Instigator / Pro
19
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#2584

The Universe is Older than 10,000 Years

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
3
4

After 4 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

WesleyBColeman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
22
1520
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description

-BOP is Shared.
-Please no Solipsism.
-Please no Kritiks.
Definitions for the context of this debate:

-Universe - All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
--Year (Earth) - The time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun.

These terms are not to be redefined at any point during this debate.

I look forward to an interesting debate.

-->
@PGA2.0

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5735-response-to-pga-2-0

-->
@Sum1hugme

Okay, thanks!

-->
@PGA2.0

Yes, there is quite a bit there, so I will make a post and link it here so you can find it easily. Seems more appropriate than discussing it here.

-->
@Sum1hugme
@WesleyBColeman

Sum, I thought it was an interesting and well-fought debate since the subject does interest me. I am still interested in your views; now the debate is over. How do you justify not use an exclusively natural as opposed to a supernatural view (thus, the presuppositions nature of your argument) in interpreting the evidence? What was faulty thinking on either Wesley's or my part regarding the speed of light argument, and I am interested in your view on how the expansion (fast or slow) of the Universe could adversely affect its age. I am also interested in how you would answer the Thomas Aquinas issue?

-->
@WesleyBColeman

Nah it wasn't meant to be a shot man. Oro had just commented "proof that you don't have to be right to win a debate." On a "trump will win the 2020 election" debate.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Thank you for the debate! I was told this platform was majority secular, so I half expected to lose this one from the beginning just by virtue of taking an unpopular opinion. I am surprised I won probably as much as you, but personally I feel your comment below is bad form. Whether or not I am right (clearly I think that I am) is partially irrelevant to the win, but it says something about you and your character to feel the need to make this remark after the fact that you may not have intended it to. No offense taken however and I believe the sentiment had no ill-will. Again, you were an exceptional opponent and I am honored to have participated in this debate with you.

-->
@oromagi

I think this is the best example that you don't have to be right to win a debate lol

-->
@Sum1hugme
@WesleyBColeman

SUM: "I made it very clear that I am not advocating a worldview. I even allowed deism because that's all my opponent's arguments indicate. But even under deism there was [no] real refutation of my core argument. It feels disingenuous to continuously label my position as naturalism rather than simply contingent on observable data."

***

Sure, I understand. You may not advocate one, but you hold one. You view the world in a particular way. That way examines the world through a mixture of science and scientism, in the case of origins. Models (theories) are built and tested as to their plausibility, and the ones that most fit or are most plausible are generally accepted. You expressed what you think is the reasonableness of such a model in discussing the universe's age. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out when too many anomalies are found, the paradigm shifts to a new model that better explains the occurrence.

BUT, during the debate, you exclusively used a naturalistic explanation. Wesley pointed out some of the hidden assumptions of that framework. The key (to my mind) was the presuppositional nature of the argument since no human being was there to witness the birth of the Universe. Thus, an interpretation of the evidence is needed. The Universe does not come stamped 13.8 billion years old. The scientific interpretation is solely naturalistic. This adds a problem to its explainability, as the Thomas Aquinas R3 argument laid out. From what we witness, every motion is preceded by another motion within a closed system. But what caused the BB, if that is the explanation? Then there is the problem of why? That cannot be answered from within a naturalist's worldview, IMO. What is the intent or agency behind the Universe? According to naturalists, there is none. Things happen for no REASON. Naturalists keep finding reasons in the Universe for the way things are, but cannot find meaning for the Universe itself, just any number of speculations. If there is no mind behind the Universe, why would we find meaning for it? It is a mindless, meaningless entity with no agency behind it. Things happen. Chance happenstance. What does chance have the ability to do? I like giving the analogy of rolling dice. The dice do not roll themselves. There is an agency behind them. You, a mindful being are that agency. A personal being designed them. Expecting six repeatedly (the uniformity of Nature, or the laws of Nature) are thinkable in theory but undemonstrable in practice. Try rolling a six indefinitely (the sustainability of the Universe or natural laws that we DISCOVER, not invent). It is only a matter of time (probably the first roll) before another number comes up besides six. So what you can theorize in your mind cannot be demonstrated in practice without agency, without intent, without first fixing the dice to make the constant six appear every roll.

