Instigator / Pro
Points: 5

Civilization Was inspired by and created by God


The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Civilization did not develop slowly through small advancements created by human beings, but came on the scene fully-fledged practically overnight. Civilization was given to human beings, through inspiration, by God.
Round 1
It is my belief that civilization came on the scene fully formed, beginning with the Sumerians about five to six thousand years ago. I contend that there were no precursors leading up, in a step-wise fashion, to the first civilization. There are no instances of progression from hunter-gatherer society to the first civilizations, namely Sumer. There were other fully formed civilizations that came  a little later, namely Egyptian, Chinese,and the Indus civilizations. These civilizations as well have no known precursors or signs of progression to a fully-formed society. 

" The Sumerian appeared at the dawn of history as a fully developed society with a technology and organisation that was different and superior to other societies of the time."

San Hose State University

I put forth the idea that the details of society, including all of the integrated systems such and writing, building, mathematics and astronomy were given to humans through inspiration directly from God, through dreams, visions, reveries, trance states etc. 

Evidence for this includes testimony from modern scientists, such as Darwin, Meneleev, Kekule, Descartes, Ramanugen, Leowi, and Agassiz who have claimed getting scientific information through dreams, trance states, fever dreams etc. 

Also included is my own personal experience receiving specific information regarding astronomy, geometry, canonical numbers through dreams, synchronicities, visions and trance states. I know this is not evidence of course, but I wanted to include it so you understand why I believe what I do, and why I have reached this conclusion. 
I have two simple replies:
  1. Lack of Evidence
  2. FSM is More Likely

1.       Lack of Evidence
No affirmative evidence has been offered, merely the didit fallacy [1]. As described by RationalWiki:
didit fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when a complex problem is handwaved away by invoking (without reason) the intervention of some powerful entity.
In essence:
1.   Something happened, I'm not sure why.
2.   X did it!
It's that simple.

testimony from modern scientists
No such testimony has been offered.
Occam’s Razor
Civilization has been proven to exist, God has not, therefore Occam’s Razor [2] identifies it as more likely the factual beings created the fictional. Were we to ignore this, why choose any one fictional being over say Mickey Mouse as the creator of civilization?

2.       FSM is More Likely
No discussion of something being done by divine intervention is complete without the inclusion of multiple potential gods each at least equally likely to have done it. To avoid a Gish Gallop, I’ll focus on just the Flying Spaghetti Monster [3] (henceforth FSM).

The key difference between God and the FSM is that God never makes mistakes, whereas when the FSM was creating the universe it was “either careless, drunk, high, or all three” [4].

Even civilization not rising everywhere all at once and always being at the same technological level, suggests if a divine being stepped in, it was not an omnipresent one like God.

ID v. UD
Intelligent Design (ID) contrasts with Unintelligent Design (UD) in both the creations and their creators. ID is God’s perfect works, such as beings that never suffer cancer or other randomly occurring ailments; UD on the other hand had an unqualified architect resulting in all number of defects.
If the perfect creator stepped in to make civilizations, they too would be perfect without wars or other problems. Whereas a flawed creator would do a deplorable job of it, resulting in wars, financial inequality, and all number of other things we witness today.

Round 2
"An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a though of God"-Ramanugen

“Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God’s gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences.” 

Freeman Dyson

“God created everything by number, weight and measure.”
“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”

Isaac Newton

"The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.”

Nikola Tesla

The Sumerians themselves believed civilization was started by the Gods:

The short tale “Marduk, Creator of the World” is another Babylonian narrative that opens with the existence of the sea before any act of creation. First to be created are the cities, Eridu and Babylon, and the temple Esagil is founded. Then the earth is created by heaping dirt upon a raft in the primeval waters. Humankind, wild animals, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the marshlands and canebrake, vegetation, and domesticated animals follow. Finally, palm groves and forests appear. Just before the composition becomes fragmentary and breaks off, Marduk is said to create the city of Nippur and its temple, the Ekur, and the city of Uruk, with its temple Eanna.

Earlier, ENKI is thought to be the keeper of the MES, the foundations of civilization:

In Sumerian mythology, a me (𒈨; SumerianmeAkkadian: paršu) is one of the decrees of the gods that is foundational to those social institutionsreligious practicestechnologies, behaviors, mores, and human conditions that make civilization, as the Sumerians understood it, possible. They are fundamental to the Sumerian understanding of the relationship between humanity and the gods.

Uruk is considered by archaeologists to be the first city of the Sumarians. Inanna tricks Enki into giving her the MES, which she then delivers to the first city of URUK

Thanks for the quick debate.

