The Instigator
DrySponge
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

you cannot have morality outside of creationism

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 5 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,253 times Debate No: 46416
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (41)
Votes (5)

 

DrySponge

Pro

Bop is on me all rounds should be used.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
DrySponge

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this debatte.

Definiton of morality:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

So the definition is divided into two parts
-distinction between right and wrong
-distinction between wrong or good and bad behaviour

Now I will tell you a story to explain my stance.

A gold smith crafts an amullet with the purpose of seducing the neighbours daughter what he doesn't know it's that the gold the amullet is crafted from is cursed and it ends kills the young lady the same moment it touches her hand.

Did the amullet act right or wrong ? NO
Did the amulet behave the way it should? No most people will say it didn't .

Those questions are based on the two parts of morality.

-distinction between right and wrong
-distinction between wrong or good and bad behaviour

Now let's change the story .

The amullet is eternal it has always existed an will always exist.
The smith found the amullet and gave it to the lady he had a crush on.
The lady takes the amullet and dies.

Did the amullet act right or wrong ? It DIdn't acted wrong or right it has always existed it has no way it ougth to behave.

Did the amulet behave the way it should? The amullet had no way it should behave.

What is the difference between this two stories in the first the amullet was created and had a purpose the other hadn't.

So what can we take from this the act of creation with PURPOSE gave the amullet a way it ought to behave.

Only an intelligence can put purpose into things.

So morality comes from creation with a purpose.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

REBUTTAL

Pro has failed in satisfying his burden of proof, provided that his argument does not conclude that "morality cannot exist outside of creationism" but instead concludes that morality comes from "creation with a purpose" without establishing that this creation should be a godly creation or something pertaining to creationism.

Creationism: The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution[1].

Pro concludes: "So what can we take from this the act of creation with PURPOSE gave the amulet a way it ought to behave. Only an intelligence can put purpose into things. So morality comes from creation with a purpose."

Let us say that I accept the conclusion for the sake of argumentation, I don't have to accept that morality cannot exist outside of creationism. I can simply have different beliefs such as that the inner creation of my modes of behavior creates morality, and so there would be no role for a Heavenly Father who created the world, but only my intelligence which creates morality.

Nevertheless, I accepted Pro's conclusion for the sake of argumentation. Pro's argument actually makes a couple of logical fallacies and baseless assumptions.

Pro argues in his first story, "Did the amulet behave the way it should? No most people will say it didn't."

Rebuttal: This is an Ad Populum logical fallacy, also known as an appeal to popularity. If "most people" say it didn't, this does not mean that their answer must be true. This premise alone being false disproves the whole argument.

Pro assumes the existence of moral precepts(priori right and wrong).

Rebuttal: I have not been given any empirical evidence to believe that moral precepts exist so far.

Pro argues: "Only an intelligence can put purpose into things."

Rebuttal: This is an over-generalization fallacy which ignores non-intelligent methods that can result in purposeful beings. For instance, the process of biological evolution doesn't seem to have any intelligence whatsoever, and has resulted in my species which have purposes(such as survival). This premise alone being false disproves the whole argument.

Finally, Pro's analogy commits the false comparison fallacy as it equivocates between moral agents cable of intelligence and amulets that are not, and argues that amulets have to be given a purpose to be evaluated morally, knowing that amulets cannot create their own purposes as opposed to moral agents who could, and so such a comparison doesn't evaluate moral agents adequately.

SUMMARY

Pro's argument ends with a conclusion that is different than the resolution, and so it doesn't satisfy his burden of proof even if we assume that it is logically sound. Moreover, his argument commits many logical fallacies and baseless assumptions, some of which I have addressed in this round.

CITATIONS

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DrySponge

Pro

Let"s re-read the premise of our debate : you cannot have morality outside of creationism

You cannot have morality outside of creationism .
You referring to my opponent who is a human.
So we are debating human morality not morality in general.