The same with an infinity. That cannot be demonstrated in practice or from within the confines of time (timeless). You could never count to infinity. So, logically, there is an explanation in theory, but not practically once God is eliminated; it cannot be lived or demonstrated. The Thomas Aquinas part of the argument sealed it for me. It laid bare the presuppositional nature of your natural argument. I would have liked you to have addressed those three points. Not only that, there are alternative explanations to the current natural beliefs that raise questions as to the plausibility of other aspects of your argument, such as the speed of light and expansion of the Universe. The balloon analogy is the example I used. How fast you blow the balloon determines how quickly the distance between the two dots separate. Can we be sure the Universe has always expanded at the rate it is now? We live in the present, looking back on the past. Taking these and many more factors, I believe God is the better or most plausible explanation.

When you say, "It feels disingenuous to continuously label my position as naturalism rather than simply contingent on observable data." Well, what are you OBSERVING? Are you observing the natural world, the natural universe? Second, are you bringing the supernatural into the argument in any way or excluding it?

-->
@PGA2.0

I made it very clear that I am not advocating a worldview. I even allowed deism because that's all my opponent's arguments indicate. But even under deism there was on real refutation of my core argument. It feels disingenuous to continuously label my position as naturalism rather than simply contingent on observable data.

-->
@Sum1hugme
@WesleyBColeman

What is more, I do not believe there is such a thing as complete objective neutrality by subjective human beings on such a philosophical position as the one you are debating - the age of the Universe. We come with a bias. A naturalist, atheist, or secularist is not objective in the way they look at the evidence on such a subject, neither is Christian, theist, or pantheist. We all bring baggage to any discussion. We all build on our core presuppositions, the ones everything else rests upon, and both sides of the debate tend to look for things that confirm these most basic presuppositions. I have noted that with all of the voters to date. They, and I, have biases. There are great thinkers on both sides of the aisle. The question is, which is more REASONABLE and logical?

The fascinating thing is how ideas and worldviews influence the way we think. Ideas build, each concept upon another concept, precept upon precept, from the core on up. We usually build on where we start, but sometimes we cheat and borrow from opposing worldviews on some issues. Are our worldviews regarding specific positions justifiable? The accepted paradigm is usually the way that the majority look at the information available. Ideas have consequences. The Age of Reason shifted the paradigm for the majority in the West with humanity becoming the measure of all things, away from God. Thus, for most Westerners, the information is funnelled through the acceptable paradigm. Revolutionary thinkers challenge the accepted paradigm and norm. In my opinion, truth should be the aim for all of us, but that is very difficult to discern. This is one of those areas, IMO. More often a debate is about winning which can detract from the truth.

-->
@Sum1hugme
@WesleyBColeman

YOU: "While I do not think your vote is grounded in good reasons, I do not consider it unfair because you were persuaded by my opponent arguments. Caleber's vote awarded both conduct and sources which I think is unfair."

I think it makes for an interesting discussion because I think the opposite of your view. That is, my vote is grounded in good reason, especially when it is grounded in a knowable necessary being, not a contingent being. Not only this, what does a naturalist ground their core beliefs upon, a blind, indifferent random chance happenstance Universe. How naturalists get to reasoning beings leaves a lot in the imagination. Thus, the nature of our presuppositions is very different.

-->
@PGA2.0

While I do not think your vote is grounded in good reasons, I do not consider it unfair because you were persuaded by my opponent arguments. Caleber's vote awarded both conduct and sources which I think is unfair.

I'll try to get a vote in here, I'm kind of curious how this debate went now.

