possible.
You say there were events before the universe, then you must provide the evidence for these. He says he can't provide evidence due to space. It's not my job to preemptively refute your non-presented evidence, Considering you provided no evidence, I won't make a strong effortto refute your claim. I do understand string theory, however you did not defend string theory and I prefer LooP Quantum Gravity.String theory requires ridiculous energy levels to produce anything meaningful.
It makes a lot of vague, non-meaningful predicitions.
The calculations are bound to be inaccurate, because one has to select a background before hand.

NDE's:
I did not seriously address this because once again, it's not addressing the resolution!
The resolution regards a supernatural being creating the world.
Even if I did hypothetically grant that a supernatural force was responsible for NDE'S, it does not then follow that a supernatural being exist, and it does not further more follow that this being could have created the universe.

Pro's final points:
Once again, he is shifting the BoP.

I'll cover all of these at once.

There is no supernatural and if there is it definitely can't be know:

Given we live in a natural world, and experience events in this natural world, we should expect natural causes for events in this natural world. If an event occurs and a natural cause is not found, it can be we don't yet know the cause or that there is not a cause(which is possible via quantum physics. However let's propose that there is a supernatural cause; is that even comprehensible? We live in a natural world, and all events we experience take place in this world, so if there is a cause outside of the natural world, it would have to come into the natural world to cause anything, does it then follow that it becomes a natural cause? If yes then the notion of anything supernal causing anything goes away, because then all causes are by definition--natural. If a supernatural cause can exist, how can it be know?
It is the case that methodological supernaturalism is completely incoherent in this universe. We have methodological naturalism, because we live in a natural world. To have a methodological supernaturalism, we would have to live in a supernatural world. We can't investigate supernatural claims.
1. Supernatural causes(which are causes outside the universe) don't exist. Pro has failed to prove there is anything outside the universe, he has merely asserted there is, then shifted the BoP and urges me to disprove him.
2. Even if there was a super natural cause, there is no way for it to be known, considering the supernatural can't be investigated by any known methodology, thus there is no warrant for labeling anything supernatural. It's all anargument from ignorance.

conclusions:
1. Pro has shifted the BOP innumerable times.
It is not my job to prove claims are impossible, it is his to show that they are possible.
Once again, X is not proven to be impossible is not the same as X is possible.
2. If pro want's to assert events prior to the universe, fine, but he must defend that position. He has not defended it at all, or even shown it possible, he has just asserted it.
3. The resolution regards a supernatural creation of the world, not just the existence of anything supernatural.
While I find the supernatural incoherent, even if I did grant it, it would be a non-sequtur to assume any supernatural beings exist, it definitely is not axiomatic. Furthermore it is a complete non-sequitur to axiomatically grant this being can create the universe. Pro must show these asserted entailments possible, it is not my job to show them impossible.