Just to clear that up

So my conclusion remains MORALITY COMES FROM INTELLIGENT CREATION WITH A PURPOSE.
Since my opponent has accepted it (unless so I think )

Now let"s see what does it take to give purpose.
You would say a mind and you would be correct but let me show you why only a divine being can put purpose into things.

What are our toughts and mind made from ?
Our minds are only chemical reactions in our brain.

Now an example: A kid shakes a soda can and opens it the soda spills into his T-SHIRT.

You cannot say the soda did it on purpose.
You cannot say the soda spilled itself on the kid with the purpose of wetting him.
Why ?
Because is not like the soda has a mind it was just a chemical reaction.

Isn"t your mind also only a chemical reaction inside of your brain?

I"m sorry to be the one to say it but your mind is a chemical reaction that could be predicted with the laws of physiques.

So for something to put a purpose into it"s creation it has to be something non physical.

Definition of Miracle :
An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Non physical things cannot be explained by science and so falls into the miracle category .

So morality comes from intelligent creation with purpose .
To give purpose you need to be non physical.
Creation trough a non physical creator cannot be explained by science and so falls into the miracle category.
Miracles are attributed to a divine agency.

So morality can only come from an intelligent divine creator with purpose.

Hence morality can only come from divine creation .
Hence you cannot have morality without creationism.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

Pro has misunderstood me when I said that if I hypothetically accepted his argument, it doesn't lead to the conclusion he wants, and mistakenly claimed that I have accepted his argument throughout this debate, when, on the contrary, I have provided four rebuttals for his argument and made it clear in my previous round that Pro's argument is not logically sound to be accepted, and so I definitely do not accept his first argument.

Pro's reasoning suffers two major problems:

A1- The argument he uses to conclude that "morality comes from creation with a purpose" is mainly based on false comparisons and logical fallacies. Hence, I reject it.

A2- The argument he uses to jump from "morality comes from creation with a purpose" to "morality cannot exist outside of creationism" is based on false comparisons, logical fallacies and baseless assertions. Hence, I reject it too.

REBUTTAL

A1- Morality comes from creation with a purpose

This argument can be summarized as such:

P1- Amulets created without purposes cannot be said to be immoral.

P2- Amulets created with purposes can be said to be immoral by most people. [Ad populum logical fallacy]

P3- Amulets and humans are both moral agents. [False comparison logical fallacy]

Conclusion: Humans need to be created with a purpose to be moral.

This argument suffers from many problems, but it is mainly based on a false comparison fallacy as it equivocates between moral agents cable of intelligence and amulets that are not, and argues that amulets have to be given a purpose to be evaluated morally, and so should humans, which makes no sense as humans can create purposes of their own.

Moreover, it is based on many false premises which are themselves textbook examples of logical fallacies:

For instance, "Did the amulet behave the way it should? No most people will say it didn't."

Rebuttal: This is an Ad Populum logical fallacy, also known as an appeal to popularity. If "most people" say it didn't, this does not mean that their answer must be true.

...

A2- Morality cannot exist outside of creationism

Pro's second argument can be summarized as:

P1- The mind is purely chemical reactions. [Baseless assertion]

P2- The mind can be predicted by laws of physics. [False premise - Baseless assertion]

P3- Following from P2, someone non-physical should put purpose in the physical. [Non-sequitur logical fallacy - conclusion doesn't follow]

P4- "Non physical things cannot be explained by science and so falls into the miracle category ." [False dichtomy fallacy aka Either Or fallacy]

P5- Miracles can only be performed by an agency.

Conclusion: Morality was created by an agency, and so it cannot exist outside of creationism.

I shall try to address the major falsehoods in this argument, although I only need to disprove one premise to defeat the whole argument:

Pro argues, "What are our toughts[sic] and mind made from? Our minds are only chemical reactions in our brain.... Because is not like the soda has a mind it was just a chemical reaction. Isn"t[sic] your mind also only a chemical reaction inside of your brain?"