-->
@Sum1hugme
@WesleyBColeman

YOU: "While there's a lot wrong with what you said, I suppose I shouldn't argue with you in the comments about it. Thank you for voting."

I'm okay with it because these are weighty issues that need to be understood, plus the debate is over, not in progress. But because the vote is still ongoing you might want to wait, depending on how strongly you feel about the issue? If you have concerns my feeling is that they should be expressed at some point. I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with a vote or an issue. I don't know how Wesley thinks about it, but I would definitely question something I felt was unfair or not true. That is the way I am. If you feel this is awkward discussing here then a personal correspondence is okay with me also. The point of expressing yourself here is that others get to hear both sides of the issue on the relevant point, as it relates to the debate. Is that unkosher? Of course, a thread could be used to further the discussion. I am swamped with one I initiated, however. I am just taking a break from it.

-->
@PGA2.0

While there's a lot wrong with what you said, I suppose I shouldn't argue with you in the comments about it. Thank you for voting.

-->
@PGA2.0

Thanks for your vote and your very detailed response! I would argue, further more, that a young-Earth disproves naturalism from the get-go by virtue of disproving naturalist processes. Without naturalist processes there's no hope of expecting the accepted naturalist processes of the creation of the universe. There are many arguments I didn't get to (that I may in a future debate) and I'd send you links to some articles online if you're interested. Thanks again!

-->
@CalebEr

Thank you for reading and voting. Conduct generally is in regards to behavior in way of etiquette rather than performance. It seems your criticism best fits "arguments". Then again, I am relatively new to this site so I may need a second opinion. However, it seems Sum1hugme agrees. I appreciate your criticism and I will put it to good use in upcoming debates!

-->
@Sum1hugme

Sum: Thank you for voting. But the speed of light is not assumed, I referenced an experiment that demonstrated it, and it is consistently measured at that speed in every single experiment ever. My opponent agreed to the speed of light being constant, which necessarily means the distance is the light-year distance.

***

He agreed it was, but it is measured from two directions. He made that point, I believe. We 1) see the stars out there and 2) measure the speed of light to and back from the stars for accuracy. You can't measure it accurately from one direction is the point here.

Two things:

1.
"Since lengths and time-durations are not absolute but are relative to velocity, Einstein’s physics is often referred to as “relativity.”

2.
"A less-well-known aspect of Einstein’s physics is that the speed of light in one direction cannot be objectively measured, and so it must be stipulated (agreed upon by convention). This stands in contrast to the round-trip speed of light, which is always constant.

For example, if light travels from A to B and then back to A, it will always take the same amount of time to make the trip (because its speed is always the same), and that time is objectively measurable. However, the time it takes to go just from A to B or from B to A is not objectively measurable. So the speed of light in one direction must be stipulated."

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/distant-starlight-thesis/

This site also takes into account your P4 argument.

On top of that, it is assumed that the speed of light we witness now from an expanding Universe (matter in motion) is the same it was at the beginning of the Universe, or at least calculable (always the same constant - no miracles allowed, which creation week was said to be), AND that the current supposed rate accurately calculates the rate of/from expansion at the BB. Thus, the distance between a star and planet Earth could have increased far more than we suppose it did if the expansion happened faster than we calculate it did. That would reflect in the Universe/balloon analogy by how fast we blow the balloon up. We are in the present, looking back at the past. Thus, the relative present/recorded history (the only thing you have as your witness) is the key to the past for your worldview. With the rest, you bring your presuppositionalism to the table, your naturalistic worldview. As observed via the natural realm exclusively, science becomes the god in determining everything if humanity excludes God.

Actually scratch that, looks like I no longer have to option to delete and recast. Guess it doesn't really matter at this point since CON's victory was pretty much cemented by the most recent vote.

-->
@Sum1hugme

I'll recast my vote without the conduct deduction. I still don't think you did a very good job with your refutations/responses, but I don't want my vote to be deleted forcefully for being improper. Maybe I just don't understand how "conduct" is interpreted on this site.