1.       Lack of Evidence
Didit Fallacy
Pro has dropped that his entire case is just the didit fallacy, so extend.
As for Sumerian beliefs which are just adding detail to the fallacy; note the concession in pro’s own heading “believed civilization was started by the Gods” key word being Gods plural, not singular. “Marduk” instead of God apparently built the first city in this account.
testimony from modern scientists”
Religious men who were good at science, does not prove they were given a priori knowledge instead of unlocking it through arduous work. Plus, the number one testimony from pro is from Srinivasa Ramanujan, who was Hindu not Christian, thus if given divine knowledge it would come from the dharma not God.
Were ability in science to come from even the general divine, we would not be having this conversation as the father of computers was Alan Turing, an atheist. Religious fanatics actually suppressed his work and effectively murdered him in the name of God [1].
Occam’s Razor
Pro has dropped this, so extend.

2.       FSM is More Likely
Pro has dropped the entirety of this section, thus leaving the FSM instead of God as the only considered divine source of our messed-up civilizations.

All glory to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

--> @Dr.Franklin
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to con for S/G
>Reason for Decision: Spelling and Grammar
Pro made multiple mistakes
1."though" should be thought
2."the marshlands" should just be marshlands
3."San Hose" should be San Jose
Neither side convinced me
>Reason for Mod Action: To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible. The voter fails to compare pro's s/g with con's. Moreover, he failed to explain why they rendered the argument incoherent or incomprehensible. Finally, the vote is removed as there still needs to be some explanation for the tied arguments.
--> @oromagi
Thanks for that extremely detailed vote!
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:PRO instigates a big, extraordinary claim refuting the present consensus view of Sumerian history and archeology. PRO’s R1 is little more than a statement of personal belief based on visions.
CON points out that no evidence has been presented nor any reason why one hypothetical supernatural explanation should be preferred to another.
PRO ignores CON, offers a series of quotes unconnected to thesis, and finishes with Sumerian mythology.
CON extends ignored arguments and points out that both quotes and Sumerian myths undermined PRO’s undefined, monotheistic God.
ARGUMENTS to CON since PRO presented scant evidence and never connected to thesis.
+quotes an economist (non-Sumer expert) out of context, ignoring that the website refutes PRO’s case.
+links to a very generic list of scientists which in no way justifies claims that some scientists were inspired by unscientific sources.
+Adds a bunch of unconnected quotes, 3 without citation
However, PRO finishes with two good sources properly cited
PRO ignored CON’s counterargument entirely which is poor conduct and at heart, the opposite of debate.
--> @Ragnar
R'amen brother.
--> @TheAtheist
Thanks for voting. R'amen!
--> @janesix
You're welcome.
If you ever want advice about how to strengthen an argument, let me know. I actually enjoy arguing both sides in theology debates.
Oh if you haven't already read it, there's some great advice in the style guide:
On page 6 I offer quick suggestions specifically for speculation debates like this one.
--> @janesix
don't thank him, he utterly mocked you and didn't give a single shred of respect to your case.
--> @Ragnar
Thank you for the debate, I appreciate you taking the time and effort to debate me. I am new at this.
--> @Pinkfreud08
I mean God revealed knowledge to individuals about how to create civilization, through direct revelation in their minds.
--> @janesix
What do you mean by inspired? Do you mean by God created civilization and exists?
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
RFD in Comments
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Round One:
Pro begins his argument by pointing out a few ancient civilizations that were very developed for their time. He then says that many modern scientists have claimed to have gotten information from dreams or trances. Therefore, Pro concludes that "the details of society, including all of the integrated systems such and writing, building, mathematics and astronomy were given to humans through inspiration directly from God, through dreams, visions, reveries, trance states etc."
Con correctly points out that Pro is commiting the "didit" logical fallacy. Just because we're not sure why something happened (advanced ancient civilizations or scientists getting info from dreams), does not mean that an omnipotent being is responsible. He then points out that if God is a perfect being, then his creations must also be perfect, but we are not. If an intelligent creator was responsible for our civilization, we wouldn't have wars or plagues or financial crises.
Round Two:
Pro commits an Appeal to Authority in his R2 argument. He points out that many genius scientists have believed in God, but this alone is not enough evidence to conclude that God exists. The rest of Pro's argument is some nonsense from Sumerian mythology.
Con uses the same arguments in his R2 argumet, since Pro has failed to respond to them in any way. He also correctly points out that FSM is the only logical creator of the universe. R'amen!
Pro made four arguments to prove his claim:
1. There have been a few ancient civilizations which were unexplainably developed
2. Many scientists have claimed to get their information from dreams or trances.
3. Many scientists have said that civilization was inspired and created by God.
4. The Sumerians believed that civilization was started by gods.
None of those points are enough to conclude that civilization was inspired and created by God. Some of those points, like number 3 and number 4, contradict each other (Was it one God or many gods?). As Con correctly pointed out, "We don't know something - therefore God" is an invalid argument. R'amen