Rebuttal: No. We cannot explain consciousness and thoughts using chemical reactions, and so Pro cannot claim that the Mind is just chemical reactions in the brain. I myself adopt the atheistic world-view of Thomas Nagel in his book Mind and Cosmos, where he uses Descartes' argument which basically says that the fact that we can imagine mind without body means that mind, to some extent, is separate from the physical body[1]. it is necessary for Pro to establish the premise "mind is just chemical reactions" as a factual premise to be used in a deductive logical argument. If he doesn't, he is simply making a baseless assertion.

Pro further argues, "I"m sorry to be the one to say it but your mind is a chemical reaction that could be predicted with the laws of physiques."

Rebuttal: This is blatantly false. The human mind and how it behaves is pretty much unpredictable. According to a peer-reviewed paper "Unpredictability and Indeterminism in Human Behavior: Arguments and Implications for Educational Research", it is argued that complex human behavior is unpredictable for the most part[2]. Here is an excerpt from the abstract of the paper:

"This essay presents arguments for the view that complex human behavior of the type that interests educational researchers is by its nature unpredictable if not indeterminate, a view that raises serious questions about the validity of a quantitative, experimental, positivist approach to educational research. The arguments are based on (a) individual differences, (b) chaos, (c) the evolutionary nature of learning and development, (d) the role of consciousness and free will in human behavior, and (e) the implications of quantum mechanics..."

Pro remarks, "Non physical things cannot be explained by science and so falls into the miracle category ."

Rebuttal: This is a textbook example of a False dichotomy logical fallacy. Non-physical events not explained by science do not necessarily have to be miracles. Pro here is basing his argument on another premise which in itself is a logical fallacy, the either-or fallacy, and making it seem as if the choice is between just two alternatives: Miracles or physical things.

SUMMARY

Pro has failed to satisfy his burden of proof, and has used two logically fallacious arguments and failed to give any convincing argument why the existence of morality necessitates the existence of creationism. Pro has to satisfy his burden of proof with logically sound arguments to win this debate. So far this has not been done.

CITATIONS

[1] Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. By Thomas Nagel. http://www.amazon.com...

[2] Unpredictability and Indeterminism in Human Behavior: Arguments and Implications for Educational Research. Gary A Cziko. Found online on: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu....

Debate Round No. 3
DrySponge

Pro

I won't be able to make an argument in this round.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Points extended.
Debate Round No. 4
DrySponge

Pro

Ok I excuse my self for not writing an argument last round.

So This is what I have to do no matter in which order to complete my burden.
1-Proof that morality can only come from creation with purpose.
2-Proof that purpose can only come from the divine.

Proof for number 1

I have to proof that morality can only come from creation with purpose.
Most of the problems that came from me attempting to proof this point came from my analogy.
I will try to explain this in a more effective way.

So for me to proof this we have to assume that humans have the capacity to put purpose into their creations (only to proof this point).

So picture his.
A hundred years from now humans have mastered the genes and are able to create new species all together.

So now they create a chicken than is supposed to produce three times more eggs than any chicken on earth before . But after the humans create this creature with a purpose in mind the chicken doesn"t give any eggs.

Now let"s lock at the definition of morality:
-Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Did the chicken act right or wrong?
The chicken acted wrong because she didn"t lay eggs.
The chicken defied it"s purpose .
between right and wrong or good
Did the chicken behave right or wrong ?
No the chicken didn"t act as it was suppose to.
wrong or good and bad behavior.
Why did the chicken not behave like it was suppose to?
It didn"t lay any eggs .
IT DEFIED IT"S PURPOSE.

Now let"s lock at another example :
The chicken wasn"t created with a purpose in mind it got created trough evolution.
No one can claim the chicken is behaving wrong or that the chicken is acting wrong.
Why?
Because the chicken has not been created with a purpose in mind

So now I hope to have proven that morality can only come trough creation with purpose.

But now I have to proof that Creation with purpose can only come from a divine agency.

Proof of why creation with purpose can only come from a divine agency

1.Everything follows physic"s rules(new rules may be discovered to explain the previously un-explained)
2.Something that doesn"t follow those rules cannot be explained by science.
3.Some thing that cannot be explained by science is considered a miracle.
4.Miracles are attributed to the divine.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

1.Our minds can put purpose into things because they cannot be predicted by sciences rules.