-->
@Sum1hugme
@WesleyBColeman

I found the debate entertaining and well-articulated by both sides. The spelling and grammar were good and so was the conduct, in my opinion.

From Cons R1, I think arguing a "Gish gallop" by Pro is unreasonable. Con only included TWO MAIN POINTS or headlined arguments, the Flood, DNA/genetics, and then a rebuttal of Pros first round. He gave those headlined points evidence to back up his claims. In stating an argument, evidence, in the form of premises, needs to be delivered to support it in its validity and soundness, and I see nothing wrong with what Con did.

Pros point about Con reinterpreting the resolution was a good one ("the Universe is older than 10,000 years" to, "the Earth is older than 10,000 years", and the argument by Con did not follow in refuting an old universe except in the rebuttal from later rounds). A more suitable resolution to date would have been, "The Earth is not older than 10,000 years," as Pro points out. But the debate did not end there and Con was able to justify his position to an extent.
Cons point is that the questioning of the dating methods for the Earth brings doubt regarding the dating methods for the age of the Universe. With all the paradigm shifts in thinking will the currently thought of age of the Universe remain what it is now?

Pros point about "the time it takes light to reach us" is fallacious because the logic does not necessarily follow, and these R1 five premises (I thought) should have been developed further). If, as Con supposes, the Universe, like the Earth, was created in a mature form at the same time, or that the speed is measured only from one direction, or the rate of expansion of the Universe is the same as it was in the beginning that undermines the premise. Thus, there are variables that counter that argument (P1). Con argued from a biblical worldview in that we earthlings have the illusion of vast eons of time because of where we start as humanity as the measure.

So, it would then depend on which worldview one uses to interpret the age of the Universe and raises the question of which is right?

Pros argument is that bringing the biblical God into the equation now requires proof of such a God over all others. The "I say we should stick with what we can observe to be true" is not necessarily true either. (I may observe a mirage and believe it is true. Just stating something is observable does not necessarily make it real.) The Laws of Logic are not observable, but without these laws, nothing could be made sense of. No human being was there to witness/observe the universe coming into existence, or when. That is interpreted by a multitude of factors, on how the data or evidence is understood. With origins, both sides bring presuppositions to the table since neither were here. One such question is, without a necessary intentional agency, why we would even have a universe. Without such a necessary being, why is not answerable.

These are just some of the contentions I thought of in reading the debate. I have many more.

-->
@PGA2.0

Thank you for voting. But the speed of light is not assumed, I referenced an experiment that demonstrated it, and it is consistently measured at that speed in every single experiment ever. My opponent agreed to the speed of light being constant, which necessarily means the distance is the light-year distance.

-->
@CalebEr

I addressed that in CR3, FR1, and FR2.

There was a considerable objection, the analogy of Adam and Eve is enough to rebut your primary argument, and no I don't remember you really interacting with CON's case at all. You quibbled a bit here and there, but nothing substantial was offered and as a result, I think the prize has to go to the contender.

-->
@CalebEr

I addressed essentially every point raised, and there was no considerable objection to the argument I had made. I did not violate the rules.

-->
@CalebEr

Thank you for voting, but I don't think the conduct point was deserved.

-->
@Undefeatable

The way the debate was set up makes it so both sides have a BOP, and an obligation to at least try to rebuff whatever their opponent has to offer. It didn't have to be comprehensive or as extensive as what CON had composed, but I would have liked to see much, much more from PRO in that regard. You don't get to tell someone they need to prove something and then hole yourself up in your little one-point argument when they do, without addressing anything they raised. The rules were clear and I don't think PRO followed them, so I'm docking conduct.

-->
@CalebEr

I'm not going to talk about your argument point, but I'm not 100% convinced by your conduct. It could be that Pro is overwhelmed and is uncertain how to respond fruitfully to it.