Vote Con, pro has profoundly failed in affirming the resolution


Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
The voters comments show a lack of understanding of this debate. Didn't I explicitly say I wasn't trying to prove a deity? Sigh. I'm disappointed that no one here understands the fundamentals of logic.
I will repeat that there is a HUGE difference between the statements "God exists" and "God might possibly exist". Con stated, "God does not exist". Making a claim to know the non-existence of God requires a burden of proof. Making a claim to be agnostic on the existence of God does not require a burden of proof. Why doesn't anyone understand that? Has our education system failed us, or are people here simply bias on the issue?
Having read debates from the voters here, I know they didn't disclose the fact that they sided with Con before the debate...
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
Logically, things are possible by default until shown to be true or false. If I walked into a room claiming to have found a unicorn, it isn't impossible by default until I people that I did. It is possible that I did, whether or not I can prove it, unless someone can give a very likely explanation for why I didn't.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
In Modal Logic "possibly" means in some world it's possible, it does not mean it is possible in all universes or in our universe.
In some universes I can conceive of a bear on Neptune, however in this one it's physically impossible.
You asserted it's possible, which, if true,only get's you as far as it could be the case in some universes, however I believe I addressed your arguments that it is possible in this universe(when you actually attempted to show it's a possibility).
Also in every multiverse hypothesis, there are no proposed supernatural beings.
And in all multiverse hypothesis, the definition of natural is changed to everything contained in the multiverse.
And you have to provide evidence that something is possible. Things are not possible by default.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
Didn't I already define logically possible?
It is logically possible that in the multiverse there exists a universe where there is a creator. If it is possible in the multiverse, it is possible in our universe. If it is ***possible*** (keyword which is stated clearly in title of debate) in our universe, I win. I gave several examples of how it could be possible. You never said they were impossible, or gave evidence that they couldn't have happened in our universe. You simply stated that I didn't provide evidence that they did occur, which is had no burden to do so.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
I'm not opposed to a multi-verse. In most debate I offer a multiverse to explain finetuning. However, the multiverse is natural. In no cosmology paper, is there an assertion that the multiverse is supernatural.
Once again, you have to propose the alternatives and argue they are possible through evidence. Saying "hey some cosmologist says X" is insufficient
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
I am frustrated by the lack of understanding the difference between plausible and possible. I didn't need to show plausibility, just possibility. sigh. I presented an entirely possible alternative to evolution which wasn't disproven. It was just simply ignored. I explicitly stated that I did not need to or intend to provide evidence for it, and STILL people don't get it.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
The super natural exists outside of the natural world. That is not to say that it acts outside of time, but to say that it acts outside of the time-space continuum of our universe. If there is more than one time-space continuum and they can interact (again, proposed by modern cosmology) then it is possible for a being outside of our time-space continuum to have created our time-space continuum. I'm still not understanding why you are logically opposed to this idea being physically and philosophically possible.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
Then we were on different pages.
In my mind, a bear cam logically exist on neptune. Because it does not violate law of identity,, excluded middle or non-contradiction. However based on everything we know about biology, it could not survive.

I can logically conceive of a creator, in the sense that it does not violate one of the three basic laws, but it's impossible in the sense that it's physically and philosophically impossible for something to cause something in no time or exist in no space or time.
Posted by Jellon 3 years ago
Jellon
Likewise, your saying "if you don't think claim X is possible, prove it!"

That is exactly what I'm saying. I could not conceive of a bear living on Neptune, unless you redefine bear to be some species that doesn't exist on earth. It would be logically impossible, because we know the bear would die.

You can't prove "physically" that the super natural is impossible, because if the super natural exists, it does so outside the physical realm in which we live. Philosophically, I showed it is a logical possibility for an intelligent super natural creator to have created the universe. I never intended to show that it is the most likely, which I believe is clear from the title. I only set out to show that it is logically possible, which I believe I did.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
There's differences in the world possible.
Things can be logically possible but not physically possible.
I can't logically conceive of a married bachelor.
However I can conceive of a bear living on Neptune (most absurd thing that came to mind).
It does not violate violate any basic law of logic, but the BoP would be on the pro to make that claim seem possible. My objections to your arguments were not so much of logical impossibility, but a physical and philosophical impossibility.
"Shifting the burden of proof is a kind of logical fallacy in argumentation whereby the person who would ordinarily have the burden of proof in an argument attempts to switch that burden to the other person, e.g.:
If you don't think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, then prove it!"

Likewise, your saying "if you don't think claim X is possible, prove it!"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 3 years ago
Truth_seeker
JellonKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Because pro stated it's possible for God to exist, he has already fulfilled his burden of proof. Con begins the next debate with "I can't imagine a world in which a being creates the universe" which doesn't help his case at all. Pro has a better understanding of how science works while Con did not rule out God's existence as a possibility.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
JellonKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's arguments felt too assumptional.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
AlternativeDavid
JellonKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro had more sources, I am more inclined to believe Con's sources which included a website strictly about physics, and NASA. I also feel as though Con had better arguments because a lot of Pro's arguments were "nobody can disprove this thing yet, therefore god"