No. We cannot explain consciousness and thoughts using chemical reactions, and so Pro cannot claim that the Mind is just chemical reactions in the brain. I myself adopt the atheistic world-view of Thomas Nagel in his book Mind and Cosmos, where he uses Descartes' argument which basically says that the fact that we can imagine mind without body means that mind, to some extent, is separate from the physical body[1]. it is necessary for Pro to establish the premise "mind is just chemical reactions" as a factual premise to be used in a deductive logical argument. If he doesn't, he is simply making a baseless assertion.

If something cannot be explained by science it enters the miracle category.

Definition of miracle:

An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

So if minds cannot be explained by science they enter the miracle category and so when something is created by a mind it"s divine creation .

2.Our we can go back to the premise of the previous round and say morality can only come from something non-physical.
Something physical enters the miracle category and as such purpose can only come from the divine.

Basiclly you can understand the mind or you cannot.
No matter one or two it"s a win for me.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

Pro's performance in this debate was disappointing. He repeated the same logical fallacies and has failed to offer any deductive logical argument that satisfies his burden of proof. I have already offered many objections to his arguments, but I'm forced to repeat myself in this round.

REBUTTAL

Pro's first argument

Pro repeats the same false comparison fallacy by treating both humans and chicken as moral agents, to say that an external purpose should be given for moral agents to have morality, when this is fallacious given that humans can create purposes of their own, and so humans do not need an external purpose to have morality, if we assume that chicken actually do.

This premise along being false demolishes the whole argument.

Pro dropped his argument that "mind is just a chemical reaction" and that "it is predicted by physical laws" after I proved the contrary.

...

Pro's second argument

Pro argues, "3.Some thing that cannot be explained by science is considered a miracle."

Rebuttal: I have already refuted this premise, and yet Pro ignored my refutation and repeated the same claim, which commits numerous fallacies. If miracles are considered non-physical(according to Pro's definition), that doesn't mean that everything non-physical is considered a miracle too, much like the fact that if humans are all mammals, that doesn't mean all mammals are humans too. In other words, events or phenomena not explained by science do not necessarily have to be miracles. Dark Matter, for the most part, is not explained by science, neither is consciousness, but that does not make them miracles. That is to say, if I can't explain something by science, I suspend my judgment on it. I don't assume that "God did it", so I don't see why I should go ahead and think that whatever science doesn't explain or hasn't explained yet is a miracle performed by a divine agency. This seems like The God of the Gaps fallacy on Pro's behalf.

This premise along being false demolishes the whole argument.

--

DROPPED ARGUMENTS

1- Mind is just a chemical reaction.

2- Mind can be predicted by laws of physics.

3- Amulets are moral agents.

4- Humans cannot create their own purposes.

And others.

...

SUMMARY

Pro dropped many arguments, committed many logical fallacies, ignored most of my refutations, made many false comparisons and failed to provide any good arguments for his position that "you cannot have morality outside of creationism," although the burden of proof is solely on him. I had higher expectations and so I was left disappointed.

I thank Pro for starting this debate.
It was at least interesting.

Debate Round No. 5
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
Lol. Sagey. I'm confused too. You can vote again to correct "Pro" and "Con" in the RFD.

When you say "Con's argument didn't match the source that well?"

Are you referring to Pro or Con?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
See I did it again, type faster than thinking, and putting Pro where I meant Con and vice verse or is it that I'm overtired, since I haven't slept for 3 days.
Damn insomnia, can't sleep, pills don't help.
I'm trying to type myself to sleep, which does work sometimes, as I have so much crap going on in my head that I cannot sleep, my brain is too active and putting ideas and thoughts out in typing sometimes makes my brain content and I then sleep peacefully.
Though it hasn't been working for the last few days.
And it is not working now. :(
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Oops, I got it the wrong way around in my vote statement, shows how little I review my own typing as I type faster than I think, where before I started trolling and blogging my typing was very slow. That is what I started for, as typing practice.