For example, if he was up against Whiteflame about ... IDK, Belt and Road Initiative, with Whiteflame laying out an entire plan, and Sum1 only focused on the core with glancing remarks about the overarching argument, I still wouldn't take away conduct. Similarly here, he is definitely at least trying to tackle some of the ideas, even if he drops important parts of Con's arguments. Even if you dropped entire arguments, that would infer you're just a bad debater rather than having bad manners. It just seems confusing to me to take away conduct for that.

Grammar correction for my vote, near the end of the last paragraph: " who barely interacted with CON's case and didn't provide a cogent defense of his own"

Anyone else feel like voting?

-->
@Barney

Ah, I see. Yes, I regret laying it out like that. It's kind of stupid-looking also.

-->
@FLRW

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Basically you wrote your own arguments instead of giving analysis of this debate...

In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.

To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.

To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.

The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************

FLRW
Added: 11 hours ago
Reason:
Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. Scientists have scoured the Earth searching for the oldest rocks to radiometrically date. In northwestern Canada, they discovered rocks about 4.03 billion years old.

-->
@WesleyBColeman

You listed what felt like 50 different cultures. That is what I was pointing to, and concluded while similar in appearance, it was not a true Gish.

-->
@Undefeatable

Ok! Thank you for clarifying! I will try to spend more time breaking down the implications of my arguments in future debates. Again, thanks for voting! :)

-->
@FLRW

stop adding arguments to pro. Only Con mentioned all of your methods.

-->
@WesleyBColeman

I didn't mean that the text itself was gibberish, but the way you presented it was muddy and unclear.

-->
@Undefeatable

Thanks for your vote and constructive criticism! I suggest you follow the hyperlink cited in the "time dilation gibberish" section. It is an article written by Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D.) the founder of ASC. For Pro's argument to be true, distant light had to have traveled using the ESC. It further pokes holes in his argument, but my initial rebuttal was sufficient through the span of this debate. However, there's no right to call it gibberish as it is known science even among the secular community. But I understand your perspective on the matter! Again, thank you for voting!

-->
@Barney
@WesleyBColeman

I would like to clarify that I was not trying to call my opponent's character into question or recommend he be deducted conduct.

-->
@Barney

“I am slightly torn on if con committed a Gish Gallop or not, as he never did anything to imply he wins the debate if each flood myth isn't proven... Yet the evidence as presented does look a lot like a Gish Gallop... So identifying it as that seems a fair way to try to move past it, but I don't believe con was committing a conduct violation associated with true Gish Gallops.”

As I write in the debate, “the Noah story is written such as a historical account with no embellishments and a matter-of-factness that sets itself apart from the other classical myths.”
Simply put, I argued for the historicity of the Bible to further back the claim of the creation-week (that the Universe and everything in it had been created in six days). So, it hardly meets the qualifications of Gish Gallop. I thought I’d clarify since you did accuse me of it and I have the right to defend my own character. I appreciate your consideration and time. Thanks for voting!

-->
@FLRW

I have reported your vote since the reasoning that you have stated is in no way correlated to the arguments given on either side and clearly shows bias.

-->
@Barney

thank you for voting

A small note:
Pro's case for the age of the Earth not determining the rest of the age of the universe, could be used in a young earth debate to dismiss that old light so long as the earth itself is the focus rather than the greater universe.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Absolute pleasure! Thanks for the invite!

-->
@WesleyBColeman

Thank you for this debate.

-->
@Undefeatable

Thank you for your vote

-->
@Sum1hugme

This ones tough since con did a ton of research and you only used one argument

-->
@Sum1hugme

Thank you! I have been pretty busy with college, two jobs and holidays, but I'm nearly there. I appreciate your patience and thank you for the reminder!

-->
@WesleyBColeman

Dont forget man, there's only 12 hours left

-->
@WesleyBColeman

It's good man sometimes I take the whole two weeks