I meant to say it was Pro who had me amused with inanimate objects having morality. Sorry Con!

Con improved a bit as the debate went on, but I couldn't get passed my original impression of extreme Irrationality, Pro set as a precedent in the first argument.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
@Garret,

1- The argument which I called the "God of the Gaps" doesn't even establish Pro's burden of proof. It's the first argument, not the second. It concludes "Morality comes from creation with a purpose" which doesn't satisfy the resolution "you cannot have morality outside of creationism."

2- God of the Gaps is a version of an "Argument from Ignorance". I didn't just call it "God of the Gaps" I explained why it is wrong because it assumes 'God did it' because of an ignorance of the matter. So simply saying that "God of the Gaps" just found just on Internet blogs, is a genetic logical fallacy on your behalf (fallacy of origin), and a misunderstanding of what was being said.

3- Pro's argument which was meant to satisfy the burden of proof, commits a false dichotomy fallacy between "miracles" and "physical things." Hence, it never establishes his burden of proof.

You're probably just voiting against me because I might have voted against you, as your vote doesn't make any sense.
Posted by WaterTipper 3 years ago
WaterTipper
Lol, the Pro continues to make these false analogies (which prove nothing at all :P)

Typical.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
That's okay. Just don't forfeit the round but write that you won't be able to make an argument in this round.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
Sorry but I won't be able to write an argument before after tommorow I would like to ask for an extra day.
you know I ahve school.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
A completely Irrational Analogy that made no sense whatsoever, inanimate objects cannot have morality attached, only thinking, conscious entities can have a morality.
Thus an amulet cannot be Moral or Immoral, both are extremely impossible.
Only the smith can have morality, if he knew the amulet would kill her and he still gave it to her, he is immoral, if he realized it was deadly, and refrained from giving it to her and destroyed it, he is moral.
The morality is the choice of the conscious being.
The amulet itself, regardless of it's character (deadly or not) has no possibility of attached morality.

So the analogy was way Beyond Stupid!
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Here is one of the places that I get the schooling that I love.

They have a sale right now.

I hope that it's ok for me to share this.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com...
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
Thatvwas an analogy guys...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
DrySpongeNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off the arguments with and continued with simple spelling and grammar errors though his argument with amullets (amulets) and physiques (phisics) leaves me scratching my head in disbelief and continually amazed at how many times Pro repeated the same point when once is enough. Con's argument was more soundly structured and convincing. Con's use of objects having morality was amusing to say the least. On the sources, I really couldn't decide a clear winner, so I tied them there. I'm not really into just specifying definitions, though Pro's argument didn't match the source that well.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
DrySpongeNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was sadly disappointing. Pro did not address the questions raised by Con regarding the holes in the arguments. Instead Pro just continued to say the same thing using a different analogy, as such points for arguments to Con. regarding S&G I am also giving these to Con as Pro made multiple spelling errors that I noticed. Conduct is shared and sources are shared.
Vote Placed by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
DrySpongeNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro: Grammar was lacking and sources were none outside dictionary definitions. Con: Refuted all of pro's points, provided sources outside dictionary definitions and had better grammar.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
DrySpongeNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's spelling and grammar was atrocious; for example, "It DIdn't acted" so he loses points for that. Con wins 2nd round for pointing out Pro's use of the false comparison fallacy; however, Con's other arguments weren't convincing. Pro seemed to refute his own case in the 3rd round. Pro loses conduct for forfeiting the 4th round, thus breaking his own terms. Pro's 5th round was actually convincing, at least part of it; the latter half made no sense. Despite Pro's atrocious spelling and grammar, I'm going to give him this debate because he satisfied his burden. Con's last round rebuttals were not sufficient; "God of the Gaps" is not defined as a fallacy outside of internet blogs and other unreliable sources; despite the fact Con won the "Physical Mind" argument, it wasn't relevant to Pro's case. And finally, Con's definition of "Creationism" did not damage Pro's case, either.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
DrySpongeNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 didn't fulfill the burden of proof.